City Council - Regular Meeting

For joining us for this week's City Council meeting, we'll call this meeting to order. With us this morning is Reverend Michelle Cole Rucker of St. Paul African Methodist Episcopal Church to provide our invocation. We ask that you please stand for both the invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance.

Good morning. Let us pray. Heavenly Father, we come before you today with humble and grateful hearts, recognizing that every good and perfect gift comes from you, O God. Lord, we invite you and we welcome you into this place. We thank you, Lord, for the city of Wichita, for this community that we call home, and for every person who lives, works, worships, learns, and serves within our city. Father, help Wichita be a city where people can thrive, where families can grow, where businesses can prosper, and where every person is treated with dignity and respect. Lord, we lift up our mayor and every member of the city council and their families before you, oh God. Grant them wisdom beyond their own understanding, discernment in every decision, courage to do what is right, and compassion for the people they have been entrusted to serve. Father, give them patience when there are difficult conversations, unity where there are differences of opinion and integrity in every manner that comes before them. Father, we pray for the leaders and the employees throughout the city, those working behind the scenes and those serving publicly. Strengthen them, Lord, and give them the resources, the creativity, and the determination needed to serve our community well. Father, then we pray for every citizen of Wichita, for our families, our children, and our young people, our seniors, our business owners, our educators, our first responders, our healthcare workers, our churches, our neighborhoods, and those who may be struggling or simply in need of encouragement. Remind us, oh God, that we are stronger when we care for each other than when we choose to serve rather than simply to be served. Lord, as we look toward the remainder of this year, replace every project, initiative, activity, event, and undertaking into your hands. Guide the plans that move Wichita forward. Open doors that should be opened and closed doors that should be closed. Lord, protect our city from division, from violence and harm, O God, and help us build a community marked by opportunity, prosperity, safety, and hope. And Father God, we give you all the glory, all of the honor, and all the praise for what you have already done, our faith for what you are doing, and confidence for what lies ahead. We pray this in all things, in the mighty and matchless name of Jesus. Amen. Amen.

Thank you, Pastor Rucker. Madam Clerk, could you please call the first item?

Approve the minutes of the regular meeting August 4th, 2026.

Council members, any items to be edited? I see none. I move to approve the minutes for the regular meeting August 4th, 2026.

Second.

Motion second. Discussion? See none. Madam Clerk, please open the roll. Aye. Aye. Motion passes 7-0. Madam Clerk, please call the next item.

Awards and proclamations. Today's proclamations are Tilly's Flower Shop Day and Just a Kid from Wichita Weekend.

May I please ask Tilly's Flower Shop to come forward at this time. The proclamation reads, the city of Wichita, Kansas, founded in 1870, whereas Tilly's Flower Shop, founded in 1876, has faithfully served the Wichita community for 150 years. Whereas Tilly's Flower Shop throughout its long history has helped generations of residents celebrate momentous occasions like weddings, anniversaries, birthdays, graduations, holidays, and numerous other milestones, while also providing comfort and compassion during times of loss. Whereas 150 years of service is an extraordinary achievement that reflects resilience, dedication, and a lasting contribution to the economic and cultural life of our community. Whereas this historic milestone demonstrates the remarkable legacy of Tilly's Flower Shop, Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Wichita City Council does hereby proclaim August 14th, 2026 as 150th anniversary of Tilly's Flower Shop and dedicated as Tilly's Flower Shop Day.

Well, I didn't come prepared to speak, but let me say I want to thank the mayor and thank the city council for this proclamation. The other thing, I want to thank God for blessing my family for 150 years and blessing our business. You know, I've been fortunate enough to travel around both the country and really the world. And there's no place like coming home to Wichita. And I can't say that I've ever found people anywhere any better than the ones that we have right here in Wichita. Thank you.

May I please ask Councilmember Joseph Shepard and Just a Kid from Wichita to come forward at this time.

Thank you, Mayor. This is the proclamation of the city of Wichita, Kansas, founded in 1870. Whereas the city of Wichita is dedicated to building a strong, vibrant community by investing in its youth and creating pathways for success through education, athletics, and leadership development. And whereas the Just a Kid from Wichita initiative was founded to inspire and empower young people by promoting the values of hard work, perseverance, faith, education, and community engagement. And whereas the Just a Kid from Wichita weekend held annually during the second weekend in August unites youth, families, educators, business leaders, and athletes from across the Wichita community and a shared commitment to uplifting the next generation. And whereas initiatives like Just a Kid from Wichita highlight the importance of investing in our youth and strengthening the fabric of our city by fostering collaboration among community organizations, local businesses, and residents. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Wichita City Council does hereby proclaim August 7th through the 9th, 2026, as Just a Kid from Wichita Weekend, signed by Mayor Lily Wu.

First, give an honor to God. My Wichitans and the mayor, of course, Councilman Shepherd. I try to avoid media attention because it's almost my career as a sports agent representing pro athletes. But Wichita has truly, truly changed my life. given me opportunities that I do have, but I also feel like it's my responsibility to return home to give those same opportunities and pathways to the kids of today through our hometown heroes. And I wouldn't be who I am today without several, several people that paved the trail for me. So thank you and continue to support and pray for us. Thank you.

Congratulations.

Thank you very much. Madam Clerk, please call the awards. Junior Achievement of Kansas Business Hall of Fame Honoree Susan Brandes.

Well, the first thing I ever did to start a business was I was a babysitter. I have a brother who's 10 years younger than me, so I was very experienced with young children. And so I would babysit at a very young age for lots of kids. And that kind of spread. My dad went and bought a big giant surplus tent probably at the yard. And we would set that up in the backyard and I would have camp for the neighborhood kids and bring them in and we would do activities during the summer. So that's probably the first thing I ever did. And I was able to buy a 10 speed bicycle with my profits, so that was good. When my dad started the business, My youngest brother was a baby. Mark was six and I was 10. So throughout the years, I have worked in any number of those companies that we've had off and off during the history of the company. I worked, my first job at Aerospace Systems and Components was picking up sunflower seed shells off the floor of the shop so that they could paint the floor. Now why they let people spit those on the floor, I don't know, but you know, it was the 70s. We did a lot of things then. And I got to work in accounting there. I got to work in purchasing there. I worked at Great Plains Industries, another one of the companies. I got to work in the sales and marketing department there. So throughout my youth, We got to work in the company and it wasn't just me, it was my brothers too. My dad said, this is great, you guys get this experience and because you're my kids, I don't have to pay you minimum wage. And he thought that he was giving us such a great gift and giving us experience, a broad experience working in a business. Not all of us are involved in the company. My middle brother, Mark, is involved. He is in charge of all the real estate development here. But earlier in his career, he sold meters for GPI for probably 25, 30 years. His daughter, Paige, works at Aerospace Systems. My daughter, Mindy, is now working over at Great Plains Industries and Marketing. And my son, Josh, has been in the company and has moved around in various positions. And now he is my successor and he is the president of Great Plains Industries. So our family's involved, but we also answer to our other shareholders. Well, Probably the biggest joy in my life is the fact that I have granddaughters and we have so many great adventures. Well, obviously my parents were great role models. My dad was fearless when it came to borrowing money and he was the eternal optimist. My mother was funny and supportive and I don't know how she did it, but she was a master budgeter and we made it through. Another group of people that most people don't think of were my Girl Scout leaders. And I think one thing about Girl Scouting was we did things that I never thought of doing. I never thought of walking through a creek and waste high water or some of the other things we did. It gave me courage to do things, try things new. I absolutely believe Junior Achievement fits my philosophy. It teaches wonderful things. Everybody needs to be financially literate. And I think the more you understand about how a business is run and what makes a business profitable and how hard it is to run a business, even if you don't run your own business, it makes you a better employee and it makes you better at managing your own personal business because when you run a household, you're actually running a business.

Introducing 2026 Junior Achievement Business Hall of Fame Laureate, Susan Brandes.

Thank you again for showing these videos, City Manager. This is an inspiration to our community. These videos are shown at several of these nonprofits and coming up, the Kansas African American Museum will show some of their videos. And I think it's an inspiration to our community to see the hard work that it takes for each of these individuals to get this type of recognition. And many of them don't want that recognition, but their stories are a testament to this community and what it means to be a Wichitan. So very appropriate to just a kid from Wichita today. And so thank you again for showing these videos and congratulations to Susan Brandes. Madam Clerk, can you please call the next item? Mayor. Sorry, Council Member Tuttle.

Thank you. Thank you very much. I'd just like to take a point of privilege since we're talking about honors. One of our very own team members for the City of Wichita, Sharon Dickref in legal. She's been with the city for 34 years, I believe. and i'm proud to announce that she has received the international municipal lawyers association brown mulligan roca distinguished public service award and i was privileged to be able to provide a letter of recommendation for this award this award is established to honor a local government attorney for significant and surpassing achievements in the field of local government law occurring or accumulating in the previous years. And one thing to highlight, this is an award that isn't given out annually. This is an award that's only given out when there's an exceptional and outstanding candidate internationally. So I'd just like to take a moment, if we could give a robust round of applause, congratulations, and thank you to Sharon and legal.

Council member Hoheisel.

Thank you, Mayor. They just snuck out. I had hoped to have a chance to thank the representatives from Tilly's. That's in my district. They also help provide flowers for our neighborhood association meetings, so two of them right in my area. So I did just want to express gratitude towards them for just being such a linchpin of our neighborhoods and our city. 150 years, that's a... Pretty amazing, honestly. So if you guys are listening at home, thank you guys for all the work you're doing for our community.

Vice Mayor Glasscock.

Thank you, Mayor. I know we often recognize other elected officials that come in, so I just want to recognize State Representative Abby Boatman, and thank you for being here today as well.

Madam Clerk, please call the next item.

From the city's recently adopted civility pledge, the city council is committed to promoting civility. They stand united, they lead with respect and dignity, and they honor every resident in all communities. They are working to create an environment that values shared goals with increased empathy and genuine dialogue. We now come to public agenda. The public agenda allows for up to five speakers to have five minutes each to address the council. Please bear in mind this is not a period of dialogue with council or a question and answer period. This is your opportunity to address the city council with your concerns. I ask that you address your remarks to the city council as a body and not to any individual council member. No action will be taken relative to items on the public agenda other than referral to the city manager for information as necessary. Speakers will please speak into the microphone. Please state their name and address for the record. A time clock will display the speaker's remaining time to speak. Order and rules of decorum will be observed. The first speaker today is Tanya Webb, criminalizing camping.

Miss Tanya? I don't see Miss Tanya. That means we have five spots for anyone in the audience who would like to speak to the council. You can just come up to the microphone. You will have five minutes. Please state your name and the district that you live in.

Good morning. My name is Darcy Smith. I actually live in Park City, Kansas. I am the founder of Hope on the Street Love and Action ICT. Good morning, Mayor, city council members, and city manager, as well as citizens of Wichita, Kansas, and Sedgwick County. I'm standing before you today because there are people in our community who are being asked to do something they physically cannot do. Walk long distances in dangerous heat just to reach a place where they can be safe. I want you to think about this for a moment. Imagine being 70 years old. Outside of a shelter with a walker or a wheelchair, you have no way to get to a bus stop. Yes, buses go by the shelters. Yesterday, I encountered four of them that were told that they had to go to the hub to get a voucher. I have spoke with some council members in regards to how I would be willing to help city if I don't live here. I would be willing, if someone could help us with getting a van, eight hours a day I am willing to drive to the shelters and across the city to take people to cooling stations to keep them safe. We not only provide food for those that are out in the house, we also provide food for families in this community in every single one of these districts. Last week, I had a meeting, and I made them aware that I encountered a 64-year-old woman that had just gotten out of the hospital at St. Francis. She was outside in the heat. She's had nine strokes and three heart attacks. And just last week alone, we had her back in the hospital. She's sick again. This is unacceptable. We have people that are elderly that are out here and they're disabled. They cannot get that far, guys. We need to do better. I was out this morning with water. I've got another six cases of water I'm picking up from someone. I'm not a nonprofit. I can barely get anybody to help me with funding to buy water and hydration packets for these people. I've even offered to go to Second Light and prepare my meals there, to pull them there. And I actually am having that tour tomorrow, thank you. On Saturday, we served 350 meals. That was on Saturday. And on Sunday, we did another 175 downtown. They're hungry and they're thirsty. We bring the word to them and we bring them love. That's all that they need. We can do better and we all can get through this together. So we're willing to help you guys with that. Thank you.

Thank you, Darcy. We have four spots available if anyone would like to speak to the council. If not, thank you to our speaker. You can come up.

I don't know how to do this. I've never spoke before at the council before. My name is Tanya Webb. I'm coming to speak to you about the issue of criminalizing camping. I sent almost every single one of you an email and also you an email and tagged you in my Facebook post. It was very drawn out. It was not going to be five minutes. So I went ahead and sent it to you. I've got data in there. But this matter is important to me because I'm also unhoused. I'm sober, I'm working a program, and I'm still struggling. I'm late today because I had to walk here, and then, you know, my bags had to get searched, and everything I own is in that one bag, and I had to leave all my stuff somewhere else. The daily struggles are, you have no idea. I'm working a program. If you guys criminalize that, then I'm going to get a charge. That's going to be my record. It's going to make it hard for me to find a job, get housing, and I mean, there's all sorts of things. And if your solution to the problem is to put people in jail or to fine them, you know, then that's, I mean, think about the tax dollars that you're going to be spending to house these people when they go to jail or when they can't afford the fines or when you want to employ more corrections officers and things like that. All this comes out of the taxpayers' money. You're going to ask for more taxes. We are all your constituents, even the ones who are not housed. I'm not housed, and I vote. Everybody's story is different. And not everybody wants help. Not everybody is willing to do the work. Some people have disabilities. Some people have a drug addiction. Everybody's story is different. If you criminalize that, then you're creating a huge barrier for people like me who are trying. And even today, it's been a struggle just to get here. If you would look at the Facebook post I had tagged you guys in, and read that before you vote. That would really mean a lot to me. We are a community of great people. And I want to be proud of my city. You know what I mean? Instead of seeing this as a problem, why don't you show everybody what the Heartland's really about? What happened to it takes a community? I mean, change is not going to happen overnight. But it has been proven, shown, the data is there that we are making a change. People like Miss Darcy, who's out there every day, her own money. I'm also a volunteer with Grassroots Bridge Builders, and I've been doing that for like six months. So I've been out there all over Wichita with my fellow in-house, and I've got to hear testimonies, I've got to hear the different stories, and there's no way that you can really make a solution to this that's going to fit everybody perfectly. You know, I started my paperwork to try to get some help with housing and to, you know, get a job and stuff, and I had my ID, but then when my encampment got bulldozed, my ID went gone. So now I have to start all over. And I was in a tent city, but I went out there, and, you know, I helped advocate for them because... Everybody needs a voice. They don't want to come here and speak to you guys because they're ashamed and they're afraid of being judged because that's what's being done all around Wichita. In fact, at my camp and alone, I mean, there's people starting fires, regular civilians, taxpaying, normal people who have jobs. They're setting fires to our camps. I mean, we're losing hope. And then we've been doing all this work at the outreach. And you're just going to snatch that from us? We've gained their trust. We've helped give them hope. They're doing something about it. People are starting to change their lives. And you want to take that away. And I just think about it. You know, give the solution that you already have in place, you know, what we're doing right now. Give it a little bit longer. I mean, we've already shown some improvement, but there's more to be had. And we can do that, but we can't do it alone. I mean, we just... We need some understanding, some compassion. And if you're a Christian like me, then talk to God about it. Because I'm out here doing God's will, and it's been hard. I had a place at one point in time. I chose to be homeless because I wanted to be out there on the streets with the people. Being sober and being on the streets is the hardest damn thing you can even imagine. You don't know what it's like. Thank God you've never had to be there. But we are all one paycheck, one divorce, one tragedy, one... one tiny little thing that goes in your life that could put you in one of our positions. Like I said, not everybody wants help, and that's okay. You know, this is not for everybody. But for those of us who are trying and working our butt off, it just feels like a lost cause, and I just don't want you to lose, you know, I don't want to lose hope in y'all. We're your constituents. No matter if we're a house or not, we have a voice. Thank you. Thank you, Sandy.

We have room for three more individuals. If not, we'll bring it back to the bench. Council Member Shepherd.

Thank you so much, Mayor, and thank you to the two speakers who came here today. City Manager Ken, I sent you an email last night, and I'm very concerned about the logistics as it relates to the voucher system for the unhoused getting on the bus. I do want to ask you publicly, is there an opportunity to revisit that voucher system, making the barriers less stringent for folks to get on the bus and get to cooling centers?

In my reply back, yes, in my reply back, we highlight that the voucher, actually, we can check into what she highlighted, but the process, and this is new, but our overall objective is to help those who need some relief in the heat who may not have a place to go. And so what we've done is I think we have 24 locations between our libraries, recreation centers, and community centers. And so if people unhoused or other need to have, if they don't have air conditioning at home, need some water, they should be able to get on any bus at any bus stop.

With a voucher.

they can get a voucher from the bus driver.

Is there an opportunity to remove the need to receive a voucher to reduce the barriers?

As of now, we did yesterday track the program. Didn't have as many takers as we thought, so we want to track it today with the vouchers. But I do want to still try the voucher so that we know for future how this has been utilized. But it should be anyone who wants to get to a shelter cooling station. should be able to get on any bus that is on that route to the cooling station. Once they get there, then when they're ready to leave, if it's a library or a recreation center, they will get a free voucher back to wherever their destination is. Thank you, City Manager. We should be able to make it work.

A follow-up for you. Given that we know that the cooling stations will probably be utilized by folks who need additional services, how are you directing staff to ensure that they are present at those cooling centers to make contact with those individuals? Should they need housing? Should they need case management services? Is there a plan to build a stronger ecosystem for those 24 locations so that way we can make contact with those individuals and get them connected to the services they need?

we have not done a case management model for this extreme heat situation our primary focus is to make sure that people are safe and have hydration and so we have not done the next step to see if there are other community partners who want to do case management but to the degree that our existing staff has some familiarity or knowledge about how they can help a population in need, they will offer those but there's not a concerted effort in this situation to do more outreach.

