[0:00] here. >> Julie Boyd, planning and zoning

[0:01] administrator. >> Chad Russell, fire chief.

[0:04] » Matt Kaine, director of finance. >> JT Klaus, city attorney.

[0:09] » Dana Instrom, city clerk. >> Les Mangus, director of community

[0:13] development. >> Jolene Graham, assistant city

[0:16] administrator. Jennifer McCauslin, city administrator.

[0:21] » All right. This time, Randy with Epic Church is going to lead us in

[0:26] invocation. Please pray with me. Heavenly Father, we

[0:31] thank you so much for your goodness and grace that we can turn to you anytime,

[0:35] anywhere, and you hear us. And we pray for this meeting that you would grant a

[0:40] spirit of camaraderie and goodwill. That you would bless each discussion that

[0:44] you'd grant wisdom and guidance in those discussions and especially to those who

[0:49] have to make decisions. We also pray that you'd be with our u

[0:54] firefighters and police and emergency personnel and so many others who serve

[0:58] the community out in the community that you'd keep them safe and get them give

[1:02] them wisdom and guidance as they answer the calls and uh minister to people in

[1:08] their own way. We thank you father we pray in Jesus name. Amen.

[1:11] » Amen. >> Amen. If you would join us in the pledge

[1:14] of allegiance

[1:19] to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it

[1:25] stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for

[1:31] all.

[1:36] » [clears throat] [snorts]

[1:41] » All right, at this time I open up the floor for

[1:45] public forum. If you'd like to address the council, feel free to do so. Uh,

[1:51] keep it at three minutes.

[1:56] Nobody.

[2:01] Take your time. [snorts]

[2:09] George Theo Harris, 519 Woodstone Place. Uh, I put on the paper that you guys

[2:17] used to have my birth date up there, 1957. You took it down. Are you going to

[2:21] put it back up there? But uh but anyhow um so I went and talked the other day

[2:27] with the the the people that are going to be having the drug and alcohol uh

[2:34] rehab place. Uh it's probably not the right name for it, but and I talked with

[2:39] them for probably an hour and a half or so. Their noses did not grow at all. Did

[2:44] not grow at all. So I I'm pretty sure they were telling me straight up the

[2:47] truth. So I I appreciated that [snorts] we live around three football fields

[2:55] from where they are from their door coming out with three football fields.

[3:01] So 900 ft 300 yards. Um and if you go out to the street and down around it's

[3:09] three and a three three football fields in a little bit. So my wife was

[3:14] adamantly opposed to the idea. Um because I'm from Witchah and she kind of

[3:21] likes it out here because there's nice nice out here compared to what I got

[3:26] going on there. But I will say that um I I we we were there. We went and looked

[3:33] at all over and quite honestly they have to be somewhere because if you if you

[3:40] just Google um how many people in Andover have potentially have an alcohol

[3:47] or drug diagnosed or undiagnosed problem it's around 20%. So with that being said

[3:55] um just look around you do 20% is one in five. You can pretty much just go one,

[4:01] two, three. Okay, but maybe not in this room. Maybe they're all somewhere else.

[4:06] But they they need to be somewhere. The the people have to be somewhere. So

[4:11] where? It's already established and and I think they've got a good plan. So we

[4:16] can all be against it. My wife was, but now she's warming to it because they

[4:22] need to be somewhere because it is on the rise. Alcohol and drug. And if

[4:26] people want help, they're looking to help them. So, uh, that's all I have to

[4:30] say about that. So, thank you. >> Thank you, sir.

[4:33] » Thank you.

[4:37] » Steve Church, 738 Westchester Place. Like to thank all the moms and dads that

[4:43] are here tonight looking out for their kids. And also to all the moms. They put

[4:48] these uh signs together. There's a few moms in the back who prepared this in

[4:52] their own time. I'm going to say the same thing that I

[4:57] did when I addressed the planning committee last Tuesday. I took a tour of

[5:02] the facility Jason hosted. It is a pristine facility. It's very, very

[5:08] nicely done. In fact, I felt like wanting to stay there myself. It's

[5:12] beautiful. I'm also vice president of the board of

[5:16] directors for the Union Rescue Mission in North Witchah.

[5:19] And so there are a lot of similarities with the things that Jason is going to

[5:22] be doing at that facility to what we do uh for the homeless. We're uh providing

[5:28] a a way for them to transform, get back into society and live normal everyday

[5:33] lives like we do. They come into us addicted.

[5:37] The uh the drugs, the medication that are they have to be held in a in a way

[5:43] that meets cancer statutes, but facilities do exactly the same. So,

[5:48] I'm not concerned about that. I'm concerned a little bit about the

[5:52] security. It didn't seem to match the level of security what we have at the

[5:56] mission. We talked a little bit about about that entry doors, breakins, etc.

[6:02] It it's not up to the same level of security that we have.

[6:07] Even though the medication and the drugs are going to be held securely,

[6:12] we know from admission it becomes a magnet. We have a homeless

[6:18] uh little community tent city. Uh it's in a creek bed a little bit to the north

[6:25] of the uh of the mission. We've had attempted breakins there. They're coming

[6:29] in looking for drugs. It is a magnet. They don't understand that the drugs

[6:35] medications are securely locked away and they can't get at them. It will become a

[6:41] magnet. That's just a fact of every type of facility for this. So those are my

[6:46] reservations about the uh the center in its location. Thank you.

[6:58] Uh my name is Pastor Ben Griffith. I am the recovery pastor at Hope Community

[7:02] Church here in Andover. I live at 2407 North Silverdale Street in Cornerstone.

[7:08] Um I'm also a city chaplain. Volunteer my time to support our officers, our

[7:12] firefighters, our EMS, and our city. Um, I've learned a lot over the couple

[7:16] weeks. I do not live back door to this facility. Um, but I also think that

[7:23] there might not be a lot that can change other than the perspective that we have

[7:28] to love others and to care for the people who are in need. Um, I was

[7:32] sitting with a man in tears who is an alcoholic. Didn't know what to do. Um,

[7:36] this was about four days ago and trying to present him with options because he

[7:40] wanted help. Um, I'm still new to this as a recovery pastor, but there are not

[7:47] a lot of options and when we did call some options, they were full. I do

[7:51] understand there are safety concerns. There are um definitely things to be

[7:55] aware of and problems that will come with it. But I think as a city, our

[8:00] responsibility, one of the greatest things that we can do is come alongside

[8:02] those who need help and to support them. And whatever the results are, um, I

[8:09] encourage you to ask yourself that question. How do you do that? What is

[8:12] your role in that? Because if you come against this care center and make things

[8:16] more challenging, they're going to have a harder time doing their job to keep

[8:19] the people safe that you're trying to keep safe. Um we as a church, Hope

[8:23] Community Church, are going to do our best to come alongside um to partner in

[8:27] whatever way we can to support um this recovery center. Um we have AA meetings,

[8:33] recovery meetings, um sexist, sex anonymous meetings, we have family of

[8:39] addict meetings. Um and so if you need help, feel free to call Hope Community

[8:44] Church. Um if you need some support in any of those areas, but it you will

[8:49] understand it affects a lot of people and Andover as well. We lost a student a

[8:54] couple years ago to an overdose of drugs in our community. And so it really does

[8:58] affect us. Um but I also understand the hurt and the fear that comes with it.

[9:03] And so ask yourself, what what do we do from here after this happens? How do you

[9:07] support our officers? How do you support our EMS? How do you support our fire?

[9:10] How do you support this um recovery treatment center um to make it a safer

[9:15] place? It's my encouragement for us all and I'm going to ask myself the same

[9:19] question. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you, sir.

[9:22] » Thank you.

[9:27] » Hello, my name is Kelly Oxner. My address is 502 East Crescent Lakes

[9:34] Drive, Andover. And first of all, I want to say I'm 100%

[9:40] for a recovery program. I just feel that the location

[9:47] probably could not be in a worse place. And my reasons for saying that is we

[9:53] have all the schools across the street. We have three clinics

[10:00] nearly within a stones throw. And we have Walgreens down the street.

[10:06] All of that makes this very problematic. Um,

[10:13] I know from raising two children in the Andover public schools, one at Sunflower

[10:20] and both went to um, high school there in middle school that you see kids every

[10:28] day, my kids included, walking to and from the schools. They go down to Dairy

[10:34] Queen. they go down to McDonald's. This is something that my kids enjoyed and

[10:39] they should enjoy and it's kind of their first taste of independence.

[10:44] Um, if we have people coming and going and from my understanding is that there

[10:52] is no promises that the door is going to be secured and locked.

[10:56] I would say my girls would have been extremely impressionable and gullible as

[11:04] to what can go on. We know these people are desperate.

[11:09] I have heard I don't know if this is true. It could include sex offenders.

[11:15] Um I think you can understand why I feel

[11:19] strongly opposed to this location. Um

[11:25] it's a very difficult issue. I can appreciate that.

[11:30] However, we have many precious lives here to consider

[11:36] and um for that reason I'm opposed to this location. Thank you.

[11:44] » Thank you. [applause]

[11:48] So, so sir, we heard you the other night, so we understand where you're at.

[11:54] We're not going to relitigate all this through, well, it's been through here.

[11:59] We sat for hours to listen to y'all the other night. We understand your

[12:03] concerns. We listen to planning, zoning. I listen to the whole thing. So, unless

[12:07] you have new information. >> All right. But, but we're not going to

[12:12] listen to everybody say the same thing over and over and over.

