[0:11] Good evening. Welcome to the September
[0:13] 15th, 2026 meeting of the Topeka, Kansas
[0:16] governing body. I will now call this
[0:18] meeting to order. This evening's
[0:21] invocation is from Council Member
[0:22] Valivia Alkala. Please give her your
[0:25] attention and rise if you are able.
[0:28] >> Thank you, mayor. Our invocation tonight
[0:30] will be given by Imam Omar Hazim. If you
[0:34] want to go ahead and come up to the
[0:35] podium, sir, right here.
[0:40] And just a little bit of background, the
[0:43] uh Imam is with the Islamic Center of
[0:47] Topeka. He is the Islamic adviser to the
[0:50] Kansas Department of Corrections and has
[0:52] served in these positions since 1990.
[0:56] Imam Hazim was the first Muslim to give
[0:59] the invocation to the Kansas House of
[1:02] Representatives in Senate on March 9th,
[1:05] 1995.
[1:07] So with that, Imam,
[1:09] >> thank you.
[1:11] With God's name, the merciful
[1:13] benefactor, the merciful redeemer,
[1:16] creator of the heavens and the earth,
[1:18] and everything contained therein. We
[1:21] come before you today in humble prayer
[1:24] and ask you to have mercy on and give
[1:27] guidance to this governing body of
[1:29] honorable minds. Please grant them the
[1:32] wisdom, the patience, and the courage to
[1:36] make the best decisions for the people
[1:38] and communities that they serve. Please
[1:41] reward them for the noble work that they
[1:43] do. Our Lord, help every individual of
[1:46] this governing body recognize and
[1:50] respect the inherent worth, the honor
[1:53] and the dignity that you, our creator,
[1:55] has given every human soul. We are here
[1:58] this evening to pray for the success of
[2:00] our leaders. And we ask you, dear God,
[2:03] to grant success to our mayor and the
[2:06] members of this governing body. Amen.
[2:14] I aliance to the flag of the United
[2:18] States of America.
[2:39] Duncan
[2:39] >> here.
[2:40] >> Council members Hiller
[2:41] >> here.
[2:42] >> Valdivia Aqua
[2:43] >> here. Ortiz
[2:44] >> here.
[2:45] >> Banks
[2:46] >> here.
[2:46] >> Kell
[2:47] >> here.
[2:48] >> Miller
[2:48] >> here.
[2:49] >> Bradberry
[2:50] >> here.
[2:50] >> McGee
[2:51] >> here.
[2:52] >> And Hoer
[2:53] >> here.
[2:54] >> All right, we have 10 present.
[2:57] >> Uh, with that we will move on to
[2:59] appointments. City clerk. A is a board
[3:02] appointment recommending um the
[3:04] appointment of Joe Shereé to the city of
[3:06] Tika Americans with Disability Act ADA
[3:08] Advisory Council for a term ending
[3:10] September 30, 2028.
[3:14] >> All right,
[3:15] comments or questions on the
[3:16] appointments?
[3:18] Not motion is always in order. Motion to
[3:21] approve from Council Member Hiller,
[3:23] second from Council Member Miller. With
[3:26] that, take a vote, please.
[3:32] Okay, we have nine. Yes, the motion
[3:34] carries.
[3:38] » All right, with that we move on to
[3:40] presentations. Presentation A. City
[3:42] clerk
[3:43] >> A is the 2027 sales tax initiative.
[3:46] >> City manager.
[3:48] >> Thank you, mayor, members of the
[3:49] governing body. In this item this
[3:50] evening, we will discuss proposed sales
[3:52] tax and city audit initiatives that if
[3:54] approved by the governing body will go
[3:56] to voters in March 2027. Through the
[3:58] last three budget processes, I've shared
[4:00] that we have a structurally imbalanced
[4:02] budget and that our expenditures have
[4:03] been exceeding our revenues. During this
[4:06] budget process, we've submitted for
[4:07] consideration a balanced FY2027 proposed
[4:09] budget, but our 5-year financial
[4:11] forecast presentation indicates
[4:13] indicated stagnant revenues. Most
[4:15] notably, our sales tax collections,
[4:17] coupled with increased costs for
[4:19] materials and contractual personnel
[4:21] increases, would lead to projected
[4:22] deficits of 13.3 million in FY2028 and
[4:26] 17.4 million in FY2029 and incrementally
[4:29] increasing to 22.9 million in FY20 2031.
[4:33] We have continued to reduce costs over
[4:35] the last three budget cycles,
[4:36] particularly in personnel reductions.
[4:38] Please note that in 2024, we had 1,187
[4:42] positions. The proposed FY2027 budget
[4:45] shows 1,155 positions, but we have froze
[4:48] it or unfunded another 32 positions,
[4:51] which means we are budgeted for 1,123
[4:54] positions, which is a reduction of 64
[4:56] positions since 2024. Our budgeted
[4:59] personnel savings in the FY2027 proposed
[5:01] budget alone is $5.1 million. To this
[5:04] point, we have managed cutting vacancies
[5:06] and holding positions vacant while
[5:08] maintaining our current service levels.
[5:10] As I shared in a council discussion on
[5:11] August 25th, to balance our future
[5:14] budgets, we will need to either consider
[5:15] significant budget reductions or revenue
[5:17] adjustments. While I understand that tax
[5:19] increases are not popular, sales taxes
[5:21] are one consideration for those needed
[5:23] revenue adjustments. And this evening,
[5:25] we will discuss potential sales tax
[5:26] initiatives that could address our
[5:28] projected shortfalls and provide for
[5:30] funding for housing priorities. I know
[5:32] that what we will be discussing this
[5:34] evening is deviating from previous sales
[5:36] tax discussions, but my recommendations
[5:38] will fund our current staffing levels
[5:39] and planned capital projects and sustain
[5:42] our budget over the next 5 years of the
[5:43] forecast. My recommendation could also
[5:46] help support the 4,220 housing units
[5:48] needed in Topeka as shared in our recent
[5:50] housing study update. While I understand
[5:52] that homelessness is a priority, by
[5:54] considering funding our housing needs
[5:55] through cash, which we would uh be
[5:58] provided which will be provided by all
[5:59] who do business in Topeka, we could
[6:01] break the cycle of foregoing future
[6:03] property tax value increments which we
[6:05] have typically uh awarded for
[6:06] development incentives at all market
[6:08] rates and instead add those dollars to
[6:10] our tax base as soon as a property
[6:12] appreciates in value. This in turn would
[6:14] free up funding for initiatives deemed
[6:16] as priority by the community. With that,
[6:18] I will lead us through this discussion
[6:19] and afterwards Josh McInarney, deputy
[6:21] director of budget and finance and I
[6:22] will be here to answer any questions.
[6:41] So, it's presented in the 5-year
[6:42] financial forecast as we discussed on
[6:44] August 25th. Revenue generated by the
[6:46] general fund is insufficient to cover
[6:48] budget expenditures, creating a
[6:50] recurring imbalance between ongoing
[6:51] revenues and expenses. Assuming no
[6:54] change in expenditures are tax base and
[6:56] capping the 2027 budget, projected
[6:58] revenue growth will not break even with
[6:59] the expenditures until 2023. I do want
[7:02] to point out here again uh second
[7:04] column, I guess third column over 2028
[7:06] budget. Uh well, first I'll point out
[7:08] 2027 budget. We are submitted a proposed
[7:10] balance budget for 2027. But in 28 you
[7:14] see our projected deficit going to 13.3
[7:17] million and in 2029 you see it going to
[7:20] 17.4 million. After 2028 if all of our
[7:23] revenue and expenditure projections hold
[7:26] we will be go we'll basically go into
[7:28] negative reserves uh in 2029.
[7:33] As mentioned our sales tax uh through
[7:35] the first 6 months of this year have
[7:37] actually come in uh 1.2% 2% lower uh
[7:40] than the first 6 months of 2025. Um so
[7:43] you can see uh typically what we do is
[7:46] we project I believe a 2.5% growth
[7:48] year-over-year in um sales taxes and as
[7:52] you can see we're actually 1.2% lower as
[7:55] mentioned uh this first 6 months of this
[7:57] year compared to 2025.
[8:01] As we discussed during our financial
[8:02] forecast um presentation, a combination
[8:06] of about $17.5 million of reductions
[8:09] would have to be considered without any
[8:11] significant increase in our uh tax or in
[8:14] our revenues. Um so we'll just see
[8:17] basically the reductions would have to
[8:18] touch every service area uh of our of
[8:21] our city. So, you'll see here personnel
[8:24] reductions. You'll see here CIP uh
[8:26] changes, changes in our uh purchase of
[8:29] vehicles, um travel, and actually the
[8:32] travel we'll talk about this evening as
[8:34] part of a proposed amendment. But
[8:36] essentially, we just we'd have to have
[8:38] about $17.5 million of budget
[8:40] adjustments uh over the next couple
[8:41] years in order to balance without any
[8:44] significant changes in our revenues.
[8:46] Again, these are some of the things that
[8:47] we discussed in the CIP that could
[8:48] potentially be reduced uh as part of
[8:50] those changes. I just want to point out
[8:52] that I acknowledge that the governing
[8:54] body hasn't approved any of these. Um
[8:57] again, as part of the forecast
[8:59] discussion um these are just potential
[9:02] options.
[9:04] So to address projected deficits and
[9:06] maintain current service levels, sales
[9:08] tax initiatives have been discussed.
[9:09] I've actually been talking about this
[9:10] for the last three budget cycles.
[9:12] So, previously where we were considering
[9:14] a half cent that would include public
[9:16] safety and affordable housing and
[9:18] homelessness, given our uh projected
[9:22] financial forecast, I'm asking for
[9:24] consideration of a half cent for general
[9:26] use tax. That half cent would generate
[9:28] about $20 million annually uh and that
[9:30] would be used for all of our services
[9:32] across the city. Um and that again that
[9:35] would be uh police, fire, code, etc. I'm
[9:39] also uh proposing a new onetenth of a
[9:41] cent uh citywide sales tax that would
[9:43] generate approximately $4 million a
[9:44] year. I know that uh funding and and
[9:47] identifying a recurring funding source
[9:49] for the affordable housing trust fund
[9:50] has been a priority. Um so I would
[9:53] propose that we use at least uh 50% of
[9:56] that roughly $2 million uh to fund the
[9:59] affordable housing trust fund. The
[10:01] remaining I would ask to consider a
[10:03] market rate housing fund. So as
[10:06] mentioned we
[10:08] historically have just given RHIDs uh
[10:11] which essentially forces us to forego
[10:13] the incremental increase in value of
[10:15] property when we build a structure house
[10:17] on top on that property. So, I'm I'm
[10:20] just using an example. At $100,000 uh
[10:23] value of a property, vacant property,
[10:25] once the uh house through an RHID
[10:28] program, once the house is built and say
[10:30] that the property goes up to $200,000 or
[10:33] two, yeah, $200,000 value, that we've
[10:37] basically just been foregoing that
[10:38] increment and giving it to the
[10:39] developer. A cash fund would actually
[10:42] allow us to cash fund those incentives
[10:44] so that as soon as a property were to
[10:46] appreciate, as soon as a house was built
[10:48] and the assessed value went up the
[10:49] following year, those tax dollars could
[10:51] actually go into our property uh tax
[10:53] base. Um therefore identifying and
[10:56] freeing up additional funds uh that can
[10:58] be used for other priorities uh as
[11:00] deemed necessary and desired by the
[11:02] community.
[11:04] So, as part of a March 2027 ballot, um
[11:07] in addition to the uh sales tax, uh the
[11:10] new sales tax, I'd also ask us to
[11:12] consider um re reapproving or approving
[11:16] uh the current uh half wide the halfsent
[11:19] citywide infrastructure sales tax that
[11:22] currently uh funds our ongoing
[11:24] maintenance of our streets, sidewalks,
[11:26] traffic lights, etc. And then also too,
[11:29] I would ask for consideration uh based
[11:31] upon recommendations
[11:33] uh as part of another measure on that
[11:35] March 2027 ballot uh implementing an
[11:38] office of city auditor that would report
[11:40] uh directly to city council. Uh if we go
[11:42] down that route, that would be a
[11:43] necessary uh vote uh public vote uh
[11:46] given that it would be a charter
[11:47] amendment.
[11:51] So, as far as a comparison here, uh, we
[11:53] break out, uh, our total sales tax, uh,
[11:57] within Shauny County and and what the
[11:58] city of Topeka, uh, uses or what the
[12:01] city of Topeka collects. Currently, our
[12:04] sales tax rate is 9.35. And you can see
[12:06] that in comparison to other cities, uh,
[12:09] surrounding cities. If one of the if the
[12:12] half cent were to go through, that would
[12:13] take us up to a 9.85 uh,% sales tax
[12:16] rate. And if both initiatives were
[12:18] approved would take us to 9.95% sales
[12:21] tax rate.
[12:23] This is a breakdown of our current sales
[12:25] tax collections. Uh we bring in
[12:27] approximately $70 million a year. 41
[12:30] million of that goes to general fund
[12:31] use. 20 million of that uh is a citywide
[12:34] half cent for our infrastructure. And
[12:36] then the 9 million comes in from the
[12:38] half cent countywide uh sales tax that
[12:40] funds our JTO. the additional if
[12:43] approved uh the onetenth of a cent would
[12:45] bring in $4 million for housing and then
[12:48] the half cent general fund use would
[12:50] bring in another $20 million.
[12:54] I'm going to just point you out to the
[12:56] two red boxes. The top uh red box shows
[12:59] what our current projected 5-year
[13:01] financial forecast is. As mentioned, um,
[13:03] we start dipping into our reserves, uh,
[13:06] reserve amounts, uh, going into 2028 and
[13:10] they're depleted in 2029.
[13:12] The bottom income statement includes the
[13:15] halfsent general, uh, government sales
[13:17] tax. And you can see uh, the difference
[13:21] uh, 2020 at the end of 2027, we would
[13:24] assume $10 million half-year collection
[13:26] in uh, 2027, beginning in July if
[13:30] approved in March. So you can see how
[13:32] that $10 million uh layers in with the
[13:35] additional $20 million going through
[13:36] 2031. So you'll see the new projected
[13:39] reserve amounts uh respectively at 37.9
[13:42] million in 2027, 44.6 million in 2028,
[13:47] 47 uh 2 million and so forth in 29 and
[13:50] beyond. I show I I point out the uh
[13:53] percentage uh underneath that second red
[13:56] box, the 31.82%
[13:58] 32.43% 31 So essentially we have a
[14:03] target to have a 20% uh reserve
[14:05] operating reserve. So essentially if
[14:08] everything held um as as shown here in
[14:12] 2028 we'd actually have 11.82% above our
[14:15] 20% reserves. So that's why I say that
[14:18] there's additional funding that could be
[14:20] it's the the last row uh at the bottom
[14:22] of the page. um essentially we'd have
[14:25] additional funds that could be
[14:27] reprogrammed to whatever priorities um
[14:29] we wanted to uh while still maintaining
[14:32] 20% reserve uh throughout the 5-year
[14:34] financial forecast.
[14:38] So for the timeline, uh we did uh have a
[14:41] discussion at policy and finance on
[14:43] September 3rd. Uh this evening council
[14:45] discussion uh on October 6, we'd ask for
[14:49] council consideration and approval of
[14:50] ballot language, which there's samples
[14:52] on the next few slides. by the October
[14:55] 20th uh meeting, we'd have to have if we
[14:59] if council were to approve this, we'd
[15:00] have to have our final uh ballot
[15:03] language and ask for an approval to call
[15:05] for an election. Uh again, March 2nd
[15:08] would be the special election held March
[15:10] 2nd of 2027. And if approved, um any
[15:14] ballot questions will become effective.
[15:17] If approved, the sales tax collections
[15:20] uh first uh first day collections would
[15:22] be July 1st of 2027 as we can only start
[15:25] collections on the first day of a
[15:27] quarter each year. Uh the recommendation
[15:29] would be to do a mailin ballot. Uh
[15:32] historically melon ballots have had uh
[15:34] higher voter participation and cost a
[15:36] little bit less than uh inerson
[15:38] election.
[15:43] So, uh, I won't go through all of the
[15:45] language here. They're in the slides.
[15:47] Um, but essentially, uh, for a new, uh,
[15:50] general use sales tax, the half cent,
[15:53] uh, is on slide 11. Um, the recommended
[15:57] language for the affordable housing and
[15:59] market rate housing, um, language
[16:01] specifies at least 50% of that over $2
[16:04] million, uh, would go to, um, go to the
[16:08] affordable housing trust fund with the
[16:09] remaining funds. uh establishing a
[16:11] market rate housing fund.
[16:14] Um and then this is a little less uh
[16:17] this is uh the the information or this
[16:20] is the proposed language uh to renew the
[16:22] existing half cent citywide sales tax
[16:25] for infrastructure. Uh again that
[16:27] measure if passed would not be imposed
[16:30] until the current measure sunsets in
[16:32] 2029.
[16:37] And then we've also included uh
[16:38] recommended language for city auditor uh
[16:41] that would uh be uh reporting to the
[16:44] governing body.
[16:47] With that, we stand for any questions
[16:48] you may have.
[16:50] >> Council member Miller.
[16:54] » Thank you, Mayor. Um I know a lot of my
[16:57] colleagues up here are going to have
[16:58] some great questions to ask. Um, but the
[17:01] most pressing and important thing to me,
[17:03] um, is because I understand this the
[17:06] sales tax initiative and I think it's an
[17:07] important one to do, uh, because I
[17:09] understand the finances of it. Um, but I
[17:12] would rather us find a way to adjust our
[17:13] RHIB process than to put in anything
[17:18] about market rate housing
[17:20] w with a initiative that a lot of people
[17:24] have already worked on and they agree
[17:26] upon and that we have agreed upon
[17:29] publicly. Um, we cannot change that at
[17:33] the end. And I understand there's some
[17:34] people that's going to be clapping right
[17:35] after this. I say this and I know that
[17:37] that's not why I do this.
[17:39] I'm saying this because it's the right
[17:41] thing to do.
[17:43] Keep it the way it is. That's my
[17:45] thought. Um and I hope my colleagues
[17:48] agree with me and and I look forward to
[17:50] the conversation on this. But um we
[17:52] cannot change the temporary housing. We
[17:54] have a lot of unhoned individuals who
[17:55] need some help. We need to help the
[17:57] process to help those folks in our area.
[17:59] We are not trying to just give them
[18:01] places to live for free and to do
[18:03] nothing. That's not what down the line
[18:05] is what it's going to look like. But we
[18:07] need some help to our most vulnerable in
[18:10] this community. Thank you,
[18:17] » guys. We got a meeting. We got to keep
[18:18] moving. Council member Dubaka.
[18:20] >> Thank you, mayor. So, last night
[18:24] I met with about 15 to 20 folks from
[18:26] community and read the the components of
[18:30] the ballot initiatives.
[18:32] Um there was viciferous no we're not
[18:35] going to vote for anything that has
[18:37] market rate housing
[18:39] um because that was not what the
[18:42] intention was. If we are having issues
[18:46] with what is being given to developers
[18:49] for RHIDs then the bottom line is we
[18:52] need to stop giving them to high-end
[18:55] developers. If high-end developers
[18:57] cannot afford to build here or if like
[19:00] the last high-end developer that was
[19:02] here says we need to redo the process
[19:05] and I think people on this governing
[19:07] body were open to listening what that
[19:09] could entail then we need to be going
[19:12] that way. We need to stop so we're not
[19:15] bleeding so much money out with not
[19:18] collecting on property taxes. We need to
[19:20] stop these special ordinances like we
[19:24] did for Clausman
[19:26] and we need to get back to the basics of
[19:29] what the RHID is actually for. If we
[19:33] find that the RHID is too cumbersome,
[19:36] then we need to consider lowering the
[19:39] amount of years that we are not gaining
[19:43] that property tax because I think it is
[19:47] it now anywhere from 20 to 25 years.
[19:51] That's
[19:52] >> I would really like a comparison to see
[19:54] what other cities RHID in in this area
[19:58] of the country because I think that is
[20:00] just a massive a massive giveaway.
[20:05] And so I agree wholeheartedly with um
[20:10] Councilman
[20:12] Miller. This is not the original
[20:15] intention. And I also think that we have
[20:18] to have something that spells out when
[20:22] we talk affordable housing
[20:25] how much we see going to the built for
[20:29] zero program. We have been designated as
[20:32] a built for uh zero city. My
[20:35] understanding
[20:37] Carrie that's correct through the state
[20:40] of Kansas Carrie and her staff are
[20:43] working as hard as they can but there
[20:46] are so many moving pieces to
[20:50] abide by the methodology that is proven
[20:53] to work. Those include specific housing,
[20:56] which I know that they've been looking
[20:57] at, and it also goes with the need for
[21:01] wraparound service and some wraparound
[21:03] services, otherwise it's not going to
[21:05] work. We do have a homeless crisis in
[21:08] this city. I know I've been hearing that
[21:10] some people think that we don't, but we
[21:13] do. And so I believe it should be
[21:16] spelled out more succinctly when we talk
[21:19] about putting this as a ballot measure.
[21:22] I have asked Carrie and I'm going to be
[21:25] asking you as city manager that we can
[21:28] have a um presentation to the governing
[21:32] body
[21:34] from Carrie and her team specifically
[21:37] about built for zero that includes
[21:40] a a budget so we can see what it is that
[21:45] we're really looking at because up until
[21:47] this point we have not. And as far as
[21:50] the halfsent sales tax, it is way too
[21:53] broad. I don't know if you deeply
[21:57] understand what the feeling is out there
[21:59] in the community. People are really mad.
[22:03] People are upset for any number of
[22:05] things. And for this to be as broad as
[22:09] it is, hoping we'll have some dialogue
[22:11] about this tonight because I'm anxious
[22:13] to hear, you know, what people's
[22:15] suggestions are. We need to be bullet
[22:18] pointing out that halfsent sales tax as
[22:22] well so people understand what it is
[22:26] specifically going to go towards and
[22:28] that we are bound to that at least I
[22:30] would think we would be bound to that.
[22:33] The other thing, and then I'll stop
[22:35] because I'm sure there's lots of good
[22:37] conversation out here, is that with this
[22:39] half cent sales tax, I will not in any
[22:42] way, shape, or form support any increase
[22:46] with fire and police. I support fire and
[22:49] police. I support unions, but we had a
[22:52] 27% increase over 3 years with uh TPD.
[22:57] And I think with fire, what was it 14 or
[22:59] 16?
[23:00] >> It was 12 now. Four years. Yeah.
[23:02] over over three years.
[23:03] >> Yes, ma'am.
[23:04] >> And I think that if we need to have
[23:06] shared suffering in this city, I would
[23:08] not support in any way for that to be
[23:11] something that is listed on here. Thank
[23:13] you, Mayor.
[23:14] >> Deputy Mayor Hoer,
[23:21] » I'm going to assume this is our
[23:23] baseline.
[23:24] >> This is the baseline. We're here for
[23:25] discussion.
[23:26] >> Okay. Um I agree with Christina. I'd
[23:29] like to see more definition to what
[23:31] we're spending the money on. The other
[23:34] thing that I'm see missing is a time
[23:35] frame. I don't want to give somebody in
[23:38] any group an open-ended sales tax that
[23:41] goes on in perpetuity. We need to put
[23:44] some kind of a time frame whether it's 5
[23:46] years, 10 years.
[23:47] >> Yes, ma'am.
[23:48] >> But I'd like to see that in uh future
[23:51] drafts.
[23:52] >> Yes, ma'am.
[23:53] >> That's all I had.
[23:54] It would be 10 is the 10-year time frame
[23:57] is what I would be considering.
[23:59] >> Okay. Okay.
[23:59] >> Thank you.
[24:00] >> Yes, ma'am.
[24:01] >> Council member Bradberry.
[24:04] >> Thank you.
[24:07] » I really don't have a whole lot much
[24:09] different to say. Um I can't support a
[24:12] half cent sales tax that is just so
[24:14] vague. um especially when I'm not
[24:18] completely confident that we have
[24:20] actually addressed the structure the
[24:21] structural imbalance in the proposed 27
[24:24] budget. Um, additionally, the onetenth
[24:28] of a cent sales tax
[24:34] is for affordable housing and to
[24:38] proactively
[24:40] begin to address the homelessness crisis
[24:42] that we have in this community. Um,
[24:48] I will not support a market rate and
[24:51] neither have any of the constituents
[24:52] that I've heard from about this either.
[24:55] um they don't support it either. Um,
[24:59] additionally, there needs to be language
[25:03] that
[25:06] identifies how it's going to be spent.
[25:09] Um, I think we need to have a clear plan
[25:13] with how that money is going to be
[25:15] spent. I think we need to be transparent
[25:17] with that plan. I think we need to have
[25:19] outcomes and metrics to help us
[25:21] determine if we're meeting our goals.
[25:24] Um, so that way
[25:28] it it's it's transparency and we'll
[25:31] know, you know, how we're doing. Um, but
[25:35] again, yeah, I can't support the half
[25:37] cents. Um, definitely not the 10th with
[25:42] part of it going to market rates. Um and
[25:47] definitely when we do decide to address
[25:50] affordable housing and uh the
[25:54] homelessness um crisis, we need to do
[25:58] something that's um evidence-based
[26:02] and again have some metrics to help us
[26:05] determine whether or not we're actually
[26:08] meeting what we
[26:10] say we want to what we want to do. Um, I
[26:14] know I have something else, but it
[26:16] slipped my mind, so I will come back to
[26:19] it.
[26:19] >> While while you think about that, I I
[26:21] will point out the memorandum that I
[26:22] sent to you all on uh Friday
[26:24] specifically addresses performance
[26:25] measures by each department and our
[26:28] intent to report on those monthly here
[26:29] in council uh to include our budget um
[26:33] our expenditures and as well as our
[26:34] strategic goals. So, um it will be
[26:37] transparent. It will be out there and
[26:38] everybody will be updated.
[26:41] >> Appreciate it.
[26:41] >> Thank you, ma'am. Thanks,
[26:42] >> Council Member McGee.
[26:44] >> Thank you. Um, I also would not support
[26:48] this for
[26:50] market rate housing. I think it needs to
[26:52] be for affordable housing and to address
[26:56] homelessness.
[26:58] There is a ton of data out there.
[27:01] There's a group out of Witchah,
[27:05] uh, the Candace Data Trust. It does a
[27:09] ton of information. I think we need to
[27:11] tap into that so that we can back this
[27:14] up with good data. I think we need
[27:20] specifics more specifics than this. Um,
[27:26] yeah, I I I just we need to discuss this
[27:28] in more detail, but I do not support
[27:31] this for
[27:33] market rate housing. We need to follow
[27:35] through with what we said and what the
[27:38] people have said they wanted and that is
[27:40] for affordable housing and homeless
[27:44] program. Thank you,
[27:46] >> Council Member Kell.
[27:53] » I see a little bit where the market rate
[27:55] is coming from because you're having
[27:57] people move up, which opens up the
[27:59] affordable housing more, but I think we
[28:00] need to focus more on the affordable
[28:02] housing aspect of things.
[28:04] I think that'll be our biggest
[28:06] initiative for the homelessness aspect
[28:07] of things. Um, if we get affordable
[28:11] housing, especially those people that
[28:12] are just coming out of out of a house
[28:14] because of job losses or that medical
[28:16] bills, it allows them to kind of work
[28:19] back into the system rather than going
[28:20] to a shelter or on the streets.
