Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to this regular session meeting of the Leawood Governing Body on Tuesday, September the 8th, 2026. Appreciate everybody being here this evening since we had the holiday yesterday. We have an unusual Tuesday evening Governing Body session meeting. So with that, I will call the meeting to order and ask the clerk to call the roll, please.

Councilmember Pappas here Councilmember Larson here Councilmember Harrison here Councilmember Kane here Councilmember Guyad here Councilmember Rubin here Councilmember Sunkel here Councilmember Castor is absent and Mayor Mark Elkins is present and presiding

Thank you, Ms. Stromberg. I find that we have a quorum present this evening, so we can move on to the business of the evening. And with that, I would ask you all to rise and follow me in the Pledge of Allegiance, please. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Please be seated. Again, welcome to everyone this evening. Ms. Stromberg, are there any edits or additions to the agenda as it was published?

No, sir.

If not, do I hear a motion to approve the agenda as it was published?

So moved.

Second.

Thank you, Ms. Rubin. Thank you, Ms. Larson. Any discussion? If not, all those in favor of approving the agenda as it was published, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, same sign. The ayes have it and the agenda is approved. Next item on our agenda is our citizen comments. And we have one citizen here who signed in this evening. Ms. Pence, we're going to delay you for just a few minutes, but we appreciate you signing in. Mr. Vine, please step forward. Welcome back to the governing body and we're interested in what you have to say today. As usual, if you could introduce yourself and your address for our record, we would be grateful.

My name is Ron Vine. I live at 14817 Fairway Circle. The city is proposing increasing the budget authority for expenditures for the golf operating fund in 2027 from $3.4 million to $4.5 million. An increase of just a little bit over $1 million or nearly 31%. In 2024, gross revenues at Iron Horse were $3.2 million, and in 2025, they were $3.4 million. So gross revenues increased almost $200,000. This year, they are projected to be $3.1 million. So by estimating a gross revenue increase of $200,000 from this year's budget, one gets an estimated gross revenue of $3.5 million in 2017. However, if in 2027 expenditures are $4.5 million and gross revenues are about $2.5 million, Where's the $978,000 difference? This begs the question of the million dollars. If it is tax dollars that are paying that $978,000, I think Leeward residents have the right to know, because we've always been told that the golf course is making a profit. If it's some other source, I think Leeward residents also have a right to know how it's being paid for. I think that's especially important because we found out during the course of the last year or so that about 20% of the play, 20% or less of the play at Iron Horse is by Leeward residents. So we really have a situation. And that's from children, so we really have a situation that if 80% of the play at Iron Horse is by nine residents, and if a million dollars is being paid through taxes, then Leeward residents are paying 80% of the cost of the golf course for non-residents to play. I'm all for paying, I don't play at Iron Horse, although I practice there and I used to be a member there. I'm all for paying taxes for my fellow citizens to use a golf course, but I would expect it to be 60, 70% of the usage. I have a problem paying this much money when only 20% of play is from Leeward residents. Last, for over one and a half years, Leawood residents have asked to receive more detailed information on the monthly reports than we're getting. And those have occurred here with myself. They've occurred at advisory board meetings. They've occurred in emails. And very little additional information about the monthly reports have been received. Leawood residents want to help. with making decisions and identifying areas that expenditures are maybe too high, or that money is being wasted, or citizens can come up with other ideas, but we need an opportunity to do that. And I'm saying other citizens other than myself, because you guys have seen me quite a bit. So those are my remarks, and thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Vine. We appreciate your comments.

Mr. Vine was the only one I had on my list this evening for citizen comments, so we'll move forward to proclamations. I have two proclamations this evening. The first one... is an annual proclamation we make, but again, it's our way of expressing our gratitude and the thanks that we have to the Leawood Police Department and to Mental Health Services for the way that they partner together as co-responders and crisis responders during the course of the year. So this is the week that we recognize co-responder and crisis reporter week, which is September 13th through the 19th. And in recognition of that co-responder partnership, I've issued the following proclamation. Whereas LeWay, Kansas has continued to address the rising demand for mental health and substance use services, and whereas mental health and substance use challenges can lead to homelessness, incarceration, and emergency room visits, which are more intrusive and costly for communities than earlier interventions and connections to behavioral health services. And whereas Leawood, Kansas has recognized the need for additional resources for individuals experiencing mental health crises and identified crisis intervention team training, mental health first aid training, and Johnson County mental health co-responders as emerging effective practices. And whereas the Leawood, Kansas Police Department, having recognized the importance of advanced and ongoing training in mental health awareness, now has more than 95% of its first responders with such training. And whereas the Leawood, Kansas Police and Johnson County Mental Health Correspondent Program began a collaborative effort in 2019 to embed a mental health clinician with law enforcement to respond to individuals in crisis, provide the right intervention at the right time to avoid arrests, emergency room visits, and repeat 911 calls by connecting to appropriate resources, and whereas the city of leawood currently maintains two staffed co-responder positions including an additional role that was authorized by this governing body in 2022 now therefore i mayor mark elkins mayor of the city of leawood on behalf of the citizens of leawood do hereby proclaim september 13 through 19 2026 as co-responder and Crisis Responder Week. In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the City of Leawood to be affixed this eighth day of September, 2026. Captain Allring, and I believe that Captain Osborne, along with co-responders Amy Hennis, Jessica Murphy, Jessa Modena, and I'm sorry, Haley Carrillo, I think are here tonight and I would invite them all to come forward and I apologize for the mispronunciation of your name. So again, thank you for everything you all do. We really appreciate it. Thank you.

I believe so, not us. All right.

I'll let you two hold that. I'll stand to the side here.

I did not prepare anything. Jessica Murphy, Deputy Division Director at Johnson County Mental Health. I'll keep it very brief. Really, it's just to say thank you to the police department and the council for being so supportive of this program. Since 2014, we've been really blessed to be able to grow the program and continue to serve the police department and the residents here in Leawood. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Again, thank you for all that you do. The second proclamation this evening is another one that is near and dear to my heart, and it's recognizing that many, many years ago, the Constitution of the United States, which governs everything that we do up here and the way that we govern ourselves as a city, as a county as a state and as a nation all came together at this time as i said many many years ago and as a result this is the time of year when we rep when we recognize constitution week and so to recognize constitution week in the city of leawood i've issued the following proclamation Whereas the Constitution of the United States of America, the guardian of our liberties, embodies the principles of limited government in a republic dedicated to the rule of law. And whereas September 17, 2026 marks the 239th anniversary of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States of America by the Constitutional Convention. And whereas it is fitting and proper to accord official recognition to this magnificent document and its memorable anniversary and to patriotic celebrations which will commemorate it, and whereas communities and organizations nationwide have taken part in a simultaneous bell-ringing ceremony to mark the signing of the Constitution, And whereas Public Law 915 guarantees the issuing of a proclamation each year by the President of the United States of America designating September 17-23 as Constitution Week, now therefore I, Mark E. Elkins, Mayor of the City of Leawood, Kansas, do hereby proclaim this week of September 17-23 as Constitution Week. in the city of Leawood and ask our citizens to reaffirm the ideals the framers of the Constitution had in 1787 by vigilantly protecting the freedoms guaranteed us through this guarding of our liberties, remembering that lost rights may never be regained. In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and cause the seal of the City of Leawood to be affixed this eighth day of September 2026. And Ms. Gillian Pence, from the Daughters of the American Revolution, it seems entirely appropriate for her to be here to receive this proclamation. So, Ms. Pence, if you could come forward, please.

So the United States Constitution stands as a testament to the tenacity of Americans throughout history to maintain their liberties. and freedoms and to ensure those unalienable rights to every American. The tradition of celebrating the Constitution was started by the Daughters of the American Revolution. In 1955, the DAR petitioned Congress to set aside September 17th through 23rd annually to be dedicated for the observance of Constitution Week. The resolution was later adopted by the U.S. Congress and signed into public law on August 2nd, 1956 by President Dwight D. Eisenhower. The aims of the celebration are to emphasize the citizens' responsibilities for protecting and defending the Constitution, inform the people that the Constitution is the basis for America's greatest heritage and the foundation for our way of life, encourage the study of the historical events which led to the framing of the U.S. Constitution in September 1787. The importance of the Constitution is The importance of the Constitution to the cohesion of our body politic and the operation of our government cannot be overemphasized. Understanding its history, articles, and its amendments is fundamental for we the people. Constitution Week offers that perfect opportunity to us all, and the invitation to study, celebrate, and promote the Constitution year-round and celebrate the freedoms it gave us. The Bells Across America is an annual celebration in signaling of the U.S. Constitution. Participants gather to ring bells as much as church bells of Philadelphia rang out when the U.S. Constitution was first signed at 4 p.m. on September 17, 1787. I would like to encourage everyone here to join others throughout the United States and ring a bell on Thursday, September 17th for one minute at 3 o'clock Central Time in the afternoon to herald the beginning of this commemorative week. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you, Ms. Spence. Now, this evening is certainly, or today actually, is certainly a significant day in the life of Leawood, as we're privileged to welcome a new fire chief this evening. And Ms. Stoddard, I believe you have an introduction for us.

Yes, I'm so happy to introduce Andrew Grove as our new fire chief. Today is his very first day, and I'd like to ask Andrew to go ahead and come to the podium. We're fortunate to recruit Andrew. He has over 25 years of experience in the fire service, and he was most recently a deputy chief serving in the Overland Park Fire Department. Andrew, if you'd like to say a few words, and also I know your family is here, if you'd like to introduce them this evening.

Welcome, Chief Grove. Thank you very much. Members of the City Council, Mayor, and members of the Leawood community, thank you for your trust, for this incredible opportunity for me. Standing before you today as Leawood's new Fire Chief is both a profound honor and a responsibility I do not take lightly. Our department has a proud history of fire and EMS service delivery for the community. As we look ahead, my primary commitment is to build upon that strong foundation. We will ensure that our firefighters have the modern resources, training, and support that they need to respond swiftly and keep our neighborhoods safe. To the council, I look forward to working closely alongside you to maintain the highest standard of public safety, optimize our operational readiness, and serve our community with transparency and fiscal responsibility. To the residents of Leawood, whenever you call for help, know that our team will answer with professionalism, skill, and compassion. Thank you again for this honor to serve as your fire chief. Today, I have my family with me, so my wife, Emily, my son, Ames, my mother, Pam, my daughter, Emma, and also in the crowd is Chief Jim and A.J. Francis. Jim was my first captain and my lifelong mentor, so it's a big honor to have all of them here tonight. So I'm proud to be your fire chief. Welcome, Chief. Thank you.

Yeah, she did.

I don't know.

Chief, we all look forward to working with you in the next weeks, months, and years. As I said this morning to you, I know it's pun intended here, like drinking through a fire hose today, but hopefully in a couple of weeks it won't be nearly as bad.

Yes, sir. Now, like I said, the pressure in Leawood is really good on that fire hose. Glad to hear it.

