City Commission - Regular Meeting

Good morning. Sorry, a little tired. Uh, good evening. We are uh it is now six o'clock and I hereby call the April 21st, 2026 city commission meeting to order. Um Jared, will you please call the role? Mayor Adam, present. Commissioner Mcola, yes. Commissioner Fox, here. Commissioner Morrison here. Commissioner von Lel here. Mayor, we have five commissioners present. The quorum of three is met. Thank you. Will you please rise and join me for the pledge of allegiance?

I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Uh we have one proclamation today uh pro proclaiming museum month in Manhattan. If you are here to receive the proclamation, will you please come forward?

Usually the support stays in the

Hey, glad to have you all. Whereas museums are vital community institutions that collect, preserve and interpret the art, science, heritage and national resource, natural resources of our world. And whereas museums play a critical role in preserving cultural memory by safeguarding artifacts, documents, traditions, and artworks for future generations. And whereas museums nurture scientific literacy and a culture of curiosity, equipping visitors with the skills to think critically and better understand the world around them. And whereas museums provide essential educational opportunities for learners of all ages, offering interactive programs, exhibitions, and resources that inspire lifelong learning. And whereas museums strengthen local communities by fostering civic engagement, encouraging dialogue, and providing inclusive spaces where people from all backgrounds can gather, learn, and explore. And whereas museums are economic engines that contribute significantly to the Manhattan economy, attracting visitors, supporting jobs, and enhancing the vibrancy and cultural appeal of our community. And whereas the city of Manhattan is home to worldclass institutions that represent the breath and scope of the museum world, including Flint Hills Discovery Center, the Mu Museum of Art and Light, the Maryanne Kistler Beach Museum of Art, Riley County Historical Museum, Midwest Dreamc Car Collection, Wonder Workshop, Children's Museum,

Sunset Zoo in person. Thank you. Um, Sunset Zoo, Kansas State University Gardens, Kansas State University Insect Zoo, K State University Historic Textile and Costume uh, Museum, the Goodno House State Historic Site, Wolf House Museum, and the Pioneer Log Cabin. And whereas the International Council of Museums officially recognizes and celebrates museums during the month of May, now I therefore Susan E. Adam, mayor of the city of Manhattan, do hereby proclaim May as museum month in Manhattan. And I encourage all citizens to observe um this day and this month with appropriate ceremonies and activities. In witness thereof, I have set my hand and caused this old city of Manhattan to be a fix. Congratulations. Thank you all for being part of our community. I know I treasure you all and have appreciated the opportunities that I've had to visit your institutions, to bring my family to it, to bring my friends to it. Thank you. Thank you. Just a a few quick words. Um, you know, this is the first, but definitely not the last of these museum proclamations. Um, you know, tonight is about celebrating and acknowledging Manhattan, Kansas as a leader and innovator in the museum sector. Um, it isn't just the big cities on the east or west coast that are doing great things in this field. Um, we are showing that small towns in the heart of America can be leaders and champions for arts and culture and

education. Uh, we are your Manhattan Museums. We are proud to represent this community to the world. Be on the lookout for more exciting things to come. You will see these posters around town. Check out the website. We're partnering with Visit Manhattan about showcasing some of the wonderful things coming up in the month of May. So, happy museum month everyone.

Thank you. Um before we begin, commissioners, I would just like to point out um if you will, you might notice or you might already have been alerted that we have new text in our scripts and um it is no longer necessary. For example, if you wish to make a motion, you do not necessarily have to read um the entire uh instructions considering considering considering there is a shortened version of that uh on our agendas. So, I know some of us don't refer to this perhaps as closely as we might, but just be aware that there are a few edits that will allow us to streamline some of our processes. Uh, thank you. All right, we will now hold open public comment for anyone wishing to speak on an item not on tonight's agenda. Um, if you have signed up at the podium, please come forward. You will be asked to speak first. Um, if you have not signed up, please do so at the staff table where you see the yellow sign. If you come forward, please state your name and residential address and or the organization you are representing. Each speaker may speak once for three minutes and you must stop when our timer sounds. Uh, a public comment period will be limited to 30 minutes during this part of the agenda. uh commissioners and city staff will not answer questions or debate issues at this time and your comments will be taken under advisement. So is there anyone who would like to make comment on any item not on the agenda tonight? Right. Seeing no one approach the podium, open public comment is now

closed. Uh is commissioners have you any general comments to make?

Uh I went to the Flint Hills transportation meeting last week. Um the K18 connector is still a big success. They're up 113% over their first month. So um the the Manhattan to Junction City route is getting a little bit more notice and getting some use. So that's a good thing. Also went to the Flint Hills Metropolitan Organization meeting. uh they transferred back $110,000 to the city that had just been in their kind of kind of their emergency fund. Um and then also the Kansas Science Festival is Saturday at the public library uh library 11:00 a.m. to 3 p.m. So researchers and just people just talking about science and anybody's welcome. So great. Thank you,

Commissioner Morrison. Commissioner Fox, just remember tomorrow is Grow Green Day, so you can give um to any charity you wish pretty much in Manhattan. Um I'll be there from 11 to 1, so bring my money, not to Susan's, who's going to be there at 8.

Uh yes, I also will be volunteering at Cro Green tomorrow morning. I have the early shift. Um, I also will report that this past week I attended several days of an inter regional meeting in Greenville, South Carolina. Greenville is a city a little bit larger than we are very much influenced by Ferman University which is in Greenville and Clemson which is about a half hour away. Uh we had an opportunity to uh visit with member their mayor, city administrator, um members of their chamber of commerce and other um entities that have worked to affect a very major um uh rehabilitation of their downtown area in the last several years. Um those who participated will be convening in about a week to uh compile our um our reactions and see if there are some takeaways that would propel some action that we would uh choose to pursue in the future. So overall it's very informative u lots of good discussion both with our hosts and with people on the trip. So, all right. Now, we will move on to our consent agenda. Um, any commissioner may remove an item for separate consideration. Uh, does the commission have any questions or comments on the consent agenda?

Mayor, I'd like to remove items D, E, and F from the consent agenda and deal with them individually. All right. Anyone else? I can't remember. Do we need to take a vote on that? Yes. No. All right. All right. With those items removed, we will um vote to approve. I move we

just um really quick. Item D uh has three item sub items on it. It has items one, two, and then the third one is approving a resolution for a special event with alcohol for the Little Apple Pride Festival. Are you requesting to remove that one as well, Commissioner Fox? So, we need a motion um to approve the consent agenda uh excluding items D1, D2, items E1, and F1. Do we have a motion? Uh I mean, yes. Do we have uh Well, no. I think we do the motion to remove first and then we have public comment.

So, I would move we approve the consent agenda uh minus items D1 and D2, item E and item F. Second.

I think you would still do the public comment for the items that are being approved. Are there any public comments on the remaining items which are the minutes, the claim payments, uh a serial malt beverage license, uh and the resolution for a special event with alcohol. Seeing no one approaching, we will close public comment. Do we have a motion to So Jared, can you call it Commissioner Mcola? Yes. Commissioner Fox. Yes. Commissioner Morrison. Yes. Commissioner Von Lenel. Yes. Mayor Adam. Yes.

Motion carries five to zero with the exceptions of items D1 and D2, E1 and F1 which were removed from the consent agenda. All right. So, um, Larry, would you like to raise your concerns about those items?

Sure. So on item D1 and D2, uh D1 we're taking on we're turning 32,500,000 of temporary notes into general obligation bonds. So those are permanent financing. So I think it'd be helpful to at least review what it is we're we're financing with those. And the same with uh item two. You know, we're taking on this is additional debt to the city the tune of 32 million and I think it ought to be aired, you know, exactly what what we're borrowing uh you know what the projects are that we're funding with that amount of money because it's pretty significant.

Good evening, mayor and commissioners. Jason Hilders, deputy city manager. The item itself is accompanied with a resolution. There is a pre-issuance report, capital project listing, and then a bond schedule for each of these items. Uh, if you would like to go through the titles, phase eight of North Campus Corridor. Brian might be able to hop in here, too. And this this is our permanent debt. So, these projects have been out there for three and a half years. roughly uh these five capital projects more than likely all of them are complete. I know they are because we're going bond. So they've been under construction in the last three to five years. Um phase eight, Brian, can you elaborate on or is there a map in there?

Phase eight of North Campus was the landscaping along North Manhattan between Claflin and Kimble. completed a couple years ago, included irrigation, landscaping, signage, those sorts of things, trail.

