City Council - Regular Meeting

microphone on that helps the process welcome and good evening to the august 11th 2026 governing body meeting i will now call this meeting to order and i will ask you to turn your attention to council member hiller who will lead us in the invocation this evening please rise if you are able

Thank you, Mayor. I want to introduce this evening Mr. Victor Hercules. He's here representing organizations called One Heart and TUMI from the heart of central Topeka, which is in, of course, District 1. The Urban Ministry Institute of Topeka, TUMI, shares space with the bridge with which many of you are familiar in what used to be a hardware store at 8th and Clay. One Heart Project is an organization that Victor founded about 10 years ago in Topeka. It started as a program that provided tutoring and mentoring for youth in the juvenile detention system and youth involved in the juvenile justice system out in the community. For the past five years, One Heart has provided tutoring and mentoring to students at Robinson Middle School, Capital City School, and Avondale School when Avondale was in 501. TUMI is the Center for Training in Biblical Studies for People of All Denominations and it is the principal training place for urban chaplaincy as demonstrated through regular jail chaplaincy visits as well as resident neighborhood work with persons who are homeless and or struggling with mental health and addictions. They are particularly rooted and active in the Central Park neighborhood in District 1 and have hosted and partnered with many in the rebirth of the Central Park NIA.

If people were watching National Night Out on Friday night, it just blew out. It was really phenomenal.

When I met Mr. Hercules about 15 years ago, he and his family had just come to Topeka. He's been immersed in all sorts of community work since. We appreciate all that he does and welcome him to give our invocation this evening. Thank you.

It is an honor and a privilege to be here before you this evening and I delight on bringing the opening prayer this evening. If we can bow our heads. Dear Heavenly Father, we have come together with a shared commitment to the well-being of our community and our city. We thank you, Lord, for the city council, for the diverse people, and the opportunity we all share to serve. Grant these council members and the mayor and all city staff clear minds, steady hearts, and sound discernment. Give them the wisdom to weigh competing needs fairly. speak with civility, and act with integrity. Protect our first responders and all who work to keep our neighborhoods safe, safe and strong. And may our work this evening reflect the justice, compassion, and genuine desire to improve the lives of everyone who calls our city of Topeka home. In Jesus' mighty name, amen.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I do have a proclamation this evening. I guess if you're here on behalf of the Jayhawk Theater, feel free to come on down if you're supposed to. It can be whoever you want to bring up here. Nobody? That's sad, really. Yep, come on. Come on up here. All the way up. All the way up. While they're coming up, it is the 100th Centennial Celebration Anniversary, whatever you'd like to call it, for the Jayhawk State Theater of Kansas, which is located just a few blocks away here, down on Jackson. I have a lot of long history with that theater personally, and that's not why I'm honoring it tonight. It is the official State Theater of Kansas celebrating its 100th anniversary. it's in the midst of trying to get to the home stretch of renovation so that we can make it a once again a vibrant and active theater here in the heart of the capital city and so i'm fully supportive of that effort as i know many here are this evening and across the city and so with that we wanted to honor that anniversary and centennial celebration this evening Whereas the historic Jayhawk Theater first opened its doors in downtown Topeka on August 16, 1926, as an extraordinary movie palace and vaudeville venue showcasing the latest entertainment and architectural innovation of its time, and whereas designed by distinguished Topeka architect Thomas F. Williamson with contributions from the renowned Bowler brothers, the theater remains a treasured example of the grand theaters that shaped American cultural life during the early 20th century. And whereas throughout its history, the Jayhawk Theater has welcomed generations of Topekans and visitors for motion pictures, live performances, community gatherings, and shared experiences that contributed to the cultural identity of our capital city. And whereas the Jayhawk Theater is Topeka's only remaining historic theater from 1926, and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places in recognition of its architectural and historical significance. And whereas in 1993, the Kansas legislature designated the Jayhawk Theater as the official state theater of Kansas, recognizing its importance not only to Topeka, but to the history, arts, and culture of our entire state. And whereas the preservation of the Jayhawk Theater has been made possible through the historic Jayhawk Theater Inc, its board members, staffs, volunteers, donors, community partners, and generations of advocates committed to saving this irreplaceable landmark, And whereas the ongoing restoration of the theater honors its remarkable past while preparing it to serve future generations as a destination for entertainment, education, arts, culture, economic activity, and community connection in the heart of downtown Topeka, And whereas the Jayhawk Theater's centennial offers an opportunity to celebrate 100 years of history, recognizing those who have protected its legacy and renew our commitment to returning this historic treasure to its rightful place as one of Topeka's premier cultural institutions, Now, therefore, I, Spencer Duncan, Mayor of the City of Topeka, Kansas, do hereby proclaim August 16, 2026 as Jayhawk State Theater of Kansas Centennial Day in the City of Topeka and encourage all residents to celebrate the Jayhawk Theater's extraordinary history, support its continued restoration, and recognize its enduring contribution to our city and state. So congratulations to all of these volunteers and many others who are trying to make that possible. Whoever.

I'm Irene Hawes. I'm the chair of the Centennial Committee, and I wanted to say that today especially is very important because August 11, 1925, E.H. Crosby announced his plans for this entertainment complex known as the Jayhawk Hotel, the Jayhawk Walk, and the Jayhawk Theater. So 101 days ago today, that announcement was made, and 100 years this Sunday, we will be celebrating that. So thank you.

OK, Ron, look right here. Three, two, one.

Hang on. I do this for a living.

All right. Thank you. Thank you.

All right. All right. Ask the clerk to take the roll, please.

Mayor Duncan.

Here.

Council members Hiller. Here. Valdivia Acala. Here. Ortiz. Here. Banks.

Here.

Kell.

Here.

Miller.

Here.

Bradbury. Here. McGee.

Here.

And Hofer. Here. All right, we have 10 yes, sorry, 10 present.

We have two presentations this evening. We will start with presentation A, city clerk.

First one is for the Topeka Historic Cemetery Board.

City manager.

Thank you. Mayor and members of the governing body, in this presentation, Lisa Ford, superintendent, and Christian Kramer, board president, will provide us with an overview of the historic Topeka Cemetery and Mount Auburn Cemetery. Lisa and Christian, the floor is yours. Thank you.

Good evening. Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you. It's my pleasure. My name is Lisa Ford, and I'm the superintendent of Historic Topeka Cemetery. Dr. Franklin Crane came to this city migrating from the East Coast to the Midwest. Just click this button. Okay, thank you. Came to Topeka in early 1855 and he took 40 acres east of the city for his country residence. He started building his home with limestone quarried on the site near the creek on what is now the farther northwest corner of the cemetery. The home originally started with four rooms. There were two rooms upstairs on the upper floor, two on the main floor and a basement. In addition, he also built a barn and a carriage house. Today, that two-story home is now roughly 4,000 square feet. The barn is now used for storage, and the carriage house serves as a workshop for our groundskeepers. You add in 3.2 miles of roads and 4,180 feet of fence, and you have quite the monumental development. Now in our 167th year, Historic Topeka Cemetery, or HTC, continues to be a privately owned cemetery. All proceeds go back into the cemetery's upkeep and development. Our dedicated board of directors has compromised a lot owning Bartle and Tears. They oversee cemetery operations, hiring staff, setting policies, and the pricing of goods and services. Several are here with me tonight. On our grounds is 80 acres, and we boast more than 35,000 internments, with Elias Kempton being the first on December 2nd, 1859. We double as a nature preserve, where on any given day you can see deer and fox roaming the grounds freely. We were the first chartered cemetery in the state of Kansas on February 2, 1859. We're the second oldest Topekan business still in its original location and the second oldest cemetery in the city. Rochester Cemetery in North Topeka holds the title of the oldest. The Crane family continued and started and oversaw the cemetery operations for the first 100 years. Being positioned on the south side of the Kansas River, in the heart of expansion, we were the sensible interment choice for many early movers and shakers. We have veterans of every military conflict from the War of 1812 on. We have a US Vice President, generals, members of Congress, governors, mayors, founders of Topeka institutions like the Edgerton, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railway, and Stormont Vale Health. We have artists and entrepreneurs, inventors and craftsmen, and many whose names now grace street signs and buildings. Historic Topeka Cemetery welcomed all, regardless of color or creed. Notably, some of those resting here are Marilyn Smith, the co-founder of the Ladies Professional Golf Association. Upon graduation from KU, she was snapped up by Spalding to be a brand ambassador. John Holmes was a bodyguard to President Lincoln. He was outside Ford's Theater on the night that Lincoln was shot, and he remained at the President's bedside as he lingered through the night. Leroy G. Ballard was the inventor of the original Star Checkers game. By the spring of 1938, his company was shipping around 15,000 games a month to World War stores nationwide. Our most prominent resident is Vice President Charles Curtis. He was born in North Topeka in 1865. He went into politics at an early age, serving as a county prosecutor, then as a congressman, and on to the U.S. Senate. He became the first Senate Majority Leader from Kansas and the first person of Native descent to serve in the executive branch. Of course, our most recognized teacher is Merrill Ray Ross, the namesake for Ross Elementary. He served in World War II as a fighter pilot with the Tuskegee Airmen. And when he returned to Topeka, he taught in Topeka's segregated school system, going on to serve as principal in several area schools. And he became the first African-American principal in a predominantly white school. Having Dr. Roy Menninger as our first green burial was an extreme honor. He began running Menninger Foundation in 1967, devoting his life to family, patients, community, and the public's understanding of mental health. He's not only a physician, but also was a community leader, CEO, and avid history student. Within the confines of historic Topeka Cemetery, you'll find the Jewish Cemetery. This is the second oldest Jewish cemetery in Kansas and is owned by Temple Beth Shalom. Originally, it was located on our southern border, but with our expansion around 1915, we completely surrounded it. We handled the sale of all the lots, the interment arrangements, and the ground maintenance on the synagogue's behalf. Mazalamia Row is our striking because of its beautiful architecture and placement. It's comprised of 10 structures that are masterfully crafted and directly into the hillside. It easily stands out as a signature feature of historic Topeka Cemetery. Having been placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2001, each structure is a nod not only to the historic significance of Topeka's past, but also a testament to the integrity and endurance of the ones who helped start and shape our beautiful city. The rest of the cemetery was added to the registry in 2017. Rising to meet the needs of the community is a priority for us. To do this, we offer several internment options, including traditional and cremation ground burial, above-ground columbarium internment, and our newest addition is green burial, often called natural burial. We also provide various religious internments as well. In the fall of 2024, we broke ground by being the first Pika Cemetery to offer green burial. We are the first Green Barrel certified hybrid cemetery in the state of Kansas. Green Barrel is a non-invasive, eco-friendly, interment alternative, allowing loved ones to return to Earth as naturally as possible. In this area, in place of a traditional headstone, we have a large memorial wall book with individual plaques. We love telling stories about people and have some pretty wonderful help to do that. The Friends of Historic Topeka Cemetery put on events during the year to help bring awareness and people to the cemetery. They offer yoga in the cemetery. The Crane Mausoleum is the venue for the annual seance event that they hold in the fall. In October, they host the extremely popular Ghost Tours, which really are true stories of murder, mystery, and mayhem from the graves of those resting in historic Topeka Cemetery. One ongoing effort of the Friends is the appropriately named Remember Me Project. Designed to provide headstones for hundreds of babies and young children who lie in unmarked graves on the northeast corner of the cemetery, donations can be made to help sponsor a headstone. With records documenting approximately 8,000 burials, Mount Auburn is the largest of the cemeteries owned by the city. Oversight of the cemetery's operations became the city's responsibility in 1995 after Shawnee County District Judge Charles Andrews ordered the cemetery's title be turned over to the city due to a succession of owners who did a poor job operating the cemetery. Although Mount Auburn itself was never segregated, it was originally established and marketed as the final resting place for Topeka's African-American community. The Scots from Brown v. Board, Nick Chiles, who's the owner of the plane dealer, and James Guy, who was a lawyer who was defending people charged in race riots around the nation, all rest there. They're among the few of the prominent African-Americans resting there. Within the grounds, veterans from multiple historical conflicts from the Civil War through the Vietnam War can be found. As its neighbor, Historic Topeka Cemetery teamed up with the city of Topeka to execute day-to-day operations, maintain the records, and handle all internments. Our coordination with grieving families, funeral homes, clergy, and contractors continues today. Mount Armour Cemetery was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 2025, and we are committed to preserving its historical state. We are constantly correcting and adding information to the files that are discovered, as well as establishing more efficient and accurate records, for its residents. We would like the opportunity to add Mount Auburn Cemetery to our cemetery software called SimSites. This would include a data migration of all interments to date, lot owner information, headstones, and a map overlay with pinning the property to the exact locations. This would allow us to share more accurate information seamlessly with the public in sites like Find a Grave and BillionGraves.com. The cost of this migration is included in the information packet provided to you for your consideration. We are in the business of remembering people with over 35,000 internments at Historic Topeka Cemetery and an estimated 7,000 at Mount Auburn. The stories are endless. Their influence can be seen all around these cemeteries and the extraordinary monuments. We like to say Historic Topeka Cemetery is your cemetery. Let us tell your story. Thank you for the opportunity to share with you.

Thank you. Comments, questions from the governing body? Thank you.

I'm reading some cemetery fun facts. Yes, ma'am. And there's somebody in here missing. I'm not going to say who it is, but one of my little friends knows that was on the council that he's out there. So he's not in here on this list. So it'd be nice to get him to add it to this list, because he was my buddy. This is in my district. I'm very proud of historic Topeka Cemetery, Lisa. And you know, they laugh at me when I say that's my final resting home.

It is. Thank you.

It is.

Can you confirm that for me?

Yes, ma'am. Yes. It's really, it's got a lot of pretty things out there from the deers and just the wildlife, the Muslim. And I would encourage people just to go out and just to ride, you know. Yeah. But East Topeka. They're proud of this. They're really proud of this. So thank you. Thank you, board.

So you included in some of the information you gave us an invoice that shows. Is that a system that is digitizing locations of where everybody's located at the cemeteries?

It digitizes everything from the lot owner, the person who owns the space, who's in that space, if they have a headstone, all of their personal information. It includes absolutely everything. We've used it at Topeka Cemetery. We've used it for... I'd say probably 10 years by now. It's seamless. It's easy. It automatically shares all the information that we put in with findinggrave and billiongraves.com. And when people search records, it actually links to our website. We have a walk-to-site feature that pulls from that information as well. So it's something that we could easily add with Mount Auburn. We could add the same thing as a walk-to-site feature. It could be linked to the Mount Auburn page that the city has, or we could create one of our own. But it would allow people to find their loved ones literally by using a smartphone and walking directly to that grave.

That's great. Thank you. Council Member Hiller.

Thank you. Just so everybody knows, the cemetery is open. So if somebody wanted to go just walk around or eat their lunch. Well, whatever. It's okay, right? Absolutely. It's easy to explore.

Sun up to sun down 365 days a week. Or a year, I should say. The only time we ever do close the gates early is probably on Halloween. And then they're closed down a little early. But other than that, no. You're welcome to come.

Thank you.

Anything else we got for anybody?

No, I got the rest of mine.

Nope.

Nope.

Oh, anything else from you folks? Yeah, go for it.

I'd like to read. I'd like to have something to say. Oh, okay. Founded in 1859 at Lecompton Territorial Capital. So we were founded before we became a state. Topeka Cemetery is more than merely a place of repose for those who came before us. It's an open-air archive, a tableau of stories both grand and humble, a testament to the pioneering spirit that built our city and shaped our state. Each headstone, each family plot, speaks not only to the individual lives, but also to the collective narrative of our community narrative, marked by preservation, innovation, and the quest for a brighter future. The cemetery archives provide a treasure trove of genealogical and scholarly efforts, insights into families, histories, and a broader social development. programs, guided tours, and visitors a chance to engage with the past in a tangible, meaningful way. Through the experience, the cemetery inspires reflection, empathy, and deep understanding of the complexities and continuities that define our shared journey. Events like Memorial Day Cemetery The program's historical reenactments help strengthen the cemetery's role as a place where people come together to celebrate traditions and form new relationships. In this way, the cemetery serves as both a sacred place and a civic commune. open to all regardless of background, creed, or circumstances. Financial support, volunteer efforts, and public engagements are all essential in safeguarding the cemetery's future. Grants and donations enable critical restoration projects while the partnership of local organizations and governments help ensure that the cemetery remains accessible and meaningful to all. The work of preservation is, at its core, an investment in memory and identity pledged to honor those who came before us and inspire those yet to come. By supporting the cemetery, we invest not only in our past, but also in our present and our future well-being. We strengthen the bonds of community, foster the integrational dialogue, and create opportunities for education, recreation, and reflection. I'd also like to point out that not too long ago, cemeteries were considered parks. They were places where people gathered to have picnics. They celebrated the life of the person who went on. It's only in recent times that it's become kind of a standoffish area. We need to get back to being part of the community.

Thank you very much. Any other questions or comments? If not, thank you very much for being here this evening. Thank you. Very informative. Thank you. We have a second presentation. City Clerk.

Second one is from the Topeka Performing Arts Center Operations Update.

City Manager. Thank you. Mayor and members of the governing body, this presentation, led by Sean Dixon, TPAC Board of Directors President, will provide updates on recent and upcoming events, capital improvements completed within the center, and discuss a future vision for TPAC. For the city, this update will be an important step in evaluating future considerations as we consider any potential revisions for our contract with TPAC, which is up for renewal at the end of this year. With that, I'll turn it over to Sean to lead us through the discussion. Sean.

Thank you. And I'm Sean Dixon. I, in my day job, serve as the president of Visit Topeka. And I just want to say how awesome it was and how much it warms my heart to be following not only the Jayhawk Theater, but also the Topeka Cemetery and these great historic assets that we have in this community that really contribute to our heritage tourism assets. Topeka has a wonderful history, and we love being able to shine that light. But I'm speaking to you now as the newly minted chair of the TPAC Board of Trustees. I took over that in early July. I'm just to give us some brief updates tonight on where we have seen successes this year, where we are in an important contractual transition, and how we hope to work with the city to shape the theater's next chapter. First, there is real momentum for TPAC. We completed our first TPAC live season this year. A very, very important concert series dreamt up by our executive director, Dan Case, who's back over here to my right. Dave, if you wouldn't mind waving for us over here. And I'd be remiss not to acknowledge the other TPAC board members in our room. So to my left behind me, you'll see Fred Patton and Stacey Williams over here. Of course, Brett Ibergerti is over here. Did I miss anyone who came in?

No.