And again, welcome to your family. All right. We next come to the segment of our agenda that relates to special business. We have a number of items of special business this evening. Just kind of as a preview for the council members so you're aware of when we're going to be commenting and when we're going to be asking questions. during the course of this process. We're going to be asking our Director of Finance, Jeremy Wilmot, to come forward and to provide a presentation that covers all three of the first three items of special business, and that relates to a public, relates to a resolution relating to Our intent to exceed the revenue neutral rate in the city, a review of our budget that's been proposed to us by both the staff and by the finance committee, and to consider a resolution approving and adopting the capital improvement plan. Now, once Jeremy has completed his presentation, there will be an opportunity for governing body members to ask him questions, as contrasted with commenting on the budget. And then we will have a hearing on each one of items A, B, and C. In some instances, we'll require a roll call vote. In others, it will be strictly a normal vote for us. But again, we'll have an opportunity to comment on each of these as they come up. But while Jeremy's up here, I would encourage you to ask any questions that you have. With that, Mr. Wilmoth, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Good evening, everyone. Jeremy Wilmoth, Director of Finance for the City of Lidwood. As is the city's tradition, before we get started with the presentation tonight, we think it's very valuable to the public that are attending here and those that will listen from home to watch the video the city put together about the budget. So I will start there.

Thank you, Mr. Wilmoth.

Every day in Leawood, thousands of things happen that most people never think about. Firefighters and paramedics are ready at a moment's notice. Parks are mowed, trails are maintained, snowplows are fueled before the first snowflake falls, streets are repaired before they become bigger problems. None of that happens by accident. It happens because of thoughtful planning. And that's exactly what the city's annual budget is. It's more than a financial document. It's a plan for maintaining the high level of service residents expect today while preparing responsibly for tomorrow. At its core, it's a budget that prioritizes taking care of what we already have, maintaining the streets, parks, facilities, infrastructure, and services that residents depend on every day, while making thoughtful investments for the future. At the heart of every decision is our mission. We work together to provide exceptional services, infrastructure, and amenities for a safe, sustainable community where all are welcome. Every budget dollar supports that mission, investing in the things that make Leawood one of the most desirable communities in the region. So where does the budget process begin? Each winter and spring, city staff evaluate the community's needs, review long-term financial forecasts, update the capital improvement program, and identify investments needed to maintain city services and infrastructure. Those recommendations are then reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Budget and Finance Committee, made up of the full governing body and three Leawood residents appointed to the committee before they move forward for public consideration. One topic you'll hear about every budget season is something called the Revenue Neutral Rate, or RNR. Despite the name, it isn't a tax increase. It's simply a calculation required by Kansas law. If property values increase enough that a city would collect more total property tax dollars than the previous year, even while keeping the exact same tax rate, the city must hold a public hearing before adopting the budget. Like many Johnson County communities, Leawood is proposing to exceed the revenue neutral rate while keeping the city's mill levy flat at 23.500 mils. The revenue neutral rate hearing is an opportunity for residents to learn more about the proposed budget, understand how tax dollars are used, ask questions, and share feedback before the governing body makes its final decision. This year's revenue neutral rate hearing and budget public hearing will take place on September 8th. The proposed 2027 budget maintains Leawood's AAA bond rating, keeps the mill levy steady, continues funding essential services, and invests in maintaining the infrastructure and amenities residents rely on every day. Every dollar that comes into the city has a purpose. In 2027, property taxes provide about 44% of city revenues, while sales taxes contribute another 30%. The remainder comes from grants, fees, interest earnings, transfers, and other revenue sources. But here's something many people don't realize. The city of Leawood receives only about 22 cents of every property tax dollar paid. The remaining dollars support public schools, Johnson County, Johnson County Community College, and the state of Kansas. So what does Leawood do with its share? It funds the services residents experience every single day. Safe neighborhoods. Fast emergency response, smooth streets, beautiful parks and trails, recreation programs that bring families together, reliable infrastructure that quietly works behind the scenes. It's about protecting the quality of life our residents value most. In fact, in the city's most recent resident satisfaction survey, 99.7% of residents rated Leawood as an excellent or good place to live. Responsible budgeting is one of the reasons Leawood continues to earn that trust. Great communities don't simply happen. They're built through thoughtful planning, responsible stewardship, and engaged residents. We invite you to review the proposed budget, attend the public hearing, and share your feedback. Visit leawood.org slash budget to learn more. And join us September 8th. Together, we're planning not just for today, but for the next generation of Leawood.

thanks to uh beth brittenstein and our communications team as well as the rest of the staff for for composing such a succinct and clear explanation of the process today with that mr wilmoth please proceed yes thank you every day

So good I wanted to watch it again. Sorry about that. All right. That video did an excellent job, as the mayor just said, of giving a real wide overview of the budget. So what we want to do is just take a few minutes, drill in a little bit deeper into the detail. And everything the city does starts with the strategic plan. So our first two slides are addressing how the budget is in alignment with the strategic plan. Two goals of the strategic plan that line up with finance specifically are sustaining financial stability. And so this budget maintains sufficient operating reserves in all funds. The mill levy, as the video said, is flat at 23.5 mills. The long-term forecasting parameters that were established were met. We focus on maintenance of existing services and facilities. As the video said, we're continuing the city's long-standing tradition of a AAA bond rating, which helps lower borrowing costs and saves millions of dollars over the life of any debt that's issued by the city. And finally, we're supporting the finance and the budgeting pillars of the strategic plan. In addition to that, sustaining service levels. This budget is focused on maintaining the high quality level of service that the citizens of Leawood have come to know and appreciate. And so we do that by making sure that our employee compensation plan is competitive, not only within the region, but within the city as well. Excuse me. The budget provides for 1.8 commissioned officers per 1,000 citizens, 1.7 uniformed firefighters per 1,000 citizens, and about 1.9 full-time equivalent employees per 1,000 residents in the parks and recreation and culture programs. The administration of the city is about 16% of the total workforce, and we're Mandates and operating costs for all capital projects are funded within the budget that's being proposed. The budget supports the pavement condition index staying at better than 70 for all roads within Leawood. And as I mentioned before, the budget continues to high level of service the residents have come to know and appreciate. So this slide is what we would consider a one-page snapshot of the budget. The column on your far left is the actuals that were audited and shared with you earlier this summer of fiscal year 2025. The column in the middle is the current budget that's been revised by staff. And then the column on the far right is the budget and the percent change of the budget by category for both revenues and expenditures. And this is all budgeted funds. So the general fund, the sales tax fund, the park fund, the golf fund, all of our budgeted funds are included. So you'll see property taxes are projected to be about 5% more than they were last year or in the current year. Sales taxes, and we'll get into this a little bit more in another slide, but sales taxes are projected to go down because the Johnson County sales tax is ending in March. But sales taxes within the city are projected at just over 2%. Intergovernmental, these are the grant funds that we receive predominantly from the state of Kansas for transportation. And we have a large grant that we're anticipating this year in 2027. Interest you'll see is predicted to be just slightly under where we are this year. A lot of that is predicated based on A little bit of the cash balances that have been growing for projects in the CIP being spent, therefore not being available for investments. But all told, revenues are projected to be roughly 4% more than our current year. On the expenditure side, we have personnel at just over 6.5%. That includes wages, taxes. health insurance, all of the ancillary benefits for employees. Other operating expenses, these are predominantly materials and contractual services, are just over 2%. Capital is declining about 11%. That's just a fluctuation of the CIP. Debt service is down about 5%, and our transfers are down. Again, this is the reduction of the public safety sales tax. So as you can see, all funds are projected to have an ending fund balance of roughly 79% of expenditures, which is one of the reasons why the city maintains that AAA bond rating. We have very strong reserves for emergencies. This slide is looking specifically at the revenues that are funding the budget. As was already said in the video, The budget is predominantly funded by a property tax. The other large revenue stream is the sales taxes. And so a few of the revenue highlights, as we've already said, the mill levy is flat with 2026 at 23.5 mills. Total revenue is up 4%, roughly $3.3 million. The property tax is based on a 5.3% increase in assessed valuation as communicated to us by the county, generating $35.7 million in revenue. And as I mentioned just a while ago, the city sales tax is expected to increase 2.3%. However, the county sales tax is ending in March of 2027, which is why we have a net reduction of sales taxes for the budget year. So drilling in on property taxes, just a little bit more. As we said, the mill levy is 23.5 mills. The assessed valuation is just over $1.5 billion. And as I reported at the last meeting, the original projection was 1.534 billion. The actual that was given to us by the county was a little less than that. But the difference is nominal and didn't really impact the budget. This slide is looking at the mill levy over the last several years and then the projection for the next five that the forecast was based on. The largest change here is in the out years beginning in 2028 and going forward. There is a projection of what has been considered over the last several years at the state house and so that we could get a more accurate picture of what we think revenue will do over the next several years. That was capped at. I think 3%. And so what you see is the levy will go down as we project the assessed value to go up, and that revenue caps at 3%. If that law doesn't pass, or if a different law passes, that will obviously impact the projections going forward. But we thought that was a very conservative approach to take, just given all of the discussion at the Statehouse. And so this slide here is put together really to help the general public just keep a context of Excuse me, the city's portion of the property tax. So just for those who may not know, a mill levy is the amount of tax that's collected on every thousand dollars of assessed valuation. So we start with our mill levy, which is twenty three point five. We took the average appraised value of a Leawood home, according to the Johnson County appraiser. at just under $888,000. The state of Kansas assesses residential property at 11.5%. So you can see the math there. A home that's just under $887,000 of market value has an assessed value of just over $102,000. So you take that $102,000, multiply it by our mill levy, 23 and a half, then divide it by the thousand, because it's only for every $1,000 of property, and that gives a property tax bill of roughly $2,400. Comparing that to last year, it's roughly $130 more. If you were to look at that on a monthly basis, the monthly tax burden in 2027 would be $200. Last year it was $189, so that's about an increase of $11 per month. Looking at the property taxes in the Shawnee Mission School District, This slide is looking at $100 of property taxes collected. So for every $100 collected by Johnson County, $47 of that would go to the Shawnee Mission School District. $1.39 would go to the state of Kansas. $7.30 would go to the Johnson County Community College. Johnson County itself would keep, I think that's 22, 37. My eyes are starting to... And then Leawood would get $21.78 of every $100 that's collected. Slightly different in the Blue Valley School District is they also have the Blue Valley Parks and Recreation. So our amount goes down just slightly to $20.72 of every $100 of assessed valuation. Excuse me. This slide is just explaining what the revenue neutral rate is. The video did a much better job explaining in basic terms. This is more of the legal requirement of what we're doing tonight. So that law was written back in March of 2021. simply states that if a governing body decides that they need to exceed that mathematical equation called revenue neutral rate they have to hold that public hearing which we're going to do tonight and then pass a resolution affirming that that is their decision before any other action on the budget can be taken so this slide is looking at that revenue neutral rate if you look at the current fiscal year that we're in the 2025 tax year, which impacted the 2026 city budget. The assessed valuation was $1.456 billion. It had grown 5.53% over the prior year, 2024 tax year, and the mill levy was 23.5, so the taxes that were levied was $34.22 million. If the city had... maintained the revenue neutral rate based on the increase in assessed valuation of almost 5%. We would have had to have reduced our levy by 1.11 mills, and we would have generated roughly the same amount of money as we did last year. However, that would have negatively impacted our ability to perform the services the citizens want. And so we have in our recommended budget, continued the long-standing tradition of keeping the mill levy flat, increasing property taxes based on the assessed valuation increase, and that's the far column to the right of $35.9 million, which is roughly $1.7 million in additional taxes due to that increase in assessed valuation. This is a slide now looking at the bottom half of the ledger, how the budget is allocated. And just to quickly go over, public safety represents just over 30.6% of the budget. Public works represents 17.4% of the budget. Parks represents just over 16% of the budget. The debt allocation is just under 11% of the budget. And administration is about 17% of the budget. And so some of the expenditure highlights, if you look at the overall budget that was presented and recommended, it is just roughly, it's essentially flat. It's 0.7% less than the current year. Personnel services are estimated to increase 6.5%. The non-personnel operating expenses are increasing 2.3%. This is largely due to just ongoing contractual obligations, such as increase in software costs, increase in fuel, increase in utilities, increase in those things that we have to buy to consume and to provide the services that the citizens require. And debt service is decreasing about 2%. So looking at the budget highlights from a personnel perspective, FTE stands for full time equivalent. The way we calculate that is we take the total hours of whatever the activity is. We divide that by 2080 hours, which are the hours of a full time employee. And so, for example, in the parks department, you may have 300 people that are actively working at the pool and throughout the park system throughout the summer. So instead of looking at the number of employees to get an equivalent to what a full-time employee would be, you take their hours divided by 2,080, and that's your full-time equivalent. So we added one FTE to the Nature Center, and that was actually done by eliminating some of those part-time positions. So it was essentially a net zero to the budget. There were some small additions to the seasonal FTE that helped maintain the parks, as I just mentioned. So the overall full-time equivalent is 310.7 employees, which is just under 0.62% over last year. excuse me, we had set aside 4% in the recommended budget for wage increases and market adjustments to stay competitive within the marketplace. And health insurance is currently projected at 15% over the prior year. The employer contribution for KPERS and KPF decreased slightly, but within our budget projections. And so now moving on to the new things that are in the budget. These are called decision packages. These are the things that were not done last year that staff is recommending be added to the budget for the first time. And the summary of total requests that were submitted by all of the different departments was just over $2.17 million. What was agreed upon and then added to the recommended budget for your consideration tonight was just over $762,000. All of the things that were included in the budget do not have a general fund component, so they do not add to the fixed cost of the general fund. They're all being funded by a special revenue source. For example, the city's phone systems and the internet are being funded by our special equipment fund at just under $164,000. Excuse me. Several items for the parks, including updates to the master plan, playground resurfacing at City Park, pond repair at Gezer Park, and irrigation system improvements at both City Hall and City Park. are being paid for out of the Special Parks Fund at around $484,000. And then finally, money for the Fire and EMS Department coming from the Public Safety Fund at just over $89,000. So all of those are being paid for. They're all one-time expenses, and they're all being covered by special revenues. So this is a look comparing the city's budget by department. We've already covered most of this, so I will just move on. This slide here is looking at all of the budgeted funds. The blue column is the beginning balance. That would be the ending balance of the last audited fiscal year. I'm sorry, that would be the ending balance of what we're projecting for this fiscal year. So it's the beginning balance for the 2027 budget. The column next to that are the revenues that are projected by fund. The column next to that are the expenditures. That next column then would be a change. So anything that is in excess, any expenditure in excess of revenue would be a number that's bracketed. Anything that's revenue in excess of expenditures would not have that bracket. So you can see that the alcohol fund is a minor reduction. The Parks and Recreation has a much larger reduction, but that was a cash funded project where that cash was. Earned in prior years to be set aside for a project that will be completed in 2027. The transit guest tax is the same thing we have projects. And the stormwater improvement again is another one where the funds have been building up over time and will be spent on a project in the current fiscal year. So none of these reductions in the operating or in the operating budgeted funds, what I consider to be a concern or an issue. that you all should keep an eye on into the future. They're all one-time things being spent through cash. They do not impact our AAA bond rating, and so that's why staff is making that recommendation. And then the final column, the green column, then, would be the ending balance if this budget is approved. Those are all of the comments that I have tonight. Just to reiterate what we need to do now, once you all have a chance to ask any questions that you have, is to hold the revenue neutral rate public hearing. Once that hearing is concluded, then we need to approve the resolution. for you all stating that you're exceeding that revenue neutral rate and then we can start the budget process but the state law is very clear that that resolution has to take place immediately following that public hearing those are my comments thank you mr williams questions for mr williams i'll look to my left to start no questions