I would like to see a concerted effort to, at least within reason, placing supports at these cooling stations. I think this is a unique opportunity that if someone walks into a cooling station to get reprieve from the heat, that if they are also interested in learning how to start the pathway to housing or how to get access to sober living or whatever the case may be, that we're able to provide that support as well. and then finally i would just like to say darcy if you could i think i have your contact information i would love to get you connected to one of of a non-profit's commercial kitchen to see how we can help you prepare meals at a discounted rate so that way you don't have to worry about that and i thank you for the services that you're providing to our community i do want to make sure that we have a concentrated focus on making sure that those efforts are happening around second light And I know that you are already doing that, but we want people to utilize those resources. And finally, Tanya, thank you so much for being here. I've said this publicly before, but I will not be in favor of voting for any funding that comes forward to get rid of any encampments without a clear plan and a demonstrated effort on how we are going to provide those individuals a pathway to housing and not just housing the supportive services that they need beyond the housing. And you have my commitment that until I see that plan and I believe in that plan, I'm a no. Thank you.

Vice Mayor Glascott.

Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to also echo the original sentiments of my colleague regarding the buses. I just wanted as easy as possible for people to get on the buses and if that's requiring to remove the voucher for a few days and let people travel different stops. I don't think there's anybody just riding on the bus all day and if so that's also a cooling station and I don't have a problem with it and so I think in the extreme heat we just need to make as little barriers as possible for people especially yesterday I just know how challenging it was for people with the library closures as well so I don't know if that's moving the voucher or just making sure it's easier for people but let's take some barriers away.

Council Member Hoheisel.

Thank you Mayor and thank you Vice Mayor Glass-Pock for that. I fully agree. I think we're building the airplane as we fly right now with temperatures 105, 106 degrees. That's dangerous. So, I, I do appreciate that. I would like to at least for the time being remove those barriers as well and just deal with the plan that we've done in the past couple of years and also Darcy we have federal regulations as far as who can drive our buses and whatnot please reach out I'd be glad to try and work with some churches and nonprofits to see if we can get something like that set up for you and Tanya I am searching I have not seen your email so I'll keep looking for it I don't know sometimes my email gets a little wacky there's like a middle initial that's weird but I will look for that and I will look for the tags as well. So I do appreciate you coming up and speaking with us today as well.

Council Member Ballard.

Thank you, Mayor. City Manager, is the voucher, like what is the point of the voucher? Is it to try to collect data on how many people are utilizing the buses? Or I just want to try to understand

Sure. The system with the voucher is to help people get to resources instead of just sitting on a bus riding around all day. If they go to a library, there are other resources for Internet. We do have replenishing water. We do have bathrooms. And so that, a recreation center or community center, is finding them a better environment where they can spend more hours. I understand that.

making sure that they have the actual paper voucher to get there and to get back? I mean, is that to try to keep track of how many people are writing the book?

Two reasons. One is to track, because we've not done this in the past, to track the data. But two, to just keep it limited to getting people to the cooling stations. That's a primary goal. And so instead of having a open pass, as we originally envisioned this, just to be on the bus all day, they need to have a destination. Part of our ridership I can't think of what we call it, but code of ridership is that you have to have a destination in transit. And so we wanted to honor that and keep that practice in place. And so the destination is a cooling station, and that way they can get the ongoing water, restrooms, and other services.

I appreciate that. I would entertain a conversation with my colleagues, and it sounds like some of them have mentioned it, that in these extreme heats, maybe the rules have to get bent a little bit to keep people safe. It's hot walking in the parking garage just inside. I can't imagine having to figure out where to go and make a plan just to stay cool and safe. So we'd like to continue these conversations over these next couple days and probably into the next couple weeks to make sure that we're doing our due diligence and providing a safe space.

I see no further comments from this bench. Council Member Shepherd.

I'm sorry. I'm really stuck on this and I really appreciate the patience that a lot of our, a lot of my colleagues are having regarding this, but I feel very uneasy about the barriers in place in regards to getting a ride to go to a safe space. And while I understand the rationale behind wanting to track, like for me, if someone is using the bus to get to work or using the bus to get to a cooling station, I want to be able to provide that service. And if the point of the voucher is to keep track of how many, is there not a mechanism already in place on the bus where the bus drivers have a clicker where they can keep track of how many people are? Is that the bus pass that they're using? Is there not a different way that we can reduce the regulation and the red tape so that folks can get on the bus without having to feel like they have to get a voucher from the hub, present that voucher to the bus driver, get off at the cooling station, get a voucher from the cooling station, get back on the bus to get to where they need to go. I mean, to me, that just feels so unnecessary. So I appreciate Council Member Ballard's patience about having this conversation over the course of a couple of days. I just want to eliminate the barriers now. I mean, people, that's one life that could potentially be saved. And I'm wondering if any of my colleagues would agree with that so we can move forward and just eliminate the red tape.

Well, if I may, there is no barrier. I don't know. I'll have to double check. Anyone can get on a bus right now. they can get a voucher from the driver just so they can take that to the cooling station is generally the thought. But anyone at any bus stop can get on a bus and say, I'd like to go to the cooling station. If they have a location or if it's a library or wherever it may be, that's helpful. So right now, anyone can get on any bus and head to a cooling station. And so that is how the system is structured, the voucher. is then yes to help for the data tracking. But we're addressing the immediate need to make sure that we are getting people out of the heat.

And then getting- Thank you, city manager. But my understanding, and I understand your position too on getting the data. My understanding though that there's been a process in place prior to and with very little barriers and it was free. I mean with no voucher in place. So why are we getting rid of this best practice or this precedent and establishing this new process with all this regulation and barriers? If the number one goal is to get people out of the heat and keep them safe, don't we wanna make that as easy as possible I'm wondering if any of my colleagues agree with me that we are asking the city manager to rethink how we're doing this.

So I think, can I have a follow-up to that question? I think there has been a lot of miscommunication. The original news release talked about getting vouchers at the hub, but what the city manager has now on Tuesday morning said is anyone can get on a bus and say, I need to get to a cooling location and the bus driver will then give them a voucher. They can still be on the bus, but it's a tracking mechanism to find out how many people are actually utilizing it. So I think from what the news release was on Sunday to what today, Tuesday, 9 41 AM are two different methods. So can, can we have communications clarify how an individual that needs to go to a cooling location actually gets to a cooling location. Because what the city manager has now said two days later is different than what the news release said on Sunday. Is that accurate?

I was trying to find the news releases. I actually thought we did say in the news release that they could also get them on the bus. But either way, we'll make that happen. It's happening now that anyone who needs to get to a cooling station can get on a bus. they can get a voucher.

Actually, the news release is accurate. Thank you, city manager. It says riders can pick up a voucher at the hub or by boarding the bus and advising the driver which cooling center the rider needs to get to. And if they don't know which cooling location they'd like to get to, they can ask the driver what's the closest cooling location. Is that accurate?

That is accurate.

So the news release was accurate. It was just informed to the public inaccurately. Is that accurate to say?

Yeah, that's my understanding is that the process that we outlined was identified in the news release. And but if we can clarify it, I mean, whatever we do, I mean, everyone understands the same objective is we want people who need heat relief to be able to get it. And that's why we have the cooling stations prepared and open the staff is there and taking in people yesterday. And that's why we have our transit folks teed up for this. And so I think we have a system in place to address immediate concern.

The simple question I have, I think, to Council Member Shepherd's point, no one, and I just need confirmation of this, no one is turned away when they show up to a bus and they say, I need relief. No one is turned away at any city location when they're showing up to make sure they have relief. I just want to make sure that no one is being turned away when they walk to a bus.

That is correct. I've not heard of any situation where that's been the case. I do know that we had some closures yesterday at some facilities, but no, everyone should be able to get on a bus. They won't be turned away. We certainly welcome them to our cooling centers and glad to provide the service.

And I just want to make sure that everyone understands that every single community center and neighborhood resource center is available as a cooling location. I know that there were some left out in the original news release, but all of them are open as cooling centers. Council Member Hoheisel.

Thank you, Mayor. Go ahead.

Sure.

I just, real quick, I agree with Council Member Shepherd. This is, it can be pretty intimidating hearing all this back and forth. And until we get the policy implemented, again, it's, we developed it here over the last few days. So I think there needs to be more clarity with the community moving forward. So again, I would prefer to just go back to the old way, at least for the time being, until this policy can actually get out there and people can understand it better, who we are trying to help. Thank you.

Council Member Ballard.

Thank you, Mayor. Penny, can I pick on you just for a second? Thank you for being here. I just would like to ask you your feedback on what are you hearing as the transit director? Are people using the bus? Are the vouchers a barrier from the point of view of the drivers? I mean, I like the idea of just kind of going back to no voucher, especially if it's just for a short time. But I would like to hear any feedback from you two, please.

Sure, thank you. Good morning, Mayor, City Council, Penny Feist. When drivers reported yesterday, they received a packet of information regarding the cooling centers, and they received the vouchers. So as they boarded their bus, every bus driver had vouchers, and the hub was also provided with a packet of vouchers as well. Of course, it did just hit them yesterday morning for the first time, so there were some things that we learned yesterday. But every driver is aware that they can hand out the voucher, that they advise the rider to go to the cooling center, receive a return voucher to get back to where they came from. So that education has happened yesterday, but that is the expectation like the manager described. I think that we've heard previous free rides. We haven't done that since 2023. We didn't do that last year. We haven't done it for a while. So as far as maybe the norm, it hasn't been done for a few years. Thank you.

I see no further comments from this bench. Madam Clerk, please call the next item. Consent Agenda Items 1 through 15. Council Members, are there any items to be pulled? Council Member Shepherd.

Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to pull Number 9 from the Consent Agenda.

And I would like to pull Consent Agenda Item Number 4. I see no further items to be pulled. With that, I will move to approve consent agenda items without four and nine.

Second.

Motion second. Discussion? See none. Madam Clerk, please open the roll. Motion passes 7-0. We will go in sequential order, if that's okay with you, Council Member Shepherd. We'll start with agenda, consent agenda item number four. This is the lease termination at 515 South Wichita Street, located in District One. City Manager, can you give us some background regarding the boathouse? First and foremost, I'd like to know who owns the land, who owns the building, and who owns the boat outside of the boathouse?

Thank you, Mayor. I'll actually have Jerry Ford help us with this as our real estate manager to talk about the ownership, and we do have that answers for you. Jerry, if you want to take those three questions.

Good morning. Jerry Ford, City Manager's Office. Regarding the boathouse property, the land itself and the building are both owned by the City of Wichita. The boat is considered private property and property of the America Cubed Foundation.

So can you explain what this agenda item is trying to get to because there are multiple subleases and we would like to understand what will become the city's responsibility.

Yes, at this time the America Cubed Foundation has requested that the lease be terminated and the city of Wichita is talking to the sub-tenant, which is the Kansas Sport Hall of Fame, about their occupancy in the property going forward. In addition to their subtenancy, because of the terms of their agreement where they are allowed to utilize the space for event venues as well, they also have a subtenant, or a contract, I should say, with an operator for venues, for the venue.

Since this is the building and the land are owned by the citizens of Wichita, has Public Works completed a facility condition assessment so that we know what maintenance or capital liabilities the city may be assuming with this termination?

Yes, we have. The Public Works Department did have a condition assessment where they walked through the property. We are still waiting on a couple of items to be determined, but for the most part, yes, we do have an assessment which identifies some critical need for addressing the roof and soffit repair in the short term.

Just so that everyone knows, I did send these questions ahead of time so that staff could prepare answers, but I do have a follow-up to that question. Something that has been brought up is surrounding that area specifically is what is a private property now, Water Walk. This is very different than the lease agreement to Water Walk. Can you just explain the difference so that people understand how this is a carve-out

Yes, most certainly. When the Water Walk development was established, this property was specifically excluded from any of the Water Walk development itself. The property is still within the East Bank District and would be subject to any redevelopment requirements should any redevelopment ever occur. But the property is owned and controlled by the City of Wichita.

I'll continue with my questions that I had. Who is responsible for the maintenance, insurance, utilities and repairs during the six month transition period?

The new lease would mimic the existing lease terms where the tenant would be responsible for the maintenance and the insurance of the property.

And last, what's the plan at the end of the six months for the ownership and usage of that building?

That is still to be determined at this time. The subtenant is still analyzing their position as well. And so at this time, we don't have a long-term plan for that site. This is all... This is all somewhat new and in response to a action item that the city approached America Three Foundation about in I think May or June.

Now I have a follow up question that I didn't ask in the email but it's to law. What type of liability will the city have if this does get terminated?

Well, as the owner of the property, I mean, we have ultimate liability for the facility and the building. We would analyze that as we would with any other property. There's no special liability. It's just the basic premises liability that we have as an owner. There's no unique liability in this situation.

This is now to the city manager. We have hundreds, not thousands of buildings that the city of Wichita, its citizens own. Maintenance continues to be a major challenge as that has not been top priority in past budgets. And so this concerns me because we're talking about the budget coming up next week and the following week. And then we have an additional possibly capital improvements into a building that the city does own. Has that been put into the budget? I'm a little concerned right now about whether or not to approve a termination.

The specific, this request, to make sure I got it clear, is that we were approached by America Cubed as the other leaseholder in this arrangement to terminate the lease. So that's why we're bringing it forward to you because they came to me and said in their letter that's in the packet, we would like to terminate all interest in this property. They have no more use for it, but they have the subtenant as was outlined as the Hall of Fame. so knowing that this has just come up in may we have not accommodated any specific funding or identified any specific funding in the capital improvement program for this facility and as you asked we're just still trying to finalize the conditions study so we know initially there is some roof work and i think we've kind of known that roof work and some soft work i believe she said and so If that's under $100,000, again, we have to put a schedule to this. We don't know are these conditions that can have a patch that can be done in the next five months that will last a while. So we don't have the full scope of what the conditions are. We have a sense certainly from the initial condition report. So say it needs $100,000. I don't know if that 100,000 is just for the roof in 26 now or even in 27. But we would try to factor that in and we would in this case do what I'd say is a bare minimum for 26, 27 and then take the longer term strategy. I will say as you think about this as a policy, One of the reasons why, of course, we brought it forward is because they requested as a mutual partner in this contract, but this is just under an acre of land, I believe. There's been concern or questions about city ownership of land along the river. there could be other potential about how you may want to use this for long term and to get out of a long-term lease right now i think the key point on this is is there 88 years left on this i believe 82 So there's 82 years left on this lease. I think it is worth the debate and discussion about is it in the city's long-term interest even taking on some of the facility needs to be able to have better control through the full ownership without the middle lease to determine what happens with this property as you think about the entire area. for the riverfront. So I think that's more the policy question. The practicality, are we taking on something? Yes, it's an asset that we already quote-unquote own, but it's something that we'd have to maintain more than we are right now. But we can, as she said, we still are in talks with the sublease that does rent the venue and use some of that income to cover some of the needed repairs for the facility. So we haven't got to that part of the conversation about how much rental income that the sublease is charging to help pay for some of the facility upkeep.

Did America Cube provide any rental to the city, and was it the city and its citizens who paid for the construction of that building, which I don't even know when it was built, 1920?

The agenda report states 1920, but the original boathouse was developed in 1920, whereas this facility was built in the 90s. So that is an error on my part. Um, as for what America cubed has paid, the rent is a, the lease is a $1 a year lease with them responsible for all operations and maintenance of the structure and the facility. So then wouldn't they be responsible for replacing the roof then they would be responsible for replacing the roof. Um, the city of Wichita can notice them.

um to which if they default on their notice to cure that then the city would take the property back over this makes me very uneasy again that's why i've asked all these questions and just as a reminder this was in consent had it not been for me pulling it we would not be discussing this and i'm a little I don't know whether or not to approve this because I don't want further liability on the citizens of Wichita when right now it seems like they might have more liability in trying to replace that roof versus us. I would like to wait on this item. So for me, I cannot vote on this item at this moment. I don't know about my fellow colleagues, but I want more information. I want a memo on this. I would like to see, again, laid out, when was this building built? Was it built using taxpayer dollars? Was it built by private dollars? We need more information. And I feel like we don't have enough information based off of this. So because I pulled this item, I've asked my questions. I don't know if any council members have questions. We do have a whole board of questions. So we'll go through council member questions, and then we will open it up for public comment. But my intention will be to defer this item for another council meeting. Councilmember Hoheisen.

Thank you, Mayor. I agree with you. I'm curious, you talked about the penalties if they were not complying with the maintenance and that would be termination of the contract. So are they responsible for the maintenance that has not been done on the building all these years like the Mayor was indicating?

That would be a legal review of the lease would be required for that to determine whether or not the city could take action for failure to perform Okay We have not undertaken that review for that question, but would be happy to do that Okay, is there any penalty or fee for this termination of the contract early? No, there is nothing stated in the original agreement to that effect.

Okay, yep, I agree 100% to defer this until we can get a better assessment of the building and what their obligations were to it.

Council Member Sheppard.

Thank you, Mayor. And one of my questions, Council Member Hill has already asked, so were there any callbacks or what would be the penalty? And you already answered that, Attorney Ford, so thank you so much. Just wanting to note that this was, it looks like, am I correct, am I reading this correctly, that this was brought forth originally in October 13, 2009?

That is correct.

Thank you so much. And then can someone give me the historical context behind the rationale behind the one dollar lease? I know that that's often a question. I'm sure I'll get that question too considering that this is in my district and I always ask staff to arm me with the knowledge so that I'm able to mobilize the thought process out to constituents who rightfully have reasons to be concerned about why we are leasing buildings for a dollar.

Yes, this lease, um, was established in 2009 in response to an RFP, which is a request for proposal. The $1 a year was established as the lease rate on the longterm lease with the property or the lessee being fully responsible for all of the maintenance and related operations of the facility. So passing that expense on to the tenant would alleviate the rent.

Got it.

That makes sense. And then finally, I want to ask city manager, just clarifying if I heard you correctly, if we were to take possession of this building, there is no clear direction on what or how we would utilize this building.

We have not made a recommendation in terms of it could still be used as a venue. It's been used now as an event venue for a variety of things, from weddings, I think, to other groups. And so not knowing yet if the current subleasee who provides those events is still interested in doing that with this change is still something that we've presented that question to them. So trying to figure out their timeframe and their interest in being the subleasee.