[12:14] » I understand. I do. Mayor Price, members of the council, Ben

[12:18] Elliot, 609 Havenwood Court. Let's cut to the chase. 30 years in Andover. My

[12:22] back fence is 200 feet from 224 East Central. I've stood here twice. I will

[12:28] be brief because tonight isn't about how I feel. It's about what's in your record

[12:32] and what isn't. This is a quasi judicial decision, not a vote on whether recovery

[12:38] matters. It does, and I've never argued it

[12:42] otherwise. It's a narrower question and a harder one. Has the applicant proven

[12:47] its case or only asserted it? Under Kansas law, the burden is theirs,

[12:55] not the neighbors, not your staffs, theirs. And measured against that

[13:00] burden, this record has a hole in it. They've told you similar facilities

[13:04] don't hurt property values, the communities come around, that patients

[13:07] are supervised. Those are statements. Not one is backed by study tied to this

[13:12] operator, this market, this parcel. Your own staff report says the property value

[13:19] claims on both sides were unsourced. A recommendation is not evidence and

[13:24] assurance is not proof. Look at what was never placed in your record. No traffic

[13:29] study, nothing on shift changes, deliveries, admissions, discharges, or

[13:33] ambulance runs. No operational study, no admission criteria, no staffing ratios,

[13:39] no discharge protocol, no public safety analysis, no call data from comparable

[13:44] facilities, no alopment history on the golden factors you're bound to weigh.

[13:51] The analysis that should have come from the applicant was instead pulled

[13:56] together from your commissioner's own questions. That's not the applicant

[14:00] needing its burden. That's the record straining to carry them. And here's what

[14:05] makes the gap matter. A special use permit runs with the land, not the

[14:10] operator. And every assurance you've heard came in a letter to our HOA and in

[14:14] testimony from the podium. None of it is enforceable. None of it binding on

[14:19] whoever owns this building in 10 or 15 years. The promises don't survive a

[14:25] sale. Conditions in a permit do. So I ask two things. Hold the applicant to

[14:31] its burden. Require the evidence the law requires before you approve, not after.

[14:37] And whatever you decide, make lawfully detailed findings. Explain

[14:44] factor by factor how the evidence in this record supports it because a

[14:49] decision unsupported by substantial competent evidence is vulnerable on

[14:54] review and this record is being watched

[14:59] carefully. You sent this back once. You knew

[15:04] something was unfinished. Nothing since has filled it.

[15:11] I'm not asking you to decide that dis that treatment doesn't matter. I'm

[15:15] asking you to decide this the way the law demands on the evidence or the lack

[15:20] of it. Thank you.

[15:29] All right. At this time, I'm going to close the public form and we're going to

[15:33] get back to the city's business.

[15:37] » Acceptance of the agenda. >> Mr. Mayor.

[15:40] » Yes, sir. >> I move to accept the agenda is

[15:42] presented. >> Second.

[15:44] » Any further questions or discussion?

[15:49] All in favor say yes. >> Yes.

[15:52] » All oppose. No. Motion carries 5. [clears throat]

[15:59] Consent agenda 7172. >> Mr. Mayor.

[16:03] » Yes, sir. >> I move to approve consent agenda items

[16:06] 7.1 through 7.2 is presented. >> Second.

[16:14] » Any further questions or discussion? All in favor say I.

[16:18] » Yes. >> I'm sorry. Yes. All oppose? No. Motion

[16:22] carries. 50 81 final PUD Jaguar State Edition. and Julie is going to talk to

[16:28] us about this. >> Yeah. Mayor and council, those of you

[16:31] who were around in 2024 may recall the Jaguar Estates addition, the preliminary

[16:37] PUD was approved a couple of years ago and effectuated the MXR multiple family

[16:41] mixed residential district zoning on this parcel at the corner of Archer and

[16:46] Concord Road. It's about 700 feet from the Heritage Development, 322 South

[16:51] Archer Drive. The property owner intends to transform this from its current

[16:56] status as a vacant lot of grass into a duplex development which would have 14

[17:01] duplexes total of 28 dwelling units surrounding a central parking area.

[17:05] There would be a reserve in the southeast corner of the property that

[17:08] you can see there which is set aside for drainage and landscaping as required.

[17:14] Uh water and sewer to the subject property are already in place and are

[17:17] expected to be sufficient for those 28 dwelling units that that I mentioned.

[17:22] Uh, of course internal improvements will be made onto the parcel so that it can

[17:25] reach all of those individual buildings. Um, a portion of Concord Road to the

[17:30] north and Macandless Drive to the east will be required to be paved for access

[17:36] to this parcel. Like I said, planning commission

[17:40] conditionally approved this final PL all the way back in 2024 after that

[17:43] preliminary went through. That was in October of 2024. The applicant delayed

[17:48] their final approval until this time. Um, but everything has been sorted out

[17:52] and they are ready to proceed. And we do have an applicant here to answer any

[17:55] additional questions. >> Council, have any questions?

[18:01] » Mr. Mayor? >> Yes, sir.

[18:03] » I move to accept the dedications of land for public purposes in the Jaguar

[18:07] Estates's Edition final planned unit development.

[18:10] » Second. >> Any further questions or discussion?

[18:13] » Mr. Mayor, if I may, real quick, um is this typical for a plane unit

[18:17] development to >> um have this u substantial of a delay

[18:23] between and this could be for staff or or mayor in your experience that we wait

[18:29] a couple of years between I'm seeing. >> Yes, this is very normal.

[18:33] » Okay.

[18:36] » Anyone else? [clears throat]

[18:39] » All in favor say yes. >> Yes.

[18:42] » All oppose? No. Motion carries 5-0. Um, Jaguar A2 is Jaguar Estates Edition

[18:50] petition developers agreement resolution of advisability and Kevin is going to

[18:55] speak to us on this matter. >> Good evening, mayor and council. Item

[18:59] 8.2 following the acceptance of the plat is for uh petitions, a developers

[19:05] agreement, and a resolution of advisability for the Jaguar Estates

[19:08] edition. The applicant has submitted petitions and letters of credit for uh

[19:14] sanitary sewer, water, drainage, and paving improvements.

[19:19] Uh per city policy, 100% of the cost of sanitary water and drainage will be paid

[19:25] for by the benefit district. Per the same city policy, uh the paving project

[19:30] on Archer and Concord will be split 5050 between the benefit district and city at

[19:35] large. Uh that is a program that's eligible for any unimproved street in

[19:41] Andover. Um a few weeks ago we heard from residents very near this area. This

[19:45] is also the same procedure from Lake View Heights a few years ago where the

[19:50] city participates in a portion of paved improvements for unimproved roads. Uh so

[19:54] this project would include that 5050 split just for the paving.

[20:00] Uh and with that I'll stand for any questions.

[20:04] » Mr. Mayor. Yes, sir. >> Kevin, was there already is there a road

[20:08] there now? >> Correct. They're gravel roads. Um Archer

[20:12] to the south, basically the southwest corner of this property was improved um

[20:17] as a part of the heritage development. Um so this will continue on that curb

[20:22] and gutter street to the north on Archer. Uh and then Concord is also a

[20:26] gravel street and that will be an asphalt mat road with ditches and

[20:29] culverts on the side. So, this is not something one would say they're just

[20:33] putting in a street to help with the funding. These are streets that they're

[20:38] that we've already had in the queue or not the queue, but the our

[20:44] we already own the road. Now, we're just going to be approving it. Right.

[20:48] Correct. Improving it. >> Correct. Yeah. These would be considered

[20:50] a required infrastructure improvement associated with the plaque.

[20:55] » Mr. Mayor. >> Yes, sir. I move to adopt an ordinance

[20:58] authorizing the construction of certain internal improvements related to Jaguar

[21:02] State's addition. I >> I actually have more questions.

[21:06] » Go ahead. That's three. Mr. Mayor, uh Kevin, I'm taking a look at the map

[21:11] here. There are a couple residences that are close by as you know. It's one thing

[21:15] I'm always going to harp on. I'm going to ask you face to face here. Drainage.

[21:19] Uh are you confident I mean specifically you confident as the city's engineer

[21:23] that the drainage uh from the proposed property that's to go in there uh will

[21:28] not uh drastically affect the residents there specifically it looks like on this

[21:33] map I'm looking at is to the south and the one resident to the east.

[21:38] That's correct. That's something we look at through the plat process. Um, you

[21:42] know, this originally came through up through planning commission a few years

[21:45] ago, but during that process, um, they submit a drainage plan. There were

[21:50] comments. There's back and forth on that. We do look at at how that's being

[21:54] conveyed today versus how it's going to be conveyed out of a pond outfall here.

[21:59] We look at um pre-developed foes, pre-developed runoff, and post-developed

[22:05] runoff. Um, the site cannot exceed those runoff rates. So they have to go back to

[22:09] as it was if it was grass um with the amount of storage they provide and that

[22:15] was all provided by um the applicant and their engineer and reviewed during the

[22:20] the platting process. >> I appreciate your diligence on that.

[22:24] » And that's what reserve A is like a dry detention pond. Right.

[22:28] » That's correct.

[22:33] » Can I get a second, Mr. Mayor? >> Yes, sir. I believe we read 8.3's

[22:39] motion and not 8.2's. >> I think Mr. Henry read 8.3's motion and

[22:46] not 8.2s. I heard internal improvements related to Jaguar.

[22:50] » You're right. I did read 8.3. I apologize.

[22:53] » No worries. I'm not trying to call you. >> I'll resend that motion and move to

[22:57] accept the petitions for sanitary sewer, water distribution system, drainage, and

[23:02] paving improvements. approve the developers agreement and adopt a

[23:05] resolution of advisability related to the Jaguar Estates edition.