maybe just one thanks miss larson i thought you were looking at me that's not really a question i just want to reiterate one of the facts in your presentation just for clarity so if the city maintained the revenue neutral rate we would have to cut one roughly 1.7 million dollars in city services that's correct thank you thank you miss larson i'll look to my right now questions for mr wilmoth

No questions. All right. Comments. I'm not sure there will be any comments as well. I'll look to Ms. Harrison first.

I do have a couple of comments because we do have a, it looks to me like we have a number of people here who have come for these particular meetings and I wanted to point out a couple of things. Mary just did a great comment with that. What's, you know, nobody suggests what services we would cut if we were not to, if we were not to exceed the revenue neutral. Nobody is ever volunteering. You know, I wish we just didn't have as many pretty parks, or I wish our police service was a little slower, or the fire department was just a little slower when they were coming to my fire at my house. I have the privilege of driving through Leawood to get to work every day in Overland Park, and I can tell when I hit Overland Park, unfortunately, because the condition of the roads deteriorates right at the border. And I'm not putting Overland Park down. They're a much bigger community. I'm just telling you that I can tell. When there was a three-car accident in the parking lot at my office where I work in Overland Park, it took 45 minutes. Three-car accident, 45 minutes for the police department to respond in Overland Park because Such a big city, understaffed, issued. That would not happen in Leawood. 45 minutes, three-car accident, waiting for a response from the police. We are so fortunate that the services are top-notch in Leawood, and it's all because we are able to attract great employees. We're able to fill positions when they're available. I think at one point in time, our neighbors were 40 police officers short, I heard. from our friends, and the AAA bond rating that many of you have heard mentioned tonight half a dozen times, if you're not familiar, residents, with what that is, please look that up and look at how much money, do you have any idea, Jeremy, how much money having the AAA bond rating saves the city? I know we can borrow at a lower rate, and that's great, but any idea what that saves us in a year?

Well, I can only speak to the last issue that we just did. Had we not had a AAA rate, the interest would have been another $5 million over the life of that bond.

$5 million we saved because we have this AAA bond rating. And that AAA bond rating, which means nothing to people who aren't in finance, and it meant nothing to me before I sat at this board, is the product of the hard work of our city staff. We're not the reason we have the AAA bond rating. I don't think we can take any of the credit up here. It's the work of our city staff for decades. Nothing happens by accident, as my friend Julie Kane likes to say in Leawood. And so the ISO rating, Chief Groves has left, but the previous fire chief helped us get an ISO rating of... One. Which means nothing to you if you're a resident that doesn't pay attention to this. But that lowers your home insurance rate. Your home insurance rate is lower in Leawood because our fire chief took it upon himself to do a lot of extra work with his admin team to get us an ISO rating of one. Very few of those in the country. So we're doing what we can to be fiscally responsible with your money. I'm very proud that we haven't raised our mill rate it's been talked about and i'm thankful that i think for the 10 years i've sat here i don't think it's right it's gone up and i'm thankful that we haven't had to make difficult decisions about not funding improvements or maintenance to our parks and our roads and our sewer systems and um the things that make leeward great so that was longer than i meant to talk i apologize thank you thank you ms harrison ms kane

Yes, thank you for that. I just want, for the residents in the audience also, or listening online, it may strike you as odd that we don't have a whole bunch of questions up here about the presentation that our Director of Finance presented, but that is simply because we have sat through hours and hours and hours of meetings on this, and I've lost track of how many meetings just on the city budget that we as a team sit through and comb through every year. So to say that we're fiscally responsible and fiscally prudent with your tax dollars, in my opinion, is an understatement. And we're very proud of that. Again, nine, 10 years of keeping our mill levy flat. And then the AAA bond rating. Another thing is the amount of money we have in reserves. So when the recession hit back in 2008, if you paid any attention at the time, it was the city of Leawood, because of our reserves and our very highly conservative models, that we were able to weather the storm of the recession better than most cities in Johnson County and around us. on both sides of the state line so we take so much interest in this and so much careful uh care of all of our tax dollars because we're all residents too we're paying them as well we want you to know that we try our very best to be good stewards of every single one of your dollars And we're very proud of our outcomes, and it shows in driving around our streets. So that's why we didn't have a ton of questions, because we've spent hours and hours and hours with all of our questions and pouring over these numbers. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. King. Other comments? If not, one of the attributes of the requirements of the Kansas statute on governing the process by which a governing body such as ours moves forward with its intent to exceed the revenue neutral rate in adopting its budget is to create a public hearing or to open a public hearing. that public hearing which i'll open here in just a minute or so um we'll have the following ground rules for it so i'll i haven't decided yet whether i'll look to my left or look to my right but i'll look to one side of the room first and ask those that are here this evening that want to be heard about the city council's consideration to exceed the revenue neutral rate i'll ask you to come forward if you could introduce yourself and give us your residential address we would be grateful because we need it for our record And then we'll ask you to provide your perspective. We'll limit the time to four minutes. And at four minutes, what will happen is at about three minutes and 30 seconds, I think the light up there, we have a very antiquated system, but I think that the light up at the podium will start to blink. to give you an indication that you've got 30 seconds left, and we ask you to close your remarks within those 30 seconds. And then we'll go on to the next person. So the governing body is very interested to hear the comments that you all have. We'll do this same process later on when we come to the budget itself, and then... again when we come to consideration of the capital improvement plan. So the issue for comment right now is specifically on the intent to exceed the revenue neutral rate, although certainly if you have other comments, we will consider those and add those into our record on the subsequent items on the agenda this evening. So with that, I will open the public hearing, and I'll look to my right first and ask if there are any members of the audience who wish to be heard on the consideration of a resolution to exceed the revenue neutral rate. I don't see anybody raising their hand, so I'll look to my left and see if there's anybody on my left-hand side of the room who wishes to be heard this evening on the proposal to exceed the revenue neutral rate. Well, if not, I would then entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

So moved.

Thank you, Ms. Guyette. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Pappas. Any discussion? If not, all those in favor of closing the public hearing, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, same sign. The ayes have it, and by a vote of seven to zero, with one person not present this evening, the public hearing is closed. That brings us to a resolution, which is a resolution to approve and report to the state of Kansas the governing body's intent to levy a property tax rate exceeding the revenue neutral rate. Do I hear such a motion?

So moved.

Thank you, Ms. Harrison.

Second.

That was Ms. Larson. Thank you. And this particular item requires a roll call vote. And with that, I would ask the clerk to call the roll, please.

Council Member Harrison. Aye. Council Member Rubin. Aye. Council Member Guyette. Aye. Council Member Larson. Aye. Council Member Pappas. Aye. Council Member Kane. Aye. Council Member Sunkel. Aye. And Council Member Castor is absent.

So I have seven votes in favor, no votes against, and one council member not participating this evening. So with that, I find that the resolution approving the levy of a property tax rate to exceed the revenue neutral rate is hereby approved, and the resolution is adopted. We come now to the question of an ordinance which adopts the fiscal year 2027 annual budget for the City of Leawood and appropriating the amounts in each fund in the budget for fiscal year 2027 to provide for the payment of all claims and charges against the accounts provided within that budget as well as approving and ratifying the payment of all claims against the accounts. Mr. Wilmoth, do you have anything to add to your previous comments?

No further comments. Happy to answer any questions you all may have.