Thank you, City Manager. I'll just say, considering that this resides in District 1, I agree with the Mayor that I think that there's some more conversations that we need to have. I do feel very uncomfortable with 82 years remaining on this lease and then taking it back into possession that there's going to be some some maintenance, deferred maintenance that we'll be responsible for. And again, just always wanna point back to what we are hearing overwhelmingly is that the community wants to see us hold people accountable and to restore trust in a way that is healthy. And I think that going back, getting clarity on the maintenance or the deferred maintenance and who's responsible for that, I believe it should be on the tenant that is leasing the building and not us. So for that reason, I'll be supporting the mayor's motion.

Vice Mayor Glasscock.

Thank you. I just want clarification on one thing as well. So they're responsible for the maintenance. And the city could say, hey, you're not doing what you're supposed to do. But the only clawback we have is to take the building back, which is what they want. to do in this and that my mind's just blown please say we don't and this was 17 years ago please say that we this is not common practice in our real estate agreements now that the only clawback is to do what the club what they want the clawback to do and that there's no other

That is, you're correct. We have changed our practice and our processes since the time that this was originally developed. Even on sales of properties, we have put clawbacks in our contracts to require those property owners, those buyers, to develop the property. So people are required to perform in the new agreements. We've updated... all of our lease templates and agreements a couple of years ago, and we now have these callbacks.

So they're required to perform in our current agreements. Are we regularly sending out those notices? So let's say that we sent out a notice to them that they're required to perform in 2010, for example, then the facility would not maybe be in the same condition it is now. And maybe we could have reverted the building back in 2010 because there had been maybe less significant maintenance issues. I just want to make sure how regularly do we send out or monitor maybe those notices where they have a requirement to perform?

Traditionally, the notices have or if a notice has been sent, it has been sent in response to an issue or having developed or a complaint.

Have we ever sent one to the vote house?

I do not know if, I do not have record that we have, my office has sent anything.

Okay, because I know that I often get complaints particularly from people that use the facility about the conditions of the facility as well. And so I know it's been at least on the city's radar, and so I just want to make sure maybe on other structures that that becomes a practice in the future just so we're regularly doing this so we don't get to a point where the only clawback we have is to do what they want as well. So, okay, thank you. I appreciate it. I know I don't think you were here in 2009 or signed this agreement, so thank you for living with the maybe consequences of those actions.

Mm-hmm. Jerry, as a follow up to that question, what I will ask for that memo, I would like to see not only background on this specific property, but also the ramifications regarding what is being asked. And then also, given that this was back in 2009 and many of the individuals who have been through the Economic Development Office and just leadership has changed, can you also share what has changed? specifically the contract agreements and clawbacks, because I think we keep reverting back to what happened in 2009, and that is not practice in 2026. But if in that memo you can share what is now common practice, it would be very helpful in getting a fuller picture of what happens now. And then we can also have a better discussion amongst the council.

Yes, most certainly. I can include that. Thank you. You're welcome.

Council Member Johnston.

Thank you, Mayor. Jerry, is the America's Foundation, is that associated with the Bill Koch Foundation?

Yes, it is.

Okay.

Yes, William Koch Foundation.

Just as a little historical context, the boathouse was built in 1990. Bill Koch won the America's Cup in 1992. It was a natural thing and it was seen as a, I still remember it, it was seen as a tourist attraction to have people come visit the boat that won the America's Cup because an American hadn't won it in a long, long time. So it was seen as a tourist attraction. At first, it was a tourist attraction. People did come to see it. Now, probably nobody even knows why it's there. So that's a little historical context to it. But I would like some more information on it, too. So I'd be for deferring it.

Thank you council members. I see no further questions. Thank you, Jerry, uh, city attorney Magana and city manager for that background. We will now open it up for public comment on this specific item.

Hey there. I didn't come to speak today. I didn't even know this was on the agenda. Let's see, my wife and I... Oh, this thing wobbles around. I know some of you all know, but some of you all don't. But yeah, we run Niche, the culinary school for downtown. And we have a lease for Niche, and it's a lot of money. And I run the... As part of my job there, I run the events. And this current setup that we have is basically undercutting us. And it's undercutting other non-profits like Botanica. And it makes it really hard for us to compete. So my personal recommendation would be to let him go. I'm pretty sure I could help you find someone who would take over that and pay for the maintenance and pay for the roof and work out some kind of profit sharing for the city. This could be a revenue generator for the city instead of just letting it up for a dollar a year, which to me, coming from a business side, just seems kind of ridiculous. That's all I had to say. Thank you so much. This has been a really cool experience just getting to come and see this and just seeing the passion that everyone in this room has for serving our city. It's really inspiring. So thank you.

My name is Dick Ballard. I live in District 6. You all know I come to most of the meetings, and maintenance is brought up every week. And I'm telling you, this was a big part of my job my whole life. It's a constant battle. CEOs are usually relatively intelligent, but they know nothing about maintenance. They think it's a cost, and many of them have trouble relating this general ledger number to another general ledger number and how they respond. So letting somebody live somewhere for 99 years, they just have to take care of the property you can't tell by looking at them if they have any idea what that involves. And I'm telling you, I've made every mistake you could possibly make. If you don't take care of your own stuff and have an actual plan for every asset, you are costing yourself money because if you let somebody drive a car, You only have to take care of it and you get it back because they're through with it and they haven't changed the oil in 20,000 miles. You can't just say, okay, go change the oil. The damage is already done and you don't know what the damage is. So all of these structures, pieces of equipment, tools, all that stuff, you have to have a plan for every one of them. and the goal is to see how much service you can actually get out of them and so i've been through it i could talk for about 30 minutes on it how i finally at one place i got an opportunity to do exactly what i wanted to do and i was like in my 50s so i had made every mistake you could possibly make And so you learn from those. Well, we're not doing that again. I'm telling you, if you don't have a plan for every piece of equipment that the city owns and letting somebody else do it is just ask the chances of them living there 99 years. What are the odds? Zero. And now you're going to have to go back and you're going to go in and people who know what they're looking at are going to look at the building and it'll get fixed and everything. But you don't know. This thing's right on the river.

That was not a good policy to start with.

But you really don't know what the long-term damage, we'll call it, is to that facility. So I think it's a poor practice. I would never let somebody else take care of something that I actually owned. I'm a little obsessive-compulsive, so that's part of the problem. But anyway, I'll leave you alone.

I see no one else from the community who would like to speak on this item. Thank you very, oh, please come forward.

Thank you. I am Abby Boatman. I live in District 1. I was, I don't know anything about the boathouse. This was all very new information to me as I'm sure it is new information to almost everybody in Wichita. I think I speak for a good number of people when I say that we're kind of tired of hearing the everything on the river only cost a dollar for certain people. I think also a good number of people might be interested to know what is the standard lease time frame of property that the city owns. I don't know, is a 100-year lease like a regular thing? that it used to be a regular thing and now it's not. And then I know that I don't think anyone here is directly responsible for what happened in 2009. And, you know, we've been assured that this isn't the way that we do leases anymore. We have, I guess we have clawbacks and other things that are in place now, but I would be interested to know in general what those usually are. And I think a lot of other people would be interested to learn how we have evolved since this ridiculous mistake. Thank you.

I see no one else from the community who would like to speak, so thank you to our three individuals who came to speak about this specific item. We'll bring it back to the bench now. I see none of my colleagues on the board, so I will move to defer this item until we get further information, so an undetermined date, though.

If I may, motions to defer really do call for a specific date, certain. If you could put it, protect just a general date out there, that would be helpful. Otherwise, it's a motion to table the item, which puts it off the agenda indefinitely.

I defer. You said I can motion to table this.

That takes it off the agenda indefinitely.

No, I want to come back and talk about this.

It's nice to have to control it and the ordinance calls for a date specific when there's a motion to defer.

City Manager, how much time would you need and the staff to do not just an assessment of that building, a history of this building and its contracts, economic development, providing information about the new agreements now versus back in 2009. I want a comprehensive look at this because I believe this is an example of what in the past has happened versus what is happening now in 2026 so i would like a comprehensive look at this mayor if i may do you also wish to include information about our standard lease agreements now and what are our standard clawbacks thank you mayor that's um i would like again a very comprehensive look at economic development as well because this is part of that

And I would suggest, Mayor, if you're comfortable with it timeframe-wise, I'd say three meetings. That would take us to September 1st. So if you want to say in your motion no later than September 8th.

Okay. I move to defer this item until the meeting of September 8th.

Second.

Motion second. Discussion? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, please open the roll. Motion passes 7-0. Now we're on to consent agenda item number nine. This is the 2026 SAMHSA Streets Grant Application, Council Member Shepherd.

Thank you so much. I see Steve making his way down now. And just for transparency sake, I did let Housing know that there were a few questions that were going to be asked today. And some of them come from constituents. So in regards to continued care, can you maybe speak to what would be the proposed plan after the four-year consecutive agreement for the SAMHSA grant ends so that people who engage in year four have continuity of care?

Burke comes down. Actually, if you just give a two or three sentence overview of the grant and then take on the specifics. So, context for the audience.

Absolutely. Thank you, Mayor. Sorry, Council Members. The SAMHSA Streets Grant is a four-year cooperative agreement designed to expand street-based behavioral health treatment and housing pathways for individuals experiencing unsheltered homelessness with serious mental illness, substance use disorders, or co-occurring conditions. It'll be structured as an integrated field-based clinical response that brings behavioral health treatment directly to unsheltered residents. Multidisciplinary teams will meet individuals where they are at encampments, transit nodes, parks, commercial corridors, and other high activity micro locations using the GIS and RTM models from WPD. To conduct screening, initiate medications for substance use disorders and establish ongoing psychiatric and recovery supports. Participants will be connected to housing through existing pathways, home TVRA, ESG, rapid rehousing, PSH and HCV homeless preference as appropriate with units selected to ensure access to medication and treatment participation. And Council Member Shepherd, to your question, it's a cooperative agreement with SAMHSA. It's a four-year cooperative agreement. That means we will be talking to SAMHSA on an ongoing basis about how do we utilize this program so that at the back end of the four-year project, we're setting ourselves up for success. Also, too, this also addresses one of the mayor's questions. We have an integrated evaluation piece and a project manager external to us that will help us track the data, build dashboards, build progresses, track progress towards essentially ending homelessness for all of the people that we are talking to and setting them up for success. I absolutely presume that throughout the course of this four-year process, we're going to identify gaps in our system that we are going to be actively rectifying along the way so that we have a path forward should this just completely end. But the other opportunity here is that this is only one of eight awards across the country. And if we succeed at this, this may set the stage for ongoing funding coming from SAMHSA to address these matters across our country.

Thank you so much. And as we've heard from the public today, there's a need for this. And as I mentioned in regards to the cooling stations and wraparound supports, there's a need for this, right? It'd be awesome to have folks at these cooling stations making that contact with those individuals, getting them the support that they need. I'm curious, have you all thought about how the streets teams or other nonprofit organizations who are passionate about this as well, how you all plan to connect with those current community providers, licensed clinicians for handoffs? Maybe there's something not within our purview as a city, but our neighbors across the street are better fit to work with a particular client. How will we manage that?

Part of the original submission is embedded letters of commitment. Those letters of commitment are with Second Light, MHA, Substance Abuse Center of Kansas, DECA, and Hunter Health. These are organizations that have agreed to become partners and they've submitted letters of commitment that are in your application packet. In the four-month ramp-up period, we will be bringing before you memorandums of understanding that better and clearly define the relationship of our community partners. The timeline of this is that we will be announced whether or not we're awarded in about mid-September for a 10-1 four-month ramp-up period start date in which we will use that time to continue to identify community partners that may become on board and develop MOUs with the city as well.

Thank you, Steve. Final question for you. There may be some folks who may be wondering, why in the world is the city applying for this grant? And I just want you to clarify and to be clear, I already know the answer to this, but for the public's awareness, We have had conversations, meaningful, productive conversations with our neighbors over at the county as well as several others so that they know that we are applying for this grant and we seek to be collaborative with them. Is that correct understanding?

100% correct. The grant needed to be applied for from a unit of local government. So we engaged in a conversation with the county because they have calm care and that makes a lot of sense. They have a very much smaller program called PATH that does a lot of the similar things. And due to some federal regulations and some concerns about whether or not the administration can take away federal discretionary grants, they said go ahead and do it and we'll continue to have conversations with you moving forward. You're welcome.

And Steve, I had several questions that I sent via email, so I'll just ask them in public now. This is a great program, and I believe that we need more street outreach. And so I'm glad that you guys are looking proactively on ways to find funding from federal resources to bring them into Wichita, and as you said, only eight communities across the country will actually get funding. So we won't know whether or not we win this until mid-September. So I was looking at the application and it's being proposed that 360,000 annually will be for program evaluation. Is that level required by SAMHSA and what specifically are taxpayers receiving for that expenditure?

Sure, thank you. It is common for a federal grant of this size to have an evaluation piece connected to it. And what do we get in turn for that? Well, we get a collaborative partner that is, tasked with making sure that the project plan continues, that the data is being collected, that compliance is being measured, and that outcomes are being achieved. I think it's a great use of our resources. We had this with Project HOPE. We had partners with a local organization to help us with that. And the taxpayers are going to be seeing some transparency and some progress and some ability to build our community assets to be prepared for when the grant ends.

I know that within the green sheet it was not mentioned outright, but I want to make sure that Second Light, which is funded by city taxpayer dollars, will be one of those locations where also this will happen.

Correct. They've signed a letter of commitment, and we'll enter into a formal MOU with them moving forward.

Thank you very much. If the federal grant ends after four years, will any positions or contracts continue with local funding?

That's a conversation that will be driven by the data that comes from the grant itself. So, I hope that over the course of the four years we identify and are able to shore up our local resources so that moving forward we have a plan in place such that we can accommodate and have capacity to continue to serve those individuals.

This is not one of the questions I asked via email, but it's a follow-up to that. Knowing that it is so difficult to get collaboration and everyone rowing in the same direction, the city has invested nearly $30 million at 9th and Main Street for not just sheltering with Second Light, but also affordable housing with park landing, is the intention to really focus a lot of energy towards 9th and Main Street so that the resources are not scattered everywhere?

Yes and. and the individual's homelessness experience is unique to them. And what we have seen is that those multiple pathways should exist for everybody seeking to end their own homelessness. And that happens through shelter, that happens through direct to housing, directly from their encampment, It can happen on the street. It can happen through the hot team, through law enforcement, at the cooling stations, if you will. And is that through shelter? Is that through transitional housing? Is that through treatment or direct to permanent housing, rapid rehousing? That pathway needs to exist. And what you've seen from the housing department in the last couple of years is an intentional effort to build every pathway possible. we're not ever going to be able to reach functional jail for homelessness, which is defined by having the right size capacity to serve the people coming into homelessness so that we can exit somebody's homelessness in a rapid way.

Going back to my questions, how will treatment related requirements comply with HUD rules, fair housing, and due process rights?

We are, if we put somebody in a HUD-subsidized unit, we're never going to be able to hold treatment over their head, that if you stop your treatment regimen, you're going to be not able to be housed. This is a treatment-first model, and so we really are working to make sure that they have access to treatment, that they are engaging in treatment during that housing initiation process. And then we certainly will have housing navigation and embedded case management for them as they move into the unit so that we can support them in whatever treatment endeavors that they agree to with their clinicians.

And last, can you remind me, when was the deadline for this application?

July 17th.

So we are here August 11th, and this is a retroactive type of application. This is atypical, and I don't want this to become typical. I understand that it was speedy because you guys learned about it, you tried to get partners, and among one of those partners is a very important one, which is Sedgwick County, which really focuses on mental health, and that is not a function of city government. And so there was a concern from, I heard it, what type of liability county will have with this application. And because the application has already been submitted, I just want to make sure that we're being good partners, that this is now going to become the responsibility of the city and its staff, especially in housing, and that this doesn't become a typical, we're coming back to the council after we've already applied. So I don't want this, it's not a... It is just a concern I have because I understand that we are a very thoughtful council and we ask a lot of questions before we do apply for a federal grant that ties us with a lot of requirements. So I want to know what authority allowed the submission before council consideration and what obligations did it create for the city and for the county?

Mayor Dennis Marstall. So remember this is just the application and so we don't know as we said we're hoping to be one of the eight and so we'll find upon award submittal. When award submittal comes is when we have basically the signature on the line that commits our local resources and other things. so just to submit is within the purview for council and for manager and staff our process certainly is for your blessing beforehand but there are some circumstances but do know this will come back to us we don't have to accept the grant if awarded and so we'll have another decision point and then that's when we'll do the signatures

Thank you. And it looks like there is no current local match regarding this federal grant.

That's correct, Mayor.

Thank you very much.

You're welcome.

With that, I see no further questions from my colleagues. We will now open it up for public comment on this specific item.

Good morning, my name is Zach Warehand, and I'm lucky enough to call Wichita home for the past 30 years. I currently live in District One, Crown Heights neighborhood. Councilmember Shepherd, thank you for pulling this item for public comment, and to the city staff, thank you for putting this application together. You did a wonderful job. I'm a clinical counselor here in Wichita and I run Kansas Counseling Center. I've spent my career working alongside people navigating addiction and mental illness and I want to briefly highlight one of their stories as I believe it relates to consent agenda nine. Years ago, I worked with a client who had an opioid use disorder, alcohol use disorder, and untreated bipolar type 1. Every time he tried to get help, he hit the same wall that a lot of unsheltered individuals do. The mental health clinic wouldn't take him until he was sober, and the substance use program wanted him stable from a psychiatric standpoint first. The traditional treatment modeling wasn't working for him, and around and around he went. He cycled through the emergency room multiple times before someone finally took on the whole diagnosis. And once that happened, the right medication brought him out of withdrawal and eased the bipolar depression symptoms enough for him to get a fresh start on long-term treatment. And after 27 months later, he had graduated one of our local sober living homes, held down a job doing landscaping, reunited with his three boys, saved up a housing down payment, and found himself a hobby, gardening to give away vegetables to his neighbors. I share this to highlight what can take place when co-occurring disorders, substance use disorders, get treated as one problem instead of two, and this is why this grant is brilliant for our city. I'm speaking in affirmation of the 2026 SAMHSA Street Grant for three specific reasons. First, this grant initiates mobile care teams straight to the people right where they are, which allows someone to get started on the right medication in days instead of months. From an efficiency standpoint, that's impressive, but this actually holds real clinical value. The period right after a crisis, perhaps an arrest or an overdose, creates a critical intervention window, where motivation and treatment readiness peak here, and unfortunately, they decline quickly. Speed to first contact is one of the strongest predictors of whether someone enters care. For the individuals that I work with who are managing both a substance use disorder and a mental health diagnosis, integrated same team treatment is crucial. One program. Most people don't drop out of care because they don't want it. They drop out because of transportation and scheduling and the handoff. Second, when we back our frontline people, Wichita PD's homeless outreach team, Fire and EMS, Second Light, MHA, SAC, DECA, and Hunter Health, we're funding the part of the model that can do the long-term follow-up. This grant gives our frontline teams the resources to do this consistently. And third, I believe in this so much because I've seen what happens when treatment works, and it is truly a beautiful thing to watch. Watching someone show you their six-month sobriety chip is an incredible spectacle. Seeing someone go from a shelter to a steady paycheck proves that the model works. And victories like these would not take place without initiatives like the Streets Grant. And that's what this is really about, bringing people back to a life that they're proud of in a family that's proud of them. That Wichita is the right city to lead on this initiative because when a city our size shows that it can be done, we hand every other city in Kansas a roadmap on how to do the same. Right now our state has one of the worst outlooks regarding mental health. We have 99 out of 105 counties in a crisis shortage for providers. So we need resources for our most vulnerable. City Council, Mayor, I believe this to be a smart investment and a kind one. As a counselor and a proud Wichita citizen, I strongly affirm the 2026 SAMHSA Street Grant. Thank you.

