City Commission - Regular Meeting

Yeah, I'm sure. Yes, sir.

We will now call to order the September 14th, 2026 City of Abilene, Kansas City Commission meeting. Shayla, may we please have a roll call?

Mayor Ryan.

Here.

Commissioner Taylor. Here. Commissioner Kohlhoff. Present. Commissioner Lytle. Here. Commissioner Meisenberg. Here. Roll call is complete.

Okay. Will you please stand for the pledge?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God.

All right. Our next item is approval of today's agenda.

I make a motion that we approve as ready.

I'll second.

Motion has been moved and seconded. Do we have any commission discussion? Hearing none, would 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 August 24th, 2026 meeting, the appropriation ordinance A-090826-26, and the AP payment register.

I make a motion. We approve the consent agenda as written.

I'll second.

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

Nay.

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 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 agenda? No. Okay. Seeing none, we'll move to 6B, DKEDC presentation on the Kansas Department of Commerce block grant opportunity.

Thank you.

I have a really exciting opportunity before me, and I can't stand to leave $500,000 on the table if there's a chance that we could get it to improve our downtown. So I've been working with Julie because she knows all the goods and the people and where to find all the things that are needed to make this go forward. And I really appreciate her for that. So I think there was a memo in your packet about the grant. So the Department of Commerce is offering one community a $500,000 grant to improve one block of their downtown. That block can be facing sides. Basically, if a semi can pull out and you can see it from a kind of a 180-ish, then that's considered a block. Thinking about what block I would like to do, we picked the 3rd Street Northwest block, right? Just... It would be east of Buckeye. Forgive me. I'm getting all of my west, west of Buckeye. Sorry. Getting there. And the reason why is because you also need 50-50 or one-to-one matching. So we'd need $500,000 worth of matching dollars. And that can include any investments that have been put into that block since July of 2024. Okay. Every building owner on the south side has replaced their roof. That counts. The CBDG grant that Mr. Kolhoff received counts as matching as well. Your overlay that you did on that street will count as matching as well. And I think there's some sidewalk replacement that happened there as well within that time frame. And also another building owner on the other side replaced their roof just recently. So we have more than enough matching, which sets us up. So I'm going to check that mark in the rubric that we've made that. The kicker is, though, the work has to be finished by December 15th of this year within and construction can only be in a two week period. Very, very crazy. But if anybody can do it, I think we can. And I'm very confident. I've been meeting with several contractors. I've met with John. All my building owners are on board in that block, which is amazing to have all of them wanting to move forward. What we're going to try and do is work with John's CBDG and his contractor that's going out for bid to see if we can possibly work that in. It won't be a part of the block grant just because it's already for facade improvements and I can't duplicate that money. But it makes a good case and it shows investment and those buildings will be revitalized even if it can't meet the grant timeline. And Department of Commerce is aware. I've been on the on the horn with them trying to figure out how I make this work with CBDG because I don't want to jeopardize that. But that would still leave nine buildings revitalized. And then his as they come on, those three that John has. So with that, I've done a lot of work. I've looked at the historic standards, some of the historic materials to make sure that we're in line with that so it does fit the look of downtown Abilene. And so I did some before and after renderings, and I did have the help of AI, but it was a lot harder than I thought because a lot of times it would change stuff or not do the correct stuff. So I worked really hard to get you this presentation, and I'd like to show you what it looks like before and what I'm proposing it will look like after with this work. And then we'll talk about the contractors, timelines, and I'll answer any questions that you have. So I guess I get to click this. So I'm going to go through it here. So here we go, Cypress Bridge. Beautiful building, huge building. The inside is amazing. I got to tour the Masonic Lodge. Wow, amazing stuff, but it looks pretty beat up. Needs some paint, needs some windows. We got a really good story because the windows have fallen on the sidewalk during a wind. That could be a safety issue right there. So if you can tell, we're gonna paint it. I'm still waiting to see if I can get enough tuck pointing down. That needs a lot, but we'll definitely paint, replace the broken windows. Fix up the sidewalk, add some lamps on that side of the street. Here's the side. So I'm not sure if I'll be able to fix all of the side going down that way because again, it has to be that block, that reveal. So we'll see what we get as we get working here. Here's Prairie Clover. That's a new clinic that'll be going into where the Patterson was located during the fire. Um, here's the hair emporium. Um, again, marble was, um, typical of those new walls. So I've got some substitute material that we can use to make it look like marble, make it look really pretty. We want, I want to keep the flower bolts because they're historic and a very, um, people like to see those and it draws attention. So this repair was done about, or this improvement was done about four years ago, but it's not historic. So if we add recess panels below and maybe some limestone, maybe faux limestone, like across the street, you'll see it kind of matches. But this will be the quickest form for us to get it done in the two-week time period that we're proposing. So again, add an awning, move the sign up, and add lights. So this grant requires all exterior improvements only, with the exception of electrical, to get done. The lights on the outside, if you need to put any breakers or wiring on the inside, you can do that. Here's Benjamin Edwards. They've done some work too, but it's not, they've just used plain old paneling. We're going to try and, they need some new doors. So they will get two new doors, both those double and the single doors is what I'm proposing. And then again, you can see the sidewalk throughout. And even though that sidewalk's done, we're proposing a stamp and stain, so that, or a stain and seal so that we can incorporate that same brick look throughout, even though it's new concrete, so we don't have to pull it out. So again, so moving on down the street, I really feel we need a bigger sign for downtown Abilene that really draws people in. You see the boarded up building there. It doesn't look very good as you're driving to the presidential library. I'd like to make that a little bit more interesting so people will turn the corner and hopefully shop downtown, go on further. Secondly, we've got the, not much here because they put a new awning not too long ago, but the concrete there is sinking and it's a trip hazard. So there'll be that and we'll do a paint refresh and possibly put some planters in front of, there's a fenced in air conditioning unit right there that doesn't look very good. So we'll put some planters, make it look a little bit better, fix the sidewalk. So then we got Patterson Pharmacy. I met with a mason. Basically, almost that whole brick facade is going to have to be rebuilt because it is pulling away. So I've got a bid from him. We'll help him fix that, get new windows in there, get an awning for them, redo their sign, get some lighting. We're going to keep the existing brick, but just paint it the same color as the top because it's already painted brick anyway. that's there. So next would be, these are my mock-ups for John's buildings, just trying to figure out some, how it's all going to look so you can see. His is a little bit different. This is just some design that I did, but his will be also historically accurate and use those materials as well. And of course, you know, I had to put me in there because I want to locate downtown. I want to be downtown. So you see my, not really our logo, but driving Dickinson County downtown, had to throw that in there just a little bit. And then here's his third building there. Kind of you can see the before and after. I mean, if you put these all together, this block is going to pop and it's going to be amazing. Going on to the end building, it really needs some paint. I know that Mr. Hammett has done a lot of work on it already. So some awnings, paint some doors, you know, paint the steps. They're kind of rusty. Give us some great historic accents on the cornice. And I think that that will pop as well. So here's also his corner. So one thing I'm proposing is the, what do we call it? The horse. I looked him up. I saw, I have one across the street in Solomon where I live, where they used to tie up the horses. So kind of fitting with our old cowboy Abilene town, but also it would become a bike rack. So kind of some fun stuff showing that off there. So I've changed the same by Margaret Mead. And I'm sure you've heard this several times. Never doubt that a large group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change downtown. Indeed, it's the only thing that will. So we can do this. I've got many of my contractors and my suppliers still got more to reach out to. The grant is due on the 30th with an award before October 9th. I have asked if we can take down some signage or do any demo ahead of the construction. Then we have two weeks to complete the construction. I have picked November 6th through the 20th because that's before Thanksgiving and before it gets too cold. Okay. So that's the week I'd pick for our two-week sprint. We're working to get volunteer groups to come and help scrape paint, that kind of thing. So move forward here. Here's who I already have on board. I have MGC Property Solutions. They're one of your contractors that does some of your work. They will be our fill-in wherever a contractor needs help or we're missing something. They can do doors, windows, power wash. They're going to power wash the whole block for us, scrape, whatever. We've got Adam's Custom Painting and Chad's Painting on board from working on getting those bids. We've got Microweaver Construction. For concrete, he's willing to do that. I'm now speaking with Boyd's Excavating. I've got Perfection Masonry right now on board because they're working on the Education Center, Ike Education Center, and they're the ones that gave Patterson a bid. And so he told me to reach out to him with some other stuff as we're getting. I'll probably need one more mason in order to complete the work in the two-week timeframe. So looking for that Midwest concrete for our concrete. I just met with Kauffman Electric waiting to hear back from SK Electric for some of those lights and new light poles. We're hoping to get rid of one of the light poles downtown since we'll have the concrete taken out. We can bury that pole underneath and add the lamps on the other side, which should be pretty cool. Again, we're still waiting for some equipment. Talk to some of our local suppliers to open some accounts so that if we need gloves, masks, extra brushes, scrapers, anything like that, we have an account to be able to buy those as we need them and as we see. Tim Holmes has agreed to let us use the building there just around the corner to stage everything so we can get everything ordered and have it staged and ready to go for our two-week sprint for construction. I still need some equipment. So here's where we are. Here's what I'm doing. Obviously, someone's going to say, why did you pick that block? How come my building doesn't get any money? I thought of that. But again, we want to spur additional improvements in downtown. So my board voted to offer 10 $1,000 matching grants for any facades or improvement done during the construction period, or if they can't do it, we'll extend that through March of 2027. They can also couple our build 0% facade loan for up to $10,000 to make their repairs. I'm hoping that this sets us up for a beautiful future and a beautiful downtown in the near future with us. I mean, this could be catalytic for this community, and it's needed. It's needed. So we'd appreciate the city support. I'd like a letter of support from you guys for the grant, because I think if we're doing it your city, got to help somehow. So do you have any questions about the grant or what I'm proposing right now?

I guess that was my biggest question. What can we do to support you?

So I have a couple ideas. Number one, if you're willing to purchase the concrete and we'll reimburse you through the grant, we can save some money with the sales tax since that is not, I mean, it's more tied to infrastructure than an individual building. That would be helpful if you're willing to do that. Any barricades or cones that we might be able to use during the two weeks would be grateful. Any trailers that we could put debris in as we're demoing would be great too. And then anything else that you feel that the city could contribute to really make this happen. I know we're going to try any building permits that you might be willing to waive or expedite or sign permits would be great in this process to just make it go really smoothly. The more work we have done ahead of time, the easier those two weeks will be to navigate. It's still going to be crazy. And I don't know that it's going to go perfect, but I'm willing to try. I'm willing to get my boots on and my gloves and do some work myself. So anyway, any other questions or thoughts? I know this is crazy.

Is there a certainty that we get this when we apply for it? It's already done.

No, it's not already done. OK, but I'm hopeful. So I was on a focus group about a week before with the lieutenant governor to see if I could pull this off. So when I went to Switzerland with him, we had a big discussion about what's called guerrilla placemaking, where you come in and you just do it and then people see it and they can see what is. So I don't know if that's part of this discussion. So we had six economic developers and I was one of them. And he asked them, he said, do you guys think you could pull this off in this timeframe that we want? We want to show that a community can revitalize a block of downtown if they all pull together in the same direction and they work hard at doing it. And of course, I said, yes. One community said, absolutely not. We've got too much going on. I can't do it. On the call last week, we had about 15 communities that showed up to the call, which is unusual for a commerce grant because usually you have, you know, 40, 50 communities looking to get some money. I don't know, but my odds, I feel pretty good. I think about half of those will apply. So if I say six communities apply and I'm one of them, my odds look pretty good. I think I'm willing to play that game.

Your advance work is phenomenal already. So, I mean, that's impressive what you've put together in a short amount of time.

Well, I've already got, like I said, a lot of stuff done. A lot of my, I'm just waiting on, I'm helping the business owners with all of their letters and getting all, I've got a lot of the match documentation already from the building owners in my file and my folder, just working to get it. And of course the grant's not due till the 30th. So I'm sitting pretty, I feel overall. One of the things I, and I'm not, I'm not trying to brag, but I feel I'm a pretty good grant writer. I'm three for three so far. So, and I've been here less than a year. So we'll see again, if this is for this, just, it could change this town. It could change the community. It could change the trajectory of my organization and the trust in what I can do and what we can accomplish together as a County. And as you know, a local government and just contractors and people coming together for the greater good, because that's what it's going to take to really move things forward. Any other questions?