Any questions for Mr. Wilmoth on the budget? If not, Mr. Wilmoth, thank you. You've done a great job of explaining it. Is there any additional commentary with respect to the budget that is being proposed here tonight? I don't see any additional comments. Again, our practice is to have a public hearing for the opportunity for members of the public and especially residents to provide comments on the proposed 2027 budget. Same ground rules apply. We'll ask you to come forward, introduce yourself, and provide your address, and then we'll allow four minutes for each individual to provide their comments. I would ask the Clerk to incorporate Mr. Vine's comments from the earlier part of this evening into the record for the consideration of this particular ordinance. And with that, I will open the public hearing and go through the same process. Is there anybody on my right-hand side who wishes to be heard on the budget this evening? I don't see anyone raising their hand. Is there anybody on my left that wishes to be heard on the budget this evening? Again, I see no one, and so with that, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

So moved.

I'll take that from Mr. Pappas. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Ms. Rubin. Is there any discussion? If not, all those in favor of adopting an ordinance which effectively adopts the fiscal year 2027 annual budget for the city of Leawood and authorizes the necessary appropriations and expenditures to operate that budget, please... Indicate. Oh, I'm sorry. This does call for a roll call vote as well And I would ask the clerk to call the roll, please could be verified that to close the public hearing was moved by councilmember Pappas and Seconded by miss Rubin and all all those in favor of closing the public hearing if I didn't do it before please indicate by saying aye those opposed same sign and The ayes have it on a 7-0 vote, and the public hearing is closed. Now that takes us to the consideration of an ordinance which adopts the fiscal year 2027 annual budget and authorizes the necessary appropriations and expenditures to fund that budget. Do I hear a motion to adopt such an ordinance?

So moved.

Thank you, Ms. Harrison. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you, Ms. Larson. Any discussion? If not, again, we require a roll call vote to adopt the budget for 2027 year for the fiscal year, and we would ask that the clerk call the roll, please.

Council Member Guyed. Aye. Council Member Harrison. Aye. Council Member Pappas.

Aye.

Council Member Larson. Aye. Council Member Kane. Aye. Council Member Rubin. Aye. Council Member Sunkel.

Aye.

And Council Member Castor is absent.

Once again, I find seven votes in favor and no votes against with one council member not present this evening. So I find that the ordinance is adopted. And while I'm here, let me look to council. Do I need to vote on either of these? Okay, thank you. The ordinance is adopted, and as a result, the annual budget for fiscal year 2027 is adopted and approved by the governing body. And again, my thanks to Mr. Wilmoth and his staff who are in the audience tonight for the great work that they've done putting this together. It's an awesome task. It's an awesome amount of work that you've done, and you put up with a lot of questions from the people up here on this dais. It was all intended for the betterment of the residents of Leawood. The next thing on the agenda is to consider a resolution to approve the 2027 through 2031 capital improvement program. Mr. Wilmots, do you wish to be heard on this? And you might explain just briefly the capital improvement program and why it's 2027 through 2031.

Sure, so the capital improvement program is a five year program that the city adopts on an ongoing basis. So we look at the current year and then five years into the future. And so that document really hasn't changed from the last time we presented, so I don't have a lot of comments. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you all may have.

Thank you. Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Wilmoth on the capital improvement program? Does anybody have any comments with respect to the proposed capital improvement program? Ms. King.

I have one comment to make again for our audience members. If you look at this big hairy document, it includes, it starts off with what will be the capital improvement projects we do for 2027. And then it's broken down into what the changes were. And we do pour over this once again just because it's not a rubber stamp. Some of the things were taken out. We replaced them because, again, we carefully review these. um to determine what are the future projects and then the last is a whole bunch of what we call unfunded projects that we're not again willy-nilly spending all the tax dollars wish we could wish we had trees behind us with um that grew money but we do not as and we know you don't either So there's a number of unfunded projects that is always a fact and always remain. So this one had a lot of changes, a lot of updates for the specificity of what exactly we're paying for this year or all of our tax dollars go towards.

Thank you. Thank you, Ms. King. Ms. Larson.

And just to reiterate Council Member Kane's comments, we've spent hours and hours going over these capital improvement projects and fine-tuning the list. And the fact that we don't have questions at this time doesn't mean that we didn't thoroughly consider and discuss all the projects that are within this program.

uh ms harrison thank you i would also add though our resident numbers are dwindling here by the moment that we have dozens of leeward residents who sit on committees that help us make the decisions for these projects whether it's the ironwood golf committee or the parks and rec committee or the stormwater committee so again we're getting a lot of input from our residents about their priorities as well

Thank you, Ms. Harrison. I would just add one thing to the record for this evening. I think it's important to note that this year we took a little different approach to the capital improvement program. Historically, staff has presented us with their list, and we've reviewed it. and generally approved it with maybe some minor changes. This year we took a ground-up approach, and we started out the process this year, for the first time at least since I've been mayor, we started with a clean sheet of paper, we had a list of projects, and I asked each member of the governing body to rank those projects as to what they thought were important. And then for those projects that related to a particular committee, for instance, Parks, Rec and Arts, I asked that committee to rank in priority order what it thought its priorities were. And so this was a new approach that we took this year where we started from scratch. And as I say, I built this capital improvement plan from the ground up and carefully considered each thing that was on the list. Some of them had been on the list for a number of years, and frankly, they came off the list into the unfunded category. There were other items that were brand new, but we felt like there was a certain amount of urgency for one reason or another to have them added, and in some cases to fund them as early as in 2027. So this was the product. of a much more rigorous process this year. And again, my thanks to Jeremy, to you and your team, as well as to the entire staff who's sitting back in the back room as they were faced with the opportunity to justify the projects that they thought were important and to persuade us as to their importance. And my thanks to the governing body up here. As well as an important one that I don't want to leave out is the finance committee, which is Miss Kane indicated have 3 residents who are just from the general population at large, who sat through many hours of meetings as we considered this capital improvement project. So. I, for my part, am very pleased with it. I think it's the benefit of a, we're the beneficiary and it's the result of a very rigorous process. So with that, if there are no other comments, this is another matter that we open for a public hearing to accept the public's comments and particularly the residents of Leawood's comments. on the proposed capital improvement program. Again, I would look to the right-hand side of the room. I'll open the public hearing. Same ground rules as before. Three minutes. Please introduce yourself and your address, and the light will blink when you're down to 30 seconds. Is there anyone on the right-hand side of the room, my right-hand side of the room, who wishes to be heard on the capital improvement program? Seeing none, I'll look to the left. Is there anyone on the left-hand side that wishes to be heard? I see no one wishing to provide input this evening. So with that, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

So moved.

That was Ms. Larson. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Ms. Kane. Any discussion? All those in favor of closing the public hearing, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, same sign. The ayes have it on a 7-0 vote, and the public hearing is closed. That brings us to consideration of a resolution to approve the 2027 through 2031 capital improvement program. Do I hear such a motion?

Move to approve.

I'll take Ms. Rubin on that one. And for a second, I will take Ms. King. Discussion from the governing body on the capital improvement program. If not, in this instance, we do not require a roll call vote. I would simply call for the ayes and nays. All those in favor of approving or adopting a resolution that approves the capital improvement program for 2027 through 2031, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, the same sign. The ayes have it, and I have on a seven to zero vote with one council member not present this evening. The resolution adopting the capital improvement program for 2027 through 2031 is hereby adopted. We come to the last item on our agenda for special business, and that is consideration of revisions to our code, as well as a resolution concerning the compensation that is paid by the city to members of the governing body consisting of both, I guess you would call it salary, as well as expense allowances. And with that, I would look to Ms. Stoddard. Ms. Stoddard, the floor is yours.

Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. I want to discuss these proposed adjustments. When we were looking at the 2027 budget, we thought that it was appropriate to look at the Mayor and Council Member salaries and propose some adjustments to those. Those were considered during the budget meetings that you've had and were part of the recommended budget that was presented at the end of June. And um also since that time council member pepas had proposed some additional information and some adjustments to those amounts so there's quite a lot of information that's included in your packet about that for this evening one of the things that we wanted to do with the proposed change was currently the salaries of the governing body including the council members and the mayor, is set in the city code. And in order to change that it requires an ordinance. And what we're proposing is that we make a change to the city code to allow the salaries to be set by resolution in future years. So this evening you have a couple of actions in front of you. There's an ordinance that would change the city code to allow those salaries to be changed in the future by simple resolution and then you also have a resolution that would set the 2027 salaries the in with the 2027 salaries um one of the things that i will say our proposed amount that we had in the 2027 budget didn't take into account is the fact that the governing body salaries have not been adjusted for nine years so that's a pretty long period of time to not have an adjustment made in those and i do think it's important for for these salaries to be updated I think Councilmember Pappas had made some really great points in the memo materials that he put together related to the succession planning, making the Councilmember salaries reflect the the level of responsibility that comes with this position. As the policy makers for the city, you all set the entire direction of the policy. For the city, you set the budget direction and have a tremendous amount of responsibility associated with your positions. Also, I think that you know, the salary is meant to at least help reflect the tremendous amount of hours that you all spend, not only in the required city meetings that you hold of the governing body, which are held several times a month, sometimes more than several times a month. And also, of course, all of the different constituent questions and additional meetings outside of that that you're involved with as a council member. The amount for the resolution that we have included in your packet reflects what we had presented as staff in the recommended budget for 2027 back in June. So it does not reflect what Councilmember Pappas had proposed for the salaries. If you all would like to change that, that would be simply giving us direction and authorizing that change as part of the resolution that is in your packet for this evening. Again, it requires a couple of actions. One would be the ordinance change. And then secondly, the taking action on the resolution. I will note that the entirety of the governing body salaries is less than one half of 1% of the city salaries. So the difference between what we had proposed with the 2027 budget and what Council Member Pappas had proposed is a very small number. We have a $750,000 contingency amount that is in the 2027 budget that you just approved. And if you would like to take action that increases that salary amount, there is plenty of room in that contingency amount to make that adjustment for 2027. And then going forward, when we consider the 2028 budget year and forward beyond that, those salaries can just be updated at the amount that we're proposing for staff, and that could be done by resolution every year. And I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Thank you, Ms. Stoddard. I would add just one comment to that very good description. The governing body was given a memorandum from Nick Sanders, the Director of Human Resources, relating to this issue. And you all saw, and it was in the packet, so it's a matter of public record, that there was a comparison of the... annual compensation currently with the 4% increase that the staff had included in the budget this evening the impact and the adjustment that were recommended by mr. Pappas and there was a third group of compensation numbers that staff that Nick Sanders put in my request that was kind of a halfway in between those two, which was indicated effectively by the governing body what this would look like if the governing body's salary was exactly half of what mine is, which is the current relationship that we have in the current setup. So that was to give three different alternatives to you all. And I would add to Ms. Stoddard that in the last two years, I have asked a great deal of this governing body in terms of extra meetings to provide extra prep time and extra discussion time of some fairly weighty and relatively urgent issues that we've had to discuss for the last 24 months. And so, again, I am very supportive of an adjustment to the... the salary of the governing body. So with that, questions for Ms. Stoddard, or if you have questions for me, I'm certainly willing to attempt to answer any of the questions that you all have. No questions? Well, Ms. Stoddard, it looks like you've spared questions. That would bring us to a discussion. What we're heading towards, in my mind, is eventually, maybe shortly, a motion to adopt one of these three proposals. And I guess, Ms. Stoddard, the other thing that we have had discussions on relates to insurance coverage. Do you wish to address that as well?