So, we issued about 4.6 million attempt notes um in 22. Those are mature. We're ready to go to permanent financing. Reconstruct runway 321. Our portion of that project 3.285 million. We issued those in 2022. It's ready to permanent financing as well. water booster station upgrades um again in 2022 issued about 3.4 million in temp notes water fund will be supporting that completely 12th in Laramie this was our electrical overhead berry in Aggieville of 2.2 million did that in 2023 and then the Aville garage uh 16.6 6 million in 2024 was a reissuance of temp notes. We actually issued those temp notes originally. I think it was right around 2020 Reena if you recall 2020 or 2021 uh when we originally constructed the garage. These were extended during a time period um where the city needed to take time to get its rating uh from the rating agencies solidified so we could issue this type of debt. So we are at 18.1 million on that bond amount. Any specific questions about these projects we can answer or we can move on to the tip notes as well. Sorry, I was just going to point out that principal payments it looks like annually are a little over 2.2 million and interest annual interest starting out at least on 32 million is somewhere around a million six or so somewhere in that vicinity. So,

uh, in 2027, we're looking at a debt payment of somewhere under $5 million just for these. I just point that out and that's going to continue. So, debt's going to come up in the budgeting season. I think it's fair to point these things out that this is what we're paying for.

Yeah. Next week we will go over in the year um financials with you all for 2025. We will also give you an overview of the bond and interest fund and a forecast for that fund as well. In the resolution we also or in the agenda we also have a resolution for temp notes. There are, I believe, five capital projects and then we have 10 special assessments. Our capital projects range from additional phases within Aggieville. Uh the north channel improvements. You want to elaborate on that?

Yeah. So, that's an ongoing project uh part of the downtown east west master plan, part of the levy project. Uh that's to carry storm water from downtown north. uh around uh Parker Hannifan to the north there and then through the big new gate well that goes out to the Blue River.

The wastewater treatment plant bioolids upgrade and expansion. That's a $25 million project you all recently had authorized. This only issues a portion of that. You should expect another portion next time we issue temp notes. This project's going to take several months, so we didn't issue all of those notes at one time. Anderson Avenue, this obvious obviously the active project currently between Harris and Connecticut. Uh 10 plus million dollars there. Special assessments, you get into quite a few of these out in the northwest part of town with Willis, Brillland, Breckett, Ren, and Marin additions. Highlands um at Grand Mir also the same general area. Uh Kimell Avenue improvements at Cedar Development. I believe that's Cedarhurst.

Um and then you got the Highlands at Grand Mir unit 4 just right next to the Highlands at unit 3. Any questions about these projects? These are projects that you likely are seeing active construction and these are getting all these projects to a point where we can financially um make payments on those contracts. So, I would just point out that on a couple of the special assessment projects, uh, two of them up in Colbert Hills,

uh, that Willis, Brilen, Bracket, Ren, the four different items total $3,770,000. So, we're we're looking to the homeowners in that development, pay those. Yeah. Total there's like 70 or 80 lots. Five different. Yeah, it's five different subdivisions. There's 70 or 80 lots. So when you divide 3.7 by 80 at the the payments aren't un unheard of for what what we're seeing today. And then the the other one up there the Highlands unit 4. I mean that's a million670. So yeah again about 25 lots on that. So, you know, you're looking in that three to $4,000 a year range

for new commissioners. As you start seeing these petitions come through and then you start to see the projects bid and then you'll start seeing the tip notes to actually fund both of those processes. You all coming in fairly new to the process, your first exposure. totally understandable to ask the questions and inquire, but pretty soon you're going to start seeing multiple reference points back to

divisions like this. I think would be very helpful for the public if you would show um you've got the print out there um the revenue stream where it's coming designated because a lot of those are storm water sewer you know that kind of thing and of course the specials those are paid by people who correct so basically the only one that's um on there is two storms and a Yeah, all the temporary notes have funding sources it looks like. But on the permanent note, most of those are coming from our bond and interest fund which is there was one

either our sales tax or our property. Yeah, there's one water fund 3 million6. So, but the rest of it Yeah, two of them are in Aguville, two of them are in North Campus. One in North Campus, the other in the runway. um the Aggieville projects and the north campus. We've talked about that 2020 vote for the 2023 sales tax, that half cent, 70% of it dedicated towards those two primary redevelopment areas. Uh we can get you a little bit more project runway background unless

Brandon wants to come give you an update. Good evening, Grant Kezer. So 0321 uh reconstruction project. Again, that project was about $29 million. We had two grants that ended up paying the majority of that. Our share when it finally came through was that a little over that three million. And in uh April of 2025, we were able to roll a lot of that cost into our passenger facility charge that we get and was approved by the FAA. So, a lot of that debt that you're going to see there, we have a revenue stream that's going to end up paying for most of that.

I think it really does help the public to understand, you know, these, it's complicated, but where the various revenue streams are. That's not all coming out of the property tax. One last question on the temporary notes. One was for a aerial fire truck to $3 million. Is that something we approved or does that need approval?

Good evening, Scott French. Um, yes, we've got two apparatus coming in. Uh, our rescue truck is replacing a 2003 rescue truck. The current one's a two, it's a single cab. The new one will have a it's a four-seater. Um I think it was roughly $1.2 million. Uh we put these in roughly three and a half, four years ago. The fire manufacturers have a back they're backlogged uh at one point up to four and a half years on the buildout. We're getting these three years in. So we replace all of our fire trucks or or attempt to replace them all within 25 years. Uh so the uh the other truck there uh will be getting late 2026 likely. It'll replace a uh 75 ft uh quint that we currently have. That's a 2003 as well. Uh it'll be 107 foot ascend ladder. So those actually are funded through the fire equipment reserve which is mill levy funded but that's how that funding stream comes through. Any other questions?

That fire equipment reserve is part of the 18 mills that come to the city. 12 general fund. The other six are combination of bond and interest which is 6 mills uh fire equipment reserve employee benefit fund KPNF and we'll get into a lot more of that detail through the budget season too. Thank you. Jason, can you look at the bid and award under item E1, construction contract? I can look at it, but I'm gonna have Randy come up here and talk to you about it. Do you have a specific question? Um, not no.

Mayor Adam, uh, and commissioners, if you all are prepared to go ahead and take action on item D, I would recommend so items D1 and two. Okay. Oh, and, uh, also public comment if anyone is here for that. Uh, all right. Having heard that presentation, those several presentations, is there anyone from the public who would like to make comment on those two items regarding uh general obligation bonds and temp notes? All right, public comment is closed. Randy, if you'll just wait a moment. Uh, do we have a motion to approve items D1 and two? So I would move, do we need two separate motions or do them both in one?

Yeah. So I would move we approve resolution number 042126A. Second. Jared. Commissioner Fox. Yes. Commissioner Morrison. Yes. Commissioner von Lenel. Yes. Mayor Adam. Yes. Commissioner Mcola. Yes. Motion passes 5 to zero. I move that we approve resolution number 04212 6-B authorizing the sale of uh general obligation temp notes. Second.

Commissioner Morrison. Yes. Commissioner Monl. Yes. Mayor Adam. Yes. Commissioner Mcola. Yes. Commissioner Fox. Yes. Motion passes five to zero. Okay. Uh, okay. Thank you. Uh, now Randy, would you care to fill us in on item E1 awarding a construction contract for approximately $650,000 for uh sanitary sewer sewer rehabilitation?

Sure. Uh, I'm really just would be interested to know what questions you might have and I'll try to answer those to the best of my abilities or I can kind of walk you through some of the background of the the project that we do. Is your a serif fund going to pay cash? Uh, the intention for this project is we we always pay cash for this project. We budget funds annually uh within the sewer maintenance budget for this project. We don't ever finance these. So, as I read as various you're lining sewer lines kind various areas around the city and you've been doing it for years,

for many years. We've done this. Uh it's a very very productive way to rehabilitate sanitary sewer mans without having to replace them. Uh early on it was a very expensive process because there was really only one company that was capable of doing this. Over the years there are a lot more companies that can do it now as the uh patents expired. It's become a really uh broad field with a lot of different types of lining, a lot of different companies and so it's helped us to over the years we've increased the the quantities that we do every year. U and just I'm going to throw out something that that maybe we've talked about in some of the some of the tours at the wastewater plant. So this process helps us to reduce INI inflow and infiltration in the sanitary sewer system dramatically or would be you we started doing this in 1999. Obviously the city has grown quite a bit uh over the last couple of decades. We've we've also incorporated Blue Township and over that time overall discharges to the system have increased but our average daily treatment quantity at the plant has stayed roughly 5 million gallons a day. So that's a pretty good indicator that this is an effective program. Um not to say that we have eliminated it completely. That's why we continue to to do these projects. We try to do them every year. We weren't able to get to one last year. Brazil. Um, we typically budget about $550,000 a year for this project. As mentioned in the in this in the agenda summary, uh, this particular year, we we set up a set amount of, uh, lines that we wanted to line. Traditionally, we only do about 8 in 8 inch mains. This year, we're looking at doing eight, 10, and 12 inch mains. And so, obviously, we we came in with a bid that was higher than what's budgeted. But, as I mentioned, we didn't do this project last year. We we uh realized quite a bit of savings last year. So

perfectly comfortable with uh awarding the project as is. Uh this is a project that once it's done, we'll we'll go back and reconcile quantities and there will probably be a change order. Usually it's a decrease, but that's really the background on it. So any more questions, I'd be happy to answer.

