City Commission - Regular Meeting

Here.

Mayor, we have five commissioners present. The quorum of three is met.

Thank you. Will you please rise and join me with the Pledge of Allegiance?

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

Thank you. We have one proclamation this evening recognizing Parks and Recreation Month. Will you please, staff who are joining us, please come up to the front. Thank you all for coming out this evening. Whereas parks and recreation programs, facilities, and services are essential to healthy, vibrant communities throughout the United States and are a cornerstone of the quality of life enjoyed here in Manhattan, Kansas, And whereas parks and recreation promote the physical, mental, and social well-being of residents of all ages by providing parks, trails, recreation facilities, aquatics, sports, and opportunities for active lifestyles. And whereas parks and recreation programs enrich the lives of residents through youth development, education, art, cultures, aquatics, sports, and lifelong learning opportunities. Whereas parks and recreations strengthen our local economy by increasing property values, attracting visitors, supporting tourism and local businesses, and enhancing the quality of life that makes Manhattan an exceptional place to live, work, and visit, Whereas Manhattan Parks and Recreation welcomes more than 700,000 visitors annually, generating an estimated 57 million in annual economic impact while providing exceptional experiences for residents and visitors alike. Whereas Manhattan's parks, trails, open spaces, the Flint Hills Discovery Center and Sunset Zoo preserve our natural and cultural heritage while promoting conservation, environmental stewardship, education, and opportunities to connect with nature. And whereas the continued success of Manhattan Parks and Recreation is made possible through the dedication of employees, volunteers, coaches, sponsors, community partners, and supporters. And whereas the United States Congress has designated July as Parks and Recreation Month, now therefore I, Susan E. Adamczak, Mayor of the City of Manhattan, do hereby proclaim the month of July as Park and Recreation Month. In the City of Manhattan, And I encourage all residents to recognize and celebrate the vital role that parks, recreation, and cultural resources play in strengthening our community. Thank you. Congratulations.

I promise to keep this short. I just want to take the opportunity to thank our staff. They're the ones that make this really happen. Pretty much everybody in the community uses Parks and Recreation in some form or fashion, whether that's a trail or a park or one of our programs, again, the zoo or the Discovery Center. One of the unsung heroes in here is building services, and you see that a lot. They're a return addition this year, but they certainly take care of our facilities and make sure that they're clean and operating really well. So I just really want to thank the staff. I appreciate everybody coming out tonight for the picture, and if you see one out there, please thank them this month, because they do work hard. It is our passion. but they are working hard to provide a service that everybody enjoys in the community. Thank you.

Okay, say Parks and Rec on three.

Parks and Rec.

Thank you all. Congratulations. I will point out that Sunflower Summer is beginning today, Thursday, and I think we have 15-ish sites in Manhattan. including the Discovery Center and the zoo. So please take advantage as you have visitors, as you have grandkids, as you have your own children to visit these sites. Children and one adult are allowed in free.

Yeah, I think it's really exciting that one adult is allowed in free. So gather all the kids in your neighborhood and go.

Commissioners, I'm going to hold public comment for a moment since I dove right into our comments. Would you, Larry, anything to add?

Well, I wasn't there, but I want to make sure everybody appreciates what Karen and their family did at the Discovery Center. Quite truthfully, I think it's more impressive than just the Discovery Center, Blue Earth, the community, and certainly any tribute to a friend like Jan.

Thank you. I, too, want to thank and congratulate Karen. I attended the ribbon cutting Monday morning for the bison exhibit in front. It's awesome. And it's a great addition to the Discovery Center, which in itself is a great facility. So I appreciate that. Thank you, Karen. I also want to thank, again, the city cleanup crews. It appears that they're just about done with the cleanup and hopefully no more 80 mile an hour wind storms the rest of the year. So thank you all for the great job of cleaning up our city.

Andrew? Just thank you, Manhattan, for taking care of yourself and each other for the 4th of July. So it seemed like we went through pretty well without any problems.

Thank you. We'll have public comment on any item not on our agenda this evening. Is there anyone who would like to make any remarks? We'll be talking about budget later in the session we are talking about the Revenue neutral resolution

All right, well, I'll just talk about the three topics that are tied to property taxes, okay? Okay. I got three minutes? You do. Okay.