I'll just briefly address that. So at your request, there was some information that was included in the packet related to health insurance. and the coverage of health insurance for the governing body. Currently that is not offered here, but we did provide some information about it being offered in several of the communities in the area for elected officials. And there's a couple different ways that that's done. When it's offered, in some cases, it's offered as a benefit extended to the elected officials in the same manner as it is to the employees so that the governing body member would share in the cost in the same way that a full-time employee would share. And in another case that we showed you in the memo, the governing body members could participate in the health insurance plan, but they did that. It was basically extended at the full cost, so there wasn't any subsidy from the city. For that so there's a couple of different ways that that could be handled And you know if that is a desire to be added I think that's something that also we can pull from that contingency line item in terms of budgeting and it's a little bit difficult to predict what the amount might be to to budget for appropriately because it would depend on What your direction is whether it's at that? That city participation, city employee participation rate, or if it's just at the, you know, the offered at the full cost borne by the elected official. But if it is at the city rate, then then we could, I think, budget appropriately. And then once we would know what. elections, and whether any of you may be interested in taking advantage of that, we can budget more carefully and precisely for the 2028 budget year going forward. So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions you have on that piece.

And again, I would just add a little bit of, or I will add just a little bit of additional context, and that is that in reviewing the city's health insurance benefit, there are a bunch of options. And so it began, and bunch is a very well-defined term, I realize. more than you can count on one hand, I believe. And so it was very difficult to try to model that for you all. You got a bunch of information, again, a very technical term, but in your package you received a lot of information concerning all those different alternatives, and I think you appreciate how difficult it was to try to model that, not knowing which members of the governing body might take advantage of that opportunity and how they would take advantage of it given all the options that are out there. Again, it was raised in our budget discussions earlier, and I thought it was appropriate to consider in tonight's discussion. So with that, questions for Ms. Stoddard, either on the insurance, if not, then the floor is open for comments as to how you all think we should proceed. I guess that's where I change direction. Three things that I'd like to do tonight. One is to change the process with this amendment to the ordinance that we're talking about. Two is then to make a decision as to what salary you all think is appropriate. And third, whether you think that either we should do additional consideration of the insurance policy Pardon me coverage or Give direction to the staff to proceed to to do what's necessary to make that insurance coverage available Mr. I'll ask you one question to start things and that is and I think it may be in our materials But I'd like to have it on the record Do you have a sense for what other cities do with respect to this insurance issue? I

Yes, we provided a bit of information with that. Let me turn to that here for you. So we looked at just the other four largest cities in Johnson County, and we looked at, so for example, Lenexa, they do offer an insurance plan, and the governing body member does pay 100% of the cost in that example. Overland Park and Olathe also both offer insurance plans to elected officials, and in those cases, The elected official pays the same amount contribution as if they were a full-time employee. Shawnee does not offer an insurance plan to their elected officials. So in that case of looking at these other cities where we're the largest cities in the county, we have three others that do offer it and one that does not.

Thank you, Ms. Stoddard. All right, with that, I will open the floor for comments or questions. Mr. Pappas.

Thank you, Mayor. So first, thank you all. Nick, Diane, thank you for putting together. This is extremely informative, very helpful. If you can see my sheet here, I've got calculations all over the place and notes and everything. So this was extremely helpful. You know, in looking at all of these different proposals, the one that makes the most sense to me, and I won't regurgitate my memo or everything else that I've talked about with the Consumer Price Index, but the one that makes the most sense to me is where the base salary is reflected as $15,000. For all the reasons that I've stated before, you know, and one of the things that I kind of want to hear everyone else's thoughts a little bit on, though, is the allowances, you know, and I know, you know, currently the way that it stands right now, they're holding steady where it's been previously for the past couple of years. But part of the reason why I initially kind of brought this up was had to do with inflation and kind of what direction purchasing power that we're losing. So I guess my thought on that is I don't necessarily think that we should treat the allowances as being if they're immune to that same inflationary rate, that maybe those also need to be increased to some level degree. Just from a mileage example, gas prices have certainly increased since 2018. just as kind of one of the smaller examples there. So I would love to hear what other people have to say. And then as far as the health insurance, you know, I think for me, my wife works for KU Med. I've got good insurance. I don't need insurance, but it would be nice for it to at least be offered to a certain degree, you know, whether it's the same as the other employees that are here or it might even make the most sense to her, the options there, you know, And if the governing body members actually do want something, they pay the full cost of it. Because I would also try to believe that shopping by yourself out in the market, the C would probably be able to get you a lot better coverage and for a lot better price anyway, since it's grouped together. So having the governing body members cover the cost themselves still, I think, is a huge benefit to the governing body here. So that's kind of where I land on some of these items here.

Thank you, Mr. Pappas. Other comments?

Ms. Larson. Just briefly, first, I am in favor of amending our ordinance to change the way that compensation is adjusted going forward. I think that's our first question. On the salary, I agree with Councilmember Pappas on... his calculations and the $15,000. I really hadn't considered the allowances. And then on the health insurance, my original thought was that I felt as though it was too expensive for the city and didn't uniformly benefit each city council member. But if, as Council Member Pappas proposed, it's offered and a city council member can participate and pay their own premium, then I would be fine with that. And those are my thoughts.

Thank you, Ms. Larson. Other comments or thoughts? Ms. Harrison.

Thank you. First of all, I want to thank Mr. Pappas and Mr. Castor for kind of being the engine behind this push. It's not easy, as you all may know, to suggest that you give yourself a raise. It's an awkward conversation, which is probably why we don't do it but about every nine years. So this, congratulations Lisa, this will be the second raise that you get in the 10 years you've served on the council. Most of us wouldn't stick around in a job that long without compensation so that, I think everybody understands we're not in this for the money. None of us are in this for the money. But I also appreciate your comments, Mayor, that much more has been asked of us in the last couple of years, all for the good of the city, all with the greatest outcomes to be expected. This week on my calendar, three nights of meetings, tonight, tomorrow night, and Thursday night. So if you wonder how much time goes into this, It can stack up, you know in a five-day workweek granted a four-day workweek It can stack up some weeks where it's three meetings in a week And I would say that our attendance at those meetings while there are two folks that aren't here physically tonight one is on zoom. Hello Alan, but it's usually a 95% attendance rating at these meetings and at all those other meetings that I mentioned. So there is a lot that's asked. I was not originally in favor of the insurance, and I have changed my mind about that as an option. A few of us up here work full-time and have insurance available from our employers. Not all of us do work full-time outside of this job or are kind of independent contractors in such a way that getting insurance at the city rate might be very helpful. Insurance 20 years ago wasn't the deciding factor that it is for families today. Many people work jobs that they don't care for strictly so their family has insurance. And some people are not making much money after they get that insurance. So it might be a nice benefit. And out of eight or nine people sitting up here at any given time, there might only be one or two people who actually need to take advantage of it. And I say need as opposed to are going to jump in and go, yay, I'm going to get my insurance with the city of Leawood. It would probably be a need and not a frivolous, wonderful extra. So I've changed my mind about that. So thank you for the conversation and thank you for pushing it, Matt, because it wasn't on our radar before. And I appreciate the thoughtful conversation that goes into this. And thank you, Diane and Stephen, for all of the piles of work that you've done the last six months to put all these numbers together so that we can compare ourselves to our neighboring cities. I'm in favor of amending the ordinance as well and increasing the base salary to $15,000. I hadn't given any thought to that gas and the allowances, so I'm not ready to comment on that. But thank you again for the conversation.

Thank you, Ms. Harrison. Other comments? Ms. Guyette.

A lot of the things have been said, but one thing that really kind of stuck out to me about the insurance piece, and I am one of those that is thankful enough to have my insurance through my full-time job outside of this, but the thought of maybe eliminating that as a barrier for someone in the future to want to Be on council. I do think having it as an option is just one more barrier that maybe we can work to eliminate to make sure that People are wanting to sit up here So I do appreciate that So having it as an option I do like I am in favor of changing the ordinance I am in favor of the 15,000 and the allowances I have thought about that a little what stuck out to me when we were talking about the allowances and And it really was Nick Sanders' memo that kind of articulated it that the initial proposed increase was the 4%, but without any changes to the allowances, it really was only a 2.9% increase. And so that's why that landed for me. So I would maybe kind of encourage us to think about the allowances.

Thank you, Ms. Guyette. Yes, Ms. Rubin.

So I just want to echo Ms. Guyed, her comment about wanting to encourage other people to serve on the council. I think the way things are now, it's difficult to encourage people to serve unless they're retired or are very financially stable. and independent and you can't even pay the cost of childcare for the amount of stipend that we're getting to serve the city. And we do save the city a lot of money. We come up, we find things that we say, maybe somebody else should be paying for this and not the city, or can we save money this way? And those ideas get put into, they get implemented. And so I feel like we're more than earning our keep here. We all work really hard. All of us read the packets and we were all very conscientious. We ask questions, we ask questions ahead of time. so that things can get changed and improved for our residents. So I support amending the ordinance. I definitely support the increase in salary or compensation to $15,000. Without an increase over a nine-year period, I mean, that's just, we've lost money over time. As far as the health insurance, I'm okay. I support offering it as an option and the employee you know the council member could pay to participate at the rates you know that the city obtains i think that's very fair so um yeah i just i'm glad we're having this discussion again it's really for the future as well not just the people sitting here now but in the future who we'd like to encourage to run for office thank you ms rubin any other comments

Well, y'all are making it difficult on me because while you have addressed the question of the council member's salaries, you've not said a thing about the mayor. So I don't know if that's an indication of reluctance with respect to the mayor or what you all think about that. But I at least would open the floor and ask for some commentary around the mayor's salary. I'll go with Ms. Rubin first.

We did speak about this initially at our budget meeting, and I think the consensus was that the mayor was severely underpaid, even with the proposed increase in his compensation. He works incredibly hard. It's more than a full time job. He's working all the time here at City Hall, giving speeches all over the community, saving our city money, improving processes. So I think other cities are paying their mayors you know substantially more than 26,000 plus expenses so I would like to see his compensation increased um I don't have an amount in mind but I think it's appropriate for the work that he's doing and also to think about the future because this is a really hard job to do you know it's really hard to leave the city so we want to make it enticing for in the future we have a succession plan

Thank you, Ms. Rubin. Ms. King.

In reviewing the packet, I think that the mayoral salary should go up with the same basic math formula that after nine years we're adjusting because that salary hasn't gone up either. So I don't believe we see that table here, whatever that math turns out to be. I think it's... it it is again it's long overdue if we just make this adjustment and then follow the direction of the city manager that every year we just follow whatever the um the um um the um what do we call that, the annual citywide compensation increases from here on out, then we won't have the gap again. So I support the ordinance repealing it from, because it's part of the code, repealing our procedure. I support the 15,000. To be honest, with the health benefit, I support providing it. I do have a little hesitation whether it's at 100% or the rate of a full-time employee because We are not full-time employees, so we're just not. So I don't know, I'm kind of wavering on that one point, but I have zero problem with whatever the same math is that we used, Mr. Peppers used for the base salary for the council members that we used the same math over the last nine years for the mayoral compensation. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Cain. Other comments? Mr. Peppers.

So just for argument's sake, so the council member base salary is an increase of 36.34%. So kind of mirroring everyone else's comments, it would be great to have the mayor's base salary increased by 36.34%. And I'll let you all do the numbers.