[23:09] » That I will second. [laughter]

[23:13] » Any further questions or discussion? [clears throat]

[23:17] » All in favor say yes. >> Yes.

[23:19] » Yes. >> All oppose? No.

[23:21] » Motion carries 50 83 Jaguar State Edition Work Ordinance. And Kevin again

[23:27] will talk to us about this. >> Uh following the acceptance of the

[23:31] petitions and the uh resolution of advisability, the next item is a work

[23:35] ordinance that authorizes the construction of the improvements that

[23:39] are listed in the petitions.

[23:44] » Mr. Mayor. >> Yes, sir.

[23:45] » I move to adopt an ordinance authorizing the construction of certain internal

[23:49] improvements related to the Jaguar Estates edition.

[23:51] » Second. >> Any further questions or discussion?

[23:56] All in favor say yes. >> Yes.

[23:59] » All oppose. No. >> Motion carries 5084 Jaguar Estates

[24:04] Edition engineering agreement. And again, Kevin will talk to us about the

[24:10] uh so this item is for the uh consultant services agreement with Garver who is

[24:16] also the platting engineer. You see their their name on the title block

[24:19] there on the plat. It is common practice for the city to uh hire the platting

[24:24] engineer to do the design for the infrastructure improvements. They also

[24:28] provide construction inspection, staking, materials testing. So, they are

[24:32] a partner with the city um kind of from this point until it's built um and they

[24:37] start building homes on it. We do have a a representative from Garver here with

[24:42] any questions.

[24:47] » No one, >> Mr. Mayor.

[24:48] » Yes, sir. And uh Kevin, this isn't this isn't the first project Garver's done in

[24:54] town. Correct. >> That's correct. Um actually the Southern

[24:58] Hills development that's under construction right now was one of

[25:00] Garver's. So that they are one of the consultants that we work with often.

[25:05] » Thanks Go Mr. Mayor. >> Yes sir. I move to approve the agreement

[25:10] with Garver LLC Witchto Kansas for engineering design and construction

[25:13] phase services for the public improvements related to Jaguar Estate

[25:17] Edition in the not to exceed amount of $196,120.

[25:24] » Second.

[25:28] Any further questions or discussion? All in favor say yes.

[25:33] » Yes. >> All oppose no. Motion carries 50. All

[25:38] right.

[25:44] Case number Z-SU26-00002.

[25:50] This is applica. This is an application requesting to allow for an intermediate

[25:55] care facility in the MRX multiple family mixed residential use district on a

[26:01] property generally located at 224 East Central Avenue and over Kansas. Before

[26:07] we proceed with the hearing, I will ask council if any of them into dis intend

[26:13] to disqualify themselves from participating in this case because they

[26:16] have a conflict of interest. No.

[26:27] » [snorts]

[26:30] » I will now ask council [clears throat] if any of them have received any

[26:34] expporte verbal or written communication prior to this agenda item which they

[26:39] would like to share. >> Mr. Mayor.

[26:41] » Yes, ma'am. >> I received a

[26:45] um handd delivered letter from Mr. Gallagher um in June and then I have

[26:50] received multiple emails for and against the center.

[26:57] I I too have received multiple emails from

[27:03] uh from the citizens both for and against. I have not seen the letter that

[27:08] Mr. Gallagher sent out for obvious reasons. Um so yes. Anyone else?

[27:15] » Mr. Mayor. >> Yes, sir.

[27:17] » I also received the letter from Mr. Gallagher as well as many, many emails

[27:22] um and notes about this [cough and clears throat] recovery

[27:26] center both for and against. I must note for the record, the majority were

[27:32] against.

[27:35] » Anyone else, >> Mr. Mayor?

[27:37] » Yes, sir. >> I have two received emails. Uh no

[27:41] letters from me. [clears throat] I guess I wasn't that special. And um they're

[27:46] all on record from Dana. And if I didn't see it from Dana, I sent it to Dana.

[27:53] » Uh sorry, s city clerk. [snorts]

[27:58] » And Mr. Mayor, I have created a letter that was submitted to the public in

[28:05] order to get public uh response in reference to this issue. I have received

[28:10] numerous emails uh for both uh for and against this issue including two emails

[28:16] from you.

[28:21] » Anyone else? >> And mayor, I have received the emails

[28:23] that have been noted that our city clerk has also received.

[28:28] » All right. [clears throat] Has the city clerk received any protest petition on

[28:32] the case? >> Yes, sir. A protest petition signed by

[28:36] eight or I'm sorry, no. A protest petition signed by eight residential

[28:42] property owners was received in the city clerk's office on July 24th, 2026. For

[28:48] the city attorney, the petition was not legally sufficient.

[28:59] I now ask city council members if they have all received copies

[29:03] of the approved and draft minutes for the planning commission notice hearing

[29:08] on June 16th, the council meeting on Jo June July 14th and the plan commission

[29:14] on July 21st which summarizes the hearing on the case.

[29:19] » Yes. >> Yes. Yes.

[29:25] I now call on the city zoning administrator to provide us with a

[29:29] report on this case. >> Mayor and council, as you're all very

[29:33] familiar at this point, we have an application for a special use to allow

[29:37] for an intermediate care facility at 224 East Central. Not going to rehash

[29:42] everything that's happened up to this point. Um, but I will let you know that

[29:46] uh I have personally visited the site to investigate their landscaping and their

[29:50] site plan and it was deemed to be in compliance both with the zoning

[29:53] regulations and with the approved site plan that's been in place for many years

[29:57] now. Uh I will add that at our planning commission meeting last week, the

[30:01] planning commission adopted uh the revised findings of fact that you all

[30:04] will see in your packet uh and voted by majority to recommend that you all

[30:08] approve special use with no conditions.

[30:12] Any question, councel?

[30:16] » Mr. Mayor, uh Julie, the uh I was not present for either of the hearings. I

[30:23] was out of country. But on 7:14, roughly 9:39 the evening,

[30:30] uh council member Barry had asked uh in his motion for report on six specific

[30:36] topics from the zoning committee. Uh, I made note of those six topics and wanted

[30:42] to find out if during that meeting those six topics were addressed because I

[30:49] tried to follow along and I think some of those things got dropped off as

[30:53] people were talking over one another or cutting each other off.

[30:57] » The motion that was returned to the planning commission asked for

[30:59] reconsideration on items 10, 11, 12, and 14, which were the ones that were

[31:03] revised and expanded that you can that you can see in your packet there. And

[31:07] that's what the planning commission primarily discussed and then based their

[31:10] recommendation on when they returned the matter to you.

[31:13] » Okay. Uh for council then is that when he asked for the specific reports upon

[31:18] those six points, is that something where they were not responsible for or

[31:22] not necessary to do upon his request?

[31:30] I'm not sure I understand the motion is a legal obligation to consider. It was

[31:37] to consider factors 10, 11, 12, and 14 and I think the planning commission did

[31:44] that. In fact, read them in detail into the record. If there were six other

[31:48] questions that I am missing, which is possible, um, yeah, you could either ask

[31:54] those questions now or or he could ask those questions. staff staff would try

[31:58] to respond to them, I believe, but the motion did not include, to my knowledge,

[32:05] six separate questions. >> I'm going to encourage staff to look at

[32:09] uh 2 hours 39 minutes and 50 seconds uh into that recording. Uh I will encourage

[32:14] everybody to take a look at that where he specifically states in his motion

[32:18] that he was asking them to look at those and comma not period uh specifically had

[32:25] six different points that he wanted addressed um in that and as such I

[32:31] reviewed that not being here I am coming into this wounded and trying to put

[32:37] myself into the position and those six points were not addressed or to my

[32:44] knowledge were not specifically put out which he verbally

[32:49] stated in his motion. It was not just I would like them to look over these uh

[32:55] points and regardless on this issue or any

[32:59] other issue if on council we are asked or asking because he everybody had asked

[33:04] about circumstances and conditions and everything else as well but he had

[33:08] specifically made that that point. If we're going to ask for a a a

[33:15] committee to look at something, we would expect them to address those issues for

[33:21] us. That way, it doesn't keep going back and forth like this.

[33:24] » I I think though what JT is saying is if if you have six questions, let's go

[33:29] ahead and ask those six questions or six issues to see if they're addressed. I do

[33:34] not recall Tim making a motion. I remember the same numbers that are in

[33:40] here that everyone 10 11 12 and 14 I believe. Um so ask your six questions to

[33:46] Julie and let's see if staff can I guess answer them.

[33:54] » The question is how many times has planning and zoning approved this site?

[34:02] » It does not matter. Mr. >> Hey, I didn't ask you no questions. You

[34:06] just literally >> I I I asked him I asked Julie I'm sorry

[34:09] Julie the question how many times has this passed through planning zoning and

[34:13] please don't interrupt me I don't interrupt you

[34:16] » if you count the approval back in 2024 then four times a recommended approval

[34:25] » and how many times is this governing body

[34:29] uh passed this claiming zoning through this uh this uh case.

[34:36] » How many times have they accepted that recommendation? Once.

[34:38] » Once. [clears throat] And it's worth noting.

[34:43] Well, we'll let it go for now. Any [clears throat] other questions for

[34:49] Julie? >> Do you want to ask your the questions?

[34:54] » It was meant for the zoning board to ask in order to get the correct information

[34:59] for before the decision. That is why he had those questions.

[35:03] That's why they are there part of the record.

[35:08] » All right. Are there any questions to the applicant

[35:12] from the council or city staff?