All right. Wonderful people doing wonderful work for you on behalf of this building. That was a wonderful season for us and an experiment in something that was very important. For a long time, TPAC has been a rental facility, right? By and large, things come in, we have little control over the pricing, we have little control over the deals that come in from a promoter and producer standpoint. TPAC Live was our attempt at bringing that decision-making process and that control back in locally. With a lot of sponsorship, we were able to subsidize the programming to make sure that every show that comes through our doors isn't a $60, $70, or $80 ticket. In some instances, we had $25 tickets from our shows and some at $30. It's a very affordable season for us, and we've ended that and just announced our second season, which I have brochures for you all up there that we've pre-distributed before the meeting. Wonderful upcoming stuff here. I'll talk about that here in a minute. But it's been a great year for us as well. Outside of TPAC Live, we have welcomed some major artists, including Cake and Alice Cooper. Wonderful things that contributed to tourism and to the economic vitality of downtown in particular. And we're continuing to build on that compelling calendar for the rest of this year. The point is... Not simply that we have good shows, it is that TPAC is also increasingly demonstrating what it can be. An active downtown anchor, a place for residents to gather, and a venue that brings visitors, activity, and spending into the core of our community. Moving forward, we're focused on building on that momentum. The next season, which we just announced, includes some wonderful performances, including the More Than Life tour with Randy Travis and him touring with that. That is one where he doesn't sing. He has a wonderful guest singer with him, but his band plays with him, and he's on stage for the entire experience. We're very, very excited to be part of that tour. Also part of this, one thing we're excited for, the 30th anniversary of Riverdance, which came through here many, many years ago, will be coming through as part of our TPAC Live series as well. And you can read about all the other wonderful acts that are coming as part of that series with the brochure that was distributed by our mailer this last weekend, or check out our website. In addition, outside the series, too, I'll mention we've got some cool stuff coming up, like Bert Kreischer, a comedian who will be coming through here in the holiday season. We're excited to see him here. I believe he's here the same night as our downtown Christmas parade, so it should be a wonderful, wonderful, packed downtown calendar for us on that night. And that's what we want. A healthy calendar needs to balance TPAC Live, our rentals, co-promotions, and, of course, the community use. That balance helps serve the mission while also creating the commercial activity needed to sustain the facility. We are grateful to you, the city, for your partnership on this and your recent investments in the building. The HVAC work and other facility improvements, these have made meaningful difference in our ability to program throughout the year, in particular in the hot summer months. Thank you for that. Improvements to the interior, including the ballroom, have been very well received. That ballroom gives TPAC a distinctive and affordable downtown venue option for community events, meetings, rentals, and legislative session activity. As we recognize these investments, we also want to be candid about the work ahead. The city owns the facility and TPAC's nonprofit board operates the theater on behalf of the community. Reduced rates, access, and availability for local nonprofits are very important commitments and core part of what TPAC's role as a community resource. They also carry real costs for us and limit some of the revenue-generating opportunities that we love to seek as well. If TPAC is expected to provide those benefits, we need to be clear about how they are funded and how the overall operating model remains sustainable for us. TPAC is operated by a three-party structure. Obviously, the city owns the building. TPAC operates it under an agreement with you all. And TPAC as a board engages with our private operator, which is VenuWorks, for the professional venue management and commercial operation. Both of these agreements, our agreement with you and our agreement with VenuWorks, are sunsetting at the end of this year. which gives us a unique opportunity to really have some great conversations about where we're going and involve the community in planning for what TPAC can be moving forward. We would welcome an aligned city renewal timeline. Oh, so we are negotiating a one-year extension with VenuWorks so programming and operations can continue. TPAC Live Series is a multi-year thing, so it goes through the winter and into the spring. So we need that consideration in here as well. But we want that time to evaluate the full range of management options that we could use for this theater. Through that, we would welcome an aligned city renewal timeline. So the agreements, operating commitments, and community goals, and I really want to emphasize community goals. We want to have time to have these conversations, can be considered together rather than making long-term commitments on separate schedules. Our commitment is straightforward. And actually, before I get to our closing here, I also want to recognize a non-voting board member who I know is sitting here. But earlier this year, Jason Tryon joined our board to help facilitate the continuity between your operations and what we do as a non-voting capacity. He's been wonderful, a wonderful resource on that. So thank you all for allowing that. But I'll wrap it up for you. Our commitment is straightforward. TPAC will continue building programming momentum while we're making a responsive community resource. We want to work with city staff, the governing body, stakeholders, and the public to clarify priorities for this theater. This renewal period gives us time to align TPAC's mission, operating model, timelines, and long-term agreements. We're all asking for an orderly, collaborative process that preserves continuity now and gives TPAC and the city time to establish the best long-term path for the theater. Thank you all for your partnership, and I welcome any questions and guidance you believe we should deliver for Topeka.

Council Member Valdivia Alcala.

Thank you, Mayor. Hi, Sean. Hi. I have a couple of questions. How much do you receive or does TPAC receive annually from the city? I forgot.

I believe our current subsidy is $150,000 in operation consideration.

So that's it, $150,000? Yes, ma'am. Okay. And will you be asking for more?

We are taking a step back and looking at the full operation. I can confidently say I believe we need more help in either from directly from the city and our fundraising operations and our sponsorship operations across the board.

So that's a maybe.

Yeah, I think it's a balance of those formulas that we can work out.

Okay, and this is just really curious question.

Yes.

Do you all ever talk to Johnson County and all of the events that they have going on at Johnson County Community College? They have an event center there. It's very small. It's intimate. Ours is obviously bigger. But they bring in some really top-notch entertainment. I don't mean entertainment with recording artists and with comedians. I mean with different... types of dance with big band, those type of entities. And then I'm also thinking of the LEAD Center, and I know the LEAD Center is big, et cetera. But I mean, do you all go to talk with some of these entities to see how they bring forth their very cultured events that they do?

Sure. To the best of my knowledge, we have not directly spoken with them on that. Obviously, with VenuWorks operating the management of the building, they have their routing contacts and methods of sort of leaning in on those routes in particular. I will say if you look at the pamphlet for this season here, we feel like it is a very diverse schedule. That is something we move with intention. to make sure that we're programming the hall with what we can. So we have soul in this document. We have country music. We have stunt performers. We have dogs. We have a lot of variety in this. But that is also part of the larger conversation that we want to have. We're also home to, I believe it's four or five dance companies. Is that correct? Five dance companies providing that service with other sort of community impact in there as well. So while we haven't had those direct conversations in terms of collaborating on those routes, I think that's certainly something we should discuss as part of this process.

Because I can recall going over the years to Johnson County Community College, and I forget what their event center is called, and they had some of the most powerful Chinese dancers. I mean, the crowd was just beside themselves. And then the dancers from the Ballet Folklorico de Mexico that are highly highly highly trained and travel all over the world in europe and i mean i'm just throwing those out because i mean yes it does seem like there's a lot more on here than usual but i also think you know even expanding further is great.

Absolutely. And from my tourism perspective, I absolutely would love more variety and more audiences welcomed into this theater. To my right is Dan Kays, our executive director, who has magically shown up here to help with some of the technical answers on that.

I can answer you a couple of questions. So LEAD Center's got university support. You know, it's definitely got some contributed support there. And the community college also structurally is part of the college and stuff and is used by the college as well. So when you look at the funding, you've got the funding sources that are that way. They also have lots of support from the corporations and stuff, which we're building. We're building back as far as us so we can take more risks on those cultural issues. endeavors, I'd love to bring some of that aspect here. And that's more of the fine arts programming, but that fine arts programming needs a lot of support on the contributed side because the earned dollar is not going to make it work. And so to do that, we have to build our support holistically in a diverse way with finding just more funding.

Yeah, I think that's definitely going to be the challenge. And obviously, you know, we're in a budget deficit. But, you know, maybe, I don't know, maybe Washburn can give you some money because it looks like they got a huge chunk of change today. But this seems to be, you know, really impressive. And I would just say good luck as you keep moving forward. Thanks, Mary.

Thank you, ma'am. Any comments or questions for the governor? Anybody? Councilmember Hiller.

I think I've suggested this to you before, but as you talk about taking a one-year extension with Venue Works, my son, who got his theater start here, this is a great theater town, as most of us know, is a production manager for the Cultural Trust in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. And there, what they... They've got huge auditoriums, concert halls, and so on, and they are all networked with the exception of one big venue. They're all networked under an umbrella so that they share ticketing, marketing, core crews, and so on. And with Jayhawk Theater coming online, with the Expo Center refreshing right now, And even to the point of having like shared ticket booths like they do in New York where you can buy tickets for anything at the downtown plazas and so on. This could be a real time to at least explore something like that for us. Thank you.

Agreed.

And thank you. Congrats on everything.

Thank you. Anyone else? Perfect. Thank you very much. My pleasure. Thank you. All right, we'll move on to the consent agenda. City Clerk.

A is approval of the Human Resources Department contract between the City of Topeka and Willis Towers Watson Midwest for professional benefits consulting services in an amount not to exceed $95,000. B is approval of the Public Works Department contract between the City of Topeka and Bartlett and West Incorporated for professional engineering and design services in an amount not to exceed $88,480. C is approval of a public works department contract amendment for professional services between the city of Topeka and JEO Consulting Group Incorporated in an amount not to exceed $56,250. D is approval of a police department contract between the city of Topeka and Brandon M Tregell for professional place network investigation services in an amount not to exceed $145,818. E is a resolution introduced by City Manager Dr. Robert Perez authorizing the conveyance of facility property back to the Sunflower Sports Association, pursuant to resolution number 8442 and contract number 42249. F is a resolution introduced by the Public Infrastructure Committee recommending approval of project numbers 84, 12, 11, Phase 2, and Phase 7 for street improvements to 6th Avenue and Fairlawn Road and Cypress, Sycamore, and Rice Roads under the 2027 Pavement Preservation Program. G, are minutes of the regular meeting of July 21, 2026, and there are no applications.

All right. We'll ask the, we have a motion to approve from Council Member Kell.

Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt, but is there a way for me to abstain from one item on the consent agenda?

No, you can just abstain from the whole thing. From all of it? Yeah, it won't be held against you. Fair enough. Thank you. Yeah. We have a motion from Councilmember Kell and a second from Councilmember Ortiz. With that, I'll ask the clerk to take the vote, please.

OK, we have nine yes with one abstention by Councilmember Miller, and the motion carries.

With that, we move on to action items. We'll start with sort of 5A, city clerk.

A is potential consideration of an ordinance restricting utility connections for data centers based on the approval to suspend governing body rules and procedures, rule of order 6.3 of 2, wait period.

All right. So because this is an item directly connected to an item we took up within our four-month waiting period, we need to suspend our rules before we can actually move on and discuss and consider action item 5A. So with that, I will make a motion to suspend the rules so that we can take up action item 5A. This requires seven votes of the governing body. And once we do that, then we can have that conversation. All right. We have a second from Councilmember Valdivia Alcala. Any questions or comments from the governing body? All right. With that, please take a vote.

Okay. We have 10 yes. The motion carries.

All right. With that, then, we will move on to action item 5A. City Clerk.

5A is an ordinance introduced by council members Murray McGee, Christina Valdivia-Ocala, and Michelle Bradbury, implementing a temporary moratorium on the acceptance, processing, and approval of applications or utility connections for data center developments.

City attorney.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The purpose of this amendment is, I guess, to give a little backstory. After the moratorium was passed last month, while we were researching other things, we discovered a couple provisions under the city's code that arguably would have allowed the city to go ahead and extend utility services. to industrial users outside of city limits, which could have potentially involved data centers. That could have been done administratively. So what we're trying to do is amend that ordinance to pertain both within and outside of the city's boundaries. Basically to preclude that from happening. So we're trying to stay within the spirit of the ordinance that you passed, but just make sure that it applies outside of city boundaries insofar as we can affect that. So if anyone has any questions, I'm open for any questions.

Questions for the city attorney on that? Council Member Valdivia-Alcala.

Were we going to let public comment first?

We are. I just wanted to see if there were any questions specific to what it was doing.

And you know how many questions I have been posing back and forth, and I apologize for that. But I just want to make sure that when you look at... Ordinance 20670, that is being replaced by this new ordinance, which is why it has repealed on line 4, correct?

Correct.

Okay. I do have some other questions about... the amendment and the moratorium as a whole. Should I just go ahead and ask them now?

Yeah, that's fine. Okay.

So I received through an unknown source, an email that was a core request, I guess. And what this is, is it is an email that shows the reasons that there was the denial for the COMPAS application. And so I shared this with Nick today because I had some questions in relation to this amended moratorium that we're looking at because I want to understand, and I'm not going to speak for my colleagues, but I want to understand that this is the tightest moratorium that we can have. And when it states, and this was August 4th email, it states public utility connections, municipal water and wastewater alternative. They want Compass to provide a timeline of anticipated discussions with the city of Topeka on access to city water and wastewater. So I just want to verify because we have a lot of people that are wanting this moratorium to be as tight as possible until impact studies can get done and the people can have more time to be involved. With the moratorium that is on right now in this addition, the amended one, That public utility connections, municipal water and wastewater alternative, that is a no. That ain't going to happen.

Can I respond? Yeah. Yeah. So as I brought this to the governing body as a consideration, I brought this out basically saying that we had this exemption in place, right?

Right.

I specifically told you all that I don't intend to exercise that exception.

Right.

This not only, because again, the ordinance way it was passed only spoke to connecting water utilities within city limits.

Yeah.

I explained to the governing body that we have the administrative exception to actually do it outside the city limits. And so this basically cuts that.

Right. So that's what I thought.

So nothing happened.

But after seeing this, I just wanted to make sure. But I also want to understand that If Compass would end up, since they filed the application, they can go ahead and keep moving forward with it unless something else happens, which something may happen, who knows, that the county-based water and wastewater alternative, they're talking about the lagoon, they're talking about rural water district, identify which rural water district, you know, would be utilized, et cetera, again, Because I'm saying this for the benefit of the public to maintain clarity and the people that are here. It's not a redundant just ask a question to ask a question. That is also nixed from us having any kind of involvement, correct?

So the lagoon would go through KDHE for approval. And then the consolidated rural water district three, which I believe is in reference in that, we don't have any say in their operations.

Right, but we still sell them water.

We do sell them water.

But we can't say what they can do or not do with it, correct? I want clarity on all of that.

Yes, that is correct. We are under contract, and once the water crosses our boundaries, it's their water.

Okay. So there was a comment when I was looking over some information that If Compass would try to, I don't know if it would be considered a workaround or try to see if some exception could be made so they could continue their process. And that came to me in three emails today. All of those folks can rest assured, unless the governing body would change their mind to do something funky with this moratorium and put an exception in it and let Compass have their way. That would not happen. It would have to be this governing body that would say, oh, yeah, we'll give you an exception so you can do that. That's the only way that could happen. Is that correct?

Yeah. This moratorium, if it's passed as is, would prevent the city from extending water and sewer to them unless there was an action by this body.

That's right. That's what I'm trying to point to. is that this moratorium, you're tightening it up. Correct. You said you were going to tighten it up. It's being tightened up. We're going to vote on it tonight. And the only ones that can change this or make any kind of exceptions or go, oh, yeah, we will. We'll do this before everything is done that we committed to would be this governing body that would have the votes to do that. Correct?

That is correct. So the moratorium for data center development, is within city limits. So that is how the ordinance is drafted. The only way that the city would extend utilities outside is if this governing body.

Exactly.

Yes.

Okay. All right. That's all I have. Thank you.

I'll just add one more thing. I thought it was a little interesting that the county put one of their contingencies as having discussions with us on water access because they don't need that to decide whether they want to make those approvals or not. So that's just Spencer's $0.10. I don't think we're interested in having that conversation at all, let alone if we know whether they're actually going to approve it or not. So I thought that was an interesting wrinkle they tried to put back on us as part of that process. Yeah. Councilmember Bradbury.

Thank you. I just want to, there were questions that I had asked earlier, but I just want to ask in this setting, one of which is the effective date of the, if this proposed ordinance is passed, what that effective date would be.

The effective date would be on publication and Monday is what I'm hearing from the city clerk. The current moratorium would be in place until it's published. I will say the ordinance is written, even the amended one, is 12 months from the time that this passes. So essentially it's another 12 months starting from tonight if the body chooses to move forward.

Okay. Yeah. That was one of the, probably one of the main questions I had is whether or not there was exposure to the city for any kind of lapse between the two. Right.

Council Member McGee.

Just for clarification, it doesn't reset the clock on the original moratorium, or it does?

The way it's written right now in front of you is it does reset the clock for another 12 months.

Okay. Thank you.

If there's no other questions, we do have a number of people signed up for public comment. If you've never spoken here before, you have four minutes. If you come up to the podium, you will see a clock and a light. The light will ding once and give you a yellow light, which means you have one more minute. Because of the number of individuals we have this evening, there will not be extensions offered to individual speakers. I would also remind everybody, as we've had our last couple weeks, I want to remind everyone that our public comment protocol requires remarks to be addressed to the entire governing body, not directed at individuals. And if you have concerns about individuals, you can talk about our general processes, personnel matters, and other information. But please keep it generalized, not specific to any particular person. And those are part of our rules that are both posted at the back when you enter the room and in our agenda packet. With that, if I can find my sheet, we have up first Amy Gillette. Welcome, Amy.

All right good evening everybody. First off I want to thank all of you so much for listening to what we have been saying for the last few weeks and I've been up here before I talked about being a resident of the ETJ this outer Topeka region and what you're doing now is exactly what we've asked for which is protection. So thank you, thank you. I just want to start off with that. In terms of the Compass site itself, I just want to go through a few little facts from their application, even though hopefully we're going to get some more details about that. It's supposed to be a 400 megawatt facility. And so I went to, a few weeks ago, that Kansas Municipal Utilities Conference. And at that, Chuck Casely, the CCO of Evergy, said that at the beginning of 2026, their largest customer in the entire state was 80 megawatts. So what they've proposed here is five times bigger than their current largest customer was at the beginning of 2026. That's the scale of this thing. We're not talking about some data center, the likes of what we already have downtown. We're talking about something that's massive and that will change the landscape forever, unfortunately. There's also the idea that this is something of an economic development engine, but their application disproves that as well. Enough that last night at the Planning Commission meeting, Shawnee County Planning Commission meeting, one of the things that Joni Tedoni said that they were going, Tedoni, apologies, said that they needed to clarify was the amount of jobs. Because in their application they say that, okay, the facility operates continuously but is lightly staffed. Approximately 30 full-time personnel across security, operations, and engineering. They say they're going to employ 30 people full time. Enough that last night she said that they need to clarify that because it's so low for the size of the facility that they actually think it's a mistake. It might be a mistake. I hope it's a mistake. 30 really isn't that impressive. And those also aren't really the categories minus engineering of high tech jobs that some of the Compass reps were promising at the open house. Also, in terms of construction jobs, if you go on Compass's website, and also they told us this at the meeting, or at the open house, that one of their specialties is doing kind of modular construction of these data centers. So they advertise what they call a consistent scalable design. Rather than treating each build as a one-off project, Compass uses a consistent design across all campuses. off-site prefabrication for faster, more predictable delivery, with 85% of each data center manufactured off-site using a standard kit of parts. Basically, they're not going to be putting this thing together in the standard construction manner like we know of it. It's something like IKEA, where they're building the parts off-site, bringing them in, and assembling them. So not quite the boom in that category either. So something on a bit more human level. I spent Sunday night with several of the people who are here now in Wakarusa sitting around and talking about what this is going to mean for the community and some of their fears, some of their concerns. This isn't just about a nuisance in the neighborhood. It's about the destruction of their livelihoods. Together, the people there represented over 2,000 acres. These are people who have farmed their entire lives for decades, for generations, many of them. And it's not like they can just move. Where are they going to move to? Are they going to move somewhere else in Kansas that's going to plop a data center right next to them again? Like I've talked about before, you're here to protect us, and so thank you for doing so. I appreciate it.

Thank you. Next up, I have Megan Ryan.

Good evening. My name is Megan Ryan. I am here on behalf of Protect Kansas, a nonpartisan effort to increase protections. Tonight I want to kick things off and really thank Mayor Spencer Duncan. He actually put forth the proposal to the Sustainability Council to request an environmental impact study because what we're seeing is the county doesn't appear to be requesting that. We have seen quite an outline of data points that the county is requesting from Compass. There's a lot of lacking information. And the environmental impact, technically the cumulative environmental impact study and data information that we need to gather is crucial to better understanding what the true impact that a hyperscale data center is going to pose to the region. This is going to be located in the Walker Reserve watershed. All of that kind of flows down and eventually into Clinton Lake, which provides drinking water for over 100,000 Kansans. We're pretty concerned about that water, right? Water is life. And I know we go through all of these kind of made-up rules and structures to get here, but really we're just flying through space on a rock. And what we really have to have is drinking water, food, safety, our homes. And that is why we are asking you to continue to strengthen this moratorium. We were so excited to pass this and you listened to us within a week and it was such a celebration. And we want to make sure that utilities and water do not go out to the county to support this hyperscale data center. If this is the right answer, it will be the right answer 12 months from now, 24 months from now. You know, they talk about this gold rush coming to us with all this money and all this potential. There's potentially seven to eight data centers headed our way that are interested in Shawnee County. This is not a gold rush. This is a tsunami. This is a horde of locusts. This is a dust bowl headed to us at 1,000 miles an hour. We are not ready, so we have to slow things down. We also are digging through a lot of information here. You know, what this compass is and these companies, and do they have our best interests at heart? They're not Kansas companies. They're not American companies. They're only Israel and Canada. Do we believe that they are going to have our best interest at heart, those kids that are less than one mile away from a hyperscale data center at Pauling South with that increase of heat that will be caused, with that emissions and the fire risk less than a mile away southwest where the wind may blow? Are we equipped to handle that? As we're digging through this kind of network of information and we're learning at the same time, we started 60 days ago, right? Now we're here and we're having this conversation. We're really unraveling all these webs that are weaved in this situation. And some of it's been pretty bamboozling. Unfortunately, last night, we found out that Topeka city manager, his wife works directly in the Shawnee County.

Megan, I'm going to pause you for a second. I'll pause your time.

Thank you.

You can address it in a general manner, but under our rules, particularly as it relates to family members, we don't name them. So that's all I'm going to ask of any speaker that comes forward. Okay. Applies to everybody, even us.

Okay. So without naming anyone, we're trying to address this potential conflict of interest that we do not believe has been disclosed. This person works as the planning and zoning administrator in the Shawnee County, and they are married to the Topeka City manager. This, the principal duties of this person, advises the director on planning and development issues, evaluating processes. And really, we're concerned that she works in the very department responsible for land use planning, development review, zoning, CUP, and all of that. And so this relationship, at minimum, creates the appearance of a manager that has indirect access, influence, or information with the regulatory process. So we are asking for more transparency. I apologize for running out of time. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Megan. Next up, I have Kendri Ansley.

