City Commission - Regular Meeting

We'll now call to order the June 8th, 2026 City of Abilene, Kansas City Commission meeting. Shayla, may we please have a roll call? Mayor Ryan? Here.

Commissioner Taylor?

Here.

Commissioner Kolhoff?

Here.

Commissioner Lytle? Yes. Commissioner Beisenberg? Yes. Roll call is complete.

Okay. Please stand for the pledge. All right, and our next item is approval of today's agenda.

I make a motion. We approve today's agenda as written.

I'll second.

Motion has been moved and seconded. Do we have any commission discussion? Seeing none, we'll do a roll call vote. Vice Mayor Taylor.

Yes.

Commissioner Kolhoff? Aye. Commissioner Lytle?

Yes.

Commissioner Meisenberg? Yes. Myself, yes. Motion carries. Our next item is a consent agenda which consists of the meeting minutes for the May 26, 2026 regular meeting appropriation ordinance and AP payment register.

I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda as written.

I'll second.

Motion has been moved and seconded. Do we have any commission discussion? Seeing none, we'll roll call vote. Commissioner Kohlhoff?

Aye.

Commissioner Lytle? Yes. Commissioner Meisenberg? Yes. Vice Mayor Taylor? Yes. Myself, yes. Motion carries. Our next item under Heading 6, Public Comments and Communications, is 6A, a public forum. If there's anyone that would like to address the commission on an item not on our current agenda, they may do so at this time. Do we have anyone that would like to address the commission on an item not on our current agenda? Seeing none, we'll move to 6B, Elder Abuse Awareness Month. Brandi Boehm with DVAC. Thank you.

Whereas according to the National Council on Aging, one in 10 seniors in America experiences mistreatment or abuse, including domestic and sexual violence, financial exploitation and neglect. And whereas abusers of older adults are both men and women and are usually family members, caregivers, healthcare workers, or other trusted individuals. And due to the shame, fear, and other barriers elders face in reporting abuse, only a limited number of victims are able to get the help they need. And whereas elders throughout the United States lose an estimated $2.9 billion or more annually due to elder financial abuse and $28.3 billion annually due to financial exploitation, such as the illegal taking, misuse, or concealment of funds, property, or assets of a senior's or another's benefit. and whereas too often elder abuse threatens the likelihoods of older individuals erodes their extraordinary potential and increases their risk of death by three hundred per cent compared to seniors who have not been mistreated and whereas avelines vulnerable and older adults of all social economic racial and ethnic backgrounds may be targets of abuse neglect or exploitation which can occur in families long-term care communities and medical settings And whereas we all have a responsibility to support the safety, welfare, and dignity of vulnerable and older adults, and must work toward ending elder abuse by assisting victims in accessing the information and supportive services they need, creating better and more resources for older adults in need, instituting effective intervention and prevention policies, and engaging in discussion with family members and peers to promote awareness and prevention of the quiet epidemic of elder abuse. Now therefore the city of Abilene Board of Commissioners hereby proclaim June 2026 as elder abuse awareness month in the city of Abilene and urges all citizens to work together to protect elder adults from abuse neglect and exploitation because it is imperative that we refuse to tolerate the indignity of elder abuse.

Thank you. You want to come up for a picture.

Yes.

Sure.

Thank you so much. Thank you so much.

Thank you so much.

Thank you so much.

And our next item is 6C, Safe Families for Children, North Central Kansas Family Preservation Month. Brittany Willer with NCK Safe Families for Children.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Whereas all children need the care, love, security, and stability of family unity, including parents, siblings, grandparents, and extended family members to provide a solid foundation for healthy growth, development, and wellbeing. And whereas strong families are the cornerstone of strong communities. And whenever possible and without compromising child safety, preserving and strengthening families is the best path forward to ensuring children are safe and have permanent loving homes. Whereas approximately 70% of children who entered the child welfare system do so because of family crises resulting in neglect, not because of abuse. And many of these situations can be addressed through early intervention, community support, and practical assistance before families reach a breaking point. And whereas Safe Families for Children surrounds families in crisis with a circle of compassionate support before a crisis becomes a tragedy and a tragedy becomes a trauma, offering hope, stability, and practical assistance through trained volunteers and local churches. And whereas Safe Families for Children has been recognized by the Prevention Services Clearinghouse as an evidence-based program proven to prevent unnecessary foster care placements and was honored in 2025 as one of seven organizations nationwide to receive the Compassion Award from Christianity Today. And whereas 96% of children hosted through Safe Families for Children are reunited with their loving parents, stabilized, strengthened, and secure, demonstrating the effectiveness of community-based family preservation efforts. And whereas during the most recent quarter, four Safe Families for Children chapters across Kansas hosted 26 children, provided 507 nights of safe care, and helped preserve 15 families, ensuring parents had the support needed to regain stability while keeping children connected to those who love them. And whereas Safe Families for Children provides a community-based alternative to foster care through trained volunteers and community partnerships, saving an estimated $23,000 to $29,000 per child annually while strengthening families and responsibly stewarding public resources. And whereas Family Preservation Month provides an opportunity to celebrate families who have overcome adversity, honor the volunteers and community partners who support them, and raise awareness of the importance of preventing unnecessary family separation. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed that the city of Abilene, Kansas, hereby recognizes the month of June 2026 as Family Preservation Month and encourages all residents, organizations, faith communities, and civic leaders to support efforts that strengthen families, prevent child neglect, promote well-being, and ensure that every child has the opportunity to grow up in a safe, stable, and loving family.

Thank you.

Thank you.

If you'd like to come up for a picture as well.

One, two, three. One, two. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thank you. Oh, thank you.

All right. And heading seven, unfinished business is 7A, presentation of stormwater utility rate study and financial recommendations. Beth Warren with KMU.