And please state your name and address.

My name is Phil Shankwitz. I live at 832 Briarwood Drive here in Manhattan. And so the three topics I wanna touch on is one, based on my experiences, should the city, should I be excited about a tax increase? Two, is the city using data and facts to make good fiscal decisions? And three, I'll suggest the budget planning process to better understand and manage the city budget. So my experiences with the city. I've called the health department, the fire department, and the public works. Nobody returned my phone call. After multiple calls, I finally got a hold of the public works, and they sicced me on Brian Johnson. And I'm happy to report, Brian Johnson and I exchange emails, and he's helped me understand the situation and how we move forward.

But one out of three, unacceptable. May I just interject for a moment that the health department, it's not a city department, it's a county. All right. Still 50%. Would you be happy with that?

Okay, also, broken curb. See, click, fix 311 CRM. This winter, a snowplow went over a curb on an island, broke the curb. I submitted the CRM. week or two later a city truck drives up I happen to be in the yard and two guys were in the truck two employees and They came and looked at the curb. So I walked up to him and said hey, are you here for the curb? They said yes, okay There's where it was. They said yeah, we see it's broken I said what kind of expected to be fixed and they laughed and said a couple years So You got two people driving around in a truck, yep, curb's broken. Really? Get one out, fixing the curbs. Where's the efficiency there? So based on my experience with the city, there's a lot of waste, and instead of just throwing a 6.7% tax increase out there, maybe we should look at efficiencies within the organization, and I can go on and on, but I don't have time. Okay, is the city using data and facts to drive budget discussions? So in the pool survey, we spent 20 grand on that, and 51% had general opposition to a tax increase. That's what your survey said. Also, community priorities, 83% recommended street maintenance as a top priority. Two years to fix a curb, priorities. Robotic lawnmowers, you talked about those. They're really cool. But has anybody done an ROI on that? Have you? What was the percent?

Sir, please address your comments to the commission. Thank you.

All right, no worries. So has anybody done an RI? A quick look would be what was the employment of Parks and Rec in 2025 versus what was employment in 2026?

Okay. So. Thank you. And please sign in at the podium.

Can I come back and talk about my third topic in this discussion?

Is there anyone else who would like to make any remarks? Seeing none, we will close public comment and move on to the first item this evening, which is approval of our consent agenda. Commissioners, are there any items you wish to have removed from the agenda for additional discussion?

I wish to remove 2A, 2B, and 2C.

Andrew May asked, do you have... basic questions of these that staff can respond to such that they might not need to be discussed in great depth?

We probably need to talk about it.

All right. Do we have a motion, please?

I'd move we approve the consent agenda without items A, B, or C on it and consider those later.

Mayor, before we do the roll, we need to take a public comment on the consent agenda excluding 2A, B, and C. Is there anyone who would like to make public comment on the consent agenda excluding the first three items?

We'll close public comment. Chelsea, will you call the roll, please?

Commissioner Mercola? Yes. Commissioner Fox? Yes. Commissioner Morrison?

Yes.

Commissioner von Lentl? Yes. Mayor Adamczak? Yes. Motion carries 5 to 0.

All right. Andrew, your comments regarding item 2A?

So this would go for all three. But for 2A, my suggestion is that instead of it being general funds to pay for this, I would prefer to use the transient guest tax.

Andrew we're approving the minutes there's something in the minutes you had questions about no sorry okay I'm jumping ahead thank you we'll need to take public comment on the minutes can you inform us what the correction was

Yeah, Chelsea had an extra sentence in there, and she caught it, and she deleted it.

Okay, my error is this. I said 2A, B, and C. I meant to say F, 2A, B, and C. That was what my mistake is.

Well, we've already approved that part of the agenda, so I'm sorry we're not able to discuss that.

My mistake.

Is there any public comment on approval of the minutes from the Tuesday, June 16th meeting? Seeing no public comment, do we have a motion to approve the minutes of that meeting?

So moved.

Second. Chelsea.

Commissioner Fox?

Yes.