Kendri?

Welcome.

Thanks. All right. Sorry, I have to use my phone. My printer broke. Technology. Good evening. My name is Kendra Ansley. I live in the county just outside of city limits. I'm actually serviced by Rural Water District 3. So my water comes from the city. So thank you for that. But it also means I stand to be harmed by the proposed data center site. Interestingly enough, I am on the city's wastewater system, so that might speak a little bit to why the county is interested in the updates in the application. And speaking specifically to item 5A, honestly, I hope I'm wasting my breath a little bit here, but I just want to implore each of you to please vote in favor of this amended language, which would restrict utility connections both inside and outside the city limits for data centers. Closing this loophole. If a data center couldn't be determined to be safe for a value add for our community within city limits, the same certainly must be true just outside of city limits. The day after you voted unanimously to institute a 12-month moratorium, I met with my county commissioner one-on-one to discuss data centers. I asked him how your decision impacted the county commission, and his response was, it's easy to vote yes when no one wants to build inside city limits. That suggestion was the entire discussion and vote you all had was a farce. It was meant to placate the people who'd come out to speak with you and nothing more. You could easily vote yes because it didn't matter. So I'm here tonight, despite having also been at the planning commission meeting last night, to not at home with my family and children because I want to find out the truth. Did your previous decision actually mean anything, or was it just an easy way to quiet down a growing number of scared and frustrated citizens without any real consequence? Can we count on your word? Because if we can, this should be simple for each of you. I, like Megan, did want to bring up a concern around transparency that may be best discussed during your executive session. Having attended the Shawnee County Planning Commission meeting last night, it also came to my attention that there is a familial relationship between the city and the Shawnee County Planning Commission. I think it's worth discussing to ensure that any and all possible conflicts of interest have been discussed and just making sure there's nothing nefarious going on. With my remaining time, I just want to tell you a little bit about me personally. So I live just outside city limits. I'm a fourth generation Topekan. My family has been in Topeka for quite a long time. My family name actually is on a building on the corner of 8th and Topeka, the Cassin Building. That's my mother's maiden name. The Cassin Building is now subsidized housing. I can't think of a better use of that building, a building I used to visit as a child and sit in the penthouse and draw on my grandpa's pads of paper. uh my grandpa was a giver he didn't care about money that wasn't important to him he just cared about people he built a lot of what you see around our community he built the kansas supreme court building not far from here he rebuilt the sanctuary at grace cathedral when it burned down in the 70s He rebuilt the sanctuary at First Christian Church. He rebuilt many of the buildings at our local high schools. I know a lot about investing in our community. I know a lot about building things that last. I know a lot about caring about our community. Just a few weeks ago, my friend who's a librarian at one of our local elementary schools gave me a book. I didn't bring it tonight, but it bears my grandmother's name. She donated in honor of a little girl she read to. She read to students in our local schools for years and years because she loved reading and she loved children. I bring that same devotion to my community. I hope each of you do. I'm sure that's why you're serving in your roles. I hope you'll think about that as you vote tonight. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Next up, I have, if I pronounce the last name wrong, I apologize, Rebecca Pagel. Becca Pagel. Oh, I mispronounced it. Now I'll never know. Have her email me and tell me how to pronounce it right for next time. Daniel Walker is up next. Daniel Walker. No Daniel Walker? All right. Dennis Brinkman. Welcome, Mr. Brinkman.

I think it's great if we have a little bit more time to study this information out. My expertise is in soil and water conservation, storm water management. I work for the Natural Resources Conservation Service for 32 years, 16 years in this county. and with the Shawnee County Conservation District. We worked a lot on establishing a procedure for stormwater management. And in fact, now you're referring to the Mid-America Council in Kansas City. They have a 300-page book that describes the problem and then the process for determining stormwater management. So it's great both the county and the city actually has that. So in doing that, and this is the report that they have online, I found that they don't understand agriculture, and so they were rating the amount of water coming off a farm and both cropland and pasture very similar. It's almost like having a linoleum floor. So the higher the number, the more runoff. So when this project is done, they're saying 91%. but the crop land is an 80 and the pasture is 80 and the crop land is 85. And these figures, like an earthquake, if you could say a six to a seven, that's a 10 fold, so little numbers. So the problem is by using this incorrect figure, starts on page four, then the validity of the document is incorrect. Particularly, you get over to page six. So the deal is you can't have more water leaving your property at any increase rate. And then what you do, this is any house or anything you do. Nope, not page 10. Page 10 is going to have their report where they propose how much water at a peak rate is going to run off as opposed to what it was originally. And if you ever look at the map, you find the FEMA floodplain map is there also. That FEMA map is meant for prior development. It doesn't have anything to do with after development. And we found out the ills of the four girls down in Texas that got washed away because they're here. a body allowed them to build these cabins right in the floodplain. And this is the floodplain. So all this is right next to it. In fact, the battery bank, it doesn't show any protection if they end up catching on fire. It's going to go right... And Mars, they're going to get... If the wind, unfortunately, is out of the west blowing, they're going to get a little coating of lithium on their candy. I don't know. So it's important to... where we're having this time and all these different reports. I'm not an expert on the sound and these other things that have come up, but my expertise is on water. And I'm recognizing and seeing that there's potentially more water running off that's allowed from the prior development. And it was interesting, there were several presentations tonight talking about the length of some of the institutions, the cemeteries and so on has been around. What ends up being, this 3,000 property I'm associated with is right below this. And so there are 3,000 acres of water coming through there now, and this will add more to it. But that property, historically here in October, that land will be within the family of 126 years. So we're working real hard to manage it. So if you drive down 85th Street, look to the north, because that's where the center is planned, you'll see the native grass is being well managed and lush. If it was in town, you'd think they ought to brush them up to hog that down, because that grass is like that. And ours is bone. There's the native grass. A little bit of difference is there. But the key is there's less runoff than what they're promoting. More runoff than what they're purporting, allowing them to have more runoff. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much, sir. Next up, Ms. Carol Marple. Welcome, Carol.

Thank you very much. I was going to pass, because the people that preceded me did an excellent job explaining. But I want to say to you, we need time. But we also need to think about the economic drawbacks that will happen if we allow this data center to be built. Not just for my family and what we do. We farm, we ranch, but also we have irrigators up north in the north part of the county. What if they don't have electricity to irrigate? What if we don't have any wildlife? I'm sure a lot of you or your family members or you know people like to come hunt, we're not going to have any wildlife. We pollute our water, we're not going to have any fishing. But the most important thing, if somebody's thinking they want to move to Topeka, Kansas, the capital of Kansas, and they take a look at us and they look at this data center, are they going to want to move here with their family? Are they going to want to look at the data center? Are they going to want to listen to the data center? Are they going to want whatever, the heat from the data center? They're not. They're not. What other businesses are going to want to come here? You look at the map with the 10-mile radius. That takes in most of our county. People are not going to look at us favorably. And we need to think of that. Compass is just promising us the moon. And so far, that's all it is, is promises. My son serves on the Williamsport Township. He's trustee. They have the roads. They maintain one of the roads that Compass will have to use. They've never even come to him. I don't think they know his name, which is fine. But they're not talking to the people that are going to be affected, are going to have to deal with this. You folks are going to have to deal with so many things. And you have problems with your budget. You had all the things that Compass Data Center is going to need. Your budget, it's destroyed. It's not healthy as it is, but it is destroyed. People are going to move out of here so fast. What happens if Mars and Walmart loses their workforce? Are they going to stay? No, they're not. What happens if the heat, if we do have excessive heat to Mars, their energy bill is going to go out of sight. And it has to be cool. At least when I cook with chocolate, it melts. I imagine it's the same thing in there. They have to keep a constant cool temperature. What if we raise the electric bills there? And they will raise. Walmart has how many people work in there? They can't work in heat where you add an extra 10 degrees. They're not going to stay. They'll go find a different job. We've got to think this through, and I urge each and every one of you to vote for this moratorium, and let's continue to explore what will happen. Thank you.

Thank you, Carol. I think this person's on Zoom. Dan, is Catherine Andres on Zoom? All right.

she's up next catherine can you hear us all right catherine can you hear us yes i can okay ma'am you have four minutes thank you uh first i want to thank everybody for listening to the us at the session in july when you really listen to the people and my fiance and i were there uh where we You agreed for the year moratorium, and we felt like it was the first time in our life that we were listened to, and it was an amazing experience, so thank you. Tonight I'm urging you not to give city water or service to the data center. I have a personal event that occurred two weeks ago. I own a house in the city limits of Topeka, which I rent out, and the renter said that when the air conditioner turns on, the lights get dimmed. And then they said when they turned the washing machine and the air conditioner on, everything in the entire house goes dim. I thought there was a problem with my house, so I called Evergy, and it turns out it was on their end. They had a problem with the transformers, and they fixed the issue. But I first had to think, what is going to happen if this data center comes and we're already having potential problems in Topeka with electricity? I feel waiting a year is crucial as more and more problems are surfacing from people who are living in areas where there's data centers. The last time I spoke here, I mentioned some of these problems with wells drying up and fires. But recently, I read that Texas had to put a pause on 1,800 data centers. The governor, Greg Abbott, ordered the regulators to freeze new proposals because they are having problems with their power. So that's something interesting to look at. I remember, we also have to remember when these tech companies are coming to you wanting water is that our Kansas Senate passed SB 98. which gives them a 20-year sales and tax exemption. So they have plenty of money and can figure it out on their own without having to ask the city for water. I attended the Compass Data Center open house a couple weeks ago, and I found it very interesting because I asked the question to several of the Compass employees, what exactly will be going on inside these data centers? They're mammoth. And the answer I got was, well, I guess it will be financial transactions. I found that very odd that the Compass people were very confused by the question and not certain. I said, well, I've been doing financial transactions like all the rest of you for over 40 years without these mammoth data centers. So it appears that they are not even clear what will be going on inside these data centers. And also I wonder how can we trust companies that try to approach city council members and ask for NDAs, which they have done in other areas, not here though. I wanted to piggyback off what the previous speaker said about people not wanting to come to Topeka if there's a data center. I think the year moratorium is crucial because I believe what is going to happen is that people who are in areas with data centers are going to be so unhappy with all the problems They're going to be looking for cities and areas that do not have data centers. And if we can keep the PICA free of a data center, I believe people will be flocking because they know there's going to be water and electric bills instead of astronomical ones. And that is what is going to happen. You're going to see a migration of people from where data centers are to places where they are not. And we will be special because of that. I also believe that something else we can do to offset what is opposed to the economic benefit from a data center is to invite companies into PICA, such as Trader Joe's. I know that from opening new stores everywhere, and everywhere there's a Trader Joe's, there's happy people, and it does a lot for the economy. So I think that would be a great message to send to... Ms. Andrews, your four minutes is up, but thank you very much.

thank you next up i have sharon gillette welcome sharon i'm sharon gillette i live at 5500 southwest mountain drive in Topeka. I stated my address as being a homeowner in Topeka, but I'm only about a half mile outside of city limits, putting my residence in unincorporated Shawnee County. I'm also two and a half miles from the proposed data center site. Unfortunately, none of you city council members can be my voice because of where I live. But could you lend me your ears for about four minutes, please? Thank you, thank you all of you for recommending a moratorium, which brings us precious time to gather more information and to do research. We have to do our own research because Compass has done a very poor job up to now of supplying us with facts pertaining to the proposed data center. or should I say, proposed AI centers, because that's exactly what might be built here in Cheney County, an artificial intelligence center. If this data center never gets built, please rest assured your phones, your laptops, your computers, both in your homes and in your businesses, will still... Sorry, I'm losing my place. You're fine. Well, you won't notice any difference, okay? They'll continue to work and store information just as they do now. But if the center does get built, it will supply more energy, more megawatts, about 400 megawatts, for one of the real big tech companies to use. Compass has not disclosed who they are building. this data center for as of yet. That might be forthcoming. Much of AI is used for very meaningful, innovative ways to improve our lives. The flip side of the good is also there's bad. AI is also used to gain our sensitive personal data or to download malware on our devices. The hackers, the scammers, the criminals use AI in illegal yet very, very convincing ways to trick us. Digital thievery is even predicted to get worse in the future. Shawnee County doesn't need to be adding more power for the bad guys to work with. I'm rapidly running out of time. There's yet another issue that Compass hasn't made clear. Where do they intend to get the water that's going to cool down the heat-producing computers? I hope Topeka is not going to allow it to use city water. Their second option stated is to use a rural district freeze water supply. Out here we pay a premium for using city water and our water quality, let's say, is a little less than ideal. I can't imagine that a data center which uses vast amount of water will somehow lower our weights or just magically improve the quality of our water out here. Can any of you? Thank you so much. Thank you.

Thank you. Excuse me. Thank you very much, Michelle. I can't talk all of a sudden. Up next, I have Colleen Campbell. She was here. OK. Jay Marple.

Please stop here.

OK. Danielle Twimlow.

Well, I think I'm probably going to be a little more aggressive in my words, imagine that, but mainly because I have heard a lot of chatter behind the scenes and knowing that there's a possibility not only of this not going through this evening, but of The potential of not following a full year, and that is an option you have, but I don't believe it's fair that we have to constantly be worrying. We should be secure in knowing that when this passes, we have a year and ample time for information. I've been an educator for 24 years in our community with a strong focus of that time on health and development. And a reoccurring lesson I would have across the audience spectrum is how to identify when corporations are trying to trick you. And that may seem kind of funny when thinking about health and development, but corporations prey on vulnerable populations. Teenagers, new expecting parents with their marketing of products. They know teenagers don't have that prefrontal cortex development to assist in long-term problem solving, the cognitive reasoning that we get closer to when we're 25, and their reactions are more intense, impulsive, and centered around emotions. And parents who are preparing for a new baby or are parenting for the first time are desperate to make the best choices, to be the best parents, and give their kiddos everything, all while being sleep-deprived and overwhelmed. and marketing plays into vulnerabilities with ads that tell parents that they need this baby item or sign up for this program with smartly worded phrases that often make it seem like they're backed by experts when in reality it's a trick on sentence structure or semantics placed perfectly. Quite famously, the tobacco industry paid out heavily for targeting youth and the general public with their marketing strategies. Sadly, none of this is new, yet it still works. Compass is no different. Topeka is vulnerable. We've struggled to have consistent city manager leadership over the last decade. We've fallen into a budget deficit with nothing really to show for it. Population loss, potholes on every street, multiple vacant buildings downtown, and citizens facing threats of more utility rate increases, just to name a few. So when a company with millions of dollars behind them comes waving some promises of financial security along with some smart word choices, many would fall for it. I want you to think about the last four weeks and all that you have learned about data centers. Think about the questions you still have. Imagine what more we could know if we actually hired an expert whose real job was to be impartial and dedicated to finding out evidence-based data and information they can study and compile in a way that is digestible and makes sense for our community. Don't fall for the sales pitches next week or in the weeks to come. This is not a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity or that they're going to save our community. BS. Next week, they'll try to sell you these things about building new jobs or how environmentally friendly they are. I can tell you those three certifications that they had up there, they paid for. And one of them, they even wrote the standards that they paid to have certified. So I'm going to tell you this. While the people don't have the money to flash before you, we have people power and we have statutory rights at our disposal. And should elected officials choose not to carry out the wants and desires and needs of the people, these options do not require us to wait for an election. Those rights have been verified and the options we will take seriously because we understand this is not a decision our community is ready to make. So we urge you to hold that line. I do urge the voting JADO members to also realize that Go Topeka can't do anything with land without your vote.

Thank you. Next up, Brandy Eneking. Brandy Eneking. All right. With that, I will open the floor back up to the council. Council Member Kell.

Some of these were mentioned by the people who are speaking. I wrote down a note or some of it came before they said something, but my vote wasn't just a yes. It was, I was very passionate that night. I said during, I think it was executive session that if we had a meeting with these people, I'd walk out because there's no point of having this meeting. Luckily, one of our other council members up here said, you know, no, the part of the moratorium is educate ourselves. So that's what we need to do. I didn't attend the open house, but I emailed the company on 7-22. I've yet to get a response. I added, I sent it from my city council email. I added WWW, KS&T, their news directors, CJ, and Stacy, who's always here out of meetings representing CJ, and got zero response. And it was to point out that this company keeps on saying it wants to be open, it wants to be forthright, but they're not wanting to give us information. I asked them several questions that, you know, use the data from the data centers that they've built recently and show us what those numbers are going to be. Haven't heard anything back. One of the main questions is why do you want to build in somewhere that nobody really wants you there as much as the public has spoken out against this? Again, no response. Why haven't you gone to a smaller county? Shawnee County is, I think, what, the fifth largest county in Kansas? Population, what, third? Third, okay. There's five counties with a 1% or less of our population. So it would affect so less fewer people. But it does bring up the aspect of the farming. I do have people I know that have farms out of that area where the proposed data center is going to be. And I do think of how that will affect not only the crops, but the livestock and the livelihood of these people. Unfortunately, the distribution centers out there don't care. I used to work at one of those distribution centers years ago, and when the NHRA was going on one day when it was 100 degrees, every single time a car took off, it blew the transformer in the area. All they did was walk around and hand us a bottle of water and tell us to keep on working. A lot of those big companies don't necessarily care about their workers in that aspect of, oh, if power goes out or if it raises the temperature somewhat, it's not really going to matter. At least 10, 15 years ago, it didn't matter to those companies. Floodplain is something I'm very interested in. We're dealing with that in Topeka right now, where new construction and the way things have gone environmentally has created some flooding issues in Topeka. So that is something we desperately need to look at as an environmental study. The workers aspect, I don't see, you know, the 30 and so that might be low. I used to work in technology. A lot of this stuff can be done remotely. Even the security can be done remotely, which then they rely on our sheriffs, if it's in the county, to come out there and respond, which takes away from situations that our citizens are going to need. So we need to figure out how much that workforce is actually going to be on site, in the building, And unfortunately, they're using other companies to get what they want. I've seen it in a couple towns with my travels this summer. They're using, let's say, a power company. Say, oh, we need to build this new grid over here to help this side of town. And next thing you know, a data center pops right next to that new grid. So they're using power, gas, water, utilities to try to maneuver things in their ways. And I've seen it in a couple towns. And it's kind of scary, that. ads was brought up, and that's something I wrote down before, it's been brought up. Please, when you see ads, look at who's presenting the ad, because someone could be presenting on behalf of someone else. And so that information can be skewed one way or the other. my what i would ultimately love to see is a public vote on this either from the city or the county and just make the let the public vote on whether they want this in their city and then in the weather county uh and that would make it a lot easier to know where we stand as a community if there's something that goes forward because uh As it was said before, well, we have the right to turn this down after a year. I have zero plan to even think about. And that was my whole philosophy of, well, why would we even sit down with these people? We have a year moratorium. Like I said, as it was brought up to me by another council member, that year moratorium is to educate ourselves for after that year. That is something I'd seriously like to look at and try to get with the county on and see if we can make this a public election issue, if the county is willing to do this and see where we are. Because I just see this as another large company that was willing to move to Shawnee County, Topeka area, and not really care about the people that are around here and how it's going to affect them. And if they say they're open, honest, forthcoming, why are you not responding to a simple email with simple questions that You know, just like the open house was the last second thing thrown together. And as far as I can go, the open house, I had a doctor's appointment. If I delayed that doctor's appointment, I went another three months out. So I chose my health over that. But like I said, I did email this company. I am for tightening this up as tight as possible because, like I said, I've seen other cities that use other entities to help their cause in the long run. Thank you. Council Member Valdivia Alcala.

Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. I do have a question because you know, Nick, towards Nick, you know that when we first came to you, the big issue was the water, the concern of the water. And so we have no control over that. However, I need clarification if this passes. So we're water district number three. We have a contract with and it's for so much water to be sold to them. Correct.

Correct.

So if they want to help out compass we have no control over that and if they would want to increase the amount of water they get from the city this covers that that that would be a no for a renegotiation of that contract is that correct

Not necessarily for the renegotiation of the contract with the rural water district. This would prevent the city from directly providing water or wastewater to an entity such as Compass outside of city limits, which otherwise, well, also within city limits, that's already in place, but outside city limits, which there may be an exception allowing them to do so. But in regard to the water that goes to the rural water district, we're currently under contract. If they wanted to come renegotiate, then we could start renegotiating at that point.