Good evening, Mayor and Commissioners. My name is Beth Warren. I'm with Kansas Municipal Utilities. I'm here again to go over preliminary results of the stormwater rate review that I've been working with city staff on for the last few months. Before you, you should have a copy of the summary report presenting those initial results. Just like with sewer, we looked at various scenarios for your stormwater utility. The two scenarios presented essentially scenario A is just estimated outcome if no changes are made to that stormwater utility fee. B shows what that fee would need to go to to be able to fund expenses as we forecasted. So the main things to highlight with this one is the major adjustments we did is really just trying to build up funds to start working through a backlog in stormwater improvement projects that the city had or is looking into for those. So there's an annual budget of $50,000 for general capital outlay projects that can be completed on the go year to year if you so choose. And to fund that with the other annual expenses, as you can see under scenario B, it would require a 60% increase. Um, table two shows what that increase would be. So right now your stormwater, your monthly stormwater fee is a dollar 25 per drainage unit. Um, with that 60% increase that would increase that to $2 a month. Um, The next year, we built an additional debt service just in the case of a large project that needs to be done that we wouldn't have enough cash on hand built up for in time. So essentially what we looked at there is the assumptions we used. resulted in about $75,000 in annual debt service. Issue size, project size is going to vary based on interest rate, amortization length, all of that type of stuff. So the main thing is just that annual debt service of about $75,000. To cover that, you'd be looking at an additional increase by that year of about 70%. So with that increase, that would further increase that $2 drainage unit fee up to $3.54 per unit. The additional units really just to impact your commercial customers, residential units, it's just that one unit they get charged per month. So you can see the other stats we had highlighted, just like with the other review, revenue over under, debt service coverage ratios, ending cash balances, and then those fees for residential versus commercial based on the number of drainage unit equivalents applied to them. So any questions on any of that?

You had talked about those commercial units having multiple. Do you have like a table or data that shows the number of commercial units?

So it's in your actual ordinance and it's based, like you have the schedule up to your largest commercial user. I think your residential is like 2500 or 3000 square footage impervious service area and then each unit is just a multiple of that. So two units if your square footage is 3500 for residential two units would mean someone with 7000 square footage.

What might be helpful is to have a breakdown of those actual customers. I don't think you did the meter survey for it, but when we did those meter surveys, we looked at actual users to see.

The reporting data I got was just total number of units billed. We might have to work on that, getting exactly how many customers or users that would apply to because all the data I had was just total number of units billed.

Yeah, thank you. That was where my question was intended toward.

You mentioned debt service here, too. These are just theoretical debt service projects that we haven't identified yet, right?

Yeah, and John might be able to speak to those if there are specific ones in the works. I think there were...

In the residential, the drainage unit where that square footage is, that's a 2,500...

square feet of impervious surface, that would be $1.25. It would go to $2, 75% increase. So if you had 5,000 square feet under those numbers, your increase would be $1.50 a month for that. What Beth did and what she was asked to do when she was hired last year to do water, sewer, and stormwater, on the stormwater, she gave two options. Option A, do nothing. and then option b what she refers to as break even and we did put in there uh fifty thousand dollars a year for maintenance things for stormwater which is not being budgeted now and then seventy five thousand dollars uh in debt service uh beginning in twenty twenty eight to start addressing some of those uh issues that we have around the city but um as you evaluate those two options that Beth provided, there's a perspective we'd like you to consider that may help inform the discussion when you're talking about rates. Before deciding, or before we ask the Commission to decide whether they should increase, and if so, by how much, I think it's important that we discuss the City's reserve policy and capital funding strategy. Currently, your budgetary policy sets a 15% budgeted revenues for the general funds. That's the minimum we have to have. But for the enterprise funds or the utilities, it doesn't set a minimum. It just says you have to have a reserve, but it doesn't tell us whether that's $1 or it's a million dollars. And best report, and which aligns with industry standards, is to keep 180 days of operating time. money as a reserve. So for example, and I'm just rounding numbers, if the operating expenses of the utility is $100,000 a year, you should keep $50,000 in reserve, six months' worth. But how much we're charged for stormwater service depends on how much you want to maintain in those operating reserves. Do you want to use best practices and set that as, you know, maintain at least 180 days worth of reserves, which is about, well, $50,000 to $60,000, depending on which year you look at. How much do we want to save for future projects that budgetary policy from 2011 adopted by the city commission direct staff to move towards or we should always strive for paying cash for major projects rather than always relying on borrowing money. So to do that we need to start saving and then how much are you willing to finance through debt and when we talk about projects around town Brad Um, presented a list of priority projects that the commission adjusted a little bit and approved 1 of those major projects is the South drainage. And there's no way we could save up enough money in the next 10 years to take care of that. You would have to finance that, but we wouldn't look at just straight financing that. $15 or $20 million project, we'd look towards the state and federal government for grants to address that because it not only affects the southern part of the city, but further downrange. We can get the EPA involved because it's stormwater. One thing that stands out in best report under either option is that we maintain cash balance as well above the 180-day recommended. And if you look through that report, you know, you're over a thousand days because we have, you know, four or five, $600,000 in there depending on which year. And you only need to keep 60,000 to have 180 days worth of reserve. But that raises a policy question. First is should those funds remain in an operating account or should we create or you as a commission create a stormwater improvement fund? similar to the capital improvement fund for the general fund. I know I'm saying fund a lot, or similar to the water improvement that we save for, and same thing with sewer. Should we create one of those funds and then set money aside so we start saving for these projects rather than just keep it in there and then one day it's like, oh, we have an extra four or $500,000 and let's go do this. Having that stormwater improvement fund would force us to plan five and 10 years down the road. How are we gonna pay for things? Staff would recommend to the Commission that you look at a three-part approach to this, based on the work that Beth has done for us, is to maintain 180 days, set that as a policy of operating expenses as a reserve, to establish a stormwater improvement fund for future drainage and stormwater projects, and then transfer funds above the reserve target into that fund over time. So the goal with this three-pronged approach would be to build resources for projects such as the south drainage improvements and other system needs while reducing reliance on debt whenever we can. The more we can get away from borrowing and doing things and saving it, the better. This approach is also supported by the city's general financial and budgetary policies, which I mentioned was adopted in 2011 that encourages the use of pay as you go funding for capital improvements when practical. And specifically recognizes that shifting projects from debt financing to pay as you go reduces future debt service costs and the interest that we pay. The policies also state the enterprise funds, of which the stormwater is one, should be self-supporting and that user fee should support the cost of providing the service and future capital improvements. So in many ways, tonight's discussion, and I've asked Beth to come back to the June 22nd study session to have this conversation, The discussion moving forward should be about two objectives, building resources for future capital improvements and reducing debt where it's practical, and then maintaining a self-supporting utility over the long term, rather than doing like we did with water and sewer and now stormwater, addressing it every several years or decade and having large increases. It does sound terrible when Beth comes up and says, hey, your first increase should be 60%. Well, when you're talking about $1, 60%, It's really 75 cents is what it is. Not taking away from Beth, but she's a number. Yeah, yeah. So we recommend that you have this discussion on the 22nd or tonight, if you wish, as the utilities reserve position will affect how not only you as the commission, but the public views future rating increases. Under best projection, stormwater maintains significant cash balances under both of our options. If you were to adopt a reserve policy that maintained 180 days of operating reserve and establish a stormwater improvement fund, then the discussion would turn towards how much should we set aside for future capital projects, how much should be financed through debt, what role should those existing reserves play in funding future improvements, and what rate structure best supports those goals? As Beth noted, that $75,000 debt service is a placeholder. We know we're going to have to do something to address these drainage things. So we had to pick a number and put it in there. Prior to the meeting, we were talking about that, you know, that would finance a million dollar bond over 20 years, assuming a 4% interest rate. But if we don't need to borrow money, then hypothetically, you could say that 70, just round it up, that 73,000 round to 75 every year is a transfer. from the stormwater operating fund to the stormwater improvement fund if you create one. And by that method, you are putting away $75,000 every year to build up for projects. So under option A that Beth presented, the utility continues to rely on our existing reserves because expenditures exceed revenues. While we'll have significant cash balances through 2030, those will decline over time. and will negatively impact the city's flexibility for capital improvements and equipment replacement, and will eventually require a rate adjustment. We're just putting off the inevitable. Under option B, revenues generally keep pace with expenditures, allow the utility to maintain reserves, supports debt service if that's the decision the mission makes, and future capital improvements. And as a result, a stormwater improvement fund and be more sustainable over the long term because it's supported by an ongoing transfer from the stormwater operating into it. So for staff perspective, the decision before the commission is not simply option A versus option B. The larger question is that the commission's goal to preserve today's rates don't do anything and draw down existing reserves, or is the goal to establish a reserve policy that funds future stormwater improvements which are much needed while maintaining the long-term financial sustainability of the utility. We're not suggesting a third-rate scenario. Rather, we're suggesting that we have a discussion on the 22nd, or tonight if you wish, discussing what reserve policy you'd like, a capital funding strategy, such as creating a stormwater improvement plan and requiring us to come up with a 10-year plan. What are we going to fix or address over those 10 years? And then once the commission determines how much should be maintained in reserves, how much we should start saving for future projects, what your appetite is in the future, and by the future, I mean the next decade for debt, then the appropriate path will be much clearer and easier for the commission to decide rather than just say, well, we got to do it because there's some flexibility in there. Do we put $50,000 away for regular maintenance, which we're not doing now? Do we put $75,000 away put into that stormwater fund? But if we do less, how does that impact the other rate payers? Because ultimately, I mean, yeah, it says 60%. The first year, it's $0.75 per unit, drainage unit. But there's a lot of people out there that every time They turn around, something's going up. So we have to look at it from all perspectives. Did I miss anything?

