Nick Gosnell (00:00):
In studio with us Charles Johnston, he is running for the at-large seat on the Hutchinson city council. Both Charles and Marla Jean are running against Sarah Bagwell. She is the incumbent in that race. She will be with us tomorrow morning here on BW, but for Charles, first of all, good morning. How are you doing?
Charles Johnston (00:17):
I'm very well. Nick, how about you?
Nick Gosnell (00:18):
So far, so good. So as we've said, everyone has an issue that is the reason that they're running for city council. What city policy was the one that made you decide to run in the first place?
Charles Johnston (00:31):
You know, I ran in 2019 because I saw that people weren't being listened to and ultimately the race I was running in, Steve Garza won, and I think that was actually a really good fit for the time and when I thought about running this year. It's because I feel like I'm the right fit for the time. And there are lots of issues that are out there. But the one that I think strikes me the most is the city does not lead with vision. We play whack-a-mole over all sorts of different issues. So the thing I think I would bring to council is not only an understanding of issues on a macro level though, um, or excuse me, on micro level though, to be, in full disclosure, there are some things I'm not quite as familiar on as I'd like to be, but also to lead the city through some of these bigger decisions, thinking about what Hutchinson's going to look like in 20, 30, 40, 50 years from now, not just next year.
Nick Gosnell (01:27):
Do you currently owe any obligations to any taxing entities for any years prior to this one?
Charles Johnston (01:31):
No, I do not.
Nick Gosnell (01:33):
Did you vote in the last city council election? That seems ironic to ask.
Charles Johnston (01:37):
I certainly did, both in the primary and in the general.
Nick Gosnell (01:40):
All right. What can be done to reduce regulation on businesses coming to Hutchinson?
Charles Johnston (01:46):
So when I think about what can be done to relieve businesses, to make our economy more friendly and to help our chamber and the city department in charge of recruiting businesses is to make sure that they don't have barriers. And the barriers that I constantly hear from both current developers and potential developers is the fact that our code system is not in good shape. It's not consistent, which to me perhaps is the largest problem because I hear that from residents too, that codes that are on the city books get reinforced or enforced over here while for someone else it doesn't. And, to me, that's a problem. So I'd be very interested in establishing some basic guidelines for how codes are approached for businesses and for individuals. The biggest gap, I think that I can point out that speaks to this today is the fact that there's a local business that has been here for 50 years, out in the Carey Park area that has been under constant threat of losing their property because it's out of shape.
Charles Johnston (02:56):
The ironic thing is that we're going to spend $1.5 million on a similar developer to take care of a problem. That's been here for almost 10 years, developing to the full point in 2019, where we lost it. And of course I'm talking about the Atrium Hotel. From my perspective, I would not have supported the action that the current city council is taking, because I think that's rewarding bad behavior. If I think about the things that $1.5 million could have been spent on, I have a lot different priorities. And the thing is, I don't believe we used all of the punitive actions available to us to be able to resolve that problem, or to at least give us the opportunity as a city to not spend as much money to solve it.
Nick Gosnell (03:40):
To a certain point, I presume that you're referring to the Barnard's property, you're talking about the one on the other end of town. So to follow up on that, just a moment, to a certain point, the Atrium is I'm not going to say an easier decision politically, but it's one that may be more palatable to the general public because you can tax the people that are coming into town for that through bed tax rather than rather than taxing, at least for the most part, the people that live here, which if you tried to do the same sort of rehabilitation project, it would be very difficult to use bed tax, to help on the other end of town. Right or wrong, um, that, that may have made it an easier decision politically.
Charles Johnston (04:34):
Sure. Although I would argue that because, the sales tax generated off of Bernard's catering business is actually more consistent, uh, at least in past when they were operating as a business, more consistent and feeds into our economy, better along with the property tax that they pay, because a lot of people don't know this, but because of my experience, with the bed tax, you can only use that for specific things. Sales tax can be used for any variety of things, property tax can be used, for any variety of things. So while yes, there's benefit to the specific areas where bed tax is used, that doesn't, I appreciate the, how should I say this, the point and the contrast that you're trying to draw, but for me, it is discongruent to reward someone for taking advantage of our market, because, let's be clear that hotel has been in trouble since the day it opened. Since the first time I was aware of it, which was probably in high school in 1999, it's gone through, I don't know, maybe six different chains, ultimately leading to this one, which we saw the developer dealing with in Salina and knew the writing on the wall when we gave it to him. So, for me, as a person who supports tourism, and knows that to the point of the president and CEO of the NJCAA, excuse me, coming to town and saying, you've got to fix this. You're going to lose our business. It just frustrates me.
Nick Gosnell (06:07):
What's a proper level of bonding for a city Hutchinson's size, what percentage of the city's budget should be debt service?
Charles Johnston (06:13):
I answer this with the knowledge that, on the early part of the conversation, I'm not an accountant, I'm not a financial advisor, so that is not my area. However, I will say that one of the reasons our form of government exists here in town is because the council is responsible for hiring professionals to take care of these issues for us, the city manager and the director of finance are both responsible for advising us with the best decisions. Now, I'm fortunate enough to remember John Deardoff coming to the city council, this was back in, I think, 20 15, 2016 and saying, we have to have a larger general fund because if we don't, our debt rating is going to go down. And as you know, because of the consumer, excuse me, the consumer familiarity with a credit score, the better credit score you have, the better interest rates you can get. And I think that as a city, right now, we have to be focused on maintaining the best debt rating as possible so we can get the best deals.