[28:24] Um,
[28:27] I'd like I said, I'd rather focus more on the on the affordable housing
[28:30] side than than the homelessness side. is
[28:32] I think for the six years I've been up
[28:34] here, we've thrown a ton of money at
[28:35] homelessness and haven't seen very many
[28:38] results. But I think the biggest result
[28:40] is having housing available for uh
[28:45] low-income families um is where we need
[28:48] to focus that at. Um
[28:51] as some other people said, it's a little
[28:53] too vague. Um
[28:55] I I think what we're going to get into
[28:57] is
[28:58] people are going to say no just for
[29:00] certain reasons. like one piece of it is
[29:02] going to be a no for them. They'll be if
[29:04] there's eight pieces there. They may
[29:06] agree with seven of them, but that one
[29:08] piece is going to be a no for them and
[29:09] it's just going to shoot it down. I
[29:10] think we need to look at certain aspects
[29:12] of what's our priority as a city, what
[29:14] our needs are, our greatest needs are
[29:17] and take that moving forward. Um
[29:22] I said for years we need, you know, we
[29:24] need to look at our mil levy and then I
[29:25] had to talk with someone and said sales
[29:27] tax is the way to go. It gets everyone.
[29:28] I know there's people that are all 5
[29:30] milesi within the city limits outside
[29:32] that city limit uh area. They contribute
[29:35] also.
[29:38] But I I'll tell the people if if we're
[29:40] not looking at this then it's going to
[29:42] be some other things and we're going to
[29:43] have major cuts and then there's going
[29:44] to be cuts to programs like social
[29:46] service grants committee which affects a
[29:48] lot of the low-income households. So we
[29:51] need to look at different things or else
[29:52] we're going to have to make more and
[29:53] more cuts. And people keep on telling us
[29:56] the last couple weeks, we'll just make
[29:57] cuts. Make cuts. We've been making cuts
[30:00] for the last two years. We're getting
[30:02] down to the bottom of the barrel of
[30:03] making cuts before. It's police, it's
[30:05] fire, it's street crews,
[30:08] and then we're just going backwards as a
[30:09] city tremendously fast. So, this is
[30:12] something as as a city people need to
[30:14] look at is this is just not the citizens
[30:16] of Topeka. This is everyone that comes
[30:17] to PA, everyone lives around Topeka.
[30:19] there if a sales tax passes and if it's
[30:23] a mill levy that we have to go to, it
[30:25] only affects the citizens and doesn't
[30:26] affect anyone else outside outside the
[30:28] city. So,
[30:31] we've made our cuts. We've tried to do
[30:33] our best. You know, everyone says, "Oh,
[30:35] live within your budget." Well, we we've
[30:37] had to pay a reasonable rate to our
[30:40] fire, our police, our other unions just
[30:42] to make sure we have those people here.
[30:44] And that's our biggest budgetary cost
[30:47] right there is personnel. And we've got
[30:49] cut as much personnel almost as we could
[30:51] possibly cut. And we start cutting
[30:52] anymore, then it's going to start
[30:53] affecting every citizen with delays in
[30:56] fire, delays in police, delays in road
[30:59] projects, and it's all going to cost
[31:00] more in the long term. Thank you,
[31:04] >> Council Member Ortiz.
[31:07] >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um
[31:12] several years ago we
[31:17] to get caught up on some of our streets.
[31:19] We passed the abs and sales tax on the
[31:21] streets
[31:23] and and we went for hours to figure out
[31:27] the wording. And there's one wording in
[31:29] there that changes the whole dynamics of
[31:31] everything and that's existing. And I'll
[31:33] never forget that word. And I'll tell
[31:36] you why. because where I live, I have
[31:38] ditches. I don't have any curves. I
[31:41] don't have any gutters. And so to use
[31:44] that money, and you'll hear me asked
[31:46] time and time again,
[31:50] is this that is this that sales tax? If
[31:53] they come and fix my street, they have
[31:54] to put it back exactly how they found
[31:56] it. Even though I pay into it, I pay
[32:00] into that sales tax. All my constituents
[32:03] over there, they pay into that sales
[32:05] tax. But we can't get anything like
[32:07] that. We have to You have to put it back
[32:10] exactly how you found it.
[32:13] So, we can't get a new curb. We can't
[32:15] get a new gut. We can't get any gutters.
[32:16] We can't get any sidewalks. Um,
[32:20] our streets are narrow, very narrow,
[32:24] and we can't even widen it unless we
[32:26] have other funding to go with that. But
[32:29] it's not fair that we have to pay into
[32:32] that but we don't get to
[32:35] utilize it. You know, we don't get the
[32:37] benefits of it.
[32:39] And so I want to make sure because the
[32:41] wording is very vague. When I was
[32:43] reading it, it is very vague. as bad as
[32:46] I want a fire station up, but I have to
[32:48] be very careful because when we when we
[32:53] pass that, if it does pass, we have to
[32:56] make sure that we use it only for those
[32:58] that specific. Now, we have one city
[33:01] manager and he said maintaining the
[33:03] streets, we couldn't use that sales tax
[33:04] money. Now, we got another city manager
[33:06] that says we can. So, it needs to be so
[33:09] the people understand it because I tell
[33:11] you what, they're tired of being taxed
[33:12] to death. They're tired of it. I would
[33:16] agree. We do have a homeless problem. I
[33:18] I've been working with Carrie on
[33:20] something on on a It's like they can't
[33:22] get any help until until they they're
[33:25] homeless. So, they have to get put out
[33:28] of their house and all of that. Um
[33:31] and and people need people want to need
[33:33] to understand that they do want to help
[33:36] them, but they want to they don't want
[33:38] to give them a new house or, you know,
[33:40] they want to get them up on their feet.
[33:41] They want to make sure that they have
[33:43] the services that they need to stay on
[33:45] their feet. Um, no market rate housing.
[33:49] I can't I can't agree with that.
[33:51] Constituents don't want it. They don't
[33:53] want no sales tax. They don't care who
[33:55] pays for it. They don't want it. They
[33:56] feel like they're being taxed to death.
[33:59] And I think we need to be really, really
[34:00] careful with that or we're going to lose
[34:02] our street our street um taxes. What's
[34:06] affordable housing? I ask people that
[34:08] all the time. What is affordable
[34:09] housing? And you know what? I get a
[34:12] different answer. Um I have some
[34:15] beautiful town homes
[34:18] um out there in um Eastgate and that
[34:21] that's affordable housing. But they're
[34:24] like 12 to 15 to $1,700.
[34:27] That's not affordable housing. Not to
[34:29] me. You know, I have people that say I
[34:33] my you know, I had one lady when I was
[34:35] campaigning out there and she's like my
[34:37] check all my whole check goes on rent,
[34:41] you know, and so I don't know what
[34:44] affordable housing is cuz I know my
[34:46] house, thank God, is paid off, but I
[34:48] know I could not survive that if I had to do that. So,
[34:54] it it's it's very it's very interesting,
[34:56] but I can't support this. Not at this
[34:59] time. and and I would need to look at
[35:02] the wording. I I would like to see it go
[35:04] for a vote only for one reason so that
[35:08] you can understand that the citizens of
[35:10] DPIA do not want this sales tax and
[35:13] we're going to have to find a way out of
[35:14] the way. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
[35:16] >> Council member Banks.
[35:19] >> Thank you, Mayor. Uh for weeks now as
[35:23] we've been going through the budget
[35:24] process, I've mentioned that I did not
[35:28] think that our RHID process matched uh
[35:32] affordable housing. Uh it it just didn't
[35:36] match up. So as I'm looking in the
[35:38] audience, I'm seeing some signs that
[35:41] says 67% of the peakans want uh to fund
[35:46] affordable housing. I think that's what
[35:48] we need to focus affordable housing. And
[35:52] if 67% of our constituents
[35:56] think that we need that, then maybe the
[35:59] process of uh a tax increase is not that
[36:03] farfetched.
[36:05] You know, I know I'm hoping right now
[36:08] the information that you gave us tonight
[36:10] that uh several of our colleagues have
[36:13] talked about how vague the information
[36:15] is. Uh, I'm hoping I'm understanding
[36:19] that this is not the final
[36:22] process. This is not the final
[36:25] blueprint. Correct, city manager.
[36:28] >> So, so keep in mind, councilman, cuz
[36:30] we've been asked questions, right? Like
[36:31] even for the affordable housing piece,
[36:33] what what projects will be done? How
[36:35] many bedrooms will we get? What will be
[36:37] the square footage of structures? I
[36:39] can't tell you that right now. like I
[36:41] mean very much as we gone through like
[36:42] the process with the affordable housing
[36:44] trust fund which you'll hear about here
[36:45] in a little bit. I I can't it would I
[36:48] would envision that those dollars would
[36:50] be um worked on and allocated through
[36:53] the affordable housing trust fund
[36:54] committee. And right now I mean we don't
[36:56] have any projects in the pipeline. So, I couldn't tell you I couldn't tell you
[37:00] specifically that, you know, we're going
[37:02] to get 100 units. Um, you know, like one
[37:06] of the one of the proposals or one of
[37:07] the projects that was awarded money was
[37:09] were five single family homes uh that
[37:12] were developed by Scent and we provided
[37:15] uh buyer incentives to help folks get
[37:17] into those homes. And if I remember
[37:18] correctly, I think even one of them went
[37:20] up to 100 120% AMI. So, so the thing is that I can't I can't tell you today
[37:26] specifically that we're going to develop
[37:28] a thousand affordable housing units. I I mean I I can't tell you that today. Um
[37:34] so again, that that is part of the
[37:37] reason why why the language is vague
[37:39] because I can't specifically say with
[37:41] any certainty either, you know, either
[37:43] the affordable or market rate how many
[37:45] we would get out of it. All I know is
[37:47] that we need 4 4220 units across the
[37:51] spectrum of of affordability. Um which
[37:54] again the idea of cash funding some of
[37:57] those uh would actually put property tax
[37:59] dollars into our coffers that we don't
[38:01] have today. So uh so that that that is
[38:04] part of the reason why uh some of that
[38:06] language is vague. I can tell you as I
[38:08] mentioned going back to the halfsent
[38:10] public or the halfsent general use tax
[38:13] essentially we'd have to take cuts
[38:14] across every department if we if we
[38:17] can't come up with significant dollars
[38:20] to sustain our budget. So that's why
[38:22] it's general use. The other piece too,
[38:24] uh, and city attorneys, city attorney
[38:26] can help me with this or Josh, I think
[38:28] we only have a half cent capacity in our
[38:30] general use, uh, tax, uh, sales tax, and
[38:33] then we also have a half cent capacity
[38:36] in special use. So the reason that, and
[38:39] again, going back to the projected
[38:41] deficit in our forecast,
[38:44] we would need that funding to basically
[38:46] sustain our general fund. we we would
[38:49] need the full $20 million to sustain our
[38:51] general fund budget over the next 5
[38:53] years. So if I use a half cent in
[38:55] general use tax or if I use a half cent
[38:57] public um I'm sorry special use I don't
[39:00] have that additional tenth of a cent
[39:02] capacity to do 6/10 of a cent uh for
[39:06] half of that half a cent going towards u
[39:10] general or public safety and then
[39:12] another tenth of a cent to go towards uh
[39:14] affordable housing and homelessness. So
[39:17] basically there's a capacity issue on
[39:19] both of those um both of those um
[39:22] measures as well.
[39:26] >> Well, I I appreciate that explanation.
[39:29] It it clears things up a little bit for
[39:31] me. Uh I don't know how the community
[39:36] sees it right now. Uh, I can't say that
[39:40] I would not support it your efforts, but
[39:44] certainly would consider it.
[39:47] >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
[39:49] >> Council member Hiller.
[39:50] >> Thank you, Mayor. I've got a lot to say
[39:53] on all of these things. For one thing,
[39:55] we should have had this conversation two
[39:57] months ago because all the things about
[39:59] considering what we're going to do with
[40:01] the budget or what we would do with any
[40:02] special taxes
[40:05] needed to be figured out. And here we
[40:06] are at the last minute on the budget.
[40:08] And I don't like being in a position to
[40:11] say that this way here. But it's been
[40:15] very frustrating and and to um to not
[40:19] just we we've talked again and again
[40:22] about looking from a management
[40:23] perspective
[40:25] program and department by department on
[40:27] what we do and is it critical? Are we
[40:30] doing it the best that we can? Are there
[40:32] ways we could do it more
[40:33] cost-effectively?
[40:34] and you've not been willing to do that.
[40:36] You just wanted to look at cuts or
[40:38] getting more money. And here we are. Um,
[40:41] some of us have come up with some
[40:42] things, but the things that have been
[40:43] listed as things that might be cuts, the
[40:46] best I can tell, have been things you
[40:48] were pretty sure nobody would want to
[40:49] give up.
[40:51] So, I'll stop at that point on on the
[40:54] housing and homelessness. I thought that
[40:57] was agreed long ago. The people in this
[40:59] room worked so hard on getting the
[41:00] affordable housing trust fund going. We
[41:02] went back and forth on that. We didn't
[41:04] always agree. I still feel like we could
[41:06] have raised private money, but here we
[41:08] are. And the consensus was no, go after
[41:11] a half of a a tenth of cent. And then
[41:13] with the good work that so many people
[41:16] have been doing on homelessness and
[41:18] looking for money for that, too. Um, I
[41:20] thought that that the consensus
[41:23] communitywide really to add a a half of
[41:27] a tenth of cent to another one and get a tenth of a of a cent together for
[41:31] house affordable housing and
[41:33] homelessness was long decided and my
[41:36] colleagues who've mentioned it are
[41:38] right. You know, one of the things I've
[41:40] been asking for some time is when do we
[41:41] know when enough is enough? At
[41:43] different, you know, incentives are fun
[41:45] and they're they're catchy and so on.
[41:47] We've done a lot and and people are
[41:48] responding well to seeing new housing
[41:51] going up. But then we just did the
[41:53] housing study and you know half of us
[41:56] represent older neighborhoods with lots
[41:58] of vacant structures and infill vacant
[42:01] lots and we look at this housing study
[42:04] and it says oh well things have changed.
[42:06] So it's not 10,000 units we need
[42:08] anymore. It's just four. But we got told
[42:11] not to count vacant structures when we
[42:14] were looking at what the need was and
[42:15] what our availability was for
[42:16] redevelopment.
[42:19] You know, we the latest census said that
[42:22] we um update in 2024 said that we had
[42:25] 2416
[42:27] more households than we more housing
[42:29] units than we had households. We have a
[42:32] lot of vacant housing. So to just be
[42:34] looking at vacant lots and building new
[42:37] and building building by formula to
[42:41] market or upper rates doesn't address
[42:44] where our real needs are. And and when
[42:47] you look at the housing study, when you
[42:49] look at what they model as the mortgage,
[42:52] the affordability for buying a home or a
[42:54] rent rate for somebody who's at 30% or
[42:57] 60% a median, almost every one of us in
[43:00] this room knows they can't do that. So,
[43:02] I don't know where that comes from. So,
[43:04] the idea, and I've already floated with
[43:06] you, but I didn't get very far, that we if we go ahead with that 4,000 number
[43:12] that we target at least 25% of it, if
[43:14] not 50% at getting people back into at revitalizing the houses in our
[43:20] existing neighborhoods. Those aren't
[43:22] necessarily fancy. And for me, I want to
[43:26] keep the the the the prices of the
[43:28] houses andor the rents at or below what
[43:31] they are today. Now, we're talking about
[43:33] really meeting the needs of people that
[43:34] are out there to get them on their feet.
[43:37] And that also revitalizes that that
[43:39] fills in their vacant house.
[43:40] Councilwoman Beldiva is so good at
[43:42] talking about the social determinance of
[43:44] health and and what it's like when you
[43:47] live when you when you walk down past a house that's overgrown and empty and
[43:51] scary. It's important. And so alto
[43:54] together
[43:56] long way to loop around I too support
[43:58] making sure that that 1% does happen but
[44:01] that it is targeted at homelessness and
[44:03] truly affordable housing and there are
[44:05] some ways that we can do that very
[44:07] simply. I think through changing our
[44:09] culture we've already got some developer
[44:11] roundts set. Um our landlords affordable
[44:15] housing landlords are one of our most
[44:17] priceless commodities and so we need to
[44:19] support them instead of drag them
[44:20] around. and the people in the
[44:22] neighborhoods that are willing to buy
[44:23] the house next door and and get it fixed
[44:25] up and rent it out or sell it. Um, in
[44:30] terms of the the halfsent, I agree with
[44:32] my colleagues that it's too vague.
[44:35] Also, your very own projections have
[44:37] shown that it's more than we need. So
[44:41] even if it's going to be general to go
[44:43] 04 makes more sense to me. I'm still not
[44:46] sure people will support it unless we
[44:49] have demonstrated that we put some
[44:51] thought into how we could trim that
[44:53] budget once and for all beforehand and
[44:57] here we are on this date. So I don't
[44:58] know what my colleagues all want to do
[45:01] but I think we could have done that and
[45:03] probably should have. Maybe if we trim
[45:06] the request for the general sales tax
[45:08] back, it it'll fly. I don't know.
[45:12] Related to that general one is there's
[45:14] been the discussion of the fire
[45:16] stations. Um in my opinion, and kind of
[45:20] when we all settled on that homeless and
[45:21] housing thing, we talked about the fire
[45:23] station some as well. If those were
[45:25] going to be um financed, um cost 33
[45:29] million to build three of them. I guess
[45:31] the decisions haven't been quite clear
[45:33] yet on where they would be. Maybe we can
[45:35] wait. But nonetheless, that's an easy
[45:38] 10% sales tax in threeear tranches to do
[45:41] them for um for cash and save the
[45:46] taxpayers over $13 million.
[45:49] That's what I'm talking about us looking
[45:51] at when we look at at um cash versus
[45:56] bonding for um capital projects. Um I
[46:01] haven't been able to get very far with
[46:02] you on that. I think we could start that
[46:04] even now when things are really tight.
[46:07] To Councilwoman Ortiz's point, what
[46:09] we've done in the past is used the
[46:11] halfsent sales tax that was just for
[46:12] existing streets, curbs and gutters and
[46:15] sidewalks and then used our capital
[46:17] budget to supplement that and put in
[46:19] curbs that never were there or work with
[46:22] utilities to put storm sewers that were
[46:24] never there. As long as we keep spending
[46:26] things that really should have been paid
[46:28] for with cash instead of bonding, we
[46:31] don't have room for that in our capital
[46:33] budget and we could work that around and
[46:35] do it. Um, in terms of performance and
[46:40] planning, which I really support, I've
[46:42] asked you for 3 months at least to get
[46:45] us a map of what streets are done and
[46:48] which ones aren't and what their ratings
[46:49] are. And for some reason though that's
[46:51] what we used to do all the time before I
[46:54] was on council and since to kind of get
[46:56] an idea of where we are. You haven't
[46:58] wanted to do that. So for us to kind of
[47:00] figure out where we are in terms of
[47:04] having operating budget money. One of
[47:06] the things that's happened is that and I
[47:08] think that's part of your plan right now
[47:10] is to move even more preventive
[47:12] maintenance into the halfsent sales tax.
[47:14] But we haven't yet fixed all the streets
[47:16] that needed to get fixed. So for us to
[47:19] be able to look at it, we need to be
[47:20] able to look at those ratings in that
[47:22] map and then make a very a really
[47:25] responsible decision about whether we
[47:26] should migrate more prevented
[47:28] maintenance into the new halfcent sales
[47:30] tax or whether we need to make sure
[47:32] there's room for it in the operating
[47:34] budget.
[47:36] Um
[47:40] let's see.
[47:42] Something to keep in mind is that the countywide house and sales tax is
[47:46] coming up probably not till what
[47:48] >> 2031
[47:49] >> 2032
[47:50] >> 32
[47:51] >> um but that one has always been
[47:53] collaborative with the county to do big
[47:55] street projects as well as other capital
[47:57] projects and so you know for us to be
[48:00] thinking out 10 years that's not even 10
[48:02] years to kind of have those things in
[48:05] mind
[48:07] um
[48:10] I think I'll go ahead and stop right now
[48:11] but I really apprei appreciate what
[48:13] everybody's been saying. I don't know
[48:16] how fast we can can work this oper this
[48:20] budget if we have to and mayor you and I
[48:23] talked about a little bit if we have to
[48:25] get this passed because we have a
[48:26] deadline. I think there needs to be uh
[48:29] language in the motion that we make that
[48:32] says we understand that we are going to
[48:34] steadily starting the day after we vote
[48:37] get these various budget cuts or plans
[48:39] in place and get them implemented. not
[48:42] just wait another year.
[48:45] So, thank you,
[48:47] >> Council Member Valdo,
[48:54] » Mayor Councilwoman Hiller, I've never
[48:55] heard you that fiery before. So, um
[48:59] Ouch.
[49:01] I I I want to go back to the 110
[49:06] and I don't think I could be wrong but
[49:09] and not to speak to colleagues but I can
[49:11] or colleagues
[49:13] but with the expectation of you telling
[49:16] us with affordable housing you know you
[49:19] can have this much done and this much done you know per
[49:22] year I don't think I don't expect that
[49:25] but when it comes to moving away from
[49:29] the market rate when it comes to the
[49:32] homelessness
[49:34] and the built for zero, which is why we
[49:37] need to have Carrie make her
[49:38] presentation with the budget wrapped
[49:40] around it and the methodology that shows
[49:44] that can give you the metrics that
[49:46] you're looking for because this is an
[49:47] established
[49:49] program that has worked on on you know
[49:51] the coast.
[49:53] So, we would have that. I think that we
[49:55] can attach a specific dollar amount to
[49:59] that every year on this ballot and what
[50:01] that would go for because we have a
[50:04] program already. We just have not had
[50:07] the dollars to get it up and off the
[50:10] ground plus all the groundwork that
[50:12] needs to be laid which has taken a while
[50:15] with challenges with partners and that's
[50:18] just the nature of the beast. So, I
[50:20] think there can be quite a bit of
[50:22] specification when it comes to the
[50:24] homeless component. And Councilwoman
[50:27] Hiller, I just want to say when you were
[50:29] saying about the halfsent sales tax, you
[50:32] think it's too high and that's based on
[50:34] how you see our reserves
[50:37] growing from if we go and looked at look
[50:41] at the revised income statements. So
[50:43] from 2027
[50:45] we would be our reserves would be at
[50:49] $37,900,000
[50:52] and then in 2031 they would go all the
[50:56] way up to 44 million222,44.
[51:02] I had never thought about that before
[51:05] that like that totally escaped me. But I think that there's some merit there
[51:09] that may need to be looked into as we
[51:12] move forward. Thank you, mayor.
[51:13] >> So, if I could just comment on that
[51:15] really quick.
[51:16] >> As we said during the I think you guys
[51:18] allowed some questions during the public
[51:20] comment when we were talking about the
[51:21] forecast
[51:23] >> for all the things that you uh have said
[51:25] here to include being able to pay for
[51:28] things with cash. That's what this would
[51:30] allow us to do. As I mentioned, doing
[51:33] this would free up dollars to go towards
[51:35] whatever priority or list of priorities
[51:38] that our community has had for a long
[51:39] time. Um, so again, I I said that uh
[51:43] during the forecast discussion, I'm
[51:45] saying that again tonight. Whenever you
[51:47] talk about freeing up cash, we could
[51:48] potentially, honestly, with this, we
[51:50] could probably use some of that money to
[51:52] fund cash fund our fire stations. My my whole premise of this again is that
[51:58] where our 20% mark for our reserves is
[52:02] what we abide by again that first year.
[52:05] And I want to say that the we projected
[52:07] we'd probably have about $16 million of
[52:09] onetime dollars that could be programmed
[52:11] into whatever it is that we wanted. The
[52:14] $16 million again could be spent out of
[52:16] cash for whatever capital improvements,
[52:20] you know, or however we want to program
[52:22] it. But again, the whole point is that
[52:24] we're able to maintain our 20% reserves.
[52:27] So that that is you're right. It's it's
[52:30] more than 20%. Um, but again, going back
[52:33] to my comments on the forecast, we could
[52:36] then in turn use cash to fund some of
[52:38] these things. And by funding even just
[52:40] the fire stations out of cash, we take
[52:42] $33 million out of our CIP, out of our
[52:44] debt service fund. So again, um, while
[52:48] still also being able to support our our
[52:51] operating services. Thank you,
[52:55] >> Deputy Mayor Hoer.
[53:02] We have a lot of diverse ideas.
[53:05] So,
[53:08] I'm not a fan of sales tax. I'll admit
[53:10] that.
[53:12] But we're we're going to have to do
[53:15] something. So, I want to get an idea
[53:20] what we need to do. Do we need do you
[53:23] want us to write up our own versions
[53:27] and submit them to be looked at before
[53:31] we get to the October that gives us two
[53:33] weeks before the October 6th meeting.
[53:36] I'm trying to look forward so we're not
[53:39] upon that October 20th deadline.
[53:43] >> Um I have some ideas on a couple. Um, I
[53:49] think we all have ideas,
[53:52] but it's what do you want us to do next?
[53:56] >> If the council would be okay to it, I
[53:58] would love probably a 2-hour work
[54:00] session between now and, you know, the
[54:02] end of the month. So that way by the
[54:04] time we get to the 6th, we, you know,
[54:07] have an idea of of a consensus at least
[54:10] or close to consensus of what would be
[54:13] considered if the council were open to
[54:15] that. if you want to submit um you may
[54:18] not you may not believe this but um
[54:20] there might be 10 different
[54:22] >> oh you know opinions and so
[54:23] >> yeah there probably will be
[54:24] >> yeah and so uh if there's an opportunity
[54:27] for us to come together for a special
[54:29] work session I would greatly appreciate
[54:31] that that would help us as a team uh
[54:34] develop the appropriate language and so
[54:36] forth again the sixth is really just to
[54:38] get our draft language together so we
[54:40] can send it to the elections office have
[54:43] to finalize that Brenda until the 20th
[54:46] So that way we can get it to the
[54:47] elections office by the end of the
[54:48] month. So again, a work session would be
[54:52] great. Um, if you want to submit
[54:54] individual comments and proposed
[54:56] language, I mean, I can take that too.
[54:58] Um, but again, trying to uh morph that
[55:02] into one uh agreeable
[55:05] um measure or language is it's I think
[55:08] we still come back to council and and
[55:10] still have robust discussion about it.
[55:12] So, if it is possible for work session,
[55:14] I would love that. If not, then um you
[55:17] can submit your individual comments and
[55:18] we can go from there.
[55:19] >> Okay.
[55:20] >> I just want to look at
[55:21] >> I'm going to get some clarification cuz
[55:23] I I'm a little confused about the
[55:24] deadline, I guess, because I thought
[55:26] statute was 90 days, it had to be
[55:29] submitted, which
[55:31] even though they have to mail it out 10
[55:33] to 20 days, it'd be a March 2nd sort of
[55:35] date still, which would be December 1st.
[55:38] And I'm not suggesting we wait until
[55:39] December, but I guess I'm confused why
[55:41] our deadline is say no October 20th
[55:44] versus November 10th, for instance, when
[55:46] we come back after the election.
[55:49] >> You You are correct, Mr. Mayor. The
[55:50] statute says 90 days. Shauny County, the
[55:53] elections office has told us they like
[55:54] 120. Their deadline is 120. Um, but by
[55:59] statute, yes, it's 90.
[56:02] So, the 120 is November 2nd. Um,
[56:07] so I don't know if we wanted to push the
[56:09] county on the the issue of 90 versus
[56:11] 120, but the county has told us
[56:13] >> I'd like a follow-up question with them.