Thank you, Randy. Is there any public comment on this item? Seeing none, we will close public comment. Commissioners, do we have a motion to approve item E1? So, I would move that we approve item E1, the 2026 Century Sewer Rehabilitation Project, number SS2601. Thank you. Second, Jerry. Commissioner Monl. Yes. Mayor Adam. Yes. Commissioner Mcola. Yes. Commissioner Fox. Yes. Commissioner Morrison. Yes.

Motion passes five to zero. Thank you. Uh our final item is uh authorizing the city administration to finalize um and execute an outside city water service agreement. Questions on this item? Yeah, I think there's a lot of components that go into this one. So I I may be able to answer some of those questions. If there are specific questions, it might be best for city manager or potentially even uh director. Well, just to be clear, this goes out to the new car dealer out.

Correct. So, this is RK or sorry, K KRE Properties is uh the Flint Hills Dodge Chrysler Jeep dealership. Um uh they they also own deal they own the current dealership uh here in town and uh it's the the EC group that has a lot of other dealerships in Witchah area.

At this time we don't have any intention of annexing or anything out there. Just it's possible in the future.

Yeah. I I think we've been pretty clear in our presentations um regarding the East Manhattan Gateway vision uh that the city uh does intend to eventually grow that direction. We have uh of course uh a boundary to the west with Fort Riley. We have Kansas State University to the north and of course we have the river to the south. So uh our growth opportunity is um heading uh that direction further into Padawatami County. So while uh we did meet with the property owners and uh we did um discuss the um agreement that they had signed uh that the previous owner had signed but continues to run with the property uh that when uh it comes time to annex uh into the city of Manhattan, they will not uh protest it. Um we had a really good conversation with them uh when they came in to make some of these changes to the water meter and the water line. uh and you know understanding that uh there were some agreements that were in place that the um owner had put in with Podawatami County regarding some of those incentives um such as the industrial revenue bonds and the property tax abatement that they are getting for being out there as well as a uh community improvement district sales tax that they have agreed uh with Pawatami County that at this time uh they asked us to not pursue annexation and trying to be good neighbors and appreciating that uh we agreed, but also recognizing that eventually uh yes, the city will um be looking to annex out that direction.

Do we have a similar agreement with sewer? I assume

I'll let Randy speak to those. So when this property was developed as the Waltney subdivision um Podawatami County worked with them to do I believe it was through a benefit district to do their sanitary sewer, storm sewer and streets. The reason we did the water was because within that corridor, we have an agreement with the R water district that the city essentially has the first right of negotiation to serve water with any of those properties within the the boundaries of that corridor, which I could I could pull up some stuff that shows that boundary, but just in generally it covers all the commercial areas the north and north and south side of Highway 24. Um, Podawatami County Rural Water District number one has has, you know, an unofficial statement to us that they prefer not to serve commercial properties. They're in the residential water business. So, when new customers come into that area, they actually prefer that we serve them. So, we worked on an agreement with the the previous owner as they develop that property to come up with a way a means to help facilitate that waterline construction. And originally they they paid for a portion of that waterline improvement. U just a side note that the current current owner as a part of this agreement process there were four years left on those payments for the three lots. They have agreed to pay the remainder of that off and we actually got that check this week. So

not wanting to be too barbarian but since we're worried about taxes can we justify honorably not plumbing on to the $59,000 property tax that would be generated. That's more of an administration answer probably than yours, Randy, but

uh thank you uh Commissioner Morrison uh for your question. Uh we did include a fiscal impact here because we have been having those conversations about what it looks like um as we uh broaden our tax base and diversify our uh portfolio of land uses um in our community. Um it is uh absolutely a question that we asked ourselves uh if it is now is the time to move forward um with annexing this property. Like I mentioned uh earlier though, the agreements that um Podawatami County had put into place regarding um a a property tax abatement um to incentivize that um development out there. Uh we would likely need to uh partner and have an agreement uh with them that would for the next 10 years would include a property tax abatement on our end anyways. So the chance we did not have these conversations. So, I do hope that our city attorney is not over there cringing that I'm saying anything. Um, so, but we would um likely have to uh forego these property taxes anyways uh for at least 10 years uh because they had already entered into that property tax abatement with Podawatami County. Uh one of the other questions uh that came up because they had entered into that community improvement district with Podawatami County uh which is an additional uh 75% Um I believe it's a 75% uh with CIS you can go up to 2% uh but I believe they have a additional 75% um to help them with some of their uh eligible improvements. Um those eligible improvements uh were identified uh between the property owner and the Pawatami County Board of County Commissioners. So I'm not um privy to all those details. Um I haven't really dove into that agreement and reviewed it. uh but just understanding what

incentives were out there for this property owner and for this development to take place did not feel like the timing was right uh to pursue annexation. Uh we we we have shared with them though that we are we are interested um and uh we will eventually be heading that direction. So,

and I I hope you don't mind me saying this, Danielle, but when when we met with them, they obviously do have it within their business plan to eventually be a part of the city. They did they were honest with us on that. U but I don't think they were anticipating that for a few more years. They shared with us their timeline um was more in the range of 10 to 15 years um versus the immediacy that we were yeah looking at. Commissioners, any more comments on this item or do we have a motion to approve?

Uh thank you. Uh is there anyone from the public who would like to comment on this item? We will now close public comment. I move we approve item F1, the outside city water service agreement with KRE properties. Second. Thank you, Jared. Once more, Mayor Adam. Yes. Commissioner McCulla. Yes. Commissioner Fox. Yes. Commissioner Morrison. Abstain. Commissioner Monl. Yes. Motion passes four to zero to one.

All right. We will now move in. We are moving into a public hearing and this is to consider an ordinance vacating a portion of utility easements.

Yeah. Let me get some of these windows shut down here. Commissioner and Mayor and All right, let me uh let me pull up the PowerPoint here quick. Um so commissioners, Mayor Brian Johnson, Manhattan Public Works director and city engineer. This item is a a request for a vacation of a small piece of property along Little Kitten and uh it's a plat from the mid80s and I will pull it up for you here in just a second. And away we go. Okay. So, again, a request of vacated Western Hills unit 3. This is a Long Little Kitten. This is part of the housing uh project that's going on north of Kimell. Um Long Little Kitten Creek, along Little Kitten Drive. There's two utility easements, one here and one here. Again, this was platted in 1988, and at that time, whatever utility was in there thought that they would need that. They did not use that. Those have been vacant since 1988. Uh from our last vacation request a couple uh commission items ago. Uh we went through the process that I showed you that matrix. Nobody objected to the vacation request and so we are here tonight after advertising. Again, these are the two little easements here uh on both sides that are the that are part of the request.

Again, applicant requested partial vacation easement. Easements were platted 1988 but only limited use. Public notice was published March 20th with 20-day notice. All utilities were contacted. Public utilities, public works have no facilities here and have no objections and then we are at the public hearing. I do need to let you know that since we got the letter requesting the vacation, the property has sold and the new owner is also part of or is also requesting that vacation. So, can I answer any questions? Uh Brian, my usual uh concern with typos, this uh slide that you have up right now is referring to June 1998. And I believe your next slide shows

1988. Yes. So for the record, if one that if it was if that's intentional. No, it is 1988. Okay. Thanks. Sorry, didn't catch that when I read it before. That's okay. I obviously didn't catch it either. So, uh, commissioners, do you have any questions for Director Johnson? Is there any public comment on this item? Open a hearing. We conduct We open the public hearing. Yeah, it's good. Uh, seeing none, we will

close the public hearing. Close public hearing. Uh, I move we approve ordinance number 7820. Second.

Commissioner McCulla? Yes. Commissioner Fox? Yes. Commissioner Morrison? Yes. Commissioner Von Lel, yes. Mayor Adam, yes. Motion passes five to zero. Thank you. Uh thank you. We will now close public hearing. Thank you, Director Johnson. Uh we will now move into our general agenda. First item is to consider authorizing city administration to an exchange and accept federal funds exchange for 2026.