Thank you. Council Member Hohheisel.

Thank you, Mayor. One quick question, sir. Just a quick question and then a plug. The medication that you were talking about, could you elaborate a little more? Was it Suboxone or some of the medication that you had referred to being effective in getting people through the sober living process?

Yeah. So this specifically refers to some of our old models of detox. There's detox medication that eases some of the withdrawal symptoms. Previously, under some of our local resources, we had a mat on the floor and no medication treatment. And so when an individual walks into a detox center, it's the ER or a private insurance facility. And a lot of times the ER won't take the time to They're running and managing their list on how many beds that they have. So this individual got on lithium and then had the medication, which was methadone, I believe, at the time, that allowed him to go through withdrawal, manage withdrawal symptoms, and then finally get plugged into a program.

Okay, I appreciate that. I do want to just always make the plug. We do have the opioid settlement funds out for an RFP. We joined with county to combine our resources, the funding that we have for that. So that is currently on the street. So any organization that deals with this, it could be education, treatment, preventative policies as well. So please pass that word along. We'll have a committee set up to take a look at the proposals, but just want to make sure that that information's out there to as many people in that arena as possible.

Thank you, member. Thank you, Council Member Hauizel.

Would anyone else from the community like to speak on this item? I see none. I'll bring it back to the bench. Council Member Shepherd.

Thank you, Mayor. I move that we approve the submission of the federal grant proposal for fiscal year 2026, SAMHSA Streets Grant Application, affirming that permission to apply was granted by the Department of Director and the City Manager, and authorize the necessary signatures and actions to fulfill any resulting grant requirements. Second.

Motion second. Discussion? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, please open the roll. Motion passes 7-0. Madam Clerk, please call the next item.

Board of Bids and Contracts, dated July 20th. I'm sorry, August 10th, 2026.

Hi, good morning, Mayor, City Council, Chris Hazlett, Department of Finance. Board of Bids and Contracts met yesterday, August 10th, 2026, for the following items. Engineering, stormwater sewer, number 883, Dodge Street stormwater improvements, SOCAN excavating, 144,450. Construction of a retaining wall at Cessna East Park, Dutton Construction Services, LLC, $99,782. For purchasing, police package Ford Interceptor, Rusty Eck Ford Incorporated, award base bid with options one through four. Wet Well Pit Cleaning Preventive Maintenance, Bolt Environmental and Industrial Services, LLC, 17,443.64. Century Two Concert Hall Retrofit Lighting, Westview Productions, LLC, 79,669.56. Dark Trace Cybersecurity Software Subscription, October 1st, 2026 through September 30th, 2027. Dark Trace Holdings Limited, aggregate four-year total, 886,052. and valves, angle ball valves, and brass curb stop ball valves, change order, Mountain Land Supply Company, amended contract amount, 102,975. This is how to become a vendor with the city. This is our current purchasing calendar. These are our small business outreach events the city's hosting or partnering with our resource partners. And these are the current open bids and proposals that we have posted with due dates of August 14th through September 15th. And at this time I'll answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Can you go back to slide number 14, just as a reminder? This is from Council Member Hoheisel, who serves on that board. The initiatives are being requested right now for the overdose prevention. And so it's just another highlight, because I think we have a lot of providers that may not even know that there are funds available through the opioid settlement funds. So I just wanted to highlight that this does close on September 15th. And if people have questions, they should be contacting Purchasing, is that accurate?

Correct, Mayor, yes.

Thank you. I see no further questions regarding the Board of Bids. With that, I will go ahead and move to approve the Board of Bids and Contracts, dated July 20th, 2026. Second. Motion second, actually. That's July 20th, is that accurate? Yeah, that's not accurate.

I apologize, Mayor. It should be August 10th, 2026.

I move to approve the Board of Bids and Contracts dated August 10th, 2026. Second. Motion second. Discussion? See none. Madam Clerk, please open the roll. Who am I missing? Motion passes 7-0. Madam Clerk, please call the next item.

Ordinance reestablishing the Access Advisory Board.

Mayor.

Mayor. I'm sorry. I just wanted to tell Representative Martinez, she snuck in after you mentioned Spouteman. So thank you so much for joining us today. Sorry. Thank you.

Good morning, Mayor and Council Members. Gary Jansen, Public Works and Utilities. The item before you this morning is consideration for an ordinance reestablishing the Access Advisory Board. Before I walk you through the history of this board, where we've been, some of the challenges that we believe the board is facing, and then talk you through what our recommended approach is to this for restructuring of the board. I do want to mention a couple of things. So we have no intention to eliminate this board or diminish its impact by any means. Compliance with ADA requirements and a continued focus on accessibility is still our mission. Collaboration with this board is important, but we believe a restructuring is needed, and I'll talk you through some of the challenges and why we believe that. So I do want to mention that Nate Johnson with Law is here. He's been our expert as we've walked through and worked with the Access Advisory Board for many years. He helped prepare this ordinance that you see today and certainly will be here to help answer any questions you might have. One of the things I want to mention too before we start talking about the background and our proposal today is we do have trained and educated staff across multiple divisions within our city engineer's office. MABCD has plan reviewers who are trained and educated on ADA on the law. So we've got engineers and other professional staff who are involved with designing and building public infrastructure on a daily basis and incorporating the requirements of the ADA, the federal law. So we have a really good foundation to start, I believe, in what we're doing for accessibility across the community. Some of that is on a program level, too. Our ADA coordinator, she is now a certified ADA coordinator. She does a wonderful job working with some of the programmatic issues even outside of public infrastructure. So I think we've got a good start and a good foundation. This board is much needed. They provide advice to us. We were able to talk to them about new projects and I'll talk about that in a moment here about what we want to do to reestablish what we think is an effective structure for this board. The proposed ordinance reestablishes the Wichita-Sedgwick County Access Advisory Board as the Access Advisory Board within the city code. It reduces the board size from the current structure of up to 32 members to seven voting members, clarifies its responsibilities, and creates a more efficient, effective, and consistent appointment process while maintaining accessibility, oversight, and collaboration with Sedgwick County. We also want to maintain collaboration with our partner organizations, some who are now currently part of the board. There's no intention to leave them behind. We still want them to be a part of this process moving forward and create the ability to have engagement just as they have up to this point. The board was established by the city in relation to litigation filed in 2004 alleging violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The city took meaningful measures in response to the litigation, mostly through a formal transition plan to improve ADA compliance, and the lawsuit was dismissed in 2019. That transition plan is still out there. It's still active. We reference it often. We get questions about ADA compliance on facilities. These are existing facilities that were part of the settlement agreement and the original lawsuit. So we still reference that. We still look back to that. We still have those discussions to ensure that we met all the requirements. with the dismissal of the lawsuit in 2019, said that we did, but we haven't left that behind. So that's always still there. And going forward, especially again with MABCD and their building plans reviews, we are ensuring that ADA compliance is met on all future public infrastructure. While the document dismissing The lawsuit identifies the structure of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Access Advisory Board at the time. The city can't adjust this structure consistent with the ADA, which is our intent with this item today. So talking about the current challenges and why we're here to have this discussion. Following its creation, the board expanded to include representation from Cedric County as well as numerous non-government entities. The board currently includes up to 32 potential positions as shown in exhibit B, although not all seats are filled. So I might stop there for just a moment. and talk about some challenges tied to this. As you can probably imagine, 32 board members is tough to manage. It's hard to establish a quorum. There are folks who attend on a regular basis. There are some who aren't able to as often. it creates what I would say is not always consistent conversation. But when you can't establish quorum and we're trying to get recommendations from the board, it makes it really difficult. One thing I'll add to that, we had started talking about this idea of trying to do something different with the board over the past few months. In June, we mentioned the idea of a restructuring. There was no meeting held in July. I reached out to the board last week to let them know what our intentions were with this item today. I sent an email to what our records show, staff as being the current board makeup. I heard from numerous folks who said that wasn't the current list. that there was, and that the one that's in your packet also doesn't match, and that there's a belief that there's a third or fourth list that may comprise, that in and of itself creates issues for us. Even working through the city manager's office and through the council office on your appointments, the city manager's appointments over time, it's just become really, really challenging to manage a board of this size even more so than what happens during the meetings, of figuring out who should be at the table. So that's why we want to take a more strategic approach to this that will align with what is happening with most of our other boards. The current structure has become difficult to administer and limits the board effectiveness. Challenges include, and I've already talked about some of these things, but I'll hit on it again, a large membership that makes meetings inefficient, ineffective, and complicates quorum requirements, inconsistent appointment processes among multiple appointing authorities. As you see on attachment A, the current board has appointments from Central County Board of Commission, obviously from all of you, multiple appointments from the city manager, one from the county manager, multiple organizations across the community. Meeting agendas and discussions can be driven by individual participants rather than board priorities. We do want to get a better handle on that because this board can be effective and we do need their input. The structure of the meetings has become a challenge because administratively it's been tough to manage these meetings, especially of this size. There's been difficulty recruiting and retaining board leadership. What I've seen over recent years is it's really hard to find somebody who is willing to be the chair. Because of the challenges with the meeting, how the structures of the meetings are, how the discussions go, seem to come back to the same place quite often. We would like to overcome that and be able to really move forward and have more clear and focused discussions. That starts with, hopefully, finding an effective board, a smaller board, folks who are willing to be chair, vice chair, to help lead these meetings forward, and then also from an administrative standpoint, which I'll talk about in just a moment. The increased administrative burden resulted in Sedgwick County discontinuing staff support for the board. So on that point real quick, Sedgwick County was gracious enough at one point in time as this board was developed to facilitate the meetings and they had administrative oversight of the meetings. They kept that going for some time and I'll tell you, The majority of issues that come before this board that we discuss have nothing to do with Sedgwick County and are all within Wichita. There can be, and our proposal, if you've had a chance to look, includes an ex-officio member, Sedgwick County ADA coordinator still being at the table as a non-voting member. We don't intend to leave the county out. The proposal that's in front of you today had discussions through City Manager Marstall and with County Manager Stoltz The county has provided support for this approach. Pending your approval today, they will have an item before the Board of County Commissioners tomorrow to effectively follow the same path. So they had some appointments that they would no longer have, and we will take over administration of this board. We have started to do that already. Our ADA coordinator's an important part of that. I've got administrative staff that will be part of this going forward. Once we get, I think, in the flow of things and get our feet underneath this, it really won't be an additional burden for us administratively. So the proposed restructure, looks like this. The board continues to provide viable input on accessibility issues and I want to continue to reinforce that. We do not want this board to go away, we want to make it more effective. The proposed ordinance restructures the board to improve efficiency, clarify responsibilities, align it with other city advisory boards and strengthen its role in reviewing accessibility related projects and policies. The proposed ordinance would codify the Access Advisory Board and the City Code consistent with other City Advisory Boards. That is the ordinance that is in your packet today. It would establish a seven-member voting board appointed by the Mayor and City Council. The structure creates a consistent approach appointment process while maintaining representation through elected officials. THE ORDINANCE WOULD ESTABLISH FOUR EX-OFFICIAL NON-VOTING MEMBERS. THAT'S THE CITY'S ADA COORDINATOR, THE COUNTY'S ADA COORDINATOR, THE CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER, AND THE CITY TRANSIT REPRESENTATIVES. THOSE FOUR BEING AT THE TABLE HAS ALWAYS BEEN REALLY IMPORTANT WHEN WE LOOK AT COMPLIANCE ISSUES AND ACCESSIBILITY CONCERNS ACROSS THE COMMUNITY. The ordinance would continue providing meeting notice to stakeholder organizations and seek their input when evaluating prospective board members while eliminating designated voting seats for stakeholder organizations. Several organizations identified in the current version of the board no longer exist or actively participate, making dedicated voting positions unnecessary. I want to hit on that again. The input of the stakeholder organizations is critical, and we don't intend to leave them out. While they may not be voting members going forward, they can absolutely be a part of the process. They can be at the meetings. They can be a part of the discussions. They can provide input. And in my opinion, it's going to work like it did before with the value that they bring to us. Continuing on. defining the board's responsibilities would include reviewing capital improvement, infrastructure, transit, and mobility projects at designated project milestones to incorporate accessibility and universal design principles, providing recommendations regarding sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, public facilities, parks, transit access, and related accessibility improvements, and reviewing city accessibility policies and other accessibility initiatives. Being able to get to a point where we can have a very clear agenda We can have focused meetings going forward. One of the things that I've witnessed, and it's no fault to anybody on the board, there's some wonderful passionate people that are still involved in this board. I hope they're involved going forward. This is not a dysfunctional process, but I believe it's gotten to the point that it's an unfunctional process just because of over time the size of the board and the way things evolved. These three bullet points are very critical for us. I mentioned our engineers and our professionals working through design and construction. We need this input from this board. We value their life experiences with new facilities to make sure that we know We feel comfortable with what we need to do to follow the law, but we also value their input, and we want to keep that moving forward. The proposed restructuring will improve board efficiency, effectiveness, simplifying administration, provides a clear framework for accessibility review of city projects and policies, and strengthens the board's ability to advise the city on accessibility matters. The ordinance and the bylaws that Nate drafted include meeting structures. What we hope for is these meetings to follow a similar path like district advisory boards and not unlike this meeting. We want to have an opportunity for public comment, for things that are not on the agenda. We want to have an opportunity for public comment for things that are on the agenda. But what's happening right now, right, wrong, or otherwise, is we're kind of going in circles. And when we talk about projects, we don't seem to come to resolve. In the next meeting, we're talking about the same thing. And it doesn't always feel like we're making progress. Regardless of what all is causing that, we want to get to a better place so that we can all be on the same page. Approval of the proposed ordinance would void current Board appointments. Upon appointment of its members, the Access Advisory Board is expected to meet at least monthly during its initial organization and implementation period. Appointment terms shall be two years. So let me just say that again so it's very clear. If you're moved forward to approve this item today, all of the current board appointments would be extinguished. They would be voided. We would work with all seven of you, however you would wish, to reappoint a board so that we can move forward. And I mentioned before and I'll mention again, subject county leadership has affirmed approval of the proposed board structure. I'm gonna run through this real quick so that I'm sure we can get to questions and comments. This is in your packet. I think this does a good job of summarizing current structure versus proposed structure and why it matters. I'm not gonna read through every part of this, but we talked about board size and composition. The proposed plan reduces complexity and improves accountability and decision making. The governance model I just talked about aligns with the board of standard city governance models and improves clarity. Voting membership creates a clear authority for decisions and prevents fragmented voting. City and county representation, as we were working through this, hadn't fully finalized the discussion with Sedgwick County. They will not end up with any voting members, but this ensures a balanced representation while improving structure and fairness. ADA and technical staff roles, we talked about the ex-officio members. Stakeholder organizations, I've talked about a lot, and I just wanna say one more time, this preserves input while maintaining a manageable voting body. We are not discounting the need for their input, and we want to keep that going forward. Decision-making process, this improves efficiency, clarity, and consistency of decisions. We're not trying to rush through this process, we're not trying to necessarily speed up meetings, but they can be some long meetings, and by the time we get to the end, We're not always in a good place of really even knowing what was accomplished before we can move on to the next meeting. Project review process is critical for us. It's one of the things where we need the most input from this board. This reduces delays and allows projects to move forward efficiently. I talked about meeting efficiency. We want to get on top of that. Overall outcome is this strengthens effectiveness while preserving accessibility input. There are no financial impacts associated with establishing the Access Advisory Board. I'd mention one more time that we will have some administrative staff get involved with facilitating these meetings. I've worked with our assistant director of administration. We can make this work without adding any cost. And you have no budget impacts to us. Once we get this going, again, I think we're in a better flow. This shouldn't be too much of a time crunch for us. it's been hard over time to even provide meeting minutes it's been hard to get meeting agendas out ahead of time so we're excited about the opportunity to be able to do this having said all of that staff recommends city council place the ordinance on first reading and authorizing necessary signatures at the point in time if you're willing to make a recommendation and move forward we do have one clerical issue within the ordinance that i'll let our city attorney clarify for you

Thank you, Carrie. Mayor, council members, there's this error I just wanted to draw your attention to, and thank you, Mayor, for finding this. In section seven of the proposed ordinance, it says 2.12.010, and it should say 2.12020. I'm happy to stand for any questions.

We will start with Councilmember Hohaisel. Thank you, Gary.

Thank you, Mayor. A couple of questions. And, Nate, you might help on one or two of these. Even if they don't have a quorum, they can still advise, correct? Correct. Okay. How many action items do you say that they actually go through during a year?