[56:14] And if if they have the right under the
[56:16] stat if they have statutory authority to
[56:18] set that deadline, then that's fine.
[56:19] That's the law and they can do that. And
[56:21] I understand why they want in advance.
[56:23] Again, I'm not trying to push it until
[56:24] the last minute. But I mean, if there
[56:27] was an opportunity for us to actually
[56:29] have the month of October to work
[56:30] through this as a council versus
[56:32] essentially three meetings in October,
[56:35] that's a pretty big difference. I mean,
[56:37] that versus having to make that
[56:39] decision. So, if that's what we have to
[56:40] do, then but that would be good
[56:41] information to have.
[56:43] >> Sure.
[56:43] >> So, again, I understand there. and and
[56:45] maybe if they understood that our goal
[56:48] was to get it to them by like a November
[56:50] 10th versus waiting until December 1st,
[56:53] they might be willing to give us that
[56:54] leeway if they understood what our
[56:57] request was. So, I think that'd be
[56:59] helpful. Um
[57:01] just Yeah, just to know. All right.
[57:03] Sorry, Deputy Mayor. Did not mean I'm
[57:05] done.
[57:05] >> Hi, Jack here. Uh Council Member Kell.
[57:09] >> All right. Um,
[57:13] I don't expect you to have those numbers
[57:14] for affordable housing because that's
[57:16] going to be a a fluid thing. I mean, we
[57:19] can sit there and say, "Well, we're
[57:20] going to focus on four bedrooms now, but
[57:23] in 3 years, that could be our lowest
[57:26] demographic that we need." So, I think
[57:28] it's one of those things we need to make
[57:29] it as fluid as possible on that. So,
[57:31] that way we know what our needs are
[57:33] versus what the plan is. because we can
[57:36] plan out forever, but if we're not
[57:38] hitting our needs, then it's it's kind
[57:40] of a waste.
[57:42] Um, I think this is definitely a
[57:44] learning experience, especially on the
[57:45] halfent sales tax on the roads, as the
[57:47] counciloman put out there, that uh the the wording needs to be looked at
[57:52] and this has been a good learning
[57:53] experience over the years to what we've
[57:55] done to what we we've been kind of
[57:58] pigeonhold into. But the one thing I
[58:00] want to make sure is that we what we put
[58:03] in there is what we have to stay with.
[58:06] Um, you know, you see it too many times
[58:08] that people, you know, citizens vote on
[58:10] something. Good example is the expo
[58:11] center. We got half of what was
[58:13] presented to us for the expo center.
[58:16] Half was was was actually gone through
[58:18] with. And so, uh, there was all the
[58:21] extras that were supposed to be there
[58:23] that never showed up. And so, if we say
[58:26] this is what we're going to do, this is
[58:27] what we're going to do. and uh no major
[58:30] changes, nothing like that unless we
[58:32] take it back to the citizens again.
[58:34] Um the only thing I can say about, you
[58:36] know, as counciloman put built for zero,
[58:39] my only problem with looking that too
[58:42] much is, you know, you mentioned the
[58:44] coasts. I've lived on the coast. The
[58:45] coasts are different animal to what we
[58:47] are here. And I'd much rather look at
[58:49] some of our communities like Rockford,
[58:51] Illinois, Lake County, Illinois. that
[58:53] are similar to us and look at those
[58:56] rather than look at the coast because
[58:58] you have a good example uh I know
[59:00] several families living on they have
[59:02] three four five generations living in
[59:04] one house uh because for affordability
[59:08] and we don't really have that here where
[59:10] we have five generations
[59:12] a good a good amount of houses being
[59:14] multiple generations living in one house
[59:16] so I'd like to you know look at what
[59:18] they do but not really focus on those
[59:20] and look at more what cities like us are
[59:23] like and focus on those
[59:27] >> council member.
[59:29] >> So I should have been more broader in
[59:32] the scope. This all started with bill
[59:34] for zero looking and searching and
[59:36] bringing it here. The idea and us
[59:38] talking back in 2021
[59:41] I think it was and then equity access
[59:44] shelter was a small component of that
[59:47] without the full built for zero program.
[59:49] I think Carrie was part of meetings. The
[59:52] Badia was part of meetings. Um there
[59:54] were a number of people part of meetings
[59:57] when we first got started with Built for
[59:59] Zero with the people in Rockford,
[1:00:01] Illinois because they have a built for
[1:00:04] zero program there and they have for
[1:00:06] close to 20 years and they have similar
[1:00:09] demographics as we do. So, I should have
[1:00:12] named Rockford, Illinois right off the
[1:00:15] bat, but they also, you see that Built
[1:00:18] for Zero has I think now perhaps maybe
[1:00:22] close to a hundred. I'm not I'm not
[1:00:24] sure. And some of them are on the coast,
[1:00:26] but some of them are smack in the area
[1:00:28] that have similar demographics as we do.
[1:00:31] Again, Rockford, Illinois is who we had
[1:00:34] a number of meetings with about how they
[1:00:36] got their bill for zero off the ground.
[1:00:38] Thank you, Mayor. Council member Hiller.
[1:00:41] >> Um, just one thing I I thought maybe I
[1:00:43] could clarify a little about the the
[1:00:46] halfsent street tax before and the term
[1:00:48] existing. We had the same kind of
[1:00:50] conversations that we've been having
[1:00:52] today about using homeless and
[1:00:54] affordable housing instead of market
[1:00:56] rate back when we did the first half
[1:00:59] sales tax as well as the renewal. And
[1:01:02] the reason that the word she's right and
[1:01:05] the key word was existing and that was
[1:01:07] because um that at that time we had lots
[1:01:10] of plans at least on paper to turn this
[1:01:13] street into five lanes and this street
[1:01:15] into five lanes and you know mega
[1:01:16] streets and growing and the the citizens
[1:01:20] said no we want to take care of what
[1:01:22] we've got first. These these streets
[1:01:24] need more than a mill and overlay. They
[1:01:26] need to be rebuilt and that's enough
[1:01:28] money right there. So if we if we target
[1:01:31] this money that's in the halfsent sales
[1:01:33] tax for our existing streets then we can
[1:01:37] work work additions to it. But that's
[1:01:39] why that was there and that's one of the
[1:01:41] reasons why I've asked for the map
[1:01:43] because we used to be able to just look
[1:01:44] at well so how we doing how's where did
[1:01:47] we start and where are we now and I'm
[1:01:49] not quite sure.
[1:01:50] >> So
[1:01:51] >> but everybody knows there's cones
[1:01:52] everywhere right now.
[1:01:53] >> So council member we do have existing we
[1:01:55] do have existing pavement condition
[1:01:56] index rating maps. I'm going to just
[1:01:58] tell you that there's no corresponding
[1:02:01] score on those streets compared to when
[1:02:03] they were done. I think you and I have
[1:02:05] discussed the um the example of Sixth
[1:02:08] Street by McVicker. Um that street was done I think uh a year before the
[1:02:14] cross street uh McVicker. Um and I mean
[1:02:18] you can see the
[1:02:18] >> crummy on the concrete.
[1:02:20] >> Well, I'm just saying though you can see
[1:02:21] it it there's no correlation no real
[1:02:24] correlation. And there might be some,
[1:02:25] but there's not a significant
[1:02:26] correlation between when a street was
[1:02:28] done and its condition. You can have a
[1:02:30] street that was done 50 years ago and
[1:02:32] it's in great condition cuz it doesn't
[1:02:33] get a lot of traffic. So I I I hear what
[1:02:36] you're saying. I don't see a lot of
[1:02:38] value in that. Uh putting the date when
[1:02:40] it was last done. Um because you can
[1:02:43] again the street on Sixth Street was
[1:02:45] done a year before the one on McVicker
[1:02:47] and the the street on Sixth Street is in
[1:02:49] worse condition than McVicker even
[1:02:51] though it was done just a year before.
[1:02:53] So, I I hear you and we can talk more
[1:02:56] about it. Um, again, um, the PCI is
[1:02:59] really what you should be looking at,
[1:03:02] uh, is the condition of the street.
[1:03:03] >> Well, and and that's that's why I asked
[1:03:05] because we are I've thought maybe once a
[1:03:08] year was too often, but we're spending
[1:03:09] money to get the streets rated on their
[1:03:11] PCI level every year, so we might as
[1:03:14] well be able to see where they are.
[1:03:17] >> It's every three years.
[1:03:18] >> Every three years.
[1:03:19] But at the same time
[1:03:22] when they were when they were done
[1:03:24] matters. You know something that as much
[1:03:27] as people fuss about this and that that
[1:03:29] we don't do well. This this city has
[1:03:31] always been really good about geographic
[1:03:34] diversity about parity and getting
[1:03:36] streets done in different parts of town.
[1:03:38] And so when you look at the dates on the
[1:03:40] streets when the last time they were
[1:03:41] done that gives you an idea of what that
[1:03:44] rhythm has been as we've gotten to to
[1:03:46] this point. and then looking at the
[1:03:48] PCIs, no matter when they got done, you
[1:03:51] know, may provoke some conversation, but
[1:03:53] then you can see the ones that need
[1:03:55] work. So, I think it we've got the data.
[1:04:00] Thank you.
[1:04:02] All right, city attorney. I guess I have
[1:04:04] a question about the definition. Maybe
[1:04:07] there's no gray area about special use
[1:04:10] versus general use, right? And I guess
[1:04:14] maybe it's an eitheror. So in other
[1:04:17] words, if it's not under under the way
[1:04:19] it's defined is if it's not could be
[1:04:21] used for say everything
[1:04:23] once you qualify it for any specific use
[1:04:27] it becomes a a specific use act even if
[1:04:29] it's generalized and by that I mean for
[1:04:31] example some of the discussions at this
[1:04:33] point have been about quote unquote
[1:04:34] public safety which is 70% of our budget
[1:04:37] which includes multiple departments
[1:04:39] could also include fire stations as part
[1:04:40] of that I assume that then if you is
[1:04:43] still makes it now a speech special use
[1:04:46] not qualifies for general use under that
[1:04:49] definition even though it's not one
[1:04:51] specific thing. Does that make sense
[1:04:53] what I'm asking?
[1:04:54] >> I I think so. Um the special use is
[1:04:58] restricted to specifically whatever is
[1:05:01] defined under that ballot question and
[1:05:03] then the cap is lower and there's a
[1:05:06] specified timeline. It can only be up to
[1:05:08] 10 years. the general use still requires
[1:05:11] some type of a narrative as to what it
[1:05:13] will be used for, but it can be used
[1:05:14] generally. I mean, across it's not
[1:05:17] you're not held to those specific things
[1:05:20] that are necessarily named in that
[1:05:22] narrative, if that makes sense.
[1:05:23] >> Yeah, that makes sense.
[1:05:24] >> And and they have different caps. I
[1:05:27] think the general use cap is 2% total
[1:05:29] aggregate. special use cap is 1%
[1:05:33] aggregate and then there's no required
[1:05:36] um deadline or you know sunset date for
[1:05:39] a general
[1:05:40] >> and and what are we cap are we does the
[1:05:44] gauge park authority count against our
[1:05:48] special use even even though we had
[1:05:50] nothing to do with it?
[1:05:52] >> No. Uh, I believe right now we only have
[1:05:54] we have 0.5% in place for special use
[1:05:57] right now and that's why we're capped at
[1:05:58] a a.5 at this point in time.
[1:06:01] >> Got Okay.
[1:06:03] >> Okay. So then I have other thoughts.
[1:06:05] These are in no particular order, so I
[1:06:07] apologize, but as I've been taking notes
[1:06:09] throughout the conversation,
[1:06:11] I do want to point out and I've said
[1:06:12] this when we have whenever we have RHID
[1:06:15] conversations is the RHID program was
[1:06:17] not created for affordable housing. It
[1:06:19] was created for all housing. And I think
[1:06:21] that's important as we have this
[1:06:22] conversation because it is a tool at our
[1:06:25] disposal that we should be utilizing to
[1:06:28] build market rate housing. We should
[1:06:30] also be using it for affordable, but
[1:06:32] it's one of those tools at our disposal
[1:06:34] to put towards those efforts that that's
[1:06:37] less harmful to our bottom line and our
[1:06:39] budget and and isn't us putting out
[1:06:41] cash. And and I bring that up because as
[1:06:43] we talk about then finding a source for
[1:06:45] affordable housing in the affordable
[1:06:47] housing trust fund, it allows us then if
[1:06:50] we can do that to have those sort of
[1:06:52] circular program that says great, we can
[1:06:54] use RHID on everything, but we can
[1:06:57] really focus it to help with things like
[1:06:58] market rate while we also have programs
[1:07:00] through the affordable housing trust
[1:07:01] fund that are also making sure we're
[1:07:03] keeping up with and doing what we want
[1:07:05] to accomplish on on the affordable
[1:07:07] housing piece. So, so they can be used
[1:07:09] as sort of this nice complement to each
[1:07:11] other if we can find some ways to make
[1:07:13] them work that way uh over time. Josh,
[1:07:16] you can totally correct me if I'm wrong.
[1:07:18] I don't know where you are. You don't
[1:07:19] even need to. But we keep talking about
[1:07:22] the 20% reserve threshold. I say this
[1:07:26] every year during budget time. Unless
[1:07:28] I'm wrong, we have never actually as a
[1:07:30] governing body, and I've told staff, if
[1:07:31] you want us to change it, bring it to
[1:07:33] us. But I believe it's 15%. That we have
[1:07:36] established as our official threshold. I
[1:07:38] understand 20% why we want that at times
[1:07:41] and the bond council has advised us. But
[1:07:44] my my understanding is unless I'm wrong,
[1:07:46] it's 15%. And I think that's important
[1:07:48] to this conversation because through the
[1:07:50] years and Councilman Dobble and I when
[1:07:52] he was here used to say this every year
[1:07:53] is if it's 15% let's be at 15%. So I'm
[1:07:57] happy to revisit that if at some point
[1:07:59] staff wants to bring that back because I
[1:08:01] understand why. But I think if you work
[1:08:03] off of that 15 or even a 17% based on
[1:08:06] the numbers we've seen, that 3% makes a
[1:08:09] difference too in some of these numbers
[1:08:11] uh that we discuss as we're looking at
[1:08:13] how to formulate something that that the
[1:08:16] citizens might be amendable to and also
[1:08:19] still meet the needs that we're trying
[1:08:20] to reach over time. Um
[1:08:24] the affordable housing trust fund exists
[1:08:27] for the purpose of a lot of the
[1:08:29] discussion we've had up here tonight.
[1:08:31] some we aren't going to be able to
[1:08:32] answer some of those questions, but they
[1:08:34] can. That's why we put them together.
[1:08:36] That's why they're in place. That's why
[1:08:37] they're made up of citizens. It's why
[1:08:39] that they have standards and things that
[1:08:41] they have put in place and will continue
[1:08:43] to be put in place. And so, I think that
[1:08:45] is something we can reassure folks if if
[1:08:48] this moves forward to say it's not just
[1:08:50] going into some random pot that we're
[1:08:52] going to figure out later. It's going
[1:08:53] into a structured program that we spent
[1:08:55] years working on and developing in and
[1:08:57] it's going to have community oversight
[1:08:59] into that. And so I think that is also
[1:09:01] important for the conversation. The same
[1:09:03] is if we go back to the homeless piece,
[1:09:06] that's what the build for zero model
[1:09:08] also has given us. It's given us a
[1:09:10] structure. We spent a lot of time over
[1:09:12] the years sort of using the shotgun
[1:09:14] approach to address the issue instead of
[1:09:16] that scalpel approach. And by bringing
[1:09:18] in built for zero and yeah, it's taken
[1:09:20] us a while to ramp up, but we knew that
[1:09:21] when we did it. We knew that it was
[1:09:22] going to be a year or a year and a half
[1:09:24] plus before we could actually fully kind
[1:09:26] of utilize that. And at some point we'll
[1:09:28] get that update and and you'll see that
[1:09:30] that's where we're at. But again, I
[1:09:32] think that we have that structure in
[1:09:34] place to help reassure folks that if we
[1:09:36] can put resources there, we have a
[1:09:38] program that's going to make a
[1:09:39] difference in this community. We've just
[1:09:41] got to find a way to put resources
[1:09:42] towards it. Um,
[1:09:46] this debate has come up and I know the
[1:09:48] city manager, we're not all agree with
[1:09:50] the approach at this point maybe or the
[1:09:51] questions, but it's real simple. This
[1:09:53] community has been clear to us. You got
[1:09:55] to find a way to figure out how to pay
[1:09:57] for things without raising property
[1:09:58] taxes. That leaves us with only so many
[1:10:01] options. And so this is the option the
[1:10:02] city manager has brought us. And he and
[1:10:04] I have gone round and round about this
[1:10:05] issue for a year on various things. I
[1:10:07] like this part. I don't like this piece.
[1:10:09] We're going to have to talk about this.
[1:10:10] I can get on board with this. What are
[1:10:12] you thinking? We've had all of those
[1:10:13] conversations over the past year. But
[1:10:15] I'm going to sit here and at least say
[1:10:17] whether we push this forward or don't or
[1:10:18] whatever the outcome of these
[1:10:19] conversations are, this is part of what
[1:10:21] we've asked him to do is to bring this
[1:10:23] community options to continue to
[1:10:24] diversify our tax base when citizens
[1:10:27] have been clear that property taxes have
[1:10:29] got to find a way to be lowered. And
[1:10:31] when we get to the budget conversation,
[1:10:32] cuz I'll save my comments for that,
[1:10:34] you're going to see that we have done a
[1:10:35] lot to this budget that isn't raising
[1:10:38] taxes or even expenses. and we we've
[1:10:40] done trimming to try to to hear that
[1:10:42] message and still find ways to pay for
[1:10:44] things.
[1:10:46] I do to some degree prefer
[1:10:49] I guess it'd be a special approach, a
[1:10:51] more targeted approach. I think that the as the council has said um I
[1:10:55] think we're going to have a difference
[1:10:56] on what that looks like. As I said
[1:10:58] earlier, public safety is 70% of our
[1:11:01] budget. And as I will tell anyone in the
[1:11:03] public safety sector, if we could target
[1:11:06] a little more towards those efforts,
[1:11:08] that doesn't mean you're getting more
[1:11:09] money. The goal is not to give you more,
[1:11:12] but it is to find a way to take 70% of
[1:11:15] our budget and find a way to free up
[1:11:17] some of those funds on the other side of
[1:11:19] the ledger so that we have more
[1:11:21] flexibility with our general fund to
[1:11:23] fund more essential services. So, it's
[1:11:26] not about giving public safety, as I
[1:11:28] move through this conversation over the
[1:11:29] next movie, more money, but it is about
[1:11:31] an offset of that budget for me to
[1:11:33] figure out a way to be more productive
[1:11:35] with what we have. Um, I also think it
[1:11:38] some of that could help us cover fire
[1:11:40] stations if it was part of a a more
[1:11:42] general public safety. Now, it sounds
[1:11:44] like we can't do that just for public
[1:11:46] safety at a half cent and a quarter cent
[1:11:48] or a tenth of a cent for the other. So,
[1:11:51] we're going to have to think about that.
[1:11:52] I'm going to have to digest that over
[1:11:53] the next week or two as it was brought
[1:11:54] up. maybe based on these numbers it's a
[1:11:56] fourth and a tenth and that gets us our
[1:11:58] half and we go from there and so I think
[1:12:01] that's a valid discussion. I think the
[1:12:03] message has been pretty clear from the
[1:12:05] council tonight that we want a
[1:12:06] re-examination of the market rate versus
[1:12:08] the homelessness as we look at that
[1:12:10] question. So I think that
[1:12:11] >> open
[1:12:14] >> council member
[1:12:17] and so I I do think that message has
[1:12:19] been clear. I I do appreciate and I
[1:12:22] think we've already determined that if anything goes forward. Um we do want
[1:12:26] something that's on the ballot that
[1:12:28] relates to the auditor position. I think
[1:12:29] that's another reassurance to folks that
[1:12:31] we're taking these conversations
[1:12:32] seriously. So that's where my head is at
[1:12:35] with this conversation. Um hopefully
[1:12:37] city attorney can get us some
[1:12:38] clarification. If it's October 20th, And when we get that
[1:12:42] information back, we'll we can decide
[1:12:44] have a talk amongst ourselves or with
[1:12:46] the through the city manager about
[1:12:48] whether we need a special meeting or
[1:12:49] whether we think we can get it done uh
[1:12:51] in October. And then after that, we can
[1:12:53] start to make some make some decisions.
[1:12:55] So,
[1:12:57] yeah, city attorney. Uh I will just add,
[1:12:59] Mr. Mayor, I was looking through some of
[1:13:01] our correspondents with the county and
[1:13:02] it it appears that that extra amount of
[1:13:05] time has to do with what they need to do
[1:13:07] to prepare federal mail service ballots
[1:13:09] due to some changes in federal
[1:13:11] regulations. So, I'm not sure exactly
[1:13:12] what those changes are, but apparently
[1:13:14] has to do with federal compliance. So,
[1:13:16] >> okay. Thank you, Council Member Hiller.
[1:13:21] >> Before we continue, we just had this
[1:13:23] discussion. If if I heard you right, we
[1:13:26] are capped at 0.5
[1:13:29] for a a special
[1:13:32] funds.
[1:13:33] >> Correct. Right now
[1:13:34] >> and.5 for general.
[1:13:36] >> I'm not sure on the general. Josh might
[1:13:38] be able to answer that. I'm I'm not sure
[1:13:40] where we're at, but we're back overall.
[1:13:42] >> We already have a 0.5 half cent sales
[1:13:45] tax for streets. So, does that mean
[1:13:48] we're already at the cap and we can't be
[1:13:50] talking about that?
[1:13:51] >> No. No. We have capacity county five. So
[1:13:54] the 0.5 for streets already exists. We
[1:13:56] are capped at 1% in
[1:13:58] >> one total. So we've we've still got 0.5
[1:14:00] to go. Okay. Thank you.
[1:14:02] >> That's it.
[1:14:03] >> All right.
[1:14:04] Are there any other comments
[1:14:06] or questions on this issue at this time?
[1:14:11] » Oh, so close.
[1:14:12] >> Okay.
[1:14:12] >> No, you're fine. You're fine.
[1:14:15] >> Okay. So, what are we looking at right
[1:14:16] now? I heard what you said. I heard city
[1:14:19] manager say, you know, a work session
[1:14:22] would be nice. I would prefer to have
[1:14:24] meetings in October, you know, at our
[1:14:27] regular council meetings. So, when are
[1:14:29] we supposed to find out about that?
[1:14:32] >> I imagine Nick will have our first
[1:14:33] answer by tomorrow. Won't take the
[1:14:35] election office long to get our
[1:14:36] response. And so, my guess is he could
[1:14:39] notify us in the next day or two. And
[1:14:41] then, okay,
[1:14:42] >> we feel like we need a special meeting,
[1:14:43] we can we can take a poll and find out.
[1:14:45] Do we feel like we have discussed it or
[1:14:47] there will be further discussion in
[1:14:49] October so that folks can get a deeper
[1:14:52] understanding of what this
[1:14:54] >> Oh, there will be further conversations
[1:14:55] because I think as you heard tonight, we
[1:14:57] all have
[1:14:58] >> different variations of the question
[1:15:00] we're going to need to consider and see
[1:15:01] if we can come
[1:15:02] >> but explanation on what this auditor
[1:15:04] will really be doing that we want, you
[1:15:07] know, that we're changing up the ballot
[1:15:08] for
[1:15:10] later. I I think the best advice I can
[1:15:12] give is I would suggest that our second
[1:15:14] meeting in October have as little as
[1:15:17] humanly possible on that agenda so that
[1:15:19] we can dedicate it as much as possible
[1:15:21] to this issue if necessary. Just just as
[1:15:25] >> and mayor, thank you for that. Um,
[1:15:26] council member, as going back to the
[1:15:28] schedule, we talked about having draft
[1:15:30] language together right by the October
[1:15:32] 6th uh meeting again is so that we can
[1:15:35] send that draft language over to the
[1:15:37] elections office. We don't have to
[1:15:39] finalize until October 20th. So to your
[1:15:42] mayor, to your point, mayor, and to your
[1:15:44] question, council member, um we can
[1:15:46] probably use that second meeting in
[1:15:47] between as another work session.
[1:15:50] >> Okay. And just as an aside, I think it's
[1:15:52] important. I don't think we're going to
[1:15:53] be able to discuss all of it, but the chair of the citizens government
[1:15:58] review committee gave us a lot of
[1:16:01] information about the city auditor, Jim
[1:16:04] Cop. I hope I'm saying your name right.
[1:16:06] Jim C. What is it?
[1:16:08] >> Cal.
[1:16:09] >> Calp. Okay. And so I think that's worth,
[1:16:13] you know, reviewing as as we go further
[1:16:16] down this whole
[1:16:18] >> helpful hole. Thank you.
[1:16:19] >> Thank you.
[1:16:22] >> All right. Anything else?
[1:16:24] All right. Thank you, city man.
[1:16:25] >> Thank you all.
[1:16:28] >> All right. We got through one thing.
[1:16:29] Look at us.
[1:16:31] Next up, presentation B, affordable
[1:16:34] housing trust fund. City clerk.
[1:16:36] Affordable housing trust fund affordable
[1:16:39] housing trust fund update and Carrie
[1:16:40] Higgins will present
[1:16:43] >> city manager.
[1:16:46] » Thank you mayor. Just give me one
[1:16:47] moment.
[1:16:57] Thank you again uh mayor and members of
[1:16:59] the governing body. In this up in this
[1:17:01] item, we will provide an update of the
[1:17:03] activation of the affordable housing
[1:17:04] trust fund, which is one of our FY2026
[1:17:07] strategic uh goals and discuss the
[1:17:09] affordable housing trust fund
[1:17:10] committee's recommended use of the
[1:17:11] remaining funds for smaller projects and
[1:17:13] a sales tax recommendation. With that,
[1:17:16] I'll now turn this over to Carrie
[1:17:17] Higgins, director of housing homeless
[1:17:18] services to lead us through this item.
[1:17:19] Carrie,
[1:17:20] >> thank you. Good evening. So, tonight I
[1:17:22] have a fairly brief update for you on
[1:17:25] the affordable housing trust fund. So,
[1:17:27] just some background. Uh the purpose of
[1:17:29] the trust fund is to expand the
[1:17:31] availability of affordable housing based
[1:17:32] on ordinance 20554.
[1:17:35] The trust fund met its initial goal of
[1:17:37] $1 million in June of 2023 and it made
[1:17:41] its first project awards in July of
[1:17:44] 2026.
[1:17:47] So the initial projects that were funded
[1:17:49] were sent with five infill homes,
[1:17:52] Highland Park town homes for
[1:17:54] construction costs to rehab those units
[1:17:56] and then initially Wal property
[1:17:59] development. However, we did receive an
[1:18:01] update late last week um after this
[1:18:04] PowerPoint was sent out and I believe
[1:18:06] the city manager also sent out a memo to
[1:18:08] the governing body on Friday that gave
[1:18:11] um an update on the situation as well.
[1:18:13] Unfortunately, uh, Wyel has had to
[1:18:15] withdraw their project and so we will
[1:18:18] not be funding that project.
[1:18:22] So that brings our remaining fund
[1:18:24] balance from the little over 319,000
[1:18:27] that you see on the screen to actually
[1:18:29] the new balance would be a little over
[1:18:31] 684,000.