[35:17] [clears throat] >> Mr.

[35:21] » I have questions. >> Yes. All right. You interrupted me

[35:24] again. That's twice. All right. Let me stop. Sir, could you come to the podium,

[35:29] please?

[35:34] So, um, so one of the things that they're

[35:37] concerned about is the fencing in back. >> Can you handle that?

[35:43] 8 foot fence in back. >> We're happy to build whatever sort of

[35:47] fence will satisfy you. >> Um, security. Are the people going to be

[35:52] able to go to McDonald's and have a hamburger?

[35:55] » No, sir. >> Are they going to be able to go walking

[35:57] around the streets by theirel? >> No, sir.

[36:00] What's what's going to keep that from happening? Uh

[36:03] » whenever folks go outside, they are escorted by our staff. Uh we have

[36:08] cameras uh throughout our facilities uh so we know where our folks are at all

[36:12] times. We have uh recovery support advocates who do regular rounds and

[36:17] checks to know where people are. Uh we have doors that are alarmed. We have uh

[36:22] controlled access. Those all serve to mitigate people

[36:28] leaving and [clears throat] wandering. Um I think it's important to note too if

[36:32] I may that the the people we're we're serving are people who are there

[36:36] voluntarily um and I'd shared uh during the planning commission for those of you

[36:40] who saw that uh how much people are investing in order for the opportunity

[36:45] to be there uh people who make that kind of investment uh and and meet the

[36:51] demographic that we're serving which is the the demographic of of our esteemed

[36:56] crowd here and the council and all of us who are here. Um they they aren't going

[37:01] to uh wander into a neighborhood. They're not going to break into

[37:05] someone's garage and swim in their pool. >> Okay, Mr. Gallagher. Um thank you, sir.

[37:14] Uh first off, to both yourself, Mr. Leech, and all the parties with your

[37:20] center, I would like uh to apologize for how things come across. Um, there are a

[37:27] ton of questions that I have have in reference to this. Um, and I know that

[37:32] it's a passionate thing for the whole community. You never get a second chance

[37:37] to make a first impression and I think there were two things that came about

[37:40] that started this off on the wrong foot. Um, unfortunately the temporary zoning

[37:46] had expired. uh then with the media uh public publicity and everything else

[37:51] that you guys were opening and some people automatically assumed that you

[37:55] were already operating uh they felt slighted um and that is a mistake.

[38:02] Everybody has has accepted that I hope and have moved on because you have not

[38:06] opened up business yet. Additionally, our own city policies uh may have led to

[38:11] some of the anger from the community, not to mention my own actions um being

[38:15] taken as having a bias or prejudice. As such though, um one of the concerns

[38:22] was, and I'm glad you brought that up, Mr. Mayor brought this up as well, uh

[38:26] the barrier screening was was talked about during the zoning committee. Uh

[38:30] Mr. Leech had stated that he was happy to meet uh with the affected neighbors

[38:35] and would be willing uh to build a sufficient barrier uh to be a good

[38:40] neighbor. Um I'm asking you here officially on record if uh that is what

[38:45] you would intend to do. And if so, I would uh I really appreciate it if you

[38:50] would not just with that, but talk with the neighborhood about

[38:55] just ask or listen to them about their overall concerns one-on-one even. Um the

[39:02] uh obviously it's a passionate thing. Regardless of how this goes, somebody's

[39:08] not going to be happy. It's it's always going to be that way. But if you would

[39:12] be able to address that um that I'm going to call the screening barrier as

[39:19] uh as Mr. Leech had stated that would be greatly appreciated. Um I know that he

[39:23] had said that it could be put into conditions in the zoning and for

[39:27] whatever reason was not and that was my biggest concern to to start off with

[39:31] because that seems something fairly reasonable for making happy neighbors.

[39:36] that we will commit to building whatever sort of fence u is is reasonable. I

[39:42] mean, >> right. And that's I'm just talking about

[39:43] reason. I I'm not I'm not expecting and I hope the residents here if everything

[39:48] goes through and you all sit down, I don't want anybody to be, you know,

[39:53] suggesting there needs to be a, you know, great wall built, you know, 10

[39:57] feet tall or anything. It does need to be reasonable. And I think the fact that

[40:01] those residences sit lower, uh, they're concerned about being being able to get

[40:05] out of their cars and just see into their backyards and their windows and so

[40:08] forth. And but again, something that's respectable that represents your

[40:12] business as well as the neighborhood behind it would be great.

[40:15] » Absolutely. >> And I believe this we have an ordinance

[40:17] on how high you can go and I believe it's 8 foot. Is that correct? No, we're

[40:21] not having >> I believe it's six foot based on what

[40:23] was said in the planning committee. But >> there you go.

[40:25] » We're happy to build a six foot fence. So, I've I've drove back there many of

[40:29] times because that's what I do. And they got six foot fence back there,

[40:33] unfortunately, the way it sets compared to the parking lot, it's probably about

[40:37] 4 and 1/2 ft. But if you do a 6 in foot and and and and only three houses back

[40:44] up to the facility itself. So, and I noticed you have the smoking area and

[40:48] stuff on the west west side. Is that where

[40:54] people will be staying or will they be able to mill around back there? What's

[40:57] what's your stance on that? >> So, yes, that's where people will be

[41:01] staying. No, people won't be able to mill around back there.

[41:06] [clears throat and cough] >> Is the smoking area enclosed or or like

[41:09] fenced in or anything like that? I'm just curious.

[41:11] » It's under a canopy. >> Okay.

[41:14] » Mr. Mayor, I have a question. >> Excuse me.

[41:16] » I have a question. >> Yes. Oh, I'm sorry. Um, [clears throat]

[41:20] I know that this has been stated before because I believe I might have been one

[41:25] of the ones that asked it, but if you could please clarify.

[41:29] Um, it I know has been brought up a couple more times since the last council

[41:35] meeting, but there is a um background check an an extensive

[41:41] background check that you go through. And if I'm understanding correctly,

[41:47] there's nothing that is courtmandated or nothing um violent offenders or anyone

[41:54] that has felonies, they will not be here. Correct.

[42:00] » So, let me answer that in sections. So, yes, we will be screening for any

[42:04] individuals who are on our offender registry. So if anyone's on an offender

[42:08] reg a sexual offender registry, violent offender registry or drug offender

[42:12] registry, they will not be uh permitted. Yes, we go through uh all of our

[42:19] patients go through a screening process that assesses uh any behavioral

[42:23] concerns, any criminal concerns, uh any mental health concerns, any medical

[42:30] concerns uh that may interfere with their ability to participate in

[42:35] treatment at our facility. Um no one will be mandated to attend

[42:41] treatment at our facility. Um, now as to whether or not there will be people who

[42:47] have been convicted of felonies there, um, no, we will not automatically screen

[42:53] someone out because they have a felony. Now, we would evaluate what that felony

[42:57] is and base our admissions decisions on the nature of that.

[43:03] » Thank you. >> You're welcome.

[43:05] » In [clears throat] regards to family coming and visiting or someone that may

[43:09] carry stuff in their pockets, how do you handle that? So [clears throat]

[43:12] first all of before people come to visit uh the patients submit to their primary

[43:20] therapist who they would like to have come visit them while they're there.

[43:23] They process through that discussing who's going to be someone who is going

[43:27] to be a supportive and healthy person uh for them to come visit and who won't be.

[43:32] And so you know that's kind of the first

[43:35] screening process. Um, when people come to visit the facility, the facil the

[43:40] visitations will be indoors and they'll be supervised by staff the entire time.

[43:46] Okay. Anyone else? [clears throat]

[43:54] Okay. [clears throat and cough]

[44:00] The governing governing body has been provided with the approved

[44:04] and draft minutes for the planning commission notice hearing on June 16,

[44:09] 2026, the council meeting on Jul July 14th,

[44:14] and the planning commission meeting on July 21st, 2026. The videos of those

[44:20] meetings have been made available and I've watched all of them [clears throat]

[44:24] having had having had numerous public hearings. There will be no public

[44:30] comments taken at this time. The following are options are available to

[44:34] the city council regarding this case. >> Mayor, if I may, before you continue.

[44:39] » Yes, ma'am. Um, I just wanted to put in the record

[44:42] that I have received 60 written communications that have been

[44:46] distributed to the governing body and made available to the public in the

[44:50] packet tonight. I received one after the posting of the agenda this afternoon and

[44:55] they've been provided to you at the bench and um will be included in the

[44:59] packet. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. I want to ask one more

[45:03] question. >> Yes, sir. Have you not have you not

[45:07] invited many a myriad of people to come tour your facility?

[45:11] » We have. We've had um first we had our our open house u before we learned that

[45:17] the >> right special use permit hadn't had

[45:20] expired. Then we've had three separate uh public events where we've invited uh

[45:26] the public to come tour the facility and visit with us. Um we would we want to

[45:31] continue that and continue that dialogue. Um, if things go uh in our

[45:37] favor tonight, then we would be very receptive to doing that again tomorrow,

[45:41] uh, per uh, Councilman Gallagher's suggestion that we we visit neighbors.

[45:45] Uh, that's been our our hope and our goal all along is to to be a good

[45:49] neighbor, to be a a good part of the community, and to be in dialogue with

[45:54] folks. >> Thank you.