You said a couple of things that kind of got my spidey senses tingling here. You mentioned avoiding a sales tax. Are there other ways that we could avoid sales tax or maybe other expenses? That would require the work of the commission here that you might well, the lights, but I think you guys are already going to do that.

There's a 2nd piece of this to leverage these dollars. So, if we can show, that's 1 of the reasons why. So, when I read the rubric, I always read the rubric to see how I can score. And if I don't feel I have a good chance, I won't apply for grant. If I don't have enough. I don't think I have enough to follow to fall in line with the rubric and to score high. I'm not going to apply for it. So one of the things that's why we put, we have the facade loan is to show extra investment into the property. So Julie's going to talk and she can talk to you about a little bit. Cause so like buying the light poles, that would be a tax deduction because you already had them and did them or before for little like parks. So we want to make sure that they're the same. So that would be another thing that you could, could help with and we'll just reimburse through the grant. with it could be a tax savings as well. I just wasn't concerned. I don't want people thinking that the city's investing in personal buildings, but definitely the infrastructure, some of the pots, some of the decorative things that are going downtown to really make it a beautiful streetscape. If you want to buy those tax-free and then we'll reimburse you through the grant, we can stage them at Tim's property there. That would be helpful. Anything that you guys are willing to do. I know that You know, you guys have gone through a lot, but you've also done a lot and you've done a lot of great things. But if I if we can work together to pull this off, I just I can't imagine it's going to get big press throughout Kansas. It's going to be it could be the start of a different program. It could be the start that branches off into Harrington for us and other little downtowns to figure out how to to like revitalize those in our communities. I mean, if we can figure out how to do this and make it well. And again, it's not going to be perfect, but it's definitely going to be progress. And that's the beauty of it, is that we're moving forward with something. And then that gets the community excited. And it gets building owners excited. And businesses looking at downtown saying, hey, maybe I should. Maybe I should fill that empty building. Maybe I should buy it. Look how beautiful. Look what they're working towards. So again, and I really feel that our down count could use a lot. I ask a lot of people. I can't understand why it's... not more vibrant than it is and why we have so many empty buildings for the location and with the presidential library. And so I'm hopeful that this maybe spurs some of that and people can see what can be and then they get excited about it and they do so. Okay, Julie, you're up.

Julie Roller Weeks, tourism director. This is so exciting, guys. How many times have people brought up the downtown streetscape plan to you from 2010? Like a lot, right? And we haven't had the capacity to really move much of that forward. And this is our opportunity. Am I going backwards? Just kidding. Oh, there we go. So how do we make this vision a reality and increase our competitiveness? Realistically, we have no guarantee that this grant will ever happen again. Natalie has amazing relationships. She's done a lot of good work. But there's going to be a change of administration potentially. There's going to be a new governor. We don't know that this grant program is going to exist again. And we want to increase Abilene's chances as much as we possibly can. We know that we can't give public dollars to private individuals to improve their property, but this is a chance to be able to do that through this grant. So how do we make it happen? So if you look at the grant criteria, it talks about how we can compete. So having a project that's ready, we can do that. Coordinating with public and private, we can do that. Long-term economic benefits. Community and property owner partnerships. And as you move through it, it talks about potential projects. Exterior improvements, Natalie talked about that. Facade improvements, painting, tuck pointing, all of those things. But it also goes down into landscaping, planters, pocket parks. outdoor gathering spaces, and sidewalk and small-scale streetscape improvements. So how do we look at that? We've been talking for years about Phase 2 of Little Ike Park. I am not Joy Moss. If you look at my front porch, you'll notice my plants are all dead right now. But this is Joy's plan for Phase 2 of Little Ike Park, and I think it's worth looking at to see how we can leverage that plus the block grant on 3rd Street to really make a wow and increase our chances. So this is where we started in 2018. Do you all remember Little Ike Park looking like that? Here's where we are today. It's pretty impressive. Joy did a great job. But we're not done yet. This is a vision for the north end of Little Ike Park. This project is included in the Abilene Park System Master Plan. The goals of Little Lake Park are to continue to maintain Little Lake Park and to improve it to the north. So it can be just a great place for people to gather. Improving the entrance to the parking lot. This is what it looks like now. Improving parking and ADA parking. Continuing the brick pillars throughout and the wrought iron fencing, which will make hosting events so much easier when you're not having to put up hundreds of feet of snow fence. Continuing the trash cans, benches, and planters. Adding new hanging baskets. If you've been downtown during the slightest breeze, you'll notice that these street lamps sway a whole lot. We appreciate the salt on the sidewalks when it's icy, but they're corroding the base of all of these lampposts. They need to be replaced to match what's currently at Little Ike Park, and they need to have the concrete base under them. Here's our sidewalk right now. You can see the salt has done a number on it. So with Joy's plan, it would continue the brick pillars and the wrought iron fence. We understand that taking care of grass and fence can be a problem. So she would have concrete under that. So we're not going to have to weed eat through all of that fence, which I think is super smart. The old planters will be removed and we'll have just great plants that will be in that area. So this is the current view from the north end looking south. So the concrete wall will be replaced. Those concrete planters will be replaced. I'm really just giving it that updated look and continuing Little Ike Park success. Adding bumpers so that way it's easier to mow. Additional landscaping just like what she's done at Little Ike Park. We have all these wonky little walkways in the parking lot that just really don't function. So we'll be taking out several of those and making one that really does function well. So this is where we are and this is where we could go. And this would help enhance our grant application for the $500,000 to show we're also completing a park project around the corner. We're not just doing one block downtown, we're doing two. I mean, I don't know how many communities are gonna be bold enough to apply for one, let alone two. I think it really speaks to our ability to get things done. So in 2022, she had an estimate of $167,000 to complete this project. I've been reaching out to her vendors, trying to get updated numbers. We're looking around $211,000 to complete this project today. So we could leverage the $500,000 block grant with the 500,000 match funds that have all gone from those public or those private projects in that block or in, yes, in that block. The community foundation actually has a grant open right now and it closes tomorrow. And flying by the seat of our pants, guys. But it's for big impact projects like a wow that will change the community and that will leverage outside dollars. So I'm going to ask them for $95,000 to help fund this project. They have $200,000 in total. But I think we have a competitive case that we're looking at a $1.2 million project now and applying for $95,000. But that's not going to complete it. So why now? If we do this project now, we can leverage it for that $500,000 grant to really help those downtown building owners. We also have a great project going on Buckeye. So imagine, not only are we completing Buckeye through the C-Clip project, we're doing Third Street and Little Lake Park. So we received $1.5 million for the C-Clip grant that's in progress right now. We're going to apply for $500,000 from the block grant with a $500,000 match for Northwest 3rd Street. And then we need some direction. Do you think that Little Lake Park is worth pursuing to finish the north end of the project? So my ask would be, one, should we apply for $95,000 from the community foundation? Would the city be willing to make a strategic investment of $125,000 to leverage a $1.2 million project to try to get this completed to make our application more competitive? Should we go it alone with just the block grant and hope that the state of Kansas really loves Abilene? Or should we go above and beyond and say, not only are we going to complete one block, we're also going to do a park in the process? So I would really just like some direction for you. I don't think there's a wrong answer, but I certainly don't want to go rogue and commit to $95,000 and we can't finish a project. The foundation would want some assurances there. I also think if the city is able to waive permitting fees, help with concrete to save the sales tax, but also showing that we do have a little bit of investment, I think it will increase our chances.

You wouldn't have to have that completed in that two weeks. If we could, it would be great. But you could that piece was that wouldn't have to fit the timeline.

But it would be super cool if we did it all.

Why not?

So I would really love some feedback from you on if you think North Little Lake Park is worthy of continuing. If there's any opportunity for investment from the city, just giving us some direction that way.

How many thoughts for Julie? Sorry, I'm still reading.

Yeah, what does procurement look like from the city perspective?

Once we throw our hat in the ring, there's rules to follow. I think that's kind of the beauty of the grant that Natalie's found is that there's not a lot of requirements tied to it.

Could we grant funds to Dickinson County Economic Development to handle this portion of the project. But then if we're trying to avoid sales tax, truthfully, I don't know. I'm looking for direction.

I don't know where we've got that in the budget.

That's what I'm looking at, too, is where would it come from?

Have you talked to Patterson? Have we determined?

Not on this project. We've talked to them on some other things and haven't got a lot of traction on this one.

I know that it seems like they have pretty good communication with commerce. That might be something worth asking if they'd be willing to do that. The other thing I would ask is talking with the foundation and see if they would open up maybe just a program to allow people to donate for this. I don't know. Yeah.

Or an extension. I mean, I don't know. It'd allow us more than a day. You said it closes tomorrow.

So we'd have to apply for the Community Foundation grant tomorrow. But we would want this included with our grant to the state for the $500,000. If we're not able to do it, we can't tell the state we are.

Right. And that's due the 30th of September?

Yeah. Okay. Okay.

So we have a little bit of leeway there tomorrow?

Yes, but if we are going to apply to the community foundation, their question back is going to say, well, how are you going to actually complete this project? You have a portion of the funding potentially from them, but how are we going to seal the deal?

I just don't think we're in a position to write that check today.

That's where I'm at, too. I would love to... make it happen because it's beautiful i think it's needed i don't think there's any question about that and i hopefully it doesn't affect the block grant not having it but what are your thoughts the um

$125,000 to leverage $1.2 million is a pretty good deal. I mean, I understand the concern working with the budget, but I think it's doable because like Natalie said, you don't have to have it done in the two weeks. If you could, that'd be great. You could also break it up if you had to, uh, the little light park, 26 and 27. There is some money in the special, um, parks fund, not enough to cover the whole 125, but, uh, if the commission were to say, yes, apply to the community foundation, you know, we'll contribute $125,000, uh, it would one be contingent on both grants being approved, the one that Natalie's applying for. My understanding is she has 100% participation from the building owners, which puts Natalie way up on the list compared to other cities, adding There's a little Ike Park to it. It just adds points to if there are six other cities. She's got all the businesses in. Now you have this other investment from the city. So, yes, I think it's doable. It would take some action by the city commission. You don't have to... take that action today. But if you could come up with $125,000 over that period, even if it's half now and half in 2027, then you could do it.

Any idea when that match would be due by?

I think we would need a letter of support for Natalie's grant to say that the city commission is committed to doing this project.

It gives us leverage to say, well, we've It forces them to say, okay, they've got this other 120 or $200,000 investment and it's contingent upon receiving the the block grant. I mean, it just kind of gives me a little, okay, maybe we better do this because they want to see additional, they want to see that this is going to spur it. And that's why we offered the other grant and the facade, because they still, they want to see the future investments going to be made in downtown because of this project.

Yeah.

And you don't have to complete it. Like I said, maybe, maybe just while we have the concrete guy, we do all the concrete or something. And then you do the landscaping in the spring for, I mean, there's ways I think to, to manage it and even find money. But again, I mean, it's up to you guys.

Several steps would have to fall. A, we'd have to get the community foundation grant. We'd have to get the block grant. If we don't get either one of those, nothing happens. It doesn't make sense. It wouldn't be the priority. The priority is to try to maximize those grant dollars.

Have you reached out to any of the private foundations, the Jeffcoat or Brown?

We've definitely been in contact with Jeffcoat regarding the block grant. He's aware of the Little Lake Park project, but...

I guess that would be another recommendation I would have is reach out to Brown. I don't know what their board allows, but I'd have to think.

That one has been very specific for Brown Memorial Park and the home. I'm willing to chase other things, just looking at a timeline here, and if this is a priority and we want to include it. for the $500,000, or if we want to say, no, we're going to start or stop at that one block and see where we go, that's okay too. Just trying to look at our competitiveness.