[1:18:33] So the committee is proposing that we do
[1:18:35] a second round of funding, but that it
[1:18:38] is focused more on smaller agencies such
[1:18:40] as NAS or individuals. We've received
[1:18:43] feedback from the committee that or from
[1:18:45] the community that they would support
[1:18:47] and they want to see two different types
[1:18:49] of RFPs. One that is more geared towards
[1:18:52] individuals or smaller entities. We are
[1:18:55] also holding a public forum tomorrow at
[1:18:58] 11:00 a.m. at the holiday building in
[1:19:01] order to get more community feedback on
[1:19:03] how the initial process went and what
[1:19:06] the community would like to see with the
[1:19:08] second round. So, we will take all of
[1:19:11] that feedback, uh, make any adjustments
[1:19:13] or changes that we need to, and then the
[1:19:15] goal is to put out a second round of
[1:19:17] funding in the next few months,
[1:19:21] which brings me to the issue of ongoing
[1:19:24] funding. And we've we've discussed this
[1:19:26] before. So, at the November 12th
[1:19:28] committee meeting, the affordable
[1:19:30] housing trust fund did vote to propose a
[1:19:33] point uh 01 a/10enth special sales tax
[1:19:36] that would go specifically to
[1:19:38] homelessness and the affordable housing
[1:19:40] trust fund in order for it to have that
[1:19:42] sustainable funding source long-term
[1:19:44] that we've been looking for. So, the
[1:19:47] committee tonight is uh recommending
[1:19:49] that the governing body uh moves forward
[1:19:52] with that recommendation for uh half
[1:19:55] homelessness, half the trust fund, and
[1:19:58] we are hoping to see that on the March
[1:20:00] 27th ballot for a community vote.
[1:20:04] Uh just a a refresher of the voting comm
[1:20:08] community, excuse me, the voting
[1:20:10] committee members you see listed here. I
[1:20:12] think it's also important to note that
[1:20:14] there are um a lot of additional city
[1:20:16] staff that are an integral part of this
[1:20:19] work as well that are not listed here.
[1:20:22] And with that, I'm happy to answer any
[1:20:24] questions you might have.
[1:20:25] >> Questions or comments from the governing
[1:20:27] body at this time.
[1:20:30] » Council member Hiller.
[1:20:32] >> Thank you. Carrie, I've got a specific
[1:20:34] question about the project on Tyler.
[1:20:36] >> Yes.
[1:20:36] >> Um how much money was Mr. Wibley
[1:20:39] seeking?
[1:20:42] It was $365,197.50.
[1:20:47] » No, but it's private funding.
[1:20:49] >> I would need to get back to you on that
[1:20:50] amount.
[1:20:51] >> Okay. Let's say it was a million
[1:20:53] dollars. I just want to throw it out to
[1:20:55] this group while you're here that, you
[1:20:57] know, I hope that we move into having a
[1:20:59] housing summit and getting a master plan
[1:21:02] for affordable housing in this community
[1:21:04] so that we've got some help in targeting
[1:21:06] money and and efforts. But meanwhile, if
[1:21:09] anybody knows an individual
[1:21:12] or um maybe a a faith-based denomination
[1:21:16] or some source, a lot of times when
[1:21:18] really good affordable housing projects
[1:21:20] develop, they come from unlikely sources
[1:21:22] that have not been involved before. If
[1:21:24] there's a way 817 Tyler's in my
[1:21:26] district, but it his proposal was to was
[1:21:30] to develop a 24 unit co-op in right in
[1:21:33] the middle of that area. I think it's a
[1:21:35] wonderful project. It is not traditional
[1:21:37] and times are very very turbulent right
[1:21:40] now in private markets. I get that. But
[1:21:42] if anybody knows somebody who might
[1:21:45] personally or through their company be
[1:21:47] willing to do that, let Carrie know
[1:21:51] because it would be wonderful to see.
[1:21:52] Thank you. But anyway, overall with the
[1:21:56] trust fund, you know, that flexibility
[1:21:58] to provide just 10,000 bucks for
[1:22:00] somebody who did a gut rehab on a on a
[1:22:03] house on wherever um and brought it to
[1:22:06] code and and put it out. It we define
[1:22:09] what we think affordable is for for
[1:22:12] people of different incomes and start
[1:22:14] really targeting making sure that we get
[1:22:17] and keep our housing affordable. I live
[1:22:19] in Tennessee Town on Lane Street. those
[1:22:21] people know where I live. But um you
[1:22:23] know, for us, having property values go
[1:22:25] up isn't a priority. We want to keep
[1:22:27] those property values where they are and
[1:22:29] keep it affordable. And um I think we've
[1:22:33] got the the horsepower in this community
[1:22:36] to do it and do things that people
[1:22:37] didn't think we could and keep it truly,
[1:22:40] you know, create those first. We've got
[1:22:43] landlords and people who want to help
[1:22:45] that can be that first stop for people
[1:22:47] that have been homeless.
[1:22:49] um we've got those next steps through
[1:22:50] our neighborhoods and people care a lot
[1:22:52] and so I'm excited to be see everybody
[1:22:55] here and to see us move forward with not
[1:22:58] only the initiative or the this halfent
[1:23:01] sales tax but thinking about who we
[1:23:03] know. Thank you council member Valdiv.
[1:23:07] >> Um thank you mayor. You know, there's a
[1:23:10] lot of merit in what uh Councilwoman
[1:23:13] Hiller is saying because Wyel's project
[1:23:16] was really thinking outside of the box.
[1:23:19] And I think as far as co-op, don't we
[1:23:22] only just have one other in Topeka?
[1:23:25] Maybe two at at the most.
[1:23:28] >> Fox Ridge.
[1:23:29] Okay.
[1:23:31] >> There's just a few think.
[1:23:33] >> So, it is a wonderful idea for that
[1:23:35] area. It is so sad to see him continue
[1:23:39] to look for funding through financial
[1:23:41] institutions and not being able to find
[1:23:44] it. if there is private donors or a cash
[1:23:47] of private donors or
[1:23:50] you know somebody that has an extra
[1:23:52] amount that that would be certainly
[1:23:54] wonderful because it would be I believe
[1:23:56] transformative
[1:23:58] but I would also request for the
[1:24:00] information that Hiller's asking for if
[1:24:02] you could send that amount to the full
[1:24:03] governing body so in case they're having
[1:24:05] any conversations with anyone that may
[1:24:08] know a lot of loaded people you know
[1:24:09] they'll be able to say hey there's a
[1:24:11] great project and this is how
[1:24:14] they're looking for. And thank you for
[1:24:16] the presentation. Thank you, mayor.
[1:24:19] >> Comments or questions?
[1:24:22] >> Gone. Any other comments or questions
[1:24:23] for Carrie?
[1:24:26] >> All right. Looks like you're free.
[1:24:27] >> Okay. Thank you.
[1:24:28] >> Thank you.
[1:24:31] All right. With that, we will move on to
[1:24:34] the consent agenda. City clerk.
[1:24:43] Right. A is a approval of a public works
[1:24:45] department contract between the city of
[1:24:47] Topek and Alfred Vanish and Company for
[1:24:49] professional engineering and design
[1:24:51] services in an amount not to exceed
[1:24:53] $85,300.
[1:24:55] B is a resolution introduced by city
[1:24:57] manager Dr. Robert Perez authorizing the
[1:24:59] city attorney's office to initiate
[1:25:01] litigation. C is approval of municipal
[1:25:04] court contract between the city of
[1:25:05] Topeka and Kaza Law Office, PA for
[1:25:08] courtapp appointed council services. Dur
[1:25:10] are minutes of the regular meeting of
[1:25:12] September 8, 2026. And there are no
[1:25:14] applications.
[1:25:16] >> All right. Thank you. We have a motion
[1:25:18] to approve from council member Kell and
[1:25:20] a second from council member Ortiz. The
[1:25:22] clerk will take the vote, please.
[1:25:35] Okay, we have 10. Yes, the motion
[1:25:37] carries.
[1:25:39] >> All right, with that we move on to
[1:25:40] action items. Action item A, city clerk.
[1:25:45] >> A is an ordinance introduced by city
[1:25:47] manager Dr. Robert Perez relating to
[1:25:48] imposing a real estate lean pursuant to
[1:25:50] KSA 12808C upon certain lots and pieces
[1:25:54] of ground in Shauny County, Kansas to
[1:25:56] pay the cost for utility services where
[1:25:58] such payments to the city have not been
[1:26:00] made due to neglect, failure, or refusal
[1:26:02] to pay.
[1:26:03] >> City manager.
[1:26:04] >> Thank you, mayor, members of the
[1:26:06] governing body. As discussed during our
[1:26:08] September 8th council meeting, City of
[1:26:10] Topeka provides utility services for
[1:26:11] water, wastewater, storm water, and fire
[1:26:14] line services to a variety of customers
[1:26:15] located both inside and outside city
[1:26:17] limits. When utility accounts become
[1:26:19] delinquent, state law permits the city
[1:26:21] to institute a lean on the property of
[1:26:23] these customers in order to recover
[1:26:25] payment for services rendered. This
[1:26:27] ordinance, for which I recommend
[1:26:28] approval, would authorize staff to work
[1:26:30] with the city clerk to add the
[1:26:31] delinquent utility fees to the tax
[1:26:33] statement that is issued in November.
[1:26:35] With that, I will turn this over to
[1:26:36] Nicole Malot, deputy director of
[1:26:38] utilities to lead us through this item.
[1:26:40] Nicole,
[1:26:41] >> good evening, mayor, members of the
[1:26:43] council. I don't really have anything
[1:26:44] new to add from last week. I will just
[1:26:46] update that you would have received a
[1:26:49] new ordinance uh I believe in front of
[1:26:51] you. Uh remaining we had two additional
[1:26:54] accounts removed. So remaining are
[1:26:57] 136 accounts for a total of 122,8914.
[1:27:03] Uh, with that, if you have any other
[1:27:05] questions, I'm happy to answer them for
[1:27:07] you.
[1:27:08] >> We do have one individual signed up for
[1:27:09] public comment on this issue, so we will
[1:27:11] call them up. Miss Danielle Twimllo, I
[1:27:14] will also tell you, we have a number of
[1:27:15] people still signed up throughout the
[1:27:16] evening for public comment, so we're
[1:27:18] going to try to keep it within four
[1:27:20] minutes this evening. So, thank you very
[1:27:22] much, Daniel.
[1:27:22] >> Thank you. And consistent. And I have a
[1:27:24] suggestion. Um so this utility lean that
[1:27:28] we need to be talking about from year to
[1:27:30] year um is happening with a balance of
[1:27:33] approximately $63 on some of the
[1:27:36] accounts. Um and so this is really
[1:27:39] becoming an admin inefficiency or really
[1:27:43] an operational loss when we're going
[1:27:44] after accounts at that level. We should
[1:27:46] be asking a very basic question. What
[1:27:49] are we actually accomplishing when the
[1:27:51] city uses a property lean to collect a
[1:27:53] debt this small? Municipal government
[1:27:55] has an obligation to have standards,
[1:27:57] proportionality, and common sense in the
[1:28:00] way it collects that debt. The cost and
[1:28:02] the consequences of placing a lean are
[1:28:04] not justified in that situation. A lean
[1:28:07] is not simply another bill. It requires
[1:28:09] staff time. It requires documentation.
[1:28:11] It requires legal processing. It
[1:28:14] requires recording against real
[1:28:16] property. it creates another obligation
[1:28:18] that has to be tracked, reconciled, and
[1:28:20] eventually released. And when the
[1:28:22] underlying debt is $63, we need to know
[1:28:25] whether the city's cost of pursuing and
[1:28:27] maintaining that lean is actually less
[1:28:29] than the amount they're trying to
[1:28:30] collect. Um, if it isn't, then we aren't
[1:28:34] protecting the utility fund. We are
[1:28:36] spending public resources to chase small
[1:28:38] balances in a way that can cost
[1:28:40] taxpayers and rateayers even more in the
[1:28:42] long run. We have historically done
[1:28:44] this. Um each year there have been as
[1:28:46] little as $69
[1:28:49] um 68.56 I mean on and on. So it's not a
[1:28:52] new question. Um but we need to have a a
[1:28:56] different standard here. We have not had
[1:28:58] a cost of service of really what does it
[1:29:00] maintain? Many of these properties are
[1:29:02] spending quite a bit more on their um
[1:29:06] utility rates because they're right
[1:29:07] outside um of the city line. So what is
[1:29:10] the actual cost of serving them um
[1:29:13] versus what we are putting in that
[1:29:15] collection. Um we know that we have seen
[1:29:17] this come time and time again of not
[1:29:19] really evaluating you know where the um
[1:29:23] readiness to serve charge came within
[1:29:25] that. At one point it was discussed that was potentially um something that
[1:29:29] was going to be used to offset um some
[1:29:33] uh costs for people who were developing.
[1:29:36] um we never really got an answer to what
[1:29:38] that looked like and how often that was
[1:29:40] actually used because then it was really
[1:29:42] found out that this was a charge that we
[1:29:43] were always doing. So where is that
[1:29:46] offset cost? Um because that matters. Um
[1:29:49] we also don't really look like many
[1:29:51] other cities use the vacant fee um and
[1:29:55] structure it in a way um that offsets
[1:29:58] that utility piece. Um, but I also I
[1:30:00] know it's been brought up a couple times
[1:30:02] whether we collect that vacant fee. Um,
[1:30:05] and then what does that look like? How
[1:30:06] is that structured? Um, and are we
[1:30:09] actually collecting on that? Um, so I
[1:30:11] ask just very simply year after year
[1:30:14] that we continue not to wait until it is
[1:30:17] time to pass these things to really look
[1:30:19] at how efficient um, we are actually
[1:30:22] being because again in the long run
[1:30:24] we're likely paying more money to
[1:30:26] service than um, if we were running more
[1:30:28] efficiently. Thank you.
[1:30:30] >> Thank you.
[1:30:33] >> All right. Questions or comments for
[1:30:35] staff? for Nicole.
[1:30:38] >> Council member Cal,
[1:30:40] >> just curious, was there a decrease in
[1:30:42] the number from last week? Uh,
[1:30:45] >> two accounts.
[1:30:47] >> Yep.
[1:30:55] » Don't see any other questions or
[1:30:56] comments. Do we have a motion?
[1:30:58] >> Oh, council member Hiller. just to her
[1:31:01] to some of her points. Um I guess my
[1:31:04] understanding from when you presented
[1:31:06] about this before was that it's pretty
[1:31:08] straightforward that instead of going
[1:31:10] through collections and handling these
[1:31:12] things one at a time, you're able to
[1:31:14] just take which whatever was due and
[1:31:17] just take them record them as you need
[1:31:22] to, but just in one block and send them
[1:31:24] over to the county. And that you also
[1:31:26] have,
[1:31:28] let me not misquote it, a really high
[1:31:31] pay rate that people just pay it with
[1:31:33] their taxes and it's done.
[1:31:35] >> Was that it's over 90%, right?
[1:31:37] >> Correct. Yeah. Everything you say that's
[1:31:39] correct there. Uh this is actually a
[1:31:41] less cost inensive process than anything
[1:31:44] >> for us. Yes. Thank you. Thank you.
[1:31:50] » Any other questions or comments?
[1:31:55] All right. Do we have a motion?
[1:32:00] to approve from council member
[1:32:02] Miller. Oh, and a second from council
[1:32:04] member Kell. There's no other comments
[1:32:06] or questions and I will ask the clerk to
[1:32:08] take the vote, please.
[1:32:20] Okay, we have nine yes with council
[1:32:22] member Vald Divia Oklo voting no. The
[1:32:24] motion carries.
[1:32:26] >> All right, with that
[1:32:35] you'll be it'll be good. Uh with that we
[1:32:39] move on to action item B. City clerk. B
[1:32:42] is an appropriation ordinance introduced
[1:32:44] by city manager Dr. Robert Perez
[1:32:46] approving and adopting the operating
[1:32:47] budget for the city of Topeka for the
[1:32:49] year 2027 and appropriating the amounts
[1:32:52] for the purpose as set forth therein
[1:33:02] » city manager.
[1:33:03] >> Thank you mayor members of the governing
[1:33:05] body. Although we presented our balanced
[1:33:06] FY2027 proposed budget on July 14th, we
[1:33:10] really started this process in January
[1:33:11] this year. Since we presented the
[1:33:13] proposed budget, we gone through
[1:33:14] departmental overviews and presented our
[1:33:16] 5-year financial forecast. Over the last
[1:33:18] few weeks, the team and I have shared
[1:33:20] thoughts on proposed amendments, and
[1:33:21] we'll share those again this evening for
[1:33:22] consideration and discussion as part of
[1:33:25] the adopted budget uh consideration.
[1:33:28] With that, I will now turn this over to
[1:33:29] Josh McCannney, deputy director of
[1:33:31] budget and finance to lead us to this
[1:33:32] discussion.
[1:33:33] >> Thank you, city manager. Just three
[1:33:34] things. So, we've gone through all the formal publishing of the public
[1:33:38] hearings, held the public hearings, and
[1:33:40] um posted the appropriate notice that
[1:33:42] we've required to do so. We can now
[1:33:44] officially actually take action on the
[1:33:45] budget, which we have to submit by
[1:33:46] October 1st. And then secondly, um just
[1:33:49] we um because we approve a budget
[1:33:51] tonight doesn't mean we can take
[1:33:53] measures to reduce expenses deadline.
[1:33:55] All the budget does is just set the
[1:33:56] topline expenditure authority by fund
[1:33:59] that we submit um to the state. So we
[1:34:01] can over time proactively take
[1:34:03] approaches if that's the method
[1:34:04] preferred by the governing body. And
[1:34:06] then third, one thing that will be an
[1:34:08] area of emphasis for us over the next
[1:34:10] year is monitoring revenue. So just
[1:34:12] because we approve a budget, we still
[1:34:13] have to monitor and make sure that the
[1:34:15] revenues come in cover expenses because
[1:34:17] just like in the private sector, if the
[1:34:18] revenues don't come in, we have to
[1:34:19] adjust on the expense side. So that's
[1:34:21] just one thing to keep in mind.
[1:34:28] » I I can't hear you.
[1:34:31] Mayor,
[1:34:31] >> I I my computer I don't have it on me.
[1:34:35] So,
[1:34:40] » city major.
[1:34:41] >> No, mayor. So, at this point, uh we want
[1:34:43] to um begin discussion with any proposed
[1:34:45] amendments that the governing body has.
[1:34:47] >> Okay. Well, first we have some
[1:34:48] individuals signed up for public
[1:34:49] comment. So, we will go to them first
[1:34:51] and then before we start governing body
[1:34:53] discussion. So, with that, first up, uh
[1:34:57] Mr. Lebet told me he left. So, we will
[1:34:59] go to Pastor Christine Potter.
[1:35:08] » Good evening. My name is Reverend
[1:35:10] Christine Potter. I'm the pastor at Low
[1:35:12] Man United Methodist Church here in
[1:35:14] Topeka. I'm co-chair of Topeka Jump and
[1:35:17] I am on the homelessness steering
[1:35:19] committee at Topeka Jump. Um, and I'm a
[1:35:22] lifelong Topekan. I'm here today to
[1:35:25] speak about the proposed sales tax of
[1:35:27] 1/10enth of a penny. As I shared last
[1:35:29] week with the policy and finance
[1:35:31] committee, I am and to peek a jump is
[1:35:34] deeply troubled by the recent and abrupt
[1:35:37] switch on this proposal that has been
[1:35:39] spoken about a lot tonight. For a year
[1:35:42] now, we've heard the city and the review
[1:35:43] committee talking about proposing a
[1:35:45] onetenth of a penny sales tax for the
[1:35:47] citizens of Topeka to vote on to go
[1:35:50] towards affordable housing and homeless
[1:35:52] services. While affordable housing
[1:35:54] remains on the proposal, support for
[1:35:56] homelessness services has been replaced
[1:35:58] by market rate housing. As a pastor and
[1:36:01] as a citizen of Topeka, I feel compelled
[1:36:04] to speak against this sudden switch as
[1:36:07] both unethical and undemocratic.
[1:36:10] It is undemocratic because there has
[1:36:12] already been a poll done by the city
[1:36:14] that indicated 67% of Topekans would
[1:36:17] vote in favor of this tax supporting
[1:36:19] affordable housing and homelessness, not
[1:36:22] market rate housing. Further, the
[1:36:24] affordable housing trust fund review
[1:36:26] committee who was established and
[1:36:28] empowered to do this work approved the
[1:36:30] original proposal back in November, not
[1:36:33] the new proposal for market rate
[1:36:35] housing.
[1:36:36] Please listen to your constituents who
[1:36:38] have been focused on this problem and
[1:36:40] are actively proposing solutions.
[1:36:43] In terms of the ethics, it is wrong to
[1:36:46] prioritize market rate housing over the
[1:36:49] needs of our homeless and unhoused
[1:36:51] neighbors. As I shared at policy and
[1:36:54] finance last week in Topeka, market rate
[1:36:57] housing equates to housing that's
[1:36:59] affordable for a family of four making
[1:37:02] about $120,000 a year.
[1:37:06] I stand here before you to say that
[1:37:08] market rate housing is not affordable
[1:37:10] for me and my family. It is luxury
[1:37:13] housing. There is just no way that we
[1:37:16] can sit here and deny that it is
[1:37:18] unethical to prioritize luxury housing
[1:37:22] over the homeless human beings on our
[1:37:25] streets right now.
[1:37:27] If the city decides to keep this new
[1:37:29] proposal with half the money going
[1:37:30] towards market rate housing instead of
[1:37:32] homelessness, our jump membership can no
[1:37:35] longer support it. In fact, we will
[1:37:37] actively campaign against it for these
[1:37:39] important reasons that I've named today.
[1:37:43] There are millions of dollars on the
[1:37:44] line here and we the people of Tika Jump
[1:37:47] representing 37 faith communities and
[1:37:50] over 7,000 of your constituents do not
[1:37:53] just want to see the entire proposal
[1:37:56] shot down by the council or voted down
[1:37:59] by the public. We emphatically want the
[1:38:03] original proposal to succeed. the
[1:38:06] original proposal that the review
[1:38:08] committee agreed on with half the sales
[1:38:11] tax going to affordable housing and half
[1:38:13] to homelessness.
[1:38:15] The original proposal has the chance to
[1:38:18] do something incredible in Topeka.
[1:38:20] Something that Topekans have been
[1:38:22] excited to get on board with something
[1:38:25] that benefits us all. The homelessness
[1:38:29] crisis affects all of us. We have a very
[1:38:32] real chance here to prioritize these
[1:38:34] humans and this crisis with dedicated
[1:38:39] funding for researched and proven
[1:38:42] homelessness services. This is what we
[1:38:45] will advocate for and vote for. And this
[1:38:47] is actually what 67% of already pulled
[1:38:51] to Peacans said they would vote for. We
[1:38:54] can have the market rate housing
[1:38:56] conversation another day, but not at the
[1:38:59] expense of dedicated funding for
[1:39:01] homelessness.
[1:39:02] Let's do something amazing together for
[1:39:05] Topeka. Let Topeka vote on one/tenth of
[1:39:09] a penny sales tax for affordable housing
[1:39:12] and the recommendations of the city's
[1:39:14] 2024 homeless innovation team study.
[1:39:18] Thank you.
[1:39:19] >> Thank you.
[1:39:21] Next up, we have Reverend Julie Mcola.
[1:39:28] » Reverend Julie Mcola.
[1:39:29] >> Okay.
[1:39:46] Welcome, ma'am. When you hear the first
[1:39:47] beep, it's going to mean you have one
[1:39:48] minute still remaining.
[1:40:04] Mayor Duncan. Oh, I'm sorry.
[1:40:10] City Manager Dr. Perez, Mayor Duncan,
[1:40:14] city council members, other officials,
[1:40:17] and citizens of Topeka.
[1:40:21] My name is Julie McCulla.
[1:40:24] As I have begun writing this public
[1:40:26] comment, Thursday, September 10th.
[1:40:31] I have lived in Topeka for 11 years.
[1:40:35] I am neither a businesswoman nor a
[1:40:38] politician.
[1:40:40] I must confess that I am very ignorant
[1:40:43] regarding business, finance, politics,
[1:40:47] and many of the ways of the world.
[1:40:50] While I readily confess my ignorance, in
[1:40:53] many areas, I am smart in one way. I am
[1:40:58] smart enough to know that I don't know
[1:41:00] what I don't know.
[1:41:04] In the years I have lived here,
[1:41:07] I have seen affordable housing growing
[1:41:10] less affordable and homelessness
[1:41:13] increasing.
[1:41:15] I believe that those who are not wealthy
[1:41:18] are likely to be in for a wild ride in
[1:41:22] the next couple of years and maybe much
[1:41:25] longer.
[1:41:28] to peek a jump put forth a proposal
[1:41:32] a tenth on one tenth of a penny sales
[1:41:36] tax with half going to affordable
[1:41:39] housing and half toward homelessness
[1:41:42] services.
[1:41:43] But I understand that there is a push to
[1:41:47] change our proposal so that half of this
[1:41:50] tax would go to market rate housing and
[1:41:54] the example given was for a luxury
[1:41:57] apartment complex downtown.
[1:42:00] We have many needs in this city. Luxury
[1:42:04] is nice to have, but it is a desire, a
[1:42:09] want.
[1:42:10] Why change this proposal and call people
[1:42:14] who are getting less and less able to
[1:42:18] afford our own li our own housing to pay
[1:42:21] a tax for luxury that we will never be
[1:42:25] able to live in or enjoy.
[1:42:29] We're struggling just to meet our basic
[1:42:32] needs
[1:42:34] and some no longer can and are now
[1:42:38] homeless.
[1:42:39] Some are on waiting lists for assistance
[1:42:43] that can be two years or more long.
[1:42:48] And as our economy grows more and more
[1:42:52] out of control,
[1:42:54] these waiting lists will grow much
[1:42:57] longer.
[1:42:59] So, let's stop worrying so much about
[1:43:02] luxury
[1:43:03] and attend to basic needs so that we can
[1:43:08] all have safe, secure places to live.
[1:43:13] And that may get a lot of people off the
[1:43:16] streets. And the upside of that is that
[1:43:19] when people have home addresses, they
[1:43:23] can more easily secure jobs. and that
[1:43:27] will help our economy.
[1:43:30] I know that won't be nearly as simple as
[1:43:34] it sounds, but it's a much more
[1:43:38] practical goal worth working toward.
[1:43:42] It can better the lives of many rather
[1:43:46] than the lives of just a few that are
[1:43:48] already well on track.
[1:43:52] Let's think about that.
[1:43:55] Thank you.
[1:44:01] Next up, we have Steve Harvey.
[1:44:07] » Steve Harvey.
[1:44:09] >> Is that Henry?
[1:44:11] >> Says Steve Harvey is what I
[1:44:15] >> see. No Steve Harvey. I think it's Steve
[1:44:17] Henry.
[1:44:18] >> Okay.
[1:44:21] >> He doesn't like saying the word.
[1:44:24] that that's a common uh mistake that's
[1:44:27] made with my name. Uh I am Steve Henry.
[1:44:33] I've been in 4 in Topeka for 49 years. I
[1:44:36] live in district 8. I've served as
[1:44:38] member of uh Jump's affordable housing
[1:44:42] and homeless committees.
[1:44:45] And I want to start by saying hooray.
[1:44:48] for the buyin to first create and
[1:44:53] now on the horizon to fund the
[1:44:56] affordable trousing housing trust fund
[1:44:59] in a meaningful and ongoing way. What an
[1:45:03] exciting thing. What a piece of work.