[45:57] [clears throat] Again, the following options are available to the council

[46:00] regarding this case. adopt the findings of facts

[46:04] and recommendations of the planning zoning by four vote majority

[46:09] and I'm I'm going to emphasize that adopt the finding and facts

[46:14] and recommendations of the planning commission revise or amend the finding

[46:19] of the fact or fact or add conditions to recommendations of the planning and

[46:25] zoning commission by a four vote majority or override the recommendation

[46:30] the planning commission by a four four vote majority. Assuming the council has

[46:36] received all the information they need on this case,

[46:42] [clears throat] you have received an outline of the choices provided under

[46:45] the stat state statutes for council action KSA 12-757C.

[46:52] Council, how do you wish to act, >> Mr. Mayor?

[46:55] » Yes, sir. [clears throat] Um, you know, I want the city to know,

[47:00] um, citizens, constituents, that, um, after last time making the motion and

[47:06] falling flat, I did do some, um, reflection on the videos, Jason's

[47:12] concerns, citizens concerns, um, watched the the planning and zoning. Is Doug

[47:17] here tonight? >> No, Doug wasn't a little um,

[47:20] [clears throat] so and and saw that. So, with that said, I move

[47:27] to override and add conditions.

[47:32] Sorry, I've never done this before, so I'm going to do it and and JT can tell

[47:37] me if I'm outline. I've got six conditions here that I'd like to read.

[47:41] Um I think the most pertinent public concerns covered below um while making

[47:46] sure nothing violates the Fair Housing Act, ADA, equal protection, and due due

[47:52] process concerns. I have proposed these conditions

[47:57] which have related with the finding of fact addressed below as well. Um number

[48:02] one the special use shall be limited to a

[48:05] residential impatient intermediate care facility outpatient treatment services

[48:10] walk-in services day treatment services medication dispensing services for

[48:14] non-residents and similar ambulatory activities and services are prohibited.

[48:19] The finding number 11, this directly addresses the public comment regarding

[48:23] traffic, visitor activity, non-resident patient activity, and neighboring

[48:27] impacts. Finding number 12, this more closely aligns with the medical campus

[48:33] and institutional uses contemplated within the city center place type.

[48:37] Number two, the facility shall operate solely as a volunteer residential

[48:41] intermediate care facility consistent with representations made during the

[48:45] public hearing process. Finding number 10, the planning commission and

[48:49] councelor record repeatedly relied upon testimony that the facility is

[48:53] voluntary. Finding number 11 supports the conclusion that the operational

[48:58] impacts will be less intensive than correctional or custodial settings.

[49:03] Condition number three, the facility shall not exceed a maximum resident

[49:07] census of 65 residents at any time unless an amendment to the special use

[49:11] is approved. Finding number 11 directly mitigates intensity of use concerns,

[49:17] limits traffic, staffing demand, parking demand, deliveries, and public service

[49:22] impacts. Finding number 14, it balances the public concerns while still allowing

[49:27] the applicant to utilize the property. Condition number four, within six

[49:32] months, the application the application applicant shall install additional

[49:37] evergreen screening along the north property line sufficient to achieve

[49:41] yearround visual screening. Uh finding number 10, it directly addresses the

[49:46] neighborhood character. 11, it mitigates the visual impacts. And number 14, it

[49:51] protects the neighboring per properties while permitting use of a vacant

[49:55] building. Number five, prior to operation, the

[49:59] operator shall file a security and access management plan to the director

[50:03] of community development, providing controlled access, alarmed exit,

[50:08] security cameras, visitor management procedures, and 24-hour staffing. This

[50:13] finding 11 directly addresses public safety concerns and reduces potential

[50:17] impacts on the neighboring properties. Finding number 14, it helps support a

[50:21] finding that approval will not create a net detriment to the public welfare.

[50:26] Finally, condition number six, that the operator shall maintain written

[50:29] procedures governing all resident discharges. Transportation shall be

[50:33] offered for all departures and that the operator shall maintain documentation

[50:37] demonstrating compliance with this condition and so m and shall make such

[50:42] documentation available to the city upon request in connection with a verified

[50:46] complaint or a comp compliance review. This mit number 11 mitigates public

[50:51] concerns regarding walkaways, proximity to schools, people entering the

[50:56] neighborhood, entering nearby neighborhoods. And then also number 14

[51:00] demonstrates safeguards intended to reduce off-site impacts while still

[51:04] permitting the need of need service to be offered.

[51:12] And that's what I have.

[51:23] So, we're walking a fine line there. A lot of it I agree with, but how who are

[51:27] we to who are we to tell a any business how to how to run their business in

[51:34] their capacity? Uh that's not we're not going to tell a

[51:41] liquor store how many how many 12-packs they can sell or how many coolers they

[51:45] can have in their building or so. I think we're crossing the line telling a

[51:50] business that's coming into town how to run their business. I think that's a I

[51:55] think that's a slippery slope in regards to capacity. Uh

[52:02] » I was trying to meet both parties. I'm involved with this. I put a lot of

[52:06] thought into this. Um, and I feel that if if Jason and and Doug and and

[52:13] Nick and those guys find this okay, then,

[52:19] you know, we go this route, but I would still need a second. So, I

[52:24] » I am not okay telling them how many patients they can help help. I wouldn't

[52:28] tell the nursing home next door how many seats they can have or the nursing home

[52:32] that my wife works in how many beds they can have. Uh, it's not a it's not a the

[52:39] state of Kansas is able to tell physician-owned hospitals

[52:45] how many beds they can have and it handcuffs them to where they can't

[52:48] compete with with other ones that are that are So,

[52:53] » this is the number they threw out. That's how I came up with it. I get what

[52:56] you're saying. So, I was just trying to state for the record what Jason and Doug

[53:01] and those guys had said. So that's why I put that in there.

[53:08] » So we're licensed by the Kansas Department of Aging and Disability

[53:11] Services and they regulate the number of beds that we're approved for. They've

[53:14] approved us for 80 beds. We talked about 65 beds. We talked about

[53:20] what what we anticipate will be a usual census. It may sometimes go above 65. Uh

[53:27] it you from a business perspective, it would be wonderful to have 80 patients.

[53:30] We would love to be able to provide services that many. It rarely rarely

[53:34] happens that a substance use treatment program is at capacity or is a licensed

[53:39] capacity. So sometimes it'll be 65 was kind of the number that was thrown out

[53:44] as where we think we will probably be. Uh sometimes we may be below that.

[53:49] Sometimes we may be above that. We'll never be above 80.

[53:53] » Okay.

[53:56] » I would amend my motion then for I believe it was number

[54:00] » three. three [clears throat] to be the resident census of

[54:06] 80 >> Yes, sir.

[54:08] » residents at any time unless an amendment to the special use is

[54:10] approved.

[54:15] » So, I have a a motion. Do I have a second?

[54:27] » Mr. Mayor, would it be us to consult our attorney on the legality of this motion.

[54:34] » Thank you for asking. [laughter] Um I uh

[54:40] actually sort of apologized to the planning commission because they thought

[54:42] they were in a difficult position with all the things that were going on. I

[54:45] think it's a tough job uh until I had this one tonight. And so I feel a little

[54:50] like stumped the band. But I'm going to go through these and I'm just going to

[54:53] tell you what I think. Okay? and and uh legal minds can differ, but but I'm

[55:00] going to I'm going to tell you what I what I think. Um

[55:06] and if I get them out of order or I get them wrong, you can correct me. I'm

[55:11] taking notes >> and and

[55:14] » I believe I believe you're first. I I do want to apologize to you and maybe why

[55:19] some of this looks like while I prepared this not necessarily prepared for

[55:27] his actions because as we are in a quasi dule um role up here part of that too is

[55:34] not giving feedback to emails, not partaking in that debate outside of

[55:39] here. The bench is where this happens. So, I appreciate everyone asking their

[55:45] questions up here um so that we can get that out in the public as well. Sorry,

[55:49] JT. I didn't mean to cut you off. It's all right.

[55:52] I'm going to summarize what I wrote down and you can correct me if that wasn't

[55:56] the intent. >> Um number one was to restrict the

[56:01] facility to to inpatient

[56:06] residential treatment, not allow outpatient treatment.

[56:11] Um, I don't know if that one is okay, but uh I think it doesn't matter. The

[56:18] special use doesn't approve outpatient treatment. The special use approves

[56:23] custodial treatment. So So the special use wouldn't wouldn't approve outpatient

[56:29] treatment. So I'm confused whether or not that one should be a condition since

[56:34] the special use doesn't approve it. Um, and and what I'm worried about is that

[56:42] if it's allowed without a special use, and I I think it's probably not, but but

[56:48] I would need more time to research that, quite frankly, but if it's allowed

[56:52] without a special use, this would not be a forum in which you could now restrict

[56:57] that because it would be it would be permitted zoning now. Um but

[57:04] uh so so I'm gonna I'm going to just say as to number one which would be to

[57:08] eliminate outpatient treatment. The special use doesn't approve outpatient

[57:12] treatment. So I think it's kind of a nullity. That's just my opinion.

[57:17] Uh number two that it be restricted to voluntary residents. So this is a very

[57:22] difficult place we get to and I I think when you try to draw a distinction

[57:26] between people with a disability including recovering addicts between

[57:31] those who are diagnosed and and and want treatment and those who don't. I think I

[57:36] think you probably can't do that. I think I think number two is probably not

[57:39] okay. I'm just going to tell you that I think it's probably not okay. Doesn't

[57:44] mean you can't do it. We'll find out in the courts if if it is or isn't. But I'm

[57:48] going to tell you that I think it's probably not okay.

[57:51] Um uh as I understood number three now it

[57:56] is to restrict the occupancy to 80 residents.