I don't even see there you are yes, sir

Yes, I concur with all the comments that have been made, especially as to your service, Mr. Mayor. I've served with you for now two and a half years and couldn't be more impressed by the amount that you work and the effort that you put into this. And the results are clear, I think. So I am in favor of increasing the mayoral salary by the same 36, whatever it is, percent, and increasing council members to 15. And I would also support offering the health insurance to the council members at their, they would pay the total cost. The council member would pay the city's rate on that. And that's all I have to say on it, I think. And I am in favor of obviously changing the process.

Thank you, Mr. Sunkel. Um, additional. Yes, Miss Rubin.

So I guess a clarification. So the initial salary for the mayor was 20,000 and then the city staff recommended increasing it to 26,000. So would that 34% be of the 20,000 or 26? The 20. So what does that come out to be?

I think whatever is off the 20 of the 20,000.

So the the total that we have would would bring the the mayor's salary at 27,000 to 7749. That's basically applying the same increase that is being discussed for the council members at the 15,000 base.

I mean, to me, that does seem a little low still, but that's my personal opinion.

Well, I appreciate the kind words and generosity. I was certainly willing to be satisfied with the $26,400, but I'm also happy to be treated in the same fashion as the governing body is.

And one thought here might be, you know, currently the amount is... the amount for the mayor is you know roughly roughly double the the amount um of the council member so i mean that that could also be an option here and that would take it to 30. is that generally that's generally how it is right currently yeah so then maybe instead of trying to apply the same percentage we do what is historically done which is

yes that's right i didn't realize we were any any other comments um trying to figure out the i sense a consensus um i'll look to miss stoddard and and uh ms bennett do you have enough to to formulate a resolution based on what was said here tonight

sorry mr pepas indicated then that number is the 26 270 thereabouts number that diane shared with you and the 15 000 number that mr pepas had in his memo so the motion would go like this motion to approve the resolution with two changes one is the mayor's salary to 27 277 something to that effect and the council's sell annual salary moving to 15 000. but i think we wanted to increase the mayor's salary at 50 of the council salaries that would go up to about 30. if that is the consensus then we would we would do the mayor um changing to 30 000. thank you thank you miss bennett uh any other discussion

i think i know how to get from here to there but uh miss kate the only the only thing in um is i'm hearing conflicting i know that you're going to separate out the health benefit if i understand it correctly you're going to separate that so maybe it's not appropriate to discuss it now but i do hear that there's a lot of Not flip-flopping but a lot of a lot of opinions there whether it's at a hundred off Everybody says offer it but some are saying offered at a hundred percent and some are offering it as a full-time equivalent Percent, so I don't know that we have seen a consensus there So that is but we're gonna separate that out is what is so what the point is And as long as we're having that discussion, mr. Sanders Help refresh us all on

Miss Kane said there are a couple of different thoughts floating around here in my mind as well one is for the city to pay a hundred percent another is for the city to pay part of it which I thought was what I don't know if we have any employees who a hundred percent of their health insurance is paid or the last one would be for the the council member to pay 100% at whatever rates the city gets. To enlighten us, can you tell us kind of in broad terms? I know there's lots of different options, but in broad terms, the philosophy that we do with in terms of employee benefit, health benefit.

So we do have plans that employees are paid at 100%. It is pretty common in the government sector. It is not. normal in the private side of things but it is relatively common in the government side we do have those options what has been proposed is that the employee you would be matching the employee rate that the employee would be paying so for example if you had what is referred to as a qualified high deductible health care plan the city would pay 100 of that you would pay zero dollars If you took family coverage on that same plan, you'd be paying roughly $20 a month. So you'd be matching no different than any of the staff that you have appointed to do these fine work. You'd be doing the exact same thing as if you were to take the coverage. A lot of the other agencies have also made a decision that you would, at the governing body level, pay 100% of the total premium. So you would pay 100% of the cost that is billed from the healthcare provider or whatever insurance that you elect. You would basically, the city would just be a pass-through to pay that premium cost. There would be some intermediary, ancillary risk assigned to that, but at the same time, it's no different. Historically, we have added It has been from the insurance perspective, automatic two-figure recovery governing body, automatic 5% on top. But this year they have said, nope, we're just going to add them. It's no different than anybody else. So we can do it a couple ways. We can do it where you just pay the same as the employee, as a full-time equivalent employee, no different than anybody else. Or you can pay it at 100% at you basically become a pass-through. We take it out of your paycheck and you put it to Blue Cross and Blue Shield or whatever health care provider that we have through the city.

Questions for Mr. Sanders? Ms. Rubin.

Well, I think that the latter option is what the consensus was on. I mean, I only heard one person think about having the council member pay an additional portion. I think everybody else was saying that the council member, if they elect to, that they would just pay, it would be a pass-through cost to the council member at the rate that the city is able to obtain. And that's the benefit, is that the city can negotiate better rates. Yes. Then you could get like on the marketplace.

100%. And that is what the other agencies that you see have been able to do. Basically, you have group coverage. Therefore, the risk is assigned a group in total. So what you are better than the marketplace option of being individualized coverage. And so what you would end up doing is you would what would likely end up having the insurance itself is not cheap. At the same time, you would probably not end up getting a check for the most part, depending upon what level of coverage you take, some potentially. But at the end of the day, you would be basically paying for that health care insurance through your premiums, through your council member salaries.

Additional discussion. Ms. King.

Well, that's not what I heard, but maybe I'm misunderstanding about the consensus because I thought that was more than one of us, including me, that thinks that it should be offered, yet they get to, unless I'm missing something, I'm certainly not an expert in insurance. They get to benefit from being able to participate in the offering of the group, right? We've got 300 employees, whatever it is. So whether or not they pay 100%, they're not going to the marketplace as an individual or a small business or whatever. They're getting the benefit of our rates, if you will, but incurring 100% of the the cost that's that's different to me than and that's what i would support is to give them the benefit but again in mind the same thing she's talking about councilman paying a hundred percent of the premium okay yes i think is what you're saying i beg your pardon so that my again sorry i'm not my insurance i left that hat at home i guess i'm sorry okay so we're if that's what we're saying then yay thank you for that i think it's that's great i'm sorry i'm misunderstood

It's a complicated topic.

On that issue, I might suggest a separate motion to direct staff when they go out to bid for health insurance to bring back their resolution. The resolution you all are asked to approve at that time would include the council option as well.

Thank you, Ms. Bennett. Any other discussion concerning compensation for either the mayor or council members?

So we're going to 15, you're going to 30. Yeah, right?

And what about the incidental expenses for the council? Do we decide anything on like phone allowance or mileage?

We haven't discussed that ever. So I don't know how we would decide that tonight unless somebody's got data. to give us a basis. Mr. Pappas, where's the...

I do have numbers, if you'd like to hear them.

Well, no, don't just sit there smiling. If you have numbers...

So, if we apply the... So the base salary is at 36.34%, which is a little bit higher than what the CPI number actually was from 2018 to 2026. So assuming that we would actually take the 34.91%, which is the CPI number, so the mileage would increase an additional $1,000.47. So that would bring the mileage total to $4,047.36. On the communication side, it would increase that by $418.92, bringing that total to $1,618.92 for a total of $20,666.28, which averages to be about a 35.948% increase. Mr. Peves, what was the first number? mileage number four thousand four thousand forty seven and thirty six cents and that was the delta or that was the total that was the total okay and one thousand six hundred eighteen ninety two was the total total communication yes okay and then if you'd like the mayor i guess i need to do new numbers on that but that's all right we can do that later miss harrison

I wonder if maybe we don't worry so much about the allowances, and I say that, or what do you call these expenses? I suspect that those were added in years past. Instead of giving council members a raise, I suspect a decade ago they said, you know what? we're not going to get a raise, because you know what, that looks kind of funny, but we can give you $250 a month for your cell phone and call it a bonus, or $50 a month for gas, and that way your salary stays the same and nobody can say we gave ourselves a raise. I mean, I feel like there was a time In my service here, where a member of the administration didn't want to get a certain increase in their salary because of the optics, but they would take a bonus or something. It was kind of like something needed to look a certain way, and a salary didn't want to exceed a certain number. And so, well, instead we're going to increase their gas allowance in this. And I feel like it's... Maybe it's unnecessary. And if it muddies the waters on us already giving ourselves a decent increase and we'll get an increase every year, 4%, and won't have to have this conversation, I don't know. I would be all right not worrying so much about that, increasing those, just keeping them the same, not increasing those allowances.

Thank you, Ms. Harrison. Other comments?

Mr. Peplis. Thank you, Mayor. So I would kind of counter that a little bit. You know, I think on some level, we all use our personal cell phones. We all use our personal cars. We don't have, you know, city-issued devices or anything like that to cover that. You know, and again, I hate to keep kind of throwing out numbers, but just, again, for argument's sake, you're keeping those at zero. So it's a 36.34% increase. Keeping those at zero, so it's still 3,000, still 1,200, it's really only an increase of 26.3%. So we're still essentially devaluing kind of what that CPI over the past year You know, 2018 to 2026 has valued. So, you know, I don't know. I believe that, and maybe this is something that we look at not necessarily every year from the allowance perspective. Maybe this is something that we kind of space out. But for the time being, maybe we at least bring it to par with what we're discussing about from the base salary perspective. Bring it to par at this point. Maybe every couple of years we just glance at it and see if it's still in realm with what it needs to be.

Comments? I will say it hasn't been adjusted in nine years. So I think it's appropriate to adjust it higher. It has not been touched in nine years.

I also agree with that.

Thank you, Ms. Guyette.

I know the salary hasn't been adjusted in nine years.

I don't know. It could very well be that mileage and expenses is longer than nine years, seems to me.

It might be.

Yeah. I know the salary hasn't been, but I don't remember that the mileage and the expenses, maybe I'm wrong there, but it's gone up even longer than that.

Thank you, Ms. King. Mr. Besser.

Sorry, just one more. I think it also goes without saying that the mayor should also get a subsequent increase in his allowances as well.

Thank you, Mr. Pethis.

At the same rate.

Any other discussion? Well, let's see if we can't bring this to a landing. first as i said we and this was a long time ago it seems like now but we we talked about a change in the process which requires an amendment to the code of the city of leawood it's an amendment to sections 1-208 entitled compensation and repealing the existing Section 1-208. Do I hear a motion to make that amendment to Section 1-208 of the Code of the City of Leawood? So moved. Thank you, Ms. Rubin. Thank you, Ms. Larson. Is there any discussion? Because it's an amendment to the city code, it requires a roll call vote. I believe we have a motion. I believe that we have a second. And with that, without any other discussion, I would ask the clerk to call the roll.

Council Member Rubin. Aye. Council Member Larson. Aye. Council Member Guyette. Aye. Council Member Pappas.

Aye.

Council Member Harrison. Aye. Council Member Kane. Aye. Council Member Sunkel.

Aye.

And Council Member Castor is absent.

So I have seven votes in favor of amending the ordinance, no votes against, and one council member not participating. I find that the ordinance is adopted and section 1-208 of the city code is amended. brings us to the second item for a vote this evening. And I think that that would be a resolution approving and authorizing the salary and expense allowances in the amounts we've talked about. And I'll let whoever makes the motion set forth those numbers for the fiscal year 2027. And Mr. Peppas, you seem to be the man with the numbers, so I'm going to look to you for a motion.

Absolutely. So I move... How do you want me to, do you want me to do the, start with the mayor, then city council? Okay. Okay. Oh, I got him. Well, I mean, because we're just going to, I mean, essentially it's double what the council is going to be doing anyway, so. So I move to approve the mayor compensation to be increased on the base salary level to $30,000 to increase the mileage allowance amount to $6,000 and to increase the expense dash communication allowance to 24 already is 24

That doesn't work.