If you were to include in your letter of support that Natalie's asking for this piece that Julie's presented, at the end of the day, when we bring you, if we go through our procurement process, those costs, we have to show you how we have to pay for it and you still have to approve those costs. Even though you're saying, yes, we support it and we wanna move through with phase two, before it happens, we still have to come back and you say yes. This is how we're paying for it, and we approve these bids. Or as Natalie or Julie suggested, to avoid the procurement issues that Commissioner Kohlhoff talked about, you grant them $125,000. And maybe that's you grant them half now and half in 2027. And not to put Natalie on the... spot, but that would be something she'd have to work through is, you know, we can do half now or 60,000 now from special parks, 2027, we'll give you the other half.

Okay. And then that $125,000 commitment on our part would be to get the $95,000 in community foundation grants.

Yes. And then it would also be leveraged for that $500,000 block grant. Yes.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- Things is collaboration, showing the amount. So if we have community foundation here, give me a little piece. We have Dickinson County doing what they can right now in the city. HAB-Masyn Moyer- What they can, you know, we have some of the contractors that are willing and, you know, got great stuff really meet within that timeframe, which means maybe giving up jobs are putting jobs aside in order to meet that timeframe and not two weeks. HAB-Masyn Moyer- I mean, it's pretty concerted effort. It's just the more we have involved, they're willing to play. It just makes it look better. And again, it's whatever. I mean, I'm still going to go for the block grant irregardless, but it just looks good. It looks good to have.

And Little Ike, too, isn't held to the same timeline as your block grant.

Correct. But it leverages.

It looks good up front. It looks good up front.

Yeah.

What was the rough balance in that special parks fund? 72.

What's that earmark for right now?

Yeah, that's it.

I'd be fine improving that amount. If there's no, if it's not going anywhere, I don't really feel comfortable beyond that.

Do you have anything planned in 2017 for that? Especially? I know the pool has a leaking roof and it's got some cracks, but I mean, that's just one on it. And you have other options. I wouldn't recommend anything that would take up the operating budget event. This year, going to the 2027 proposed budget and it's very close now yeah. But you know we on the Commission said, you know what we use $575,000 for the atx definitely less than expected so. yeah. Sorry.

So that came in way less.

So you repurposed the savings from the air hangers too?

Yeah. You would have to go through that process again, but that's something you've already committed, but didn't use. So it's, yeah.

Okay. Would that have anything to do with that allocation, that reallocation that we did, or would that be a separate deal? We just have to amend that?

You would have to go through that process again. Okay. Yeah. Basically passing a resolution that this is specifically what we're using it for.

Okay.

So.

Yeah. I think I'd be okay offering the 72 now. And it's all contingent on getting the block grant, obviously. So if we make sure that it's contingent, all the contingencies are wrote in, I'd be okay. 72K. Could we...

If you do the letter of support and that you're going to support phase two as Julie does that, that we bring back a formal recommendation as far as how to do that rather than allocating. Sure. Because Kelly does have some issues with the pool. So we'd want to make sure we bring you the whole picture.

And how much was saved on the hangers? Do you have that off the top of your head? We're going to spend.

uh we reallocated 575 and we're going to be right around three three yeah so it's all there and that preferably that would be where i would prefer because i do know that special parks is used we do use that frequently for even just smaller things not huge projects but um but obviously ultimately it's your guys's decision but what amount goes into special parks every year Only about 14,000, between 14,000 and 16,000. So they're not gaining a whole lot revenue.

Yes.

Yes.

I'm not comfortable asking to wipe out special parks. That's not my department. And I know that this is a special case for this project. Kelly would need to speak to that.

Yeah. Sure. That makes total sense. Yeah. Yeah.

Julie, what funds do you have in your budget that you would feel comfortable reallocating? In your budget?

Oh, in CVB, I don't. I just don't. We're still struggling with transient guest tax collections.

Yeah, we are offering the bike racks.

I have a Sunflower Foundation grant that will fund bike racks. And so we are going to contribute that to this project. We paid to have really good, ugly photos taken last week of downtown to help tell our story. You know, you want quality photos that just show the absolute worst to try to make it look as bad as possible, to plead our case here, photos and video, helping out that way, and then we'll help with the bike racks and anything else we can do. I just, our revenue has not been consistent.

And like Kelsey said, you have... more than enough left over from the airport reallocation. You would just have to go through that process again. So that's money you've already reallocated, wouldn't be taking from the unallocated portions.

And the way I see it, basically high level is $1.2 million worth of finished project work for an investment of 125. Right. Yeah. That makes sense to me, especially since we,

have options to finance it.

Yeah.

I'm generally supportive of it. Um, is that something in two weeks we could come back and have, and there's some options to, I guess, depending on how the budget hearing goes this afternoon.

Uh, if I had to give a recommendation today, it would be to use that. That wasn't spent for the T hangers. The body's already made the decision to reallocate that we didn't use it all. It's sits there. Um, rather than take it from something like Kelsey said. Special parks came to mind because it's Little Ike Park, but then you think about it, the pool leaks water, the roof at the pool leaks water. It doesn't leak into the pool, it'd help us, but yeah. So if I had to give a recommendation today or in two weeks, it would be to reallocate that, which would be passing that resolution, I believe it was.

with the T-hangers, was that for the eighth place, the alternate bid?

I know we're moving quick. We're trying to maximize dollars and not bring a project that's completely out of left field. It's something we've talked about for multiple years, and this is one way we maybe could get that completed to show west of Buckeye that there has been investment downtown as well.

I need it. Yeah, I think it's good.

So I would have support to apply for the community foundation for $95,000 and a commitment from the city of Abilene for the 125 contingent upon the block grant and the community foundation grant to complete little like park phase two. Is that I can support this.

Before you do that, I just want to make sure I'm not conflicted. Would you prefer that I recuse on this one?

Is that based upon your billing ownership that would benefit? Yeah. I would encourage you to recuse. Thank you.

Well, I'll make a motion to offer the support needed and to financially commit $125,000 so we can fund Little Ike Park 2 in hopes of boosting our chances at getting the $500,000 block grant and the $500,000 match.

I'll second.

Motion has been moved and seconded. Do we have any commission discussions? Shayla, I assume you can kind of condense that motion down to legalese. Yeah, it's something better than that. We have no further commission discussion. Move to roll call vote. Commissioner Lytle? Yes. Commissioner Meisenberg? Yes. Vice Mayor Taylor? Yes. Commissioner Kolhoff is recusing himself. Myself, yes. Motion carries.

Thank you very much. I really think that this is going to strengthen our block grant application, which ultimately is our number one priority. So thank you so much.

I appreciate all the work you've done on it, both of you. I think that's awesome. Yeah.

Look at those photos.

Like, aren't they beautiful?

Thank you very much.

I wanted to mention, Wendy Moulton, library director, along with this project, we had our accessible Abilene meeting last month. So I just want to encourage, while you're going through this process, guys, that some of the things mentioned were having the textured curb cuts on the sidewalks. And also like audible crosswalks for people with who are blind and can't see having that audible crosswalk. So if there's any improvements being done, and any of those things could be integrated into that project, I think that would really be appreciated by the citizens of Abilene, and also if any of the facade work could help improve accessibility into the buildings downtown, I think that would be, I just encourage you to consider that when you're working on these projects.

Thank you. That actually brought up a question that I had. What is the process for code compliance as far as city sidewalks and curb cuts, that sort of thing, when we're doing this?

We built the current code, so if we take out an entrance ramp that's not ADA compliant, it would have to go back in, which means that the slope would have to be a certain slope, and then you'd have those raised nubs. I'm not sure of the technical name, but if we take something out that's not ADA compliant, it has to go back in as ADA compliant.

What's the, Brad, I'm looking right at you. What's the process, I guess, from the city perspective for making sure that everything is to code?

Basically, just following our code restriction that engineers is set for.

So our code restriction has been set up by engineers. And I take, for example, the C-clip project right now. That was all engineered design to make sure that it was at the right slope ratio and everything. So I don't know if we can get guidance and make sure that everything would be put back in. At the right, ADA compliancy. There is that fine line between if you take something out, you now have to bring it up to a new code incomplete. Total compliancy.

Do you know the contractors that are doing this? Are these contractors that have done similar work throughout the city? Like replacing ramps on sidewalks, that sort of thing?

Well, who did we say we had lined up? Weaver?

Weaver.

yeah i'm sure he's um done some of that that i mean the project right now on the buckeye tnm is actually who's doing the part of the c-clip project sidewalk improvement so for that we can make sure that travis inspects that we can we call travis in to make sure that when we're doing there's a couple

on, not on the Buckeye side, but the next side, those really could use a better handicap accessible and the, I would like to put those in. I think if we're going to do it, we might as well do it right. That's one thing that I'm looking at anyway. But usually the cities have a standard cut sheet for what, I don't know if you do four or six and whether you've got rebar or not.

Yeah, ma'am, we do have that in our specifications. But we just need to make sure that bringing everything up to code would be sufficient with each corner piece that we have right now where an ADA compliancy is because we're dealing with that right now on the 4th Street intersection area. Yeah.

but yeah i'm sure in short it can be all looked at and made sure that it's put back into code thank you yeah i apologize i assumed your recusal on that last one that's okay yeah i assumed you were i didn't give you the i assumed i was here but i forgot to say that earlier sorry about that afterwards i was like well i gotta mess that up so Do you have anything further on that item, those items? Seeing none, we'll move to heading seven, unfinished business. First up is 7A, public hearing for the purpose of hearing and answering objections of taxpayers relating to the revenue neutral rate and proposed tax rate as required by 2021 Kansas Senate Bill 13. Interim City Manager Quinday.

Thank you. We're asking the commission to hold the required public hearing regarding the city's revenue neutral rate and the proposed 2027 property tax rate. For 2027, the revenue neutral rate is 46.463, as set by the state of Kansas. 2026's actual levy is 48.039, and the proposed levy for 2027 is 50.271. The increase over 2026 is 2.232 mills. And that is entirely attributable to the 27th biweekly payroll occurring in 2027, which occurs every 11 years. It does not add employees or increase pay rates or expand city services. If we didn't have that additional payroll, we would have brought you a budget with a levy that was the same as 2026 at 48.039. of the 50.271 Mills 42051 support city operations and other city obligations and 8.22 Mills are dedicated to the Abilene Public Library. The proposed budget has been reviewed publicly over several months, culminating in a presentation of the complete budget on August 24th. At that meeting, no changes were directed following the presentation. Staff recommends that the commission open the public hearing receive comments or objections from taxpayers regarding the revenue neutral and proposed tax.

I will now open that public hearing. Do you have anyone in the audience that would like to address the commission during this public hearing portion. So you know now close the public hearing. We'll move to item 7B, consider approval of Resolution 09-1426-1, a resolution of the City of Abilene, Kansas, approving the levy of a property tax rate exceeding the revenue neutral rate.

Thank you following the completion of the court are in our hearing the next action that staff is asking the commission is to consider resolution 0, 9, 1426 dash one as I stated the city's are in our rate is 46.4 6, 3 meals. Those budget requires 50.271 mills because the levy exceeds revenue neutral. This resolution must be approved before the commission can proceed with adoption of the proposed budget at that levy. Again, the proposed levy is 2.232 mils above the 2026 levy, 48.039, and that's entirely attributable to that 27th payroll. Approval authorizes the city to exceed revenue neutral and directs the city manager and city clerk to complete the necessary certification following adoption of the budget. We recommend the approval of resolution authorizing the city to exceed the revenue neutral rate.

I have questions for staff on this item. I have no questions for staff. I'd entertain a motion.

I make a motion to approve Resolution 091426-1, Resolution of the City of Abilene, Kansas, approving the levy of property tax rate exceeding the revenue neutral rate.

I'll second.

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

Yes.

Myself, yes. Motion carries. Our next item is 7C, public hearing for the purpose of hearing and answering objections of taxpayers related to the proposed use of funds and the amount of ad valorem tax for the proposed 2027 budget. Interim City Manager Quinday.