So this moratorium is not going to place any kind of barrier on that renegotiation?

Correct. Councilwoman, let me ask one clarifying question. Do those contracts eventually have to come before the governing body for approval, or are they just administratively?

Braxton, do you know?

I think it's...

I assume they have to come before the body, but I guess the reason I'm asking for access is I think he did one of them back in 2012.

No, I understand, but I think that may help give some verification that at least something would come before us if and when that happened.

Can we verify it?

We'll have to look into it and then get back to you on that. That's not something I'm going to try to remember from 10 years ago or 12 years ago, the intricacies of those.

No, that's fair. Well, then I'd ask, I know Councilman Walton, but we were asking then for that clarification. That would be helpful.

So you're asking and I'm asking for that clarification. Braxton, can you have that presented to us? I mean, I would like to do it in an open way so folks can hear at the next meeting. Is that possible?

Yes, that should be possible.

But I was asking Braxton.

Okay, sorry. The answer to that question is a legal question in terms of looking at those contracts as well as the other resolutions that were out there. And that necessarily needs to come from the city attorney.

Okay. Kind of testy tonight, Braxton. Thank you, Nick. Apologies, Mr. Braxton Copley. Thank you, Nick. Can we have that by next week?

Yes. Yeah.

Very much appreciated. Thank you.

Comments or questions at this time? Councilmember Hiller?

Thank you, Mayor. Two, one is a follow-up to that discussion that just happened. Is there, I was listening, trying to actively listen at the beginning of this conversation, is there currently a limit on how much water the Water District 3 can use in its current contract?

There is a limit regarding the amount of water and the connection points and those type of things that have to do with volume and flow rates. There are certain parameters within the contract, certain terms. Yes, those do exist.

Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Another question that I have, and maybe somebody would need to research it, but in talking with people about it, um the compass people had described that they had a closed loop water system and therefore we're saying that that was manageable and didn't require as much water as a swimming pool and some things like that the question that came to me that i couldn't answer was okay you have that system in order to get the heat out where does the heat go

That's a great question to ask them on the 19th.

I just wanted to throw that out. If somebody had an answer, fine. Otherwise, I'm interested in knowing that.

I think a lot of us are. Council Member Bradbury.

Thank you. This may be premature, but I kind of want to piggyback on what Councilman Kell had mentioned about bringing for a public vote. I don't know. what would need to happen in order to trigger that. But I would be interested in knowing.

Council Member Valdivia-Alcala.

Thank you. I would support that as well. But that would have to be for next year, obviously, because there wouldn't be enough time to get it on ballot now. But when we went to the Compass event that wasn't a presentation that was a lot of slickness, we did ask about the temperature. And they said that the temperature could actually raise anywhere from about 5 to 8 degrees, I remember them saying. And then I asked, well, where does it go? Well, it goes up. It goes up where? It goes out. goes out into outside of the building or whatever. And I said, OK. I said, well, have you taken into account where the school is, how winds blow, and how many of the kids may end up being impacted? Well, no, we haven't done that yet. So it's really going to be interesting to find out how they spend that one. Thank you.

Yeah, and I'll just make one comment, but if there's no other comments or questions, a motion is always in order. But I would say, as mentioned, I was at the Sustainability Board, and Council Members Valdiviacola and McGee were there, along with the City Manager. And one of the conversations that we had with that board, one of the things we've asked them to participate in is moratoriums forever get legally dubious at some point. And so what we want to make sure we're doing is putting together policies moving forward as it relates to zoning and platting and our internal policies that give some folks more permanency in some of these decisions if that's the desire of this governing body moving forward. And the other piece of that is, outside of Councilmember Ortiz, we're not all going to be here forever, right? And so what we want to make sure is that the decisions we make aren't done at 12 months at a time but have some long-term sustainability, too. So that's part of that conversation, too, is what that would look like moving forward to give some of our ordinances and zoning laws some permanency to some of these issues as we go. It'll be a good conversation to include that board and other folks in as we move forward. With that, I see no other comments or questions. I have a motion from Councilmember Bradbury to approve and a second from Councilmember Valdivia-Alcala. Any other final comments or questions? If not, I would ask the clerk to take a vote, please.

Okay, we have 10 yes to motion carries.

All right. With that, we move on to action item B, city clerk.

Via discussion with possible action of an ordinance introduced by city manager Dr. Robert Perez adopting the 2026 edition of the Uniform Public Offense Code amending section 905080 of the Topeka Municipal Code and repealing original section.

City Manager. Thank you. Mayor and members of the governing body, on July 27th, Kelly Trussell, Chief of Prosecution, sent a memorandum to you to explain the proposed adoption of the 2026 edition of the Uniform Public Offense Code, or UPOC. The League of Kansas Municipalities has published UPOC since 1980, and it is designed to provide a comprehensive public offense code for Kansas cities. Currently, the city of Topeka is operating under the 41st or 2025 edition of the UPOC as previously adopted by the governing body. At this time, the 42nd or 2026 edition of the UPOC is available. The staff and I recommend adoption of the 42nd edition with certain deletions and or changes. With that, I'll now turn this over to Kelly to lead us through this item.

Thank you, City Manager. There weren't a whole lot of changes to the UPOC this year. There were seven relevant changes that were set forth in the memo. I'm going to briefly go over them. If anyone has any questions about any specific items and sections that have been amended or changed or added, I'd be happy to answer those questions. The first one was in the definition section. There were several a dozen or so additions or changes to the definition section, most of them having to do with things such as gift cards, hay, livestock, first responder, feral cats. And the list seems a little odd until you actually see some of the changes that were adopted into the UPOC where we needed to have those definitions entered into that section. And I will get to that. The Section 3.1.1 on domestic battery, that one is a substantive change to the UPOC. It falls in line with Kansas state law that was passed and went into effect in July. For a first conviction, a court assessment intervention program is now mandatory for any type of release on a defendant. unless it's otherwise ordered. Previously, this was discretionary, although typically in our practice in the city, I will tell you that it's usually mandatory for us to do that, so I don't think you'd see much change there in the way that we operate. We take it on a case-by-case basis, but most of them are pointed in that direction. And then the big change in domestic battery is for a second conviction within five years. Previously, the mandatory minimum time to be incarcerated was five days. That has now been increased to 20 days. And so the minimum sentence that a defendant would receive if convicted for a second time battery within five, a domestic battery within five years, is a minimum of 90 days having to serve five. Now it will be 20. And so then moving to the new section 3.5.1 is an unlawful approach of a first responder. This is really about public safety and property safety during response when we have first responders in the area to calls. And this now prohibits approaching or remaining within 25 feet of a first responder, which is defined as police, EMS, or a firefighter. after they've been warned if such act is going to distract or raise concern of that safety or property damage while involved in that call. In Section 6.1, that's theft. Really, the only change to that is the definition has expanded a little bit on knowing. Previously, you had to know that you were in possession of stolen property, and it was changed now to, knowing or having reason to have known that the property or services were stolen by someone for you to have in your possession. And then the remainder of those revisions within that theft section actually have to do with changing specific thefts with livestock, some motor vehicles, grain and hay. and turning those into felonies so that does not affect us as a city because we do not prosecute those crimes that would go over to the county and then section 6.17 is criminal use of a final financial card or gift card this section has not changed anything about the criminal aspects of the use of a financial card instead it focuses on adding and expanding that to include all types of gift cards. And so it's no longer just limited to like a debit or a credit card. Now we include gift card misuse. And then Section 1111 is cruelty to animals. And the only change to that really was involving feral cats. It just means that those people that go out and trap and neuter and return those cats, they are exempt from any cruelty to animal type of violation as long as they return those cats back to the place that they retrieved them before they were neutered or vaccinated. And then finally, the last change was in Section 4.5, which was buying sexual relations. This has been removed from the UPOC, and the reason why it has been removed from the UPOC is because it is now classified as a felony. And so it's not that it's legal, it's that it is now a felony, and it is no longer within the jurisdiction of the city. So with that, I would stand for any questions, if anyone had any.

Questions or comments from the governing body? Council Member Kell.

I get the unlawful approach of a first responder aspect of things, but I've seen way too many videos where that boundary has been pushed way too far. I'm not saying it's going to happen anywhere in Topeka, but I've seen it way too much where someone would be across the street and they're telling them they need to move on, things like that. And now we're getting down to, we can say, a precise distance that's perspective to a lot of people and to me it's that's gonna be a hard one to possibly do anything with prosecutorial wise because unless you have a camera that shows this distance this person this person what that actual distance is um i am not a fan of well the officer wrote that it was 20 feet so it's 20 feet when, you know, if they never actually sat there and measured it out, that's where I, you know, I get that those situations can be a very tense situation. Firearms can be involved, things like that, but that could be a situation of someone could be in an accident and all of a sudden now you're standing with someone trying to help out and one's saying yes, one's saying no, and all of a sudden next you know someone could be being arrested for trying to help out in situations so I have a little bit of an issue with that because It's a 50-50 with me. There's good aspects and there's bad aspects of it. And I'm just afraid more, I think, more afraid of the bad aspects than what the good aspects can come from it. Thank you.

So I'll give you a little context, Council Member. So it's now state law. So it's now the law of the land by the state legislature. I will tell you it was very controversial. It was vetoed by the governor originally, and then that veto was overridden to make it state law. So you're not alone in your concerns. The legislature debated it for a very long time. It got very contentious for a lot of different reasons, including issues surrounding ICE and some other issues. So I'll just let you know that is now the state law, regardless of truthfully whether we adopt it or not but it's yeah it did go through a very that kind of process and now we're kind of stuck with it like some other laws get passed at the state level just for some context is how we got here and i see i i see from i just look at this personal perspective i pulled up on an accident one officer saying yeah help me out the other ones you know stay back stay back and one say no come here and it's like okay

you know, if I decide, okay, I'm going to listen and help, am I going to be arrested? And I know you said it's state law, but it's this, it's, it's gets to that iffy situation. And then also when you, we just have a kind of a set space, it becomes a situation of he said, she said, and, and like I said, I've seen way too many videos out there where people's rights have been violated. When you set a distance, like 25 feet, then also they're being arrested and they're 50 feet away. And now they're having to fight for their,

get them their name cleared and uh uh i just like to not a fan of these types of tuitions thank you any other comments or questions kelly or staff if not council member do we have home rule on this not on this one no OK. Boo. I know.

Yeah, I think I have a tendency to be floating over there with Cal. So thank you, Mayor.

No, it's not awesome. It's going to lead to more problems than it's going to solve. That's not a hard crystal ball to, I think, look into. Any other questions or comments? If not, as always, the motion is in order. We have a motion to approve by Councilmember Ortiz and a second from Councilmember McGee. If there's no final questions or comments, I would ask the clerk to take the vote. Oh, I don't get to vote. Ignore my vote. Ignore it.

So we have eight yes. So eight yes, with council member Valdivia-Ocala voting no, the motion carries.

All right. We will now move on to action item 5C, city clerk.

See as discussion with possible action of an ordinance introduced by City Manager Dr. Robert Perez, adopting the 2026 edition of the standard traffic ordinances, amending sections 10, 15, 0, 10, and 0, 20 of the Topeka Municipal Code and repealing original sections.

City Manager. Thank you. Mayor, members of the governing body, very similar to the last item, on July 27th, Kelly Trestle, Chief of Prosecution, sent you a memorandum detailing that annually the League of Kansas Municipalities prepares and publishes a standard traffic ordinance in July following legislative session. This book is a codification of all relevant statutory changes, and in order to stay consistent with state law, the city practices adopting these changes as soon as possible after publication. Currently, the city of Topeka is operating under the 52nd or 2025 edition of the STO, as previously adopted by the governing body. At this time, the 53rd or 2026 edition of the STO is available, and staff and I recommend adoption of the 53rd edition with certain deletions and or changes for local adoption. With that, I'll now turn this over to Kelly to lead us through this discussion.

Thank you, Mr. City Manager. Again, with the SDO, just like the UPOC, there really weren't a whole lot of substantive changes. Again, this year there were eight, and I'll go over those. In the first one, in Article 1, the definition of a hands-free device was introduced. It specifically says that it has to be equipment that allows phone use without using either of your hands. while operating a vehicle. And that will come into play with one of the other changes that have been added into the STO. And I will get to that one as I get, because I'm going in order. In Section 93, there was a change to the parking disabled and other vehicles. Really, this comes down to expanding the city's authority to remove and impound vehicles that interfere not only with public highway operations, which we already have, But also then to, if it's interfering with any law enforcement operations, it's allowing those law enforcement to remove vehicles that are preventing them from doing the job that they need to do for that safety reason at that moment. And then the third change, section 126.1, was obstructing license plates. This is the one that I'm sure you've seen in the media. It adds the prohibition on any frame or object that goes on or around the license plate on a vehicle that would make it difficult to determine the registration number state or the expiration on the registration decal. And so that would make that a city ordinance and it is already a state law as it is now. then that caused a change to Section 126.1.1, which was display of license plates. Now, this retains all of the rules that a license plate must have with all of the information that it must carry on the plate, but it focuses on just the securing and the proper attachment of the plate and removed any of the other language on the visibility of those items because that was addressed in the new ordinance regarding the frames and what must be visible, so it was redundant. And so then Section 1.81 has to do with one-way glass and sunscreening devices. There really wasn't any technical or regulatory changes that were made to this ordinance. But instead, it's just clarifying that rule that the window film has to be removed or replaced if the vision is impaired. Up to this point, it was arguable as to what the remedy was if it was too dark. And it removes that ambiguity. The Section 201.1 is failure to comply with a traffic citation. This simply clarifies and aligns with all the procedures and language that have been in recent statutory amendments that pertain to driver's license suspensions for failure to pay or failure to appear to a prior court appearance. Really, the spirit of this ordinance and the state law change that was made, it's meant to improve access to reinstatement for all of driver's license suspensions. It shortens the amount of time that we look back and can waive and have the ability to waive more reinstatement items in order to get more valid driver's licenses out there. The seventh change was in Section 126.2.1, which was use of wireless communication devices in school zones and construction zones. So currently, the SCO provides for a general prohibition on texting while driving. with a few listed exceptions, but there weren't any special rules for doing that with inside the school or construction zone. So this new section prohibits any handheld mobile phone use in school zones or construction zones and allowing only usage of the phone to have a hands-free device or under an emergency circumstance. So there's a rebuttable presumption that if you have your phone in your hand and not both hands on the steering wheel while going through a construction zone that's active or a school zone that's within those time frames where it's been monitored, that there's a rebuttable presumption that you are using that phone in a non-hands-free way, and there would be a fine for that. And then finally in Section 169.2 is use of lights in road construction zones. This simply just allows construction and maintenance vehicles inside construction zones to display amber, green, and white lights inside a closed zone area inside that construction zone between sunset and sunrise if those workers are present. So those were all of the changes that are proposed, and we are asking that they be adopted, and I would stand for questions.

Questions or comments from the governing body? Council Member Hiller.

Thank you, Mayor. Apologies. I've marked this section and didn't get you the question asked early. On item number five, section 181, about tinted glass, I thought that some years ago now we made it illegal in the city of Topeka to put tinting, to cover glass, your side windows and so on.

Has that changed? It has not changed. It's still in the books and it's still in force regularly. There's a certain amount of percentage of light that must be able to penetrate through that tent. And so officers do have a device that can measure the amount of light that's being able to go through that tent. and if it's outside the boundaries of what we're allowing, because we do allow some, but once it becomes too dark, then there is a citation for that.

My recollection from when it was passed was so you could see inside the car, and I've seen more and more vehicles that were pretty darkly Is that a word? Yes. Darkly tinted?

Yes, and I agree with you. There's an uptick on that. And weirdly, and this is definitely not something the city of Topeka is probably going to be able to change, but weirdly a lot of cars that are coming off of the manufacturing line actually have manufacturer's tint that is too dark in a lot of states, and that happens to be in our situation. And so there are cars that have manufacturer tint on them that have to be removed.

It's 35%, by the way.

Okay. But 35% vision through the glass?

Yeah, you can.

Or 35 cup?

Yeah, 35%. I believe it's 35% of the light or the darkness or whatever. I just know it's 35%. I can tell you that right now.

So we still, this says if what you have is legal, you've got to take care of it.

Yes, it's secure for it, really. So if you violate our own ordinance on the restrictions on the tent, then this ordinance would then have the remedy of telling them and the authority that it has to be removed. Thank you.

Council Member Kell. Speaking of the tent there, Have we checked some of our own city vehicles? Because I've noticed a couple of them that have actually, and a couple of them were the newer police cars also, that they are very, very dark in the driver's windows.

There's a state exception for police vehicles. I think we're setting standards.

We're going to bust our citizens for something. We should be in the same... Rome because if it's dark out and they're going down the road and they can't see something because it's tinted I know some people are looking at well it's a privacy issue where they're on their computer or this or that and someone walks by they can't see into it but to me when you look at night time and like Councilman Miller said it's been a thing more and more that we've had one more tint to the point of I'm even seeing front windshield tint out there now that you can't even see into the vehicle at all But I think if we're going to enforce a rule, we should be living by that rule at the same point.

All right. We have a motion to approve from Council Member Ortiz, a second from me. Any other comments or questions? If not, please take the vote. I don't think I can second it because I can't vote. Man. Somebody else needs to second it, please.

OK.

So Councilmember Ortiz made the motion. It will be second by Bradbury. The mayor is not voting. Go ahead. I'm trying. OK. We have nine yes. The motion carries.

All right. It is after 8 o'clock. We're going to take a 10-minute break. We will start back here promptly at 8.15. All right. We are back. We will resume the business of the governing body. So we will move on to action item 5D, city clerk.

is a resolution introduced by city manager Dr. Robert Perez requesting consent from the governing body to intervene to protect its interests in a lawsuit.

City Manager. Thank you. Mayor and members of the governing body, we had previously briefed you on this item, which was originally scheduled for consideration during our governing body meeting on July 21st, 2026. During the July 21st meeting, we were asked to defer the item to allow for further discussion. While I recommend approval, given the legal nature of this item, I will ask Nick Jefferson, City Attorney, to continue leading us through this discussion.

Thank you.

Thank you, city manager. I will try to sit a little closer to the mic this time. I've been told I'm kind of quiet. To give some background on this matter, last month the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation filed suit against the executive director of the Kansas Lottery. The suit claims the state is unlawfully operating lottery vending machines and ticket sales within the nation's boundaries. As part of the suit, the nation asserts its boundaries established in an 1846 treaty and asks that they remain intact and that only the nation may regulate Class III gaming on its lands. The nation seeks court declarations affirming those rights and an injunction ordering the state of Kansas to stop all lottery operations within the reservation unless a valid tribal state gaming compact is approved. In count one of the suit, that's the count that could potentially affect the city. The 1846 treaty, which the nation seeks the court to recognize and declare as being valid, would place the western portion of the city within the nation's boundaries, approximately everything west of Gage Boulevard. This could have an impact on a number of issues for the city, including law enforcement and criminal jurisdiction, zoning and other regulatory activities, as well as taxation questions, primarily involving property taxes and sales taxes. The city, we are asking to intervene in the suit to protect the city's interest in regards to the city's boundaries. Pursuant to the Kansas Court of Appeals case, which some of you may be familiar with, City of Topeka v. Emming, we have to, we need an affirmative vote from the body which would authorize us to intervene in this matter. So that essentially is the ask tonight for a vote allowing us to intervene. And I'd stand for any questions.

We do have two individuals signed up to speak on this. Do you have a question first before we? Okay. Council Member Valdiviacola.

I have several questions. Obviously, I've been rethinking this. The thought of it being on the consent agenda on our last council meeting, it didn't sit with me because I felt that no matter which way the votes went, it was deserving of consent. A discussion and so my questions are going to be for whoever can answer them. I hear what you're saying about the decision because there seems to be a multiplicity of issues that you believe could be impacted, although from everything that I've read. It has to do with the gaming, so let me just start there. I do want to know, because in the Capital Journal article they had stated that Prairie Band had been in some initial meetings with the Kansas Lottery. And I would like to know, have there ever been any meetings between Prairie Band and the City of Topeka to talk about this issue before the decision came up that y'all wanted to enter into the lawsuit?

I have not had any discussion with anyone from Prairie Band. I don't know if City Manager knows of any, but I have not had any discussion.

And I'm not aware of any discussions with staff with Prairie Band.

Okay. What will the legal cost to the city be?

There would be a legal cost because this suit would require outside counsel. I don't know specifically what the cost would be because I really can't I don't have an estimate, but there would be a cost associated with this. We would have to hire outside counsel for this matter.

Okay. And what funding does the city receive directly from the state lottery?