[1:45:06] Imagine blighted housing being
[1:45:09] rehabilitated or replaced with new
[1:45:11] housing. Imagine
[1:45:14] communities becoming
[1:45:16] uh
[1:45:18] new housing in communities
[1:45:21] with houses being re rehabilitated or
[1:45:24] replaced with new housing.
[1:45:27] Imagine communities becoming safer and
[1:45:30] more attractive to move move into.
[1:45:34] Imagine
[1:45:35] reversing long-term trends of de
[1:45:38] decreasing population within our city
[1:45:41] boundaries. This is at hand. This can
[1:45:44] happen. I see it.
[1:45:47] So, that part of the proposal I'm
[1:45:49] excited about. But what a disappointment
[1:45:52] to see what happened with the other half
[1:45:53] of the proposal where the home homeless
[1:45:58] support got pushed out with this concept
[1:46:01] of market housing.
[1:46:04] can't support that obviously and I have
[1:46:06] to say I'm heartened to hear the
[1:46:08] discussion at council today that uh
[1:46:11] suggests that there is a lot of support
[1:46:15] for uh the homeless initiative piece of
[1:46:19] this. I hope that comes to fruition.
[1:46:22] I want us to take a pause for a m minute to reflect on some important
[1:46:28] groundwork we did together to address
[1:46:31] homelessness in Topeka.
[1:46:34] In 2023, the city of Topeka wisely hired
[1:46:38] an outside cond consultant to conduct a
[1:46:41] community community engagement process
[1:46:44] that included a systematic review of
[1:46:48] homelessness in Topeka and to identify
[1:46:51] best practices used to address
[1:46:54] homelessness across this country.
[1:46:59] Many sessions were held over a period of
[1:47:02] several months.
[1:47:04] Many leaders of the city of Topeka,
[1:47:07] Shauny County government, social service
[1:47:10] agencies and the community participated.
[1:47:13] Many good ideas were generated for uh
[1:47:16] taking a much more comprehensive,
[1:47:19] systematic and integrated approach to
[1:47:22] homelessness
[1:47:24] um to meet the needs of the homeless.
[1:47:28] on May 21st, 2024.
[1:47:32] >> One minute.
[1:47:33] >> You have one minute still.
[1:47:34] >> Rihanna Silver presented the city
[1:47:36] council findings of that process and a
[1:47:39] comprehensive plan for addressing
[1:47:40] homelessness in Topeka. Uh it included
[1:47:44] goals, detailed steps, and a multi-year
[1:47:46] timeline for addressing homelessness in
[1:47:49] a comprehensive and systematic way. It
[1:47:51] represented the hard work and the best
[1:47:54] thinking of many people and it produced
[1:47:57] seven recommendations, two of which were
[1:48:00] create a one-stop homeless center
[1:48:03] investment in a continuum housing
[1:48:05] solution uh specifically a low barrier
[1:48:08] shelter and permanent tiny homes. the
[1:48:11] council received for their work,
[1:48:13] received this report, but determined no
[1:48:16] action should be taken because we had a
[1:48:19] new city manager coming in and it would
[1:48:21] not be prudent to proceed.
[1:48:24] Uh
[1:48:26] so a year later, here we are.
[1:48:32] » Sorry, I'm out of time.
[1:48:33] >> It's all right. Thank you, sir.
[1:48:40] Time to dust off that report. Time to
[1:48:43] implement it with the support of the
[1:48:46] other half.
[1:48:47] >> Next up, we have Mr. Rick Tyler.
[1:49:00] Mr. Mayor, council members, thanks for
[1:49:03] uh allowing me to be here tonight. I'm
[1:49:04] going to change the pace a little bit
[1:49:06] and talk about data centers. What a
[1:49:07] surprise, right? Um but I want to talk I don't want to give you a lot of facts
[1:49:12] and figures. I want to talk to you a
[1:49:14] little bit about the more human side of
[1:49:18] what a data center can do to your
[1:49:20] community. Sir,
[1:49:22] >> I'm going to pause you for a minute. I'm
[1:49:23] going to let you finish because we're
[1:49:24] going to be here a while, but this is
[1:49:25] our budget agenda item. So, I don't know
[1:49:29] if we got put in the wrong spot. I'm
[1:49:31] gonna let you go ahead and finish
[1:49:32] tonight, but I just
[1:49:33] >> Well, I can if you
[1:49:34] >> No, because we're in a budget
[1:49:36] conversation going to take a while. So,
[1:49:37] I have you on here twice. So, I don't
[1:49:40] know if you're going to only speak once
[1:49:41] tonight.
[1:49:41] >> Just once.
[1:49:42] >> Since you're the last speaker, I'm going
[1:49:44] to speak. I'm just clarifying that
[1:49:45] that's what we're talking about. So,
[1:49:46] that's it. Go ahead. All right. Okay.
[1:49:48] >> You're back on. You're good.
[1:49:49] >> Your time was paused. So, you didn't
[1:49:50] lose any time there.
[1:49:51] >> Thank you.
[1:49:55] So what I'd like to do is talk to you
[1:49:56] about the little bit more human side of
[1:49:58] what a data center can do to a
[1:50:01] community. Um
[1:50:03] I have a article here that was written
[1:50:06] just a few days ago from the Kansas
[1:50:08] Reflector and it was written by a
[1:50:10] gentleman who lives and works in
[1:50:12] Emporia, Kansas and he talks about
[1:50:14] what's going on in Emporia. Um, but a
[1:50:18] lot of it can uh be applied to what's
[1:50:20] going on here with our data center
[1:50:23] situation.
[1:50:24] I'm going to read you just a couple of
[1:50:26] paragraphs uh from that article.
[1:50:29] It says, "Thank God for open courts.
[1:50:32] Secrecy has been a hallmark of the data
[1:50:34] center assault on rural America. And few
[1:50:37] subjects have been as secret or as
[1:50:39] enigmatic as the money behind the
[1:50:41] proposed digital campus for my town of
[1:50:44] Emporia at the edge of the Flint Hills
[1:50:46] in East Central Kansas. The stakes are
[1:50:49] enormous and the fight over a thousand
[1:50:51] recently annexed and largely pastoral
[1:50:54] acres at the western edge of the city is
[1:50:57] representative of a conflict conflict
[1:50:59] taking place just about everywhere.
[1:51:04] For decades, employ has been a pleasant
[1:51:06] if sleepy college town whose legacy was
[1:51:08] that of a heartland utopia envisioned by
[1:51:12] the editor and author William Allen
[1:51:14] Wright White. In recent years, it has
[1:51:17] lost hundreds of manufacturing and meat
[1:51:19] processing jobs, creating economic
[1:51:22] desperation of historic proportions.
[1:51:25] Civic leaders sought a big fish
[1:51:27] solution. The Kansas Park Place must
[1:51:30] have seemed like a whale. The choice
[1:51:33] we've been repeatingly told by business
[1:51:35] leaders since early June is to embrace
[1:51:38] prog progress or to wither away.
[1:51:42] But the conversation cannot be reduced
[1:51:44] to progress versus provincialism. Those
[1:51:47] who engage in the expected arguments
[1:51:49] about environmentalism or economic
[1:51:51] development soon find that they have
[1:51:53] lost the larger narrative driving people
[1:51:56] to action. The question is who are we as
[1:51:59] a community?
[1:52:01] We stand at a pivotal if not terminal
[1:52:03] moment in human history. Taken by
[1:52:06] surprise at the speed at which it
[1:52:09] arrived just six years just six years
[1:52:10] ago. We are paralyzed and separated by
[1:52:13] co. Now things are moving so fast it
[1:52:16] seems impossible to keep pace with a
[1:52:19] changing political, cultural, and
[1:52:21] technological landscape. We must not
[1:52:24] give into exhaustion or despair because
[1:52:27] the decision we make now will shape our
[1:52:29] communities for generations to come.
[1:52:32] Some readers have objected to my
[1:52:35] referring to Emporia as my town in these
[1:52:38] columns, pointing out that I was not
[1:52:40] born here. Others have said, "I don't
[1:52:43] understand the community because I
[1:52:44] didn't go to high school here." But
[1:52:47] citizens are more than accidents of
[1:52:48] birth or survivors of shared secondary
[1:52:51] education. After 20 years on
[1:52:53] Constitution Street, I can confidently
[1:52:56] call this is my town. Just as the town
[1:52:58] where you live, where you live is your
[1:53:01] town. Also,
[1:53:03] give me a community that values humanity
[1:53:05] over machines, compassion over profits,
[1:53:09] and fact over folksy fictions. Let us
[1:53:12] use technology with restraint and pursue
[1:53:14] economic development with wisdom. Give
[1:53:17] us competent judges and lawyers and open
[1:53:20] courts, transparent government and
[1:53:23] responsive lawmakers, reliable healthc
[1:53:26] care and food for all. Give us art and
[1:53:29] music and love. Let us make communities
[1:53:32] what they are worthy that they are
[1:53:34] worthy of our best and most engaged
[1:53:36] selves. We cannot revisit the past, but
[1:53:39] we can't imagine a future worth striving
[1:53:41] for. No machine or should do that for
[1:53:44] us. Thank you for your time. Thank you,
[1:53:46] sir.
[1:53:49] All right, that was our last sign up for
[1:53:50] this is close enough to 8:00 that maybe
[1:53:53] before we dig into the budget and our
[1:53:55] conversations, we will go ahead and take
[1:53:56] our 8:00 break. So, 10 minute be back
[1:53:59] here at 8:05 and then we will continue
[1:54:02] the conversation.
[1:54:04] Hey, Josh.
[1:54:11] » Okay. All right. We are back from our
[1:54:12] recess. With that, I guess I will now
[1:54:16] open it up to the governing body or
[1:54:18] actually does the city manager have a
[1:54:21] >> Thank you, mayor. I
[1:54:21] >> see spreadsheets on my screen. So,
[1:54:23] >> yeah. So, um to start the discussion, I
[1:54:25] wanted to ask for council's
[1:54:26] consideration of this of these proposed
[1:54:28] amendments to the budget. Um again, we
[1:54:31] discussed some of these uh in previous briefings. And so, just
[1:54:37] kind of wanted to go one by one for
[1:54:39] council's uh consideration of these as
[1:54:41] we look to adopt a budget. Josh.
[1:54:44] >> So, yeah, I'll we like city manager
[1:54:46] said, we reviewed a lot of these last
[1:54:48] week. There have been some slight
[1:54:49] changes, but um the first one of note is
[1:54:52] that that first line item where there's
[1:54:54] been a lot of talks about having a city
[1:54:55] auditor. So, a way to get the ball
[1:54:57] rolling on that would be to reclassify a
[1:54:59] current position um to be that position
[1:55:02] and the council and city manager can
[1:55:03] work in tandem. That that doesn't
[1:55:04] necessarily have to have a expense line
[1:55:06] item change since that money is already
[1:55:08] levied for in the budget. This is more
[1:55:09] of an acknowledgement if the council
[1:55:10] wants to go that direction that that's a footnote in the budget. Um and then we
[1:55:16] talked about amendment number two
[1:55:18] through
[1:55:20] um six last week um in regards to the um
[1:55:23] just some just lower expenditures for
[1:55:25] various line items. But one change is on
[1:55:27] the revenue side is that since that
[1:55:30] contract SRO contract is for half the
[1:55:32] year, we had $300,000 really that should
[1:55:34] be $150,000 less since they pay in
[1:55:36] quarterly installments. But on the flip
[1:55:38] side, we'll have to um PD since they did
[1:55:41] not get a grant, we'll have to fund some
[1:55:42] um printers for their services. So
[1:55:45] that's an offset. Um we talked about row
[1:55:48] nine or amendment number nine about uh
[1:55:50] having the internal payment preservation
[1:55:52] program. That's outside of the general
[1:55:54] fund. Um and then also a decrease in
[1:55:56] revenue to the insurance fund since we
[1:55:58] lowered that on um line five. And then
[1:56:02] finally, I sent an email out a couple
[1:56:04] times on this, but currently we have
[1:56:07] embedded in the budget $28,000 of
[1:56:10] revenue and $1.76 million thereabout um
[1:56:14] of expenditures in the general fund. So
[1:56:17] related to planning. So we're going to
[1:56:19] move that revenue and expenses out into
[1:56:20] the 616 planning development fund.
[1:56:23] However, if we do that, there's that
[1:56:25] fund would be in the red. So it still
[1:56:27] requires a subsidy. So we're just
[1:56:28] literally moving money out to still
[1:56:30] subsidize it. That way we can better
[1:56:32] track it going forward. And the the
[1:56:34] hopes is if you raise fees over time
[1:56:36] given levels of demand that that will
[1:56:38] eventually be self- sustaining, but
[1:56:39] that's all predicated on supply and
[1:56:42] demand within the city market.
[1:56:47] » Any questions specific to this these
[1:56:50] changes?
[1:56:51] >> Council member Kell. Now on that uh city
[1:56:54] auditor is that is that's just kind of a
[1:56:56] place marker on that salary because I
[1:56:58] know it's you know
[1:57:00] to get someone
[1:57:03] that's for a city our size. Uh just
[1:57:06] looking at average salary we're probably
[1:57:08] going to need to bump that up a little
[1:57:10] bit just to get to be able to compete to
[1:57:13] actually get a qualified person. So, so
[1:57:14] a couple things. We've looked at what
[1:57:17] that I think we're right in line with that actually in looking at it cuz
[1:57:21] that's going to be their only job. And
[1:57:23] so, we did look at some other cities and
[1:57:25] if that's what we come down to and we
[1:57:26] need to have that conversation, we can.
[1:57:28] But this at least gives us an option to
[1:57:30] start that search sooner rather than
[1:57:32] later. So, but I think we're going to be
[1:57:35] okay just based on looking at other
[1:57:36] cities and the market and some other
[1:57:38] things. Right.
[1:57:38] >> Thank you.
[1:57:39] >> At least that's the hope based on the
[1:57:40] information I've looked up.
[1:57:49] I think what I'm going to Oh, sorry. Did
[1:57:52] you have other comments on this?
[1:57:53] >> Oh, Council Member Miller.
[1:57:58] » Um,
[1:58:00] proposed amend number seven, the
[1:58:02] decrease in the SRO program. I
[1:58:04] understand where we're at. I get the big
[1:58:06] picture. Um,
[1:58:09] but I I still don't want to see change
[1:58:12] in there until there's an adequate
[1:58:16] situation for
[1:58:18] USD501
[1:58:20] to be able to do their part. I know that
[1:58:24] they're trying to come up to something.
[1:58:26] Um, I just don't want to see
[1:58:29] change on our end until we can make sure
[1:58:32] that that they will be able to take over
[1:58:34] the program in a way that the community
[1:58:36] feels safe in because it is very clear
[1:58:41] that they don't think they can do it. I
[1:58:43] don't know why they don't believe they
[1:58:45] can do it, but I hope that they can get
[1:58:47] to a place to where they can. But I hope
[1:58:49] that we can continue to help funding
[1:58:51] towards that.
[1:58:53] That's just my thought. I I'm going to
[1:58:55] stand on that.
[1:59:01] » Council member Cal,
[1:59:03] >> I'm I'm in agreeance with Council Member
[1:59:05] Miller on that. Uh I know the TCAL
[1:59:08] teaching position, I I I could see
[1:59:10] maybe, you know, let them just take care
[1:59:12] of that themselves. Uh but when it comes
[1:59:14] to the actual SRO officers,
[1:59:17] uh until it's gone, done for. Contract's over.
[1:59:22] No, no, no more no more negotiating. I'd
[1:59:25] like to see it stay there because if
[1:59:27] we're planning for it to be gone and
[1:59:28] then we go to negotiate, now we got to
[1:59:30] find another place. So, I'd almost
[1:59:32] rather keep that in there rather than
[1:59:34] have to rearrange later. Council member
[1:59:38] Ortiz.
[1:59:40] >> Guess I'm not understanding because
[1:59:42] it'll be in there until the contract
[1:59:44] ends in May and June. Um
[1:59:50] they they um we've done there they we've
[1:59:54] had a lot of discussion. We've had a lot
[1:59:56] of discussion for over a year
[2:00:01] and
[2:00:03] I feel confident that they will be okay.
[2:00:07] Um their director of safety, he wanted
[2:00:10] this um because we had an issue of do
[2:00:15] our officers answer to him or do they
[2:00:18] answer to the chief? And I agree with
[2:00:21] Mr. Avery at that meeting and he said it
[2:00:23] doesn't matter what we do but the one
[2:00:26] thing that we need to get that we need
[2:00:28] to straighten out straighten out is to
[2:00:30] make sure that they know who they answer
[2:00:34] to cuz they're public health and safety.
[2:00:36] Um, the judge talked about how he has to
[2:00:40] swear them in TPS
[2:00:44] and our chief has said he would do the
[2:00:47] following.
[2:00:48] Campus security assessments, including
[2:00:51] walkthroughs and safety recommendations
[2:00:54] for free.
[2:00:56] Critical incident response and
[2:00:57] coordination consistent with citywide
[2:00:59] protocols.
[2:01:01] Participate in safety planning meetings,
[2:01:03] emergency drills, and preparedness
[2:01:05] efforts. Access
[2:01:07] to community outreach programs including
[2:01:10] police police athletic league PAL
[2:01:12] program. Access to investig to
[2:01:16] investigative services for major crimes
[2:01:18] that are beyond the scope of USD501
[2:01:21] investigative comp capabilities.
[2:01:25] Ongoing cons consultation with the
[2:01:27] USD501 director of public safety on
[2:01:30] security concerns, threats or emerging
[2:01:32] issues.
[2:01:34] Joint deescalation and active shooter
[2:01:37] training with USD501
[2:01:39] police personnel.
[2:01:41] Access to daily shift recaps for
[2:01:44] intelligence sharing including emerging
[2:01:47] trends or concerns.
[2:01:49] City crime trim believes to share
[2:01:51] relevant youth related information.
[2:01:54] Threat assessment support with
[2:01:56] specialized police insights.
[2:01:59] Insight is needed. Emergency
[2:02:01] communication consult consultation,
[2:02:03] including inoperability and notification
[2:02:06] protocol guidance, access to specialized
[2:02:09] units when appropriate, including K9
[2:02:13] support or cyber crimes cons
[2:02:15] consultation,
[2:02:16] support for reunification planning
[2:02:19] during major incidents, assistance with
[2:02:22] updating district safety policies and
[2:02:24] procedure. participate in joint tabletop
[2:02:28] talk exercise to strengthen coordinate
[2:02:31] coordinated response capabilities.
[2:02:34] These services ensure we remain a
[2:02:37] reliable partner to USD501 while
[2:02:39] allowing us to deploy our staffing and
[2:02:42] resources in the most effective manner
[2:02:44] for the entire city. And that says a
[2:02:47] handful. He's doing all of that for
[2:02:49] free. We cannot continue to go on to
[2:02:52] have a 7624.
[2:02:54] I believe um their counter offer was
[2:02:57] 360. We pay over a million dollars to
[2:03:00] have those SRO's there. They get a lot
[2:03:03] of our retired officers who are not the
[2:03:05] bottom of the barrel as they were
[2:03:07] referred to who are officers. Cochran
[2:03:10] has been a chief, has been an intern,
[2:03:12] the director of public health and of
[2:03:14] their safety. He has been a a chief. He
[2:03:17] has been an intern city manager. He has
[2:03:20] been an officer. So he knows he knows
[2:03:23] how to train them. What we need to have
[2:03:25] moving forward is them to be trained.
[2:03:27] That's what we need forward. I love our
[2:03:30] SRO's. I love our kids,
[2:03:33] but I cannot continue to sit here and
[2:03:35] chop away at different parts of the
[2:03:37] budget and say, "No, no, we're going to
[2:03:40] do this." So, that's why I support it
[2:03:43] wholeheartedly. We asked our chief to go
[2:03:46] through and look through his budget
[2:03:48] which is however much percent Josh you
[2:03:52] can tell me of of of
[2:03:57] how much how much of it is personnel in
[2:03:59] the police department
[2:04:00] >> of the just the police department like
[2:04:01] 91%.
[2:04:02] >> 91%
[2:04:04] and we say well what are we going to
[2:04:06] cut? What are we going to cut? Nope.
[2:04:09] that, you know, we've done it for for 20 years. 20 years, just like every
[2:04:15] other there's a lot of contracts being
[2:04:17] looked at, and I will agree with the
[2:04:18] mayor. We're going to have to make some
[2:04:20] tough decisions. Some tough decisions.
[2:04:23] So, again, you know, I've had a lot of
[2:04:26] parents contact me that they don't
[2:04:28] understand the whole ordeal. Um, Marcus,
[2:04:32] when I was in high, junior high, we
[2:04:34] didn't have SRO's. You either got your
[2:04:36] butt whipped or you got or you didn't
[2:04:38] and you came on out of there. And guess
[2:04:40] what? I didn't take too many butt
[2:04:41] whipping. But that's that's the
[2:04:43] realistics of it. And you know what? I
[2:04:45] said this in that meeting and I'll say
[2:04:47] it again. And I do like what Mr. Avery
[2:04:49] said. Mr. Avery said he said he was a
[2:04:51] SRO and he would even have them walk
[2:04:55] through, you know, that they could do
[2:04:57] that to help them. But I said this in
[2:04:59] that meeting and I'll say it again. the
[2:05:02] guys that they have there, they need to
[2:05:04] come out from them monitors and they
[2:05:06] need to get in them hallways and they
[2:05:07] need to talk to them kids and they need
[2:05:09] to make a relationship with them. That's
[2:05:12] who needs to do it. We have teachers, we
[2:05:15] have parents
[2:05:17] at the high school level who are who are
[2:05:19] breaking up lights. That's not their
[2:05:20] job. That's not their job. A gentleman
[2:05:24] near and dear to me, he quit. He said,
[2:05:25] "I" he said, "I'm the only one that's
[2:05:27] walking these halls at a high school."
[2:05:30] And he said, "You know what? I can go
[2:05:32] somewhere else. So, they need to figure
[2:05:34] it out. Thank you. That's why I support
[2:05:37] it.
[2:05:39] >> Council member Kell
[2:05:42] and I I get more back to having an
[2:05:45] inside person helps that relationship
[2:05:48] happen because sometimes our priorities
[2:05:51] may not be 501's priorities. Uh, a good
[2:05:53] example right now we've had a lot of car
[2:05:55] breakins and
[2:05:57] um
[2:05:59] porch thievery and things like that.
[2:06:00] they've been caught on video. They're
[2:06:02] middle school, high school age kids. We
[2:06:04] can send that over to TP uh the the 501
[2:06:06] police and say, "Hey, can you help
[2:06:08] identify?" If they're like, "I would,
[2:06:09] it's not our problem." having that
[2:06:11] inside person there that knows who these
[2:06:14] students are
[2:06:16] can sit there and maybe help out even if
[2:06:18] there is talking to those kids and
[2:06:19] trying to get them when we have certain
[2:06:21] things going on where we have a lot of
[2:06:22] middle school high school age uh issues
[2:06:25] going on where it's maybe breaking into
[2:06:26] cars and things like that they can do
[2:06:28] presentations and do do educational
[2:06:31] things for those where we ask t the 501
[2:06:34] police to do it they say no we don't we
[2:06:36] don't feel like doing that but then
[2:06:38] there also when it comes to this
[2:06:39] planning of things. They know what's
[2:06:41] going on in the school having our our
[2:06:43] five our TPD in there. So, when it comes
[2:06:46] to planning how they're going to work
[2:06:47] with 501, they're not coming into a cold
[2:06:51] situation, not knowing what's going on
[2:06:53] in schools, not knowing the heartbeat of
[2:06:55] that school is, and coming up with a
[2:06:57] plan just because, well, here's a new
[2:06:59] hot idea. We're going to go with this.
[2:07:02] they can sit there through their
[2:07:03] experience and say this is you know I
[2:07:05] don't like your proposed plan because of
[2:07:08] these reasons of this school don't work
[2:07:10] together right having an inside person
[2:07:12] allows 501 and TPD to to really work
[2:07:15] together
[2:07:17] rather than having another police force
[2:07:20] in our town that may not even want to
[2:07:23] work with us at some points and um like
[2:07:27] you said I mean I've seen it personally
[2:07:29] just sitting in the monitor room
[2:07:31] watching those monitors not being in the
[2:07:32] hallways cuz I use a substitute for 501.
[2:07:35] We can't force them. You know, we can
[2:07:36] say we want them to get out out in the
[2:07:38] hallway, but we can't force that issue.
[2:07:40] 501 will have to force that and they may
[2:07:42] not enforce it themselves. So, at least
[2:07:44] having that inside person in there, I
[2:07:46] think allows for us to have somewhat of
[2:07:49] a safety measure for for our students
[2:07:51] and our teachers because our teachers,
[2:07:54] you're saying breaking up fights, but
[2:07:55] our teachers are also being assaulted
[2:07:56] right now on on a a very scary level.
[2:08:01] And
[2:08:02] this way, you know, it allows, I think,
[2:08:05] a little bit more when we have those
[2:08:06] active SRO out in the hallways to know
[2:08:09] what's going on and to be able to react
[2:08:11] to things a lot quicker. Thank you,
[2:08:13] >> Council Member Valdivia.
[2:08:15] >> Thank you, Mayor. As stated before, I
[2:08:17] totally support and continue to support
[2:08:19] the chief and city manager in making
[2:08:21] this very hard decision. With everything
[2:08:23] that Councilwoman Ortiz
[2:08:26] just read off, there is every indication
[2:08:29] that this this program is not being
[2:08:32] dropped cold. Uh I think that perhaps
[2:08:36] people underestimate uh Chief Cochran or
[2:08:39] whatever he's calling himself now. Um,
[2:08:42] and I think they definitely
[2:08:43] underestimate Anderson because she was
[2:08:46] quite uh um adept at bringing forth a
[2:08:53] number of teachers and students etc. I
[2:08:56] think what needed to be said, mayor,
[2:08:57] when you said it the other night, uh,
[2:09:00] was something very important, and I know
[2:09:02] that you may have hesitated a little bit
[2:09:04] on that, but someone from the leadership
[2:09:07] realm that was at that meeting needed to
[2:09:09] state exactly what went on at that
[2:09:12] meeting. All players that were at that
[2:09:14] table and that this was not a done deal.
[2:09:17] that all of you have stated behind you
[2:09:21] know talking to colleagues or whatever
[2:09:23] but you spoke it and that was that the
[2:09:26] communication was supposed to continue
[2:09:29] on. The chief sent us how many emails
[2:09:33] spelling out everything to us that this
[2:09:35] was not going to be a cold dead end
[2:09:39] street that there was going to be a
[2:09:40] continuation going on. And I consider it
[2:09:43] pretty
[2:09:45] it it almost seems to me that there was
[2:09:48] a side a sideswiping almost of some of
[2:09:52] the folks with 501 after all of these
[2:09:55] meetings and all this communication and
[2:09:57] all of this communication with the
[2:10:00] governing body at at different meetings
[2:10:02] went through. So again, I think what
[2:10:04] Councilwoman Ortiz brought through was
[2:10:06] so much information
[2:10:09] and I think that they really have had a
[2:10:11] hesitancy in the meeting that I had with
[2:10:14] them to get their campus security, which
[2:10:17] they were adamant that it be said campus
[2:10:19] security
[2:10:20] uh getting them trained and up to par,
[2:10:23] especially knowing how many of them are
[2:10:25] ex law enforcement. Thank you,
[2:10:27] >> Council Member Miller.