No, the only other thing I might add is something.

Yeah, use the mic.

Sorry. The only other thing I might add is I can't remember right offhand if you guys already have it, but one thing to potentially consider is some other communities that do have a stormwater utility, they build in incentives for some of the larger commercial users to actually take on some of Those improvements themselves and build like retention areas to help with drainage. So that takes some of the burden off the city. So that might be something to consider as well if it's not already a section built into your ordinance. But that would be the only other thing I'd add for consideration on that.

I've got a few questions for you here, and I want to make sure I'm understanding these numbers correctly. If I'm reading here, I think I saw that we have $656,000 on hand.

Yes.

Which is six years or five years of cash or of total expenses.

Yeah, depending on what year you look at, because that fluctuated quite a bit depending on if capital improvement projects and things like that were done and what was allocated to that fund. Really, historically, the only consistent expense was the transfer to the general that was only like $3,000 a year. And then it was kind of hit and miss whether contractual services were allocated to stormwater as well as those capital improvement projects. So it kind of varies greatly. It just comes down to what regular operating expenses you want to allocate to that fund to determine what that balance needs to be.

And then looking at your proposed expenditures for 26 through 2030, they go from $110,000, $115,000, $120,000, $127,000, $133,000. But looking back at the historic expenditures, in fact, in 2023, our only expenditure was that $3,400 transfer. In 2022, the total expenditure was $15,000. It looks like there's probably a one-time expense in 2021 or some type of project that for $191,000 in capital outlay. So I'm just having trouble putting a lot of faith in any of these numbers when they're so disparate.

So we had one main adjustment was the $50,000 budget for capital outlay. We also budgeted regularly another $50,000 for contractual services, which, John, I don't know if you want to speak to exactly what went into those budgets, figures for those, and then that $75,000 for the debt service. So unlike water and sewer, we didn't really have a best picture of regular operating expenses historically outside of that base transfer to general.

And the reason for that is historically, the city has done nothing with stormwater drainage. We've collected the fees, but we've not done any improvements. $119,000 one year doing an improvement. but you set that money aside each year and it continues to grow to where it's 600,000. So what this does under option B is it one puts $50,000 away for maintenance to allow them to have money to do maintenance. Contractual services could be things like one of the things we'll bring to you in the, in the near future is manhole lining. And Brad can explain that better than I can, but yeah, That will help with keeping stormwater running from the streets into our manholes and getting into our sewer system, which then increases the amount of influence that Kevin has to treat, raising our cost for sewer. So these are the types of things that have not been done for years. So that's why those numbers. And another increase every year, I believe Beth put in a 5% increase every year in cost.

It seems like we just fabricated $100,000 in expenses to justify the increase.

Well, I don't know that we fabricated anything. We took the data that was there from all the audits, provided that to Beth.

Well, the data that I've got is the $204,021, $15,022, $3,423, and $56,024. So, I mean, that's actual data. If there's more data that we can look at, I think we should look at it. But I think putting in $100,000 of expenses... Because maybe it's not going to be sufficient for me to be in favor of it.