I do not know the answer to that.

Do you know if any is received from the state lottery? The city of Topeka receiving funds from, you know, their income?

Yeah, I do not know that. Obviously, Josh might know that, but he's not with us tonight. I don't have an answer for that. I'm sorry.

Okay. And I suppose that there's been research, I would hope, that had been done. Do you know of, Nick, of any similar cases where a tribe has gone back to a treaty that was not – abided by and has gone in and basically taken over everything from property taxes to law enforcement or wanted to have a say in it, or if it's a more quiet approach with a particular aspect looked at as the focal point of what the tribe is asking for.

There has been a case in Oklahoma. It was a criminal matter. Let's see. Yeah, McGirt v. Oklahoma in 2020. And in that case, the court did enforce, I guess, an existing boundary. And it did have an effect, I believe, on the city of Tulsa. I don't know exactly. I know that after that lawsuit ended that they had to work out a lot of interlocal agreements and those type of things. So there was an effect. I don't know the details of exactly what they had.

Yeah, so and I think that those details would be important. This, I want to say something first about this. I thought it was really interesting that as we've been going through the data center discussion, when I was out there at the open house, there was a white woman that had come and she was talking with me and she had stated that that with what was happening with the property and what was happening with the data center, all of a sudden brought this realization to her that she was beginning to have just one small type of inkling of what Native Americans must have gone through when their homelands were taken. She says it's no comparison. But she said it came to her mind, and she couldn't believe that it came to her mind because it hadn't been on her mind. But all of a sudden, the threats that she was facing reminded her of this. So this is not something that I'm going to support because it is troubling to me that there has been no communication with the tribe. to actually see what would be on the table. I don't know if there's backstory that is not in the CJ article that you all have been told from the lottery people. But to me, I don't think that my gut sense is that the perceived, how I perceive it, is as a boogeyman approach. Like, oh no, they're going to come and they're just going to change everything up. And I think that there is a level of sophistication because I have worked with the tribes before. I don't know if y'all remember me, but I worked at the state level with my husband and Representative Valdinia Winn on Native American studies and bringing it across the state into public schools. And I want to say that, you know, my husband is a part of the tribal committee at the state level. And so it's troubling to me, even though I understand there might be valid concerns of this. Oh, no. You know, we've got to be a part of this. It's going to be like this, and this could be in danger, and this could be in danger. That almost is a little bit offensive, but I'm sure it wasn't meant to be so. So I'm not going to be supporting this because I think that when we talk about the importance of partnerships, I think there may have been the possibility for a partnership here, but if we're not even reaching out a hand to talk, and to have mutual dialogue go on, then that is troubling to me. If the city had reached out and if Prairie Band had decided, no, we're not going to talk, I would be saying the same thing about Prairie Band because relationships work two ways and partnerships, real partnerships work two ways. I'm also not going to vote for it because we understand the abysmal record that the United States has had with total disregard at times for Native American treaties. And I understand that this is an 1846 treaty, but to me, this is why it felt like there was some kind of importance to have some kind of dialogue. It may be shut down. Nobody may want to get involved in it. I understand. But it's also very interesting to me here in Kansas, the way that we have all of the names of all of the counties that have the Native American tribes, or we have the Native American sculptures. We have this beautiful sculpture on the top of the state capitol. It wasn't even done by an indigenous artist. But at any rate, it's just so interesting to me the way that things are used from different cultures, and we will pick and take what we want. And I'm sure I'm guilty of this, too. But for something like this, there's a more serious underlying tone to it. Maybe no kind of agreement could have been reached. Maybe it would have been impossible, but at least the gestures would have been made. And for that reason, I will not be supporting this. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Councilman Valdivia asked if there was any conversation ahead of this. I mean, you stated there was none. If there had been some communication from the repair band to the city, would we be having this resolution vote today? I can't understand. It's a hypothetical, but in a sense that if we would have been spoken to about what the implications would have been for the city would we be having this vote tonight i'm not saying that we would ultimately had it but we would be having it right now councilman i think that would be dependent upon what was brought to us whether or not we'd be having this discussion i mean the concept of that discussion

probably, I mean, it could affect whether or not we'd be having this discussion. Okay. If, and this is just me just speaking and Nick can slap me if he needs to, but I believe that, you know, if the intent that, if it was brought to us and we knew what the intent was, then we, I mean, we may or may not still be having this discussion. If it didn't affect us as far as we understood, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

Thank you very much. My follow-up to that would be, regardless of what the vote is today, is there an option before we go seeking outside legal counsel to have that conversation once we decide whatever the vote is this evening?

Uh, yes, council member there is. Um, I will say part of the part of the reason this is in front of you is we have a limited amount of time to intervene. It's not a set number of days, but it has to be within a reasonable amount of time that it won't basically prejudice the outcome of the case. We can't jump in too late. Um, so I'm, I'm asking for permission under the immune case to allow us to have that option. That doesn't mean that we can't have a discussion with the nation before before we do engage outside counsel or before we actually file anything. And then certainly just like with any case, we can have discussions all throughout the case as far as what agreements we might be able to reach. But we don't really know at this point because part of the reason I'm asking for this is so that we can be a party to this, have a seat at the table so we can see discovery from both sides and try to determine what our best path forward is. Perfect.

Thank you very much.

Council Member Valdeviapola.

And just in addition to that, you know, you want a seat at the table. I hear what you're saying, but that seat at the table is going to come with the dollar figure attached to it now. Obviously, there was communications and there's been dialogue with the state lottery people in the city, correct?

No. There's not. I have not talked to the lottery.

No one has? They just kind of called up. I'm just asking. Just called up and said, hey, we want to get onto this seat.

No, actually, I saw this in the newspaper.

And so that's how it went.

I have subsequently talked to their attorney just to see if he would have any interest in representing us along with them, like a joint defense, if this were to pass. And he said no. But that's it. And we did not talk about the substance of the case in any way, shape, or form.

But no, the conversations have occurred within the city. I get it. OK, thank you for that. I'm still going to press an F to where, I mean, I was really intrigued with Councilman Miller's question. I was intrigued with it more from the thing about, can there be a starting point before it gets to this point? And I think with the state that we're in in so many different ways, within communities, within families, within governments about the reach out, right? Who's going to reach out first? Who's going to reach out first? And I'm not going to assume or presume, which is why I'm asking the questions, to understand why there was no reach out on Prairie Band's part, why there was no reach out on Citi's part. Citi found out through an article. But there still seems to me to have

some kind of olive branch for initial dialogue and then if it breaks it breaks but at least there was attempt an attempt thank you council member kel i know we've already delayed this once from taking the consent agenda down but is this something maybe we should delay and let this um maybe have a conversation and see where we go from there to see what's what's even proposed um That way we can make the most informed decision possible with our council can come back to us at that point and say, hey, this is what's been proposed. I know the chairman's here tonight, so this is something that they can get something on the books real quick, talk, and then we can have this vote in two weeks, let's say.

I mean, I... I would prefer, obviously, that the body go ahead and pass this so we have the option so that we aren't unnecessarily delayed. And then we can engage in those conversations for sure. Now, anything that we discuss, I'd want to come back and discuss. Because at that point, we potentially would be a party. I'd want to discuss it in executive session. But I guess the body could decide to delay it or they could decide to just not pass it. All right.

We have two people signed up for Council Member Valdivia.

Just one more thing in that. And we have no idea of a price tag. So we're in a deficit. So there you go. All right.

First, I will call up Joseph Zechrupnik. Welcome. Welcome, Chairman.

City council members, thank you for allowing me to speak here on behalf of this issue here. I would like to also recognize my tribal council that attended here, Lori Melker, Secretary, Wade Pamami, the Treasurer, Tony Wawiotton, and Rayfield Wawasek as council members there. And I would like to kind of bring us up to what led us to where we're at today. And one of the things that I noticed is that right when you started the meeting, you all pledged allegiance to the United States. And the governing document for the United States is the U.S. Constitution. And I wonder how many have actually read the entire Constitution. that is in there. And I refer to Article 6, what is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. And this Constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuant thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land. I would like to highlight the fact that Potawatomi people, we have the most treaties signed out of any tribal nation in the United States. We have 44 treaties signed. Every one of them had been broken in one form or fashion or another. One of the main ones that forced us to move down here was the Treaty of 1832, Treaty of Chicago. And in that, we ceded 5 million acres of land in the state of Illinois to the US government. 1834, President Jackson passed the Indian Removal Act, and Potawatomi's were rounded up at gunpoint and forced to march out of Illinois, west of the Mississippi, where we eventually ended up in Council Bluffs, Iowa. From there, we signed the treaty, 1846, after our people came down here to Kansas on land that was recently ceded by the Kaw Nation, that became available, and our folks looked at it and said, there are things here that we can live off of. And with that, the sale of the land that we had on the Treaty of Council Bluffs and from the Treaty of Chicago, we bought a 30 by 30 square mile reservation in what is now the state of Kansas, 1846. In 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, where the state of Kansas and Nebraska petitioned the U.S. government for statehood, and in there, in the preamble, it says, "...nothing in this Act contains, shall construe, or impair on the rights of persons or property now pertaining to Indians in said territory, so long as those rights remain unistinguished by treaty." We are still in good standings with the U.S. government. We still have treaty. And so then I refer back to the McGirt case, which held that unless Congress, who has the authority to establish and disestablish reservations, unless there is specific language to disestablish a reservation, that reservation still exists. Even in the city of Topeka's archived maps from 1950, you still have on there the boundaries of the Pottawatomie Reservation west of Gage Boulevard that you still recognize as reservations. So when you're talking about, you know, where the reservation is at, it has always been there. We just chose to ignore it or forget about it. And this is about the nation exercising its civil regulatory authority over its lands. And we were talking about the water that directly affects us because we have supreme rights over those waters. We have the first priority over any water on the ground or in the surface.

Would you like a few more minutes? Yeah, it was four minutes. That was your beep, but I'm happy to give you a couple more minutes.

Okay, and I'll just touch on this because this is important too, and we were talking about water and water rights. 1908, Winter's Doctrine, that held that tribes have supreme rights or priority rights. Before anybody else, they have to serve the tribes because tribes never ceded those rights. 2017, the 7th District Court, Coachella versus Agua Caliente, held that that includes groundwater as well. So the nation intends to exercise its sovereign regulatory authority over the lands that was carved out by treaty that the nation has paid for. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, we have Danielle Twemlow.

I'm a little taken back by what I heard in the presentation of trying to encourage you all to pass this. I'm here to urge you to stop the onslaught of lawsuits that continuously prove the city does not have people nor equity in mind. I quite honestly feel like we've become little clones of Chris Kobach. taking lawsuit after lawsuit with disregard to cost or winnability and absolutely devoid of a lot of value. So instead of addressing the repeated discrimination issues at its core problem, we enter lawsuits and then countersue when we lose, only to lose again. This feels no different. We absolutely do not need to fully embrace the colonizer role. We can acknowledge a wrong has happened and instead collaborate with Potawatomi Nation on an exit strategy should they win, which hopefully they do. This lawsuit will likely take a significant amount of time. There is, as we've heard, already a U.S. Supreme Court precedent from 2020 where Kansas people did win back those boundaries. It was not overtaking everything. It was very specific to what that lawsuit was there for. But acknowledging that that 1846 treaty, where their land was promised forever, was to hold true. So that precedent exists. So for us to seek out jumping into a lawsuit that we have absolutely no idea our budgetary impact, we have absolutely no idea how much it will cost us to pay for outside counsel, and we actually were seeking that out and not asked to participate is even a little crazier to me. This will not be resolved quickly for many reasons. There are a lot of things that need to be sorted out that don't have a precedent. This isn't a fight that we should be standing in. I'm not asking you to stand against the lottery. I'm just asking you to not participate. At the end of the day, engaging, we don't have to engage in holding up historical atrocities. That's below us. This is on the wrong side of history. But instead, we need to begin building a relationship with Prairie Band so we can move forward with dignity and pride and have one less notch in our loss of lawsuits. Thank you.

Thank you. So... this way in here i mean this lawsuit's moving forward whether we're a part of it or not and the outcome of it is going to have an impact on the citizens within the city limits it just is one some intended consequences some unintended consequences i view it as my responsibility as the mayor of the city to look out for the interests of our citizens within our city limits and what the impact of these kinds of lawsuits are going to be long term on those citizens and our city as a whole I can't do that if we don't participate at some level. And I think to Nick's point earlier, being able to participate in part of the lawsuits gives us a seat at the table, gets clarification through this process, whether it's with the courts, whether it's with the tribe, whether it's with the lottery, whoever that may be as this thing moves forward. And so again, we didn't file this lawsuit. but we are now faced with at least having to have some reaction to it so that we can participate in it. And so I'm going to support this tonight because I think we've got to at least be at the table so we can be a part of that conversation. As Nick said, it may get where we're part of that conversation and we're privy to discovery and we get more clarification on what the long-term impacts are, and he comes back and says, Guys can be fine. The courts are going to work this out. We really didn't need to participate too hard. Or it's going to come back and we're going to see things and say, all right, I'm glad we have a seat at the table so that we can have this conversation with everybody involved. And so I think I view that as part of our role is to participate in this process. It's going to move forward with or without us. And so that's tonight while I'll be supportive of it so that we can just be a part of the conversation. Any other questions or comments for staff?

I guess I'm disappointed mostly. I know that there wasn't any outreach on you guys' part to the city or on ours directly. We're all trying to work together on, for the most part, mutual goals. you know, it may be inappropriate to ask Mr. Rupnik to come up and visit a little bit more about what they have in mind and so on. I don't like to have these conversations start in court versus, you know, amongst the parties that really ought to be having the conversation. I'd like to hear a little bit more, but I don't know if that's appropriate.

Yeah, if you'd have a question for him, you can... This isn't public comment, it's the issue.

Just feeling my way into protocol here.

Two years ago, we met with Mayor Padilla at that time. I think it was two years ago. And we explained our claim and the way that we felt our treaty and our sovereign rights were being eroded and that we had every intention of filing this lawsuit or working out a way that would recognize our jurisdiction. That really kind of came to head when we negotiated the compact with the state. We have informed our state partners and our federal partners of our intention, of what we intended to do, and using McGirt and, of course, trying to go back and research everything so that we had a possible chance of winning accounts for the delay. So that's where we're at today.

Could I ask, I mean, what you want from us? I mean, what's your picture of how this ends up?

You know, really this is an issue between the state of Kansas, Prairie Band Pottawatomie Nation, and the federal government. as it stands today. Because some of this is jurisdictional issues. Yes, you're going to be impacted depending on what that outcome is. But this is really between us and the federal government and the state.

I just wanted to say something. I remember you when we talked, I remember you telling me about Mayor Padilla. And I remember telling you that that was unfortunate in that the mayor, and this is my thought of the mayor's obligation, with something of this nature, something that would be considered high level, it should have been translated to the full governing body, that meeting. Now, I've been on council the whole time, but the L was mayor. I don't ever remember this coming up. And so I think that we can strike the narrative because you did reach out. It was just under a different mayor. Is that true?

Different administration, yeah, absolutely.

Yeah, and like I told you, I said that's unfortunate because not only did the information not get transferred over to the full governing body at that time, but that it left you almost at a disadvantage because there was the outreach that occurred. So I'm there. It's there. Thank you.

Council Member Kell. Oh, sorry.

Council Member Kell. I do agree that this is between the tribe, the feds, and the state, but the city is involved in that. McGirt shows that there have been issues in Tulsa where jurisdiction on law enforcement, on other things have been affected. So the city is involved, whether we are involved in the courtroom or not involved, the city within the territory that you say is part of the treaty, we as citizens are involved in that. And that's proof what's happening in Tulsa right now where there is jurisdictional battles and literally on who handles what and so to sit there and say we're not really part of it is kind of saying that we're an afterthought and that's what we're trying to get to the point of where are we fitting into this because we don't want to be an afterthought and just have whatever happened happen. We want to look at it and say how can we work together and not sit there and say, well, it's just between the states, the feds, and you guys are afterwards.

No, no, no. And maybe I kind of mischose my words on that, you know. And when we were, I thought we were very upfront about what our stance was. You know, I can't apologize for, you know, information not being passed down. But... I know that we have been in consultation with Department of Justice. Yes, initially there were some challenges, but the Department of Justice has worked with the city of Tulsa tribal officers where they started coming up with a good framework on those agreements that exist between the tribe, the city and county and what other jurisdictions there are. that are impacted by that. So it's not that we're recreating the wheel. We're going to use those models that are already in existence, and hopefully we can build something better.

Thank you, sir. Are there any other comments or questions on this? I'm going to make a motion to approve. Second from Councilmember Kell. Are there any other comments or questions before we take a vote? Oh, I'm sorry.

If you wouldn't mind, sir, thank you. I was just talking with the city attorney. I mean, just because this passes this evening doesn't mean that we necessarily have to hire anybody. This basically gives us indication that we will have those discussions and we can't have those discussions with the nation. I mean, and again, depending upon those conversations, that would probably determine which path we went. This doesn't mean that we're necessarily just going to hire outside counsel. And again, to the city attorney's point, I mean, after those initial indications, we can come back and share with the governing body and executive session what our intent is to move forward. So I just want to put that out there. Thank you, Mayor.

All right. If there's nothing else, then I will ask the clerk to take a vote, please.

Okay, we have eight yes with council members Valdivia, Akula, and Bradbury voting no. The motion carries.

With that, we will move on to action item 5E, city clerk.

E is discussion with possible action of an amendment to the governing body rules and procedures to establish a committee of the whole.

City manager. City manager.

Thank you. Mayor and members of the governing body, this item is being presented this evening based upon governing body discussions to utilize the committee as a whole to set as a single committee for informal discussion, preliminary review, or to make recommendations for a formal vote of the governing body. There is no staff recommendation for this item. I'll open it up to any questions or discussion.

Yeah, I'll just give you a quick rundown. So this has been brought up at some previous meetings, this specifically to help us as we walk through issues related to data centers and related pieces of that. And the idea is so that instead of sending these things to either creating a new committee or creating a subcommittee, it also, as committee to hold, gives flexibility to do formats where you can bring folks in and have presentations and questions with also the public understanding that For better or worse, there won't be a decision right away. So there's not that fear of, oh, no, is this an action item tonight? There can be recommendations from the committee whole, then back to the actual governing body, which I know is the same people. But that way, there's an extra layer of conversation, transparency, presentation. This has been used historically in Topeka for some of these larger issues. I will address why it's set up the way it is, as opposed to it being me, the chair. If you notice, it's the nine members of the council, and then I am an ex officio with the deputy mayor leading that. That was actually established many years ago, I think primarily by Mayor Button. While I don't foresee anything, but of course I don't know that, there are certain things I don't get a vote on because I get a veto on. And so the idea was not to let the mayor or have the idea or concept or even perception that the mayor is trying to bottle something up and then it gets to the government because he really didn't like it and he wants to veto it. It gives the council the ability to control that conversation and that discussion and without the perception of the mayor sort of wanting to muck things up since you could pass something or recommend something that maybe I have veto authority over. So it's just an extra step to sort of clean that up. And I thought that was a good idea and made a lot of sense and kept it a little cleaner. So that's sort of how we got to this point. It was something that the council expressed an interest in to deal with this issue. That's why it's structured that way. Once it's done, then when we have conversations as it relates to data centers or if we want to do special meetings, it can be referred to as the Committee of the Whole so that everybody can actively participate. So that's what I know. I don't know if there's questions or comments. Council Member Hiller.

I had shared with you and I think City Attorney right away when this came up that I didn't think we needed it. All we have to do is have a council meeting and just You know, if you feel that that will help us from jumping into a discussion of something into a vote, okay. But we met as the Committee of the Whole as needed. We did that for budget meetings, for instance, for CIP and budget considerations mostly that I remember. I mean, I was active at City Hall even before. But when we changed the form of government, 20 years ago, the purpose was that the, well, whatever it was, 15 years ago, was that the mayors at the time wanted to be part of the council instead of having council and mayor, was that we were to be one governing body. And that was the vote that changed the form of government, I guess, 16 years ago, whatever it was. So this is kind of a reversal back. We can call a meeting and call it for discussion only. We can't control whether there's public comment or not. So I think it's not necessary if people think it's just a construct that would help us. Okay, but I don't think it's necessary.

Council Member Ortiz.

