By Katee Underwood, Staff Writer
Coldwater officials voted to pursue a 30-year loan for sewer repairs, delayed a decision on opening city-owned lake property to public recreation and rejected a request for special utility vehicle access to the lake during the City Council’s Oct. 12, 12 minutes shy of 3 hours, meeting.
The council also debated recording public meetings, discussed maintenance costs for city ballfields, considered improvements to holiday decorations and approved a lower-cost economic development membership.
Sewer Project Moves Forward
The council unanimously approved Resolution 2026-5, authorizing the city to pursue a State Revolving Fund loan for sewer rehabilitation work. The proposed project would address approximately 2,857 linear feet of sewer lines and 15 manholes. Camera inspections identified six of the worst locations in the city for priority work. The lines, installed during the 1960s, are made of clay tile or cast iron. Clay tile can break, while cast iron gradually deteriorates and can become extremely thin. The project would replace damaged lines and manholes where necessary while rehabilitating structures that can be saved. Officials estimated that rehabilitating rather than replacing manholes could save more than $100,000, although they will not know which structures can be salvaged until work begins. The preliminary estimate was prepared in August and includes an additional 15% to 20% as a contingency for unexpected expenses. The final project cost could be lower if the work does not require the full contingency or if more structures can be rehabilitated. The council considered two loan terms. The 20-year option carried an estimated interest rate of 2.84%, while the 30-year option carried a rate of 3.5%. Under the figures presented, the 30-year option would require estimated semiannual payments of $15,975, or $31,950 per year. The 20-year option would require estimated semiannual payments of $19,420, or $38,840 per year. Those figures are preliminary estimates based on the proposed financing, not confirmed final payments. Actual costs will depend on the final loan amount, project expenses and financing terms. The city is seeking 30% loan forgiveness. With the approximately $841,000 estimate, the remaining balance would be approximately $588,700. Both figures depending on what the end total ends up being. The longer repayment period would lower the city’s estimated payments and could give future councils more flexibility if other projects arise. The loan could be paid off early. Official said sewer rate increases may eventually be necessary to cover the payments, although the city may not need to raise rates immediately. Payments are expected to begin after project completion, tentatively around August 2027. The city has applied for additional grants and is awaiting responses. The council held a public meeting required by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment to discuss the proposed project and invite comments on alternatives. No comment was made by the one person who showed up.
Lake Property Lease Extended
The council voted to lease city-owned land on the south side of the lake for another year while postponing a decision about its long-term use.
Officials have discussed opening the property for public recreation, potentially allowing hiking, horseback riding and other nonmotorized activities. However, council members disagreed about whether the public has expressed enough interest to justify making the property available and whether the city could afford or have the time to maintain it. Council member Devon Duffield favored gathering more community input, suggesting a public hearing to allow residents to help determine the property’s future. Other council members questioned who would survey the land, maintain trails and mow the area when the city already struggles to maintain existing recreational facilities, talking about the overgrown nature trail out there already. Liability, fire risk and possible restrictions on camping and motorized vehicles also were discussed. Most members favored foot traffic, with the possibility of allowing bicycles, while prohibiting vehicles and fires. Tenant Danny Huck attended the discussion and said he would be willing to accommodate public use as long as visitors followed rules (and rules were enforced), if they stayed away from his cattle and did not camp or build fires. He also supported their idea of prohibiting vehicles of any kind because of fire risk and noise. The council ultimately approved another year of leasing the property, giving officials more time to consider the issue. Council members Gary Haulmark and Makenzie Dunn opposed the motion, hoping for a shorter lease. No public-access plan or trail-maintenance budget was approved.
Council Rejects Lake Vehicle Request
The council quickly rejected a request from a year-round lake resident who wanted permission to park a street legal side-by-side utility vehicle for work-related oil and gas inspections nearby, at their camp-site and receive a key to a restricted gate for more direct and quicker access in case of emergencies. The resident explained that the work involves inspecting more than 100 miles of power lines leading to oil rigs near the lake and that some locations are pretty much impossible to reach by pickup. She said using the vehicle from their site would save time and money and could provide quicker access during emergencies. She explained that they would abide by all lake rules and not drive it unless necessary and only straight out and back if they were called out. She wanted an exception to the lake’s vehicle restrictions for work-related travel only between their camper and the road. Council members raised concerns about noise, safety and setting a precedent for other residents who have requested similar access to the back gate. They also questioned whether the vehicle could be stored elsewhere and that they can just go get it in storage in a case of an emergency call before heading back out there. They also stated they think a pickup could reach the inspection locations just fine. The council declined both the vehicle exception and the gate key request.
Council Debates Recording Public Meetings, Again
Council members debated whether to livestream meetings and preserve recordings for later viewing, but the proposal failed once again. Supporters argued that recordings would improve access for residents who cannot attend meetings in person and provide a record of council discussions for future use. Councilman Devon Duffield favored making recordings available to the public, saying many residents had expressed interest in watching meetings online. Gary also supported greater access, although he favored livestreaming without archiving the recordings. Opponents raised concerns about comments being clipped or taken out of context, the effect of recordings on discussion and possible repercussions outside council meetings from the public and current jobs. Council member Makennzie Dunn said she worried that the prospect of recordings or streaming could change how members speak and affect their interactions during meetings. Duffield and Haulmark both stated it would not change the way they voted or how they spoke about things. Councilman Sam Oller said people he had talked were not interested in watching recordings, while other members reported hearing from residents who didn’t care either way. The motion to livestream meetings without archiving them received a second but failed. Duffield and Haulmark supported it, while Sam and Leasa opposed it and Dunn taking longer to think about it ultimately voted against it. They all agreed they wouldn’t “waste any more time” discussing it.
No recording policy was adopted.
Ballfield Maintenance Costs Remain Unresolved
The council discussed the need for additional dirt at the city’s baseball and softball fields and how maintenance costs should be divided among the city, school district and recreation organization.
Officials said the fields need about 8 loads of dirt to restore their playing surfaces to where they need to be. They’ve already brought in 1 load this year on one. They bought 2 loads last year and they’ve wore down to where they were before those were added at the time. The city sought funding through the South Central Community Foundation but did not receive an award, while the school district reportedly received funding for approximately one load. The discussion included a figure of about $8,655 for all the loads needed, that’s after a $1,320 price reduction from the awarded money to the school intended for one load. Council members questioned why the city should pay the full cost when multiple organizations use the facilities. They also discussed the city’s payment of electricity costs and whether those expenses should be shared in the future. Members said a clearer agreement is needed outlining responsibility for dirt, electricity and other maintenance expenses. The matter is expected to return to the council’s agenda next month. They discussed buying a couple of loads this year to “Band-Aid” the issues for one more year, then budgeting for the amount needed next year. Keeping up with the maintenance a little every year thereafter. They will talk to the other parties before deciding.
Other City Business
The meeting adjourned at 9:18 p.m.