I mean, I think... Well, if I can speak to one, is the Beth nor staff fabricated anything. We took data that was there. The same that we fabricated would call into question KMU and staff's truthfulness.

Well, I'd be happy if you would share that data with us. Because it's not in the report that I've got in front of me. Can you share that with us?

I can give you the audits that we've given you since you've been on the commission and years before. All that information is every audit that you receive has been approved.

The data that you've shown us here is 21 through 2024. And there's nothing that I can see in here that would justify adding $56,000 in contractual and $50,000 in capital outlay.

Other than you've not done any work to your stormwater system for years.

What's been needed to be done that we haven't done?

14th Street. What's there? The people that were here for the last several years saying, can we do something? And at one point, the commission was going to build not only one but two detention ponds on some land that you own. That stopped. That was going to be about $600,000. And at one point, it was the mission was looking like it was going to lean to, well, let's fix that problem. Well, we fix that problem and you use all your money. You're not going to have any money to fix anything else. The South drainage study, you paid for a study that says you need to have this work done. That was completed, I believe in 19, 20, 21, whatever those years are. That's been five years. You've done nothing. So what this does is puts the city on a path to start putting money away to do maintenance, which you're not doing to do capital improvements, which are not doing, or we just keep on kicking the can down the road. And it ends up like the water utility and the sewer utility where you're in the hole $800,000 and you can't do anything.

Well, I mean, with all due respect, we're still $400,000 to the positive, even if we don't increase rates in four years. Is that correct?

That is correct. Okay.

So, I mean, I feel like you're making a little bit of a hyperbole here.

Well, I'm not sure what your definition of hyperbole is. What I'm telling you is that if you want to do maintenance that needs to be done on the stormwater system, and you wanna put money away for capital improvements, that things that need to be done. So we move towards the commission's policy of paying for things as we go, rather than borrowing money every time we need something, then you're going to have to start putting that money away. Rather than just say, well, we got 600,000 and that'll buy us another five or six years, it will. But if you do maintenance and you put money away or start doing capital projects, that's gonna drop down. Just like the general fund, you know, at one point you had $1.8 million in the general funders reserve. The commission's decision was for a few years, let's be revenue neutral, but let's not change services. So we ate right through that until we didn't have it anymore. And you had to raise property taxes. So this is forward looking. If we want to just be reactionary, which is the commission's prerogative, don't raise rates, wait another, one, two, three, four, five, 10 years until you have no money in reserves and see what will address it then.

Well, how many projects did we have on that priority list? We had five big projects, correct, that we've got to start saving up money for eventually. In my opinion, if you've got to start somewhere with the number, whether it be right or wrong, data-driven, I mean, you've got to start squirreling money away if you want to pay for these projects.

Right. Whether that's $70,000, $50,000, whatever the commission decides, and whatever that decides will dictate what that rate needs to be. The $75,000 for debt service in 28 was assuming a million-dollar bond if we wanted to take on a big project. Commission would have to approve that first. And if you chose not to, then it would be a policy decision. In 28, do we take $75,000 and start putting it into the stormwater improvement? Similarly, the $50,000 that Beth talked about that was added in there is to do maintenance work and things like Brad, what's it called, what they're gonna do to the stormwater or the manholes?

Polymer, polymer spraying.

About $4,000 each?

Yeah.

Depending on the depth.

Yeah.

That's what determines it. None of that's been done. So that's, you know, you have hundreds of manholes here in town. And if we just do, let's say 10 a year, then you have a hundred. And we do 10 a year at $50,000. it's going to take you 10 years to get through all of them. By the time you get through all of them, you're probably going to have to turn around and do it. Just like any good maintenance plan, if you have 80 lane miles of road, you ought to take that 80 lane miles, divide it by 10 years, if you're using asphalt, let's say, and then plan on doing this group like Brad's doing now, and then 10 years means come back and do it again. So it's not like we asphalt the road and come back in 30 years. I mean, you can, but then you'll be in a terrible position if that answers the questions. But I do appreciate the work that Beth did. The numbers that she has, she got from city staff. So if there's any question about the veracity of the numbers, then that would be on me, not on Beth or KMU.

I would just like to see those tied to actual projects if we do have a justification for those. I mean, to me, it seems like any project that's needed to be done has gotten done. I don't think the 14th Street project was urgent for the city. And I think that's why it didn't get done. I don't think the Southwest Drainage Project... has been urgent for the city. The project that was urgent, the one underneath the railroad tracks, that was urgent. That got fixed. That got addressed, I think, in the time that it needed to be. And I think that's probably the case for most of the issues that we have throughout the city.

Well, if you'd like to see a list, we can get it back to the commission. But you approved a priority list several months ago when that was presented by Public Works. It's required by code. Public Works director presents you with a list. of priorities and that you adopted. There were some changes made to the list that he had, but eventually you adopted that. And we can bring you prices for those, but we can't do any of them unless we start saving. We may be able to do one, but that's $600,000 or something.

I think it would be good to discuss this during that next study session. And I think it'd be helpful to look at, so we've made adjustments to both water and sewer rates recently. So I think it might be good during that study session to look at everything globally and not just with this rate increase, but look at what we're dealing with with our base rates on the others, including a potential adjustment here.

Mr. Ryan, you voted for the water increase and against the sewer increase. I'm kind of curious if maybe you can explain that and how you're looking at this one, kind of with that in mind.

Yeah, that was kind of my point of looking at it more globally. For me, it felt like, and I think we discussed this in the study session with Beth, but it felt like too much and too short of a time. So that's kind of why I want to look at this as well globally with those other two adjustments that were made, because there is that piece of it as well, like you had talked about. um everything seems to be going up you know regardless of municipalities you know the grocery store anything gas um so i think it's helpful to see the base rates on all of what we got on our on our water bill and see where we're sitting out there uh with any potential adjustments here so you want us to bring you what the the base the rates for water and for sewer Well, I think it would be good to just have that discussion of, you know, where is our base water bill right now? What would it be after these adjustments are made? Okay. Just to view it in a more global, because you get one bill. I mean, they're different utilities, but you're getting one bill.

Do you have a definition of what that base would be as far as usage, or do you want several brought in?

I think all we're looking at is commercial, right? I mean, that's the only thing that's going to be relevant.