Well, it depends on where we're at with projects. So pretty much all of our new facilities projects we take before the board. I don't know that every single one of our transportation projects necessary is necessary to go before the board because it's pretty straightforward when it comes to ADA compliance. When we were looking at the downtown streets, we had discussions with the board. It can really vary. There's been agendas where just the timing of how project flow is, we didn't necessarily have anything real specific, but I'll mention again, there's value in public comment because there are things that are brought to the board's attention and to ours that were made a recent issue that came up related to accessibility. So there's always that opportunity. We just need to get to a better place of how that works functionally and formally so that we can respond to it effectively and then we can move forward with that because we seem to come back to the same issues a lot. And in defense of everybody involved in this, we're just not getting to the point, I think, of being able to resolve the issues the way we all want to.

No, I think that's a common feeling that a lot of people within the community and up here has is how do we make it more effective. Do they offer virtual options to the meeting?

Yes, we will. Thank you for that. One of the things that Nate's putting together, and that question came to me too, there's been some challenges with the meetings, and that's got nothing to do with Sedgwick County. They've done a great job and very appreciative of what they've done. We're going to find what I feel like is probably a better place to have these meetings to make sure the technology is in place, but there will be for every single meeting that people can join online. So that's not currently the practice? No, it is. It is. It seems like there's been some... When we've met at times, there was challenges with technology, but it has been.

It has been there.

We're just going to get to a little bit better place where we feel comfortable with that technology.

Is that due to the location of their meeting?

It was partly the location. We've been at several different locations over the years, but nothing's perfect, even with technology. We want to try... to overcome any issues we might have. Not that there, it was the last few meetings I went to, there were folks online and it seemed to be working okay.

So the county has 12 seats being eliminated and then one being added back as ex officio. Are they on board with that? Do you get the feeling that, I know you've had the talks with the county manager, do you have any idea how the county commission feels about this?

The information I got from the county manager was that he's He talked to the board about this and everyone was fine moving forward. So they have an item on the Board of County Commissioners meeting tomorrow to revise their ordinance to reflect this change if you so choose to move forward.

And I'm sorry, I should have sent this question to you earlier, but the problems with attendance, is that on the county side? Is that on the city side? Or is that more on the nonprofits and the various other groups? With attendance? Attendance, yes, sir.

I don't go to every meeting. I went to the last few. My experience over time, especially when I was the ADA coordinator and was there more often, it's a mix. It's across the board. You know, people are a bit, but I mean, there are, I don't want to make it sound like nobody's attending. It just really is a mix. Sometimes it's one, sometimes it's the other. That's the challenge with a big board. There's times when there'd be a good number of board members there. But even if you had all of them, it is hard to get anything done if you've got 32 people trying to vote on something. It is just really, really challenging. And that doesn't mean that we're not interested in diverse opinions and input. Always welcome that. uh... that we would get stuck a lot uh... on not being able to move things forward there's there's some real consistency on some folks that do show up uh... our partner organizations they're pretty consistent in being there and providing input but it just varies councilmember that's why our hope is uh... if we can move forward with a more concerted smaller structure that we can try to get to a place that we ensure board members are there, board members are buying in, board members are helping move the issues forward.

Okay, is there any reason 259, did they not show interest in continuing on this board?

It wasn't a matter of picking and choosing who stayed on. As a matter of consistency in some of the things that I talked about and aligning with other boards, we think it makes sense, again, talking to the county. My experience and all the time I've been involved in this board, the major majority of issues are related to the City of Wichita and not Sedgwick County. I mean, it's all Sedgwick County, right? I feel like it wasn't valuable for their time and the people that they had engaged, especially they were taking on facilitating the meetings when these were city issues. So when we chose to go this route to, again, better align with the structure of other boards, this wasn't a matter of saying certain people shouldn't be on the board. I don't know what this looks like going forward. USD 259 has been part of the discussions. One of the values we have with USD 259 is staff meets with them on a monthly basis outside of the Access Advisory Board to talk about all things related to student safety, public safety at all the schools. That includes ADA compliance, that includes traffic safety, pedestrian safety, so we have the real value of engaging with USD 259 whether they've been a part of these discussions or not.

Okay, so essentially I'm asking they're not even ex officio and are they okay with that?

I haven't talked directly with USD 259 about that. Okay.

Now, this is kind of a touchy subject because there's a lot of different perspectives that go into access. So what have we done to ensure people, for example, there are people who have mobility issues, there are people who have vision issues, hearing issues, elderly issues. So what have we done to make sure that everybody, all the particular issues affecting people with access are being addressed in this? I know it comes to us to kind of parse through and make sure that we have a variety of opinions and a variety of viewpoints on this. Has that been taken into consideration when designing the board reorganization?

The ordinance does not speak specifically to that. Others have asked that question. Our hope is and a fresh start here and the ability for the mayor and all council members to appoint board members, some of them likely could be the same. Our hope is, and we'll provide any information you need and work with you, obviously it's your appointments, but we hope that we are able to cover representation as you have just laid out I don't know that that necessarily means there has to be people on this board that directly represent any of those categories, if you will. But we do want to have those represented. I think it can be a great opportunity to make sure that that is what we're doing. Right now, again, the way this board has grown, there's this long list that it looks like, it appears on paper, that we've kind of covered all of our issues, but it has not gotten us even close to where we need to be in my opinion.

Does ex officio count towards quorum? They do not. They're non-voting members. So quorum is going to be four out of seven now. OK. And I'm also curious, was there any consideration towards adding more ex officio because you are talking viewpoints?

So that question's been asked of me of some of the organizations. And here's what I would tell you. And I think this is why we ended up where we did. We're willing to consider anything you want to consider. I would caution where we go with that because I'm afraid if we start looking at who else should be ex officio members, with all due respect to all of those organizations, we'll end up right back at 32 people before you know it. Even if they're non-voting members, I don't know where we stop. It's not trying to leave anybody out. Our hope is through these reappointment of seven members that we can find the best representation of the accessible community and all of those involved. And everybody can still be at these meetings. Everybody can still have input at these meetings. We welcome it. We want that to be a part of the discussion going forward. I think the only way we can really make this impactful and effective is we have got to limit the number of voting members.

Well, I can agree with that to a point. I just want to make sure that we don't do away with all the different perspectives that are needed that are our blind spots.

We are not. And we will continue to fully engage. They will all be a part of the meeting invites. Every single group that has been part of the board already will still be engaged with what's coming forward. They'll know what the agenda is. They'll be on the invites for the meetings. And my hope is, obviously, I think that that can still work well.

Okay, I'll have more to say during comments, but through with my questions for now.

Council Member Shepherd.

Thank you, Mayor. Gary, you mentioned about the 32 number and I would agree it can be very difficult to have continuity and just very productive, robust conversation with that many people in the room. I'm curious though, as we look at our boards and commissions and we start to build out a pipeline of individuals who are qualified to serve, is there an opportunity to create some ad hoc committees for some of those individuals who won't be selected to serve as one of the seven to maybe head an ad hoc committee that serves as a feeder into the actual board when someone rolls off.

Sure, I think that's possible. I can tell you over time there was an attempt to do that. We could certainly look at that again. At one time there was a I don't know if it was a facilities or a public building committee. There was transportation, and they just never seemed to work. It was hard to get folks to commit to even another committee. You know what? I don't think that's a bad thing to possibly consider. Maybe if we can get our feet underneath this here with a more manageable board structure going forward, I think it's likely that that conversation could be held at that point with that board to see what makes sense. I'll give you an example. As we were contemplating the thought of doing something different here, even last year, I talked to the board about looking at updating the bylaws. and Nate had put some information together that was brought to the board earlier this year and they wanted that to be redone. It was brought back to him in the spring and the board chose at that time to develop a bylaws committee to work on that themselves. To my knowledge, I don't know if anything's happened with that. Maybe it has. That's not giving an answer to say, no, it shouldn't work. It's been a challenge. It's just been hard. But I think that, again, is because of the size of this board and the makeup and where it's gone. I've heard and seen people that have left this board because they were frustrated that we weren't making progress as they wanted. I really think if we could get moving forward with a smaller board makeup like we're proposing here, those types of things could probably make more sense now than they did in the past.

Thank you, Gary. And I think that what you are describing is something that I hear across many of our boards. And I think that comes down to training. that comes down to providing the tools and the resources available to board members to understand the processes and the framework. And we just recently had the district one DAB training and there were lots of aha moments for a lot of our members. And so city manager, I would just say that as we are looking at the boards and commissions, really looking at how we build in an infrastructure to provide that training so folks understand and feel empowered to understand their roles and responsibilities as a board member. Gary, I'm really interested in, to council member Hoheisel's point about USD 259 being a part of this board, even if just as an ex officio member, recently had the opportunity to sit down with board of education member, Amy Warren, and Kim from WAMPO to talk about the connection of safe routes to schools. And what we do know is that there are members of our school district who do have accessibility challenges. And so I do think that there is a place for them in this conversation, especially as we look at the infrastructure and how we continue to create more safe routes to schools.

I don't disagree with you at all. I just would mention again, and I'm sorry to be redundant, we have a very structured and formal collaboration with USD 259 in place already. If you'll recall, there's annual funding in the CIP that is split between the city and the school district. We've got staff that meets with them on a regular basis. It's gotten to where it works tremendously well. They meet at a specific school site. They talk about any issues related to ADA compliance. I mentioned that before. So I just want to let you know there's this great structure already in place, but we certainly could look at doing that and having a part of this too. I think it's just going to be a lot of the same discussions, which is fine. But I'm confident that we are in a really good place in covering our bases with USD 259 in this regard already.

Can I just add a little bit of a different perspective? And that is that many times when you're sitting in the room with those individuals who also have a common interest, you learn where there's opportunity for collaboration and you learn maybe where folks are going in a different direction where you should be going the same direction so i don't doubt that there's already a mechanism in place with 259 where you and your staff feel comfortable but certainly being in the room with other individuals who share the passion of accessibility presents some opportunities for maybe usd 259 to think about where the gaps exist within their institutions. I know that, for example, dyslexia is a major conversation in USD 259 right now. And maybe there's something to learn from being a part of these conversations with accessibility. And I even liken it to our friends with blind and visual impairments. A lot of folks, you don't know what you don't know, but when you're in the room and you hear about those lived experiences, it allows us to be more preventative than reactive. So I would just say, again, there's benefit to multiple stakeholders being a part of these conversations. And finally, I would just say, you mentioned the lawsuit. Can you maybe give me some background on this? I know that I followed one particular situation where our downtown streets were not audio accessible for the folks who were blind, visually impaired. I believe we may have addressed that, but can you speak to how we got here again? You mentioned a little bit about it.

I'll let Nate talk about the original lawsuit. And I'll mention the last part of what you talked about real quick. So I will tell you, I talked about what we do for design and construction of public facilities and following the law. Like anything else, there is interpretations of the law. So we have continued to work with the board and the disabled community regarding the issue with the audible signals. There's a lot of issues related to that. We've looked at what other communities have done. We're still moving forward with that. We have actually put in place with all new improvements that it will include audible pedestrian signals. So I just want to mention that real quick because we've heard that. We know there's a concern. We're working on it. I'm going to let Nate talk about the original lawsuit.

Appreciate that, Gary. Nate Beartaller-Johnson with the Law Department. And just really quick, on USD 259, one of the reasons we'd, their representative hadn't been present at a meeting in about a year, despite kind of the other process that we have with them, which I think is just kind of symptomatic of sort of the issues that we're having with the current structure. The original lawsuit was from 2004 and was predominantly about city facilities and their overall compliance with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. So whether as of 2004, we brought especially newer facilities since the ADA had been passed in 1990 up to the standards that were required. And over about a 15-year process, that lawsuit stayed on the docket. There was kind of an interim settlement at the beginning where the city decided to institute that transition plan as part of this litigation. You can still look on the website for every facility that we have. There's a document that lays out all of the accessibility issues that were present at the time that continue to do so, and we do our best to update that. That's kind of an always ongoing thing. And this settlement, as it's often called, is really kind of a dismissal of that lawsuit. So 15 years later, 2019, the city's in substantial compliance with the ADA with these transition plans and all of the work done on public facilities, and the lawsuit was dismissed. Now it's not a settlement so much, I think, as an acknowledgement that the city's taken action and we are still always required to be accessible under the ADA. And the specific things that were brought up in that lawsuit were addressed by the city, but we still need to stay updated on our transition plans, on our facilities, all those sorts of things, those continuing obligations that we have with the ADA. Now, while this lawsuit was going on, relatively early on, the city of Wichita itself established an Access Advisory Board. As that board was put in place, they decided to expand representation to include Sedgwick County. But I think it is kind of interesting to note that originally this board was just created for the city. It was not necessarily in response to the litigation. Obviously, it's part of it. It was a discussion with the same people that were involved in the litigation. But there wasn't a claim that the city was in violation of the ADA because we did not have an access advisory board. Other cities don't have access advisory boards. It doesn't make them out of compliance. But there was a structure laid out and involved a lot of different organizations and groups. But that document and that lawsuit doesn't mean the city can't restructure that organization to be more effective. And there's not really anything in the ADA that says the board has to be a particular way. We're kind of looking at ways to make this more consistent with other boards. But the lawsuit's somewhat related, but doesn't necessarily have a legal effect on what you all can do with the board moving forward.

Thank you for explaining that complex legal matter in a very efficient way and where I can understand. I appreciate it because the context matters of how we got here, and so I appreciate you laying that out. Sure.

Vice Mayor Glasscock.

Thank you, Mayor. And those that I talked with, I think there's a prevailing understanding that what we're doing now isn't working. I know that there's also concerns that we may have not communicated that to the board prior. I was told that they received notification on Thursday. I think they should have been involved prior to that conversation as well. One of the big concerns I have is not necessarily moving to this model. I think that this could be a successful model. I think it's successful with other boards as well. And I know I hear often from my appointee, he's spoken multiple times from this bench advocating for moving toward this model. The one concern I have is really speaking to the loss of individuals. If you go from 30 to seven, we're going to be decreasing by 23 members, 23 people that have vested interest in this, that have put a lot of time to this, that care about this, and that feel that they may be losing their perspective on the board as well. What are ways that we've tried to speak to that loss or mitigate that loss, or how are we gonna continue to do that if we move forward with this? and still incorporate those 23 voices as part of the conversation too.

So first, we know it's 23, but part of the difficulty is there are several that don't show up. So the number is a bit narrower, I suppose. That's nitpicking a bit. And I think getting to your more important point is, So we did write language into the code that the board is supposed to represent the diverse residents of the city as effectively as possible. And we think other seven board members, seven member boards otherwise do that throughout the city. The same folks on the board currently could conceivably be reappointed by you all, depending on the appointment process. We have those four ex-officio members as well, so that kind of gets the board, and those are all members or listed on the membership as well, so it's probably a little bit closer to 11 to 25-ish. And we're really going to do our best to continue with, as Gary mentioned, meeting invites, outreach to communicate that all of those people are welcome at every meeting and can comment on the agenda at appropriate points at every time too. but just hopefully then in a more structured and productive way to provide recommendations to city staff.

Maybe one quick follow-up. Yeah. Did we present this idea to the board prior and have a conversation with them at any meeting just so they were aware that this was coming up and that they could offer maybe some feedback on the formation of the board?

We mentioned, we discussed the reorganization at the June meeting, and then there was not a July meeting. We decided to go ahead with presenting this to city council, but also as Gary mentioned, I mean, I've been working on bylaws to restructure the board at their direction since last fall. It tracks a lot of the same things. You'll notice the powers and duties, and I have copies of that lawsuit settlement dismissal, kind of track the exact same powers and duties, but with an additional component of plan review, having really specific plan review component of the board to provide that moving forward.

So you said the board was looking at it, so this may be derived from board conversations?

This specific proposal has not been before the board, but it was developed based on the work we've been doing with them on this issue for the past year.

Okay. I may have more questions, but thank you. That's great answers. Thank you.

I just had a couple of quick ones. I wanted to know, on our green sheet, it actually says there will be no fiscal impact. Can you explain the staff time currently required to administer this board, so that's one question, and then the other, whether this new structure is expected to reduce the burden?

We have, as we've evolved, and I mentioned before that Sedgwick County was no longer able to support, which is fine, and we've been working on this for some time, and I've had another one of our administrative staff start attending meetings I don't know that we're going to necessarily see a reduction in the amount of time or an efficiency. It will be compared to right now. As we move forward, however this moves forward, the city is taking over administration of this board and facilitation of meetings. I've got an administrative staff member that will spend time as needed, but I think as we can move forward, however it might be, they'll be able to get their feet underneath them and we will gain some efficiencies. I don't see any additional cost impacts. I don't know that we're gonna see any savings either, but we're using existing staff. There's no additional staffing resources needed to be able to take care of this. But because we're just now evolving into that, I just don't have a complete feel yet of what that takes.

But will it be more efficient if you get down from 32 to seven?

That is our hope. I can't imagine that it would not be.

Thank you very much. I see no further questions from the bench. We will now open it up for public comment on this specific item.