Commissioner Morrison?

Yes.

Commissioner von Lentel?

Yes.

Thank you. Mayor Adamczak?

Yes.

Commissioner McCullough? Yeah. Motion carries five to zero.

Thank you. Mayor, at this point, I would move that we approve consideration of B and C. Second.

Is there any public comment on items B and C, which pertain to paying claims register and approving several licenses? Seeing none, we will call the roll, please.

Commissioner Morrison? Yes. Commissioner von Lentl? Yes. Mayor Adamczak?

Yes.

Commissioner McCulloch? Yes. Commissioner Fox? Yes. Motion carries 5 to 0.

Thank you. We will now move on to our general agenda. We have one item this evening, which is to consider approving resolution number 070726B regarding the City Commission's intent to levy a property tax exceeding the revenue neutral rate and setting a public hearing regarding its intention to exceed the revenue neutral rate on September 15th, 2026 at 6 p.m. in this room at City Hall.

one on 1101 points avenue manhattan kansas and we will have a presentation yeah thank you mayor adam track and commissioners again this is a very detailed resolution that i won't read through again but tonight the action that you are taking is setting your intent to exceed that revenue neutral rate would be which would be approximately 51 mils and also setting a ceiling or a maximum mill levy that you are not going to exceed which is proposed to be that 54.5 that was presented during the recommended budget last week What you are not doing tonight is adopting the budget. What you are not doing tonight is setting the mill levy. You are simply setting a public hearing for September 15th. And we are preparing to bring back additional mill levy analysis based on the comments that were made last week. more in-depth conversation about the bond and interest fund as well as our debt schedule that we have. Additionally, we will be bringing back information regarding that sales tax renewal question that we have next week. Happy to stand for any questions. Commissioners?

Thank you. I'll start. I would consider that rather than taking action tonight on this, that we table it and that we schedule a public discussion led by somebody, you, which would be appropriate on discussing the ways and nots and ins and outs of a budget and how we're getting to where we're needing to be. I think if we just arbitrarily pick a number tonight as a goal and wait till the 15th of September, we will not have answered questions that I have and I think a number of people have.

Commissioner Morrison, we are bringing back additional scenarios to represent the conversations that we've had about the mill levy analysis that you all asked for last week. And so we will be bringing those back for discussion next week. So you won't be, you will have that opportunity to discuss the reason we need to go ahead and

set this hearing tonight is that we need to publish notice and it we have at least 30 days notice that is required so we need to make sure that we get that done is it 30 or 45 days we owe the county this resolution by july 15th but basically by the end of this next week so it's a notice on the revenue neutral rate alone you actually set another hearing in August for September 15th in regard to the budget. In numerous years, cities publish two different budgets the same hearing because the state requires us to take action on this revenue neutral rate at this point in time it is a notice back to the public that the county will send of your intent to exceed the revenue neutral rate we are required during this action to identify a mill rate it is a cap but you have to take this action tonight

Could I just point out too that in years past we have published one and we have come down in the next two months. We knew to do it at a certain level, but we also knew we needed more information and more flexibility. And so we can't go up after tonight, but we certainly can go down. And I think it's really important if you look back and you see mill rates and you see six years ago, five, four years ago, the mill rate was definitely lower. They even lowered it four mills in 23, but they also plugged the gap with COVID dollars. So to get a realistic picture of what we were spending in 20, 21, 22, 23, you'd have to kind of look at that too, to really see where the mill levy without the COVID, if it hadn't used COVID dollars, where it would have gone.

And just to emphasize the point that Commissioner McCullough is making, last year the commission set their maximum at 56 and they ended up coming in at 54. So again, this does not set the mill levy. This is just letting them know we do not plan to go any higher than keeping the mill levy flat from what it was in 2026.

And therein lies the issue. My experience in life is when you set a lid, is that the maximum you think you can do you don't have much incentive to take a look at going down i'd be much more comfortable either not setting that limit tonight scheduling another special meeting or meeting what we have to do so we can have a discussion between ourselves what are we willing to live with i understand the 51 isn't going to cut it i do understand the revenue neutral at 50 But 54 isn't reasonable either where we're taking 100% advantage of the 6% increase that we can't track. So I'm not willing to vote for the 54 mill levy today for our revenue neutral number with the promise that we will come down, can come down, or might come down.