Thank you. This is a separate statutory hearing on the proposed use of city funds and the amount of ad valorem property tax supporting the 2027 budget. The proposed budget requires $3.6 million in city property taxes, which is equal to 50.271 mills, keeping in mind that that mill rate is based on an estimate received from the county clerk. We'll know the actual mill rate when the evaluations are certified in November. 42.051 mills are for city operations and obligations. 8.22 mills are dedicated to the library. The budget's been developed through several months of public review covering city funds, operations, personnel, capital and equipment needs, reserves, and property tax requirements. The complete proposal was presented at the August 24th city commission meeting. No changes were directed by the commission following that presentation. This budget is another step in a multi-year financial recovery for the city. It does not restore every reduction made in 2025. It does not fund every capital or equipment need identified, and it does not return the general fund reserve to policy levels. Instead, it maintains the city's reduced operating baseline established in mid 2025, funds existing services and selected priorities, and continues slowly rebuilding financial capacity. Staff recommends the Commission open the 2027 budget public hearing, receive comments or objections regarding the proposed use of funds and the amount of ad valorem tax.

Okay.

I will now open the public hearing. Do we have anyone that would like to address the Commission during this public hearing? Seeing none, I'll now close the public hearing. We'll move to item 7D, approval of ordinance number 26-3488, an ordinance adopting and appropriating the 2027 annual budget of the City of Abilene, Kansas. Senator and City Manager Quinday.

Thank you. As the Mayor stated, that ordinance adopts and appropriates the City's 2027 annual budget. The state budget forms, which are included in your packet, establish a total budget authority of $20,639,488, city ad valerian property taxes of $3.6 million, and a tax levy of 50.271. The ordinance adopts the budget prepared on the state prescribed forms, approves the interfund transfers included in the budget documents, authorizes administration within those approved limits, and provides for certification of the budget to the Dickinson County Clerk. This work is the culmination of several months of budget development and public commission review. The proposed budget continues the financial stabilization measures begun in mid 2025 rather than reversing them. Hiring and spending controls, personnel reductions, and capital and equipment deferrals have materially affected the city's recovery, and several of those reductions remain in place. Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 263488, adopting and appropriating the 2027 annual budget as presented. I do want to take a second and think the. City commission for your input, but also for the department directors, supervisors and city employees. That have gone from my perspective and my experience and. Couple of decades of doing this going above and beyond and making reductions and doing what they can. to continue with those service levels. This does include a 3% cost of living adjustment for employees in January of 2027, which they did not receive in 2026. But I gave an example of where we were still about $160,000 short of being at that 48 before that 27th payroll snuck up on us. And generally, I would have to go in as the city manager over that last weekend before we bring it to you and figure out how I'm going to get rid of it. And I didn't have to do that here. $160,000 that we had to cut still was identified just that number. And Kelsey and the department directors went through and made those reductions on their own. We'd be very proud of the work that your department directors and supervisors are doing, especially when it comes to being financially prudent. We ask the commission to adopt ordinance 263488, which adopts and appropriates the 2027 annual budget as presented.

Questions for staff on this item?

I think staff have done amazing too. I think the directors and everyone. But I've always been super proud of all our employees.

Any further questions? Comments? Hearing none, I'd entertain a motion.

I make a motion to approve ordinance number 26-3488, an ordinance adopting and appropriating the 2027 annual budget of the City of Avalon, Kansas.

I'll second.

Motion has been moved and seconded. Do we have any commission discussion? I just want to echo those thoughts and thanks to interim city manager Quinn Day, city staff, department directors, everybody that worked hard on this. I know when we first started these deliberations, if you will, it was kind of a stickler on the same mill rate as last year. And I know it was getting to a point where it was likely coming, I mean, that was coming to a fruition before that pay period issue came up. So just want to echo my thanks to everyone as well. Any further commission discussion? Okay. Seeing none, we'll move to roll call vote. Vice Mayor Taylor?

Yes.

Commissioner Kohlhoff? Nay. Commissioner Lytle? Yes. Commissioner Meisenberg? Yes. Myself, no. Motion carries. Our next item is 7E, final update, Kolhoff v. City of Abilene litigation. City Attorney Martin.

Sure. Thank you, Mayor and Commissioners. Mr. Quinday asked me to speak briefly on the status of this lawsuit. There is a brief description of it in your packet, but I was asked to elaborate just a little bit. The lawsuit is styled John Kolhoff v. City of Abilene, Kansas, and Ron Marsh v. It is identified as Dickinson County case number 2026, CB 25. And I was not counsel of record in this matter. I am the attorney for the governing body. I'm just providing you a factual update. The city had separate counsel assigned by its insurance carrier, EMC. This case was filed in March of 2026. It alleged defamation based on statements by the former city manager made at a city commission meeting on March 10th of 2025. The plaintiff sought damages in an amount exceeding $75,000. the defendants, the city and former city manager, moved to dismiss the lawsuit. And the court heard that at a hearing here in Dickinson County on June 18th of 2026. The court granted the motion to dismiss and found that the plaintiff had not filed a notice of claim with the city prior to initiating the lawsuit and that that notice of claim needed to be filed within one year of the alleged defamatory statements. Because that step is a prerequisite to a lawsuit, the court determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and could not hear the case at all. The court also denied a request to dismiss the case without prejudice, finding that it was time barred and ultimately granted dismissal with prejudice. That means that it cannot be refiled after the dismissal was granted. A copy of that journal entry evidencing the court's findings and rulings is included in your packet, I believe. The journal entry was made by Judge Sexton on August 3rd of 2026, and that is the official pleading evidencing the disposition of the case. Under Kansas law, there was 30 days to appeal to the Kansas Court of Appeals following the August 3rd journal entry. No appeal was filed. So that deadline is passed. And we understand it will not be appealed now. So the matter is concluded. And that is the update. Shouldn't be any further need to discuss that either in an open session or an executive session in the future.

I do want to speak briefly since the case has my name on it. As you mentioned, I think very accurately, the inner workings of the case, it was dismissed with prejudice. And I just want the record to be clear about what the court decided and what it did not decide. The court did not rule on whether the statements at issue were defamatory. As Mr. Martin stated, the case was dismissed because a KSA 12-105B notice was not filed. And that is the whole of the ruling. I had 30 days to appeal and I chose not to. I chose to spend my time on the work that's in front of the commission rather than on litigation, and I'm going to let that sleeping dog lie. I do want to say one thing about what the matter points to. Interim city manager Quinday has reported to this body that the city was roughly two months from insolvency. If that assessment is correct, and I don't have any reason to believe that it's not, then it describes the condition that the city was left in under Mr. Marsh's management. I have been critical of his competence in that role, and that figure is the clear evidence. But the more important point is about us. A city manager works for this commission. Overseeing that position is not an incidental duty, it is the central one, and it is the one governing body is uniquely situated to perform because no one else can. The city did not arrive at two months from insolvency in a single day, a single month, or a single quarter. It got there over time while this body had every opportunity to ask harder questions and demand accountability and did not. So I call on my fellow commissioners to dedicate the time and attention to this role, even when it isn't comfortable or fun. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there any other action needed, Aaron? Are you guys any action at all?

No, this was simply a factual report. And because the matter is concluded and I'm not advising you on legal strategy, we can do it in an open session. So no further actions needed.

Any further questions, comments? Okay. Seeing none, we'll move to item 7F, wholesale water agreement with Dickinson County Rural Water District number two, Interim City Manager Quintin Day.

Thank you. I've sent out this report in advance so the commission had time to go through it. It was rather lengthy, so I don't intend to walk through all of its history and supporting documentation. Tonight, I just want to briefly frame the issue and obtain policy direction from the Commission, either tonight or at a future meeting. The City and the Water District have maintained a wholesale relationship for nearly three decades. The District made a significant capital contribution under the original 1998 agreement, and that historical investment is an important consideration in determining the future relationship. At the same time water system costs regulatory requirements and capital responsibilities have changed substantially. The city retained draft tell us to independently determine the cost of serving its customer classes and the study determined that the district's average allocated cost of service is approximately 4 dollars and 37 cents per 1000 gallons compared with their current rate of a dollar 85. Analysis did not allocate city retail distribution cost to the district and allocated only the district's proportion share of cost associated with production and transmitting wholesale water. The city provided the district's board the complete study and supporting model and raft tell us took the time to present directly to the rule water district board and staff. At the district's request, the city then made a formal proposal. The district subsequently declined the proposal, rated adjustment under the existing agreement, but expressed willingness to negotiate a new long-term agreement. The report identifies four potential paths, negotiating a new long-term agreement, maintaining the existing agreement, providing notice of non-renewal in accordance with the agreement, or seeking judicial interpretation if necessary. Staff is not recommending one option over another because this requires policy judgments that solely belong to the governing body. What we are requesting is direction regarding how the City Commission wishes to proceed with its future wholesale water relationship with the district. Staff and legal counsel, Aaron, can then take those actions necessary to implement that direction. There is a... executive session on the agenda that if the commission has any legal questions about the report or the options presented for the attorney.

Any questions for staff on this.

I presented, I guess, an email question. I think everybody saw that. Hopefully everybody on the commission saw it anyway. I guess my first question was whether our city attorney had actually reviewed the proposal that's in front of us. And I think the implicit answer was no, though I didn't get that answer directly. I don't know if, Mr. Martin, have you given any guidance on this matter? No.

I was provided an opportunity to read Mr. Quinday's report, and I believe it specifically says it's not intended to be legal advice. He and I discussed before this item was even placed on the agenda that I would like to have an executive session with you to discuss the legal nuances of each of the four options presented. And I don't feel that doing that in a public setting would be appropriate. I did receive your email and I'd be happy to discuss some of the legal nuances of your point in an executive session. And I would recommend that. And even though that is shown on the agenda, not adjacent to this item on your agenda, you can have an executive session at any time. So if you'd like to have it as part of this discussion, we can, or we can wait until we get to that item on the agenda.

How much time do you think you would like for that?

Um, I would estimate 15 minutes, 10, 15 minutes. I about said 10, but 15. And I would encourage you to specifically include Mr. Quinde as a resource, given all that he has put into this report and helped me.

I can get it. I would move the City Commission recess into executive session for 15 minutes to discuss with legal counsel legal considerations related to the City of Abilene's contractual arrangement with Rural Water District No. 2 for the supply and sale of water based upon the need for consultation with an attorney for the public body, which would be deemed privilege in the attorney-client relationship pursuant to KSA 75-4319B2 to include Interim City Manager Quinde and the If I can get my phone here. Open meeting resuming in this room at 524. 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 Koloff?

Aye.

Commissioner Lytle?

Yes.

Commissioner Meisenberg? Yes. Vice Mayor Taylor? Yes. Myself, yes. Motion carries. We're in executive session.

We need a short recess. Yeah.

Yeah.

Do you need to form a motion on that?

Yeah, let's get back to the regular meeting and then we'll do that. We'll now resume our regular meeting from executive session. No action was taken. And is there a motion for a recess?

Make a motion for a short recess.

How long?

Two minutes.

Five. Five.

I'll second it.

Motion has been moved and seconded. For a three-minute recess, 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. We're in recess. Now resume our regular meeting from recess. Assume we're making sure with Kelly that we're good. Good. Okay. Okay. So we will resume where we were at 7F wholesale water agreement with Dickinson County Rural Water District number two. Discuss an executive session. Be happy to hear everyone's thoughts.

Just a quick question. When was that last amendment signed?

2025.

yeah do you have the i was looking for the exact date on that was that march april i can't remember i had and then i closed my window i want to say february march

You don't have to work too hard there, I guess. My recommendation is that we kind of put this on hold until a period two years from the time that last amendment was signed and then have the commission revisit it. There is, there are 12 years remaining on that agreement and there will still be 11 and a half probably when we get to that two year date. I think we've kind of let the fires burn a little bit hot here. I think we may need to let those cool down and revisit it here in six months or so.

Any other thoughts? I know I'm perfectly fine pursuing additional negotiations now that we've got the Raftelis cost of service study continuing that. It seems like they're pretty amenable to discussing with us when we met with them in person a couple three different times. So that's my preference, but I'm...

And if they're amenable to pursuing a long-term lease, I say work with them. We're not on any kind of timetable. Like John says, I know he wants to push it all out of it. We're not on any timetable. It's not going to affect us negatively other than, you know, So I'm okay with pursuing a long-term lease. Main thing is I just want to keep the working relationship good and amenable with the water district. I'd be okay.

Any other thoughts?

Do you have a timeframe if the consensus is to continue negotiating with them? I believe the attorney mentioned last time the negotiations took three years. Less than that. Less than that. Less than that.