[58:01] Uh Councilman Henry I I think you did a a

[58:07] pretty good job of making that non-punitive. You talked about density.

[58:11] You talked about traffic. You talked about the legitimate zoning concerns. I

[58:16] think limiting the density and use of a property uh to protect surrounding

[58:21] properties is probably a reasonable zoning function. And as long as it

[58:25] doesn't discriminate against uh persons who are disabled or or in this case the

[58:31] guests themselves, it's probably an okay restriction and seems like a reasonable

[58:37] accommodation for this use. So So going to step out there and say I think number

[58:43] three is okay. Um,

[58:48] number four was to require trees. Am I remembering it right?

[58:55] » Yeah. >> Evergreen trees be planted. That, you

[58:57] know, I guess what I'm thinking about here is that the leaves don't fall and

[59:00] then everybody can see into the into the neighborhood.

[59:04] » I'm going to give that an A+. Okay. That is an okay condition you can place on a

[59:08] property. Uh, buffers and zones. That is that is a that is is is reasonable. And

[59:15] it's worth noting there's a bunch of trees back there now,

[59:17] » but but I I'm I'm I'm just I'm just trying to call these as I see them. Um

[59:25] number five was to submit a security plan that the director of community

[59:30] development would review. I'm I'm going to make sure that I my view of how I'd

[59:36] understand that is uh you know, we wouldn't we wouldn't necessarily know

[59:39] how to get in or get out. We just want to know what the plan is. Um, I will

[59:44] tell you that your community development director uh told me that he feels a

[59:49] little ill-skilled to evaluate a plan and doesn't really have a specialty in

[59:53] that regard. Uh, nor neither do I. But I'll go one step further. To me, that

[59:59] seems to be uh

[1:00:05] that seems to me to be uh a restriction that is punitive and based upon the

[1:00:13] uh nature of the guests. And here's here's what I mean by that. Um would

[1:00:18] would you require a security and access plan for uh rehabilitation facility that

[1:00:25] um that uh treated people who had had a hip replacement?

[1:00:31] And if the answer to that is no, then I'm concerned about number five because

[1:00:36] I I think it I think it discriminates against a a a particular class of people

[1:00:42] who are disabled by addiction. So, I'm going to tell you number five bothers me

[1:00:48] and I I I think it may not be legal. Um, and then um

[1:00:55] and I'm going to summarize my opinion here at the end.

[1:01:00] Uh your number six, as I recall it, was that when people leave

[1:01:06] um they'd either be uh that they they they'd be offered transportation for all

[1:01:12] departures is what I remember. Am I getting the gist of it?

[1:01:16] » Yes. And if I may, before you summarize, five and six were things that Jason or

[1:01:24] Doug Nick addressed. Um, so I didn't feel it was going to be a legality issue

[1:01:30] since they kind of brought it up. I was just putting it in record um, for this.

[1:01:35] So that's why I did that. As far as those two,

[1:01:39] » I don't know if this is helpful, but I do based on some faces that I'm seeing.

[1:01:43] I do want to be very clear when when Mr. Claus is saying this, we do not ask for

[1:01:47] a security or operations plan for any other business that has gone through

[1:01:51] zoning ever that I'm aware of. So that when he

[1:01:56] says, "Would you do this for the two ERS you already have in town?" No, we did

[1:02:00] not. Would you do this for a liquor store? No, we do not

[1:02:06] » any of that. The answer is no, we do not.

[1:02:09] » And that unfortunately, I think, is the answer for number six, too. We don't. We

[1:02:13] do not. even though they've agreed they'll do it. Um we don't we don't have

[1:02:19] a requirement for how uh people leaving the hospital are transported um or uh

[1:02:26] that the transport and or discharge documentation is made available to the

[1:02:31] city. I I do understand there will be state regulations in this regard that

[1:02:35] have to be complied with and I'm also concerned that we would do something

[1:02:40] that interferes with those state regulations because um this is clearly

[1:02:44] an area in which the state has exercised its authority and so I I got a little

[1:02:49] concerned we're playing around in that. So, in reviewing your uh

[1:02:56] conditions, uh outpatient treatment, we're not

[1:03:00] approving outpatient treatment. So, I don't understand that one. So, I'm going

[1:03:04] to go with a no on that. Uh the voluntary the the distinction between

[1:03:10] the nature of addiction between people who seek voluntary treatment and who

[1:03:13] don't, I think is discriminatory, and I'm definitely going to go with a no on

[1:03:17] that one. Uh the 80 residents, I I'm okay with that one. Uh the trees, I'm

[1:03:23] okay with that one. Uh the security and access plan seems discriminatory since

[1:03:28] we've never required anybody ever in a zoning case to have that before. And

[1:03:32] same way with transportation. So on your conditions, and I realize it's just a

[1:03:36] motion that hasn't been seconded yet. Um and we can discuss it more if it is

[1:03:42] seconded. Um, I guess I' I guess I'd like to consider not including one just

[1:03:47] because I don't think it matters. I don't think we're approving that. Um, no

[1:03:52] on number two, okay on three, okay on four, and no, probably not okay on five

[1:03:58] and six. And I'm sorry if any of that offends you. That's just as good as I

[1:04:04] can do tonight, Council Member Henry. So, it seems like I've heard several

[1:04:10] times that you're not going to hand them their suitcase and say, "Here, take a

[1:04:14] walk." Is that not correct? It's correct that we are not going to do that. Uh the

[1:04:20] city attorney is correct that the state does regulate how we have to go about

[1:04:24] discharging as well. As it's been mentioned, we will be accredited through

[1:04:28] uh joint commission who also has even higher standards.

[1:04:32] » May I ask a question? >> Yes, sir.

[1:04:33] » And it just relates to the trees. Um [snorts]

[1:04:37] because we kind of went through this with our site plan. I just want to make

[1:04:40] sure that uh we're in completely in compliance. Um does a site plan have to

[1:04:46] change in order for us to be able to plant the trees?

[1:04:51] » That would be a modification. I'm sorry. >> Pardon me. [snorts]

[1:04:57] » I don't know. Maybe Julie's answer is better. Uh I think I think you can add

[1:05:01] trees. I think you can't subtract any.

[1:05:07] That would be a modification to the approved site plan which is in place

[1:05:11] currently and they're complying with. So they would have to go to the site plan

[1:05:14] review committee for the placement of those trees to be approved. Um you also

[1:05:19] didn't really give a number of trees just some trees. So I suppose you can

[1:05:24] leave it up to site plan to decide how many trees but

[1:05:32] » we'll get back to you. But I think generally if you're putting in more than

[1:05:36] the site plan required, I think you'll be fine.

[1:05:39] » We're very happy to to plant trees, I think that would be a nice addition. I

[1:05:43] do have some questions about how that might work with a fence. Um if we

[1:05:49] we if you want us to do both a fence and trees or how that would work and if

[1:05:52] there's enough room back there to do that.

[1:05:54] » Well, it hasn't been mentioned, but let's discuss the issue of the fence and

[1:05:58] um planning and zoning. I I learned

[1:06:03] something from them at the planning commission meeting. So hopefully I'll

[1:06:05] get this right. So um for this particular zone, a six-foot fence is the

[1:06:11] is the limit because you know tall windbreaking fences are not normally

[1:06:15] desired. Uh to create a higher fence um would require a seeking a variance. Um,

[1:06:25] so, uh, I I don't think you can place a

[1:06:29] condition on the property that would violate your own rules. Um,

[1:06:35] I I think the best you could do is it related to a fence, if you wanted to

[1:06:40] make that condition, is that it was conditioned upon uh the owner seeking a

[1:06:45] variance to build a taller fence. um and and agreeing to do so if that

[1:06:52] variance is granted. H however uh th that's going to be decided by

[1:06:59] the board of zoning appeals will not be decided by you whether or not the fence

[1:07:02] can be taller. So the most you could do is as a condition I think is you could

[1:07:07] have them ask

[1:07:12] May I mentioned something uh and I I think mayor you you brought this up. a

[1:07:17] slope that goes down from where we are curbside. Uh I don't know. We as Nick

[1:07:23] and I walked that we had this discussion a couple of days ago. Uh if we can put a

[1:07:28] six-foot fence up near that curb, then I think it will take care of that issue.

[1:07:35] We were curious how far back from the curb we would need to place a fence.

[1:07:43] » The further you go back, the lower it's going to be.

[1:07:46] I didn't know if there were any uh restrictions on how close a fence can be

[1:07:51] to >> to my knowledge. We don't restrict uh

[1:07:54] how close to a curb a fence ends up being. I don't think that's something

[1:07:57] that you have to have to worry about. >> Okay.

[1:08:01] Then we would be more than happy to put the sixoot fence right along the curb

[1:08:05] side, which I think would probably address the issues with height. But

[1:08:11] » but it is right against

[1:08:20] But JT, that's not allowed to be part of the motions, correct? That you're saying

[1:08:24] fence or anything like that? >> No. And I I I think a lawful a condition

[1:08:30] for a lawful fence. So, so the the motion could include a condition that

[1:08:34] they seek a a variance to build an 8ft fence and if and if a variance is not

[1:08:40] granted that they build the six-foot fence up against the curb, I think we're

[1:08:44] all in agreement that that that would be okay, Julie. There's no restriction on

[1:08:51] where you put the fence. If it were up by the curb, it would be higher

[1:08:55] visually. Um, honestly, I don't purport to know uh whether the property owners

[1:09:02] would prefer that uh because it's not their property. So, so

[1:09:08] you you end up with kind of a fenced corridor.