Sorry, give me a second. guys pick up where i left off okay so increase the expense communication allowance to 3598.80 35 98.80 correct For a total of, yeah, okay. Do you need me to say the total or can I move on to the council?

95, 98, 80.

Do you want me to say the total? For all three, okay. And for the council member compensation for the base salary to increase to $15,000. For the mileage allowance to increase to $4,047.36. And for the expense communication allowance to increase to $1,618.92. Yeah, all three of them. Sure. So for the council member mileage allowance, that would increase to $4,047.36. And for the expense and communication allowance, that would increase to $1,618.92. Sorry. Perfect. Yes. Good job. I think Patty just read it. Thanks for bearing with me on that.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Pappas. I appreciate that. Doing numbers like that on the fly is not something that I envy. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you, Ms. Rubin. Discussion before we go to a vote. I think there's some. consideration going on. I don't want to call for a vote until you guys are clear.

I want to give you every opportunity. All right.

All right. So I think we have a motion and a second. It occurs to me that this is effectively an amendment to the budget for the 2027 that we just approved. And so because that required a roll call vote, I'm going to ask for a roll call vote on this motion as well. So with that, I would ask the clerk to call the roll.

Council Member Rubin. Aye. Council Member Larson. Aye. Council Member Guyette. Aye. Council Member Pappas.

Aye.

Council Member Kane. Aye. Council Member Harrison. Aye. Council Member Sunkel.

Aye.

And Council Member Castor is absent.

i have seven votes in favor of the resolution adopting a new salary and expense structure for the mayor and the council members seven votes in favor no votes against and one council member not participating so with that the resolution uh amending the budget is adopted and approved thank you all and again mr pepas i would add my thanks to those of the others on the Council who have indicated that we appreciate the work that you've done on this and I realized I misspoke earlier this was not the last item on the Special business agenda. We have one other item and that is I Wanted to oh, I'm sorry. I have one more thing to do. Thank you. I appreciate that There's one more item on the compensation issue apologize go back to D and that has to do with making the health insurance benefit available to members of the city council and I guess the mayor as well at the rates negotiated by the city with the expectation that the election to participate would be for the council members and the mayor, if they elected to participate, to pay the full amount of the premium. I think that's what I heard. So if so, is there a motion? So moved. Thank you, Ms. Rubin. Second. There's a motion and a second. Ms. Bennett, do you have enough to fashion a resolution to the effect of what we just said?

Resolution if it's just direct staff to bring back the insurance bid to include the council. All right.

Thank you. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion, please. I'm sorry, Ms. Harrison, go ahead.

So to be clear, council members would have to accept or decline the insurance at the beginning of your fiscal year. I don't know, my other job, it's July 1st for some reason, and accept or decline for the year unless there was a, what's that special word, qualifying event that would allow them to jump in later, right? It's not something that would happen just because there was an election and somebody came in unknew.

Our open enrollment is normally in October. I would assume if somebody came in new in January that our insurance would allow them to sign up at that point because that would be their, it would be like a new employee coming on throughout the year.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Very good clarification, Ms. Harrison. Any other discussion? If not, all those in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye. Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, same sign. The ayes have it, and staff has received the direction. Now we move to an important question, and that's a question that the governing body and various committees have been considering over the last several months as a result of things that have happened vis-a-vis the county sales tax, as well as concerns that we've had in a number of different areas. I would note just at the outset that one of the issues that we hope to address as we go about this initiative is the issue of stormwater management, and I would recommend each of the governing bodies review, if you haven't already seen it, an article that was published, I believe, this morning in the Johnson County Post that went into a fair amount of detail and I think did a good job of summarizing the needs at least as it relates to the stormwater management, both with replacement of corrugated metal pipe as well as other flood control projects that we have been contemplating. So, again, I just wanted to refer you all to that article that was published this morning. With that, Mr. Powell, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mayor. I'm Stephen Powell, Assistant City Administrator, and I have a pretty brief presentation that was included in your packets. But basically, the governing body met on August 10th to discuss options for the current $0.18 sales tax, which is set to expire on June 30th, 2028. Those funds are used primarily for street and stormwater improvements and generate about $1.5 million a year. At that work session, there was a general consensus to increase that, propose an increase in that sales tax to a 5.8%. And so the ordinance that's in the packet calls for a special election. It would replace the current 1-8 sales tax if the voters approved it. That would generate approximately $8 million per year. The funds would be split between an accelerated metal pipe replacement project, accelerated street improvements, primarily the mill and overlay program, and then also allow us to fund and address some public safety needs. And that new tax would last for 10 years. So when we take a look at what the difference would be for a resident or someone coming into Leawood to shop, for every $100 in sales, the city is currently getting 12.5 cents from that 1 8th cent sales tax. If it were increased to 5.8 cent, the city would receive an additional 50 cents in that same $100. So we would get 62.5 cents of every $100 in sales. And those funds would be directed to those three purposes. And so the reason that the tax is needed is, as the mayor indicated earlier, and I think the council has confirmed, stormwater is a priority for the city right now. And the replacement of the metal pipes, which are beginning to fail and are certainly at the end of their useful life, is important too. address that. With the current $1.08 sales tax, it would take approximately 60 years to replace the remaining pipes. With the proposed $5.08, two-thirds of those pipes could be replaced in that 10-year period. For the street maintenance priorities, The increase in the sales tax would allow for all residential streets to be resurfaced in 10 years. It currently takes about 13 years to get through all of those streets. And then for public safety needs, that would be for the police department technology needs that were discussed in that work session. and also fire department needs, which could be investments in facilities, equipment, those types of things. One of the issues that has come up that you all are well aware of is the PS3 countywide sales tax that expires March 31st, 2027. That creates a large funding gap in our public safety fund. Initially, when it was thought that that tax would be renewed, the funds from that tax were to be directed to the public safety fund, which was going to cover bond payment on a new fire station and also other public safety needs, with that tax now not renewing that creates a 1.5 million dollar hole in that fund going forward and so this table is also in your packet but it shows how those funds would be allocated between stormwater streets and public safety and that's projected out over the next five years beginning in 2028 And then kind of going back to resident priorities, through our resident satisfaction survey, you can see that emergency medical services, police services, and the maintenance of city streets were the top three priorities of the residents that identified by our latest survey. And then our strategic plan has the pillar of infrastructure, and the very first goal underneath that pillar is to plan for stormwater efficiencies and address flooding through careful study of solutions and economic planning. And so the proposed use of this fund fits perfectly within the priorities that have been identified by the residents as well as the priorities identified by the governing body through our strategic plan. And so this would have to be approved by voters. And at the work session, there was a general consensus to do a mail ballot on March 2nd, 2027. And if the tax were approved, it would go into effect on October 2nd, 2027 and would last for 10 years. And then certainly, you know, close to that ten-year period, the council could decide if they wanted to ask the voters to reauthorize that tax or do something different with it. In light of a couple of things that have kind of come up since the packet was published, we did reach out to the Johnson County Election Office and there is new legislation on the books about jurisdictions sort of having special elections on the same date, but having different types of elections. So for instance, if we wanted to do a mail ballot election on March 2nd, but Overland Park wanted to do an in-person special election on March 2nd, that might not be possible. So when we talked to the election office, they did say that they've heard from six other municipalities, including both of our school districts, that they are interested in mail ballot special elections on March 2nd. So that's a big date for a lot of agencies. um if we were to do the mail ballot election there would be some cost sharing with the school districts because they would the election office would produce one ballot with two questions the school district's question and our question so it would save on mailing postage that type of stuff if you all wanted to do a in-person election we would need that direction from you tonight to then go back to the election office and come up with a plan to try to make that happen and then come back at a later date with an ordinance that would call a special in-person election. There are some issues with going that route identified by the election office. Primarily it's voter confusion. Because, for instance, if the school district had a mail ballot election and we had an in-person election, then if you went to the poll to vote, you would only be voting on the Leawood question. If you got your ballot in the mail, it would only be the school district election question. So it creates a little bit of voter confusion around that. how to vote, where to vote, and then the timing for getting a ballot, mailing a ballot is different for those two types of elections. So the county certainly would prefer to have for us to do a mail-in election so it can be consistent with the other jurisdictions who have expressed interest in that. But that is a governing body decision at this point. And that is all I had. David Lay is here if you all had any specific questions about stormwater and streets. And then certainly the chiefs are here if you had any specific questions about the public safety needs that were identified. And I'd be happy to answer any questions that I can.

Thank you, Mr. Powell. Appreciate that. It's very well put. Questions for Mr. Powell. It does seem to me that we're going to have to talk about two different issues. One is substantively whether we, well, actually three, I guess. Number one, substantively, do we want to proceed to go to the voters with a ballot initiative? to increase the sales tax, the city sales tax. Two, I think there is a question based on conversations that I've had with one or two of the other governing body members as to whether that should be a half cent or 5.8 cent increase that we're gonna request to the voters. And third, whether we should move forward with a special election by mail ballot or an in-person vote, either one of which I think we concluded. I think there's a consensus that we go in March, regardless of which route we go down. So with that, I would ask if any folks have questions for Mr. Powell, or if you have comments that you'd like to make about any one of those three issues. Ms. Rubin.

okay so it says that um it would cost 70 000 to do this election but if we would that amount potentially be lower if we participate with the school district yes the election office said it would be approximately half okay thank you you're welcome thank you ms rubin other comments or questions with how we should proceed on this mr pepas

Thank you, Mayor. I am in favor of doing the mail-in ballot. I think that is definitely the way to do it, especially if the school district is looking at doing the same. And just because you all know I love numbers. So Overland Park did their sales tax vote in 2023, and they had a turnout of about 24.65%, which I think is fairly good. I also think that we could hopefully beat that, especially with, just to know that was kind of some of the concern was just kind of voter turnout and how that works. But especially if the school district is something that we can tack onto this, I think that's a great way to do it. And then as far as, you know, with the one half cent, the 5.8 cent, I think the 5.8 cent makes the most sense. With the PS3 going away, there's going to be a huge gap in our funding. And I think this is something that can... really help fill that in you know more so not just kind of again regurgitate some of the information the thing that really gets me is the corrugated metal pipe and you know with the current funding how it would take about six years to replace the 1800 linear feet or whatever we're doing a year and that can with this 5.8 cent that can can shrink down to producing to replacing two-thirds of that pipe within that first 10 year of this of this fund so i think that's that's phenomenal so i'm in favor of doing the 5-8 cent increase and doing mail-in ballot thank you mr peplis ms harrison

Stephen, did you say both Shawnee Mission and Blue Valley are doing a mail-in or just Blue Valley?

The election office said both had expressed an interest. I don't believe either one have officially called for a special.

Ms. Larson?