I don't have the exact number of years. There were some changes in staffing that could have affected that, but it was a multi-year process.

Okay. So do you want us to come back to you in three months, or do you want the new manager to come in and see you in a year, six months?

I think just to put a little bit more color behind that time, I think the... under the previous city manager, the commission directed him to reach out to the water district and then maybe that didn't happen for six months or maybe he sent a letter and then really nothing happened. That's kind of my recollection anyway. I'll just make a formal motion that we suspend negotiations until March 1, 2027 and re-engage at that point.

Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Do we have a second?

I will second that.

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

I think I'm above board here. I'm going to reference a couple of things were said in the executive session, but I think this is all above board. I think this is all public knowledge. We have a contract where really most of the obligation falls on the city, there's absolutely no obligation for rural water district number two to negotiate or even amend it as they agreed to last year. And like I said, I think we have kind of beat this horse a little bit too much. I don't know if it's dead yet, but I would just like to see us take a deep breath and revisit it here in six months or so.

Do you have any further questions?

I'm not sure that I understand exactly what's going on, but I feel like it's in their contract that it can be amended. Correct. They're paying way less than what it's costing us.

Correct.

I think that if they're open to it, we need to get a hold of them and see if we can't get it done sooner than later.

I think that's been going on. I mean, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but that's essentially what's been happening since the amendment is the negotiations have been ongoing and have yielded us to where we are today, which is nowhere. And so that's why I'm suggesting taking a break.

But first a negotiation that I can remember is after the rafthales study. We met with the rural water district had rafthales present that to him along with the model and their staff. And then they asked us to send them a proposal. They actually asked for it to be to them before the end of February. Which we did, and we did not hear from them until July. On a response, so there's been a proposal and a no.

And was that at this year?

Yes, ma'am.

And so the rates have not been increased then because of that? No.

Well, they did increase in January due to the notice in December. Yeah. Of 2026. Yeah. Yeah.

And I think, I think that's part of where I'm coming from is these negotiations are, they drag out, they take forever. It could be two, three months before we even get a response.

So that's why my six months to get it started. I think we need to pursue it sooner than later.

And if you delay it or suspend negotiations for a period of time, and I don't remember what Commissioner Hoff's date was, but ideally you should be doing a cost of service study every three to five years. So if you suspend it for three years, I would suggest doing another cost of service study before you try to negotiate with. you can get in on the ground floor. You have a fresh hot off the press cost of service study. It's defensible and negotiate now and then get them to participate in the next cost of service study. So they're aware and they can plan. As I mentioned before, it's partly a policy decision, but the cost to serve them is $4.37 per thousand gallons. The current rate's $1.85 per thousand gallons, which means that... It costs us more to produce water than what we're charging them. There was a comment made that the rates were adjusted for water, so we should be good. Those rates were adjusted, but not as they should have been because the amount of money necessary to put away for capital improvements was reduced because of that reduced revenue. For example, your plant, your water plant was built in the 98, I believe, is when they built it. So in 40 years, you're probably going to need a new water plan or serious rehabilitation of it. That's why when you're looking at 40-year contracts, you don't wait until year 35 or year 39. You get ahead of it. I would imagine that the reason that they have the five-year period in the contract that they can tell us, no, we're not going to renew, and Two years is because if they weren't going to renew or the city didn't want to, they'd have to find a new water source and a treatment

You brought up a point here that I wanted to pull on that amendment, the second amendment. We have committed to putting the delta between the $1.44 and any increase at this point, 41 cents per thousand gallons into a restricted fund. And I'm kind of looking at Kelsey over there. Is there an accounting for that increase to make sure that that is being spent in accordance with the contract?

for the additional yes we bill that separately um so it is it's all on its own separate bill um to be

That agreement dictates to the city that they have to do this with the money they receive from the customer. I don't have it in front of me. Does it say what the city can spend the money on?

Yeah, I think I've got that here. I think, if I'm remembering correctly, it's stuff we're going to spend money on anyway.

You have it in front of you?

I'm pulling it up here. I just saw it here.

It's generally unusual for me to see a contract where the customer tells the provider that you will set this money aside and spend it for a certain thing.

I, it's paragraph, it's 9.2 is what I wrote down here.

The city agrees that all revenue generated by the city from the sale of water to the district at a rate in excess of $1.44 per thousand gallons shall be deposited in a segregated account used or expended by the city exclusively to pay the cost of repairs, maintenance, and improvements to the city's water treatment plant. and equipment therein, and or the payment of any bonds and the interest thereon as may be issued for such repairs, maintenance, improvements. The City shall maintain records and accounting statements related to funds deposited into and expended from the segregated account consistent with the terms of this section.

And a lack of being a dead horse. I'll just close from staff's perspective that it's costing you 437 per thousand gallons to make you're charging the dollar 85. According to that agreement, the customer's telling you how you'll spend that 41 cents, uh, for the next 12 years, as opposed to adjusting the rate over a three year period or five, whatever, adjusting that rate to at least recover your cost. Uh, it's not a perfect word, but, um, Whatever they're not paying, your other customers' classes are paying. And when you do have to have those expenses, a new water tower, new water lines, or whatever, and you have to adjust rates, you'll have to adjust them for your other customers. I've avoided saying the subsidy word.

Do we have any further questions? discussion on the motion to table negotiations until two years after the last agreement was agreed to. March 1.

That might have been a record for discussions on a motion.

We have no more discussion. We'll move to roll call vote. Commissioner Meisenberg.

No.

Vice Mayor Taylor?

Yes.

Commissioner Kohlhoff? Aye. Commissioner Lytle?

No.

Myself, no. Motion fails. We are back on 7F. I would make a motion to direct staff to pursue negotiations for a new long-term wholesale water agreement with Dickinson County Rural Water District No. 2.

I'll second.

Motion has been moved and seconded. Do we have any commission discussion? Seeing none, would you roll call vote? Vice Mayor Taylor? No. Commissioner Koloff?

No.

Commissioner Lytle? Yes. Commissioner Meisenberg? Yes. Myself, yes. Motion carries. Our next item under Heading 8, New Businesses 8A, consider approval of Ordinance 26-3489 and Ordinance Amending Chapter 5, Section 5-401. of the City Code of the City of Abilene, Kansas, by adopting and incorporating by reference the Standard Traffic Ordinance for Kansas City's 53rd Edition 2026 and repealing existing Sections 5-401. Police Chief Wilkins, I assume?

Good evening, Mayor and Commissioners. Every year after the legislative session passing law into effect, the League of Kansas Municipalities publishes the standard traffic ordinance and uniform public offense code. The standard traffic ordinance is designed to provide a comprehensive traffic code for Kansas cities, while the uniform public offense code is designed to provide a public offense ordinance for Kansas cities. Changes do not take effect in municipality until the governing body approves and publishes an ordinance incorporating it by reference. A handout listing the 2026 updates to both the standard traffic ordinance and the Uniform Public Offense Code were included in the agenda packet, along with the proposed ordinances prepared by City Attorney Martin. It's staff's recommendation to approve the ordinances adopting the 2026 standard traffic ordinance and 2026 Uniform Public Offense Code into City Code. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. For Vice Mayor Taylor and Commissioner Lytle, these guys have all been through it, I think, multiple times. Basically, these are the offenses that we charge through Abilene Municipal Court. Happy to answer any questions. I believe 8A is adoption of the standard traffic ordinance, and 8B is the adoption of the Uniform Public Offense Code.

Do you want to summarize those changes? I think there were just a couple in there, if I'm not mistaken.

There's a few. I can. There's more than a couple, but...

I think I have it pulled up here. Do you want me to go with anybody else?

So we'll start with, we can start with the standard traffic ordinance. I don't mind. Section 126.21 is the use of mobile telephone while operating a motor vehicle in a school zone or road construction zone. Basically, you're not allowed in the state of Kansas to be on your cell phone. You're going through a school zone when the lights are flashing or a road construction zone when there's signage and the workers are actively there working. 169.2 use of lights in road construction zones. And I apologize, I'm going from memory from these, but I believe this allows construction crews to use certain color lights. I believe they're amber green to flash to the front. Other vehicles, while they're actively working within a construction zone and trailer to have, I think it's amber and blue lights flashing to the rear when they're working in a construction zone. Parking disabled in other vehicles. The small change, you're not able to basically park a vehicle, a disabled vehicle, in a manner where it would interfere with law enforcement operations. Obstructing license plates. This section expands and defines obstructions of license plates to include frame and borders around plates that may make it difficult to determine the registration number state or the month-year expiration on the registration decal. Then 126.1.1 was included now in 126.1. And then 201.1, failure to comply with the traffic citation. This was a small change that removed the former subsection regarding division notification from five years. So it was actually taken out. Changes to the Unified Public Offense Code. A new law, 3.5.1, lawful approach of a first responder. House Bill 2372 introduced a new law that makes it unlawful to anyone be within 25 feet of a first responder while the first responder is engaged in the performance of their duties. There are some nuances with that that I've met with my staff on. I don't foresee it being an issue here in Abilene, but it is a new law for the state of Kansas. Section 3.1.1, Domestic Violence Battery. The prior Uniform Public Offense Code gave discretion to municipal courts to order an offender evaluation. This stipulates that if somebody's granted probation or suspended sentence, it's mandated that they attend some type of, I think it's commonly referred to as like a batter's intervention program. I've relayed that information to Judge Effenbeck and our city prosecutor, so they're aware of that already. Section 6.1 is theft. They changed it to add knowingly. So, for instance, if I'm just going to use somebody stole Mayor Ryan's vehicle, it was stopped later, and officers know that there's a screwdriver in the ignition, and that individual says, well, I bought this from Commissioner Lytle. You can now say, well, you should have known this was a stolen vehicle, where before that knowingly piece was not in there. 6.17, criminal use of financial card or gift card. It used to be legal if somebody used your debit card or credit card. It still is. Now it includes gift cards. So if you lose your wallet somewhere, somebody takes possession of your wallet, uses a gift card without your consent, that's now covered in this statute. Section 10.1.1, pertain to criminal carry of weapons. They just flip-flopped two subsections because of how the statute was laid out. 11.11 is cruelty to animals. They changed it to where a program like our trap, neuter, and release program here in Abilene would not qualify as a criminal offense. And then the last one, 4.5, buying sexual relations, that's been removed completely and is now a felony at all levels that would have to be charged through district court. Did I miss anything? Okay.

No, I was looking at the League of Kansas Municipalities update and you covered everything.

Yeah, I think every year after reading through those, I guess I always like to ask, is there anything that when you were looking through those that caused you any heartburn or thought it could get in the way?

Like I say, the new law with the unlawful approach of a first responder, I've met with staff and we've gone over the nuances that are related to that defense.

They're typically standard, but I know one year we opted out of a couple of them that were...

And that's still the case in the UPOC. There's three that the city has historically opted out of, and that's still the same. Giving a workless check, that's better handled through civil remedies. Equity skimming, that's going to require an in-depth investigation that would best be handled at the district court level as well, a court of record. And then violation of a public health order when we went through COVID, the commission at that time decided to opt out of that, and that's still the same. So there are those three in the UPOC that we opt out of.

I think they're all at the same year too.

Very well.

Do we have any questions for Chief Wilkins on this item? No.

You ready for a motion? I'll make a motion to approve ordinance adopting the 2026 STO and UPOC in the city code, which is ordinance 26-3489. City Attorney Martin.

I would recommend we have one motion for each ordinance. Okay.

I make a motion to approve ordinance 26-3489 and ordinance amending chapter 5, section 5-401 of the city code of the city of Abilene, Kansas by adopting and incorporating and referencing the standard traffic ordinance for Kansas City's 53rd edition 2026 and repealing existing section 5-401.

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 Koloff? Aye. Commissioner Lytle? Yes. Commissioner Meisenberg? Yes. Vice Mayor Taylor? Yes. Myself, yes. Motion carries. Now we'll move to item 8B, consider approval of ordinance number 26-3490, an ordinance amending chapter 5, section 5-101 of the city code of the city of Abilene, Kansas, by adopting and incorporating by reference the Uniform Public Offense Ordinance Code for Kansas City's 42nd edition 2026 with certain omissions and amendments thereto and repealing existing section 5-101. Chief Wilkins, do you have anything to add on that one? Do we have any questions for Chief Wilkins or staff on that item?