Charles Johnston (07:15):
And I would also say that historically right now, our bonding rates are so low that it almost makes more sense to borrow money and make sure that we get our value right now. I would say that I am not comfortable doing bonding for projects that we can pay for on their own. However, we do have to have some sort of balance. And for me, I am not a person who supports excessive taxes on the people. So, a way that we can relieve some of that tax obligation is to spread out some of the costs of those larger projects through bonds.
Nick Gosnell (07:53):
What length should the city's street maintenance program be? We're finally to a set length, at least I believe it's eight years at this point. Is that right? Wrong? Do we need to take a look? How's that work?
Charles Johnston (08:10):
So I hear constantly from people I speak to about the quality of streets around town. My spouse will often comment about how he's tired of hearing about potholes. I am pleased to say that the cities finally have a tool to be able to address that. So we're making progress, but the bottom line is that there are parts of town that simply have awful streets. I think of the College Grove area in town, where we have historic brick streets that are simply decaying. And when you think about streets that are on our maintenance plan, I actually live down south of town at 1022 East Sherman, and it had been a dirt road for years and years and years was turned into a asphalt road, probably a decade and a half ago. And it's never been touched since except for repairs. So from my perspective, I would like to re-examine that street schedule, knowing that the arterial streets, you know, 11th, Severance, 17th, need to be maintained at a level that's acceptable to people who are coming to visit, but also recognize that, you know, when we have a five foot hole, that's a exaggeration, but more like a foot hole in one of our brick streets that we have to put a cone in so that people don't drive their cars into, that's a problem. I know that part of the quarter-cent sales tax that funds the Cosmosphere and Strataca also goes to street work. I do have a question about when that goes away or when it comes back up, are we going to be able to pass it for the taxpayer so that we can continue to maintain our streets? I'm concerned, because if we don't, we're going to fall behind even more than we already are.
Nick Gosnell (09:50):
Are you for or against taking the money from the federal government to put roundabouts in at the Woodie Seat Freeway? Let us know what you think about that issue?
Charles Johnston (09:59):
I love that you're bringing this up because this is another area that I am so frustrated on. And it's one of the reasons I decided to really dip into the race this year, because it's emblematic of a problem of our city government. And that is that a few people who feel like they know best about what should happen on a city level, proceed without actually talking to the people that it's going to cause the biggest impact to. I appreciate the opportunity to spend federal dollars to offset some of our costs as a city. However, to do that in this case is going to completely isolate Southwest Bricktown. And that, to me, particularly since residents, weren't really notified that they're going to lose Avenue B, one of their thoroughfares. It's a problem. On the other hand, we also have a bridge problem where if we don't deal with it, it's going to be unsafe for the amount of truck traffic. So it's a conundrum, but from my perspective, we have to deal with our residents first, so we know what they need and want, and if we can't accomplish what they need and want exactly, can we come up with a compromise where they feel good about the decision that has to be made? Again, we have to engage residents before we make decisions like this. And that is what is not happening on a city government level right now.
Nick Gosnell (11:20):
Now to the infrastructure under the city's streets, the storm water utility fee is in place. And, so, should it stay while we continue the work that, we're still trying to get that big project done, but have the railroads to deal with first?
Charles Johnston (11:34):
That's I think critical to important, too, for people to understand as well that sometimes our barriers are not just the city, it's the partners that we work with and the Union Pacific and BNSF are great partners, but there are certain things that from time to time, they cause us to be able to deal with. I think about the, uh, Walnut closure right now that no one's been able to use for almost three weeks. So, when we're talking about the storm water utility fee, one of the problems is that an exorbitant fee like that causes businesses to not be able to come into town, because depending on the size parking lot that they get, that's really the bottom line about what they have to pay. And when you're dealing with, for example, a business that has a small business that has maybe 50 employees, who's trying to come into this building that has this huge parking lot, they can't make a reasonable profit. And so I think we need to re-examine that storm water fee and figure out how we can make it more business friendly.
Nick Gosnell (12:35):
All right. Well, I'm not going to get to all my questions, but I do want to ask about this and give you a chance to talk about yourself a little bit. How will you build consensus with the other members of the council?
Charles Johnston (12:45):
So, I have a proven track record of being able to do this. My background here in town is primarily as a nonprofit executive from 2013 to 2019, I ran Stage 9 and we grew the theater with the cooperation of volunteers and board members by, from a budget perspective, about 300%, um, excuse me, 150% three times. So we were able to increase that budget and the way we were able to do it is because we worked together. Ultimately, as a council member, I realized that it takes three to be able to play. So we have to get consensus between the three of us. Can you do that in a council meeting? Yes. Is there background relationships that have to be able to be built? Yes. And so I think there's relationship work to be done because from my perspective, relationships equal progress, because if you can have good relationships, it's going to make everything easier and progress better.