Or stormwater. Yeah, I mean, on the stormwater side, commercial is going to have the biggest impact and change. Applied. I mean, we could do two things. We could look at like what the base monthly minimum charge is in general for all three utilities together. And then we could look water and sewer. We could look at that bill for 5000 gallons. The impact between the two changes in the two utilities and then stormwater would be separate since there's no usage. component, we would just have a look at that square footage size.

Well, the water and sewer is already done.

And so I don't think that that... Well, I didn't know if the mayor is wanting to look at the impact two bills for all three utilities, that would still come into that discussion for those two pieces together if that hasn't been a prior discussion. So it's whatever you want to be able to look at if it's just impact to the base minimum of those three and then commercial for stormwater. Or if you want to pick a usage amount to bring into that discussion.

I can't speak for the mayor, but really all I'm interested in is our commercial bills, individual bills. What is the effect to those essentially largest economic drivers in our community are going to get the biggest kick in the teeth. So I want to know what those are for the top hundred or whatever that they are commercial customers in our community. I'll let the mayor speak to what he wants.

You said you could get on the, I guess, the residential side. You said you could get the three base.

Yeah. The monthly minimum water and sewer that's paid no matter how much usage they have. So you'd have that. That would be the full length of the one drainage unit for stormwater. So everyone would be paying that usage for stormwater. square footage of improved surface area. And the commercial or stormwater, the main impact, higher expenses would be those commercial users with higher square footage and not multiple units to the maximum.

Yeah, our drainage unit doesn't

The one is three. I mean, as you go up, they started going in blocks. Both count for those larger areas.

I think there's some happiness in there. We don't. So there's a lot. Sure. We don't know that together in two weeks. It's already in the billing software. That would be that would be the main.

We'll plan for the 22nd. We can't pull it together. You may have to bring it back to them in July if they're available. Oh, Greg, you got it.

Yeah.

Anything else for Beth?

Not for Beth. I would just say also at June 22nd, maybe have that list of the priority projects that we discussed at prior meetings just so we can kind of see what we're saving for.

Yeah, I'll ask, we'll send it to you so you have a chance to look at it and put it in the packet as well. And if possible, we'll take the top three and see if we can't get in engineers. Perfect. If you have an idea.

Any other questions for now?

Okay.

Thank you, Beth. All right, and our next item is 7B. Consider approval of a bid from Schilling Construction Company, Inc. for the mill and overlay of North Walnut Street from Northwest 7th Street to the AMS parking lot in the amount of $128,480 and paint striping in the amount of $5,000. Public Works Director Anderson.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Commissioners. Brian Anderson, Public Works Director. Good afternoon. This is for a potential two-inch mill and overlay on Walnut Street from 7th Street going north past the west side of the football field up to the AMS parking lot. Requests for bids were sent to the contractors on May 14th in the time period. Once again, the two main players in our north central Kansas area were Schilling and APAC with Hall Brothers optioning not to bid. Schilling Construction's bid was $128,480 with an APAC $133,058.65. Paint stripe markings were added in. They each bid with Schilling Construction $5,000 and APAC $4,500. APAC did put in a concrete leveling bid. um, option, which was an optional bid item. Um, we have the capability of also doing them as city staff too. So it was just curiosity of where the bids would come in at on those. Um, so we're looking at, uh, a funding source of the Walnut street project fund project fund number Oh two five. So we're looking for options today or guidance either to approve the low combined bid from chilling, um, Approve the higher bid from APAC if you so wish, or reject the bids and provide staff with alternate direction of how to tackle these streets that are in need of some maintenance. So any discussion from anyone? What's the cost to do the leveling if your guys do it? Yeah.

Trick question.

Yeah, I'm guessing that we'd be able to be in it similar for about the dollar amount there. We're going to have concrete time, man hours. It's well within our capability of doing. I don't believe that there was actually very many of them on this street. So it's something that we could tackle and handle on this particular street anyway. I don't have an exact price for you if that's specifically what you're asking. Have you talked to Schilling about doing that work? Yeah, they were not interested in doing that particular part of the project, and they were pretty upfront about that, but whether or not we wanted to find... another supplier or tackling themselves, I'd be happy to look into that. Would you want to bid that piece out?

Just bid that leveling out?

Yeah, I think that's what I could do. And that's kind of, if you remember, that's kind of what I did with some of our other striping projects when the bid came in. We were going to look into either, A, tackling on ourself with time or looking at some paint striping options to come in for bid for multiple streets if I'm going to do that.

Yeah. Those were kind of my two questions as well. Just making sure that at concrete leveling, cause with, uh, shilling, they weren't interested in that. So just making sure that you guys have the capability of doing it.

And truth be told, if they're careful, when she usually, um, they're going to mill right up around them square pads. If you paid attention and, uh, generally they do a good job of not getting into them. And if they're milling down first and laying in, they're pretty dang close. It, um, Specifically, I guess I would say it was more as an if needed project. If they do a good job in leveling up and don't get into concrete, it's the ones where we may already have a little bit of concrete damage existing already and just need to do it while we're there on the project. I will tell you there's a little bit of work that I can do in-house. Once again, it's a time factor, but there is, and I didn't put it on the bid. There's a little bit of concrete curving that needs to be replaced. And I don't know the exact footage because I didn't measure it out, but in three or four specific spots on the west side of the stadium, on the east side of the street. So that actually lined the sidewalk to the football field area. It's very noticeable when you drive by it. And we've got some actual broken curving right now, some cracked curving. So that's something that I was looking at and talked to my superintendent that we may try and tackle on our own, though. We'd have to do that prior to the project starting, though.

On that paint striping, I assume APAC's bid is $500 less than shillings. I assume that only comes into play if they get the whole project. Yeah.

And I prefer, honestly, to whichever way you go for total price to include the striping in this particular project. Because I've got plenty of striping for my own crews to do around town, specifically after some of the microsurfacing project that's going to take place. So just one striping project off of our plate that we can have done with the project would be great for my crew, my hands. Is there a reason we wouldn't just bid all that up? The complete project? Oh, all the striping? I'd love to. My striping budget is not that big. great. I think I have a $15,000 striping budget for the calendar year. I think we've already spent about $4,000 in paint this year. So I will eat through that very quickly. If I can make it, if I can get some bids and I've got a couple of new contacts to come in and I'll just play the game and get as many as I can striped, I'd gladly do that too.