[2:10:30] >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, I appreciate the
[2:10:34] thoughts of my colleagues here. Um, and
[2:10:38] I understand um the options that the
[2:10:42] chief and city manager are making
[2:10:44] available to the 501 district um as a
[2:10:47] continuation of support. It's just not
[2:10:49] as a financial one. Um, I think big
[2:10:53] picture we probably should get to that.
[2:10:57] So, I'm not totally against it, but what
[2:11:00] I am against is understanding that this
[2:11:04] has been a conversation
[2:11:06] for a little while. Um, I would like a
[2:11:10] little bit of an onboarding or
[2:11:12] offboarding, I guess you could say, a
[2:11:13] little bit of a ramp. You know, those those ramps that they have for
[2:11:17] semiis when they go off when there those
[2:11:20] hills,
[2:11:22] that little ramp that allows it to slow
[2:11:25] down until it gets to a point to where
[2:11:27] then they can take over and then they
[2:11:29] can stop and be safe for everybody
[2:11:31] involved. I don't
[2:11:37] I am not a 501 in school every single
[2:11:40] day employee ever every as of now.
[2:11:44] I still work at the school. I still
[2:11:46] coach there. I still support that
[2:11:48] school. But um right at school, that
[2:11:51] district,
[2:11:53] but that's um that's not the district
[2:11:55] that I went through middle school and
[2:11:56] high school at.
[2:11:59] I went through one that had their SRO
[2:12:02] supported all the time.
[2:12:04] And I knew mine. I still know him to
[2:12:08] this day. So when I was at Shauny
[2:12:10] Heights for middle school and high
[2:12:11] school that was important and I can't
[2:12:14] compare I can't compare our budget to
[2:12:16] the counties
[2:12:19] obviously different
[2:12:21] but I do know that their schools don't
[2:12:23] have to pay for their officers to be
[2:12:26] there
[2:12:28] but they are
[2:12:31] there's ever overtime and the school
[2:12:33] pays for it but the county finds that
[2:12:35] important to do
[2:12:38] So, I just hope that we can continue to
[2:12:40] do that as well. Even if we have to to
[2:12:43] change the program up to where it's more
[2:12:45] of a support role, cool.
[2:12:48] But, uh, let's let's just not drop it
[2:12:49] next year. Allow the district to be able
[2:12:51] to find some funding in the coming years
[2:12:54] to get that done.
[2:12:59] » So, I think I've been pretty clear that
[2:13:01] I wouldn't support this change, but for
[2:13:03] some reasons. First of all, I get
[2:13:05] frustrations at times with some of the
[2:13:06] current officers that may be 501
[2:13:08] employees, but I'm going to circle back
[2:13:09] and I was clear last week I got a little
[2:13:12] offended when they kept calling them
[2:13:13] security guards.
[2:13:15] They are not security guards. I want to
[2:13:16] re reiterate this. They are certified
[2:13:19] police officers and there are 16 of them
[2:13:22] that work for 501. And I've also been
[2:13:24] told by 501 if they don't have to pay
[2:13:26] into this contract, they can actually
[2:13:28] hire more officers and and to add to
[2:13:31] that 16. And so again, they have a
[2:13:34] certified police department that they
[2:13:36] can use and incorporate and there's no
[2:13:39] reason in conversations that we had with
[2:13:40] them, they are absolutely open to taking
[2:13:43] support services from us, which we are
[2:13:46] now offering at no cost to them because
[2:13:49] we can offer those services if if we
[2:13:51] don't have this contract.
[2:13:54] There's nothing that stops us from
[2:13:55] continuing to have conversations with
[2:13:57] 501 if we even leave what we have in
[2:14:00] place. In fact, I'm worried about the
[2:14:02] opposite because of the way, as I
[2:14:04] indicated last week, that they have
[2:14:06] approached this issue. I think if we
[2:14:08] leave it in there, they're going to even
[2:14:09] continue to take it less serious and
[2:14:11] drag it out and we're going to have some
[2:14:13] of the same problems that we've been
[2:14:14] having. I think if nothing else,
[2:14:17] allowing us to take this steps sort of
[2:14:19] forces some of those in-person
[2:14:21] conversations that despite the email you
[2:14:23] all received, they simply have not been
[2:14:26] open to. They they've chosen to do this
[2:14:29] through email. And that's fine. I'm
[2:14:30] really not that upset about that, but I
[2:14:32] at least want it to be understood that
[2:14:34] that's been part of the frustration with
[2:14:35] these conversations. And so, as the
[2:14:38] chief sat here and said, and as I've
[2:14:39] said before, doesn't mean we're going to
[2:14:41] stop talking to 501, but it does mean we
[2:14:44] can pass this budget and they can sit
[2:14:45] now at the table and say, as of right
[2:14:47] now, folks, this contract's ending, so
[2:14:48] let's have some real conversations and
[2:14:51] put that clock on it. And I I think
[2:14:52] that's critical to us actually moving
[2:14:54] forward if we want to get something
[2:14:56] done. I appreciate that the sheriff's
[2:14:58] office does some work in those other
[2:14:59] school districts. I'm also here to tell
[2:15:01] you that we have residents of the city
[2:15:03] of Topeka who send their kids to all
[2:15:06] four school districts in this area. And
[2:15:09] if they came to the table tomorrow and
[2:15:11] said, "We now have an expectation too
[2:15:14] because let's say that the sheriff one
[2:15:15] day has to make some tough budget
[2:15:17] decisions too. You need to give us 501
[2:15:20] or police support like you do 501." How
[2:15:22] do we say no to that? What is our
[2:15:24] justification for saying, "Well, I'm
[2:15:26] going to take pick one of my school
[2:15:27] districts over the other four over the
[2:15:30] other three or four." I think that's a
[2:15:32] tough position and we've been lucky that
[2:15:33] hasn't happened. But the county is
[2:15:35] looking at a budget deficit right now
[2:15:36] and if you've looked at any of their
[2:15:38] conversations or meetings, they have
[2:15:39] some tough decisions to make too and
[2:15:40] including their departments. It's why
[2:15:42] they're looking at a mill levy increase
[2:15:44] that they're hoping not to do, but a
[2:15:45] pretty significant one, right? We've not
[2:15:48] taken that step because we've gone a
[2:15:51] different path. And as I said from day
[2:15:52] one, as as the counciloman said, we have
[2:15:54] to make tough decisions and this is one
[2:15:56] of those tough decisions and getting
[2:15:58] those officers help. I actually believe
[2:16:01] it's a win-win for us to find a way to
[2:16:03] continue to support 501 and the
[2:16:05] infrastructure they have and also while
[2:16:08] we have freezes in our department and
[2:16:09] budget issues, be able to return those
[2:16:11] officers from those schools back to the
[2:16:13] streets where they can continue to serve
[2:16:15] the cit all the citizens of Topeka. So
[2:16:17] it's not an easy choice. No one up here
[2:16:18] is sitting and saying, "Woo, finally
[2:16:20] we're out of those middle schools." In
[2:16:21] fact, quite the opposite. But we're in a
[2:16:24] position that we can do that. We can
[2:16:26] continue to support certified officers
[2:16:27] who are already part of that school
[2:16:29] district. And so that's why I'm still
[2:16:30] inclined to to be okay with what we've
[2:16:33] decided at this point with an
[2:16:34] understanding that we'll continue to
[2:16:36] have the conversations as we get into
[2:16:37] 2027.
[2:16:41] So, I don't know if at this point we
[2:16:43] have an official amendment in a second
[2:16:47] or where where we're at.
[2:16:50] >> Council member Hiller,
[2:16:51] >> I wanted to just support the
[2:16:52] conversation that I've heard so far. I I
[2:16:55] did do one of the one-on- ones early and
[2:16:58] what I heard, thank you so much for the
[2:17:00] time you've spent on this and and
[2:17:01] reading through the list. What what I
[2:17:03] heard in in brief was we could probably
[2:17:07] figure out how to come up with the money
[2:17:08] and there are some grants and so on.
[2:17:10] What we don't want to lose is the fact
[2:17:13] that these are genuinely police officers
[2:17:15] and that we have a a connection with the
[2:17:17] department. So instead of calling the
[2:17:19] front desk if something is happening
[2:17:21] with one of our kids, we've got this
[2:17:23] connection. That that was their
[2:17:24] description of it. What I heard is that even if the core is is 501 police
[2:17:33] that there's enough affirmative
[2:17:35] connection that chief our chief has
[2:17:37] offered and that they can reach out to
[2:17:40] so that there could be a presence from
[2:17:41] time to time of our our police officers
[2:17:45] in those schools and and the
[2:17:48] relationship there. I mean, they felt
[2:17:49] like it was important and and beneficial
[2:17:53] to have the kids have met police
[2:17:56] officers, but if we're still leaving
[2:17:58] that in and that also that much more
[2:18:01] direct line so that if there's something
[2:18:04] that is happening at home for one of the
[2:18:06] kids and or that emerges during the day
[2:18:09] that that that they can connect with our
[2:18:14] police force quickly and work jointly
[2:18:17] where needed. And I I'm hearing that and
[2:18:20] that seemed to be the the fundamental
[2:18:23] when they talked through what they
[2:18:25] didn't want to lose. So I'm comfortable
[2:18:27] that that we'll have it.
[2:18:30] Council member Ortiz,
[2:18:33] >> Karen, the the middle schools have hired
[2:18:38] a lot of um social workers
[2:18:41] >> and a lot of them come from DCF and a
[2:18:44] lot of them cuz they're my buddies and a
[2:18:46] lot of them are trained in what to look
[2:18:48] for when these kids, troubled kids come
[2:18:51] in,
[2:18:51] >> come come, you know, come to school and
[2:18:53] all of that. So the officer doesn't even
[2:18:56] get involved with any of that until the
[2:18:59] social worker asks them to come and
[2:19:01] remove them or to get involved. That's
[2:19:04] all social work, which I've heard
[2:19:06] they're getting ready to cut some of
[2:19:07] their social workers, which you know, I
[2:19:09] agree with Christina. Take that money
[2:19:11] and and do something cuz there's a lot
[2:19:13] of kids out there. There's a lot of
[2:19:15] kids. Again, I've had to remind several
[2:19:20] of
[2:19:23] the principles and our SRO's that they
[2:19:27] are mandate reporters. Y they're mandate
[2:19:30] reporters. And I know firsthand a young
[2:19:32] man that was going to the teachers,
[2:19:34] going to the principal and saying, "My
[2:19:36] mom is doing this. My mom is doing
[2:19:38] that." And it fell on deaf ears. And I
[2:19:41] and and you know what? Then when it
[2:19:43] happened, I even went back to that
[2:19:45] principal and said, "Yeah, I remember
[2:19:47] you. By the way, I can show you legal
[2:19:50] documents where this finally got
[2:19:52] corrected." You have to build a
[2:19:55] relationship with these kids. You have
[2:19:58] to or they're not going to talk to you.
[2:20:00] got a lot of kids that are out there
[2:20:03] fighting because they're in a fight
[2:20:04] orflight mode because of what's going
[2:20:08] on. there's they're not eating at school
[2:20:10] because of the parents because because
[2:20:12] of the abuse.
[2:20:15] Our our SRO's they're good at filling
[2:20:18] that gap, but they're not social
[2:20:19] workers. They're not,
[2:20:22] you know, but they they can take take
[2:20:25] them when it, you know, they they do
[2:20:26] have their part to play. Don't
[2:20:28] misunderstand what I'm saying. But we
[2:20:31] need to have more social workers in
[2:20:34] there and we need our principles and we
[2:20:37] need our everybody on board who's a
[2:20:39] mandate reporter to be that mandate
[2:20:41] reporter. I don't care if you call it in
[2:20:43] 10 times a day. That's what we need.
[2:20:46] I love our SRO. I
[2:20:48] like what they do. Um and they care. And
[2:20:52] the ones I talked to, they said they're they're just going to go ahead
[2:20:55] and retire. I I'm sorry because I
[2:20:58] thought that they were going to go ahead
[2:21:00] and and continue a force with their own
[2:21:02] funds. Either way, I appreciate that. I
[2:21:05] mean, I
[2:21:06] >> I don't know what they're doing cuz they
[2:21:07] just they knocked her down when she
[2:21:09] started saying, which, you know, gave
[2:21:11] them some suggestions, which were some
[2:21:12] good suggestions
[2:21:13] >> cuz I remember when they first got them,
[2:21:15] there were people that I knew that
[2:21:16] worked in 501 that were concerned that
[2:21:19] they that the teachers and the
[2:21:21] principles needed to have that role and
[2:21:23] didn't need to have somebody step in. I
[2:21:26] just remember their their comments about
[2:21:28] being able to connect with the
[2:21:29] department and get action quickly and it sounded like we'd offered that
[2:21:34] and that was comfortable to me
[2:21:38] not not stepping in or being on campus
[2:21:40] but
[2:21:40] >> if I may Mr. Mayor that meeting that we
[2:21:43] had with them was an eyeopener. There's
[2:21:45] a lot of things that are not being
[2:21:47] communicated.
[2:21:48] >> Okay.
[2:21:49] >> And you know why? because our SRO say
[2:21:52] they answer to this person and not this
[2:21:54] person and and and Avery was right on on
[2:21:58] the money to say we've got to get on one
[2:22:00] accord because we are talking public
[2:22:03] safety here and when we got we got that
[2:22:06] scattered I think Cochran could build
[2:22:09] his army. I think he could he knows what
[2:22:12] to do. He I I think the training that
[2:22:14] him and the chief that they could do
[2:22:16] that
[2:22:16] >> right
[2:22:16] >> and they have a little under a year. If
[2:22:19] it was me, I'd be I'd be hiring them to
[2:22:22] come in and show them what they do.
[2:22:24] >> Yeah, that's that's what I was hearing
[2:22:27] and supporting. So
[2:22:30] >> So I want to make sure we're not missing
[2:22:31] a step or passing over something we
[2:22:33] shouldn't be. Is there a formal motion
[2:22:35] anyone wants to make
[2:22:40] regarding this specific issue or I make
[2:22:43] a another motion?
[2:22:45] >> Is this page a one part of
[2:22:50] the budget? We need to do more of these.
[2:22:53] >> No, we we'll get to that. Let's I
[2:22:56] promise that's that's going to be my
[2:22:58] motion is to adopt this. So, let's But I
[2:23:01] want to make sure we're not
[2:23:03] passing over this issue first.
[2:23:05] >> Okay.
[2:23:06] >> I promise we'll get there.
[2:23:08] >> Council member Meler,
[2:23:09] >> um I know I'm probably not going to get
[2:23:12] support on this. That's okay. But I make
[2:23:14] a motion to uh adopt those changes. Um
[2:23:18] but taking out the decrease in the SR
[2:23:20] program.
[2:23:21] >> I have a question.
[2:23:22] >> Put that on the record.
[2:23:23] >> Council member,
[2:23:24] >> did you just say that you work for 501?
[2:23:27] Isn't that a conflict? It's not a
[2:23:29] conflict of interest because I am not a
[2:23:31] part of the SRO program. I coach
[2:23:34] basketball.
[2:23:35] >> I have I don't answer to the
[2:23:37] administration of the SRO program. I see
[2:23:40] what you're trying to do, but that's not
[2:23:42] a direct. It's because I would want you
[2:23:45] to ask me that question.
[2:23:47] >> Oh,
[2:23:47] >> if it was on the other if the shoe was
[2:23:49] on the other foot.
[2:23:50] >> Oh, yeah. I don't have an interest that.
[2:23:52] >> Yeah. I don't have an interest. I'm a
[2:23:54] rule 10 coach. I don't work for 501 like
[2:23:57] that. I'm a contracted coach basically.
[2:24:01] » Well, I don't know what
[2:24:02] >> what rule 10 means.
[2:24:05] >> You said you're a contracted coach.
[2:24:08] >> Contractor. Then we're good, right?
[2:24:10] >> Yeah.
[2:24:10] >> Then we're good. Okay.
[2:24:11] >> Yeah. Do we have a second for council
[2:24:13] member Miller's motion?
[2:24:19] » Council member Ortiz.
[2:24:20] >> But you were working at the grade
[2:24:22] school, right? The metals. Is it
[2:24:25] >> was is not at this time. So
[2:24:27] >> y
[2:24:28] >> can do do we have a second for council
[2:24:30] member Miller's motion
[2:24:32] >> motion
[2:24:33] >> that to accept the proposed amendments
[2:24:37] except for line seven.
[2:24:43] » Okay. Does everyone understand
[2:24:44] >> question on that?
[2:24:45] >> Council member Hiller
[2:24:46] >> because the the the item number seven is
[2:24:49] a decrease in revenue,
[2:24:52] >> right?
[2:24:52] >> It's not a cut. it. I'm not sure we
[2:24:55] understand what that line is.
[2:24:57] >> I I don't want
[2:25:00] Okay. So, what I'm trying to say is that
[2:25:03] I don't want the SRO program to be
[2:25:05] changed and I don't want us even
[2:25:08] thinking about that as as we go through
[2:25:10] our proposed amendments, if that makes
[2:25:12] sense.
[2:25:16] I'm just not sure that
[2:25:20] >> it's complicated I think but
[2:25:22] >> it is because the contract as of right
[2:25:24] now expires
[2:25:26] >> right
[2:25:26] >> at the end of June
[2:25:27] >> at the end of May
[2:25:28] >> right and so
[2:25:29] >> and so this dollars which is revenue to
[2:25:32] us
[2:25:33] >> right removing the item seven is not
[2:25:36] going to
[2:25:37] >> right
[2:25:38] >> preserve the SRO program okay
[2:25:40] >> okay
[2:25:42] let me clarify let me clarify I think I
[2:25:44] understand I I understand that this next
[2:25:46] 2027 budget already has that in there
[2:25:50] because that's phasing out. But what I'm
[2:25:52] trying to talk about,
[2:25:55] please clarif clarify uh if I'm seeing
[2:26:00] that shaking head.
[2:26:01] >> I'm just trying to pay attention.
[2:26:02] >> I'm not talking respectfully. I was
[2:26:05] talking with them. I believe what you
[2:26:07] would like to do was to see the funding
[2:26:09] for the SRO program added back into the
[2:26:12] operating budget. Is that my
[2:26:15] understanding correctly?
[2:26:16] >> There's still, but the the thing is is
[2:26:18] that they are still uh the funding is
[2:26:20] still there for the positions. This
[2:26:22] essentially would be an indication that
[2:26:23] we're not going to continue with the
[2:26:25] program as is. Uh the the contractual
[2:26:28] dollars that come to the city, it's
[2:26:30] approximately $300,000.
[2:26:32] So what this does is we're basically
[2:26:34] saying for half of the year because
[2:26:37] again going through June the rest of the
[2:26:40] year the basically the full year 300,000
[2:26:42] is in the budget today. This essentially
[2:26:44] takes out $150 of that assuming that
[2:26:47] we're only going to collect $150,000 of
[2:26:49] the $300,000 in 2027 once the contract
[2:26:53] uh completes in June of 27.
[2:26:58] So, it's 300,000 total that comes to us
[2:27:00] and that's in it's included in the 2027
[2:27:02] budget. Right. Right.
[2:27:03] >> Assuming that the position assuming that
[2:27:05] the position uh or I'm sorry, assuming
[2:27:07] that the program sunsets in June, we
[2:27:10] would only get 150,000 of that $300,000
[2:27:13] for the year. So, essentially, this is
[2:27:15] taking 150,000 of revenue out of our
[2:27:17] budget.
[2:27:19] >> Right. I understand that. But what I'm
[2:27:21] saying is, do we even need to have this
[2:27:23] on there if if my motion were to pass?
[2:27:29] >> So, my only fear with that, councilman,
[2:27:31] is that if we come up to June of next
[2:27:34] year and say we don't do this, then
[2:27:37] that's $150,000 that we know will not
[2:27:39] >> I have to account for.
[2:27:41] >> That's correct. Yeah. Okay.
[2:27:42] >> I thought you said you have an account
[2:27:43] for that, but Yeah. But yes.
[2:27:52] Okay.
[2:27:52] >> So, here's what we're going to do
[2:27:55] because
[2:27:57] we can make any changes at any time
[2:27:59] before this budget discussion is over.
[2:28:02] So, if you'd like to think about it for
[2:28:04] a little bit,
[2:28:06] we can still adopt this and then still
[2:28:09] make any change whether it's a proviso
[2:28:11] or whether it's an actual budgetary
[2:28:13] request before this evening is over.
[2:28:16] >> We can't. Wow.
[2:28:18] >> That would not that would not impact
[2:28:22] this decision, but still then allow you
[2:28:24] to to take some time to see if there's a better approach.
[2:28:31] » That's that's fine. Um I got I'll
[2:28:34] retract my motion. Um I I got to leave.
[2:28:36] My wife's outside waiting on me right
[2:28:38] now. So um I will uh I I'll retract my motion. I I do think if it helps,
[2:28:46] everyone has continued to say that the
[2:28:48] door is still open to continue
[2:28:50] conversations with 501. The chief hasn't
[2:28:52] shut that door. City manager hasn't shut
[2:28:55] that door. And I don't even think those
[2:28:56] of us who are have issues have shut that
[2:28:58] door. But what we have said is we have
[2:29:00] to plan. They just haven't been at the
[2:29:03] table as much to help us make that plan.
[2:29:04] So, we got to move forward with the goal
[2:29:06] of maybe incurring some of those
[2:29:09] conversations. So, I I I will say I
[2:29:11] don't take this as a as an allout. we're
[2:29:13] done with 501 and talking to them for
[2:29:16] whatever that's worth. If that helps. It seems like it because of the
[2:29:20] budgetary decision, but again, as said,
[2:29:22] that money is still going to be there.
[2:29:24] We still have to pay these officers. We
[2:29:26] just eventually have to decide where
[2:29:28] they're going to be. So, it's not like
[2:29:29] we're removing the money from the budget
[2:29:31] that pays these officers and they're
[2:29:33] out. They're out of out of work and
[2:29:35] we're we're taking them out. So, if that
[2:29:37] helps a little, the the actual dollars
[2:29:40] that we spend towards it are still in
[2:29:42] the in the budget.
[2:29:44] >> Yeah, I I get it. I get it. Okay.
[2:29:48] >> Thank you, Mayor.
[2:29:52] » All right, Council Member Ortiz.
[2:29:55] >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm going to make
[2:29:56] a motion that we let both contracts
[2:29:59] collapse. That's my motion. Well,
[2:30:02] >> there's
[2:30:04] >> So, that would stay right the way it is,
[2:30:07] right?
[2:30:08] >> Right. I mean, you can make that motion.
[2:30:10] For what it's worth, it's already
[2:30:11] happening. So
[2:30:13] >> Oh, it's already happening. Oh, okay.
[2:30:14] So, I don't need to make that.
[2:30:15] >> Correct.
[2:30:16] >> Well, I was just trying to
[2:30:17] >> No, that's already No, we don't need
[2:30:19] that.
[2:30:19] >> Okay.
[2:30:20] >> All right. So, the motion I was going
[2:30:21] >> I just want to move forward.
[2:30:22] >> The motion I was going to make then so
[2:30:25] we don't forget it later or make the
[2:30:27] wrong motion is to simply adopt this
[2:30:29] amendment. I'm going to make I'm going
[2:30:30] to move to adopt the amendment in front
[2:30:32] of you so that way it's in our budget
[2:30:34] and then when we adopt it later we don't
[2:30:36] leave something out on accident.
[2:30:37] >> Okay.
[2:30:38] >> That's the motion I'm making is to adopt
[2:30:39] this amendment.
[2:30:40] >> You got to take away your motion there.
[2:30:43] >> I don't have to. I will.
[2:30:45] >> Okay.
[2:30:47] >> So is wonder if I have a second for my
[2:30:49] motion.
[2:30:50] >> I can't.
[2:30:53] » How did I do it?
[2:30:55] >> I don't know.
[2:30:56] >> So motion made by the mayor. Right.
[2:30:58] >> I don't have a second yet.
[2:31:00] >> I'll second it.
[2:31:06] » All right. Any questions about the
[2:31:07] motion or comments? Council member,
[2:31:09] >> just the the process which somebody was
[2:31:10] asking earlier, too. So, what you're
[2:31:13] planning to do is is there's an
[2:31:15] assumption that we'll get to the the
[2:31:17] motion to adopt the budget at the end
[2:31:19] and we're going to do one amendment at a
[2:31:21] time. Counciloman, stack it up.
[2:31:22] >> Okay. Respectfully, this is your 17th
[2:31:25] year. Everyone is allowed to offer an
[2:31:27] amendment at any time and adopt it into
[2:31:29] the budget any time during this process.
[2:31:31] City manager and staff have offered an
[2:31:33] amendment. Okay.
[2:31:34] >> And technically, we could wait until the
[2:31:35] end and hope that we don't forget to to
[2:31:37] make a motion that says I move to adopt
[2:31:39] the budget with all these amendments
[2:31:41] that have been offered. I think that's
[2:31:43] sloppier. I would prefer if the
[2:31:45] amendments presented, whether it's from
[2:31:46] the staff or from you or from anyone,
[2:31:48] that we deal with it in the moment and
[2:31:49] adopt it. And then that way when we
[2:31:51] finally adopt the budget, everybody
[2:31:53] knows what's in it and if they support
[2:31:54] every change we've made, they can vote
[2:31:55] yes. And if they have issues with what
[2:31:57] we've done, they can say no on the
[2:31:58] budget and then we will have a path
[2:32:00] forward.
[2:32:00] >> That was my question. Thank you.
[2:32:01] >> So that that's how I'd like to make sure
[2:32:04] we all know what we're voting on at the
[2:32:05] end of the night of what's in front of
[2:32:07] us.
[2:32:08] >> Yeah.
[2:32:09] >> So any other comments or questions on
[2:32:11] this amendment, which is to just adopt
[2:32:13] the amendment in front of us?
[2:32:15] >> If there are none, I would ask this
[2:32:18] clerk to take our vote, please. No,
[2:32:19] we're adopting all.
[2:32:21] >> This is the vote to adopt this
[2:32:22] amendment.
[2:32:22] >> The whole thing?
[2:32:23] >> Yes, the whole thing.
[2:32:25] >> The whole thing.
[2:32:26] >> Just this amendment.
[2:32:27] >> This all 13. Yes, this amendment.
[2:32:31] >> Not the budget.
[2:32:32] >> Just thisud.
[2:32:38] » Calm down.
[2:32:38] >> How long you been here?
[2:32:41] >> I just want to make sure.
[2:32:43] >> I've been here too damn long.
[2:32:47] Some folks say you can't do an amendment
[2:32:48] till you get a motion.
[2:32:51] >> You can do what you want to do, Karen. N
[2:32:55] >> I'm just asking what we're doing.
[2:32:58] >> Okay, we have eight yes with council
[2:33:00] members Kell and Miller voting no. The
[2:33:02] motion carries.
[2:33:04] >> All right. So, that amendment has been
[2:33:05] adopted and is now part of the budget.
[2:33:07] So, we're back to just general
[2:33:08] conversation, discussion, suggestions,
[2:33:11] recommendations, amendments on our 27
[2:33:13] budget.
[2:33:19] anyone?
[2:33:23] » Council member Hiller. Well, I think
[2:33:25] everybody knows I've got lots of issues
[2:33:27] with this, but it sounds like where
[2:33:30] people are going is that we need to just
[2:33:32] get this adopted, but understand clearly
[2:33:36] that we're going to start working
[2:33:38] immediately on the programmatic and
[2:33:40] specific
[2:33:42] pieces of all these possible changes. So
[2:33:47] I would like to propose a proviso that
[2:33:49] would go with this motion
[2:33:52] that would uh the proviso would say that
[2:33:55] um
[2:33:59] all that all concerned are aware that
[2:34:02] various alterations and changes in
[2:34:04] personnel and programming will likely be
[2:34:08] needed starting immediately and through
[2:34:10] the 2027 year. and the city manager is
[2:34:13] expected to continue to invite the
[2:34:15] governing body's involvement in any
[2:34:18] reductions, additions, or changes.