Just a reiteration, last year it was set at 56 and it was finally adopted at 54.

As one person once said, past performance is no evidence of future performance.

So I would just say I do not agree with approving the revenue neutral mill levy of 51056 in the proposed resolution because we have not been presented a budget that would result from that mill levy reduction. So we have no idea of its impact on the residents of the city. If it's a terrible impact and we don't like it, we can't change it if we approve this resolution tonight. As much as I'd like to lower the mill levy to that level, I think it's irresponsible to establish that mill levy without first knowing the repercussions of that decision. One of the biggest challenges we have to deal with is the increased debt service resulting from previous Commission's decisions to build facilities and pay for them with debt and ad valorem taxes. Just last year, we finally started paying for the Douglas Recreation Center to the tune of $550,000 a year. This year, we're starting to pay for the joint maintenance facility and two phases of the North Campus corridor. The joint maintenance facility's costing us $1,743,000, the other $1,003,000. So that's $3 million of new debt service this year we're paying for. Next year, 27, we start paying for the Aggieville parking garage at $1,005,000 a year and another phase of North Campus. at five hundred and sixty so that's two million dollars of new debt service next year that we pay so in three years five point seven million dollars and we have a lot more temporary debt that's going to be converted to long-term debt in the next few years given this new debt service and the projected additional debt service in the coming years our focus needs to be salvaging the bond and interest fund Up through 2025, the fund was realizing healthy surpluses each year to support our positive bond rating. The 2026 budget provides for a $3.37 million loss. That can't continue. I do not support holding the mill levy flat. The tax base has increased by $50 million. or 6.75% and we have agreed to increase the Evergy and Kansas gas service franchise fees by 2% and use that money for the bond and interest. Those two increases plus a couple of other additional income line items to the fund allow us to make significant progress in salvaging that bond and interest fund and still reduce the mill levy. I urge the commission to approve the resolution tonight so that we can continue our discussions about the appropriate mill levy. If approved, I then highly suggest that city staff develop three possible budgets for the commission to consider. One budget utilizing the revenue neutral mill levy 51056. One budget utilizing a mill levy in the middle, say 52 and a half. And one budget with the existing mill levy of 54506. The two budgets with the reduced mill levy can then clearly describe to us and the public exactly what services, if any, will need to be cut because of the reduced mill levy. Thank you.

Larry, thank you. Commissioner Fox, thank you for that statement. I just want to make clear in terms of semantics that Danielle has been participating using the term maintaining a flat budget, you are stating that you would not support the mill levy at 51.056, which would be the revenue neutral

I might support the lower one. I won't support the higher one. I won't support the 54-506.

Well, depending on the data that you just requested of looking at three different budgets. You just asked for that information. I don't think you'd want to dismiss it.

Larry, I'm confused. So where do you want it?

What I heard Commissioner Fox asked for, if I could please jump in, Commissioner Fox, if I misinterpreted. I think what Commissioner Fox has asked for is to be able to compare three different scenarios. That first scenario being the recommended budget, which is maintaining a flat mill levy at 54.506. The second scenario would be closer to that revenue neutral rate of 51 mils around in that area. And then something in between, which would be

what does it look like if we reduced between one and two mills so a middle ground scenario well put thank you very good thank you and Commissioner Fox I also appreciate your focus on our long-term debt and the need to address that with the reductions that were incurred by previous commissions, we find ourselves in the position we do now. And while several other commissions have kicked to the can down the road, I appreciate very much your willingness to face this head on and see what we can do.

I'm still confused as to what you want, where you want the publicist.

My understanding is that Larry would like us to approve this resolution with 54.506. Okay.

Thank you. Sorry, I just.

Andrew, would you like to make a comment?

I don't think we're going to go to 54.506, so I don't know why we need to put it in, why we need to do a revenue neutral break to, I would just do it lower. I would do it 53 is where I would be at.