[1:09:12] I'm not exactly sure. I'm just sharing my opinion now. I'm not exactly sure

[1:09:16] that a fenced corridor is a good idea. you. I'm kind I'm kind of slow, sir, but

[1:09:23] I'm pretty sure that you could attach that to the top of the curb and then

[1:09:26] you'd be another eight inches higher. I got to be honest with y'all. I'm per I'm

[1:09:31] perplexed. I'm absolutely perplexed.

[1:09:38] Andover's inviting community.

[1:09:42] I don't see the difference between somebody that has an addiction, a

[1:09:47] disease is any different than somebody with cancer or or anything else. I don't

[1:09:54] I don't see the difference and I don't see the negative impact on our

[1:09:58] community. If anything, it's positive. And that's just the way I feel and I

[1:10:02] always say what I mean. And we're elected to take care of 16,000 people.

[1:10:09] We we've had to we've been down this road before. It's not our job to acquies

[1:10:15] to a 20 people, 60 people or 100 people or 600 people. We went through the same

[1:10:21] thing with the apartments in Green Valley. Our job is to

[1:10:26] as a as a quasi jury to do what's best for the city of

[1:10:32] Andover. And I'm I'm just perplexed. You know, I went around this town after the

[1:10:37] tornado. People's houses were missing. And to a house, every one of them said

[1:10:44] nobody died. You know, that's the kind of community

[1:10:47] Andover is. And here we are to block ability to help people live a

[1:10:54] better life. And how how so I I could not afford to go to this deal. It's a

[1:10:59] patient pay, right? Right. >> Either either private pay or private

[1:11:03] insurance. I'm sorry. >> Or insurance.

[1:11:05] » Or insurance. >> Or insurance.

[1:11:07] » So So So I could not afford to go to this thing. So So I'm just saying what

[1:11:12] are we doing? You know, this is my this this is what I was elected for. And I

[1:11:17] don't mind taking hits. I don't really don't care. But I It's disappointing

[1:11:21] that we would not accept a facility to make people's lives better. It's just

[1:11:27] and there ain't a person in this room that hadn't had an alcoholic in the

[1:11:31] family. I had one. You know what I mean? Yeah. I I've seen them, hun. Thank you.

[1:11:37] Thank you for sharing it with me. >> So So So that's So I This not time.

[1:11:45] So that's where I stand. So council, let's do this again. Do I have a motion?

[1:11:50] » Okay, to be clear, you do have a motion as I understand it. So procedurally, we

[1:11:53] have a motion. It either needs to be withdrawn,

[1:11:56] » right, >> or it needs to be seconded or it needs

[1:12:00] to die for lack of a second

[1:12:04] » if if we want to keep things in in reasonable order.

[1:12:07] » So So if we're going to do 80, it needs to be withdrawn.

[1:12:12] » Say that again. >> If we're going to say you said 60 beds,

[1:12:16] if we're going to do 80, then you need to withdraw it.

[1:12:19] » I I already amended >> and a handful of things that he said no

[1:12:22] to. We So we have to withdraw the motion and redo it.

[1:12:26] » Withdraw or can I just amend it? >> Yeah, you can amend it. It hasn't been

[1:12:30] seconded yet. >> Thank you, JT. Thank you, Mayor. If I

[1:12:35] may, I would like to amend my motion due to legalities

[1:12:41] to include the the

[1:12:46] include the conditions of Do I need to read them again or can I just say three

[1:12:51] and four of my >> You want to include the limitation to 80

[1:12:56] residents in the planting evergreen trees conditions three and four. Is that

[1:13:00] what you're saying you want to keep in your motion?

[1:13:02] » Correct. Yeah. So just for clarity, your motion is to adopt the finding and

[1:13:08] factors of the planning commission and and and

[1:13:11] approve the special use but subject to the additional conditions of limitation

[1:13:17] to 80 residents in the planting uh evergreen trees along the buffer zone.

[1:13:22] » Yes.

[1:13:26] » All right. So I have a motion. Can I get a second?

[1:13:33] I'll second. >> We have a second. Any further questions

[1:13:37] or discussion?

[1:13:41] » All in favor say yes. >> Yes.

[1:13:43] » Yes. >> All opposed.

[1:13:46] » No. >> No.

[1:13:48] » Motion carries. >> Let me check

[1:13:53] because I was following yeses and nos and I'm sorry. I know I've called a lot

[1:13:57] of attention to people. I heard a no from Colin and Tim. Is that correct? And

[1:14:04] I heard yeses from Mara, Jodie, and Homer. Is that correct?

[1:14:08] » Yes. >> And so we need to know how the mayor

[1:14:11] votes. >> The mayor votes yes.

[1:14:13] » Then the special use is approved with the two overriding conditions.

[1:14:20] » All right. One last report here. Persons agree by the final decision of the

[1:14:25] council on this matter have 30 days after today's action within which to

[1:14:30] appeal to the district court. >> Mr. Mayor.

[1:14:32] » Yes, ma'am. >> Can I make a comment, please?

[1:14:34] » Yes, ma'am. >> I want to be very clear. These last six

[1:14:38] weeks have not been easy. I will only speak for myself when I tell you all I

[1:14:44] have read every single email that came in. I have watched not only the council

[1:14:51] meeting back, but I've also watched planning and zoning multiple times. I

[1:14:57] have listened to every single person that had wanted to talk to me. Even

[1:15:02] coming into my office and using that as the place to talk to me. I have wrestled

[1:15:07] with this. This decision has kept me up. It has weighed on me. I have prayed for

[1:15:16] guidance and wisdom over this. Ultimately, I've been consumed by this

[1:15:20] more than any other decision that I have made in my time as a city council

[1:15:25] member. As I sit here, I'm reminded

[1:15:30] that I was elected to make decisions and those decisions are based on facts and I

[1:15:36] have to look at so many different perspectives. I can't just look at one.

[1:15:41] I have to look through this the lens of so many other factors.

[1:15:47] This has not been an easy six weeks. And I can assure you for me, this

[1:15:54] decision was one of the hardest and probably I'll ever have to make during

[1:15:58] my city council time because I'm not running again. [laughter]

[1:16:04] I'm done. Y'all did me in. Done. [snorts]

[1:16:10] All right, we're ready for member items, right?

[1:16:17] Go ahead, Homer. Start with you. >> Oh, uh,

[1:16:22] thank you. Um,

[1:16:29] I, you know, I commend Jody, um, you know, for saying that. I appreciate

[1:16:36] that. I think I'd be remissed if I said we didn't all have those same emotions

[1:16:42] when it came to um, this special use. So those six weeks, the proceedings before

[1:16:50] have been hard for me as well. Um, but again, you know, we serve this city. So

[1:16:57] I appreciate all of us up here. I appreciate the input from the citizens

[1:17:03] for and against. Um, thank you.

[1:17:10] Um to the residents and the stakeholders at business owners and so forth, I

[1:17:14] appreciate every one of you regardless if you're for or against uh this

[1:17:18] particular topic. Uh like um uh Jody stated, we read I read and most of I

[1:17:26] guarantee you read every one of your emails, watched every minute of uh the

[1:17:31] the sessions and nothing was taken flippantly.

[1:17:36] As stakeholders, I do believe that you all have a voice. I do believe you have

[1:17:41] all have a voice on every topic that your city council decides on because you

[1:17:46] elected us to speak for you to the city and make decisions based that way. I am

[1:17:54] sorry that the city failed in a part that we're going to talk about here in a

[1:17:59] second um in my opinion and we'll I'll see if I can do something about that. I

[1:18:05] encourage you all as citizens, business owners, and so forth to

[1:18:12] continue to get involved with the city and pay attention to the agendas for

[1:18:19] everything from zoning to council meetings. Reach out to your council

[1:18:23] members and ask questions. You have our emails. We know that. Please use them.

[1:18:29] We will respond or should respond. Um, we are here for you. And I mean this.

[1:18:37] Please, regardless of what side of the fence you all reside on, be courteous to

[1:18:43] one another. The last thing we need is more conflict in the world, more

[1:18:48] division, or anything else. I ask the residents that live near the property to

[1:18:54] please communicate with the property any concerns you may have, but do so

[1:19:00] respectfully, please, and allow them to respond accordingly

[1:19:07] to the city. And this is for administration to take consideration. We

[1:19:11] did the bare minimum. Andover itself has [snorts] never done

[1:19:16] the bare minimum. We have always been the best. It doesn't matter if it's our

[1:19:20] street department, our water and sewer, our parks department, our police, our

[1:19:24] fire, and so forth. We've always done better than the bare minimum. State

[1:19:30] requires notifications at a minimum of 200 foot radius for the facility. I

[1:19:35] personally would ask that you consider or look into at least change that. I

[1:19:42] think 500T would be a great place to start if you want to consider 750 or

[1:19:45] 1,000 ft for any zoning concerns. I think that that would be appropriate.

[1:19:50] When I looked at the map the first time when I was told that the the radius was

[1:19:53] 200 feet, I was shocked to see how small that is and

[1:19:58] I took action. I wanted people to be aware.

[1:20:03] Lastly, [clears throat] Mayor Price, um, as I started my career

[1:20:09] in public service in the early 90s, my first real adult career boss told me

[1:20:15] in my training class, God gave me two ears and one mouth. Do twice as much

[1:20:20] listening and half as much talking. That changed things for me from that point

[1:20:24] on. I sought out to listen to others. I listened to their opinions, their ideas,

[1:20:27] and perspectives. And I learned by doing that, it made me a better person. I did

[1:20:33] not have all the answers.