I was waiting all day too. James Underwood, District 4. Ladies and gentlemen, I encourage you to approve this. I'm going to use two engineering examples to kind of get into it. One, when you build something, you can use the most expensive materials there are, the most expensive labor, but if the foundation is not solid, all you've built is a pile of garbage. The foundation is not solid right now. This ordinance before you will simply wipe the slate clean. That includes the position I have. I'm on the board. Mine goes too. Everybody, clean it, start over from the ground up. A competent engineer will tell you that's the best way to build something. The second one, when I got my engineering degree, which was May of 83, ADA did not exist. It was created the very next decade. And like all engineers at that time, I had to learn it, come forward with it. At that time, I was actually on the Department of Transportation as an engineer in Colorado. It was a learning curve. Every meeting we had, it was a learning curve. But you do that. You go forward. You're not going to have it instantly. You work at it. The second thing, or the third now, We need to reorganize, as I mentioned the first time around. But this is not a blockage. The ADA does not go away. The AAB does not go away. It is being restructured to go forward. And that's what we have to do. We cannot back up. We just can't. And I want to stress that in the 40-some years ADA has been out here, the city has changed. The engineering in the city has changed. The universities have changed. It is simply here, now, every day. You will not find a project anywhere where it is not put into effect. And the vast number of people that benefit from ADA actually have no handicaps. It's everyday citizens. Every single citizen of Wichita benefits from the law. How many of you walk into a grocery store? You go in flat, straight up. When I was a kid, every store had steps, sometimes three or four. Nowadays, it's all level entries. Those that don't have level entries, be they restaurants or whatever, they have ramps. So ADA is here. It is going forward. It is not limiting people. And a lot of time it was mentioned on 259. One of my relatives, now retired from 259, was actually working with the students that had special needs. Entire career. It's been in my family for the last 40 years. I mean every meeting, every family get together, we had a meeting basically. So it's there. It's out there. We can narrow this down, move forward. Like I said, my position goes away. If people are complaining about not having enough positions, I feel sorry for them. But you know what? We need the foundation. We need to go forward. Wichita needs to stay in the lead, not fall back. So give them the base to do it. And while I do question a couple of things, I think in the ordinance, but it's not just about the AAB, it's about a lot of the boards. But it doesn't rise to the level of blocking this ordinance, support this ordinance all the way. If you have questions, I'll answer them, but we got like one minute.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

I'm just gonna lower this if that's okay. My name is Lisa Veda. I reside in District 2 at 14400 East, East Board of Kings. I am the current Wichita Sedgwick County Access Advisory Board Chair. And the Chair, as the Chair, I want to state what our mission is, and that is to enhance community by the contributions of persons with disabilities. It seeks to provide access to facilities, programs, and employment for persons with disabilities, enabling them to participate in the social and economic life of the city and achieve maximum personal independence. This statement has been in place for years. That is our mission statement. I am dismayed because the notice regarding the proposed ordinance was received by myself and the board on Thursday, August 6th, but was actually created almost three weeks ago on July 24th. This creates a barrier for people with disabilities to respond in person, especially those that have to find transportation through paratransit and also need assistance with their mobility devices. Luckily, I have a wonderful husband that was able to help me today. There was no collaboration with the current board that includes many members who have disabilities and are experts in what is needed by our community. I wish to point out that exhibit A is not up to date and came from the Sedgwick County website. This is despite my communicating a current version to city and county ADA coordinators that the board worked on bylaws that have pared down the size of the board by eliminating organizations that are not active. Mr. Jansen stated that there were issues with appointments with unfilled positions and appointees not attending meetings. And I want you to know that actually most of those appointments are yours from city leadership. This has been an issue for at least two years. Some of you have not made an appointment for over two years. And when I talked to you about your appointments, that they weren't attending meetings, you still reappointed them, even though they had not attended meetings for over a year. So this is on you for the absence. The Access Advisory Board has issues with lack of staff support. Staff support for the recording, distribution, and minutes was removed completely at the beginning of 2026. We've been completing this task ourselves. There have been issues with audio and visual recordings where Actually, the interns and the ADA coordinators failed to start the recording device, and most recently in June of 2026, the recording somehow was lost and cannot be retrieved. I believe those are probably infractions of the CORA violation. We had to cancel our July 2026 meeting because the city and county could not guarantee the provision of audio visual that facilitates meeting links, allowing online attendance and recording the minutes for the transcription. Both ADA coordinators for the city and county were not available, and they're usually the ones that assured that that was being done. With regards to current bylaws, we were instructed by the city staff that the city and county legal departments were not required to assist us, but were doing the board a favor in the past. And since the city and county legal hesitated to continue to provide the services, we were in the process of updating the bylaws ourselves and recently had ratified at the June meeting some of those bylaws that pared down the board size. We've requested multiple times about the process of reporting ADA issues such as hazards with sidewalks, inconsistent curb cuts, accessible pedestrian signals, and paid downtown parking. The board, but not necessarily the public, was instructed to email the city ADA coordinator and city engineering or use the city app and parking app. However, we know that it is an overwhelming endeavor for that ADA coordinator and the staff because we were told so at a previous meeting. Not to mention the fact that the parking app is not that accessible. It seems to me that the process of dismantling the current Wichita-Sedgwick County Access Advisory Board has been in the works for several months, but why didn't you include us in that? You could have saved the current board time and energy by including us. And like many policies, these proposed ordinances involving people with disabilities was created by able-bodied, policymakers for a more efficient and effective Ford. Efficient and effective for what? And efficient and effective for whom? We need a board that functions for the betterment and inclusion of the disabled community. However, the city and county leadership track record in helping us with this endeavor in the past has been less than stellar. I believe in the process of nothing about us without us. Therefore, I'm requesting that this proposed ordinance be rejected and you collaborate with disabled people who actually make up 25% of the population, and this could create an ordinance and a board that benefits all of our community and fulfills our mission, which I stated in the beginning. Thank you very much. Thank you, Lisa.

Council Member Hohaisel.

Thank you, Mayor. I know we have had issues with technology, and that goes across the board here in the last couple of months, and that's something we are working to rectify.

Mr.

Manager, can we get, at the next convenient time, the role, the attendance role for this board over the last two years? All right, thank you. I appreciate you, Lisa.

Vice Mayor Glasscock.

Hey Lisa, thank you for your comments regarding the proposed structure. And again, I think you should have been included throughout this whole process as well. When we're looking at the specific language of the ordinance are, and I'm sure that you've probably reviewed it. What are maybe some of your specific concerns regarding the actual language of the ordinance?

Our current board requires that at least 51% of the membership be made up of people with disabilities or those not just working for an organization, people that have disabilities, but I would like to see more of the people that actually have a disability so that we can give our input. Because I will tell you that what the ADA states on certain requirements that you have to have that a bathroom may be accessible. But when you go into that bathroom, it isn't really accessible. They may have placed a large trash can in front of it. Even the size of the new advanced library does not allow for a person in a wheelchair to actually turn around 360 degrees and transfer onto the toilet.

Okay, so that 51%?

I want at least, you know, it would be good to have at least 51%. I think that also making sure that people involved don't have a way of making money off of the votes. So I think that if you have certain organizations or certain businesses, and I think that that's upheld in most of the ordinances already.

Yeah, I was like, that's probably already, Jennifer, is that prohibited by our ethics code already?

Okay, because I don't think we had that in the board. Okay. So that would be part of it. The other part was just let us be a part of the process. This took us, by surprise I think, Gary said that it was mentioned at the June meeting. It was made basically as just saying, well, you know, the city's, it was almost, I don't want to say a threat, but it was made the mention that, Well, you know, they're thinking about restructuring anyway. And then when we asked for clarification of that, we weren't given any.

So I thank you for that. Again, I think a lot of it probably comes down to the communication with the board. I would agree 100%. Less probably the actual tangible changes. Would that be a fair assumption?

And then I think we talked about this as well. I don't know if you are receiving the minutes of this meeting.

I know we receive and consent agenda items, minute meetings. We can double check whether that's.

Okay, because I know that you had specifically asked for that. So we want to make sure that we're actually being heard. I think that when we talk about one of the reasons that Mr. Jansen stated that we seem to not get anything done because we were revisiting those issues is because items they would tell us if we would ask a question, well, we'll get back to you at the next meeting as answers. And we'd always have to keep reminding that we keep these on the agenda because we've never had a resolved issue. And a lot of times it requires answers from leadership, from the city and county leadership.

Well, thank you for all the questions. That's all the questions I have right now. Appreciate it, Lisa.

Council Member Tuttle. Thank you and thank you Lisa for being here and I sent you an email. I'm sorry I had to be out of town last week but we're going to find a time to meet and learn more and tobacco-free Wichita days, right? So we're together again. A question that I have and this is just really logistical and maybe a reason why we need to think about this even more is I totally understand and respect the 51% of the board being represented by people with physical disabilities. But the really hard part is seven of us would appoint someone, but we don't know who everybody's going to appoint. So how would we know to get to the 51%?

I see Nate shaking his head. Nate, do you understand what I'm trying to figure out?

Yeah. So, I mean, it's a really good point and I really like it. I just don't know how we would ever do that because you have seven people appointing and I don't know if Councilmember, you know, Ballard is going to appoint someone who has a disability or not. I'm open to a discussion, but these are the kind of things, I'm very logistical thinking that, you know, maybe we need to go back and look at this again because it sounds like you have great ideas, but some of them may not be able to work into, you know, how our process works. I wish I had a great solution other than I think that you can hear pretty clearly that and from all seven of us and staff that we want to make this the best functioning board that we can. So thank you for being here today and thanks for your comments and thanks in advance for meeting with me.

I see no further comments. We'll continue with public comment.

Okay. I guess I'm a little taller than Lisa. Okay, I understand there's a clock. If somebody would give me a three minute warning, I'd appreciate it. Hopefully I won't get there. My name is Tom Page. I serve as the vice chair of the Wichita-Cedric County Access Advisory Board. I'm a fifth generation Wichitan. I'm an entrepreneur. I have a business here in Wichita. In my business, I get to travel the country. It's a great life on the road. And through that and my volunteer work with National Federation of the Blind, I have developed an interest in disability advocacy. To address some of Mr. Jansen's concerns, I do not believe we've had problems achieving a quorum. The only meetings that we have had to cancel because of quorum issues have been when the AV went down. As Lisa addressed, we have been working on the bylaws. And in fact, at this August meeting, we were scheduled to finish the ratification of that. With regard to circularity, I do think there has been a very stressed situation on this board and going back a long time. I've served as vice chair under three chair people now and this has not changed. I first became aware of the board when the city invented it and a representative of our local NFB chapter was placed on it, a lady named Billie Melugin who is, God bless her, now deceased. So I've been receiving reports of how this board has functioned for many years, and I've hesitated to be a part of it because of the circular problem. And in my mind, what we deal with is any time we as citizen input members or civic-minded members point out compliance gaps or best practice gaps, city staff takes it as a personal assault. We often ask for questions and clarification. We have to repeatedly ask for those questions and clarification month after month before sometimes we eventually get something, sometimes we don't. As long as those compliance gaps, such as the compliance gap on pedestrian right-of-way access guidelines, compliance gap on our current parking system, with regards to how it's been implemented in the city and the Kansas State statute regarding vehicle placards and tags, handicap placards and tags, exist, then those issues come back. Some of the issues are seasonal. Every winter there seems to be some discussion about snow removal in certain areas of town.

Tom, you have a little over two minutes left.

Thank you. Every summer there is discussion over enforcement of scooters on the sidewalk and things like that. With regard to the current restructuring proposal, I have to echo everything about It would have been a lot better to do this in collaboration. I think there's still plenty of time. I don't think there's any emergency about this. I agree that there needs to be representation from actual disabled people, not workers for disabled people. There is a real difference there in outlook. There are some organizations that were enumerated in the settlement agreement. that are volunteer organizations of disabled people. I think they should be represented. I'm not so concerned about the agencies and the workers for. To address your question, Mayor Wu, if 100% of the seven voting members were people with disabilities, that would eliminate the strategy problem. Maybe a good way to look at it would be when agencies want to be represented, they could be ex-officials. I don't think that this restructuring will stifle the board in any way or stifle input completely, but I do think that as long as these compliance gaps exist, they're gonna continue to hear about it, and I don't think that there will be any less circularity. We have been met again with sort of an attitude of combativeness or sophomoric sort of things. When we brought up the gap between the current parking situation and the Kansas State statute, legal's opinion was these are not parking meters. This is not metered parking. The statute does not apply. So we often come to what are kind of non-starters. That's what I've got. I really appreciate all of your service, and I stand for questions.

Thank you, Tom. I see no questions. We'll continue with public comment.

Okay, thank you.

Good morning. My name is John Crane. I am part of the Sedgwick County appointment to the Access Advisory Board in District One. So I just let you know that. I live at 8293 West 17th Street North, Wichita, Kansas. I had a nice discussion with my District 5 Mr. Johnson last night, and I appreciated that, appreciated the phone call, appreciated the discussion. It showed real concern for what was going on. I will tell you that I gave 25 years of my life to this city. I served as a police officer for 25 years. I celebrated 20 years of retirement on August 6th. When this first hit us as an advisory board member, I thought, gee whiz, what is the city doing? They haven't even talked to us about this. There's been no mention of it. Then I look on the page that shows appointed members, and I mention this to my council person in District 5, that it shows that you guys have already made appointments to this new council. I don't even know if any of you know that. It shows appointments made to this new council, which told me in my mind that this council has already made up their mind as to the way they're going to vote. After talking to my representative, that wasn't the case, but yet it shows up on your web page, folks. And so I'm sorry, but I got these names from the web page that said these were your appointees. So I was really disturbed by that. My one comment to the city council is this, that I feel like this was a backdoor ordinance done to dissolve the current access advisory board. I'm disturbed at our ADA who, in a meeting, her words, we were inefficient. I've attended so many of, before I even was appointed to the board, I attended this board as a citizen because I have two handicapped adult children now. One of them you know because he comes to your meetings all the time. My son is Andrew Crane. My daughter, who lives in a group home, is now 41, is also mentally and physically handicapped. So as a parent, I have a real interest in this and how you guys handle things when it comes to the citizens of this community, which does represent 25% of your constituency. It represents that many people in the city of Wichita who deserve the same treatment that you do for the other consistency. I'm getting tongue-tied because my mouth is getting dry. Sorry about that. But I think that before you vote on passing this ordinance, there needs to be some thought put into it, more thought than has been put into it, and more collaboration, as Tom has already mentioned. I skipped some of the things that I put on my paper here. I did read it to my wife this morning. It lasted five minutes, but I haven't said as much as I wanted to say, and I see my time is almost done. But I will tell you that I agree with our current president of this Access Advisory Board that you guys, when you do your appointments, need to have at least, in my opinion, you need to have at least half of that board be people with disabilities. So that you hear, so the board can hear firsthand and be in compliance when you're talking about ADA issues and stuff like that. And Tom is right when he says we've brought up so many ADA issues and we get to go around from the city. And that's why it goes in a circle for us. My time is almost gone. I will just ask that you think about this. I know I surprised you with those appointments, but that was shared with me and I looked myself. I was surprised to see those. I know some of you are probably looking at that, but I'm sorry. I think it needed to be said. So I'm done, and if you have any questions for me, I'll certainly take them.

Thank you, John. Council Member Tuttle.

I don't have a question, just a comment. Thank you for being here, and thank you for your service to the community, and thank you for all you do for Andrew. I think many of us probably at the same time are looking at the website. Those are the appointments for the current board. And there are 32 members, but there's only seven from the city council, and then the city manager gets some as well. So in no way has this board made a decision, and in no way are those the appointments for a potential new board that's being discussed today. Okay. that is not the case. And I'm glad you asked, because that way we can now clear the record.

That makes me feel much better about that, because in my mind, when I read that, I said, well, they've already made their decision. There's no reason for me to even go down there and speak. And so that really... I would... I recommend when I say to have handicapped, and you asked, Commissioner Tuttle, you asked a good question. How do we find these handicapped people to make appointments to?

That wasn't my question about how to find. My question was how would we determine the proportion of 51%. Oh, okay. Yeah.

See, I don't go along with 51%. I think that, you know, there's seven votes on there. At least three of those seven votes, in my opinion, need to be people with disabilities. Because one of those votes happens to be your mayor. So with a council of six, at least three of those from that council need to be. And if the mayor would like to... I'll also select someone with a disability. Fantastic. There you go. That's over your 51%, but that would give it to you. Thank you, John. And there are a lot of qualified people in this city that are disabled that could be good board members for you.

Thank you, John.

Thank you.

Well, good afternoon. I'm Andrew Crane. Yet you have heard from several people. Now, vote no. Because I have served on this board for nine years. I love serving on the Access Advisory Board. You have heard me in several city council meetings. pushing for change in the city of Wichita. Now it's time to go to work, folks. And let's vote now because the assets advisory board needs to vote on it. Thank you.

Thank you, Andrew. Would anyone else from the community like to speak on this matter? I see none. I will close public comment and bring it back to the bench. With all this comment, city manager, it seems like there are lots of questions that have not been answered. So I'm going to defer this item to a meeting. That's what I would like to do as a motion until all those questions have been answered. We just had a September 8th. How about I will ask the city manager what type of time is required for staff?

Well, again, I think, Mayor, your intent is to make sure we involve the Access Board. So I don't know for their next meeting, when it's scheduled, how much time you want them to provide feedback. So I'm thinking if you're looking October, November, for them to have some feedback. That would give them two meetings at least to have some more of the input. So if you want to say by the end of November, you can use that as a marker if you want to use that for a date by November 30th.

So I see an evening meeting in November that might be of interest. I'm getting some head nods from some of the Access Advisory Board members. This would allow an opportunity for individuals who are working or going to school to attend that evening meeting. So I know that there are council members that are wanting to speak, so I'm just going to For discussion purposes, I would like to see this come back to the council at the November 17th, 6 p.m. evening meeting for discussion and vote. So I will allow council members to speak now. So council member Hohaisel.

Thank you, Mayor. Would you consider a friendly amendment to also require that it goes before the Access Advisory Board for comment? We don't need a quorum for that. We can still get their input despite any lack of quorum.

I have not made the motion, so I would gladly let you make the motion with all that information. Vice Mayor Glasscock.

I need to turn on my mic today. My comments were going to be the same. It seems that maybe we're moving in the right direction, but you guys should have been included in the conversation as well. And I think reform is needed. I think you also agree that reform is needed. But I also want to hear comments, perspectives, and maybe there's something that we haven't considered as part of it. I would like the size to be pared down so it could be more effective. But I think getting a recommendation from the Access Advisory Board is a good thing. And I don't think there's a detriment to it. I don't think we need an action today. And so I would also support that.

Council Member Ballard.

Thank you, Mayor. I am supportive of all that. But just for conversation purposes, do you think, I like the idea of the evening meeting, but do you think almost four months is too long? Or three months? I mean, I don't know if there's anything urgent that they need to participate in the board. So that's totally fine. Just wondering if that is too much time.

I would like to hear from our Access Advisory Board. to see if giving them enough time to November would work. Council Member Tuttle.

Thank you, and I agree with Council Member Ballard. My main concern is that if we wait until November to have public input, then It'll be two more months after that. I mean, it won't get resolved in November. If we're going to seek input in November, then we're going to, so I also, I mean, sure, I wish we, but, you know, sometimes evening meetings aren't convenient for people either because they have family obligations and faith and potentially work. So I know there's no excellent time. I just, I think we're kicking it way too far down, but that's just my opinion.

Council Member Hohaisel.

Thank you, Mayor. Just one point that November, it looks like November 17th is the evening meeting. There is a National League of Cities conference on the 18th through the 21st. So I don't know if that meeting's the best. We can move it and then move the evening meeting up. And when, Mr. Manager, when is the next Access Advisory?