Are you talking about just pure paint cost? uh, if it's your budget, if it's us doing it.

And so that's a catch 22. If it's us doing it, it's paint costs. And then, you know, yeah, we're not talking, uh, our labor is our labor for our city crew. So we're, we're there. If we're talking a contract job, you're talking for, um, them coming into town, bringing equipment, um, all that, that stuff that goes with it.

Um, I guess what I'm saying is if your budget's $15,000 and you're spending that all on paint, you're probably spending three times that on labor, um,

Potentially, yes. I can drive around town right now and I know that we've got some striping that needs updated. I've got some sections specifically on Buckeye that need done. I need to do 3rd Street. I need to do Vine Street. They're everywhere. I'm not sure if I'll have a budget to get everything done this year, honestly.

I guess what I'm just saying is do we need to look at that differently and say, hey, we need to just bid out I mean, we've got two projects on our agenda today that have some fairly significant paint. Just build that out and paint.

No, I'd love to. If I had the money, I'd love to put out a paint striping project for just various streets in town and go that route. But for that specific line item, I have to play the game.

I should know this. I drive this route about four times a day. Is it striped now? No.

Um, yes. Has it ever been? Yeah. It's very faint and not, not very noticeable. The specific thing about, and I appreciate the open honesty, and I had the one contractor for microsurfacing drive that street with me, and he actually said, I can do this for you, but you're going to waste your money. It's so broken up. It's block crack, longitudinal crack, every style of crack you can think of on that. And the good thing about it is we're not seeing any rutting or deformations yet. So that means for now our base is holding up, but as bad as it's getting, If we don't do something with it, it's going to fall apart, and then we'll be in it for more money. So that's my opinion.

When are we required to stripe a street?

Well, technically for the MUTCD, it generally has to do with traffic. But one part that it is required, I can see beneficial for it. It is part of a bus route, a direct bus route, specifically from the parking lots of the schools down to 11th Street where they turn and go west to Eisenhower. But as you continue on south past the football field, I'm only going off a reference of very faint what's remaining of striping that takes place there. Generally, we don't do any striping in residentials, obviously, but you can do them on arterial routes. In this case, I would consider this an arterial route. Not a major one, but it does take you to and from the schools to another school-purpose facility. Definitely high traffic.

Can you see if there is a requirement? I guess like a traffic volume or something that triggers that? Grabbing to see if that's absolutely necessary.

Yeah, I gladly can.

I mean, I think those stripes, I mean, with all the cars that are parked there, I mean, it's a, but he's doing a zigzag through that street anyway. I don't know that anybody's going to drive any differently with or without. a stripe and if it's not i mean i don't know if it's required by law if it's required by law let's do it if it's not that's kind of where i'm at too because i'm like i said i drive it four times a day and i didn't know it was striped at all so what is there is so faded that it i can honestly say it probably hasn't been striped in years yeah

Yeah, I'd like to see if we could save $5,000 and not stripe, if that's a possibility. I mean, if we can break it down into two deals and approve the construction costs, I'd be willing to do that, and then backburner the paint striping once we find out if it's required.

Okay. I'd be in favor of that. I mean...

Fred?

Yes. I don't know if it matters the width of your streets here in town, but the MUTCD requires that center lines are on paved, undivided, two-way roads. meeting certain width criteria. And that width criteria is 18 feet or more. Where if you have three or more lanes, it's pretty small writing. So I can't tell you what the number of cars it requires, but yeah, it's in the MUTC.

We're 24 foot wide on this one, which in a grand scheme of things is still pretty narrow. That's a 12 foot traffic lane. And actually on the one side up there from There's parking on the one side, I believe the east side facing northbound from 11th to the school parking lot.

A quick Google over here tells me, again, there's a lot of conflicting data here, so I'm not sure what's fact. And I think it'd be important we look at what applies to us. But there's DOT and Federal Highway. I mean, there's something that says more than 3,000 cars. It says it's not required if it's illuminated. So I think there's a lot of different things that might be at play to determine whether or not that's a requirement or not.

So I guess I'll ask at this point, do you want me to, I guess, pending a vote or what you guys decide, do you guys want me to look at the striping option as a true option of whether or not it is 100% needed and look at potentially approving the project otherwise? Or if we do find out it is needed, I guess I'm wanting to know if you feel we need to come back again.

It's the average daily traffic count of 6,000 or more.

So the AADT of 6,000. There's no way we're hitting 6,000.

I would. Sorry. Go ahead.

Oh, yeah.

Mike. So the comment from City Manager Quinde was to make the recommendation to approve the project for the Millman overlay. And then if striping would be actually needed, depending on AADT, which I have a hard time believing it's going to pass at that, unless the traffic between the Eisenhower Middle School and the middle school increases it significantly.

I think what Brad's suggesting is that the commission approves the low bid for the mill and overlay, not the striping. And if it's determined at a later time that the striping is required, we can address that separately. Is that what you're trying to say?

Yeah, and that's pretty much honestly what we've done already on a couple of the other projects.

Sure.

Yeah, I'm totally good with that.

I would be down for that.

I don't think we haven't really heard anything about with it right now being faded. I didn't even notice it was striped.

Yeah, I know. I don't drive it all the time.

But, you know, if there's already don't notice it, if it's not required, I don't know that it would make a difference or anyone would notice. So I would be good with that as well. This gets a project taken care of and then we can address that when we find out if it's necessary or not.

You ready for a motion? I make a motion to approve the bid for Schilling Construction of $128,480 to mill and overlay North Walnut Street from Northwest 7th Street to the AMS parking lot in the amount of $128,480 minus the paint striping of $5,000.

I'll second. Motion has been moved and seconded. Do we have any commission discussion? Seeing none, I'm going to roll call vote. Commissioner Lytle? Yes. Commissioner Meisenberg? Yes. Vice Mayor Taylor? Yes. Commissioner Koloff? Aye. Myself, yes. Motion carries. Our next item is 7C, consider approval of a bid from Schilling Construction Company, Inc. for the mill and overlay and paint striping of Northwest 14th Street from Buckeye Avenue to Brady Street in the amount of $239,400. Public Works Director Anderson.