[1:20:37] It also helped me from making rash decisions and doing or saying things I

[1:20:42] could never take back. Again, like I mentioned to um the the clinic, you

[1:20:48] never get a second chance to make a first impression. I made a promise to

[1:20:52] the residents and businesses of Andover that I would listen to them. I would

[1:20:56] solicit their opinions, not make decisions based strictly on one person,

[1:21:00] one entity, or anything that anybody just told me. I am not a city. I am not

[1:21:08] an institution. I am merely a voice for the people and not the government. Mr.

[1:21:14] Mayor, at the last council meeting that I watched, uh you you failed to listen

[1:21:19] and you failed to respect the public. Regardless of your views, people want to

[1:21:24] be heard. At that last meeting, you admonished the

[1:21:29] residents of bicesentennial edition because your personal experience or bias

[1:21:32] that you had. You called them out not once but twice.

[1:21:38] This would have been handled much better had you just allowed them to talk and

[1:21:44] turn over to city administration their complaints and address it one-on-one

[1:21:49] with them. You said you can't lie like that yet.

[1:21:54] You do that two more times during the uh actual uh council meeting. The second

[1:22:01] time is uh when you decided to admonish the

[1:22:06] public for coming and talking. You also stated that

[1:22:09] » I did not. You had stopped. You're not going to lie. I did not admonish the

[1:22:13] public. >> I have the quote right here. says we

[1:22:15] have never let people come in here sir and be redundant one after the other

[1:22:20] after the other. I was not admonish other after the other after the other.

[1:22:26] This was at uh if you would like to know exactly 9:46 and 56 I was there man.

[1:22:33] » I was there you're you're also stated to you're lying

[1:22:37] » as I'm reading directly from >> what I said. You're you're you're you're

[1:22:41] taking what I said and and mis misleading the public. That is what I

[1:22:46] said. >> Okay.

[1:22:47] » And it is a true statement that during this during the peed, we never ever ever

[1:22:54] let the public go redundant. Redundant redundant. And I did it because I

[1:22:59] thought and I said it because I thought they deserve to have an ear. So while

[1:23:04] you're off doing your thing, that's what I said. That's true. But that's not what

[1:23:09] I that was not the intent of the message. It was the true fact that the

[1:23:13] PUB we do not ever do it. And we you've been through a couple of them. I've been

[1:23:18] through 50 of them. We do not let unless they have new information. Mr.

[1:23:22] Gallagher, we do not let them all come. I let them

[1:23:25] come because I thought they deserve to have a say.

[1:23:28] » And if any unless you say it any other way, stop saying it. If any one of these

[1:23:32] people have watched any of the council meetings where we have allowed people to

[1:23:35] talk over and over and over. >> We have not, man. You're you're lying.

[1:23:41] You're absolutely full of this. >> The fourth issue, of course, is when you

[1:23:44] decided to admonish me, sir. >> Yes, sir.

[1:23:46] » When you decided to say, "I broke the oath that I held my hand up for saying I

[1:23:50] would protect all 16,000 citizens." >> Yes, you did.

[1:23:54] » You stated, "I broke my oath numerous times." and you sat there and referred

[1:23:59] the process that I denied the people the the abil ability to appeal in district

[1:24:05] court. >> You broke your oath.

[1:24:07] » As such, I believe that you, sir, are out of

[1:24:11] line. You stated numerous times, he is not courageous. He is not courageous. He

[1:24:16] is not courageous. Please don't. Hold on. Please don't. Hold on. Please.

[1:24:20] » And I let him do that, which is not acceptable by the way.

[1:24:24] » I stopped him as well. I you stated that I was not courageous and you were

[1:24:27] correct sir. I was not courageous at all. What I was doing was my civic duty.

[1:24:32] No, it was what I was elected for. >> No,

[1:24:35] » you can sit here as much as you want and tell people over and over again your

[1:24:40] personal views. When we had the gentleman that was uh on another zoning

[1:24:44] uh issue, you told him that you would put a road through his house in a

[1:24:49] council meeting. What the hell?

[1:24:54] » Sir, you have got to get yourself under control and stop making the citizens

[1:25:00] fear coming to the city or the city council. This is the reason why people

[1:25:04] do not want to bring things to the city council.

[1:25:09] » If they're going to be yelled at by you or any of us up here is irresponsible.

[1:25:14] It is not just and is not the American way. That is all I have to say about

[1:25:20] this topic,

[1:25:24] » man. Anybody else have anything they like to say?

[1:25:30] » Mr. Mayor, so yes, sir. Go ahead. >> Are we continuing with member items or

[1:25:34] if you want to go first, that's fine. >> No, go ahead.

[1:25:38] » Okay. Um, it saddens me uh the outcome. I respect the will of the council and um

[1:25:46] the voting that took place tonight. Um ultimately I was not persuaded by the

[1:25:52] facts of the cases. uh I was not persuaded that um property values would

[1:25:57] not experience a detrimental impact ultimately because of a study that is

[1:26:04] you can agree or disagree with the outcomes of

[1:26:08] the 2014 Waller study but it does in fact conclude that properties within an

[1:26:13] eighth of a mile do experience a decrease in property value you can you

[1:26:18] can explain it away you can say it's a different type of patient population etc

[1:26:23] But um for for that reason and as well the um increased intensity of use, I

[1:26:30] disagreed with the staff finding on the land use. While the cement blocks or

[1:26:36] bricks on the property do not compact the soil when it is being used for this

[1:26:41] purpose, I acknowledge the reasonable understanding that a facility of this

[1:26:46] type does differ from, for instance, its neighbor that is a a long-term care

[1:26:51] skilled nursing facility. So for that reason is I know I'm not obligated to

[1:26:56] explain but I feel that the um many many um residents that spoke up deserve to

[1:27:03] understand some of the background of how decisions were made.

[1:27:08] I would like to commend the large majority of the comments that

[1:27:15] were made at the podium by the applicant, by residents, um with the

[1:27:22] exception of the last few minutes here. Uh the council, as we've civily debated

[1:27:28] this topic, it is wrought with emotion. It's wrought with

[1:27:33] fears. It's wrought with facts. It's wrought with what could be.

[1:27:38] And I would like to encourage us and admonish us to not adm encourage us to

[1:27:44] remain civil in our discourse as we carry out the important duty of

[1:27:50] local government. That's all.

[1:27:56] » Um I just want to take a moment and explain my personal reasons for sending

[1:28:00] it back to planning and zoning. Um, I had been a planning and zoning

[1:28:04] administrator for seven year administrator, sorry, commissioner for

[1:28:08] seven years. Um, and we had received so many emails and concerns and yet nobody

[1:28:13] participated in planning and zoning. Um, I watched all the meetings. I was a

[1:28:17] planning and zoning commissioner the first time this came through. So, it was

[1:28:21] really important to me because planning and zoning is the place to talk about

[1:28:25] land use and to talk about the concerns. And since nobody showed up to that, that

[1:28:29] was my reason for sending it back. Um, I really want to thank planning and zoning

[1:28:33] and the staff for walking through that process again and affirming their

[1:28:38] original decision. I really do appreciate a commitment to the fair fair

[1:28:43] and thorough and evidence-based process that we go through. So, just wanted to

[1:28:47] make that comment. >> Joe, do you have anything?

[1:28:52] So, first I'd like to say one thing. The city staff did everything they were

[1:28:56] supposed to do. They did it absolutely correctly. One council member decided to

[1:29:03] skip past all procedures.

[1:29:08] All procedures. He did not let the city procedures play out. That's a fact. He

[1:29:15] did not let procedures play out. And I'll say this, and I I don't have to

[1:29:20] defend myself, nor will I, because everybody that's listening knows that

[1:29:24] that was a buffoonery at its finest. But I will tell you, the city staff did

[1:29:30] exactly what they were supposed to do. The process worked exactly the way it

[1:29:34] was supposed to work. But one council member decided that he didn't need to

[1:29:40] follow the process. That's fact. That is a fact. So, you can think what you want

[1:29:46] and uh say what you want, but uh I will I will take my my six years of public

[1:29:53] service and put it up against anyone's. Uh, I'm the most transparent mayor the

[1:29:59] city's ever had. I go to the hardware store, I get stopped. I go to Dylan's, I

[1:30:05] get stopped. And I that's the way I planned it. I've

[1:30:09] been writing letters and putting them in utility bill for four years every month

[1:30:13] engaging with the public following the process of our our city.

[1:30:20] So, I don't I don't care what anybody thinks of me. It doesn't matter. All I

[1:30:25] know is when I lay my head on my pillow at night, I sleep very well and I do

[1:30:30] what the process of the city is. And when I make a mistake, I own it. One

[1:30:36] council member put the city at risk. Put the city at risk. Put put a business

[1:30:44] owner at risk. Put a business owner at risk. That's a

[1:30:50] fact. not only the business owner, all their employees at risk. So if you want

[1:30:57] to I'm I'm very I live by this code, man. Every morning I pray the Lord's

[1:31:03] prayer. I say, "Lord,

[1:31:09] forgive me of my sins as I forgive others." I live by that code.

[1:31:15] And I'll stick to my guns and I'll stick to what I said the other night. And

[1:31:20] tonight, the facts don't lie. We did. We We avoided the process that we hold our

[1:31:27] hand up and promise to follow the period.

[1:31:33] Can I get a motion to get out of here? >> Mr. Mayor, I move to adjourn.

[1:31:37] » I second. >> All in favor?

[1:31:39] » Yes.

City Council - 28 Jul 2026

Transcript