[2:34:23] » Things not I I would second that. I
[2:34:25] mean, I think it's in line with things
[2:34:26] we've talked about that this is a living
[2:34:28] breathing budget and that while we've
[2:34:30] got this balanced budget, we know we've
[2:34:31] got challenges in the coming year just
[2:34:34] as we talked about whether it's sales
[2:34:35] tax or whether it's additional
[2:34:37] efficiencies, cuts, revisions to the
[2:34:39] budget. So I think that's what this
[2:34:41] proviso does is just say that we're
[2:34:43] committed to working through the budget
[2:34:45] as the year goes on and making decisions
[2:34:47] as the budget goes to help
[2:34:50] defer our 28 issues if we can to
[2:34:52] whatever level that means. So that
[2:34:55] that's all this proviso would do from my
[2:34:57] perspective. So I can second it.
[2:35:00] >> Can we hear from the attorney?
[2:35:04] >> I mean he's not going to be here much
[2:35:06] longer. I'd like to know what he thinks
[2:35:08] >> about provisos in general.
[2:35:11] >> Oh, okay.
[2:35:12] >> I I don't have any legal commentary on
[2:35:14] this improvis other than you can you can
[2:35:17] add it.
[2:35:19] That's my legal commentary. Anything
[2:35:21] else would be policy related and that's
[2:35:22] really not my that's really not my
[2:35:25] position.
[2:35:27] Well, well, to that point, provisors
[2:35:29] like this, I guess from legal
[2:35:30] perspective, are not, it
[2:35:32] >> it's not legally binding, correct?
[2:35:34] >> But it is direction for staff and for
[2:35:36] council as we work through it.
[2:35:38] >> It would be a commentary essentially.
[2:35:39] It's something that you're adding on
[2:35:41] >> to give direction, but it's not Yes,
[2:35:43] it's not legally binding.
[2:35:45] >> I may have misunderstood the question.
[2:35:46] Apologies.
[2:35:52] I think the flip side is we have so many
[2:35:54] moving parts here and and you know to
[2:35:57] have the city manager with this budget
[2:35:59] or even until then just be totally on
[2:36:01] his own about it when there's so many
[2:36:03] pieces to go through um just to make
[2:36:06] sure we we've committed as well as put
[2:36:08] on the table
[2:36:12] if I could.
[2:36:12] >> Yes, you may. I I just want to say again
[2:36:15] as as we mentioned earlier and as I've
[2:36:16] shared with y'all uh I do intend every
[2:36:18] month to have a budget discussion with
[2:36:21] you uh here in council. I've already
[2:36:23] told the staff every third uh every
[2:36:25] third meeting of the month again to go
[2:36:27] over our our status of our budget uh
[2:36:32] reported our strategic goals and then um
[2:36:34] also on our um
[2:36:38] performance metrics. So again sent that
[2:36:39] in the memo last Friday. So, I just want
[2:36:41] to make sure that council understands
[2:36:43] that that is the intent moving forward.
[2:36:44] So, uh again, as I mentioned, um we
[2:36:48] actually started this budget process. We
[2:36:49] had a first session in January, but we
[2:36:51] really started last October uh going
[2:36:53] through this. So, um so your points
[2:36:56] noted now. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor.
[2:36:58] >> So, we have a motion and a second on a
[2:37:00] proviso. I don't know if either council
[2:37:02] member Hiller or the city clerk would
[2:37:03] like to read it back to us before we
[2:37:05] take a vote.
[2:37:06] >> I can read what I've got and I've got it
[2:37:08] for you.
[2:37:08] >> Okay. So just to be clear, this you're
[2:37:11] approving the budget along with
[2:37:13] >> No, this is just on the proviso. We have
[2:37:16] a motion and a second just to adopt this
[2:37:19] proviso.
[2:37:20] >> Hold on.
[2:37:28] » Don't want to mess this up. It's the
[2:37:30] budget. We got to get it right.
[2:37:34] So were you going to read that or
[2:37:37] >> move to adopt with the proviso that all
[2:37:39] concerned are aware that various
[2:37:41] alterations and changes in personnel and
[2:37:43] programming will likely be needed
[2:37:45] starting immediately throughout the 2027
[2:37:48] year and the city manager is expected to
[2:37:50] continue to invite the governing body's
[2:37:51] involvement in any reductions, additions
[2:37:54] or changes.
[2:37:56] >> All right. So is everybody clear? We're
[2:37:57] just voting on the proviso to adopt it
[2:37:59] with the budget. So unless there are any
[2:38:02] other comments or questions on that, I
[2:38:03] will ask the city clerk to take a vote,
[2:38:05] please.
[2:38:09] » We had the motion in a second.
[2:38:11] >> Okay, there we go.
[2:38:15] >> I second it.
[2:38:16] >> Yeah,
[2:38:19] sorry.
[2:38:21] >> Gotcha.
[2:38:24] Council member Council Member Miller
[2:38:26] your vote.
[2:38:31] » I want to be clear. I just popped off
[2:38:33] one. I want to be clear on what I'm
[2:38:34] voting on.
[2:38:35] >> This is the proviso suggested by council
[2:38:37] member Hiller. Would you like me to read
[2:38:40] it again?
[2:38:42] >> Please. I I just got into
[2:38:44] >> Okay. The proviso is to move to adopt
[2:38:46] with the proviso that all concerned are
[2:38:48] aware that the various alterations and
[2:38:50] changes in personnel and programming
[2:38:51] will likely be needed starting
[2:38:53] immediately and throughout the 2027 year
[2:38:56] and the city manager is expected to
[2:38:58] continue to invite the governing body's
[2:38:59] involvement in in any reductions,
[2:39:01] additions, or changes.
[2:39:06] » Yes.
[2:39:10] » Okay, we have 10 yes. The motion
[2:39:11] carries.
[2:39:14] All right. Other comments, amendments,
[2:39:16] suggestions for the budget.
[2:39:22] » I'm going to make a few comments, then
[2:39:23] we'll see if we have a motion or what we
[2:39:25] want to do next. But I want to remind
[2:39:27] everybody, just the public out there and
[2:39:29] everybody, that this budget is about
[2:39:31] cuts. We said from day one, I repeated
[2:39:35] it as many times as I could, everywhere
[2:39:37] I could, so that everyone was prepared
[2:39:38] in terms of the public that we were
[2:39:39] going to have to make tough decisions.
[2:39:41] This budget does that. We did not
[2:39:44] increase the mill levy. Yes, we did not
[2:39:47] stay revenue neutral, but for the 15th
[2:39:48] year in a row, we did not increase the
[2:39:50] mill levy. We are capturing that 4 and
[2:39:52] a.5%.
[2:39:54] But I will tell you as you walk through,
[2:39:56] if you watched any of our presentations,
[2:39:57] that 4.5% does not even begin to cover
[2:40:00] the percentage increases in our public
[2:40:03] safety personnel salary increases alone.
[2:40:06] That 4 and a.5% does not cover that.
[2:40:09] Right. and and so that's not a knock.
[2:40:11] They needed the pay raise and we worked
[2:40:13] out those contracts and that's how we
[2:40:15] got here. But I think when people ask
[2:40:16] what our two primary drivers are of this
[2:40:19] year's budget issues and the next year's
[2:40:21] budget issues and ongoing, it's
[2:40:23] personnel and it's rising costs that we
[2:40:26] have no control over. We don't control
[2:40:28] what insurance is going to charge us or
[2:40:29] what asphalt costs or what the new cost
[2:40:32] to lay, you know, go out and purchase
[2:40:34] new water lines. Those are not costs we
[2:40:36] control. So, we did make the decision
[2:40:39] within those constraints to cut over $10
[2:40:42] million out of this budget. To put that
[2:40:45] in perspective, this budget is less than
[2:40:48] $500,000
[2:40:50] more than last year's budget. This
[2:40:53] budget is less than half a percent
[2:40:55] increase than last year's budget. So, I
[2:40:58] understand people's frustration when we
[2:41:00] made the decision not to stay revenue
[2:41:02] neutral, but I will push back against
[2:41:04] the narrative that we are out there just
[2:41:06] spending like crazy and that we've
[2:41:08] increased our spending and that we've
[2:41:09] gone wild. We haven't. We made the cuts
[2:41:13] that we needed to make to get to this
[2:41:15] budget and the numbers bear that out and
[2:41:17] the percentages bear that out. I think
[2:41:19] all of us acknowledge in this room, we
[2:41:21] would have loved to stay revenue
[2:41:22] neutral. We'd love to cut the mill levy.
[2:41:24] We'd love to do all those things. We are
[2:41:26] not in a budgetary position to do so,
[2:41:28] but we've managed to make those tough
[2:41:30] choices that we talked about tonight.
[2:41:33] Whether it's our SRO program, whether
[2:41:35] it's the positions that we've eliminated
[2:41:37] or frozen, whether it's the projects
[2:41:38] that we've had to move around, right?
[2:41:41] Whether it's the equipment we're not
[2:41:42] buying or that we're pushing off, we did
[2:41:45] decide to go that route as opposed to
[2:41:47] the other routes we could have, which is
[2:41:49] just simple one of finding ways to raise
[2:41:51] revenue. And so I I do appreciate, as
[2:41:55] I've said before, and I'll reiterate
[2:41:56] again, we asked staff to help us make
[2:41:58] those tough decisions all the way from
[2:42:00] the city manager's office to the finance
[2:42:02] department, but to every department head
[2:42:04] who then had to go to their staff at
[2:42:06] every level and say, "We've got to make
[2:42:08] changes here, folks, because this is the
[2:42:10] budget reality." And so everybody who
[2:42:13] works for this city at every level
[2:42:14] deserves a thank you for understanding
[2:42:16] our situation for working within these
[2:42:19] constraints and for providing input
[2:42:21] through this process. Everybody up here
[2:42:24] on this days deserves thank you for I
[2:42:27] know at some days Josh was like oh my
[2:42:29] gosh that's enough emails please. But
[2:42:31] those conversations were important to
[2:42:33] making sure that everybody understood
[2:42:35] what the issues were and how we get to
[2:42:36] these decisions. So I just want to
[2:42:38] reiterate to the public it's not a
[2:42:40] perfect budget. There's always things we
[2:42:42] wish we could do better, but it's a
[2:42:44] pretty slim budget compared to where we
[2:42:45] were last year. We did not increase our
[2:42:47] spending significantly. And that is very
[2:42:50] important and it's not something every
[2:42:52] city is doing right now. And so I I I
[2:42:56] just want the public to understand that.
[2:42:57] And as you heard tonight with the
[2:42:58] proviso that we've added and with the
[2:43:00] conversations we've had on on future
[2:43:02] budget years, we all understand we're
[2:43:04] going to have some other decisions to
[2:43:05] make as we move forward. We got to be
[2:43:07] fluid and flexible and and ready to
[2:43:09] continue to to take a real close look at
[2:43:11] all of this spending. But I also think,
[2:43:14] as I said before, I'm proud of the fact
[2:43:15] that two years we've had to make tough
[2:43:17] choices. And yes, we have frozen
[2:43:19] positions and yes, we aren't filling
[2:43:21] positions. We also haven't laid anybody
[2:43:23] off, right? And we have a plan, I think,
[2:43:25] over the next few years to also continue
[2:43:27] to maybe reduce some positions. I'm not
[2:43:29] sure what that looks like, but I do tell
[2:43:31] staff we can do it in a way that again
[2:43:34] lets the people who work for us know
[2:43:36] your job is safe. We appreciate what you
[2:43:39] do and we're going to continue to work
[2:43:40] towards a path that focuses on unfilled
[2:43:43] positions and when people leave making
[2:43:46] tough decisions as to what we do with
[2:43:47] that position. So, I I think that's what
[2:43:49] everyone's committed to and I just
[2:43:51] wanted to put some of those numbers out
[2:43:52] there for people to understand that we
[2:43:54] did make cuts this year as opposed to
[2:43:56] going the route of just looking for new
[2:43:58] revenue. And they've been it's been a
[2:43:59] tough process, but it's also what we
[2:44:01] were elected to do. There's nothing more
[2:44:03] important than getting a budget done
[2:44:04] because everything else flows through
[2:44:06] it. So, thank you to everybody for their
[2:44:07] work on that. Um,
[2:44:10] and so I'm not going to make a motion to
[2:44:12] approve it yet, unless cuz I don't want
[2:44:13] to cut off conversation. If anyone has
[2:44:15] more amendments, but if not, then a
[2:44:17] motion is always in order and I'm happy
[2:44:18] to make it if the time comes.
[2:44:22] Any other comments or questions from the
[2:44:24] governing body on the 2027 budget?
[2:44:28] Council member Ortiz,
[2:44:32] I have a question for Josh.
[2:44:35] I'm not going to let him get out of
[2:44:36] here. As nice as he looks, I want him on
[2:44:38] the screen.
[2:44:40] He did take my advice and dressed up for
[2:44:43] the last meeting here. So,
[2:44:45] >> I know HR's here. They're listening.
[2:44:47] Josh, um,
[2:44:50] you know, um, I think me and you've
[2:44:52] talked about this before, like Wade came
[2:44:55] in and changed and, you know, now they
[2:44:58] get so much money for food and stuff
[2:45:00] like that. What is the total amount on
[2:45:03] that for all departments if we were to
[2:45:05] cut that out?
[2:45:06] >> I think when we talked it's about
[2:45:08] $48,000. Now, some of that is co binding
[2:45:11] to meal allowances and evening
[2:45:13] contracts. So, take that out. It's about
[2:45:14] probably I think $48,000.
[2:45:16] >> 48. Okay. All right.
[2:45:19] Um,
[2:45:24] can you tell me in the fire department,
[2:45:26] do we is our um safety guy in for this
[2:45:29] year or was he taken out for 2028
[2:45:33] >> safety position?
[2:45:34] >> He's in there.
[2:45:35] >> He No, he Yeah, he's in there.
[2:45:36] >> He's in See, this is what happens when
[2:45:38] you start throwing a lot at me. I'm just
[2:45:39] a one-year girl.
[2:45:41] >> So, he's in there for 2027.
[2:45:43] >> Yes, ma'am. Uh what we did in the fire
[2:45:45] department was freeze 10 firefighter
[2:45:46] positions uh in 2027. I'll remind you
[2:45:49] that we have uh seven firefighters in a
[2:45:51] battalion chief frozen for 2026. So uh
[2:45:54] they the increment is basically um two
[2:45:57] more positions that we're freezing and
[2:45:59] fire.
[2:45:59] >> Okay. So Josh, we're holding the
[2:46:02] position just not putting no money
[2:46:04] there. Is that what we're doing? Because
[2:46:05] I know it was explained to me and you
[2:46:06] talked about that.
[2:46:07] >> Mhm.
[2:46:08] >> Okay.
[2:46:10] Josh, do you see anywhere else we could
[2:46:12] cut? No, I think it it it comes down to
[2:46:15] they what service levels you want to
[2:46:16] balance. So, right now, and we kind of
[2:46:19] shared last week, we're operating more
[2:46:20] services than more revenue. So, we're
[2:46:22] going to have to focus on what services
[2:46:23] do we want to really value as a city.
[2:46:25] So, we can either do a lot of services
[2:46:28] um but that requires more revenue or we
[2:46:29] just don't do them well or we can do
[2:46:31] less services and with the revenue we
[2:46:33] have. So, that's that's literally what
[2:46:34] it comes down to. And then the two major
[2:46:37] things we spend money on are personnel
[2:46:39] and capital project costs. And if there
[2:46:42] is no, we have a structural imbalance.
[2:46:44] So if there's no tax increase, those are
[2:46:46] the first things that have to be cut.
[2:46:47] That's just the reality.
[2:46:49] >> Josh did remind me it's about the badge.
[2:46:52] Wait a minute. Let me get it right. It's
[2:46:53] about the badge, the the shield,
[2:46:58] >> shovel hose badge.
[2:46:59] He put it to me like
[2:47:01] that.
[2:47:02] >> Can you do that again, Josh? It was the
[2:47:04] shovel hose and the badge. Yeah.
[2:47:07] Remember, you got it.
[2:47:09] >> All right. Thank you. All
[2:47:12] right. Well, if there's no other
[2:47:13] questions or comments, we have a motion
[2:47:15] to approve the 2027 budget from Council
[2:47:17] Member Kell, a second from myself.
[2:47:22] Any other comments or questions before
[2:47:23] we take a vote on the 2027 budget?
[2:47:28] » Council member Belo,
[2:47:30] >> just, you know, I'm going to vote for
[2:47:31] the budget. Um there
[2:47:35] I think what gives me more peace of mind
[2:47:39] knowing of voting yes for this budget
[2:47:42] are what we have coming down the pike
[2:47:44] which is going to be the emphasis on
[2:47:49] an internal auditor which I believe is a
[2:47:53] very serious commitment that we're
[2:47:55] making so that the people can understand
[2:47:59] that we are trying to look at everything
[2:48:01] when we look at these looming deficits
[2:48:06] and not just depending on let's try to
[2:48:10] get more money out of sales tax. So,
[2:48:15] I'm still in the way of the forensic
[2:48:18] audit. We'll see what happens with this
[2:48:20] internal auditor. Um, and so I just
[2:48:24] needed to say that. Thank you.
[2:48:26] >> Thank you.
[2:48:30] » Anyone else?
[2:48:32] Yeah.
[2:48:32] >> Oh, sorry, Council Member Hill.
[2:48:33] >> And I haven't voted for the budget for
[2:48:35] the last couple of years and I will this
[2:48:38] evening um based on the fact that we
[2:48:42] have really broken it open. I think um
[2:48:45] in terms of all of us understanding
[2:48:47] what's at stake and my provisal was
[2:48:50] important to me and I it sounds like to
[2:48:52] all of you that we you know we'll talk
[2:48:54] about the sales taxes in two weeks and
[2:48:57] three weeks and and so on, but really
[2:48:59] get inside those. We've kicked it off.
[2:49:01] We've just got a lot of work to do, but
[2:49:04] seems like we have a framework. I
[2:49:05] appreciate that on the part of
[2:49:07] everybody, staff, council, and the
[2:49:10] public has really weighed in as well.
[2:49:12] Thank you.
[2:49:17] » All right. Any other council member
[2:49:18] Miller?
[2:49:21] >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, I would just like
[2:49:22] to second that I do also appreciate the
[2:49:25] fact of how much work was put in into
[2:49:27] the exact cuts that are going to be made
[2:49:29] or that are proposed to be made. I know
[2:49:31] that job that is not easy. Um, and I may not like every single piece of the
[2:49:36] decisions that have been made or the
[2:49:38] ideas that are on the table. Um, but
[2:49:41] that's okay. It's part of this job. Um,
[2:49:43] I don't have to agree with everything.
[2:49:45] Uh, but I do appreciate the work that
[2:49:47] was that's been done to get us to this
[2:49:50] point. Um, it looks more robust than
[2:49:52] anything I've ever seen, even since
[2:49:54] before I even started thinking about the
[2:49:55] council. So, I do appreciate that. Thank
[2:49:58] you.
[2:50:04] » Any other comments or Council Member
[2:50:05] Ortiz?
[2:50:07] >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm going to
[2:50:09] support this budget and I want to
[2:50:12] personally thank Josh. Josh, you're
[2:50:14] going to be missed by me by me and my
[2:50:17] questions. And I appreciate how you have
[2:50:20] taken the time. You were patient and um
[2:50:23] you know this like the back of your
[2:50:25] hand. I will need your sale number for
[2:50:27] next year to remind me what happened
[2:50:29] this year. But um you're going to be
[2:50:32] missed and you're you're a valuable
[2:50:35] employee and um thank you for all the
[2:50:38] hard work that you've done. Thank you
[2:50:39] for helping me understand it and thank
[2:50:42] you for helping even the community with
[2:50:43] their questions.
[2:50:44] >> I appreciate that. Thank you.
[2:50:51] » Anybody else?
[2:50:54] If not, then I'm going to ask the clerk
[2:50:57] to take the vote, please. Just to be
[2:50:59] clear, we're voting on the 2027 budget.
[2:51:03] >> Council member Miller, your vote.
[2:51:05] >> Yes.
[2:51:07] Guess
[2:51:14] we're voting on the 27 budget as
[2:51:15] amended, by the way.
[2:51:17] >> Correct.
[2:51:17] >> I know the city clerk already knew that.
[2:51:20] She's been here a little while, too. She
[2:51:22] knows what's up.
[2:51:23] >> All right, we have 10. Yes, the motion
[2:51:25] carries.
[2:51:26] >> All right,
[2:51:29] with that, we will move on to public
[2:51:30] comment. We have several people signed
[2:51:33] up this evening. We'll begin with
[2:51:35] Reverend Julie Mcola. No, that was
[2:51:38] >> Oh, you're done. All right. Well, then
[2:51:40] we're up to
[2:51:41] >> No, you're good. Ralph Anderson is next
[2:51:42] on my list.
[2:51:57] » Good evening,
[2:51:59] Mr. Mayor, Dr. City Manager, ladies and
[2:52:03] gentlemen, city council and citizens of
[2:52:06] Topeka that are watching. I dress you
[2:52:09] only as a born citizen of Topeka.
[2:52:14] I've come to realize Topeka is broken.
[2:52:18] Even our election method is broken.
[2:52:22] Voting is not a popularity contest or a
[2:52:25] beauty contest or a my party over yours
[2:52:30] contest.
[2:52:32] It should be about listening to the
[2:52:34] candidates and picking the person who
[2:52:37] can serve the citizens first and best.
[2:52:42] That is for we the voting citizens to
[2:52:46] take care of.
[2:52:48] And to say government is not in business
[2:52:51] to make a profit.
[2:52:53] Is to serve the citizens rich, poor,
[2:52:56] worker, business owner or homeless
[2:53:00] equally.
[2:53:04] We do not have a chief executive
[2:53:07] officer, a chief operations officer, and
[2:53:11] a board of directors.
[2:53:13] We don't want a profit or loss
[2:53:15] statement. A surplus is when you didn't
[2:53:19] serve the citizens fully.
[2:53:22] A defeat is when you didn't use your
[2:53:24] money properly and overspent.
[2:53:30] This is tax money we paid to make
[2:53:33] everyone in Topeka's life safer and as
[2:53:37] comfortable as possible.
[2:53:39] Topeka is not a metropolis.
[2:53:42] It may not be for the lifetime of even
[2:53:45] the newest newborn in Topeka.
[2:53:49] Do we need six plus lane expressway in
[2:53:51] downtown so visiting jurist and city uh
[2:53:56] visitors can just zoom right on through?
[2:54:00] I don't know.
[2:54:05] Do we need more traffic circles on the
[2:54:08] edge of town?
[2:54:11] driving in town. I have to wonder if
[2:54:13] some people can even match driving in a
[2:54:15] straight line.
[2:54:18] I mean,
[2:54:20] do we need to give tax breaks to
[2:54:22] businesses here that when that tax break
[2:54:25] is over, they'll move on to the next
[2:54:28] city that offers them a tax break?
[2:54:32] We need to take care of each other,
[2:54:36] not hire alert people from other cities
[2:54:39] and states that have no investment in
[2:54:41] Topeka's history.
[2:54:44] I was born in Topeka.
[2:54:47] I've lived here most of my life and love
[2:54:50] the history of the city and my family in
[2:54:54] this town.
[2:54:55] I joined organizations that try to work
[2:54:58] with city council,
[2:55:01] which hasn't proved totally successful.
[2:55:04] I care about people. I want enough
[2:55:07] police to have safety and traffic
[2:55:10] enforcement. An area the homeless can
[2:55:13] camp where they won't be treated like
[2:55:15] criminals.
[2:55:17] and
[2:55:19] owe my neighbors
[2:55:22] in a safe place where they can sleep.
[2:55:27] You're not helping with tax increases.
[2:55:30] Raise taxes mean the owners must
[2:55:32] increase rent, which means some people
[2:55:35] are going to be forced out of their
[2:55:37] homes or else,
[2:55:40] you know, just not afford be able to
[2:55:42] afford to t that the rent. they'll move
[2:55:46] out of town or they become homeless.
[2:55:49] Let's get realistic budget and some
[2:55:52] realistic plans that help all of us to
[2:55:56] be every one of us.
[2:56:00] Ask yourself, what would Jesus do if he
[2:56:04] is on the city council?
[2:56:06] Thank you.
[2:56:07] >> Thank you, Ralph.
[2:56:08] >> I have a question,
[2:56:11] mayor. Okay. This isn't
[2:56:13] >> it's something you you can ask
[2:56:15] yourselves.
[2:56:16] >> Okay.
[2:56:20] » Will this Hutch
[2:56:23] development,
[2:56:26] do we have any guarantees it won't end
[2:56:28] up like the apartment complex
[2:56:33] out at the uh former Topeka hospital
[2:56:36] grounds.
[2:56:38] It's been sitting there for two years
[2:56:41] closed.
[2:56:42] >> I'll tell you what, leave your email and
[2:56:43] I can answer both those questions for
[2:56:45] you. All right. If you leave your I
[2:56:46] think I even have your email still, but
[2:56:48] if not, if you could leave your email
[2:56:49] with the clerk before you leave tonight,
[2:56:51] I'll make sure I get you answers on
[2:56:52] what's happening with both of those
[2:56:54] projects.
[2:56:54] >> Okay.
[2:56:55] >> Thank you.
[2:56:59] » Next up, we have Henry Mccclure.
[2:57:07] My name's Henry Mccclure. Good evening,
[2:57:10] your honor. I'm a native Topeka.
[2:57:15] What did you know and when do you know
[2:57:17] it?
[2:57:19] What did you know and when did you know
[2:57:22] it? That was the common theme
[2:57:25] during Watergate.
[2:57:27] What did you know and when did you know
[2:57:29] it? So, let's talk about I think I've
[2:57:32] uncovered
[2:57:35] some places where your contractor
[2:57:38] goa
[2:57:40] who manages the $5 million in economic
[2:57:43] development
[2:57:44] is breaking the law.
[2:57:47] So, now you know that I and I think I've
[2:57:50] made a pretty decent case. I've emailed
[2:57:52] it all to you. I'll leave it here as
[2:57:54] public record.
[2:57:56] What did you know and when did you know
[2:57:58] it?
[2:58:00] I can't change it. You guys could change
[2:58:02] it today. It was interesting.
[2:58:05] It was really interesting to uh hear
[2:58:07] some of this stuff and then your epistle
[2:58:10] at the end about the the numbers that
[2:58:13] you gave. We haven't talked about we
[2:58:18] didn't talk about the use of all these
[2:58:21] funds. We didn't talk about the hotel.
[2:58:24] We didn't talk about AT&T, but we we we
[2:58:27] haven't talked about the $125 million
[2:58:32] of the current sales tax. And the
[2:58:34] current sales tax was supposed to be the
[2:58:36] silver bullet, the magic pill. It was
[2:58:39] going to be the thing that was going to
[2:58:40] make our city grow. We were going to uh
[2:58:43] broaden the tax base.