Yeah. And I'm actually going to go into the SharePoint. Jared, how do I get into the SharePoint so I can pull up the presentation? Can you do it for me, please? I do have a real short presentation, but what this is is a federal funds exchange, which is a federal gas tax reimbursement that comes back from the federal government to um the states. The states then the states that maybe I'll just present from here. The states then can uh pass that on to locals or they can keep it themselves. State of Kansas for the last gosh I don't know decade or so has uh allowed cities to um either take those dollars and spend them on a state highway say Seth Childchild I'd have to spend those dollars on Seth child or we can thank you we can exchange them for dollars that we can use on our local roadway at a 9010%. So the state keeps 10, we get 90. Thank you, Jared. So again, federal fund exchange is federal gas tax dollars. That's part of that 24 cents that you pay when you're at the pump. Uh it goes to the federal government. The federal government then disperses it amongst the states. Kat gets a chunk of that and then they have uh for the last couple decades they've been very generous about dispersing some of that to locals and this is part of that. uh exchange. Um we have always used the exchange for local maintenance or grant cost shares. The reason why is because if I do it on a federal system, I have to pay federal benefits and I have to go through the federal fish and wildlife historic. All of those fund agencies in order to get a permit to build on a highway. Uh they can only be used on federal highways if I want to keep the 100%. I also have to have to

have K dot design and inspection. So those things alone probably cost me 40% compared to the 10% I can turn in and do local. Uh historically these are the FFE amounts that we've got. I will say that these in here 156 171 18 substantially lower that was during uh the Brownback administration and they reduced the exchange to about a 50/50 6040. Uh then they went to 7510. So, our exchange was significantly lower uh since 2020. Uh they've bumped back up into that $6 and $700,000 range. Past uses of this funding obviously for street maintenance, Milan Overlay, West Anderson, Anderson, Blumont, Vanesta. This was the fund that we didn't get back until October of last year. So, I couldn't bid a project until then because I didn't have cash in hand. uh we will turn this in this month and hope we get back our money. Typically, it's about three to four weeks. So, it was awfully odd last year that it was all the way till October. Um if we do get it back in time, in addition, we just had a bid letting for some street maintenance last Tuesday and prices came in substantially less than what they what we thought they were. So, we'll take that savings, we'll combine it with this funding source, and we'll go out for another bid package yet this year. With that, I will stand for questions.

Commissioner Morrison, do you have a train right on down the track, Commissioner Fox? So, this is pretty much a given uh receipt of money each year. No, it is not pretty much a given. Uh it's something they've only started in the last 20 years or so. Again, there's a couple years there where they the state kept the money because they were getting into KOT uh money so bad. So, it's not a given. We don't program it every year, but if we do get it, we spend it on street maintenance. Okay. So, when you talk about needing 6 million of street or 8 million, you might have 500,000 to 700,000 of that from these funds

possibly. And if you go back to that presentation when I said the model says seven, but we think it's closer to eight. This is part of that to get us to eight. Yep. Thank you. We will see if there are any public comments on this. Are there any public comments? Seeing none, um I will move that we approve the acceptance of these funds and the agreement as presented. Second. Jared, will you please call the role? Commissioner Fox, yes. Commissioner Morrison, yes. Commissioner Monl, yes. Mayor Adam, yes. Commissioner Mcola,

yes. Motion passes five to zero.

Uh, may I just ask, so this is simply authorizing the administration. We do not to proceed. We do not need to have a resolution or any other uh document about supporting that. Okay. Thank you. Um, all right. Moving on to our next item on the general agenda. Uh, consider approving a resolution that eliminates the, uh, parking rates and in the Aguville garage and eliminating park mobile registration, nose in requirements, etc., etc.

Thank you, mayor, commissioners. Jason Hilders, deputy city manager. Uh we had discussed this action in the months of January and February as we were providing Aggieville street design. Uh we have recently executed the Mororrow Street design and we have crafted a resolution and an ordinance pertaining to the parking garage in Aggieville. During construction of Mororrow Street, we anticipated the parking garage really being the primary source of parking. We crafted these resolutions and ordinances to take effect June 1st of this year, which would allow for a good seven months throughout the before we get to a point where we're likely under construction for Morrow. As I mentioned in presentations in January and February last year, in June, we basically allowed people to park in the garage for free and it u over overly doubled the occupancy in the garage. Uh we we have realized and and heard a lot of public feedback about the park mobile registration and about the requirements to go nose in so your the tail of your vehicle and your license plate is exposed. We have also engaged with our traffic shop staff to paint the garage differently. Uh starting in May, I believe we'll hit that before the June 1 deadline, we'll do 90° stalls at a wider stall on your way up to your right. And as you come down to your right, we will angle the stalls on the runs of the ramps. So, we're going to create a little bit more convenient parking. Uh I anticipate the garage being utilized uh heavily obviously when construction starts. Uh but this will give them a bit of a head start um in the district as we continue to be under construction on

12th Street and Laramie Street. Um this will offer parking um with no registration requirement and no fees associated with parking in that garage. This is indefinite. We can bring this back when Mororrow Street is complete. We can have a conversation as a community how we want to address parking in Aguil. Um we could also have a discussion how we want to address parking downtown. Uh we've been doing it 2hour Monday through Friday 8 to 5 for several decades. Uh it'd be worth a conversation at some point whether or not we want to continue that. Uh as well I think both districts would need some time to give you feedback. Uh, a lot of the parking restrictions in our central business districts originally were about people parking out in front of their businesses and not moving. 8 to 5 Monday through Friday. Have the districts evolved? They seem awful busy in the evenings and weekends. 8 to 5 Monday through Friday is a different clientele. I don't know if they feel the same way about parking that they once did, but we could definitely dive into that. Tonight, we're talking about Aggieville Garage. We're talking about removing Park Mobile. talking about removing requirements to go nose in and we are um eliminating the rates on a daily and hourly basis. Can I ask answer any of your questions?

Just one question here. Under application, the resolution applies to vehicles parked in the Ayville garage except vehicles exempt pursuant to section blah blah. So we have we have some folks who have rented spaces for 30 days at a time. needs to be workers full and part-time and some residential in the area have rented or reserve stalls in the garage. We still allow that. Why would anybody not want to park nose in? What do they care that somebody sees their license plate? It's not a matter of seeing it. Um we've had some requests from larger vehicles uh some pickups that they would prefer to back into their stall. I know. And that's to me,

we back our pickups. We back our pickups in and then it's so hard to get out of your car because they've they're getting into their cars next to you're getting into your car. And we're going to widen those parking spots. We're going to give it a go this May and we'll see how it turns out. We can keep adjusting things if we need to. Commissioner, so you're proposing to start it before we even have a plan for Agyville, which may be six months or away or more? I am.

And so does that lead us into saying we're going to have courage now to do away with all the rents and charges and rules. Are we going to have the courage to say that's permanent decision because you've left the door open for it to come back after moral is completed? That door is open at any point in time. I just suggested once Mororrow is done, you would have you would be free of any major construction in the district. A new approach, a new discussion could surface at that point. It seems to me that we either come up and say we have courage, we're just going to do away with it. Or we say at some point when construction starts, it's in effect and 30 days after we accept the project is done, it goes back into effect unless we make a good decision in that four months of construction. We we we as you know we as a city you as a body can make that statement. By the time that project is done we may be dealing with different elected officials possibly different administration as well. You know that conversation is one that could be had at that point for sure. Andrew

in that we're not um you know that parking structure cost $18 million and I sort of paid to give it away free. I mean I think we should try and somehow you know get back some of the stuff. Will we be able to work with fewer staff there or anything? That is the approach for the 2020 2027 budget. We will have that conversation with you all. Uh we at one point in time were $550 to $600,000 in parking services for a budget. A lot of the revenue we were generating was going back to try to offset the cost for Park Mobile and offset our employment costs.

We generated around $200,000 in total, $130,000 out of this garage. It cost us more to operate it. Mhm. I think it's time to look at it whole scale in terms of the parking services the commission, the governing body's willing to support and get feedback from the community as what they'd like to see. Okay.

So, my uh my two cents is that I I think that if we do charge for parking, it should be on Morrow. It should be those the premium stalls should be the ones that are have the fee associated. So, like for me, a freebie like me, I would just drive to Agavville and I would go straight to the parking garage because that's the free spot. And then the people that want to be closer and want to pay, use metered stalls on on Morrow. But, but for for me, I would I would like to see the parking garage free because I think it's underutilized usually.

All right. Hold that thought for a month or two until we have that conversation. Thank you. So, what is our maintenance cost with no income? What's our maintenance cost annually, monthly? I'll be able to bring back greater details during the budget discussion. Um, I knew the the 500 to 550 on an annual. I knew our revenues were generally a little less than half. So, but I'll be able to bring that breakdown for you during the uh general fund and the operating budget for the city. Well, I think I'd be inclined to you're going to try to have things ready June 1. I don't see any emergency where we're still six months away from knowing what we're going to do with moral if then. Do you think we'll know in 6 months while our plan is with moral?

I do. I think we'll have some options for you all to consider at 30% and then I think we'll be able to turn Olsson loose after the majority decides how they'd like to construct it. I'm anticipating first quarter of 2027 we can be under construction.