No.

I'm going to entertain a motion.

I make a motion to approve the ordinance number 26 dash 3, 4, 9, 0, an ordinance amending chapter 5, section 5 dash 1, 0, 1 of the city code. Of the city of Abilene, Kansas by adopting and incorporating by reference, the uniform public offense ordinance code for Kansas city's 42nd edition, 2026 with certain omissions and amendments thereto and repealing existing section 5 dash 1, 0, 1.

I'll second motion has been moved in second. Do we have any commission discussion? Seeing none, we'll do a roll call vote. Commissioner Lytle?

Yes.

Commissioner Meisenberg? Yes. Vice Mayor Taylor? Yes. Commissioner Koloff? Aye. Myself, yes. Motion carries. Our next item is 8C. Consider approval of a USDA Rural Business Development Grant Subrecipient Agreement with Dickinson County Economic Development Corporation. Driving Dickinson County.

Do it. Do it.

Got a little time between acts here, so.

I know, I know. It's great. I provided a draft for the attorney to review. It's a pretty standard sub-agreement for USDA grants for the most part. I don't know what else I'm supposed to do. We agree with it. There wasn't too many changes, so.

City Attorney Martin, did you have any comments or issues when you were reviewing that?

Uh, yes, I appreciate the opportunity to review it. I, uh, made a few minor revisions and comments and I believe those were incorporated. So, uh, I have no further legal, uh, comments. This would, this would ensure that all of the, uh, obligations, the city is agreeing to with USDA flow down to the economic development organization as the sub recipient of the funds.

Any questions for Natalie or staff?

We'll begin October. The period is October 1st through September 30th, I believe. 26th through 27th. Okay.

Any further questions that entertain a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve the USDA rule business development grant subrecipient agreement with Dickinson County Economic Development Corporation.

A second. Motion has been moved and seconded. Do we have any commission discussion? Seeing none, would a roll call vote? Commissioner Meisenberg? Yes. Vice Mayor Taylor? Yes. Commissioner Koloff? Aye. Commissioner Lytle?

Yes.

Myself, yes. Motion carries.

Thank you for your support and for partnership on this. I think it'll be great for our businesses. Appreciate you. Thank you.

Next item is 8D, consideration by the governing body to direct the city attorney to prepare a written legal opinion concerning denial of the Abilene Library Board's HVAC repair reimbursement.

This is my item here. I'm getting my notes here. I guess real quickly here, the city of Abilene is party to a lease with the Abilene Library Board. Like any lease, it sets out who is responsible for what, including how the cost of repairs to the building is divided between the city and the library. This past summer, an HVAC unit at the library failed and was repaired. The library board asked the city to reimburse its share of that cost under the lease, and that request was denied. Questions have since been raised about whether that outcome is consistent with the terms of the lease and with the city's own policy here. So I just want to make sure that we're clear what I am asking for and what I'm not asking for. I'm not asking the commission to make any decisions. And I'm not asking to resolve the reimbursement or any of the other potential claims there. But what I am suggesting is that whenever we have a contract or other legal dispute, that that matter is reviewed by the city attorney. That's exactly the reason why we hire Aaron, in my humble opinion. And in fact, I've got, I think it's in the notes here too, but under the Article 8 Department of Law in the Abilene City Code, It says the duty of the city attorney shall be as follows. And then under B, it says advise the governing body and officers of the city upon all legal questions affecting the duties of their offices or the interests of the city. And then further furnish written legal opinions when required and perform other professional services incidental to his office. And I feel that the shall requirement that when there is a legal matter like this is, that it shall be reviewed as a matter of our city code. And I guess I am just asking my fellow commissioners to direct this matter to the city attorney for his professional review.

Okay, thank you. I guess we'll just look to the rest of the question. What are your thoughts, comments on this?

My initial thought on this one was I think that this is going to get sorted out during the lease negotiations that we're going through right now. If it's a particular issue going forward, I think it can be addressed on an individual case-by-case basis. So the library is not seeking payment on the money. nor did they want to make it an issue. That's kind of where I sit is I don't see it as an issue.

I think I'm looking at this maybe from a little bit broader view, and that is what is the standard that we're setting?

That was my thing on the individual case-by-case basis. I would say that we call it out at that time.

Well, I guess the problem is that we have to be presented with that opportunity to be able to do that. And that's not what happened. And in fact, to the letter of the lease, it says that if the city manager can't approve it, it should be brought to us for approval. That's what the letter of the lease says. Or at least, again, I'm not an attorney, but that's the way... I interpret the simple language of the lease. It says if the city manager can't approve it, it needs to come to the city commission for approval. And that never happened. And so my, again, cursor reading of this is that not only did it not go to the person who should have been reviewing the legal agreement, but the wrong conclusion was also reached in that matter. And so from that perspective, I just I think this should be the standard for every legal agreement. When there's a matter that comes before any member of the city staff, whether it's a city manager, whether it's any of the folks seated here, that that is what protects us. That's why he's here. He is here to protect us so that we can keep our promises to other members of the community and other outside parties. And that's my view. I think if we're not reviewing legal documents by an attorney, I think we're assuming a risk that is just completely unnecessary. And I think if we're, I don't know, I'd be curious about City Attorney Martin's view of this, but if we have a dispute and we specifically avoid having a legal review on that matter, and then someone comes back to sue us, I think that that looks even worse for us as a city when we have a statute or a city code that says the city attorney shall review legal matters and then we don't do it. That's a problem for me.

City Attorney Martin, do you have anything to or interim city manager Quinday?

I don't think a question was posed to me. I understand Commissioner Kolhoff's viewpoint, and I am aware of what the code says in terms of my obligation to provide legal opinions. I think when it comes to assigning legal opinions, and I think Commissioner Kolhoff understands and appreciates this as well, that needs to come from the commission and not individual commissioners. That doesn't don't interpret that as a viewpoint on anything. It's simply the assignment of legal research projects and opinions, I think, needs to come from the body. If it's coming from the city commission, as opposed to individual commissioners, and if that request is made, I would, of course, fulfill it. So that would be my request is if you wish for me to do so, communicate that as a majority of the body. And if not, then I think that's how I would recommend proceeding.

Yeah, yeah, I guess I just want to clarify and maybe I misunderstood commissioner call off, but when I approve purchase orders or requisitions to turn them into purses following the. The Commission's approved purchasing policy do not ask the city attorney for a legal opinion on whether or not I can approve or deny that I follow the policy is I interpret it and when you look at the agreement of the lease agreement with the library. It specifically says that if the city manager or library director acting on behalf of the library board determines that a significant issue with regards to the application the agreement exists, the city manager shall report such issues to the city commission and the library director to her board. Then the city manager and library director shall negotiate in good faith with the tenant to develop a plan for resolving the issue within the scope of this agreement. The issues shall be addressed within a mutually agreeable schedule. Issues not resolved within the established schedule shall be decided by a joint meeting of the City Commission and the Library Board of Directors. Rather than ask the City Attorney for a legal opinion, because I denied a purchase order that, as somebody pointed out, the Library Board said, we're not interested anymore. Let's just get this lease done. I followed what the lease agreement said. made you aware and asked for a joint meeting of the library board and the city commission, which you held to go through these things where Wendy and myself don't necessarily agree on the application of what the rules are. So, no, I did not ask city attorney and I did not plan on asking the city attorney a legal opinion to approve purchase orders for requisitions. And I would submit to the, uh, City Commission and anybody listening that I followed the lease of the letter by making you aware of a dispute, sharing that with you, and requesting a joint meeting which you held.

Any further questions, comments, support?

Small person size. Cindy Montgomery, I'm the library board president. I will say that, yes, we did say we are not willing to pursue it, which means we weren't going to get a legal advice to pursue the $3,300 off whatever that exact amount is. But at the same time, we do believe that it should have been paid. The lease says anything over $1,000 of non-routine maintenance shall be paid by the city. It does not say Anything over $1,000 shall be paid by the city if the library board follows the city purchasing policy. We have our own purchasing policy. Wendy followed it. So yes, it should have been paid. Are we willing to continue to fight for this with legal remedies? No, we're not because we want to be good partners to the city, but we do believe it should be paid. I did not say we weren't interested in it being paid. I said we weren't going to continue to fight about it. That's what I said. So I would be interested in hearing what Attorney Martin thinks going forward. And I don't want to have to go through this every time Wendy pays for something. If a roof caves in, if the air conditioner breaks again, are we going to have to follow someone else's purchasing policy before the next lease is signed or not? That's the problem we're in. Do we have to come back? Nobody ever tries to call me until I'm doing something. We're going to run into this every time until we get the new lease signed. So anytime something goes amok and we get it fixed, then we are responsible for that bill. Except we're not according to the terms of the current lease. So are you going to follow the current lease or are you not? That's the question. And I think that we're willing to follow whatever the legal eagle over here decides, but we have to get that opinion.

I think just between the two of you, you touched on about a half a dozen issues that I think are relevant and are all questions for City Attorney Martin. One of them is, does the city procurement policy even apply to a board like the library, which is an independent institution? taxing entity. It is distinct from the city. I think, again, the interpretation under the items of conflict, it sounds like that's number 13 in this agreement, is that should have been brought to the city commission. I agree that it was brought to the city commission, but not before it was denied. And, um, I think even if you were to follow the procurement purchasing and procurement policy, I think that that would probably fall under the emergency procurement, uh, that the city uses very, very frequently. And I think again, for our protection, for every matter that comes before the city, uh, we need to follow our agreements and there's a gentleman that we, that we pay to do that and make sure that we're following those, uh, to the letter. And, um, That's all I'm asking of you. I'm not saying we pay the bill. I'm just saying they're in one of the nicest facilities the city owns. I think they're good stewards of it. I think they're trying to be good stewards of it. They've put up with some problems that were maybe arguably because of the city's failure to plan. And so I think they've really been good sports about it. But I do think they need clarity on their lease, even while we're negotiating a new lease.

Yeah, that's exactly what it is. We don't want to have to go through this every single time something goes wrong. And we're hoping we can move the lease negotiations until like the 2028 budgeting season so that we don't kind of try to force it into 2027. But we don't want to have to go through this for the next year and a half and every time have to decide who's right and who's wrong when we have a lease that's supposed to do that. So we need an interpretation of what the lease says.

I'll just close with a couple of things that if you. Apply the standard that's being presented to you from the library board and commissioner. Then basically, the library board has an open checkbook for anything. That they need outside of that 1000 dollars. And your policy, then I would be violating because it says. That this policy applies. all expenditures of public funds. So if it applies to the expenditure of public funds, then I have to follow it. Doesn't matter who it's for. Doesn't matter if it's for Natalie. Doesn't matter if it's for the library board. I have to follow this unless you change that. I would also like to point out that Commissioner Kolhoff said that the emergency purchase is used quite frequently. I believe in the year and a half, almost year and a half that I've been here, I've used it twice. An emergency purchase is defined as something that threatens public health, safety or operations. Then the departments can obtain only the quantity necessary with as much competition as practical and the city manager may authorize an emergency purchase. This item was in May and even the emails back and forth said thank God it's not hot. So I don't think that would be the constituted emergency. And it's a judgment call. But unless this is changed, that's how I have to offer it.

I think there's a conflict here. And I think that's, again, another legal question that I would like City Attorney Martin to address. And that is, This lease does not contemplate any purchasing policy. They have their own purchasing policy. They have absolutely no reason to follow it. Now, does that require maybe us to approve it? Maybe. Again, this is why we want the attorney to look at it.

I think the differentiation, though, is when library-levied funds are used versus City of Abilene-levied funds. That's where our purchasing policy comes into play.

We're not attorneys. We can have opinions.