Well, I brought it up because of the data center and some of the things that we're starting to encounter. And so what I'm tired of hearing is some people got the information and some people didn't. This is a way that everybody can be at the table and everybody could hear the same information. And staff's going to give us all the same information. And we can have our assistants keep track of the information that we get. We have some people on Zoom. You got some people that don't come. So this is a way that everybody, whatever information, we can compile them in a pile. And that way there's no worries if it's confidential. If it's not, it's presented to the committee as a whole. And I think it's very important that we do that, you know. Because I'm tired of hearing, you know, well, there's no transparency or we want transparency. But yet and still, we don't have that. We don't always have everybody being transparent. So this is a way that we can kind of keep tabs on that. I feel it's needed at this particular time. That's why I asked for it. Thank you.

Council Member Valdivia Alcala.

Thank you. I'm kind of both ways, like. You know, there's so much information flying around about all of this, and after listening to the folks that are going to be most impacted, they do believe that there's a lack of transparency, and they have every right to believe that. So, whatever. As far as when it comes to this governing body, I still think that we're going to run into pockets where some of us are going to... Not so much like no more, but because some of us are going to decide to go out to these community meetings, and some of us are going to decide maybe to go to one and not to the other, where information keeps circulating that they are aware of, because these folks are doing some serious research with CORA. And they're looking across entities and across governments. I mean, serious. So, I mean, I think that there's a certain sense of naivete to think that reestablishing this, but I do think it has its good points, is going to bring us all on par. Because there is just so much information floating out there. And it's still moving quick, even with the moratorium. So I mean, I think that if it can help us all talk as one, that will be beneficial. If maybe some council people are going to more meetings than other council people are, I would hope that there would be the openness to listen to what is being said at those meetings with the public, et cetera. I can understand both ways of it, but the transparency thing, I think, is always going to be a challenge, unfortunately. Thank you.

Council Member Hiller.

Thank you. I totally agree with exactly why you brought it up, and I appreciate the conversation. I, too, have been talking to the city manager, the mayor some, about how fractured communication has been. The one-on-one idea, for instance, is a nice idea, but I don't need somebody telling somebody else what my opinion is on something and having information shared one at a time. And even to the point of our committees, I think we've gone too far with things going to committee instead of just being discussed by the council as a body. We're duplicating time. We're stretched. We're all over the place. None of us have enough time to go to all those meetings anymore, and we're supposed to be very part-time. And I learn so much when it's just a council discussion amongst the body itself and or when there's public comment. And so I feel like I can't even chase down some of the issues. And so I really do believe that as much as we can, we should be discussing issues publicly and with everybody here at the same time so we don't have to have 10 conversations about it when one meeting would do. So with that, I really support the concept of also, and we've We've had a lot of issues come up lately. Again, city manager and I have probably talked as much as possible or more than others, but I want it to be informed when we do get together so we're not just thrown in and starting to cut a third base on an issue when we need it back up and get the fundamentals. And I really look at staff to be able to see that coming and provide that for us so that we can have focused and really quality time on the issues when they come before us. instead of starting again down the road and then having to back up. So don't make my comments, don't misunderstand. I really do want us meeting as a committee of the whole. I'm just not sure we needed to create the structure to do it. I can go either way if people feel that would be helpful, but I want us to be looking at that bigger picture at the same time. Thank you.

All right, we have a motion to approve from Council Member Ortiz and a second from Council Member Bradbury. If there's no other comments or questions, I would ask the clerk to take the vote.

Okay, we have 10 yes. The motion carries.

All right, Council Member Ortiz.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Now that that's out of the way, I would like to refer the data centers to the committee as a whole for study, discussion, and development of recommendations related to that matter. Effective August 20, 26. All right.

So the motion is to, moving forward, refer these issues to the committee as a whole for discussion. So we can make that motion so staff knows and council knows.

I have a question.

Yes.

Does that mean we have to have an extra meeting? Probably.

Maybe on some of the issues.

So they're just doing it in a council meeting? Probably. Just checking.

All right. So we have a motion to approve or a motion from Council Member Ortiz, and there will actually be a second from Council Member Bradbury. Council Member Miller.

Just as a question, do you see those meetings happening during the day or the evening?

That would be up to you folks to coordinate with the Deputy Mayor now. Not to put it on her, but.

Okay.

Yeah. And keep in mind, we have short agendas. You can incorporate those on the same night that we. I mean, it stops you from doing those meetings. If you know it's going to be a quick one. the same night we have a council meeting, so. Okay. Flexibility to do that. Okay.

Thank you very much.

All right. Take the vote, please.

Okay, we have nine yes with Councilmember Hiller voting no that motion carries.

All right, we will move on to action item 5F, city clerk.

F is a resolution introduced by city manager Dr. Robert Perez amending the public hearing date to consider adopting a budget for the Topeka Metro Transit Authority, TMTA, that exceeds the revenue mutual rate.

All right, City Manager. Thank you. Members of the Governing Body, in preparation for this item, Josh McInerney, Deputy Director of Budget and Finance, shared with you that the Governing Body's action on July 14, 2026, established the Speak of Metro Transit Authority's Revenue Neutral Rate, or R&R, public hearing on September 1, 2026. Inadvertently, the hearing notice mailed by Sean Kine Inadvertently, the hearing notice mailed by Shawnee County listed August 25th, 2026 as the hearing date. Given that the mail notices indicate TMTA's public hearing is on August 25th, this item, for which I recommend approval, would formally amend the hearing date from September 1st, 2026 to August 25th, 2026. Please note that approval of this item will not affect the R&R process for TMTA. With that, I'll stand for any questions you may have.

Questions or comments for City Manager? If not, the motion is always in order. We have a motion to approve from Councilmember Hiller and a second from Councilmember McGee. If there's no other comments or questions, I would ask the clerk to take a vote, please.

Okay, we have nine yes with Councilmember Miller voting no. The motion carries.

All right. With that, we move on to non-action items. Non-action item A. City Clerk.

A is discussion of an ordinance introduced by City Manager Dr. Robert Perez establishing utility rates for 2027 through 2030, amending to PICA Municipal Code Sections 130520 through 060, and repealing original sections.

City Manager. Thank you. Mayor and members of the governing body, as a refresher, when we started this discussion on June 2nd, 2026, 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 again this evening include a higher rate increase on our commercial industrial customers who currently pay a lower per unit cost than residential customers. We've also discussed proposed adjustments to the base charge, which we can discuss this evening. As discussed during our July 21st council meeting, I shared that we intend to take any council feedback this evening for any final fee schedule adjustments before coming back to council for action next week. With that, I will ask that Sylvia Davis, Director of Utilities, and Nicole Mallott, Deputy Director of Utilities, lead us through this discussion. Thank you.

All right. Good evening, governing body. So I'd like to start, first of all, I only have a few slides, and they are all previous slides from earlier discussions, so no new data on the screen. However, I'd like to start by sharing that we've all heard an outcry of community concerns about water, wastewater, and stormwater safety and service impacts from potential data center developments. You guys have heard that. Many, many comments. Our utility rate process started long before any of those data center discussions, and the concerns that have been expressed, including the safety and adequacy of our infrastructure, are what our department worries about every day. Our mission statement reads, from river to river, we manage water, protecting the health and safety of our community. So that's our focus, that's our priority, and that's why we continue to discuss utility rates and supporting those efforts. Our team is tasked with operating and maintaining this community's water, wastewater, and stormwater systems, a total of $6.3 billion worth of infrastructure on a 24-hour basis. Our current utility rates support a $120 million operating budget and an approved $40.6 million capital budget. As we've tried to stress, many of Topeka's assets are at or beyond their useful life and have been plagued by deferred maintenance and historic underfunding. We can't afford to ignore this or downplay this situation, and we need an increased investment in our assets. So taking feedback from the community, our team, and this governing body, we've had one main goal as we've worked towards the proposal that you all have, and that was to keep residential rate impacts as low as possible while increasing our capital investment. Our proposal, which we presented to you on June 16th, reflects an additional $148 million capital investment increase over the next four years. To support this effort and address the desire to reduce impacts to residential customers, we took a stair-step approach to increasing rates for commercial and industrial, industrial 2, and multi-family customers. Additionally, we increased multipliers to our wholesale and irrigation customers and maintain the current 175% outside city multiplier rate. This does not include any increases to base charges on less than two inch meters, but it does increase volume charges. This means 99.5% of our residential customers and 76% of our commercial customers will not see a base rate change on their monthly bills. While the proposed rate package doesn't solve all of our existing challenges, it does show a commitment to our community through improved replacement levels by bringing over $260 million worth of improvements over the next four years. This gives us the ability to address immediate infrastructure needs, support other infrastructure improvements like street projects, and advances efforts towards ideal rehab and replacement schedules while allowing us to maintain our day's cash on hand and required debt service coverage. The proposed rate increase that we presented to you meets that one main goal, increasing investment for just over, I'm a little ahead of myself or behind, I guess. We're doing that for just over a $3 increase on an average customer bill in year one, 2027, and less than $2 in years two, three, and four. That's shown on the bottom chart there. And then the top one reflects the less than $1 per month annually for our lowest users, our lowest volume users as a residential customer. However, it's important to understand that there's a trade-off with this approach. Low residential impacts come at the cost of our largest users who have historically benefited from a lower consumption rate. We've been discussing potential increases with our industrial partners, and I'd be remiss if I didn't share their concerns on the impact of these increases and how those will impact their operations. They've also stressed the importance of known steady rates moving forward. I wanted to make sure I share that and communicate that with you all. With that being said, we've proposed adopting this multi-year rate adjustment that provides stable predicting funding for our customers and advances our goal of a responsible, financially viable utility that supports the needs of our community over the next four years. And with that, I'll open it for questions. I appreciate that there's been a lot of information shared with you over various memos, requests for information. So if there's any clarity needed, we're here to help.

Questions or comments? I guess my first request would be, could you make sure you send us all the actual, I know this is a piece of it, but this isn't the total proposal, right? This page.

On June 16th, you all received a draft ordinance, a proposed ordinance that has all of the potential changes that we recommended.

Right. Can you resend that to us?

I will absolutely resend that, yes.

That's two months ago. It would be nice to make sure there are no changes or refresh.

Yep, absolutely.

Council Member Heller.

I tried to collect what I had. The stuff I have is dated July 13th. We got something that then... Most all of this is, is it a draft ordinance? What's that?

Is it a draft ordinance?

Well, there's a draft ordinance with lots of pages and then there were some documents that showed what the differences might be if we went ahead and, and got rid of the charging, the base rate to people who didn't have active accounts and it, and I don't know which one of those is in here.

Okay. So to, to be clear, um, The ordinance that you have that is dated July 13. No, July 13. June 16 is what we originally proposed to you all. The July 13 document you have reflects what that might look like if somebody amended the proposal to not assess base charges to inactive customers. We've just pre-prepared that. for your consideration if somebody wanted to amend that. So it's a little confusing, but I also didn't want to come to you and say we've proposed something different without having everybody's proposed changes. So the original proposal that this data reflects is on that June 16th. And I'll resend that to you all so you have that at the top of your emails to consider.

Because there was also an A and B in that packet, correct? Essentially, I don't know if we called it A, but I mean there was... There was the one proposal that leaned a little more into, I'm simplifying, leaned a little more into the residential piece, and then there was a second proposal that leaned a little more into the commercial piece after the feedback that was like, hey, we're okay with leaning a little more, right? And I think that's where some of the confusion is, is I think we want to be very clear about what specifically you are putting in front of us to vote on. I'm not sure that clarity exists at this moment.

Very, very fair points. So we have looked at those numbers and we discussed that data in various meetings. So you have seen a lot of information as we tried to whittle down the direction you all would like us to take. The official proposed ordinance was on June 16th and it looks like the Again, I'll resend it to you so you have it. But it is just the actual ordinance. So the rest of the documentation is supporting data and impacts. But the actual proposal, again, we'll make sure that you have that so you can see it. trying to think ahead and make it easier on everybody, thinking based on previous conversations that one change that several of you might all desire is that change to stop assessing base charges for inactive customers. That's why we went ahead and pre-drafted in case someone wants to make that amendment. You don't have to wait additional time. You have the rate numbers that would be the new numbers if that were to move forward. So that's why there's a little confusion because no one has officially asked for any changes to that proposed ordinance.

Which is our recommended ordinance, our staff recommendation, Mayor?

Right, but the other tough thing is by not re-including it in tonight's agenda packet, it wasn't in mine. Okay, it was not in mine.

Yeah, it's the June 16th. It's not. Yeah, June 16th, that proposed utility rates ordinance is the first item attached.

Yeah, but it's not in mine.

I had the one, if I still have the floor, sort of, from you by email, and I don't remember whether it went to everybody or not.

No, you had asked that question. Yes, I had.

But I thought it was, you know, not just me. I guess, I mean, moving this, because I had questions, you really weighted what you put in that one to... toward the high end to the industrial users further, if I recall correctly. And so maybe, depending on what the will of the body is, we ought to have, there was enough discussion about getting rid of that base charge. Hearing a little more from you, perhaps, about how many users really had a problem with that or not. might help us, but maybe we need to see both of them and decide which one we want to vote on if your recommendation is to go with the one of the 16. Just a thought.

I'm happy to make sure that everybody has a copy of both. You will see in that second enacted the change. We call it whatever you want. Readiness to serve has been referred a number of times. But with that second option, the numbers change not just for industrial, but those The amount that would be lost in revenue by not charging inactive customers, those base charges were applied across the board to everybody. To those original increases that were proposed.

My thought would be if everybody can see that, then we can see how you ran it. Then if people want to take either the one from June or... or that alternate and push some stuff around. We didn't arrive tonight with enough clarity to have the feedback for you, I'm afraid. But it would help us. Absolutely. So that would be my request to give us all the full packet of each. Help us with any comments on the differences or any reasons why the staff, if the staff particularly favors one of them, why.

Um, and in the last memo that you all received, while that updated ordinance may not have been in there, the impacts are, so you do have two sets of impacts, one for one proposal and one for the other, just so you can see, um, because I know that it was expressed that it was helpful, um, to see the impact of those.

Some of these don't, don't have dates on them. or don't say which ordinance they go with so that if you're trying to collect everything, you begin to doubt what you have.

Sure. And I can help anybody go through that because we did absolutely try to make sure that there's notes at the bottom of those to make sure that we're reflecting what option that was. But absolutely, I want to make sure that everybody is crystal clear on what they're voting on there.

Thank you.

Any other comments or questions? I want to encourage the governing body to think really hard over the next week for our next meeting. And if you have changes, adjustments, amendments, so that we can get to some sort of definitive conclusion, whether that's we do nothing or we do something and what that something looks like, but so that this doesn't go until December maybe. So we can at least keep the conversation moving forward so that staff has a little bit more concrete direction and can give us, I know this is their final recommendation, but that means it's now up to us to take that recommendation and make those adjustments. So there's your homework from your mayor for the next week. Please take a hard look at this and try to come up with some actual suggested changes you want the body to discuss next week. That would be very helpful to staff. Any other comments or questions? Oh, that's right. I'm very sorry, Danielle. Apologies. I covered my paperwork with other paperwork. It's too much paperwork.

Thank you. So I am disappointed to hear then that June is the official recommendation. So we're very clear that we need more money for our water system, yet we have not been shown what this particular charge is the fairest or most cost effective or most equitable way to collect it. Provided many suggestions on different toolkits that have equitable rate and utility system designs. And we really need to be looking at who is really benefiting and what is being placed as a financial risk and who that impacts. So we should be asking the key question of whether this policy makes the underlying system more resilient. Does this really just generate revenue? That is not the same question. The city can increase revenue and become less resilient. If higher fixed charges result in more delinquent accounts, more payment plans, more collection activity, more liens, more administrative costs, more housing instability, This is not solving any financial problem for our city. It simply moves the problem downstream or kicking the can as we say over and over again. A rate structure that makes the utility look financially healthier while making households financially weaker is not sustainability. When we say that we're reducing residential impact, it just simply means that residential customers pay less of the increase. It doesn't really create an equitable system. That would mean customers with the least ability to pay are protected from disproportionate financial harm, while customers and users with greater ability to absorb costs contribute appropriately. There's been no income-based analysis shown in the presentations. An additional problem is that meter size is being used as a proxy for cost without demonstrating that the resulting charges reflect the customer's actual demand on the system. So the city's definition of residential impact is primarily customer class-based, not economic equity-based. So we have a major gap there. But before asking residents for another dollar, we need to be seeing where the previous dollars have gone. Before increasing these charges, what did it actually fix? we have an obligation to show what these revenues, what the debt loans, what other financial resources have already been provided, what they went to, and what they actually fixed. And that it's not just a simple profitable system, that we need to be able to demonstrate that we're using this fiscally responsibly. Residents have already absorbed years of compounding increases, and now we're being asked to approve another fundamental change to the rate structure. At what point do we stop asking how much more can we charge and start asking what happened to the money we already charged? So before we approve another mechanism for taking money from residents, I believe the council should demand a complete accounting. Show us the money. Show us every major source of utility revenue. Show us the debt. Show us the loans. Show us what projects they financed. Show us what was completed. Show us what wasn't. Show us the infrastructure replacement schedule. Show us where the money went. And most importantly, show us what previous rate increases accomplished. Because accountability cannot begin every time we need another rate increase. accountability has to come before the next one. Thank you.

Thank you, Daniel. All right. If there's any other comments or questions, we will move on to non-action item B. City Clerk.

B is discussion on the 2027 operating budget.

City Manager.

Thank you. Mayor and members of the governing body, as we presented the FY2027 proposed budget to City Council on July 14th, this evening we will discuss proposed budget departmental overviews for the Topeka Fire Department, Topeka Police Department, Property Maintenance Unit, Municipal Courts, and Public Works. This evening is highlighted as a future policy consideration during the July 14th proposed budget overview. During the police departmental budget overview, we will discuss our current school resource officer or SRO contract with Topeka Public Schools. For operational and budget purposes that we will detail this evening, my planned path forward is to let our current SRO and TCAL contracts expire in June 2027. My planned path on this contract transition is based upon a few factors to include. One, Topeka Public Schools does have its own police department. The funds that Topeka Public Schools budgets can be used to increase their police officer positions to backfill the SROs that are currently only in TPS's middle schools. Two, there are models that can utilize off-duty officers for SROs. I wish she was here, but Assistant City Manager Moore was actually an SRO through this model, and this could be an option for Topeka Public Schools. And lastly, we have communicated with Superintendent Dr. Anderson that this transition would not mean the Topeka Police Department would no longer support Topeka Public Schools' public safety mission. For instance, Chief Vallejo has committed to provide training to TPS's officers, similar to the curriculum found in the Topeka Police Department's Police Academy, and to continue crime intelligence communication between TPS and TPD officers. With that, I'll now turn this over to the team to lead us through the discussions. Gentlemen.

Thanks, city manager. Good evening, governing body. Tonight, we're here to talk about the 27 operating budget. We'll go ahead and start off with the fire department. Chief Longstaff's here as well for any operational questions. Starting off, the fire department has a total operating budget of just over $38 million. The largest portion of that being personnel to the tune of about 93%. It's just over $35 million. This year, to help reduce expenses, There has been a number of positions that were frozen or unfunded. In 26, there were seven firefighters and a battalion chief. In 27, we are looking to expand that to a total of 10 firefighters and a division chief of training. That position will be coming vacant. That is not 10 additional positions. That is a total of 10. So three more than in 26. And then just as a reminder, the unions did receive a 4% increase with this most recent contract negotiation that was 25 through 2027. Outside of personnel, their largest expenses are mostly fleet related. Operationally, the fleet transfer, their portion based on usage of the fleet department to the tune of about $800,000. Then they have their fleet replacement fund. That would be for the non... Non-fire trucks. Yeah, so the chief's trucks, battalion chiefs, all those more personal vehicles. That's the tune of about $256,000 a year. Another major expense, obviously, when you have that many vehicles is fuel. That's about $220,000. And then along with that, you have motor vehicle supplies. That line item is for outside repairs. So when our fleet department is unable to repair a fire truck per se, then that truck goes to Hoyts or another vendor for repair. So that's what that line item is for. And then the final one is the repairs that fleet does. So oil filters. things of that nature that fleet does in-house. That is the fire department in a nutshell. I'll stand for any questions on the fire department. Questions from the governing body?

No? Easy. What? All right. I guess that was it.

Nice and simple. Next up, we have the police department, which also includes the property maintenance unit. Similarly, to the fire department, there. Take it. We got this.