Pulling up right now.

Matter of fact, we've got it identified. The next scheduled meeting of the Access Advisory Board would be August 26th. And I will be ready to talk to about, with all of them about this. They've got the information from the meeting today. We can update that. We can begin to answer questions in the meantime. We'll make a formal presentation, have a discussion with the board on the 26th. And if, depending on how attendance is, who's there, who's able to be there, I don't mind at all discussing with the board, trying to find another time to meet. Maybe it's virtually. We can certainly accommodate multiple discussions with them in a short period of time, certainly in the next 30 days.

Okay, so again, just for discussion's sake, I don't know if we want to possibly move it to October 6th if we do want it on the evening meeting. That way we'll just make sure we're not running into NLC. Again, just discussion from the bench here.

So we would have to change the evening meeting from November 17th or add an additional evening meeting?

Evening meetings may be difficult for our people that have to take paratransit. to attend, so that, I'm just saying that I do know that that is an issue for some of our, for our attendees, so.

Thank you, Lisa. I would keep it as daytime then, October 6th, having heard that. October 6th.

Okay, yeah, but I'll let you make the motion. Sure. Just to have my piece in there, and then I guess we'll need to have a discussion on whether or not to move the evening meeting in November to avoid any conflict with NLC, so. And that's a discussion we can have later.

Yeah, I think we can have that discussion on general meetings at our council agenda in a few minutes. Let's stick to this one.

A few minutes.

With that, I will move to defer this item until the October 6th, 9 a.m. meeting.

Second.

Motion second. Further discussion? See none. Madam Clerk, please open the roll. Mayor, if I may, did you want to include Council Member Hoheisel's friendly amendment to require, I mean, just- The amendment requires that the Access Advisory Board meet and have feedback as well. Motion second, further discussion? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, please open the roll. Motion passes 7-0. This item is deferred until October 6th. Madam Clerk, please call the next item.

2026 School Violence Prevention Program Grant.

Good morning, Mayor, members of council, Joshua Hutchins, captain of the Wichita Police Department. I'm here to present our desire to apply for the FY26 cop school violence prevention program grant. This agenda item is to request authorization to apply for this particular grant. The background city of Wichita has had a longstanding collaborative relationship with USD 259. to increase safety of students and staff, Wichita Police Department is seeking permission to apply for grant funding through the Department of Justice School Violence Prevention Program, the SVPP. The intent is to use funds to purchase and implement school safety and public notification technology that interfaces with the Real-Time Information Center and Cedric County Emergency Communications. The SVPP is a competitive funding opportunity that seeks to improve safety, I'm sorry, improve security at schools and on school grounds through implementation of evidence-based school safety programs and technology. We have been in communication with USD 259 and they do support our application. 259 has 29 secondary schools, 56 elementary schools, and a total of 93 attendance centers, including alternative education centers. The primary objective would be to cover all secondary schools and alternative education centers with the future goal of covering all attendance centers if the funding doesn't allow for it the first go around. Deployment would be coordinated with USD 259. The maximum award for the grant is $500,000 over 36 months. There is a required match of 25% of the total award. Should the maximum award be issued, the annual match would be $41,667 per year. The grant notice of funding opportunity has been approved by law. We recommend that the council approve our application for the FY26 COPS school violence prevention program grant. I think that's it. And I will answer any questions the best I can.

Thank you, Captain Hutchins. Questions for staff, beginning with Council Member Hohaisel.

Thank you, Captain. I appreciate it. I just want to make sure I got the process down. So you applied for the grant. Correct. They, if they say yes, we, and do they offer different amounts? So this might be like, we only get half the funding through this grant?

I don't know that for sure, but I would assume that is certainly a possibility that we would get a portion of what we asked for. Yes.

Okay, then we would go out for an RFP. Correct. And then there would be different vendors who come back with different ideas on how to meet the parameters of this grant. Yes, sir. And then it would come back to us and we would say, yes, we approve this, or no, we don't approve this. You're correct, sir. Okay, so there's no official plan yet.

That is correct.

Could you walk me through what possibilities there might be? Because when I go through this, it is vague, but it sounds like we're not doing surveillance within the schools. It's more a teacher response.

Yeah, so what we're looking for and what our goal to implement Is it some version of like a panic button that like a bank or some of the other businesses would have where some of the vendors have physical buttons that can be placed in classrooms, others operate through like a mobile app on a phone to where a teacher or a staff member can initiate the alarm, for lack of a better term, initiate that alarm. A notification would get sent to dispatch and to the police department in the real-time information center. to trigger this response of whatever it is. Some of the vendors offer technology that will then open the microphone on the phone to where we can hear what is being said if there is a crisis happening. Others offer two-way communication between the person that activates the alarm and responding units. So there's a variety of different platforms. But what we're looking at and trying to implement with 259 is something that would be an alarm initiated by staff at the school.

Okay, what are the events that might trigger such an alarm? Have you seen this in effect in other communities?

Yeah, I know other agencies throughout the country have different versions of this. I can't give you any specific instance off the top of my head. I could certainly research that and get back to you, but an active shooter situation is the first thing that comes to mind. If that were to happen again, A rapid response is obviously very necessary, and seconds matter in those situations. So the sooner we can start getting there and getting the information, the better the outcome's gonna be.

Okay, is it also, are we looking at somebody's being disruptive in class?

I think those are parameters we'd have to set in collaboration with 259 to make sure both entities are on the same page of when this technology needs to be implemented.

Okay, yeah, because that is a concern I hear about over-policing within communities.

Certainly. um elementary schools and we don't have elementary schools in here is that something we might explore as well yeah so it would totally be dependent on upon the funding and then what the rfps come back and what we can implement again in coordination with 259 our goal would be to get every school within 259 and then continue to expand it to private schools and either even other school districts that have schools within the the city limits okay thank you

Council Member Shepherd.

Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Captain, for being here. I just have a couple of questions for you. Sure. I think whenever we talk about technology, and as it's related to the police, there are some concerns that I've heard from constituents, and I think it's my obligation to ask the questions. So how, if in any way, is this compatible to FLOC?

It is not at all related to FLOC in any way. So FLOC is taking pictures, point in time, photos of cars as they drive by. The technology we're looking at implemented is, like I said before, more of a panic button type situation that would be initiated by somebody at the school, not by the police department specifically.

Thank you. And my understanding is that this is not the first time that this program has been in place. This is not the first time that we're implementing something like this?

This is, so we applied for, we presented this grant opportunity to council last year, and it was approved. We were not selected for the grant, so we are now wanting to reapply.

Okay, and so this is now the second time you're coming back, and I'm curious, when you all said that you've spoken with the Board of Education or USC 259 leadership, who is that?

I know that we've spoken specifically with the Director of Safety, Terry Moses, and I believe the Superintendent has voiced their support as well.

I'm curious, have you all thought through a standard operating procedure process yet about what this looks like as it relates to when to utilize this technology? I have many constituents in my district who are extremely concerned about not just over policing, but the targeting of black and brown children given the DOJ case that has come out of 259. I think that is a fair concern. So I'm curious, how do you all plan to train the individuals who will be given the responsibility to utilize this technology?

I think a lot of that's going to come back to the specific software and vendor that we select, because they're all going to have slightly different versions of the program. So we're going to want to make sure that we work with, through the RFP process, that we pick a solution that is best for both the City of Wichita and USD 259. while we consult with 259 on all of those specific topics. And then kind of like Councilmember Hohasel asked, my response to that would be we would want to make sure that We define the parameters of when we use this in conjunction with 259 specifically and train their personnel and our staff, whatever that looks like, if that's online training or whatnot. But we want to make sure everybody is properly trained, so we're using it for the correct purposes.

Thank you. Given that this would be a partnership between 259 and Wichita Police Department housing the city, and it's utilizing technology, who owns the risk when that technology is abused?

That would be, I don't know that I have a great answer to that question right now without knowing what the specific technology is in place. I think we would learn that through the RFP process and consultation with law and all of those things.

That would be something that if this were to come back forward to us before I could even approve it, I would need to know that in full confidence that there's a clear process in place of if this technology is abused for any purposes outside of its intended purpose, that there's clear protocol on who owns the risk and handling the accountability and the consequences, and what are the consequences if it's not utilized in the proper way.

I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I think the best way to answer that right now from a police department perspective is we have policies and regulations in place, so if any of our members were to violate our policies related to technology, it would be addressed and held accountable through our policies as they sit. We always look at policy and make adjustments as needed as we implement new technology and this would be no different.

Thank you for that. If this grant is awarded, I want to be clear about the auditing piece. Some significant concerns about that too. Would this grant be subjected to the normal City of Wichita's internal audit protocols? Yes.

Okay.

Final question that I have for you is, give me an example of how this, you said an active shooter situation. Do you have maybe another one that I guess I'm so sorry, I want the public to understand and really it's for me too of why this is important. I want people to understand why this technology is important and I'm not sure, Everybody, including myself, understands that right now.

Yeah, another situation I could foresee would be a large disturbance that BOE staff, or even if we had SROs, are not able to quickly curtail. That is starting to expand to include other students and staff. Again, on these situations, or if... somebody is seen in the school with a weapon that hasn't been started doing anything even, we can start getting there, trying to prevent the tragedy before it happens.

And I have heard from educators in my district that there are some concerns about those situations. Two final questions. Yes, sir. I promise. No problem. If this is a federal grant, is there a local match?

There is. It's a 25% local match.

And I'm assuming you all have already discussed how you would continue it if you were to get it this year and wanted to renew it the next year?

I don't think we've had specific conversations about that. Captain Cooley is out this week in some training. I know we would, again, as we would, when we bring it to council for approval to implement, we would have those answers at that point.

given so my final question given that this is a federal grant and i didn't see it on anything that i looked into but for every federal grant that comes before us i'm very intentional about looking if there is a 287g requirement as a result of accepting this grant i do not want to accept any federal funds that would require our law enforcement officers to serve as eyes and ears for ice

I do not believe there is, but I can get that answer and get back to you, sir.

Thank you. That would be great. Thank you so much.

Council Member Tuttle?

Thank you. Thank you for the presentation and for your work on this. I used to work in the schools, and so I understand that you really are, it's your own community, but it's also you're in a vulnerable situation, because if somebody is able to get into that school, you know, there's procedures, there's DOOR POLICIES, ALL THE THINGS BUT STILL THINGS CAN HAPPEN REALLY FAST AND SO I HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF THIS AND I APPRECIATE THE WORK ON THIS. I HAD A QUESTION FROM A CONSTITUENT. IT'S NOT MY QUESTION BUT I WANT TO ASK. THEIR QUESTION IS WHY IS THE CITY WRITING THIS GRANT AND THEN IT WOULD BE 25% MATCH FROM THE CITY BUDGET AND WHY IS USD 259 NOT OWNING the responsibility for any funds when it's going for the school and not the city. Not my question, not my concern, but I have a constituent who asked, so I thought I would ask.

I know that 259 last year, and I believe this year, is applying for the same grant for other services related to school safety. And we've had some initial discussions with 259 about the potential of splitting the local match. And so those are ongoing conversations that we want to have. I don't have a great answer of other than I know that the 259 has applied for a similar, for the same grant for other purposes.

Okay, so this is to apply for the grant. If we find out that we're awarded the grant, then, and I don't know if that can be a part of the motion, if anybody else is interested, but I mean, if we want to say there's a cost share with 259, I'm not sure, but just FYI, I wanted to go on record that I asked the question.

I'm very much in favor of that, Councilmember Tuttle, because I have gotten a lot of questions from community members that don't understand that the city has its own budget, Sedgwick County has its own budget, and USD 259 has its own budget. And so for clarity's sake and for shared responsibility, I do believe that Councilmember Tuttle has a really great idea, if we could have that in that. The question I actually have is, since this is not the first time that the city has applied for this very thing, back in June 24th of 2025, it was a consent agenda item, and so it passed 7-0 to apply for this. Can you tell us why do you think we failed in getting that grant?

I actually asked that question of our grant administrator. We don't get feedback on why we don't receive a grant. I can just say that school violence prevention is a very important topic to all communities. This grant process is a very competitive process. agencies that are very qualified to receive it won't just because of how competitive it is. So I don't have any real feedback of why we didn't get it last year. It's important to us as a department and as a city that we're bringing it back because we feel it can be very beneficial to the community.

I just want to say kudos to your department, WPD, as well as housing. The last couple of items we talked about were grants that are available at the federal level. And you guys are looking at how can that be utilized here locally. And so again, I'm very appreciative that we still have two state representatives here. When you layer multiple different government systems and their funding, to help with safety, I think that is the best solution. And so thank you for being proactive in trying to find grants where we can utilize them here locally. I see no further questions from this bench. We will now open it up for public comment.

Hello, Faith Martin District 2. I am going to try to stay within my five minutes, and I apologize for looking down so much. I had to write down all my thoughts so I could get it all out. I appreciate the mayor and our council asking so many thoughtful questions about the two items that were pulled from consent agenda. I hope you do the same with this item after my comments. There are three items that I have concerns about. One, the expansion of the surveillance state. Two, funding requirements and sustainability plans. Three, the application process and the lack of information provided today. First, I would like to read the statement from a nonprofit that I'm a part of called the Sunflower Privacy Alliance. You can find us on Facebook, Reddit, X, and we have a website. We responded to this item at Kansas.com, and the statement given by police says, with this technology, in the event of an active shooter or other critical incident, officers would have real-time access to information inside school buildings. This information would include locations, images, and descriptions of of a suspect, allowing for faster, right-sized, more effective response. So the statement that we provided in return said, protecting kids from an active shooter or other critical incident is a goal everyone shares, including us. But the agenda item as summarized doesn't tell the public much about the actual technology being proposed. It's unnamed, and the description centers on what it would deliver, real-time locations, images, and descriptions of suspects inside school buildings, rather than what it is, how it works, what data it captures on ordinary school days, who can access that data, under what circumstances, how long it's retained, and what the oversight and audit mechanisms look like. Any technology that gives law enforcement real-time access to what's going on in classrooms should be heightened, should have more scrutiny. We're not reflexively against school safety technologies and we recognize the tragedy that this is meant to prevent is real. but bringing new surveillance infrastructure into schools deserves the same transparency and public scrutiny that we've been pushing for with flock, not less simply because the justification is children's safety. If anything, the stakes for getting it right are higher. A major concern about this grant is the lack of any discussion about what happens to these assets after the grant runs out. City of Wichita or 259, it's still on taxpayers to take this burden on. Another concern is that priority is given to applicants that participate in data sharing with DHS, as Mr. Shepherd has said. That participant sharing is a requirement of this grant. I read through the grant requirements. We have a history of disenfranchising black and brown students. Another thing Mr. Shepherd mentioned, the DOG settlement, which is for racial disparities in law enforcement referrals and discipline. So how can we meet this eligibility criteria and protect privacy, which is another eligibility criteria, if we can't ensure that students aren't being discriminated against? Three. Again, I appreciate the concerns raised during the consent agenda about the grant process. The deadline for this grant was actually the 4th of August, so either they've already applied for it or we missed the deadline. No specifics have been addressed regarding possible vendors, there's just been, there are vendors that may do this. Lots of questions and no transparency or accountability to a plan. I've applied for many grants and the level of specifics required by grants is substantial. This does not seem to rise to that level in any way. Respectfully, there's lots of questions. I would ask you to vote no until those questions could be answered because we have repeatedly brought surveillance and transparency issues regarding WPD, whether it's in schools or on our streets, to your attention. I will stand for any questions.

Thank you, Faith. Just a point of clarification. August 4th was the first part of the application, but the actual deadline for the completed application is August 11th today.

Right. So those questions should have been answered during that application process. I've applied for federal grants, and the level of detail required is extremely substantial. So I am surprised that they've come forth to the council without having any of those questions answered.

Okay, thank you. Council Member Ballard. Council Member Shepherd.

Good afternoon. LaWanda DeShazer, District 1. Councilman Shepherd actually said a lot of the things that I wanted to say. We need to really be, of course, supportive of our youth, right? We want to make sure our children are safe, but we should not give up that protection by giving government unlimited access to movements and activities in our school buildings. Before we put police-connected surveillance technology inside our schools, parents, educators, and the public deserve to know exactly what is being collected, who has access to it, how long it will be retained, and what prevents that technology from being used beyond its original purpose. Councilman Shepherd brought up the flock system And we all remember that the flock system initially was supposed to be used for when cars got stolen. We can easily track tag numbers and find those stolen cars. But we know now today you can track so many different things with the flock system, even late child support payments. So again, what are we going to use the system for? In the presentation we just saw, examples of he said it could be a large disturbance in the schools and then the button get pushed if it's supposed to be for active shooter that is different than a bad day at a school with a bunch of kids. So two different things. The DOJ pointed out that black students were significantly referred to the police department more so than any other students disproportionately. And so again, we want to make sure that we are not making it easier for once again black students to be signaled out. So I ask that we move forward with this process that we have retention limits, we have parent and community represented in an oversight committee, we have a sunset clause, we have to make sure that this is really working, it's doing what we intended it to do, and no more and no less. And if this is really for an emergency situation, right, Why does law enforcement need ongoing access to school surveillance rather than access being granted only when a specific emergency or criminal investigation occurs? So I urge you to say no to this technology. We don't have enough information. It almost sounds like we're giving carte blanche once again to the police department to survey our kids. And last week or two weeks ago, we talked about How do we have more partners or how do we help with crime prevention in our schools? And we talked about the budget for one particular organization, Cure the Violence. I say if we have an additional $40,000 per year, we need to make sure that maybe we put more community partners in our schools and make sure that We ourselves are policing ourselves. We have organizations, boots on the ground, that can really help with kids and their problems rather than relying on computer technologies. So again, I say, let's do something different. Let's keep our kids safe, but let's do it in a more meaningful way other than policing our schools while the kids are there for, what, six, eight hours a day. We can do better. We can do different. LaWanda DeShazer. Anybody? I stand for any questions. Thank you, LaWanda. Okay. Thank you.

Council Member Tuttle.