I, too, would be in favor of the 5.8% sales tax. We've had some flooding issues, and that's a real understatement in the Leawood South neighborhood. And we've seen firsthand what a failure of a corrugated metal pipe looks like in someone's backyard. And... I, you know, it really kind of lit the fire for me on how important this project is. And we can't in good conscience allow that to happen to other residents and without at least floating this ballot measure and trying to bring a quicker resolution to those failing pipes.

i think we owe it to our residents to move forward and work on a work on curing that problem thank you miss larson miss kate um i agree entirely and it's not we think they're failing we know they're failing because we scope the pipes so we we it's it's it's it's an absolute fact that we have a certain uh percentage of failures And then the failure is already causing flooding in certain parts of our city, and it will only get worse if we don't remedy it. And it was number one priority of this governing body and a very high priority of our residents. So I would also be in favor of the 5A's because procedurally it's hard and cumbersome and costly to think about going only to one half and then maybe in a year or two or whatever, then raising it another eighth, then this just eliminates it. There's a lot of logic to just getting it done. And I would be fine with the mail-in. I wish we knew if Shawnee Mission and Blue Valley were for sure doing a mail-in because then that's a no-brainer. But maybe if they know we're doing it, at least in Leawood land, whatever their ballot question is. I have no idea what it might be, but I would be in favor of the mail-in and the 5As. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Cain. Ms. Guyette.

I also agree, and that's exactly what I was thinking. know they hear the same thing we have heard that we are also considering a mail-in i think maybe we will all get on board with with the mail-in and have some cost saving amongst us all so for the mail-in ballot so i i like that um i also agree with the five eights um increase with the loss of the um the county sales tax we do have a gap to fill and as councilwoman larson mentioned Ward 2 has seen some significant flooding issues, and I do not think we can afford to wait that long to replace all of the corrugated metal pipes. So any way that we can speed that replacement up I think is well worth it.

Thank you, Ms. Guyette. Yes, Ms. Rubin.

I also support the 5.8 cent sales tax increase. I think, like everyone has said, let's just do it now, get it done. We have a problem, let's try to fix it. I also get many complaints from Ward 3 residents about the condition of roads in certain areas in Ward 3, and they want improvements. And I think this will free up money that we can put towards the metal pipe. It may free up money towards other road projects that can perhaps be done sooner, you know, that they take a long time for us to accomplish. So strongly am in favor of 5.8 cent sales tax, in favor of the mail-in ballot, and I think that's it.

Thank you. I guess one question comes to mind, and it's It's really a crystal ball issue, but I just wonder and I I think I I think I support the mail-in ballot as well. But the question I just want to put on the floor for people to think about is, is there a risk of guilt by association? In other words, I don't know. I don't have a sense for how people feel about the school districts and their bond issues. But if they become controversial, do we get kind of caught up in that? On the other hand, it could go the other way. If people are very supportive of the school districts and their bond issues, it becomes I think easier for a person to to check both boxes. Yes, or maybe they split the ballot and say they vote yes for schools and no for Leawood. I just don't know, but I I guess I just raised the question for everybody's thought as to whether there is a tactical concern to be thought about. I have always been in favor of the mail-in ballot, but hearing that the schools are going to have their own ballots, it's not quite as much of a no-brainer for me. But, yes, Ms. Kane.

Well, that's where our communications department comes in. Excellent video this morning, or this earlier today, rather.

Just seems like it was this morning.

I couldn't even understand. I don't even understand healthcare. That's how fried my brain is, so sorry. I'll see if I can stumble through my next comment. But if you look on our splash page, I mean, the 2027 budget comes up first after some options of looking at different things. And it talks about the sales tax ballot issue. It doesn't, I think this, personally, I think this PowerPoint is super powerful. I hope that once we, depending upon what happens tonight, This PowerPoint is included, very easy for people to find because I can see if we were getting questions, we could point to people. I point people to our own website all the time. So thank you for that. And then maybe we need a handy dandy. video on this as well, why we're talking about it and showing the pipes and showing that they're bottomed out. I mean, come on, Beth. This is like a juicy one for you. So anyway, I think, again, being a sales and marketing background, it's all about the sales and the marketing and what it is, why we're asking for it. It's not for our health. It's for everybody's health and safety. Thanks.

Thank you, Ms. King. Yes, Ms. Guyette.

i think the greater risk would be what mr powell stated as far as confusion if um we have the school districts doing a mail-in ballot or and us doing an in-person ballot and then not knowing how to vote um i think would be the greater risk or vice versa if we decide to do mail-in so i i think as much consistency as we can achieve is probably the better way to go

Other comments or questions? If not, Is there a motion out there to adopt the ordinance which calls for a mail-in election to be held on March 2nd, 2027, which would repeal as of September 3rd, 2027, the current one-eighth of one cent city retailers sales tax and to adopt a five-eighths of one percent special purpose city retailers sales tax to commence on October 1, 2027? for a period of 10 years with the additional information that is included in the ordinance. Do I hear such a motion?

So moved.

Thank you, Ms. Larson. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you, Ms. Kane. Is there any additional discussion? If not, this does require a roll call vote as well. And again, I guess this would include instructions to the city staff to do take the actions necessary with the election commission and whatnot to bring this as appropriate. So as in such, in that case, it does call, we are calling for a roll call vote this evening. And with that, I would ask the clerk to call the roll, please.

Council Member Larson. Aye. Councilmember Cain. Aye. Councilmember Rubin. Aye. Councilmember Guyette. Aye. Councilmember Harrison. Aye. Councilmember Pappas. Aye. Councilmember Sunkel.

Aye.

And Councilmember Castor is absent.

So I see seven votes in favor, no votes against, and one council member not participating. So the ordinance is hereby adopted. Thank you, Mr. Powell, for a great presentation, and thank you for the work that you're about to do. So it's 925, and we have made it to the consent agenda this evening. Thanks, everyone. We very much appreciate these have been substantive and weighty issues, and you've all given it a great deal of attention. But with that, I would ask if there are items on the consent agenda that any governing body member would like to withdraw for additional questions to staff or discussion. There are none. That is most excellent. With that, I would entertain a motion to adopt and approve the consent agenda as it was published. So moved. Thank you, Ms. Guyette. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Pappas. Any discussion? If not, all those in favor of adopting the consent agenda as it was published, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, same sign. The ayes have it and the consent agenda is adopted on a seven to zero vote with one governing body member not participating. We now come to my report. My report is very short. If I can find the piece of paper I wrote it on. which again seems like a long time ago. But there were two items on my report. One, I wanted to thank Council Member Harrison and Council Member Rubin for attending the Blue Valley Educational Foundation breakfast last Thursday. I understand it was an excellent presentation and I appreciate the support that you all showed for that event. And I had a second item, but it has disappeared off of my diet. So that is quite all right. I'm sure that if it's important, I'll remember it.

with that i know that we go to council member reports and i know that ms rubin had a report i believe from the bike walk committee that she wanted to make ms rubin the floor is yours thank you i just wanted to make a quick report we had a bike walk committee meeting last week and mark the mid-america regional council came out with an e-mobility model policy which is really awesome it's like i don't know five pages And so they have their recommendations for e-mobility devices. And the goal is to have consistency throughout the county and throughout the region. But every municipality has to go through the recommended changes and decide if that's appropriate for their municipality. So, and you can do it piecemeal. You don't have to accept everything. You can accept some, reject others, or make modifications. So our staff went through each recommendation and made their comments and their recommendations as to whether to accept it or modify it or reject it. That will be coming to this governing body within maybe a month or so. I just wanted to let you know that it's coming down the pike and it's exciting that hopefully the whole community will, you know, come together and draft uniform or adopt uniform ordinances. There was a slight change I wanted to just inform you about. The model ordinance recommends a 15 mile an hour speed limit on multi-use trails for EVE devices. And the committee, the Bike Walk Committee, thought that that 15 mile an hour speed limit on the multi-use trail only should apply to all devices, so bicycles in addition to e-bikes or e-scooters. And again, that's only on trails, not on streets. It's an issue with enforcement. They wanted to make sure that police could enforce things, you know, equally. Sometimes it's hard to tell if a device is an e-device or not, and people really shouldn't go faster than 15 miles an hour on a multi-use trail. So that will be coming to us. Um, there was another recommendation regarding, and this came from our police department regarding dismounting. If you're on a trail and you come to an intersection with the streets, they want cyclists to get off their bikes, dismount, stop, and then walk their bike across the street and then get back on the trail. And people on the committee had a hard time with that. So we're going to discuss it further at the next meeting. So that is going to be tabled. until later in the year. They thought it wasn't practical to make people get off their bikes on trails when they come to an intersection and walk across. Let's see Shawnee Mission School District is considering boundary changes for Corinth Elementary because it's overcrowded. So some committee members are concerned that many kids will not be able to walk to school anymore because they'll be sent to a school that's further away where they have to be driven or bust. And there's a concern that like our city has spent so much money trying to improve walkability. We spent three million more on 83rd Street so that we could encourage walking and biking to school. where now many of those kids may be bused or have it to be driven to a school that's further away. So we talked about, could there be some coordination between Shawnee Mission School District and the city of Leawood? You know, we're really in favor of pedestrian, you know, Increasing pedestrian access and bike ability. The school district has their own ideas and we may not see things the same way, so it might be good to have some coordination. We don't know how that can happen, so I'm just letting you know that's an issue. And now that's it.

Thank you, Miss Rubin. Questions for Miss Rubin? I guess I only have one on that issue about dismounting off the bicycles as they go across the intersection. Was the was the question of how scooters should approach that? Was that included in that discussion? um you know i can't remember exactly i think i'm not 100 sure i don't want to answer incorrectly i i would recommend that the uh that the bike walk committee look at that as well um just as recently as this morning i had the experience of a a scooter person going down a trail and went across an intersection without even taking a look at me and it was an intersection where i was about to make a left-hand turn and Had I not been on my game, that could have had an unfortunate outcome. So I think that all the same issues that apply to the bicyclists ought to be considered for the scooters as well. So, again, just more of a personal anecdote that just happened this morning, in fact. So thank you very much. Are there other council member reports this evening? If not, we come now, Ms. Stoddard, to the city administrator's report. I believe you have an update for us. So the floor is yours.

Yes, thank you, Mayor. So briefly, you see in your packet the strategic plan quarterly update. That reflects our updates on the strategic plan. January through June of 2026 and you can see that we're making very good progress on the priorities that you all established and I don't want to thank you all and the staff for all of their work on it and and Steven for putting together all of these updates with us various staff members for you and with that I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have on the update Thank You mr. questions from his daughter

I would just join, Mr. Powell, the tool that you've built to report on the status of our progress on the strategic plan is an excellent way to get a real quick understanding of where we stand. So thank you very much. The tool is very helpful. No committee recommendations this evening, no old business this evening. Under the category of new business, we have one item, and that is my request that you all approve scheduling a joint governing body and planning commission work session on Monday, September 28th at 6 p.m. for the purposes of continuing our discussion of the draft leeway comprehensive plan known as Rooted and Rechanged. I think that we had the beginnings of a good discussion last time. It's just a very big project, a long document. We had a robust discussion. I really hope that we can continue that robust discussion. I believe that night is not a city council night. Is that right? Correct. And I asked for that specifically so that we can talk until now on that Monday night if we wish to. uh on the future of leawood uh and uh its um comprehensive plan so um i would entertain a motion to schedule that uh joint governing body and planning commission work session on september 28th at 6 00 p.m so moved thank you mr pepis is there a second second Thank you, Ms. Gayed. Any additional discussion? If not, all those in favor of moving forward with scheduling that joint governing body and planning commission work session, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, same sign. The ayes have it, and the meeting will be scheduled by staff. Again, thanks to you all. This was probably as substantive and weighty a meeting as we've had. in one night since I've been a mayor. And I appreciate the preparation that you all did, as well as the great analytical thinking and the effort that you went to. And with that, we will stand adjourned.