Andrew, based on what information? Considering that you're saying you have not yet received enough information from the budget to make a, you're just being arbitrary. You're picking a number out of the hat.

I mean, I really want to be a revenue neutral, but, you know, for a compromise, I'm going, saying 53.

So we're not establishing a mill levy tonight. Correct. All we're doing is saying, We're not gonna do the 51.506, at least at this point. We may do it in the future, I don't know. And we might go up to 54.5, but probably not.

Commissioners, I had an opportunity this week to observe our colleagues at the county discussing their budget as part of their preparation for their revenue neutral announcement. And they are in the position, They've lowered the mill levy for the county portion from 43.08 to 37.99 over the course of six years. They're in the position now where they were talking about no longer maintaining Fairmont Park, cutting services from the health department, and moving $5 million from reserves into their general operating fund because they have so dramatically cut the mill levy over these last several years. My recommendation would be to follow Larry's suggestion of approving this resolution tonight, studying the data that we are presented with, with these three scenarios that have been proposed, and seeing where that leads us.

Could I just suggest that we go ahead with Larry's suggestion but then after we vote on it we explain to Danielle what exactly we would like to see from her because I've spent the week off and on with all the numbers and looking back at the 25 what came out at 2025, you know, at the end of the year. And I think we just need a lot more information, quite frankly. But I do think we should go at 54 just because we don't know what it is that we're gonna be asked to do. And we have in the past gone down. So, you know, we're not stuck there.

The only merit I see to Larry's is if we get the three budgeting, we can at least see what we're spending In my life, when I run out of money, I quit spending, and I haven't seen yet emphasis on how we are going to control spending. We don't have total control. We've got debt. We don't control debt. We bought into it over the last 20 years, 15 years, whatever, so we have to live with it. But if we've got debt we have to deal with, we have figured out how to pay for it, and automatically raising property taxes and other taxes is not necessarily an intelligent scenario. So I think Larry's idea of requesting those three, why do we give up if it stays neutral? I'm not agreeable quite to Andrew's 53 yet. I think there's something that we can live with that does make progress on debt and our responsibilities. We do have the second elephant on the whole issue, and that's our sales tax. It's going to be critical for this community. We're losing the streets. We complain about the streets, no progress. You aren't gonna ever make any progress in this town if we only put $3 million into the year. I mean, I don't know what Brian's number is, but I think it's six or eight million minimum for the next 10 years. We have all of these other things, and we can't ignore that. I had one lady who lives on one of our famous streets. Truthfully, it's a gravel road. That's not acceptable, but we have that problem, and we have to come up with a scenario, and it may be that we don't do some of the things we think we wanna do now, because one, it doesn't cover the bill for the debt and the other things The only way I can live with Larry's is if we get those three and we can then have a good articulation of what we're willing to do and not do. My number other than 53 would be probably 52 maximum if we have a scenario of accountability for expenditures and debt payment.

Commissioners, I suggest we take public comment at this time.

Yeah, and then I want to come back and follow up on Commissioner McCullough's comment.

I'm sorry, if you'd like to do that now.

We'll do comment first.

Is there public comment on this item?

Amber Starling, 408 Houston Street. I read the executive summary. It says that maintaining a mill levy could generate an additional $2.7 million in revenue from growth in the community, which I found rather interesting. I think that the premise of the argument may be false. We may have grown in property value, but we have not grown in the number of taxpayers. The Kansas Division of Budget just published its 2025 certified Kansas population by county that showed the city of Manhattan at a loss of 27 residents. So what we're talking about doing is taking an extra $2.7 million from the same number of people. That's a 6.76% increase and inflation over this past year has been at 2.66%. So that goes far above inflation. I know that what you guys are gonna end up doing is shooting high and then coming down lower later. I would like that later to be sooner rather than later because I have other things to do. I have a house to fix. I have a baby bird to raise. We have a data center trying to go into Pott County. I have a business to run. We don't want to be here. talking about this. We had three commissioners, one, two, three, that ran on the promise of stabilizing or lowering the budget. We do not need more public meetings. We need at least three spines.

Is there anyone else who would like to make comment on this item? All right, we will close public comment.