I do have a question for PD, for Wichita Police. Thank you. I'll admit I'm probably not as varnished as I should be today, so if I missed something in the agenda packet or if I missed something in your presentation, but I just feel like I need to maybe clean up a misconception. Are these cameras that are going into schools? They are not. Okay, so there's no surveillance. That is correct. That's correct, right? So it's more of an emergency alerting system, and correct me when I'm wrong, right? I'm kind of asking in a form of a question. This is an emergency alerting system that I'm sure is best practiced, evidence-based, municipalities and school districts use? Help me here.

Yeah, you're correct. This is not, we're not asking for direct access to any, or access to USD 259 cameras. When we talk about getting real-time information, it's kind of as I spoke about, when that panic button is hit, some vendors and software platforms offer two-way communication that we can communicate directly with. Photos and videos that are being taken on scene can be sent to us that way, so. That is the technology that we're looking to implement is a notification type technology.

I'm going to be incredibly redundant, but I'm just going to say it one more time or kind of ask one more time. These are not cameras in schools.

You're correct, ma'am.

Thank you.

Councilmember Johnston.

Captain, you can stay there. Yes, sir. Thank you. So this takes care of the first three years of this grant. After three years, would there be a subscription cost for the software or?

So kind of like I've, we're so early in this that that would be dependent upon the RFP process and the vendor that we select. Each of them have different pricing models, subscription-based, whatever it might be. So yes, when we've identified a vendor and a software, we would then bring that back with that information of what the ongoing cost would be. I would imagine that with any technology we select, there would be an ongoing cost. I just can't project that right now.

Okay, and just, have we discussed with 259 to pay that cost?

That cost specifically, we have not. I know we've had conversations with them about splitting the local match for the first three years. Again, this would be a collaborative effort with us and 259 to make sure we're picking a platform that is sustainable for both entities, and so we would have those conversations, or we can't have those conversations before we move forward with presenting the solution to council.

Okay, okay, thank you.

We'll continue with public comment.

Thank you. Abby Boatman once again, District 1. I think we can all agree that in the face of a crisis, the best response is a solution to fix the crisis. Now, as a state and as a country, we have all decided that we're not going to do anything about the gun violence crisis. America and so the thing we're left with at this point is crisis management and there is an ocean of money to be made in crisis management and all they have to say is well this is gonna save a life this is gonna keep the kids safe because that's a really hard argument to fight against without looking like a callous jerk In that framework, I would like to address that either, in my opinion, the Wichita Police Department is either unaware of what they're actually asking for, or as in they don't actually know, or they're being intentionally misleading. I'll let people make up their own minds for that. The thing that came to the city council said that they're asking permission to request a grant, but as has been sussed out already, the deadline for that grant application is today at 4.59 p.m. So it sounds to me like the grant application has already been completed and submitted. And once again, Wichita citizens are finding out about something weeks, months, maybe even years after something has already been decided to move forward. Also, I've never written a grant, but I've worked in higher education. I've been involved in civic engagement for a while now. And I do understand that grants are not easy to write. And they require a lot of significant, specific information. And I find it incredibly difficult to believe that the police department doesn't have the answers to these very simple questions when they've already written this grant application. The police department was asked point blank, does this require 286 compliance? And the police stood here and said, well, I'm not sure. But we've got a community activist right back here who came up two minutes later and said, no, I looked at the application. It's required. So again, how much do the cops not know? And how much are the cops just trying to smudge their way past us? The cops stand up here and say, this isn't cameras. I'd love to know where these images are coming from because if there's a disturbance at a school, and you're not getting images off of the school's camera, then it sounds to me like you're just getting community videos from like WorldStar or whoever happens to be uploading stuff to the internet. And I don't think we need to spend a half a million dollars a year to do that. We can just get on Facebook and Snapchat. Several months ago, there was a fight that broke out at East High between two students. A school resource officer inserted themselves into that fight, caught some hands, and dozens of police officers responded to that. There's not a response time problem. This is not technology that is necessary to keep our kids safe Every day I wake up, it feels like WPD has their hand out asking for money and today is no different. I am so tired of listening to the police ask for more money and for more surveillance when they can't even act professionally with the money they already have. There was a question about whether this technology is compatible with flock safety cameras. And the response was that it is not related to flock safety cameras. I don't think those two things are the same thing. So like the previous speakers, I am asking you to vote no on this proposal for all of the reasons that we have stated. Thank you. I'll stand for questions.

Thank you, Abby. We will continue with public comment.

Hello, I am Angela Martinez, District 6. And I just want to say at the legislature, I recently opposed a piece of legislation to place cameras on utility poles because I had concerns about the lack of clear definitions and guardrails surrounding the use of surveillance technology. They say this isn't surveillance technology, but there's a lot of questions about what it really is. This proposal raises some of those same concerns for me. I do believe we should be willing to consider additional safety measures in our schools. I would like to know what's not working now, though. I mean, I don't know what kind of measures they have now, but what's not working to where we need additional safety measures and to what degree. Our students and teachers and staff face challenges today that simply did not exist when I was in school and I'm sure when you guys weren't in school. And technology can be an important tool in helping them keep safe. With the new cell phone ban being implemented, students will no longer be able to simply pull out their phones and record an incident as it happens. That makes the conversation about other forms of technology and documentation even more important. And I'm not opposed to technology that can improve school safety. But I do have questions I would like addressed regarding who has access to recordings, how long information will be retained, how it can be used, how student privacy is protected, and what safeguards are in place to prevent misuse, what current safety measures are in place, and what about them are not working. I already asked, I already said that. If we're going to use new technology in our schools, we need clear policies, transparency, accountability, and appropriate guardrails from the beginning. I did not hear that today. There are too many unanswered questions, and Council Member Shepherd, I do appreciate you asking about the 287G agreement, that in fact is apparently a part of the requirement. That is disturbing to me. So that being said, I encourage a vote no today. Thank you.

Thank you, Angela.

this time good morning uh mayor city council city manager city law brock booker um district two for the record um i appreciate the conversation today and this morning on this however i i would like to see usd259 here represented as a taxpayer, as a constituent. Any strategic partnership as we go along, any public-private partnership, all persons should be at the table, should be here negotiating, talking in an honest way, first and foremost. I appreciate the captain, but at the same time, parameters coming middle way and after, we've got to have some parameters up front some of the time. I think that's on what we will allow as a city, where we stand as a city. So we're starting to send, in my view, some mixed signals. And I don't want to call the list of things that have happened in recent memory. But one that is concerning in a way, we had a case with the Cedric Lofton family. um cameras you know who would have known had there been a panic button in that situation you know they could have been hit if it would have done any difference or not um i just wanted to put that into the air with that thank you so much thank you brock

I see no one else from the community who would like to speak about this matter in particular. I will close public comment and bring it back to the bench. Council Member Shepherd.

Thank you so much, Mayor. I do have more questions for the Captain. And my preliminary assessment is that a 287G is not a requirement for this grant. That's a preliminary assessment. However, that does not negate the participation sharing that we heard from one of the previous speakers. So I do want to make sure that we clarify that. That's important for me. I also had the opportunity to access the COP school violence prevention presentation. And one of the things it mentions on slide eight is that recipients will be required to ensure that schools in their jurisdiction share school threat information. I'm assuming that's a first responder term and I'm wondering if maybe you can explain what that means. What defines school threat information?

Well, in context of this grant, what I would presume it means is anytime there's a threat of school violence, they're reporting that to us, which 259 does do. Okay.

And that, I'm assuming, could be physical violence? Okay. Thank you.

Yeah, that could be physical violence, threats of active shooter type situations. And just to your point, Council Member, I did confirm with our grant administrator that 287G is not required.

Thank you so much. I appreciate you getting confirmation on that. The final question that I have for you is obviously with every grant, there's reports. I'm curious on slide 11, it says that there are performance reports that the agency will be required to submit. What are we measuring?

That would be a variety of things, I believe. For one, it would be the number of schools we outfitted with this technology, the number of times it was used, the response levels and things like that. I think there could be a very wide range of things we would be tracking related to this. How many people specifically within the schools have access to it and things like that too.

Okay, so question. We heard a previous speaker mention about retention limits, sunset clauses, and just I would even say parameters that we can put in place if this grant is awarded. Is that possible?

I certainly don't see why it wouldn't be possible. And that would be part of the RFP process to know what each vendor's limits are and adjustments that they can make to make sure that it meets what is best for USD 259, the city, council, everybody in that realm. And again, this is just to apply for the grant. It's not saying we're accepting it. And just to clarify one other point, if you don't mind, our grant administrator said the August 4th deadline the intent to apply and today is the actual deadline to submit the application council member hoheisel thank you mayor um

Just had a couple of comments here. I've spoken to some of you about this before. My first year on council, about three or four months in, I'm sitting there having a meeting with the city manager, and we get a knock on the door, and police administration, our comm staff, a couple of other council members come in, shots fired north high, 23 students down, two people with assault rifles going through. Luckily, this ended up being a hoax. It was a nationwide hoax that day. But I had to sit there for about three minutes with this being the reality in front of me. And I will tell you, I felt absolutely worthless because in the three or four months I had been on council, we had done nothing to advance this. Now, you can ask the chief every single meeting we have, I end it with active shooter. What are we doing for active shooter specifically in schools? We've cooperated with our friends on the county and other emergency management organizations. We have solid plans in right now. But again, when you're sitting in that seat and you are responsible for these children's lives, it makes you think a lot differently about what you're putting out there. This is not the plan. We realize that this is not the plan. We will come back and we can look and say, yes, we agree with this plan or no, we don't agree with this plan. We can have that discussion. We can deny the grant. But at the same time, if I'm not taking every single opportunity to potentially save lives, and this may shave 10 seconds off our response time, but that 10 seconds might be a child's life. And so I understand the concerns of many of my friends out there. And we will work on that. Again, this is not the final plan. There doesn't have to be cameras on there. It could be an emergency signal coming from teachers in real time trying to get this out there to save lives as quick as we can. With that, I will be approving this. We will have a as far as what comes back, the plans. That's our duty up here as well. But again, just wanted to offer some context because when you hear that and you have the, that's what keeps me up at night more than anything else. And there's a lot of issues that keep me up at night. But if I'm sitting there and I'm thinking inside my head, and that's what was splashing throughout that time, it could be my kid who starts at East High this year laying there. And that 10 seconds or 15 seconds could have saved her life. So again, that's always going through my head, and that's why I will be supportive of this today.

Council Member Tuttle, you had the suggestion about the cost sharing. Would you like to make the motion?

Sure. Just a few comments first, if that's okay. And I'll have to think through. I'm going to word that. So Director of Law Magana may be help me with my homework here in a moment. But I just want to address a few things. As I mentioned, I used to work in the schools. I used to be a school counselor. And to share a very quick story, I was working in a K-2 elementary school on September 11th. And I will never forget the fear and panic that we had. We had parents knocking on the windows, begging to come in and get their kids. And we were in lockdown and couldn't let them in. and so when you're in a school and you are responsible for little humans who you want to be your future leaders of your city there's nothing you won't do to keep them safe with that also the fact that if you go to wichita.gov and you go to departments and you go down to police and then you go down to the transparency portal that we have and I've been looking at it. I looked at it in preparation for this meeting. I had some time this weekend that I could just do some research. You can find statistics on almost every single thing that the Wichita Police Department does and FLOC. So for folks who think that maybe this is a potential, and we've been told by Wichita Police that this information will also be linked into the transparency policy that we have. You can view the transparency policy So I feel that we are taking extraordinary steps to make sure that we are being transparent to the community in really robust measures. And if people have suggestions on how they want us to be even more transparent, you know, willing to entertain that. But I agree wholeheartedly with everything that Councilmember Holheisel said. I remember that day as well. And so with that, I am gonna be supportive of this. I wish the Wichita Police Department good luck in the grant process. I imagine it'll be incredibly competitive. So I'm gonna give this a go, Director of Law, and you help me, okay? So I would move that the City of Wichita, Wichita City Council approve the grant application with the stipulation that a partnership for cost share with USD 259 is developed if the grant is awarded.

Councilmember, that's about exactly what I would have said, so I think that gets the condition codified for your motion.

Well, thank you. I learned everything I know from the Jennifer Magana School of Law.

Second.

Second.

Second, discussion? See none. Matt, oh, sorry. Did you have something, council member?

I just had some commentary I wanted to add, and I don't necessarily disagree with anything that any of my colleagues have said. I think each of us come from our perspective and point of view in the districts that we represent. I am supportive of our Wichita Police Department. I've said that many times and sometimes I get beat up for that and other times I don't so much. I think as it relates to my district and the concerns that I have, I cannot be supportive of accepting to move forward with this grant. And the reasons being, it's less about my trust for Wichita Police Department. We have an incredible police chief always available to answer my questions. And I think, quite frankly, a remarkable chief who understands the importance of intersectionality and how the law looks very different in the eyes of people who may not come from a particular background. And when we talk about the Department of Justice and the situation that occurred with USD 259, that weighs heavy on my heart. I know one of my colleagues shared a story about one of the things that keeps him up at night, and one of the things that keeps me up at night is raising children who look like me in our country right now, and how to mitigate any risk of them not feeling any safer than their counterparts. And so when we talk about applying for a grant that requires our Wichita Police Department to track measurement of performance, and then also to particularly look at school threats to include physical violence, the data from the DOJ was clear that black and brown students were disproportionately recorded to be sent to disciplinary action more than any other race and specifically black girls. And as an uncle of three nieces who are black girls in USD 259, I take this personal. So until I can get further information about what is actually being done to prevent the disproportionate impacts of black and brown children being sent through disciplinary action in 259, and until I can get more answers about participant sharing as well as information as it relates to retention limits, clawbacks, and sunset clauses, I DON'T THINK IT IT WOULD BE WISE OF ME TO SUPPORT MOVING THIS FORWARD HOWEVER HOWEVER I ALWAYS SAY THAT I ACCEPT THE WILL OF THE BODY AND IF THE WILL OF THE BODY TODAY IS TO MOVE THIS FORWARD I WILL COME BACK WHEN OR IF YOU ALL ARE AWARDED AND I WILL WORK WITH YOU ALL TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE PARAMETERS ARE PUT IN PLACE THANK YOU MAYOR COUNCIL MEMBER JOHN STEN

Thank you. I will be voting no on this for much different reasons, Councilmember Shepherd. I don't see, there should have been an agreement worked out already with 259 on cost sharing before it came to us. And I am continually concerned about the, very much for police department, public safety, but the budget is just ballooning for police department. It's just taking up more and more of our budget, which leaves less money for parks, libraries, trees removal, things like that. And so I think it's a budget decision we need to think about. If we keep approving all these grants that keep ballooning the police department's budget, it takes money away from other things in our community that I think are important.

I see no further discussion. We have a motion and a second. Madam Clerk, please open the roll. Motion passes four to three. Madam Clerk, please call the next item. Council Member Agenda. Council Members, let's start with did we want to discuss the evening time meeting? Sorry, it's taken almost an hour to talk about this, but should we discuss that evening meeting? So right now we have an evening meeting scheduled for August 25th that will still continue to happen, and that is also the day that the council will vote on the budget. But the next evening meeting after that will be November 17th right now on the books. However, there were some concerns about that date. Council Member Hohaisel.

No, just pointing out again, some people will be in NLC. So I don't know if we want to bump that up two weeks or whatever the will of the body is and some suggestions out there.

Good question to ask. Actually, can I ask who tentatively is thinking about going to NLC? Tentatively.

One, two, three.

Possible. Okay. So with that city manager, it looks like that evening meeting won't work out. Will that also mean that we won't even have quorum?

Usually in the past we have missed that meeting over the past couple of years because a good portion of us would be at the conference.

Yeah. Could we maybe move the evening meeting to November 10th?

My suggestion would be the third, because we usually try to make the evening meetings light. That would be election day. But then that back loads. So if we do an evening meeting the 10th, that would be just usually one item for the evening meeting. And then we wouldn't have another regular meeting until the beginning of December. So usually that makes for a long agenda on that meeting following that. So just putting that out there as well.

I still think council member Ballard proposing November 10th this evening might be the best only because November 3rd as mentioned will be an election day and there won't have been a regular meeting two weeks prior. So there might be a heavier docket on November 3rd. And so if we have the evening meeting November 10th, should we still have the November 17th if there's not enough of a quorum?

In my understanding, and I know other jurisdictions have done this where they have just skipped or canceled that third week meeting so you're not scrambling and that affects our scheduling for when we bring items for you. I'd rather know in advance, you got a week or two to know if the 17th, but I know it's been past practice to not even have a meeting the third week in November.

Council members, are you guys okay with canceling the November 17th meeting and also making the November 10th meeting an evening meeting? I think we have consensus. Does that give enough direction? Thank you. Oh, we need a motion. We do. Okay. I move to cancel the November 17th meeting. and modify the November 10th meeting to become an evening 6 p.m. meeting.

Second.

Motion second. Discussion? See none. Madam Clerk, please open the roll. Motion passes 7-0. Councilmembers, any other councilmember agenda items? I see none. Madam Clerk, please call the next item.

Council member appointments and comments.

Council members, any appointments? I see none. We'll move to council member comments. Council member Ballard. Sorry.

Thank you, Mayor. Excited for however many neighborhood night outs we can make it to tonight. Wish it wasn't 9,000 bazillion degrees, but we'll have a great time. So let's see how many we can all get to. A little friendly competition.

Council Member Shepherd.

Did you have something you were gonna add, Vice Mayor? Are you sure? Okay, thank you, Mayor. Actually, two comments. First of all, Jack, who was our District One policy intern for the summer, his last day was actually last Friday, so I wanted to give Jack a shout out. He is going into his junior year at Wichita State University studying political science, and he has really helped with making sure that there is policy alignment within all seven of us on things that I care deeply about. And I appreciate the time each and every one of you have taken personally to pour into Jack. I know for certain he has learned something from each and every one of you. And thanks to the city manager and the city manager's office for making that possible. I think it's incredible when we have young people being able to get behind the curtain and see the inner workings of government. And then the second thing I wanted to say is wish Vice Mayor Dalton Glasscock a happy birthday. Yesterday was his birthday. So I bought pastries and everything for him, and he didn't even show up. But no worries. We have Coco Dolce cookies in the office for you and Jack today. So happy birthday.

With that, I see no further comments. Have a great neighborhood night out. With that, I move to adjourn this meeting at 1 o'clock. Motion second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Motion passes 7-0. We adjourn at 1 p.m.