So there's does it seem to be an emergency to do this tonight to make a decision how we need to do it or can it be quote kicked down the road till September when we see more what the cost is going to be and more what we're going to be doing. The operation of the Aggieville parking garage is really more about where the district is today, where the district is going to be. We brought this up as a discussion point to address the convenience and some of the concerns that are occurring in that garage. Morrow is going to trigger a lot more dependency on that garage. If we start this summer and we allow the student body that arrives in late August, September to become, you know, normalized by the the garage and the way it's approached, the summertime is also not the, you know, the district just has a different feel and a different use. So, we didn't want to deter folks from parking. Again, we're going to shut down Laramie. There's going to be a lot of construction yet through September and October. just trying to create an environment that's inviting and accessible from the to the public. We recognize there's there's challenges in that garage, eliminating Park Mobile and eliminating the hourly rate. We've done it last year. We saw a tremendous, you know, influx of of user groups. Just trying to put the district in the best possible position to operate. If there are no further questions from the commission, we will take public comment.

Good evening, commissioners. Uh Travis Whirl, president of the ABA and owner of So Long Takalucha. Um first and foremost, it is a pleasure to do business in Manhattan, Kansas, and even more so in Aguil. It's historic district. A lot of great things happened down there. We can't do business well with no parking. We know we're heading into a major crisis with Morrow um with parking to Jason's point. Um it's hoping to teach people to use this garage because is is underutilized at the moment. Um and I hope that by doing this and doing all these things, making it free and making it more accessible, people will use it. The number one thing we get day in and day out is, "I don't want to use the app. I refuse to park in the garage. I refuse to do all these things. People justly hate the garage for some reason. I don't really understand why." So hopefully by doing these things, we drive some interest back to the garage. Therefore, when Mororrow is shut down, we can have sustained business and hopefully have people still parking and customers coming to us.

My two cents. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to make any remarks? All right, we will close public comment. Commissioners, do we have a motion to approve resolution number 0421 260? I would I would make that motion. Thank you. Second. Jared, will you call the role? Commissioner Morrison, yes. Commissioner Monl, yes. Mayor Adam, yes. Commissioner McCulla, yes. Commissioner Fox, yes. Motion passes five to zero.

Thank you, commissioners. We have a second action on this item, and I'd go ahead and move uh we approve ordinance number 7821. I will second Jared. Commissioner von Lel. Yes. Mayor Adam. Yes, Commissioner Mcola. Yes, Commissioner Fox. Yes, Commissioner Morrison. Yes. Motion passes 5 to zero.

Thank you. Uh we will now move on to item C on the general agenda uh to approve a resolution awarding a construction contract to JNK Contracting uh for Stadel Johnson Road Sanitary Sewer Benefit District. Okay, I'll give the second a load. Uh, thanks commissioners. This is a a interesting project. This is a small couple of small projects, but they've been ongoing for several years. There's a lot of moving parts to it. So, um, if I could get this to quit giving me the spinning wheel of death. Close that. Open up the open up the PDF version real quick. Okay. So, uh this is a very similar presentation to what I presented to the county commission uh Riley County Board of County Commissioners uh back in late February or early March. They're involved because they are actually a petitioner in part C. So, uh, as the mayor mentioned, the primary reason we're here is to talk about a portion of this, uh, benefit district improvements

project part C, uh, to award a project and accept petitions and approve a resolution. Uh, but it's really hard to talk about just this project without talking about a little bit of background on all of the projects. And I'll try to uh I'll try to make this as brief as possible. uh and we'll I'll give you the opportunity to ask any questions you may have on some of the other projects. But as I said, so for the first part, we're going to talk about part C. And I'm going to jump around a little bit here uh from this agenda. So um ju I realize that I didn't put a good location map in in the packet for just this overall area. U some general background on this area. The city collaborated with Riley County in 2008 to build the uh to develop the KZA sewer benefit district and construct uh a large uh sewer trunk main as you can see in this in this table or in this picture here uh to to serve this this area. At one point there was a belief that this was a high potential development area. And so at that time the city worked with the county not only on this sewer trunk main project but also a water improvement project. So we also have a water infrastructure that that serves this district as a as a wholesale and then Riley County uh and has a water district where they charge those customers. Uh the intent of this project was really just to build the main infrastructure and as redevelopment occurred or the needs arrive arose there would be smaller sanitary sewer mains built to serve individual properties. U and the intent was also that those those areas would pay for those projects themselves. A good example would have been the a fairmont Heights project. uh probably five five

years ago, we finalized that project with construction. It was again another collaboration between the city and the county where they obtained a USDA grant to help uh build this project. It is a it is a city operated and maintained system and those are all city customers. That's the other intent of this district is that any anybody that connects to the system, this is a city-owned sewer infrastructure. So, they become the city city customers through outside city agreements. So, um that particular project, we don't technically own it until that 40-year USDA loan ends. So, little bit of information on the area. So, moving over to part C of this project. U got a map here that was in your packet that just kind of shows the properties that are impacted. Uh it's really a small 200 foot portion of sanitary sewer main. Uh we we went out and collected bids. We took bids on the project. Uh once we got good bids, we solicited or recirculated petitions to the uh four four property owners. Uh so there sorry there's four tracks, three property owners. Uh track three here is the is a Riley County U fire station. and then they acknowledge that someday they'll probably sell that property and would like to be able to put sewer service on it. U so a little bit of background on part C of the project. Again, four tracks, three owners, 10 total shares. This project was broken up into the number of connections equals the number of shares. There's no city at large. Uh although this project was bid in the fall of last year, the contractors honored their bid prices. So that bid price is 44,9917. You we didn't have to acquire any easements. Uh the total benefit district

costs including financing fees, etc. is just under $90,000. So we got an asbid. And I thought I fixed this. It's actually fixed in the PowerPoint, but I I did catch that one.

I caught I caught it and I was I had it changed for you, but it's a cost per share of about $9,000. Estimated annual payment for those customers are going to be $660 through annual assessment. So we do have actions that would for the commission they'd have to find the petitions sufficient approve a resolution and award that contract to JNK and amount of 44,917. Um because it's a smaller project, usually would ask for city manager approval for change orders of 5%. But we did we do include 10% in the benefit district calculations as we would do with with most project authorization. So we did put in there a request for 10 thou or sorry 10% of the project cost. So that's what we have in front of you tonight as far as what we need for a motion. Um, we can have conversation on that now, but I do have some background on projects A and B I think that are relevant that you need to hear because I I do want to get a little bit of feedback and direction from the commission on how to proceed with that. So, any questions on part C?

Um, I do have I have one, sorry, I do have one uh total est so what's the difference between total estimated cost and the construction cost? So, this is all costs factored into what would go into an improvement district. So, financing costs, district benefit or, you know, district fees, engineering services fees. I think we're about $15,000 for this portion. Of course, there's contingency, the 10% contingency, all financing costs. There's there's a cost that we have for uh Gilmore and Bell to review the petitions and develop the resolutions. And if I missed something something else, Reena, um, uh, yeah, so bonding fees, etc. So, I think that's it's pretty extensive list of other things that

even if you're paying cash for these projects, you need bonding fees and financing costs. So, we we won't we won't pay cash. We fronted the project. Typically we would front the project but uh the design of the project with cash but they would like like in many many other projects they would go to temp notes and then once the project is completed they would convert to bonds. Correct. And so all those all those appropriate fees would be applicable just like uh for residential subdivision here in Manhattan that you guys reviewed earlier. And I can't remember if it was this project. I'm sorry. Um, is there a bid sheet on for this one?

There was one project on tonight's agenda where the winning bid was like half of what was offered by other companies. Uh, let's see here. Wrong item here. So, we do have a bid summary. Uh, we did have multiple bids. We broke the bids up. So this this bid shows uh part C only.

When we bid the project, we bid parts A, B, and C. And so obviously, yeah, we have the low bidder JK contracting. Um we had the ability to award any or all of these parts. So in this instance, we're awarding part C. We're just opting not to award parts A and B. And I can get to the reasons why as we discuss some of the background.

Does does this raise any red flags that this project I mean to me as a non-engineer non sewer person um that's a pretty substantial difference in those bids. I mean it is onethird of the highest bid bid and close to one half of the next two.

Sure. Um I just know obviously we got Buyer and JNK. Those are local companies that we work with frequently. We've never worked with the other two companies. I think they're out of town companies. Um, we've never worked with them. I'm not even 100% sure where they're out of. So, they may not be familiar with doing this type of infrastructure. That's about the only thing I can get. I'm happy that it is appreciably lower, but it's also um Yeah.

Yeah. And Yeah. It's that we've been pretty lucky because when we bid the project, we anticipated and we made the contractors aware that there's going to be a potential lengthy administrative process to go through between the time we bid it and the time we could actually award it. It's been about twice as long as I thought it would. Um, just because of some difficulties, but they they're going to hold the prices for this project. And so, we're we're excited to finally get it going because me personally, I've been working on this project for seems like six years. Okay. Trying to get it done. That that just hurts my head. I know. Me, too. Thank you.