Yep, so same scenario here, Commissioners. Project was put out for bid on May 14th. two main players once again in the game, Chilling Construction for the amount of $239,400, APAC for the amount of $255,759.50. And this was for a distance from Buckeye to Brady Street, distance of 2,550 feet and 24 foot wide. As part of this project, we did put paint striping as part the project itself also included with the bid and overlay. So that's important. And I felt it was on this one. This one's a little bit different beast. It's a four lane road slash street. It's a connecting link with the county through on their route. And it is a designated truck route within our city limits. One kind of not unique situation with it, but it does have a school crossing walk on it that would be included in the paint striping of the project along with the striping itself. The project, we've got some pretty rough conditions up there. We've been dealing with consistent patching. It is a concrete base underneath it built for stability of the truck route from years ago. We've got a little bit of heaving taking place when they go through and mill that down. It should take care of any of the heaving areas that we have and then put a fresh new recap on top of it is the plan. We're looking to approve the low bid from Schilling for the amount of $239,400, the bid from APAC, the higher bid for $255,000, $759,000, or provide the staff once again with some alternate options.

Really quick here. I'm not sure if this is just a typo, but Both of these projects are the exact same length and width. Which I think is incorrect, so I just wanted to...

It possibly could be, and I apologize if it is. It looks like it's...

I mean, just visually, it looks like it's probably... Maybe I have... Length and maybe twice as wide.

It's 13,216 square yards. So, yeah, I have a feeling that that might be a typo. I do believe it is a little bit different there, so I apologize for that. How many square yards was that? 13,000. Hang on, I got to get back to that page again. 216. 216.

got that fingers today.

Yeah. And I don't, I don't have the other, it's about twice as wide and obviously it's twice as much. Yeah. Okay.

So just looking for guidance on this project.

Question, I mean, pretty much already answered it, but I know that, yeah, on that previous one, there was an upcharge for the paint striping. This one, there wasn't.

I assume it's because this one's more of a... Yeah, on both of them, it's included in the pricing specifically. This one's more of a generally required striping, obviously. Is required because they can provide the specific traffic control while they're painting the double lanes down. Kind of why I... I really wanted them to be able to do it instead of our city staff on this situation. If we're doing the project, in my opinion, we have them do the painting too.

Any other questions on this one? Questions for Brad? I have no questions.

I will make a motion to approve the low bid from Schilling Construction Company in the amount of $239,400. Second.

Motion has been moved and seconded. Do we have any commission discussion? Seeing none, I'm going to roll call vote. Commissioner Meisenberg?

Yes.

Vice Mayor Taylor?

Yes.

Commissioner Kohlhoff? Aye. Commissioner Lytle?

Yes.

Myself, yes. Motion carries. Our next item under Heading 8, New Business, is 8A, Central Kansas Free Fare Association Combined and Amended Agreement. And our city manager, Quinde.

Thank you. Before I start, I'd like to thank the Central Kansas Free Fare Association Board, Matt, I think his name is, the cowboy, the rodeo representative, city staff, and Aaron for their time, effort, and willingness as we work through this process. We've had several meetings and numerous discussions over the past several months. Great. differing perspectives and the conversations were very productive. The purpose of bringing this agreement to the Commission is to consolidate and update the City's existing 1991 and 1996 agreements with the Fair Association into a single document that better reflects current operations and practices. The existing agreements have served the community and the Fair Board well for more than 30 years. but the operations at the fairgrounds, the facility use, maintenance responsibility, and long-term planning needs have evolved significantly over the last three decades. Throughout the discussion, the city and the fair board shared the same fundamental goals, preserve the fairs and Wild Bill Hickok Rodeo, maintain and improve the fairground facilities, support future capital improvements for the city with an emphasis on the stadium, pursuing grant funding, grant and funding opportunities, again, particularly for stadium maintenance and improvements and continuing that strong partnership that the City and the Fair Board have had for many years. The proposed agreement that's in your packet preserves that relationship while providing greater clarity regarding property use, maintenance responsibilities, improvements in future construction, insurance requirements, and we've added an annual coordination and planning meeting between the two entities. The agreement as presented maintains city ownership of the fairgrounds property. The real property will continue to provide the fair with the right to use the facilities for fair related purposes. After reviewing the latest draft that's in your packet, Kaylee with the fair board provided additional comments and feedback. Their comments that they provided are not objections to the agreement or the city's overall goals, but they primarily focus on the long-term certainty regarding the fair's continued use of the property, clarification regarding ownership and treatment of the improvements constructed by the fair association, and operational certainty regarding stadium use. The primary policy issue remains whether the relationship through this question proposed or submitted by Kaylee, whether the relationship should continue to be governed through contractual use rights rather than easements or other property interest. The 91 and 96 documents refer to easements, but the rights granted under those documents are contractual in nature. The agreements contain renewal provisions, termination rights, operational requirements, maintenance obligations, and limitations tied specifically to the continued operation of the Central Kansas Free Fair. As a result, staff believes that the city's objectives can be achieved through this modernized contractual use agreement without granting an easement or other permanent real property interest. To address the free fares concerns, what's in your packet is a one-year agreement, moving that to a five-year agreement. And then... This agreement's intended to strengthen and not change the partnership between the city and the fair and provides a clear framework. If you have a chance or look at it in your packet, the main changes in the agreement are on the third page of the ownership of land and improvements. And it clearly spells out that the city retains ownership of all real property, Except for the stadium building, the Fair Association retains ownership of removable buildings, barns, pens, fixtures, and other improvements constructed or installed by the Fair Association on the property. It states that the stadium building shall remain the property of the city. Then maintenance improvements, it clarifies that the city maintains the stadium, they maintain everything else. City provided services was clarified that was in the 1996 agreement and 91 agreement. What's in front of you is that the city will provide assistance during the fair week to haul away straw from the horse barns and dispose of it. And we can provide other services as requested, but subject to prior approval by the city. And that the city may provide reasonable assistance regarding traffic flow, parking control and public safety coordination during the fair activities. subject to available personnel and prior approval by the city that will monitor all city water usage at the facilities and shall notify the association if we intend to start charging the fare for this water usage. And then we added a coordination meeting. We've been meeting so much. We've had a lot of good conversations back and forth, seeing things from the city's perspective, their perspective, the rodeos. So what we added is at least once a year, we'll meet. How did this bear go? What went well? What didn't work? What do we need to change? You know, how can we improve? How can you improve? It just opens up that communication a little bit better. And then, um, We also talk about capital improvements during that meeting. What are you guys looking at doing? What are we looking at doing specifically with the stadium? One of the items that we've identified is replacing the lights at the stadium. The light fixtures themselves were replaced, but not the poles. They're still on old, ugly wooden poles. So to replace those, and then the seating needs to be replaced. It's got some issues. But because it's a historic building, we've got to work through the process. But that also may open up some funding opportunities. One thing that did result from all these conversations we had is that the fair board and the rodeo representatives offered to raise funds, if you will, for capital improvements to the stadium. Right now we budget $1,000. $1,000? $1,000 a year is all that's been budgeted historically for stadium maintenance. That's not cutting it. So I think his name's Matt. Yeah, Matt is going to organize or plans to organize a benefit rodeo to raise money so we can make those capital improvements. And there's another young man on the fair board who's talking about potentially organizing a concert. And then when we talked about applying for grants together, things that we can apply for, but they can't, and there's things that they can apply for that we can't. So we moved away from this revenue sharing because it became convoluted and just decided, okay, let's update this to reflect current operations and make it clear. Language used in 91 and 96 is a little bit different than how we talk today and work together to keep things going because it's a good relationship. It really is. And it's a huge, huge event. And they do things now year round. Are there any questions? The fair had agreed to sign it already, but I made a couple of changes, clarifying some language. And then that's when they asked the questions that are in here that I addressed. I hope to be able to bring this back to you in two weeks once they say we're good with it. And then barring any questions that you may have.

