[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.