Any other questions on part C? on my question would be as I look at the information you gave and what you have effectively other than a courtesy financing tool the city has no cost in this correct

fair statement correct so when we when we started working with Riley County on this project and just some of the background on the wise there are multiple properties in here like I mentioned in the agenda summary that have failing septic systems um and there's reasons why, you know, the county has regulations as far as why um why they can't allow them to repair or replace those septic systems. Um we we when we decided how to do this project, the city essentially took on the role of working with one of our on call consultants to develop a a cost estimate. So, we bore the cost of the engineering fees up front and if these projects don't come to fruition, we're we're on the record for those,

right? But if they do get completed, that's reimbured. All of those will go into the benefit district. So, would the next assumption be accurate that we're not a bad neighbor as a city? Say that again. I guess I don't understand. Well, they understand. That's all that matters. We're a good neighbor at time. That's what I'm trying to figure out if we believe being a good neighbor to people who had need. Correct.

Thank that was nobody when when this district was set up. I'm talking about the entire district. Now, this was before my time and and there was not really a clear plan on how those future projects would get completed or who would be responsible for them. That's one of the things I've talked to county staff with. We need to set some policies on how these will get completed in the future. The the Fairmont Park site that I mentioned up here, that was a very good collaboration. Riley County took the lead on that. They had to because there was grant funding associated with it. This one we took the lead and I've had I've had conversations with with city staff. We probably won't do that again. There will be more participation by the county if we do this in the future. And there's more comments to come I guess on the next next part of this.

Randy, I'm just curious. Are all these houses to the west of this line? Are they connected to this line or are they they're not part of it? Uh there are a handful of properties that do have connections. I could not I'm think how many but just around Sugar Bush and not Yeah, I'm actually pull up the GIS. I'm just curious.

I had so Yeah, I believe uh this property here does most of the properties through here. Um these properties back here do have connections. Sorry, I'm moving around quick. Uh most of the commercial properties here like the Aggieville brewery, the convenience store, Daras or Daras or and uh that little office building there, they do have connections. So they all have individual outside city connections. Almost none of those projects required an infrastructure improvement to connect them. They just kind of benefited by the fact that they were adjacent. So all they had to do is construct a lateral. uh these properties obviously they don't touch the sewer or that it's not within their property boundaries yet. So that's why we had to extend public infrastructure to reach them.

Thank you Randy. I think were you going to comment on parts A and

Sure I can also um again there's a lot of information a lot of history on this so I will try to keep it as short and sweet as possible. get back to my presentation, wherever it decided to go. All right, there we go. Okay, so scrolling back up a little bit. Uh, part A, parts A and B, they're they're the same project in a sense there, but there's two different sections. Uh part A is this yellow line and part B is this line right here. We separated them because different properties benefit differently from each section of that line. Um the the details on parts A and B are that these are the these are the properties that originated the need for this project. Uh so there's five tracks and four owners. Uh just real quick going back to this map here. Uh this property here is really what originated this entire project. They came to the city, they wanted an outside city service agreement and we said we can't do that. You have to actually extend public infrastructure to the property in order to do it. Uh they wanted us they want those are two residential houses on one property. They both share a common sanitary sewer lateral system. The county said no. They they wanted to split it in two, sell one of the houses off. The county said no. So that's the genesis of the project. Then the county came back and said, "Well, we have this project or this site here that's got multiple buildings on it connected to the same septic system. It's failing. There's another property over here that's in the same boat. A residential and a commercial property connected to one septic system. It failed. And so now there's a there's an

order by the county that that owner has to pump out their septic tank once a month. So this is a problematic area. So we started working with the county to develop this project. Uh we got engineering cost estimates, developed petitions, got everybody on board. Uh then this property here that started it all changed hands. I know this is a long story and I'll try to try to make it quick, but at one point all of these properties agreed, yes, we want to participate in this benefit district. We got petitions. The the city commission approved those in 2022. We we then went through the next stage of the project, which we finalized design. Before we bid, we had to go collect easements. Well, the new owners of this project or this property, although they voted yes on the petitions, they changed their minds and they didn't want to give us easements. And going back to the presentation, uh, this map here kind of shows you why this originally the line was on that property. The new main was on that line. Because they decided that they didn't want to participate anymore, we had to go back and redesign the project. And so we redesign redesigned it so that it was on this property here which is um uh those property owners were more than willing to participate with us. Uh very kind lady uh used to be a city employee um and her husband they they were all for the project. So we redesigned it without without uh tract one having sewer on the property but they still benefit from the project. So they have to participate in the district by law. So we went out and we when we bid the project, the project cost for A and B greatly exceeded what we had in the petitions. So those petitions are no longer valid. I've been having conversations with Riley County about how to handle that.

And the board of county commissioners, they have shown that they will support this project moving forward even though they don't have we don't have 100% yeses either by property owner or by shares. And I've got the stats here, but by they have 80% of owners that are on board and 86% of petition shares. I will note that there is one city at large share in part B and we can get into the reasons why, but that's really unimportant I guess for this conversation. So, where we are at now with projects A and B, we have a majority of the owners that want to move forward with the project. We have a county commission that also wants to move forward with the project. And legally, by state statute, we meet all the criteria to be able to force this benefit district on these property owners, even if one does not want to participate. Um, I got a another exhibit I want to show you. I might have lost it, but anyways, the the caveat with this project A and B is I don't have it. See if I can pull it up. link to Yeah, I had I had another link here. But even though even though that sanitary sewer is no longer on track day, our contractors come back and said it's not really feasible to construct without a temporary construction easement. So even though that that future sewer is going to be on track two, there's a large tree there. There is a fence that has to get removed and just not to be able to construct this this project here. They

almost have to have some type of easement on tract one. Now I go back and said that's critical because that property owner already said they don't want to donate an easement. That's another note that all easements to date have been donated by every other owner in the project. So, we will have to work with the county at some point to likely go through eminent domain in order to obtain the necessary easement on that property. And I'm I'm working with the county staff and hoping that they will kind of help take the lead in that. But they're pretty adverse to condemnation. So those two houses don't want to connect.

They have they have decided that they do not want to participate. So when we reached out to all the petitioners to say well the petitions all said yes except for that property. How did they get their sewer service?

Yeah. Well they like I said they have a septic system. It's it it's not a failing septic system. So the county can't I mean if they ever wanted to split those lot split that lot in two which is kind of how this started. The previous owner wanted to split it in two and the county said no you can't do that because you're on a common shared septic system. Now that septic systems functioning today and it's not really a need for them. But by statute, because that that sanitary sewer main will go by their property and they will benefit from that project, they have to be a petitioner. Now, they voted no, but they would still be included in the district if it goes forward. So, I guess what I need for feedback from the city commission is even though the Riley County Board of County Commissioners has said they support the project, I'll go back and I've got a slide here that that shows, you know, U. City Attorney Katie Jackson and I met with Gilmore and Bell and we just we outlined some of the state statutes that govern how a city benefit district can can be approved even if it's outside the city limits. And so for for part C, technically we meet all three of these and you only have to meet one in order to to proceed with the district. Is that right, Katie? And I'm I'm making an assumption there that number three, we have consent for the county on part three because they are petitioner. Now, they haven't adopted a resolution that says they'll participate, but they've agreed to participate in the project. For parts A and B, we meet criteria one and we meet criteria three in the sense that they have given us a consent, a an unofficial consent to proceed, but we meet the

criteria. we meet one of these criteria. So technically the city commission could go enforce this benefit district um without the approval from the governing body of Riley County. Now I don't know if that would be something you want to do. You may want us to go back to them and say put something in writing in the form of a resolution to support this and then we'll support it. So you have options. So really what I want or what I need in order to make this portion of the project proceed understanding that we have a potential issue with needing to obtain property from somebody that doesn't want to participate willingly. But what would what would it take for this governing body to for us to proceed with that portion of the project? Is there a willingness? Because we obviously have not a lot to not a lot to lose, not a lot to gain here. We're trying to help out being a good neighbor.

Well, I guess my perspective is substantially different on this one than the C. Sure. We have no benefit to doing it other than being the nice guy in the future, maybe. Yeah. And we'll we'll we'll obviously receive the benefit of additional revenues from from those customers, but the heartache and revenue is almost minimal compared to what you're doing.

Yeah. seems to me I'd say my position would be advise the county once they get it put together then you you help them do what they can but I don't think it's our job to take land by condemnation or forcing the benefit district one or the other away from people that don't want us and they're not in our city.

Sure. having dealt with this kind of issue for eight years. Um there's no way that their sewer system is not going to go bottom up at some point. And um yeah, and I see this as them wanting to have other people put it in and then when they get in trouble, we'll have to hook up which will be much less than their share. Um, I was part of the concept system when it went in, which was difficult. Um, there were a lot of people who didn't want it because your mic.