I'd just like to say inflation in June was up 4.2%, and you want your curb fixed, and I wish I could fix it for you. But the cost of cement, the cost of diesel, the cost of everything it takes to fix roads and bridges and that kind of thing is up significantly. And just to be able to do what we're doing now, we're going to need a few more dollars in that fund. So I would hope we could put it at 54 and then be reasonable and find some ways to slim it down some. But quite frankly, it takes money to run our government. And I think there's this misconception that we have all these extra funds going into things that are just thrills. Most of our money goes into running city government efficiently. And You know, if you can find a bunch of fat, then let us know. But I've been around an awful lot of budgets and I think, quite frankly, the counties, they're gonna be sorry if they go down that because they're gonna have to come back up.

So I want to follow up a little bit on what you all are going to be expecting or anticipating when we bring back these three scenarios. The presentation that we have presented last week is very high level, and I understand that there is a desire for more budget details. So we have pulled together those budgeted, those budget detail sheets for you all. Do appreciate your patience on that. We had hoped to have them for you, but with our new system, we are still negotiating and working with that. It is very tedious to go through 43 pages of detailed sheets, line item by line item for not only each of our funds, each of our cost centers, each of our divisions. And so I would like to be able to provide those budget detail sheets for you as they are presented, as they are compiled now. I will come back to you all. With what the service impacts will be if we do go to a lower mill rate But I do not plan to put together for you all and have go through Rena what is it tens of thousands of line items and adjusting each and every one of those to in printing all those and compiling all those just to have you try to track down and where we have massaged a number here or there. So we will be looking for big changes. But we will get those first round of budget details to you. We owe you that and you deserve that. And so we will do that. But when we talk about what a budget will look like, a budget scenario that will look like with 51 mills or 52 or 53, we will be talking about service impacts broadly versus details, if that is okay with all of you. Okay.

Danielle, I think that people and the commissioners are asking for more detail. And, you know, I've asked you for a CIP.

Your CIP is coming next week, too.

Well, you know, it's kind of hard to figure where we want the mill levy if I haven't seen the CIP. And I want to see the CIP out. You know, we've got all these fire department things coming on. So I want to see the CIP out to 2029, 2030 if we're going to have, you know, another fire engine that we have to think about.

We're preparing. That'll be in your budget folder too.

I do think we have in the past received those line item budgets. And they're on the, you know, there used to be a book that was.

Yep. You're getting it. You're getting it. I'm just asking if we can just produce that for you one time versus going in with three different scenarios for each of those line items.

I don't think we're looking for the minute details on each line item. We're looking for the eight or nine or ten line items that make up the general fund, say. The parks and rec budget is part of the general fund expense. The fire department, those major line items. And if we have to cut parks and rec 10%, To get down to 51? That's what we need to know.

See, I don't want us to cut Park and Rex.

Well, we need to know if it's going to be 51, where's it being cut? What's not getting funded?

I need to know what Park and Rex is responsible for. As I understand, they're now responsible for building maintenance. And so what kind of a chunk is that? And I get really confused with the money coming into admin and going out of admin. You know, we have all these other sources, you know, the Sewell bill and that kind of thing have admin overhead. I mean, I think it needs to be clearer. And, you know, like the cash balance at the end of last year was 25 million. That's what we published. that we, in February, when we had a report on that. So, you know, where are we and how much do we need? And I know we don't, we have to keep a very decent cash balance for our bond rating, which is very important, but it's just the number of things that I'd kind of like to know where we are.

I can be specific. On one particular expense, the Bond and Interest Fund, I think the expense went this year from $19 million to next year $27 million. It seemed like a huge increase when I have done the debt service calculations, and I only see $2 or $3 million a year increasing. So where's the $8 million? Yeah, where's the... $8 million, a huge increase in one year coming from.

The $5 million in the bonded interest, Rena, can you tell me what bond payments are coming on? Thank you.