I have with me Gretchen O'Donovan, my business manager. First of all, good evening. Just the overview of the Police Department 2027. Total complete budget, about $53,788. About 88% is what personnel cost in my budget. We've had some FTE reductions since 2024 to the present. You can see the count to your right from 2024 to 2027. We have to account for union increases. When I got here, they received a 17% raise in 2025 and 5% this year and 5% next year. So there's a little bit of a salary increase. I'll talk about this a little bit later, but we're looking at 20 officer positions frozen for 2027 as well. Our largest non-personnel costs for fiscal year 27 Vehicles at 953,521. Body worn cameras a little over 855,000. Fleet internal service fees at 665 and some change. And of course, fuels cost to run this 24-7 at about 632,370. And our fifth largest expense is software licenses and maintenance fees for police department specific technology. The personnel costs are to your right, or 2026 for just personnel, 46,739,000 with a budget projected of 47,253. I have three slides that I'm going to talk about tonight, and then I'll turn over the fourth slide to Director Chardin. Is there any questions on this slide before I move to the next one?

Yeah, I've got one clarification because I think it's an important one based on some conversations I've had with the public and with officers. Those 20 positions, and I get the frustration, but they are being frozen. They are not being eliminated, correct? That's correct. Okay. I think that's a key distinction at least so that if dollars become available, we want to fill those we can as opposed to them being off the books forever. So thank you for clarifying that in a public meeting so people can say, okay. So that was my question. Anyone else have any questions on this slide?

All right. Go for it. All right. I'll talk a little bit more about the frozen and a little bit of a chronology since I've taken the helm. The next slide. So just a lot of information that I think the community needs to be aware of the exact information when it comes to 501 school resource officers in our contracts with them. So I want to take this opportunity to Talking to community members and getting emails, some people have half the information. Some people are under the misunderstanding that all SROs belong to the TPD and they're not aware that they already have SROs. So I just wanted to clear up some The current personnel cost, or at least the funding split, for the SRO and the TCALC, the TCALC officer that teaches criminal justice at the TCALC Center, is approximately $74.26. So every dollar that we spend in personnel and costs, we get reimbursed about a quarter back, if you want to look at it that simply. The SRO contract runs, began, at least this version of it, from July 1st of 24 to June 30th of next year. That's currently a $250,000 per year contract for six police officers and one sergeant to guard the middle schools, just the middle schools. I understand that 501 has 16 of their own police officers that guard other schools. The TCAL contract ends almost roughly about the same time, or the next expiration is roughly about a couple days before the SRO contract. Currently, that stands at about a $50,000 contract for one police officer. And to your right, the 2026 contract. This budget outlined here is $839,000 just for, remind me, is that just for personnel costs?

That's for our share of it.

Our share of it, okay. And $300,000 is for a 501 if you include both contracts, $250,000 and $50,000. And the projected personnel costs are to the bottom right. There are some questions as to my stance and my recommendation on the continuance of the contract. And I have given this a lot of thought. I've talked to a lot of you. Uh, we've been having these conversations back and forth since I got here. Uh, my responsibility to all of you is to, is to be able to look ahead and give you honest decisions and make tough decisions when those decisions are needed. I promise to do that and speak true. So as going forward, I've stated publicly and I've stated in meetings that I am recommending that we let the contracts expire next year upon their natural expiration. And I've continued to make that recommendation to the city manager. With that, I have to also give maybe some more rationale so people understand why I made this recommendation, this decision. There's staffing realities that we're facing. Authorized staffing has been declined. Yes, we're frozen, but I don't know when that unfreezing realistically happens and we get back to where we were. When I got here, we were free to hire 300 police officers. Within a few months, we were capped to 295. Our authorized staffing was lowered to 295. And shortly that, we were frozen 10 positions to 285. In 2027, we're going to continue those frozen and go to 20 positions to 275. Now, for 2028, I've been asked to model what a 5% and a 10% reduction in personnel cost looks like. I don't have any fat to give, so that looks like anywhere between, if you're thinking 5% and 10%, 20-ish police officers to 50-ish. including a few civilian staff. So I have a responsibility to look ahead and give you that information and make the best decision that you pay me for and plan for the future of TPD. What would happen in a worst-case scenario? I hope it doesn't happen, but this is what we're looking at if I'm looking at staff reductions, looking at layoffs like we talked about, removing community police officers. I know many of you engage with them, and I need to keep them, but they could be impacted. Motorcycle officers, I recently expanded that unit. I may have to reconsider that if certain criteria or certain issues meet in the future. My PACT officers who are combating violent crime and doing a fantastic job of doing what they do, might have to reconsider that. Federal task force officers, I might lose liaisons with federal task force and with that comes using some of their resources as well. And civilian support persons are all on the table if I model 5 and 10%. This recommendation is more than just two contracts. I support school resource officers. I support 501. This recommendation is not a criticism of either one. It's about responsible leadership. As chief, my responsibility is not only to manage today's police department, it's to prepare for tomorrow's police department. Responsible leaders plan before circumstances force difficult decisions. I believe 501 is ready. They already have 16 sworn positions. They have established supervision. They have a hiring process. And they have an operational infrastructure all their own. They're well positioned to continue building their own police department. I'm aware of a counteroffer with regards to the SRO contract. Recently, there was a counteroffer raising it from the proposal from $250,000 to $390,000. And I sincerely appreciate that. But this is more than just about money. It's about strategic planning, operational sustainability, governance, span of control, and deployment of limited resources as we face harrowing questions throughout the next couple of years. Why now? Because right now, I think it's fair to give 501 the time to recruit, budget, hire, train, prepare, rather than reacting later if in 2028 or in the near future staffing reductions occur. And I have to do that through some emergency means. What continues? Our partnership won't end. It will be tighter than ever. We'll continue providing emergency response, major investigations, threat assessments, campus security assessments, active shooter training, de-escalation training, tabletop exercises, intelligence sharing, access to our police athletic league, specialized unit access and security consultation. All those things I've offered up and we will help them move forward with the best training available that I can offer. I ultimately do not want to view this as ending a partnership. I view it as evolving a partnership. Responsible leaders don't wait until circumstances force change. They recognize emerging realities. They communicate them honestly. They provide their partners time to prepare successfully. I believe this recommendation strengthens both organizations, gives USD 501 time to continue building their own police department, returns municipal police officers to city policing responsibilities, preserves our partnership, and better positions both organizations for the future. Based on my responsibility as Chief of Police and after careful evaluation of our staffing, operational demands, and long-term strategic needs, I believe the best path forward is to honor these agreements through their existing terms, assist USD 501 in preparing for a successful transition, and position both organizations to focus on their core public safety missions I believe this recommendation strengthens the Topeka Police Department, strengthens 501's Police Department, preserves our partnership, and best serves the citizens of Topeka. Thank you. I'll take questions on this slide.

First of all, hold on, Chief. I'm going to make a motion to suspend our rules so that we can exceed our 10 o'clock time, which is going to happen this evening. So let's just get that out of the way now. Second from Council Member Kelp. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say nay. Nay. All right. One nay from Council Member Ortiz. All right. With that, now, Council Member Kelp.

Please don't take this as me attacking you personally or anything like that. We've had several discussions about this and I feel since the beginning you've kind of wanted to get the officers back on the street. I feel that Chief Cochran wants to have more officers in the schools and I don't see the benefit of that. They've even sat there in 501 and said they pretty much have very little jurisdiction to do very much at all. So now And you talk about putting officers back on the street. Well, I look at it as now how many times are we going to have to go to the schools and not just the middle schools? Because they do serve other schools that are close by, especially like when you get a Jardine situation where you have Jardine Middle, Jardine Elementary. They're bouncing back and forth. So how many officers are we going to send per call? Because I know when they go to Walmart, they go to Target, they go to the mall, you have two, three, four, five cars sometimes going there. So now we're putting that many officers at that school for that incident. How many incidents does that SRO prevent from having to have the other officers called in? So that's where I'm running into issues. I've seen it firsthand how great these officers are with these students and how it projects long term for those students. I'm trying to find a polite way to say it when it comes to my personal interactions while I used to work in 501. SROs at the high school pretty much sat in a TV room and watched cameras. And how does that help those students? By taking these SROs out and now just putting some students, I get the T-Cal. We can let that go, things like that. I am very adamant that we need those, you know, even if we figure out a way to rotate them around, something like that, go back to 501 and say we need at least a 50-50 split. But I see this having more long-term ramifications, negative ramifications than anything positive out there. And a lot of these, I mean, to be honest, a lot of those ones that are 501 are retirees. They're sitting back, relaxing. They're don't have that long-term mentality we have some great sros that are tpd that have a long-term mentality and a few of them straight up said they're gonna they're gonna leave the force if this program gets shut down so we're gonna lose some great officers regardless if they're in the classroom or if we they get yanked they're moving on they're going to go to another another department where they can continue to do this And I see nothing but negative impacts, a majority of negative impacts on the city versus the positives that having these SROs in the schools long term will do. Again, I'm sorry if you take it. I know we've had discussions about this, and I know I sound like a broken record with you, sir, and I respect what you do, and this is nothing personal. I believe that you do an amazing job, but I think this is a bad choice long term.

Oh, thank you for the input, and I will take it personally. That's part of my position here. First of all, I just want to clarify, are there any TPS 501 officers watching or listening? I believe in you and your ability to guard our schools. That's why I'm also making this recommendation. And if there is a concern over training, I just listed about, oh, gosh, I don't know how many things that I – I'm opening up my training academy. I'm even offering to put them in my future 501 hires in my recruit class. It's just a matter of what their training director, what their police department needs. And those things, I think we can work out director to director. But I believe in the school resource officers that are there, if you're listening.

How much is that going to cost us? Are they going to be paying for that, or are we going to be putting the bill on that? Because that's, you know... Chris Cross, I mean, because if they're saying they're just going to send their guys and girls over to train and do all this and we're just going to, okay, you know, cool, then we're losing money and, you know, it's not washing out.

The ask was from me as chief, what can we do to compromise? That's my compromise. I'm offering the best training that they could receive to supplement that. That's if, of course, the director wishes to receive that training and and an untold amount of resources available for them as a partnership. So I'm kind of meeting them. I think I'm fulfilling the compromise request quite well. It just can't look like Topeka SROs and middle schools. They have a hiring mechanism in place. You know what they do right now when one of their officers leaves or or is no longer employed, they hire another one. So that's all I'm asking is use the resources they use for this current contract and take over. We'll train them. We'll transition them. Whatever they think they need to help that transition, we're there. I think this partnership actually strengthens. What I'm proposing actually strengthens that partnership. Situations evolve. I've just read to you what I've been asked to model over the next couple of years. And if I'm sending people home and saying, you can't work here anymore, I think it'd be irresponsible of me to have my officers contracted or resourced out when other people are being asked to come home. But thank you.

Council Member Valdivia Alcala.

Thank you, Mayor. I think You know, Chief and City Manager, that I really support how you both have held the line on this, like truly. With all of the pressure, because to me, Like partnerships, I keep talking about partnerships. But when I went to that meeting with Anderson and some principals, I think I told you this. She was talking all about the importance of partnerships and communications, et cetera. And then when I asked her, does the chief know that you are having separate meetings with council people, it was a no. But she was going to let you know. That's not partnerships. What this has felt like to me has been the hard press. What this has felt like to me has even gone to the level of disrespect. I'm just going to be blunt. That's how I saw it. I think I have not been for SROs in schools for a number of reasons for a lot of years. And I know I'm not a teacher. My sister is a teacher. have had kids, grandkids in the public schools. I'm sure that there's a lot of experts out there that know way more than I. But the studies show that things like restorative justice services and more mental health services, more social workers in the schools are actually what can make a difference. Rather than a less progressive in my mind, a less progressive way of thinking that we always have to have TPD in there. When I brought up how many, she calls them, and her people call them, her principals and stuff, campus security, and how the jurisdiction issue remained the issue, the jurisdiction issue. They can't get, they can't do what the SROs do with having you know, going out in the community. Well, if we had more restorative justice programs other than, you know, and I'm not saying Topeka Center for Peace and Justice doesn't do good things. They do. I think they're probably overwhelmed at this point. But we need to start, in my opinion, looking at a larger way to deal with these issues otherwise, other than law enforcement. When I brought up the suggestions about training of her campus police within the jurisdictional realm that they had, it kind of fell flat because the excuse was made that the hires that they had in that area were a lot of retirees from Topeka PD and they just weren't able to hire at that level for campus security what they wanted. Well, that's not, I'm not meaning to sound cold, but then do better at your hiring or develop something different. I also believe you when you say that the partnership is not gone. It is being enhanced. And I just think that the agreement I have too with you, and we don't always agree. I mean, definitely we don't always agree, but the agreement with it, it be money, you know, and the emails kept coming, okay, it'll be this, it'll be this, it'll be this. And it is more than about the money. To me, it is a way that you were trying to slowly change up the police department to become a more progressive police force. And honestly, with all the grants that they were talking about that were out there, it could be utilized to start teaching their campus security restorative justice. Because restorative justice is shown to work. It's not something I believe that happens overnight. But if we keep depending on the same systems over and over and over, then What are we really seeing as far as the results? So I definitely support you in this. I understand you said the city manager, it's going to be with the city manager. But I think that you have both. handled it extraordinarily well with being informational, factual, and understanding that there was an onslaught coming to us, the governing body, and that's her right, that's her principal's right, that's 501's right, but there was a part in it that has always left a bad taste in my mouth because it did not feel to me like it was a true partnership. Thank you.

Council Member Miller. Thank you, Mayor. I appreciate the presentation. We have had some discussions on this, and I make myself very clear that I do support the current contract. I understand there has to be some evolution to it. I've stated to Dr. Anderson and the team of 501 as well that I hope that there's a way that they can supply more of the funding in this agreement. I know that that's not the only issue. I'm aware of that. But I do think that's a very big issue. And I wish that there was a way for this contract and for our SROs to stay in the schools for a longer period than what we have right now in 2027. And trying to transition to a point to where we get them out at some point. time in the future. Knowing how some of those grants and those funding opportunities can't be done just in one year and are a bit of a finacle, you would say, for obtaining it on their level. I would hope that we would give them a little longer of a runway to be able to do so. Even though it seems like a year should be more than enough, The way those things go is probably not. But I understand what the ultimate goal is. I respect what the ultimate goal is. I just can't support it as it's stated right now. But I hope there's a way for us to continue to have those conversations and work out an agreement. Thank you.

Council Member Bradbury.

Thank you. Can you talk a little bit about what kind of certification their staff have already in the jurisdiction since it's been brought up?

They're CIPO-certified police officers. Their certification looks just like mine or anybody on my staff. I'm glad you asked that question. I wanted to bring up, somewhere during the conversation, they were reduced to school campus security. I think of something different. These are C-post certified police officers authorized to make arrests, carry weapons, and carry a gun and a badge. They have to go to the same C-posts that we do. I don't know how much training each one has. They're not my people. With school police officers just nationally, their training would be different than a community police officer because obviously SROs don't need the training in traffic stops, felony traffic stops, high-risk entries into homes, domestic violence arrests, and procedures. The chances of them doing that on campus are pretty low. Like Councilwoman Valdivia-Alcala, they're more of an understanding of the law when they are asked to enforce it on the campus, and they deal a lot with youth. So restorative justice and things like that I think were right on target. I think that's what, you know, they'd be better suited for. So yeah, there are differences between school resource officers and somebody like a community policing officer that's on the street that you recognize. The training would be different, but it doesn't mean that we can't work with 501 to see what training they need and offer that up. I know they need to make great decisions in critical events, active shooter events, and things that happen there, school assessments, security assessments, that stuff we can work together on, and giving them intelligence sharing to understand what's going on in the community that may impact schools. We've already started doing that, and we'll just enhance that. So to answer your question, I think I answered it. They're cops just like us.

Yes, because I think there's probably could be a misunderstanding of what they actually are. And so my next question, well, maybe not, maybe there's just kind of observations. You know, if If they're concerned about how their staff are viewed in having no authority, I mean, I guess who is ultimately responsible for that? If it's their staff, I...

Probably their director or whoever claims to be in charge of that. They're their own separate school entity, own police department, so I have no jurisdiction or authority or anything like that, being very respectful. I'm sure the officers that are there in the chain of command do a fantastic job. They had to do something to be certified and have that continual training. Ultimately, regardless of what the contracts look like or the relationship looks like, it's ultimately their their responsibility to train their officers the right way. But I am making that invitation. Just tell me what you need.

That was my next question, is under the current contract, is who has the responsibility for ensuring that those officers have the training that they need or that the school district would like them to have?

As far as their officers or mine? The contract doesn't cover training per se. It's assumed that they train their way. The only thing we do is offer coverage.

Okay. That's it. Thank you.

Council Member Ortiz.

Thank you. I've always supported the SROs. When these numbers were brought to us, we've been paying this for a long time on this contract. SRO's, I mean 501 is the only district that we serve. We don't serve semen. We don't serve Shawnee Heights, Washburn Royal, no one else. Just 501. So they have a really sweet deal. Everybody should have got her counter offer when we talked about it. And we talked to her about thinking about the contract, thinking about the numbers. She wanted to go back and chew on it. And then she came back and sent us all a copy of her revised contract. three more years, and then she also said that they would give us 40% more, I believe it was. That's not going to cover it. This body has asked every department head to go and look in their budget to see where we can find money at, and that's what this chief did. There's a lot of discrepancies Is it TPD? Is it TPS? Is it their guys? Who's supposed to be doing what? You know, their director even said, well, in our contract, in our current contract, it says if one of the SROs are gone, then we're to send, we only have one sergeant, we're to send that sergeant over to cover for him, okay? And so that wasn't being done. So he said, well, I don't like that this contract is not being fulfilled, but that was never brought to our attention that that wasn't being fulfilled. And so, you know, he came out and said, you know, I'd like everybody up under me. He thinks it's a good deal. You've got to remember, Cochran was a police chief. He was a police officer. He was an interim city manager for a minute. He's played several roles. So he does know a lot of our community. City of Topeka police officers that come to work for him and he's had some really good ones. I had to laugh, Brett, because that's one of the things that I said in the meeting is TPS needs to come out from behind them doors and their monitors and get in the mix with the kids. Another thing is, you know, the public thinks we're going to pull these officers like right now. No, we have one more year. We have until next the end of next May, that's not going to happen. Another thing is they don't know who they answer to. You got some people saying, well, I'm not going to do what Cochran's going to do because I don't answer to him. And you got another set, you know, so there was just a lot of things that we learned that's not happening. I think Avery said it best when he said, I don't care. How many teams are together? But this is public health and safety. And if you don't know who you answer to, this is serious. This is pretty serious. So there was just a lot of things that came out. So I've had a lot of discussion with people. And people say, well, who do we need to contact? And I'm just going to publicly say, the money that 501, their counter offer, we cannot do that. We pay over a million dollars. Am I correct, Chief?

Almost one point, well, next year would be 1.1 this year. Next year, it could have been 1.2.

We provide all the cars. We provide the radios. We provide the equipment. We provide all of that. And we just cannot continue to do that. We can't. Because if Siemens, they pay Shawnee Heights. Shawnee Heights, they pay the sheriff's office. Shawnee Heights, they pay somebody. There's so many ways that it can be spun. No, we're not leaving the kids. We understand what position they're in. I think I commend you for saying I'll go ahead and I'll move forward and train them. I think that's awesome. But there's just a lot of discrepancies. People don't realize that SROs are only in the middle schools. They're not in the high schools. But those are some key factors is that, you know, I think their director, he wants to be his under all of them. Do we have any grants that fund any units right now? Our SROs? Gretchen?

No, not, not the only grant that we have that funds a person is the VOCA grant.

This is the what?

The VOCA grant, uh, the victims grant. Oh, okay.

Okay.

And that's a civilian. Okay.

All right. So again, and, and, um, I think even talking with some of the board members, um, I'll let Spencer speak to that, but I think they were even confused on some things that were being said and done. But, um, Unfortunately, we've come to this. I think the partnership, I agree with you, and I support you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Any comments or questions on this issue, on this slide? Yes, Council Member Bradbury.

I think the last comment I have is perhaps instead of looking or people looking at it as we are taking something away, that thinking about it as we are helping them build their capacity with their own staff is probably, for me, a better way to look at that and helping them build a capacity in a way that probably should have been done or happening all along.