[2:58:46] We were going to increase the
[2:58:48] population. And as a businessman, being
[2:58:51] the uh
[2:58:54] a co-developer of the business park,
[2:58:58] I've been a part of this longer than
[2:59:01] anybody in here
[2:59:03] and watched it as a businessman through
[2:59:05] the eyes of business. So, here's what's
[2:59:08] interesting. these these funds where go
[2:59:12] your contractor is breaking the law that
[2:59:15] nullifies I think that should nullify
[2:59:18] their contract
[2:59:20] then all of a sudden you guys have got
[2:59:22] $5 million to figure out how to uh divvy
[2:59:25] it up with the county. You got four
[2:59:28] votes on Jetto.
[2:59:31] How can you how can you go forward
[2:59:35] knowing and and the thing about oop the
[2:59:38] thing about it
[2:59:40] is this is just I mean you you guys keep
[2:59:43] talking about an auditor.
[2:59:46] Well, you yourselves are saying there's
[2:59:48] something fishy here in River City.
[2:59:51] Get that auditor to start going through
[2:59:54] every bit of Jetto. How many if you've
[2:59:56] been to Jetto meetings, there's all this
[2:59:58] whizbang. Hey, you're going to get a 39%
[3:00:01] ROI. You're going to get these huge
[3:00:04] returns on investment,
[3:00:06] but it's not working. So, when do you look at your contractor and
[3:00:13] say, "Well, not only are you breaking
[3:00:15] the law now, we need to investigate the
[3:00:18] whole shoot and match and audit it all."
[3:00:21] You haven't performed for the beginning.
[3:00:24] sales tax is a great way to uh fund uh
[3:00:28] the community. It's a great way because
[3:00:31] we import so many dollars from, you
[3:00:35] know, our MSA outside of Shauny County.
[3:00:37] It's a great way to do it, but it's hard
[3:00:40] to support it
[3:00:43] when the the sales tax you've got now
[3:00:46] isn't being shephered appropriately.
[3:00:51] Josh's mom, Amy, watches these shows.
[3:00:55] And I want to tell Amy that you you got
[3:00:58] to be proud of your son. Man, what a
[3:00:59] good kid. And I'm glad he's moving on.
[3:01:02] I appreciate the opportunity to come
[3:01:04] talk to you. What did you know? And when
[3:01:08] did you know it?
[3:01:11] Next up, we have Miss Daniel Twimmel.
[3:01:26] Okay, thank you for the 2027 budget. So
[3:01:29] there I said that and I didn't sign up
[3:01:32] to speak on that because um didn't want
[3:01:35] to complicate what was already there and
[3:01:37] the hard work that had already been
[3:01:38] done. But um I do want to address some
[3:01:42] things that we can look at moving
[3:01:44] forward as we're looking at creative
[3:01:46] ways. Um I do want to reiterate that
[3:01:49] yes, while the RHID has the purpose for
[3:01:52] any housing needs that we do have within
[3:01:55] our our local ordinance that um it
[3:01:58] should meet the needs of that housing
[3:01:59] study, which we stretch that very very
[3:02:05] thinly to include absolutely everything.
[3:02:07] And as we're seeing um we have outpaced
[3:02:10] ourselves on that luxury and high-end
[3:02:11] and we should really be using those
[3:02:13] incentives um to offset costs on the
[3:02:16] housing that we really need for that low
[3:02:19] to moderate income affordable housing.
[3:02:21] But did you know that we could also be
[3:02:23] really creative with the RHID? is the
[3:02:25] city can actually um collect the RHID
[3:02:30] funds if they do infrastructure
[3:02:32] development around a housing unit that
[3:02:34] is either being rehabilitated or built
[3:02:37] instead of giving it to the developer.
[3:02:39] So if it aligns with infrastructure
[3:02:42] needs or putting sidewalks or gutters or
[3:02:44] replacing the water line that we in turn
[3:02:46] could do that work and collect that
[3:02:49] incremental increase. So we need to be
[3:02:51] looking at some of those more creative
[3:02:53] ways that are going to benefit us
[3:02:54] instead of people who are already making
[3:02:57] millions of dollars. Um so this is a
[3:03:00] very common thing when we have a budget
[3:03:01] deficit and a population loss and talked
[3:03:03] about this many times that u
[3:03:05] municipalities often keep looking at
[3:03:07] ways that you know the instinct to chase
[3:03:10] growth um one more development one more
[3:03:12] incentive package one more ribbon
[3:03:14] cutting um but none of the data supports
[3:03:17] that and we know that city planning
[3:03:20] engineers over and over again show that
[3:03:24] we need to slow that type of growth. We
[3:03:27] need to focus on our infrastructure that
[3:03:30] is currently here um and the current
[3:03:33] people, our current tax base and the
[3:03:35] things that they need. Um we're not
[3:03:37] going to get fixed by a big data center
[3:03:40] or another development that we must
[3:03:42] optimize our current tax base. And this
[3:03:44] logic applies on how we handle this
[3:03:46] debt. We're not currently maximizing the
[3:03:50] transient uh guest tax dollars like we
[3:03:52] absolutely could. Um I see cuts all over
[3:03:55] the place. um for um jobs within the
[3:03:59] city, but nothing was really discussed
[3:04:01] on how we were going to stop
[3:04:03] incentivizing luxury or high-end
[3:04:05] development or how we could kind of
[3:04:08] improve on a 2025 ordinance where um we
[3:04:12] were collecting um some of that
[3:04:14] incremental increase on the transient
[3:04:16] gas tax. we have the power and authority
[3:04:19] to go ahead and stop that type of
[3:04:21] economic or slow that economic
[3:04:23] development growth for a period of time
[3:04:25] and pay off um more of the hotel um
[3:04:30] bonds that we have. That is going to
[3:04:33] lower the amount of time we're spending
[3:04:34] on paying back that hotel and decrease
[3:04:37] the amount of um interest that we will
[3:04:40] be paying and free up that general fund
[3:04:42] balance. So, we can slow that kind of
[3:04:45] economic development for a while. and
[3:04:46] it's within our purview to do so. So,
[3:04:49] looking at all of these creative ways
[3:04:51] that we can free up money, um when we're
[3:04:54] looking at ways that we're going to keep
[3:04:56] taxing people, um we have to do better,
[3:05:00] right? We have to do better and there's
[3:05:02] lots and lots of ways to do that. So, I
[3:05:05] am hopeful that this um audit will
[3:05:08] happen very soon so that by the time
[3:05:10] we're looking at that 2028 budget, we
[3:05:12] can be seeing how some of these
[3:05:14] different ways that we could be um
[3:05:16] finding dollars to be spent more
[3:05:18] effectively um in the short term so that
[3:05:21] we are not nickel and dimming our
[3:05:23] citizens out of their homes.
[3:05:28] » Thank you.
[3:05:30] All right.
[3:05:32] With that, I don't have anyone else
[3:05:34] signed up for public comment. We will
[3:05:36] move on to announcements. City clerk,
[3:05:39] >> there is no meeting next week.
[3:05:43] >> City manager. Thank you, mayor. Um, I
[3:05:46] just wanted to announce uh that this
[3:05:48] evening would be uh Josh McCannernney's
[3:05:51] last budget meeting or I'm sorry, uh
[3:05:54] council meeting. Um, and just wanted to
[3:05:57] say thank you for the last few years,
[3:06:00] man. like it's been it's been fun and
[3:06:02] learned a lot from you too. Um so I just
[3:06:05] uh just um not happy to see you go. Um
[3:06:08] but to council member Ortiz's point um
[3:06:11] you look good, you look sharp, you're
[3:06:13] ready to move on to the next the next
[3:06:14] level. So congratulations and good luck.
[3:06:16] >> I also want to announce mayor that this
[3:06:18] evening will be uh Nick Jefferson's
[3:06:20] final council meeting as well. Um Nick,
[3:06:24] you've been an amazing city attorney
[3:06:25] over the last year. here. I think that
[3:06:27] uh got nothing but rave reviews from uh the team uh on what you've
[3:06:34] brought to the office and I hope that
[3:06:36] you do get bored in your next role and
[3:06:38] you come back. Um but uh but just want
[3:06:41] to make that announcement to just let you both know I'm very appreciative
[3:06:44] of having had the opportunity to work
[3:06:46] with y'all and good luck to both of you.
[3:06:49] >> Thank you, Mayor.
[3:06:49] >> Thank you.
[3:06:51] >> All right, Councilman Vivcala.
[3:06:55] Good luck to both um
[3:06:59] Nick and
[3:07:01] to Josh.
[3:07:03] Um seems like we're losing a lot of
[3:07:05] folks, but um good travels to you. Just
[3:07:10] a couple of quick things. Uh deepest
[3:07:13] condolences once the name was released
[3:07:15] are definitely due to 9-year-old
[3:07:18] Alexander Hona, I think it was. his
[3:07:22] family was part of that devastating fire
[3:07:24] on the 100 block of Northeast Coach
[3:07:27] Light in the trailer park. Um
[3:07:32] there's no words to say how horrific it
[3:07:35] was listening to witness testimony and
[3:07:39] um kudos to the fire department. I want
[3:07:42] to make sure and talk to Chief Long
[3:07:45] staff to see how that doortodoor went
[3:07:47] with
[3:07:49] um having fire detectors and telling
[3:07:52] folks how to put them in or how the fire
[3:07:55] department can help uh put them into the
[3:07:58] households. Um,
[3:08:00] also,
[3:08:02] um, just kudos to how quickly,
[3:08:08] uh, the Topeka Police Department was
[3:08:11] able to identify,
[3:08:13] um, a suspect in the Noto double
[3:08:16] homicide.
[3:08:18] um that
[3:08:21] shortly after it happened, um one of the
[3:08:24] business owners in Noto um
[3:08:28] sent me an invitation to go into their
[3:08:30] chat into their neighborhood kind of
[3:08:32] watch chat room. And I honestly believe
[3:08:37] that everything was moved along so
[3:08:40] quickly because of the immense help that
[3:08:43] the Nto businesses slash those that live
[3:08:46] there. Also with the voluminous amount
[3:08:50] of video footage that they had, camera
[3:08:53] footage which offered excellent
[3:08:56] uh photos for identification
[3:08:59] and um I know that it was very traumatic
[3:09:02] for everyone. Obviously the loss of life
[3:09:06] no matter how it came about was
[3:09:07] terrible. Um you know the
[3:09:13] just reaching out with a real sense of
[3:09:16] gratitude that Jennifer and John
[3:09:19] Bolander were okay as well and all of
[3:09:23] the folks and businesses
[3:09:26] um along that notto strip. And I know
[3:09:29] that they are a resilient community and
[3:09:32] I also believe that this was tragic and isolated. So hopefully it
[3:09:38] will not keep people from visiting the
[3:09:41] area and also kudos to the capital um
[3:09:44] police capital peace project that was
[3:09:47] out there I think today with signs about
[3:09:50] stopping the violence. Thank you, Mayor.
[3:09:53] >> Council member Ortiz.
[3:09:56] >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, first, Brenda,
[3:10:00] do we have a meeting on the 26th or the
[3:10:03] 29th?
[3:10:05] >> Uh-huh. Cuz you said there's no meeting
[3:10:07] next week. That's the 22nd.
[3:10:09] >> Yeah, there's no no meetings on the
[3:10:11] fourth or fifth Tuesday of any month
[3:10:12] unless it's a special.
[3:10:13] >> Just want to make sure. Just want to
[3:10:14] make sure. I just
[3:10:15] >> I told you yes. And see if you showed
[3:10:16] up.
[3:10:17] >> Well, I wasn't.
[3:10:22] » Just make sure that city manager hears
[3:10:24] us loud and clear. We need a break. I need to go to Chicago
[3:10:28] real quick. So, I don't I don't need
[3:10:30] that. Um Nick, it's been a pleasure.
[3:10:33] Maybe we can do a proviso and bring you
[3:10:35] back or something. I don't know. It's
[3:10:38] that gray area, you know. But, um I
[3:10:40] appreciate that. Appreciate what you've
[3:10:42] done. Um so, good luck to you. Um
[3:10:47] East North and South um not this
[3:10:50] weekend, but the next weekend, September
[3:10:53] the 26th is fight the blight, drag it to
[3:10:55] the curve. There's no kids. You got to
[3:10:57] keep your kids. They want all of your
[3:11:00] unwanted items out there by 7:00. So,
[3:11:03] um, let's get that get that trash out
[3:11:06] there. We We've had a had a lot of
[3:11:08] dumping and I know our residents are on
[3:11:10] alert. We're trying to catch these
[3:11:12] people that are dumping. But if you do
[3:11:14] see a mattress or a chair or something,
[3:11:16] just drag it to your curb so it can get
[3:11:18] picked up. So, um, hopefully the weather
[3:11:20] will be right. We're really excited
[3:11:22] about that. to my buddy Josh there. When
[3:11:24] I seen him come through the door, I
[3:11:26] said, "He has graduated. He's got his
[3:11:28] graduating
[3:11:31] suit on." So, he has graduated. And
[3:11:34] you've done a great job, Josh. A great
[3:11:37] job. I just I just can't say that
[3:11:38] enough. Um, you listen to your mom. You
[3:11:42] got your hair cut and you put that suit
[3:11:44] on. You look so You look better than
[3:11:46] Banks tonight. And I don't say that a
[3:11:48] lot. I don't say that like, but you're
[3:11:49] in the you're in the running there.
[3:11:51] you're in the running. So, good luck to
[3:11:54] you. They're going to treat you right
[3:11:55] over there cuz I worked over there and
[3:11:57] you're going to have so much fun. And um
[3:12:00] dig into the cases. That's what's
[3:12:01] exciting. Ask Nick. Ask Nick about them
[3:12:03] Supreme Court cases. So, again, good
[3:12:06] luck to you and keep keep dressing up.
[3:12:10] Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
[3:12:11] >> Council member Banks.
[3:12:14] >> Thank you, Mayor. I'd just like to say
[3:12:17] thank you to Nick and Josh for all those
[3:12:20] times I come in needing help, especially
[3:12:23] with numbers. I really appreciate that.
[3:12:27] Also like to give a shout out to my
[3:12:29] youngest grandson
[3:12:31] who is on his way to being a better
[3:12:34] athlete than his grandpa.
[3:12:37] >> Kid is really amazing. So shout out
[3:12:39] Isaiah. Thank you, Mayor.
[3:12:42] >> Council member Kell. Well, the count can
[3:12:45] help you with numbers. So, uh I want to
[3:12:48] say thank you to Nick and to Josh. Um
[3:12:51] great to work with. Uh people I I could
[3:12:54] trust and lean on and get information
[3:12:56] from. Uh I worked a lot closer and
[3:12:59] longer with Josh and and I felt like he
[3:13:01] was my most trusted employee that when it came from him, it was the truth.
[3:13:05] And and not not to knock any other
[3:13:07] employee, but this was one of those
[3:13:08] things of when he shoving all those
[3:13:11] numbers around all the time. It's one of
[3:13:12] those things of uh it always pinned out
[3:13:14] the way it was supposed to.
[3:13:17] All right, as you see, I'm wearing my
[3:13:19] duck tie, my duck pin. The C uh COMA
[3:13:22] Club of Topeka Duck Race is on the uh
[3:13:25] 26th. You can still buy your ducks.
[3:13:28] There is a lot of uh lot of good prizes
[3:13:31] out there and the Chroma Club
[3:13:35] uh have helped out so many causes. uh
[3:13:37] this is I think the u
[3:13:41] 30th year that they've done this. So uh
[3:13:44] thanking to them for for taking care of
[3:13:46] our community and being involved in our
[3:13:48] community. Um also on October 3rd is the
[3:13:52] childcare aware celebrity suare. I will
[3:13:54] be involved with that. I kind of float
[3:13:57] around and do different things. I'm not
[3:13:58] one of the celebrity waiters but I help
[3:14:00] out where I can. And finally, uh, when
[3:14:03] it comes to notto, um,
[3:14:08] that was that was a scary moment and,
[3:14:10] uh, one of the councilomans, uh,
[3:14:13] mentioned, uh, Jen at, uh, at the tattoo
[3:14:15] parlor there, and,
[3:14:18] uh, she's, she's very involved in, and
[3:14:19] no doub
[3:14:23] I I, you know, I trust very much with
[3:14:25] her opinion, but also with my body cuz
[3:14:27] she does all my artwork on me. Um but uh that was a scary moment uh to uh you
[3:14:34] know hear about. But uh she did mention
[3:14:37] that the the officers involved were uh
[3:14:40] very professional and and very very
[3:14:42] compassionate. And so uh but my wife and
[3:14:46] um I and our youngest daughter went to
[3:14:48] Nto on u Friday night to spend some
[3:14:50] money cuz notto is an arts district but
[3:14:53] is also a business district. So, uh, I
[3:14:55] know some people are sitting there
[3:14:56] saying, "Oh, I'm going to stay away from
[3:14:57] NTO. It's dangerous and all that."
[3:14:58] That's a very isolated incident. Uh, so
[3:15:01] please don't don't avoid Noto because
[3:15:03] you think it's unsafe. To me, it's a
[3:15:04] very safe neighborhood. It's a very, uh,
[3:15:07] involved neighborhood. So, please make
[3:15:09] sure you go go there. But, uh, I wanted
[3:15:11] to make sure that I was supporting Nodo and their in their
[3:15:15] businesses they have there. So, uh, if
[3:15:17] you had the time, especially on a first
[3:15:19] Friday, go up there and check it out.
[3:15:21] Thank you.
[3:15:23] >> Council Member Miller.
[3:15:27] » Thank you, Mayor. Um, I I do also want
[3:15:31] to appreciate, Nick, and I I think that
[3:15:35] you and I have had some great
[3:15:36] conversations. Um, and and I appreciate
[3:15:40] what you have done. Uh, you keep your
[3:15:42] straightforward, and I have noticed the
[3:15:44] facial expressions every once in a
[3:15:45] while. I didn't get past. Those were good. Um Josh, uh you just
[3:15:52] like council Ortiz said, you will be
[3:15:54] greatly missed. Um you do know the stuff
[3:15:57] like the back of your hand in and out
[3:15:59] and um that's not going to be easily
[3:16:01] replaced. Um I won't go on anymore cuz
[3:16:05] as the kids would say this glazing
[3:16:07] anymore, so I'm I'm keep pushing on
[3:16:09] that. But I wish you the best of luck
[3:16:11] going forward. Um, as I as I left
[3:16:15] tonight, um, had had to head home
[3:16:19] because of, uh, our our household being
[3:16:23] down a bit.
[3:16:25] And so I need to get our son to bed at a
[3:16:27] certain time.
[3:16:29] And as I got in the car, my son asked
[3:16:31] me, "Why are you 20 minutes late? Cuz I
[3:16:32] was going to leave at 8:30." He said,
[3:16:34] "Why were you 20 minutes late getting
[3:16:35] your bed?" And I said, "Well, Councilman
[3:16:37] Ortiz and I had to have a quick
[3:16:39] conversation." And obviously it wasn't
[3:16:42] just with castle
[3:16:45] womaniz but uh I I explained to him he's
[3:16:48] like so so we not cool with her now. I
[3:16:50] said no son that's not the way this
[3:16:51] works we have conversations as adults um
[3:16:55] and you work through it and and I want I
[3:16:58] want to let her know and council me as
[3:17:02] we have these discussions like everyone
[3:17:04] else um I appreciate the fact that we're
[3:17:06] able to talk about issues without it
[3:17:08] ever getting personal. um even when we
[3:17:11] may think that we have something like
[3:17:13] that personal that we need to address,
[3:17:15] it's not because every single bit of
[3:17:18] conflict of interest and everything else
[3:17:19] is always taken care of. Uh so we want
[3:17:22] to make sure that uh we continue going
[3:17:24] forward with the understanding that uh
[3:17:27] everything's always on the up and up.
[3:17:29] But uh I I told him that it's part of
[3:17:32] this job to be able to have
[3:17:33] conversations and um disagreements and
[3:17:36] still be able to do what's right for the
[3:17:37] people. So, thank you for that
[3:17:39] opportunity to show my son that. Thank
[3:17:42] you very much,
[3:17:44] >> Council Member Bradberry.
[3:17:47] >> Thank you. I just wanted to say
[3:17:48] congratulations to Nick and Josh.
[3:17:53] Um, best wishes moving forward in your
[3:17:57] new adventure and you will be missed.
[3:18:01] >> Council member McGee.
[3:18:02] >> Thank you. Uh, I also wanted to say
[3:18:05] thank you to Nick and Josh. Uh, I
[3:18:08] haven't been on the council a long time,
[3:18:11] but we've had our interactions and work
[3:18:14] together, and I appreciate your input,
[3:18:17] your feedback. I appreciate what you do
[3:18:20] and have done for the city and for the
[3:18:22] residents of our community. Thank you,
[3:18:27] >> Deputy Mayor Herford.
[3:18:30] Okay, I've got something a little
[3:18:32] different tonight. Um, last Friday was
[3:18:36] the last uh open house for the fire
[3:18:39] department, and I think that was an
[3:18:42] excellent way for the public to be able
[3:18:44] to get out and see all 12 of the
[3:18:47] stations.
[3:18:49] >> Can I Can I interrupt you? Sure.
[3:18:50] >> I've talked to Chief Long staff about uh
[3:18:53] starting those over again. So, we're
[3:18:54] going to continue with Fire Station One
[3:18:56] uh next uh next month.
[3:18:58] um it'll be an opportunity to put out
[3:19:00] the smoke alarm detector or the smoke
[3:19:02] alarm application. So, just FYI. Sorry,
[3:19:05] just wanted to point that out. Thanks.
[3:19:09] >> And last Wednesday night, we graduated
[3:19:13] six young men from the academy. So, our
[3:19:16] newest fire officers, our firemen are
[3:19:19] going to be Joseph Drai.
[3:19:23] Sorry, I can't pronounce that one. Aiden
[3:19:25] Garcia, Brett Hoochin Hart, George
[3:19:29] Meyer, Connor Scott, and Brian Wing. Um,
[3:19:33] Councilman Banks and I were very happy
[3:19:36] to be there and to enjoy that ceremony
[3:19:39] with the graduates, the officers, and
[3:19:42] their families. It's always
[3:19:46] heartening to see them when they come on
[3:19:48] board with um
[3:19:52] a little bit of trepidation but also a
[3:19:55] lot of excitement. So congratulations to
[3:19:58] them and I will also add thank you to
[3:20:02] Nick and thank you to Josh. I'm not one
[3:20:05] to say a whole lot so good luck with
[3:20:08] both of you.
[3:20:11] Council member Hiller,
[3:20:13] >> thank you. Not too much this evening,
[3:20:15] but I too wanted to really give a shout
[3:20:18] out and and a thank you to Nick and to
[3:20:21] Josh. And uh to echo Dr. Perez's words,
[3:20:25] we hope that um though you have though
[3:20:27] we hope you have a great time. Hope you
[3:20:29] get a little bored and decide to come
[3:20:30] back.
[3:20:32] Thank you.
[3:20:34] >> All right. Well, I'll echo everyone
[3:20:36] else's comments about Nick and Josh. I
[3:20:38] will say, you know, these jobs turnover
[3:20:40] is higher sadly in government than it is
[3:20:42] out in the private sector in these
[3:20:44] positions. And we get why. We we work
[3:20:46] pretty hard and the long hours and and
[3:20:48] we ask a lot of you. Uh I'm not going to
[3:20:50] apologize for that, but I do appreciate
[3:20:53] that you uh hang in there with us. Um
[3:20:55] you know, in in terms of both of these
[3:20:57] folks, sadly for us, they've just got
[3:20:59] better opportunities, and I will never
[3:21:01] be grudged, even though I like to say
[3:21:03] sometimes they're dead to me now, right?
[3:21:05] Um, I I will acknowledge that you got to
[3:21:07] make the decisions that are best for you
[3:21:08] and and we know that your opportunities
[3:21:10] are are important for next phase of your
[3:21:12] life. And so
[3:21:14] now that means that Kelly and Dalton,
[3:21:16] welcome to the hot seat. Uh, you know,
[3:21:19] welcome to now getting to step in. And
[3:21:21] hopefully both of them will take your
[3:21:23] call still every once in a while, at
[3:21:24] least for a few weeks or a month or so,
[3:21:26] is to be like, "Oh my gosh, how do you
[3:21:28] deal with this?" Um, so you will be
[3:21:30] missed and and you know to the public I
[3:21:32] always say it stinks to lose good
[3:21:34] people. Um, but it is part of the
[3:21:36] process. I I even have to remind myself
[3:21:38] that the the city was here before I got
[3:21:41] here and it's going to be here after I
[3:21:42] get here. And all we can do is is leave
[3:21:45] the best mark we can. And I know that in
[3:21:47] both Josh and Nick's case, they they
[3:21:48] definitely left their mark for the work
[3:21:50] that they did that that will have a
[3:21:51] lasting impact for a while. And so I
[3:21:54] think more than anything that's what we
[3:21:55] appreciate you both for is that the work
[3:21:57] you did here is going to have a lasting
[3:21:58] difference on the work we all do moving
[3:22:00] forward. So thank you for that. With
[3:22:02] that sadly we have one executive
[3:22:04] session. Nick wanted to punish us one
[3:22:06] last time before he left. Uh so two now
[3:22:10] I'm not going to have us go past 10
[3:22:12] because we're going to start it
[3:22:13] immediately and it's only supposed to be
[3:22:14] 15 minutes. So we can make it. So to all
[3:22:18] of you as you hear, we love you, but
[3:22:19] please get out here as quick as you can
[3:22:21] and and we appreciate you coming and
[3:22:23] we'll start the executive session here
[3:22:24] in just a minute.
[3:22:33] » Do you want me to read the motion?
[3:22:34] >> Oh, we need a motion. Can you please
[3:22:36] read the motion? I forgot that part.
[3:22:39] >> Yes. As my as my parting gift, Mr.
[3:22:41] Mayor, the motion would be to recess
[3:22:43] into executive session for a period not
[3:22:44] to exceed 15 minutes to discuss current
[3:22:47] litigation as well as other matters
[3:22:49] deemed privileged under the attorney
[3:22:50] client privilege pursuant to
[3:22:52] KSA75-4319B2.
[3:22:54] The open meeting will resume in this
[3:22:56] room, the governing body chambers. The
[3:22:58] following staff will be necessary to
[3:22:59] assist the governing body in its
[3:23:00] deliberations. The city attorney and
[3:23:02] other staff members is needed.
[3:23:04] >> I'm going to move to approve. Do I have
[3:23:06] a second?
[3:23:07] >> All those in favor say I.
[3:23:09] >> I. I was supposed to say nay.
[3:23:12] >> Oh, look at you. You didn't want to
[3:23:13] spend 15 more minutes with Nick.
[3:23:16] >> All right. Again, can could someone get
[3:23:18] Mr. Anderson's email?
[3:23:20] >> Okay. And then they can
[3:23:31] » No,
[3:23:33] >> not yet.
[3:23:36] Let's
[3:23:52] go.
[3:24:04] Is he not going to help Julie L. Ralph?
[3:24:06] Don't forget Julie.
[3:24:11] » Sorry guys.
[3:24:14] >> Did you get everything?
[3:24:16] >> We're waiting for Just so the audience
[3:24:17] knows, we're waiting for the room to
[3:24:18] clear. It's all right. And then we will
[3:24:20] go into executive session. No worries.
[3:24:22] Take your time.
[3:24:23] >> You're safe.
[3:24:31] We're family here.
[3:24:34] >> All right, we will now move into
[3:24:36] executive session.
[3:24:40] » All right,
[3:24:44] » we have come out of executive session.
[3:24:46] No action is being taken. This meeting
[3:24:48] is adjourned at 9:49 p.m.