Oh, there were a lot of people who didn't want it and were um were drastically in need of it. It's um, you know, I think we should assist the the county on this, but I do think they should take the lead. And I have no problem with telling those if they have to join the 21st century and get a decent sewer. Sure. Um it's a matter of public health. Yeah. And there are there are all kinds of statutes about health and what happens if you don't. Sure. You know, and if you've got sewer sewage running down the street, which I've seen. So,

I did note in the summary, I believe one of one of Riley County's regulations is that none of these properties would be allowed to repair or replace their septic system if they are within 400 ft of a public sanitary sewer system. So, Riley County will never allow them to build or to replace their septic systems or repair them. The only caveat to that is if they can demonstrate that it's not economically feasible to do so. In this case, it's we provided a means that it is economically feasible to do so. One thing I forgot to mention, I will note that just because we force that benefit district on them when you build a project, they they're not being forced to connect. So, just like other outside city properties, they would have to come to us for an outside city agreement and we will provide a means for them to connect in the future. Well, they say that property that doesn't want to participate, they don't have to connect and they don't have to start paying city fees until they're ready or their system fails. So, that is one important caveat,

but they will have costs because of the benefit district that they pay for the bonding, the engineering, the construction of the primary lines. Yeah. Ultimately, we wouldn't we have costs that we've incurred to date like the engineering fees. And so, if the project doesn't move forward, we won't get those back. and that's probably 20 $20,000 worth of fees. Um, so that would be our only cost in this project if the project doesn't proceed. But if you do the benefit district, yes, all those expenses will be paid even though they don't connect them. Correct.

Okay. So, u it seems to me that we're just picking the fight that uh you know, Commissioner may be correct that is inevitable. I think your statement was they have a system that is working within standards and performing well and that one that one property that one property and others do not. Well, then they have a neighborhood problem rather than a problem with us. I think

yes. I I guess the county wouldn't normally take on a project like this unless there was some type of grant available like Fairmont Heights. Um they've had similar projects like in Keats

that they've tried to help resolve. I mean, so I think we're far enough along in this project, we're not going to go back and ask the county to to take over the project. Now, when it comes to maybe obtaining the properties, I think it's perfectly reasonable to say county, do your part, do the part in this. You want the project to proceed, take over the eminent domain or something like that. But um it's not going to resolve the overall issue with that that exists out there. Well, I wasn't suggesting dumping it back on the county to do the project. Sure. But I do think it's their responsibility so we can do a project. Yep. Even though it's not of great benefit to us.

Sure.

So I I'm going to go back and ask like what would you want from the county in order to feel comfortable approving this as the city's governing body? I think it's up to the county to get the the benefit district built, so to speak. I mean, you know, Keats is a good example. Should have had sewer 100 years ago, quite frankly. And it took years and years to talk them into the Sergeant edition when it came into the city. We had people telling us the E.coli in their will was the good kind. So, um, yeah, I think this is a public health issue, quite frankly. Um, and I but I do think the county has to take the lead on this

and we should do everything we can to assist them because this is a public health issue and you shouldn't have sewage sitting around. I will say the parts A and B, we would likely have to go out and rebid those and we wouldn't put out petitions until those have been rebid. So again, just be clear, the the person holding out is the person that just bought their property within the last couple years. It was they bought it right when we were getting ready to go out for petitions in 2122. All the petitions were originally drafted for the previous owner and then they changed hands.

So they clearly knew this was going on. They clearly they voted yes on the petition. It wasn't until we came asking for easements when they changed their mind. They know that their septic system won't last forever. Correct. The property is worthless without correct a sewer system. So, you know, were this some elderly person out in the country that the city grew up around them and you know that's one thing, but they clearly bought into this situation. So,

they should be participating. Um, Katie, is there anything else I should be considering as far as how we would proceed with moving a district forward between the county and the city? I don't think there is. Well, the other the other um lots desperately need this. Yes. Yes. I mean, if they're having to pump once a month, that's crazy. Um, and probably not effective. This this property here has multiple buildings. their system is failing. It's still operational, but they won't be allowed to repair it. Yeah.

Although they do have probably ample property to repair it. The owner benefits by having public sewer to that property because it's it's zone commercial. And I mean just perspectively thinking from my opinion that this creates a huge value for those property owners and they're aware of that and that's why they're willing to participate.

Um this property here is unused. It's owned by the same person that owns this property. They would like to build a commercial facility, a warehouse type facility. and they are anxiously waiting for a public improvement to happen so that they can build that building because they know that the county won't let them do a septic system on that property because they're within 400 ft of a public sewer. So, this sewer project is really the lynch pin for being able to remedy this these situations and um allowing this property to develop um this property here. If if you knew the person that was there, you'd want to help them out. So the

um yeah I the thing is that I think people have to understand that if your sewer has failed and you have a fire which burns more than 51% you can't rebuild. You're stuck. You're finished. And so you know I think for the greater good often we have to get together and and help and that's just make the whole thing legal and above above ground not the sewer. So it's a lot that needs it. Can they afford to do it? If you move, for example, you you talked about you need an easement and the people don't want to give it that don't want the sewer, right? Yeah.

Move it on the other side, the fence and trees. The people give you the easement. Well, that's what we've already done to say we went through a redesign. But can they afford that and would they be still be able to do it? because then you can pro prohibit other people hooking on without paying some of the cost.

I mean, we've went we've looked at that avenue. We can do a different alignment, but again, that we're going to have to go through significant cost to basically redesign the entire and I I don't think that they I mean to be able to spread that cost over as many prop properties as possible is is going to benefit each individual owner. and we're looking at probably increasing the cost of the project and spreading it over fewer properties. So th those shares are going to go even higher. That's my question. Can they afford it? And if they can

then you cut the other folks out and they come begging when theirs goes downhill and they have to pay a premium to get back on our line. I mean I don't know if if there is a need for a resolution that is a resolution. I mean, we we thoroughly reviewed all potential routes to to be the find the most economical project for this for these owners and that's what we settled on. So, yeah, it could happen. It didn't work though. Your design of most feasible didn't work because you have one extension

and all it takes is one at this point as far as I'm concerned. You either move it over, can those other people afford it? Can you go back to the east to those other business in some connection and make it work? It's feasible for a cost. I mean, but what you're just asking us basically to assure the county that we will support them in having this planned and this and we've set up the the engineering for it, right?

Yeah. I I think it's kind of the other way around. I mean your comfortability proceeding with a project that doesn't have a 100% yeses, you know, I think there's state statute that says there's a minimum percentage that has to be in place, but that's just with s inside city. So outside the city, like I said, we went through those three criteria that gives the city a right to do that. Um I

Randy, can you clarify the were were the refusal for that easement made to the city when it presented the plans or has the county already tried to obtain that ease? The county has not. So I think part of the question is county should do it.

What will the count is the county willing to offer? I mean, we had to uh wrangle easements from several uh property owners for the work along Anderson Avenue. It did take negotiation, but um ultimately virtually all of the property owners agreed to some payment for those easements. And I think we're talking a hypothetical here if the county hasn't yet pursued that that direction.

Right. I'll finish my thought earlier. I guess instead of I I think we're seeking assurances from the county that they if if the county says yes, we think you should force the benefit district. I mean, they've they've given us an unofficial verbal consent at one of their at at their meeting to meet. I think if they had a more formal direction that they are willing to participate via a resolution of some type then that would make would that make this governing body more willing to also force that district for a health and welfare issues.

I'm I'm wondering u a little bit as we spoke previously about the parking lot. Are we putting the cart before the horse with having this resolution tonight if the county hasn't taken that stance yet?

Yeah. And remember this, I'm looking for direction on parts A and B. Part C can stand on its own independently. And so we can move forward with that project because everybody's on board. We have a contractor and a contract ready in place. So we can move forward on that. No issues. It's really this part A and B that's controversial and difficult because some difficult choices I think have to be made on as a city how do we want to proceed with this project even though this is outside the city how much we want to help the county how much should we ask the county to in turn help with this process would this be so sorry if I can just

Would this be a city benefit? This is a city benefit district and it would be a it would be city infrastructure and they would be city customers. So the resolution that I have here for my signature only pertains to section part. Correct. I think that clarification helps. We don't have any official action on part A and B tonight. I'm just I'm just soliciting feedback on how you think we should proceed. So if we approve part C tonight, that takes care of four property owners over there. Yes, that solves their problem. But A and B, that was five property owners, right? Yes. Little bit

five tracks, four four owners. So one owner owns three of the tracks. So one out of the four is dragging their feet. Say we got four to five owners say yes. 12 out of 14 shares. So that that one desenter actually has two shares because they have two connections. I mean those are I mean statistically those are the the overall district is in favor of the project. I don't I don't understand why this is a city benefit district why it was the city infrastructure. Okay. Okay. But did the KZA

water I mean the KZA district was that a city? Um it's city main. Yeah. And the overall district is the the county's district per se. Uhhuh. We we both we both kicked in funds for that project. Where did they get their bill? From the county or from the city? The cont for for sewer it would be from us. Okay. Through outside city agreements. On the water side, they get their bill from the KZA water taxing district. We wholesale them that water.