I'll just piggyback off that before we move on to the next slide. Part of my frustration has been, and I'm going to express this to members of the school board, We did have a meeting. We had a sit down. Council Member Miller was there, Council Member Ortiz, Chief City Manager Avery, and they had one of their board members and some of their staff. And we talked about all these issues. We explained it's not just a money issue for us. We went through the staffing issues, the authority issues, the jurisdictional issues, the impact to us. We did that so that they could hear what our concerns were. And we listened to theirs. And I thought in the moment it was a very productive meeting. And we left that meeting with a very basic understanding that we were going to meet again within a few weeks or a month, having had time to process what everybody said, what the concerns were, and see if then we could talk then about a path forward. Give us an opportunity to present what the chief has presented tonight here and say, look, if we can't do this, maybe we can offer this. I will tell you within two days of that meeting having left that with that understanding we start to get emails from people from staff and community and then within a week we get this counter offer and I'll be honest that hasn't helped this process because we really left there thinking okay we're going to have another productive conversation maybe we don't end up on the same page when we leave that meeting but we thought there was a better path and so there's been a little frustration I think on our end quite frankly that We've tried to express these privately in those meetings, but it kind of blew up into something else before we could sort of have that sit down again. And so that's been part of this process. We still are open to having that meeting to lay out what we can do offering forward and what those kind of agreements move forward. And so I want everybody, if I want to understand that too, And it entails a lot of what the chief has outlined so that we're still a part of the schools and we can show that through some actual action. So that's where we're at. We'll continue that conversation as best we can, but also understand this is kind of the path that we're planning to move on as we do the budget. So I guess next slide, sir.

All right. I thought this was important. It was right about this time of year where there's some questions about law enforcement, special funds, SEAS funds, asset forfeiture funds, whatever you want to call them. So I just wanted to put forth some information. Most of you know this, but I just want to make sure we're all on the same page in how we're looking at stuff and how I'm looking at stuff. The law enforcement special funds or the asset forfeiture funds that we have, they're used to supplement agencies, the general fund, not to supplant it or replace it. We have a current asset forfeiture fund of about $1.145 million, which sounds like a lot, but 42% of that goes to the police benefit fund to be spent on medical reimbursement. So that's according to Topeka Municipal Code 2.2125. So if you take out 42% of that, then it's not quite the $1.145 million that's in there because it's already spoken for. I have no control over that, and that's something that was voted in long before I got here. So cut that by 42%. The asset forfeiture laws in Kansas have become more restrictive. and possibly fewer forfeitures in the future. I know we don't do asset forfeiture for the sake of asset forfeiture. That's just a byproduct of the good policing that we do. The forfeiture guidelines on the bottom left, I want to talk a little bit about the do's and don'ts or the can's and can'ts if you have. Certain examples that we can do is we can buy law enforcement equipment, law enforcement contracts for service. He just voted one today for a violent crime plan through consent agenda. Law enforcement initiatives like the same. things we can't do, salaries and non-law enforcement purchases and construction and stuff similar to that. It's got to be relevant to law enforcement. And we're ineligible to receive equitable sharing funds if governing body directs specific expenditures of shared funds. That's a quote. That's not me saying it. That's the KSA statute 60-4117 that says we can't use it to supplant my budget. So I have to be careful with that, not to violate state law. In the DOJ guide to equitable sharing, when we sign that contract, we say we're going to abide by the rules, which are basically the same, that we're not going to use it to supplant our operating budget to replace it. The whole spirit of the law enforcement special funds is to supplement the police department and supplement the police chief with a ready set of funds for things that we need. So if I need a new piece of technology that's fairly, you know, equitable and good choice to have, we'll use it there. A good example, we also use it to purchase canine dogs. That's not done through the general funds. Canines past a certain age, we have to replace those. That's about a $10,000 purchase. So this is something that's meant to supplement our operations. We need those canine dogs. and also the academy lease that we have now. I believe that should be a general fund, but that's not something that we do out of special funds. It's also an unstable funding source. It depends on how many asset forfeitures we do, and we're not driven solely to do asset forfeitures. That's a byproduct of the policing that our folks do, and that's not the number one driver of that. of that source. So bottom line, there's a lot of restrictions where we just can't use it in a budget shortfall. I just want to make that clear. That's KSA law and DOJ equitable sharing. It says that. I'll stop here and try to answer any questions. That's why I have Gretchen with me, too.

Any questions or comments for the chief on this slide? All right. Next chief. Is there one more you said?

I will turn that over to Director Chardin to talk about property maintenance.

Good evening, Council. Thank you for sticking around to listen to me. I am your property maintenance director. Your property maintenance unit has 19 FTEs, including myself. We are part of the police department under the support bureau. I am very proud of that. My staff is very grateful for the training, the collaboration that we interact with on calls. I find lately that we go to the same calls because there is a direct correlation between crime and property maintenance issues. My staff enforces the property maintenance codes which you adopted. And I want to share with you that even though we do, I'm going to give you some data-driven numbers that I pulled today. I'm not a numbers person. If you ever made a phone call, if we ever had a discussion, you ask me a question, I'm going to give you the answer. You might not like that answer, but it's the truth, and I'm not going to make up stuff. So when my team goes on inspections, we conduct interviews, we do the inspection, We help the property owner or the tenant problem solve. We work on behavior modification. And the very last thing that we do is legal action. So with that understanding, you see the number of processes that we go through with every case. We run into a lot of repeat cases. We try to find resolutions instead of enforcing legal action. There's a handful of staff members you're sitting next to that call me on a routine basis. and they have routine problems. And if I can't satisfy, Councilman Banks had a great one. He called me just the other day. There is a senior citizen living in his area that has issues with a property owner next door that owns a vast, a large, I think it's six acres. And for some reason, he cannot get it cut. And this gentleman is probably 90 years old. I've interacted with him numerous times. So what I decided to do was follow the property owner who owns, he's a big developer. I followed his crew around until I had a chance to mingle with him. And so I brought his crew back to this gentleman's house. I said, is there any chance that you can cut this property over here? It's got to be done. And we developed a relationship, traded phone numbers. So every time this gentleman would call me, I would call the contractor. I said, can you go out there and nip this in the bud? I have several instances like that. Councilwoman Hofer had a house in her area that deserved to be demolished. I don't know if you've ever seen what it looks like after we demolish a property. There's a hole in the neighborhood. um i reluctantly agree to some of those but this one was a little bit different so the resource i used on this was we we asked the gentleman what would he like to do and he had no idea he wasn't even going to let us in but we talked our way in we inspected the property we all agreed that it shouldn't be standing however he found somebody to buy it and if you ask her today she'll tell you that they're making great improvements on it so It's not all about enforcement. It's about developing relationships. It's about finding people who will actually do the work with the very least amount of government intervention. With that said, the numbers that I want to show you tonight, my team has conducted 9,779 inspections this year. That's six months' worth of inspections. Last year total was 18,658. So we're above halfway. The rest of the numbers I'm going to explain to you guys were just about equal to last year. So I know that you receive phone calls all the time about long grass, unkept property, low maintenance. We are addressing those as quickly as possible. Summertime kills us. And if you've been around this council for a long time, your phone calls increase every summer. So do mine. There's nothing better for me to give me that warm, fuzzy feeling inside to explain to somebody that, hey, we'll address it in just a few more days. Please give us time. And then when I get that phone call five days later, Thank you for doing that. Well, it takes time to do that. I have limited resources. So we have to strategize to apply the resources that we have at the right place at the right time. So given that, we issued 511 housing violation notices this year. In 2025, we issued 808. So we're well above halfway. Sanitation cases, 1,662. Last year was a total of 3,000. Vehicle cases last year was 1,170. So far this year we had 700. Weed cases was 1,644 cases. Last year total was 2,800. So unfortunately our cases are more than last year at this time. We're trying to resolve that. or total abatements for sanitation this year so far is 1,662. Last year was 3,000. We mowed 1,600, I'm sorry, we opened up 1,644 weed cases. Last year at this time we had 2,882. So not only do we apply the code that you adopted, we also try to increase the quality of life citywide. We just don't focus on one area at this time. And I tell you, one of the best softwares that we have that works better than anything I've ever seen in my life is the C-Click Fix. This year, we have taken on further responsibility with unimproved parking violations and abandoned vehicles. In April, we received 280 C-Click fixes. That's an addition of 61 from last year. May was 70 more than last year. June was 160 more than last year. And July was 163. Now, I'm aware that you might not see or know what a C-Click fix running log looks like. But we had 551 for this month alone, or last month alone. So every Monday when my staff comes to work, there's 100 sitting waiting on them. So when you call me and ask me how long is it going to take to get this cut, I'm giving you my honest opinion. We're going to get to it as quickly as possible. The chief of police asked me to provide a scenario with a 5% reduction in services. The service impact with that 5% consideration, I didn't even address personnel. This is non-personnel. So 20% training budget reduction, 25% demolition budget reduction, and 20% weed mowing reduction. Reducing training funds would restrict access to ICC certifications. Continuing education, legal updates, and field safety instruction potentially affecting the employee's development, enforcement consistency, and case quality. Reducing demolition funding would require PMU to postpone one or more projects, leaving dangerous structures standing longer than increasing risk of fire, collapse, and legal occupancy. Reduced mowing funds would extend abatement timelines, leave properties overgrown longer periods, and increase blight, pest harborage, visibility concerns, and repeat complaints. Collectively, these reductions would result in a longer response time, more unresolved cases, and greater frustration among your residents. The second scenario was at 10%. This is the ugliest thing I think I've ever seen. 20% training budget, 20% uniform budget, 40% demolition budget, 35% weed mowing budget, 35% inmate crew budget reduction, and 35% abatement cleanup reduction. Reducing my budget by this amount would substantially weaken PMU's ability to provide safe, timely, and effective services. Training reduction would limit, again, our certifications, continuing education, and legal updates. Collectively, these reductions would produce longer response times, larger backlogs, more phone calls, more aggravation among our residents. They would not reduce the demand on PMU services. Instead, they would force the unit change in a strategy from proactive neighborhood stabilization to reactive crisis management, prioritizing only the most immediate life-threatening cases while allowing the many legitimate community concerns to remain unresolved longer. Under either budget reduction, PMU would have fewer resources to address dangerous buildings, overgrown properties, trash, debris, and other neighborhood concerns. I meet with the Topeka Landlord Association. I meet with the Tenant Association. I meet with all the community advocates that I possibly can. I listen to them just like I listen to you. I respect their opinion. I respect your opinion. I consider all the strategies and all the ideas, and I weigh it very heavily. I make my decision based upon, and I'm not a numbers person, but data. So the decisions I make are supported by my supervisors, the chain of command. When I need something, I go to Gretchen. Thank God I have Gretchen. She tells me, no, it's just like... At home. I asked my wife for something. She says, no, I can't have it. So based upon that, I think that your property maintenance unit is doing a dang good job for the resources they have. We've been down three people for three quarters of the year. I hope to have the people in place to make sound decisions within the next few months. With that, I'll take any questions.

Questions or comments for John from the governing body? Doesn't appear so. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Appreciate you guys' work.

All right.

With that, we will move on to public comment. We have several people who have stuck it out and signed up. First up, I have Steve Henson. Is Steve Henson here? No? Okay.

We'll move it to . We had two more departments, but we'll move them to . Oh, I didn't know that. It's OK.

It's OK. Never mind. I guess we're not done. Come on.

We can move it. We can move it there. OK, we can move it. That's fine.

I honestly didn't realize we still had them. I really didn't. Sorry.

Dalton, don't take off. I was.

All right. With that, we will move on to public comment. Next up, Sandra Lassiter.

Thank you very much.

I think this has been one of the longest council meetings I've been in and fantastic learning a lot. Thank you, Mayor, for visiting us at the Tennessee Town Tournament. And then our admiration to the Pottawatomie Tribe for coming and addressing you. And everybody heard the same thing at the same time, which I think is really significant. Tonight, I want to greet you and say God bless you, thank you very much, but we have some concerned citizens who yet want to address what appears to be a pattern of wasteful spending. I'm sure you don't want to hear that, but we still are there. Especially unnecessary spending on litigation, tens and thousands of dollars on our city's dime. Now, this is not a case specific. But this is, however, a recent example of a defense attorney who was sent to Las Vegas, the Sun Fun City, for deposition in the Lowry case. And all of the expense of the trip was paid by our city dollars. And the clock is yet ticking. Now, the concern here is while this attorney went into an in-person deposition in Las Vegas, our other attorneys took a virtual stand and they were frugal with that. Now, our concern is who is supporting this exorbitant spending for outside attorneys? Where is this money coming from, seeing that we're in debt? And also the point has been brought out that the city spent approximately $80,000 in the Lowry case already from 2019. Looking at just an estimate, if I just say $20,000 for Las Vegas, we know it was far more than that. But we have city streets, at least 10 of them I can tell you about that we could use that $100,000 on. Or reduce utilities for some seniors, could come up with a plan for that. Or some of the homeless who really do not want to be homeless, we could use that money for that. But instead of resolving, it seems that we keep repeating the outside attorney litigation. I was glad tonight when I heard someone say, we may not have to do that. The fact that you may even enter into another lawsuit with a Pottawatomie situation is really heartbreaking, unnecessary, and I love the way they presented their historic piece. We all needed to hear that. I believe that, I don't know if Chief is still here, but I was in a PowerPoint where he presented, the Chief presented, in a press conference about a training slide that was done once again in the Lowry lawsuit, and it was about the de-escalation. The portion that he talked about was, the final statement was, have a plan to kill them. You already acknowledged, or he acknowledged, that the training was wrong, and we have corrected it. The comment was made, why are we yet spending so much money on outside counsel? Thousands of dollars on these cases. Surely, surely, surely all of you are not in agreement on that. We're yet here and we'll look for an opportunity once again, if we're not dismissed to meet with our one of our three city managers or our mayor or some of you about what can we as concerned citizens do to help us not to be excessive without side attorneys. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next up, we have Michael Brown.

Good evening, everybody. My name is Michael Brown, and I'm a recent resident of District Number 8. And first, I want to do say to Mr. McGee, thank you for being prompt in your response this morning. We would like to bring up a suggestion and a concern of the City Council. The City Engineer recently approved plans to cut down the number of crossings on the street I live on, Villa West Drive. While I trust that they looked into the traffic ramifications of what they are doing by removing these crossings, it clearly did not take into consideration school transportation. and mainly the one right across the street from me where my daughter gets on the bus is now scheduled instead of being a crossing to just be a sidewalk that leads to a curve with grass in between. While that may be easy to maintain it does now make more difficult for children to get on the bus and get off the bus and in fact this morning when the bus driver arrived he was taken aback as he arrived to notice that there is nowhere for them to just except a hole in the ground to get onto the bus and ended up loading the children in a side street. Our goal is that they would hopefully enter into something where the city may be reaching out and making sure that these decisions being made are also being chatted with the school districts to make sure that transportation of our children is being looked at, especially as we come into the winter months and making sure that those ability for them to get on the bus safe and not just in a reduction of sidewalk crossings to make sure that it's Yes, it is more of a cost to have those to be maintained, but they do provide the ability for us to get across the streets. And on Villa West Drive, it is actually quite a busy street. People used to kind of get back because it's behind Wanamaker Road. Sorry, I didn't have time to print this off this morning. Otherwise, I just wanted to thank you for your time and hope that you have a wonderful evening. That's all. Thank you.

Thank you very much. All right, with that, we move on to announcements. City Clerk.

Okay, for the August 18th meeting, we have three board appointments. We have two presentations, one on community impact measures for city economic development incentives, and then the City of Topeka 2025 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report. Consent are minutes and applications. Action items include the ordinance and resolution for general obligation bonds. We have a resolution for the sale of temp bonds. Authorizing notice of public hearing for the 2027 operating budget on September 8, 2026. We have a zoning ordinance for zoning change at 1035 Northeast Monroe Street and another one on 1135 Southwest College Avenue. We have a resolution for FML Enterprises Inc. for Misty Harbor Subdivision Reinvestment Housing Incentive District. We have an ordinance on the utility rates. We'll continue discussion on the budget, and we also will have discussion on the 2027 social service grants allocation. There will also be a special meeting work session held on August 19th from 5 to 7 here in the city council chambers. We'll have three presentations. The first one is for the Compass Data Centers. The second is with Evergy Kansas Central Incorporated, and the third is Island Annexation Overview from staff.

City Manager. Nothing tonight, sir. Thank you. Council Member Hiller.

Just a quick shout out to my three neighborhoods that did night out events. Central Park neighborhood, historic Old Town, and Tennessee Town. Had some good partners and some really great turnouts and good events. Thank you.

Council Member Valdivia-Alcala.

Nothing.

Council Member Ortiz.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. A couple of things. I wanted to give a shout-out to the Lewis family for the Jefferson Square Back to School Bash. This is their second one they gave out. They told me over 300 backpacks, and they did this with their own money. So I just wanted to commend them for that. Also, I wanted to... remind everyone there's no cell phones in the schools, no cell phone use in school zones, and I think staff kind of went over that. I know there was some constituents that said, now what are we going to do? No SROs in the school and no cell phones in the school. Well, that was on a higher level than us. I also wanted to send out condolences to Ben Scott and his family. His son passed away. And if you're from East Topeka, you'll know who Reverend Scott is. So we send out condolences to his family. And last but surely not least, I'd like to send out condolences to Danny Jackson. And if you're from East Topeka, you will know who Danny Jackson is. Danny Jackson was the maestro of music and he has taught probably everybody in the city, how to play an instrument. He was very instrumental in giving the foundation to my son, who started it. And then Tommy Jones, he went on. So again, I just wanted to give them... That condolences. They've been very instrumental in East Topeka for years. Their church would give out tons of stuff and have tons of musicals. They did own and operate a daycare center. So they will be surely, surely, surely missed. Also, I just wanted to say that school has started this week, and so we really need to slow down and watch the kids. The buses are confused, and so some of them are running and some of them aren't. And so just remember that. So to all the kids, do well and just think about what you're doing up there. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Council Member Banks. Nothing tonight, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Councilmember Kell.

I'll piggyback on what Councilwoman Ortiz said about the school zones. Please slow down on those. I know people today sat there and said, oh, it's just a money grab. No, it's a safety issue. There are a lot of kids walking around in these school zones, so please take your time. Especially this first couple weeks, they're really excited about school. They're going to be bouncing off the walls. So please slow down. The St. Joe Goats won the Arena League Championship, and some of you are going to say, well, what does that have to do with Topeka? A lot of that roster and coaching staff were in Topeka for the Topeka Tropics, so Topeka had something to do with them winning their championship as they built as an organization. A lot of them went from Topeka to Kansas City, then to St. Joe, and so Topeka had something to do with that, and the owner wanted to have that said. Finally, there's been some restrictions on what teachers can and can't do social media-wise this year. They still have their wish lists out there. So if you guys know a teacher, a lot of them have to fund their own classrooms throughout the year. So if you know a teacher out there, please ask them what's on your wish list. Sometimes there's very simple things. And just check in with them, make sure what they need to get through the year in the classroom. So teachers shouldn't have to pay to do their job. So thank you, Mr. Mayor. Councilmember Miller. Nothing, Mayor.

Thank you. Councilmember Bradbury.

Nothing.

Councilmember McGee.

I have nothing to add.

Deputy Mayor Hofer.

Nothing tonight.

All right. I also appreciate all the national night outs that I was able to go to from the afternoon to the evening. It's always great. Don't need an excuse to get out in the community because I don't, but it was always nice in those events to see a few more people than you normally see. So thank you to everybody who organized those, also including the city's. which was over at the Stormont Vale Events Center Ag Hall. So congratulations to everybody for putting that on for another year. With that, I'm going to turn it over to the city attorney, who's going to tell us the audible that we're making slightly here on the rest of the evening.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. For the first executive session, the motion would be to recess into executive session for a time not to exceed 15 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 in its discussion. City attorney, city manager, director of human resources, and any other staff members as needed.

All right. I will move to approve the executive session of the second. Second from the deputy mayor. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those in favor say no. Councilmember Ortiz and Councilmember Miller, I believe, said no. We will go basically immediately into executive session, take two minutes, because I'm going to real quick during the restroom, but then let's get into it. So if you need to leave to do it and come back, feel free. We have come out of executive session. No action has been taken by the governing body. We have a need for another executive session. City Attorney.

The motion would be to recess into executive session for a period not to exceed 30 minutes to discuss current and potential litigation as well as other matters deemed privileged under the attorney-client privilege pursuant to 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's deliberations. The city attorney, city manager, chief of police, and other staff members as needed.

I move to go into executive session. Second from the deputy mayor. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed. Council members Miller and Ortiz oppose. We are into executive session immediately. Welcome back. We've come out of executive session. There is no action to be taken by this governing body, but we have one more final executive session this evening. City attorney.

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, the city council chambers. The following individuals will be necessary to aid the governing body as the discussion. City attorney and any other staff members as needed.

All right, I move to go into executive session. Do I have a second? Second. Second from the deputy mayor. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. I believe Miller and Ortiz are no. With that, we will move immediately into executive session. We have come out of executive session and no action is to be taken by this governing body. With that, we are adjourned at 1141 p.m.