If I could speak to that point. I'm treasurer of the library board, Rebecca Perkins. The point here is a legal issue. We have a lease. The lease is very specific as to what's covered. If you want to change the lease, then let's renegotiate the lease. And we're not arguing the lease should be renegotiated. It was negotiated in 2011, so it's outdated. We get that. But to suddenly have the policies changed to violate the lease, which City Manager Quindy basically said in our meeting, it's like, well, you're going to violate city purchasing policy. He said, but if you do that, you're violating the lease. So you're then put in the position of violating either city purchasing policy, which is not mentioned in the lease, or the lease. i believe he basically said yes so i think we need a legal opinion we have a lease is the lease worth anything or not if you don't want to follow the lease then let's renegotiate that lease which is what we're doing but to the present point we've got a lease that specifically says what the guidelines are and those guidelines were not followed because of an arbitrary decision by the interim city manager that's what we're asking for the legal opinion on thank you there's one

Before we start saying arbitrary decision, no, the lease does not say we will open our checkbook and fix anything you want. It says we're responsible for $1,000. After you spend $1,000 on non-routine maintenance, it doesn't say how the process is paid for it. Otherwise, if you read it that way, then it could be winter time and the air conditioning is down and it's an emergency. And let's not go out for bids, spend the money, and we're obligated because we didn't follow our policy.

Is that your legal opinion? Is that your legal opinion?

I understand I'm not going to say this as eloquently as you do, but it's insulting to think that the library board would approve an air conditioning replacement in the middle of winter. We are intelligent individuals and we are good city partners. Look at the sidewalk that's right outside the library right now that we put the rumble bars or whatever you call those little strips on at our expense because it was a hazard to our patrons. So to say that we're not being good partners to the city And that we would just willy-nilly decide to open up your checkbook and spend whatever we want is insulting. At least get the facts straight before you insult us.

Well, I didn't say you would willy-nilly do anything. And I'd also like to point out, it is not my money. It's public funds. So something for you guys to figure out. And so Commissioner Kolhoff gets it clear for the third time, I am not an attorney.

Yeah, and I don't think that's, I mean, I don't think the, yeah, I think the bigger question is anything over, according to the lease, anything over $1,000 is to be paid by the city, correct. But for us to expend tax levied funds that were levied on behalf of the city of Abilene, those expenditures then have to follow our purchasing policy.

I don't think that there's any question about that, but I think that the question is, how does, how does that, this is an independent board of, I mean, essentially it could be another city from that matter, or they could be the rural water district for that matter, but they have an agreement and the obligations are on us. That is an obligation upon us. We have our own way to follow it. And I think, I mean, again, this is the way I read the document, but I really would like the attorney to read the document and tell us all the things, because there's probably half a dozen things that I don't even know about with state law or other considerations or how library board law works. I think that we are owed a legal opinion on a legal dispute. To me, it's very clear that it is an open checkbook. The lease grants them an open checkbook. That's what it looks like to me. I don't see any cap on what they could spend. That's what it looks like to me. And so I want some clarification. If there is, I mean, there's clearly an obligation to do something sometimes, right? I think there was with the flooding, like we spent $27,000 or whatever. Yeah.

We required all our purchasing policies.

Our facilities maintenance person, and we spent $8,000, not $23,000, which did not include rebuilding the drywall and all that.

Was there any limitation on that? Did that go through the purchasing policy? Well, you don't need my permission to spend $3,300. And it seems like a very similar thing. Does the library, were you just never going to replace the HVAC for the library? Director Moulton.

Wendy Moulton, library director. I appreciate that going through the purchasing policy in that instance with the flooding saved the city money. But when you talk about your emergency purchasing policy, talking about disrupting operations, doing that, kept our children's library not to full operations for over three months. So I just want that to be taken into consideration. Yes, the city saved money on that, but it did disrupt operations for longer than if we had just gotten it fixed under emergency. So I just want to take that into consideration. It kept our children's department from being fully operational during our busiest time of year for the children's department as well during the summer. So we only just recently got everything put back in order and that was after several contacts to the city about when they were going to come put our bookcases back so we could start story time this month. And I never got a response and my assistant director and her family had to come in and put the shelves back themselves. So I just wanted to make that comment.

and book cases back as part of our requirements.

Do we have any further questions, comments on this specific item?

Okay, I just want to speak from the perspective of finance director. One thing I do want to note is that the HVAC for the library is and has been on the capital improvement plan. And that is something that we have had to continue to defer along with everything else simply because of our financial constraints. So I think that's one thing that it is on the plan and it will continue to be on the plan And we had a very good plan of action going forward for this budget year when we were talking about those capital improvements and because we could not levy any additional funds that had to be deferred again. So I think that's a big perspective to continue to look at. And then just from my standpoint as my everyday job, it is important that I'm clear on what decision is made here because The way that it does read is that they could make that, if they don't follow our purchasing policy and they authorize that bill, I have to figure out a way to cover that. That's on me and the city manager. And without any guidance to that, We could spend, not saying that you would, but you could essentially spend $25,000 that I don't know where that's coming from because I didn't plan for it. So it's just very important to continue to have this conversation. I understand what the library board is saying about needing a legal opinion. I think that's helpful. I'm going to say real quick, I don't want to wait until 2028 to negotiate this lease. That seems a bit of a stretch. I think this is something that needs to be done sooner rather than later so that we have clear guidelines on how we move forward and we can do our job to the best of our ability.

If I could just make one last point, I will echo those remarks. We live with fiscal constraints as well. We live under the fiscal constraints that this commission imposed on us five years ago, I believe, that 8.22 is our max tax levy. We don't have the option to call and do R&R. We can't do that because you imposed a cap on us. We have lived within that cap every year since it's been imposed. We weren't consulted. We weren't asked, what can you live with? Does this work for you? We were just not even told a cap was going to be imposed. It was just imposed. We have lived with it every year. We have never gone over that. When the city two years ago, last year, did not give any raises to its employees, we followed suit. We gave no salary increases to any of our employees. And this year, our employees received only a 2% increase, which we did only because they received nothing last year as yours did. So we're staying even lower than the city is for those salaries. We are working our hardest to live within those budget constraints. And when we have things that all of a sudden we have to pay for that we shouldn't have to pay for, according to a lease, that knocks our budget out. And it may seem like a huge amount to the city. It may seem like a small amount in our budget. but it's a huge amount to have to find that money. It means that programs aren't going to be held. It means that programs will be canceled. It means that kids' programs won't be held. We won't purchase books. I mean, we're on a very tight budget, and we're living within the constraints that you all imposed upon us. So we would ask that you at least follow the terms that we've agreed to so that we can plan accordingly. So thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any further, I guess, questions for staff, comments on this item before we, you know, motion before we have too many?

I will ask a question. Didn't we have a bridge at the library city commission joint meeting? Didn't we have a bridge? As to an understanding of what the. Policy was going forward that the library was going to follow what they're a memo of understanding that was supposed to come out of that for my mistake.

Yes, for a memo, but then Fisher costs are in legal advice. You've copied you on all those emails, so I have not issued one. Okay. Once a legal opinion, then that's the will of the body, then we'll wait to see it. Okay. Yeah. You've seen those emails. Yeah.

Well, one thing without knowing which direction you're going to go here, generally in my role of providing legal opinions, those are for the benefit of the city and it's up to you, whether you make those for public consumption or whether you share those with the library board. And there was a reference made to looking forward to that. I understand the sentiment, but my opinion generally is exclusively for you. And if that is released to, uh, individuals outside of this organization, the city, then the privilege would be waived and it would no longer be confidential. That is up to you to decide. But if I were to be directed to provide a legal opinion, I think it would be important as to whether that is for public consumption or whether it is strictly for you. I would recommend the latter to start with. And if you were to direct me to do so, but I think that's an important clarification that I would need.

I would make a motion that the city commission direct city attorney Martin to give us a legal opinion on the lease with the Abilene library board, including any related statutes, city code, uh, and so forth that he deems relevant to present to the city commission in an executive session on September 28th. Is that sufficient timeframe? Okay.

Um, possibly, I, I might need additional information, it may be in the packet, there were a couple of links that I couldn't open. But if that is the direction, I can fulfill that. I would in case it's relevant, as you've seen on your agenda, we have an executive session following this item, I believe, to discuss the terms and conditions of a proposed new lease agreement with me. I would expect that we would more clearly address this issue in a new lease agreement.

Okay, so just to clarify that if passed, that timeline is good with you. Knowing what we know now, we can always adjust if needed down the road. I'm just wanting to make sure.

Yes. September 28th to provide you with an opinion as to whether the city must pay the HVAC reimbursement request from May. Taking into account the laws and authorities.

Is it that, or is it the, what is the purchasing policy that the library has to follow? Yeah, I think. I think we came to an agreement between us and the library board. Kind of a handshake deal at the end of that meeting that there was going to be a memorandum of understanding. That they were going to follow the city purchasing policy going forward with the contacts and the negotiations. And then. Understanding that we also. based on the lease, we'll pay anything over $1,000. Was that not my, did I not grasp that right?

It's funny that they wanted a memo on how do we move until we have a new lease. Right. And then I drafted that, but then I got the, on these legal opinions and so on.

I think I'm not asking about this specifically. I'm asking for the city attorney's interpretation of the lease, the interplay with the city purchasing policy. Again, any other relevant state statutes, city codes that might interplay that I'm maybe we're not aware of. And just so we have an understanding of how that agreement, the lease that we have with the library board sits in relation to all of those parties and and rules. broadly. I'm not asking about the HVAC. I think, yeah, the HVAC broke in May, but who knows what will happen in October? You know what I'm saying? And I think, I don't know what the timeline is. Maybe we'll know after executive session what that timeline is. But I think that we as a board, as a commission, as a city, need to honor our promises and a lease is a promise, a contract between two parties. I want to know that I, as a city commissioner, am honoring my contracts. That's what I'm asking for. I'm not asking about the HVAC specifically. I'm saying, hey, what does this lease do? What does it not do? What are the obligations of each party?

Okay, there is a motion on the table. Do we have a second? Do we have a second? Seeing none, motion fails due to lack of second. We are back on 7, no, sorry, 8D. Well, we're still on 8D. If we have no substitute motion, I would move to the next item, but I'm leaving time for that.

I might make a suggestion that after your executive session with the draft lease agreement that the city attorney is prepared, that may change any type of motion you may want to make as far as clarity. Which, after that, it would be fine to come out and make a motion to direct the city attorney with whatever you'd like to or not.

Do we have anything further on 8D? Seeing none, we will then move to item 8E, consider revision to personnel policy section 8-13 regarding nepotism. Interim City Manager Quinde.

Thank you. Your current personnel policy has a section 8E, actually it's not 8E, that's agenda number, but it's a nepotism policy. And the current policy basically has a same department prohibition. What staff is providing Proposing is to change that policy that it focuses on conflict and supervisory authority prohibition. Section 8-13 in the code prohibits an immediate family member from being employed anywhere within the same department as another immediate family member. The concern is that the organization structure makes that prohibition broader than necessary. I use public works as an example. It includes the street department, water production, water distribution, wastewater, stormwater, levee maintenance, fleet and mechanics, GIS, locates, amongst other things. Under the existing policy, somebody working in one of those areas prevents an immediate family member from working in a completely different area simply because both positions organizationally fall under public works, even if neither person supervises the other or makes employment decisions affecting the other, or even if they don't ever see each other during the workday. That is unnecessarily reducing the pool of otherwise qualified applicants without addressing an actual nepotism or conflict of interest concern. The proposed policy focuses on the actual conflict. Immediate family members could work for the city, including within the same department, provided that neither directly supervises the other. Neither exercises authority over hiring, promotion, compensation, evaluation, discipline, work assignments, or other employment conditions. An employee also could not participate in or influence an employment decision involving an immediate family member. The proposed language, which has been reviewed by the city attorney, preserves the city's ability to act when a relationship creates an actual conflict compromises confidentiality, interferes with effective supervision, or otherwise adversely affects city operations. One of the examples I can give you is that Mike Blacketeer has been in here before. He's the water production superintendent. He has two employees. They're out on an island basically by themselves. You don't see them unless they need something. If somebody who works in the street department never works out at water, production wanted to be hired and they were qualified applicant under our current policy, we couldn't hire them simply because a family member worked at water production. They never interact, they don't have supervisory or promotion or anything like that over. What we're suggesting is that you can't, an immediate family member can't be supervised by another family member. But if you change this policy, hypothetically, if Joe Smith works at water production as an operator, and then James Smith, his brother, is a qualified applicant and we want to hire him for the street department. You can play different supervisors who completely different working areas. Would be able to do that under our current policy. We can't because organizationally. Public works has all of those underneath it. That's the recommendation for the change.