So, it seems like we approve C, let them get their project done and let let the four owners fight it out, work it out amongst themselves, how they want to proceed. I think four of them have said, "Yeah, let's proceed." But we still have to we have to we have to consider aision and resolution at some point. We can't bid that project and proceed until we get acquisition. So it's pretty sticky wicket.

Well, I guess the four have to decide. Can they foot the bill as it is if you move it over and realign it or get the county to get all the people to agree and then we do it? Seems to me. Okay. I can approach county staff and ask them to um give us a little bit more assistance. Thank you, Randy. I'll see if there's any public comment.

Seeing nobody approaching the podium, we will close public comment. Commissioners, again, we have two recommended actions on this item we will vote on separately. Do we have a motion?

Yes. Recommended action. We have two actions. One is to approve the resolution and the second is to award the construction contract. As the unit C, I would move to approve resolution 042126E and also award the contract. The s commissioner, two actions, so we have to vote separately on each one. I'll second that. Jared, can you call the role again? Mayor Adam, yes. Commissioner McCulla, yes. Commissioner Fox, yes. Commissioner Morrison, yes. Commissioner Mono, yes. Motion passes five to zero.

Thank you. All right. Now we have a second motion on this action. I move we award the con construction contract and authorize change orders up to 10%. Second. Commissioner Mcola? Yes. Commissioner Fox? Yes. Commissioner Morrison? Yes. Commissioner von Lenel? Yes. Mayor Adam? Yes. Motion passes. Thank you. Uh the final item on our agenda tonight is considering an option to purchase real estate agreement with Bev Hub. Uh and we will hear from deputy manager. Yes.

Thank you, Mayor Commissioners. Uh Jason Hilders again, deputy city manager. Uh we uh originally entered into an agreement with Bev Hub back in 2020 to um transfer some land. They took option on two lots out at the business park, but they also purchased uh the lot from the u brewing company at the same time. Is as a point of reference the uh the lots that I'm speaking to. This is DevHub's operation. It's lot 27 and 29. They had a three-year option that expired in October of 2025. They would like to re-engage with another three-year option. The original option was done as part of the package with BevHub. There was an economic development application and an incentive package. So those two parcels were part of um the agreement and at the time they were at no cost to Bev Hub. They since it has expired we have renegotiated an option at $10,000 and then they would buy these at $114,000 which be 13,500. So the option originally was free. The land wasn't going to be free but the option was free originally. Um, we have added a clause to this that in the event they buy it within the three-year period, they get three years basically to develop it. If they don't develop it, the land would revert back to the city and an additional $20,000 would also um be retained by the city. uh we would give them the balance back of the $30,000 um and we would retain the property. This is a fairly new approach for us in

land, but it's one that we want to take out in the park. We have some property owners who have bought land from the city and have not moved forward with their development. We have no reversionary clauses on that property. So, we'd like to put these here forward. If you're not going to develop it within a certain amount of time, we like to see that money, that land come back so we can work with prospective developers and businesses that would like to locate in the park. So, the agreement this evening is an option to purchase. It has a negotiated price at 13,500 an acre. It's roughly a little over eight acres of land. Um, they would have three years to execute that option. If they did, they would then have three years to build on that land.

Any questions?

So, do we have a valuation of what the land is worth today? Because the deal, what they did in 2020 certainly has changed for land because if you're going to replace it, you aren't going to replace any land out there for 135. If we we have been selling land at business per for 13,500 an acre since inception. So it is it is worth more than 13,500 an acre. If the commission would like us to change that philosophy, we can work with our partners at the chamber and reapproach. Uh it's a 200 190 acre park uh developed out. We're probably getting close to 65 70%. We still have 30% of the land available. So, if we do want to change that approach, we can talk with our partners at the chamber about doing that.

Well, and another thing, well, if I want to go out and get one of those lots, can we have a first right refusal to them, but they have to move and they don't have three years? In other words, they can't sit on it and keep everybody else frozen out where you already have utilities available those lots and to do something else cost the city money. So, I think if I showed up and I wanted to buy it and put something on it, I ought to be able to force them to to buy it or give it up. And I especially where they're getting a great price deal for three years of delay for no finance cost, no no expense to them for the last six years. So I I'm not opposed to them having opportunity to grow. That's why we have the land presumably. But I'd like to have at least a fair shake for other people come to town or people who are here that want to grow. That provision is not currently in the agreement. Um the reversionary clause again was our attempt to get the land back, but it could be up to six years. If someone showed up and made an offer on that property the way the agreement is written today, uh they would not have to entertain it. Um we could go back to the negotiating table if that's a position the governing body would like to take. It could also be tabled and we could come back for with a discussion item on how you'd like to proceed with land. There's there's interest. Um, and as I mentioned, we've been at 135 an acre without a whole lot of hooks and it's it's burnt us a little bit. We've just got some land out there owned by other people that now they're trying to leverage that land. I'd rather get into a position as you mentioned commissioner of we've got the land out there allow people to expand allow people to develop

that's the purpose of it.

Um I think we might add that BevHub is I believe is in negotiations to expand one of their products or production of one of the products that they are working on. So it is very possible that they will be I'm not I'm can't speak for the company but it is very possible that they will be expanding. Um the chamber also has several uh negotiate negotiations underway to purchase property um to be land ready for future development. And um my understanding is that it is at that price per acre. Um, and that might uh cause some issues with their current negotiations. Should we attempt to change that price at this point in time? This is our our map currently. So, the lots that I'm talking of are currently on our map as BevHub. They were obviously occupied under contract for around that 5-year period. Um, we could easily change this map. I just want to bring it up so you know where the ownership currently is. Um, there are some negotiations to try to get land back from Sykes. There are there have been several attempts to try to get it back from the MBQ8. Toruson's obviously purchased under construction. Walters Morgan is there. Amazon nearing completion. Florence does have a couple lots across the street from them. Um so we are getting down to, you know, just a few a handful of lots that we have available if we'd like to re um organize ourselves and have a different approach. Uh we're open to that.

Well, I like the idea that if they don't produce, they get and we get it back, right? I think that's an excellent idea proven by what your map shows, but yeah, I'm still saying they've had five years of freedom and they're in control. I'm not trying to take it away from them, but if I want to show up, they ought to have to buy it or give it up, right? And we we could we could approach them with that option. We've done that before and keep the part that if they don't complete it, Yeah. it reverts. I would I would certainly be in favor of that language adding that that if somebody else comes along and wants to buy it then they have first right yeah they can exeute

you buy it you execute or we sell it to the next guy in in that instance it would probably revert back to the city so then we could work with that owner I think they're going to have a first right to buy it if they don't it comes it just stays with the city

keep ination Understood. Do I have one other agreement with that approach? I mean, this this agreement would not then be on the agenda tonight. We would go back to DevHub with the additional provision that there is a first right a refusal. If someone else showed up with an offer that matched or exceeded theirs, they would either have to buy the property or turn it back to the city. Is that a provision you're comfortable with adding and bringing back? Okay.

I'm not objecting at this point for the 135, but I'm thinking as we have other land that we have for sale, we ought to have staff or somebody decide is that a fair amount from where we are because that land we acquired before 2020. And so we've sat on it a long time to get give people opportunity that they wouldn't have had and they sure can't get today. If they want to go out and buy the other 800 acres out there, they aren't going to buy it for 135. I guarantee you, especially when the university paid 8 million for their corner.

Yeah, Toruson and Amazon bought at 135 an acre. um the more recent transactions out there, we have held that approach again up for discussion, up for debate. Um and I really would like J Jason Smith and and Darren Solden who were out really under contract working to move this land to give you all their opinions and their views. We can definitely get them here when we reconsider this contract. The motion we would need um from the governing body if you want us to take this back would be a uh referral back to staff for additional um work. I would make that motion.

I think we need to have public comment first because I'm remembering that now. Is there anyone who'd like to make comment on that on this item? Seeing no one, we will close public comment. And now, may I have a motion? So moved. Danielle said, "All right, our movement is our motion is to return this item to staff for further consideration of refinement. Do we have a second?" Second. Thank you. Uh Jared, will you call the the role? Commissioner Fox, yes. Commissioner Morrison, yes. Commissioner Montel, yes. Mayor Adam, yes.

Commissioner Mcola, yes. Then I move we adjourn. All in favor say I. Is there a second? All right. Please say I or raise your hand. I thank you all for participating. Thank you for attending tonight. Katie, land price.