Do you have any questions for it right now?

If they're good with it, I'll be good with it.

The communication and the relationship, especially the relationship that Kelly, Timbrook, Parks and Rec, and Brad Public Works have with the fair board and the rodeo, it's just phenomenal. It really is. Started off a little rocky, but it's working out great. Bailey emails me now.

No further questions. We will move to item 8B, 2027 budget discussion, miscellaneous funds. Kelsey.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Commissioners. As part of the 2027 budget development process, staff has prepared the proposed budgets for the Special Alcohol and Drug Fund, Special Parks and Rec Fund, and Special Highway Fund. These are special revenue funds that receive dedicated revenues and are restricted by state law. The Special Alcohol and Drug Fund is projected to receive $14,000 in alcohol tax revenues during 2027. That's conservative, and I do try to do that in revenues each time. With the full amount budgeted for alcohol and drug abuse prevention and treatment-related programs, the fund is expected to maintain a cash reserve of approximately $16,353, which we can in turn then expend out to those same programs if we actually receive that amount in. The Special Parks and Recreation Fund is also projected to receive $14,000 in alcohol tax revenues. Proposed expenditures include $11,000 for capital outlay and $3,000 for the tree board activities while maintaining a cash reserve of approximately $74,023. And then the Special Highway Fund is projected to receive $259,950 from motor fuel taxes, KDOT funding, reimbursed expenses, and and interest earnings proposed expenditures expenditures include 82 000 for commodities and 80 000 for capital outlay related to street maintenance and infrastructure improvements and that fund is expected to maintain a cash reserve of approximately 574 000. overall the proposed budget reflect conservative anticipated revenues and expenditures while maintaining reserves for future needs because these funds are restricted by law their cash balances cannot be used to support operations in other city funds So dare I say, these are the simple funds that we'll see. Starting off slow.

Any questions for Kelsey on these ones? Stocking up before you go home?

No comment.

Any questions on that one? Okay. If we have none, I would consider a motion to adjourn. Oh, sorry.

Mike, too. You get assigned a railroad that he worked with, with getting that fixed. They put an extra layer of our thickness of asphalt. It has settled, but he's been on the phone with union Pacific for a couple of weeks now. And actually they called this morning to say, Hey, we can come in and do that. But we can't just get asphalt whenever we want. So it's something he's been working on addressing. I know you received an email. I've not reached out to that gentleman yet, but it is something that Brad's been working on for a couple weeks.

Anything on the other repair? That email mentioned that the city repair that was just downstream from that was also kind of sagging.

Texas Street, I don't believe I've walked in today. I think it's just the

papers off.

I'm not honestly seeing any settling from what we did there at all. I know when you come off the tracks, it kind of angles down and slopes towards the intersection and that drainage box. So what appears to be a little bit of a transition when you're driving it, I'm actually seeing no settling there. But yes, just so you know, that is planned for tomorrow morning back at the UP Railroad to add another layer. I think it was... It was going to happen. We got some settling on the roadway and we just didn't know how bad we actually left that about an inch higher than we needed to. And the compaction has taken place over the time. And that's where the settling came from. We're not seeing any other problems with the drainage itself. So going to fix that up tomorrow.

Is there an objective way to measure the city repair? Meaning? Well, I guess my car is telling me that there's still a dip there. Like it's not down by the street one. Yeah.

Yeah. Unless we change highway grade, to be honest with you, it just.

Well, I mean, I don't think I hear what you're saying. And obviously there's going to be some grade towards the drainage, but it still feels like there's a little bit. of a low spot.

Um, yeah, I, if I build it up anymore, then we're going to be higher than the rest of the roadway is kind of where we're at.

So, yeah, I might just ask if, I don't know if you can run a standard across either side of the repair East and West and North and South and see what that looks like.

Yeah. I mean, I can all gladly look at it again. I just, having seen the comment, I went and walked it today and we've, We got very little to no settling on that specific patch. And we graded it back in with existing roadway. I'll take another look.

That was my fault. If you have nothing further to consider, motion to adjourn. I'll make a motion to adjourn.

I'll second.

Motion has been moved and seconded. Do we have any commission discussion?

I didn't see an agenda for a study session. Is there a study session? Okay. Thank you.

I checked twice, thrice, just to make sure.

I adjusted my filters to C2.

No discussion. We'll move to roll call vote. Vice Mayor Taylor? Yes. Commissioner Koloff? Aye. Commissioner Lytle? Yes. Commissioner Meisenberg? Yes. Myself, yes. Motion carries. We are adjourned.