So basically delineating between direct supervisors versus departments.

Yeah, it's allowing us to hire people that aren't supervised or have any influence over another family member.

How many questions for staff on this item?

How many sub-departments are there? I think that's... I think if you look at something and say public works, I think that's probably too broad. But I do think there's some common sense into saying you can't have, I don't know, whatever relationship it is in water or streets. I still think that it just creates the opportunity for problems. What about defining a department more tightly than say public works if it is whatever that sub-department is?

We're currently under city code public works as all of these administration has all of these underneath the Department of law has certain departments under public works has certain departments under it and read that personnel policy it says with within the same department. We're we're reading that as a water production Mike Blackett here works for Brad public works director. The Sims is the street superintendent he works for Brad. But employee A can work for Steve and employee B, their brothers, can work for Mike. There's no interaction. There's no supervision. You have Brad at the top. And then you have a manager and an HR director that can make sure that none of that occurs. I understand completely the point of having nepotism. You don't want anybody in that line. But right now, we're being held back on people we can hire. We're having difficulty hiring anyhow. Currently, and I use Public Works, the street department is short two people and the water department is short two people. They're at 50% staffing, street department and the water department. And the water department will be losing their superintendent at the end of the month. So it just opens up that pool for us a little bit better.

Yeah, I think it's a good idea because I think a lot of people that I know that grew up here in Abilene and their families work for the city, they like to stay working for the city because it's a good place to work. So I think that's a good idea.

And this proposal aligns with the standard that is applied to state employees? under KSA 46246A, which focuses on employees' participation in employment decisions rather than just being within the same unit.

It looks like I just pulled up the city code here. So there's kind of divisions of divisions, but Department of Public Works is street and utilities. Streets apparently stands alone, but then the utilities is water, wastewater, and recycling. I guess just my preference is that if they're within a different division, I don't think that's a problem, but I think putting related people in the same division could lead to problems, especially when they are two or three people.

And that's what this proposal is. They couldn't be in the same division, but they could be in the same.

They could not be in the same division.

This proposal would not allow two people to be in the same division.

Okay. I'm sorry. I didn't interpret.

Brother A and B could not work in water production. It keeps them away from that. But brother A can be in water production and brother B can be in the street department.

Can you clarify for me? This says whether they supervise each other. It doesn't say that they can't be in the same division. At least I'm not seeing that.

It says the employment of immediate family members, as defined below, in the same department or area of operation. And I'll just... Keep on going there. No person shall be employed in a department where a member of their immediate family is employed. So you can't have Brother A and B both in public works, even though they'd be in different divisions under the current policy. We're asking that you allow that. They just can't supervise you.

Right, and just so I'm clear, my preference is that they're not working in the same division.

Correct.

Okay, but I don't see that language in the proposed section of it. And I think we're on the same page here, but I don't see that language in that proposed... Is it on the maybe in the first?

No, it just it focuses on supervision or exercising authority over somebody.

Right. And so what I'm I guess, just so I'm clear, I think we don't want two people, especially in a three person division. But if somebody is in water and someone's in streets, I think that's perfect.

Right. You had a case like water production, for example. You have Mike, who is the operator of record. He's the superintendent. Right. If you have two employees, one's going to be more senior than the other. So you would not want to have two brothers or two sisters in that same division because, well, it's just not good. But if they're in different divisions, then yes.

I think the only revision I would make it looks like is in The after the first comma in the proposed. immediate families may be employed by the city, including within the same department, but not the same division, I think that relieves my heartburn over the.

Yeah, we can make that except for the divisions I don't think are clearly defined within city code. I mean, we would understand what it means. Well, it gets to the point.

Here's what I've got in front of me here. So it says the Department of Public Works consists of street division and utilities, but then it breaks those down further. So streets does stand alone. And then utilities is water, wastewater, and recycling. And I think if there's others that for some reason aren't in city code, we can just enumerate them. I mean, for...

I take the police department, for example. Most of them are law enforcement officers.

Some aren't.

And they actually have different divisions because detectives and the chief can throw something at me if I'm wrong. But Lieutenant, I don't know her last name, but Skyler is in charge of investigation. She doesn't supervise patrol. But if she has to get on the road, she'd supervise patrol. That could be an issue. But code enforcement, that's the chief or records clerk or the court clerk. Those are different divisions under law enforcement. So, I mean, your point's well taken, and it should not be within the same division, but not every division, as we're currently structured, is recognized by city code.

I see what you're saying. So, yeah, the police department is one entity under the city code, as is the fire, from what I can tell, and law.

Right. But let's say under the police department, it's under one, he still supervises the court clerk.

Yeah, I guess that's the only clarification that I would want is that it's got to be got to be clean.

I just didn't know how to easily do that.

I don't think my solution is when you look at police and fire. I don't think my solution solves the problem. Yeah.

Ideally, you focus on supervision. You keep them out of supervising each other or having any influence over their employment. Otherwise, do we enumerate every division? And if that changes, do we have to come back and change that?

Well, and to be fair, if I was a supervisor, let's say I was Brad, I wouldn't want to have to supervise two brothers in the same department because that seems like a pain in the butt.

Yeah, and we wouldn't do that because... Like I said, in that instance, you're going to have different levels of certified operators. So one's going to be more senior than the other. They may not officially be their supervisor, but they're going to have influence over them. So they would not be in there. But that other brother could be over the streets or he could be in water distribution. That's a whole different ball of wax. They don't work over there. So.

Do you want to, I think police and fire are the only ones that aren't maybe clear. And I don't know if those gentlemen would just break down their department in a way that says, hey, these people can't be related within one, but if they're over here and over here, that's fine.

I would go back to the Bishop piece.

I'm familiar with a lot of law enforcement agencies. It's not... You know, to have two brothers work in the same agency. As police officers not supervising each other husband and wife work together in the same agency. A lot of times they meet that way. So I'm more concerned about the supervision piece structuring into where if it means immediate family member, that they're not where they're supervising or have influence over that person. And I'll speak, it's getting extremely difficult to hire people who want to work in public service, and I'll speak just to the police department. Ten years ago, we would have a hiring process that I could hire two or three officers. I'd be comfortable hiring two or three candidates from. Currently, We might have two or three processes before I find one person that I'm comfortable protecting and serving our community. All of our citizens, your constituents, all benefit from us hiring the very best police officers. And so allowing if it's a brother or immediate family member to work together, not supervise, I would be a proponent of that.

And to be clear, you could have an instance where you have a brother who works in streets and a brother who works in water distribution, and you have a large snowstorm like you did a couple years ago, and everybody, all hands are on deck. So they're working together, but one doesn't supervise each other. Why we follow the statute that applies to state employees, and it focuses on do you supervise or have influence over them? That would be our recommendation.

I'm fine with the supervised language.

Yeah, I am too.

How many overnight people do you have at the fire department?

Two, three.

How does that, I guess just looking at my fellow commissioners here, if you have two brothers, a brother and a sister, does that give you any pause?

As long as they're not, one's not the boss.

Hey, Kale, can you take... Yeah. Yeah.

yeah so i know that's uh chief strunk that was one thing that i personally had kind of a little bit of a dealing with my dad and then uncle was on a volunteer because he couldn't work full-time and so i guess how do you well again depending on when it was your dad would have been supervised right i could see where that you know would have been a problem but uh just say for example um what john brought up um just say I employed two brothers, as long as they weren't on the same shift or supervising one another. Kind of like Jason said earlier, a lot of bigger departments are that way. I mean, their dad worked there, their grandpa worked there. I mean, the brothers, it's just kind of a family thing and you just got it like, and Jason brought it up earlier. Us as supervisors got to make sure that we don't put them together. And then it used to be the same way kind of on the, full-time and then volunteer. We've kind of got away from that because we miss out on a lot of good volunteer opportunities if we don't allow a little bit of that.

Currently, there's an exception for volunteer police and fire that can be family because they have trouble getting those. This is a city-wide issue of us getting enough employees.

I think it's great that you guys, you obviously are aware of that. I think you would probably have some of the same heartburn that I would. I just think if we're going to have a policy that's in writing that we codify it the way we mean it. So I'm, I'm comfortable with whatever you gentlemen can agree with so that it is in black and white. I just don't want there to be any ambiguity. So anybody off the street can pick up the code or your employees can pick up the code and say, Hey, here's the rules. Here's why we follow it. And it's not on you to separate. I'm more of, you know, I mean, I'm, I'm sure you guys pick up shifts for each other all the time too. where you'd have a situation where somebody's like i'm gonna pick up the shift and it could be a problem so i just i just want to make sure that that that's clear for anybody who's reading that i guess would the commission be open to having city attorney and city manager just review that and make sure that that's whatever language they can agree with with their department heads um to bring forward at the next meeting

Our plan is if you're good at this in general terms to bring back a resolution for your consideration to amend the personnel policy.

Yeah, I'm good with it as is with the supervisory language. If you want to delineate and get a little deeper into the weeds for the resolution, great.

But just to caveat that the more that you get in the weeds, the more you get the further back down the corner.

Right. Exactly. Yeah. I'm okay with the supervisory language on the broad level personally, but if others want more than obviously that I'm okay with it as it is.

I'm good with it.

Yeah. There's a way to, I mean, easily, I guess, make that cut and dry in there. I don't know. And you don't have to figure it out now, but I'm just.

Sure. As Mr. Quinday and I think as everyone has acknowledged, the standard now is direct supervisory, not indirect, but direct supervisory. So if there's an intermediary manager or person in between, that would not trigger it. It is direct. And I think I would probably need some pretty specific guidance in terms of what we would, you would want to see different because I think there's a number of ways you could approach this. The statute, which is not applicable to cities, it's only applies to state employees and officers, I believe, aligns with what is being presented, not an exact text, but in concept, because it does relate to supervisory authority. And if every department had clearly delineated divisions, I think that exercise would be easier. But because it's not, and because those could change over time, I understand the point, but I'm not inclined to reference divisions in the policy.

Just thinking of another potential scenario, if you do have a fire or some sort of police emergency, I think you complicate that by having two brothers for sake of argument and i think it's in their interest as well as everyone else's to have those people not be related i might be thinking too far into that but um and there'll be times uh

in major incidents, even if they're not in the same department. You may have somebody that works in parks and somebody that works in public works and somebody in police department, but they all may have to work together because there's instances where it's all hands on deck and you put away, well, I'm only supposed to do this in parks or I'm only supposed to do this in police department. We're all out there clearing roads and helping neighbors out. We'll bring back a resolution with our recommendation for your consideration in two weeks. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. And our next item is 9A, which is an executive session on attorney-client privilege in regards to the library lease agreement. Aaron, how much time do you think is needed on that?

I'm going to suggest 20 minutes and inclusion of Mr. Quinday.

I would make a motion the City Commissioner recess into executive session for 20 minutes to review and discuss with legal counsel the terms and conditions of a new lease agreement between the City of Abilene and the Abilene Library Board of Directors based upon the need for consultation with an attorney for the public body, which would be deemed privileged in the attorney-client relationship pursuant to KSA 75-4319B2 to include Interim City Manager Quinday. Open meeting will resume in this room at 7.07.

Second.

Motion has been moved and seconded. Do we have any commission discussion? Seeing none, we're going to roll call vote. Vice Mayor Taylor. Yeah. Commissioner Koloff. Aye. Commissioner Lytle. Yes. Commissioner Meisenberg. Yes. Myself, yes. Motion carries. We're in executive session. From executive session of action was taken. We do currently have a study session. regarding the lot sale on North Vine. Neither part, both parties are aware. Neither one was able to attend tonight. Okay.

Right. So I guess if we're

Do we want to wait until the next meeting to have that study session and try to get them both again?

I'm fine either way. I just, yeah.

We got five minutes. Does that TV work? Does that TV work over there? Okay.

Okay.

So are we good with our time? Okay. All right. I would make a motion to adjourn with the study session starting and we'll just keep with the theme three minutes at city hall.

Second.

Motion has been moved and seconded. Do we have any commission discussion? Hearing none, 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.