I would also say one thing I notice a lot in our budgeting, budget versus actual, is a lot of times we budget for revenue and we make a lot more than we budgeted for. Or we budget for expenses that we end up spending a lot less than we budgeted for. Which is good. It's good to spend less than you budget for, but we don't seem to take those into account sometimes, at least in my opinion. We budget for next year off this year's budget versus actual.

we're talking about revenues um so and and that is one of the challenges that we face as we are starting to put together you know we start working on our budget numbers and putting together our budgets in in march because we have to give a certified uh you know we have to certify and give our numbers to the county in in september so we start working when we are only one quarter into the year So that is a challenge that we face, all cities face, knowing that we really only have half a year of implementation.

Any organization faces that. Do what? Any organization faces that. You're budgeting for next year based on the first five or six months of this year.

Yeah. So and so when we start, we start with the first right. We started talking about budget in January when we didn't have any numbers that were in yet. And so and just trying to project where we were going to be. And it's so right. When we first talked in January, we were anticipating what our property assessed valuation was going to increase. And we were basing it off the year before, which was three and a half. And here we are. We come in and it ends up being six or seven. But we don't know that until June. So that's one of those challenges that we face. One of the other, just kind of talking through what our budgeted expenses are. When I first came here in 2024, our budgeted expenditures were at 44 million for the general fund. And so, however, the budgeted revenues were closer to that $36 million number. So even though the expenditures were at 44, management had to make those decisions to tell department directors, we have to wait until revenues are coming in because there's no way we're actually going to bring in $44 million. So since I came here, one of the things that I've been tasked for is bringing our expenditures in line with our revenues. And that is something that I have really tried to work on and work with department directors on and work with our team at Baker Tilly and our finance department on how can we try to more accurately forecast our revenues, but also being realistic about those expenditures that we have rather than just saying we're gonna budget for them and we'll just cut back during the year. in order to be transparent to our community and to provide clarity for our community, those numbers really need to be in line. And so that is something particularly with the general fund that I have been trying to work towards. And so again, one of the conversations that I've tried to kind of point out here. So in 2024, our actuals was 36 and a half. Again, in 2025, our actuals was 36 and a half. We budgeted 38 in 2026. And we did end up bringing in about 38 in 2025 in revenue. So we were about a million and a half over. But again, when you look at a total of a $38 million budget, that's about a 3%, 4% margin of error. And so again, when we're looking at this 2026, budget compared to where we're at in 2027, we are really only looking at that 1.7% increase. So I appreciate your comments, Commissioner Fox, and I want you to know that that's something I'm diligently working on is bringing our expenditures in line with revenues.

And I appreciate your comments. I mean, that is your job. We budget. You try to keep within the budget, not go over. You know, I think you're doing a good job. Thank you. Appreciate it.

So, okay. if we only know these numbers, is we haven't really put our imprint on what we think is important and what should be kept. Cutting everything 10%, Maybe there are programs that I don't want to be cut 10%. I want to see them increase 10% if I don't know what makes up. And I don't want to pick on Park and Rex because I really support Park and Rex. But they've gone from 7.5 million in 21 to 11.6 million last year. And I think they've taken on more tasks. And I need to know that kind of information to see if that's a fair and reasonable thing. I looked at the 2021 thing, that's where I got the 7.5. What is their responsibility and should some of those things be their responsibility?

But if not there. Well, I don't know if you can budget.

If not there, then who should they be?

I don't think we can budget program by program by program on what goes up and what goes down.

No, but if we see the CIP and we see which funds are supposed to pay for what and we see a giant amount for carpeting the city hall and it's under park and recs, then we know perhaps that's something we should ask them to wait another two years on, right?

I appreciate those comments Commissioner McCullough and we will have that CIP brought forward to you for you all to take a look at really how we you know those CIP projects while they do fall under certain departments really where our focus is on how they're being funded and so It's more when we talk about those CIPs, for example this year We are planning to transfer seven hundred thousand dollars from general fund to our CIP fund. So when we do look at that CIP plan that's before you, it might fall under a parks or it might fall under public works, but I hope we can really focus on the funding source. So if it's under the general fund or if it's under water or if it's under special street and highway or if it's being funded by special alcohol tax.

So yeah.

Good evening, mayor and commissioners regarding our debt service. Um, from 2025, 26 and 27. So in 2025 we paid about 18.7 or $18.8 million in debt service. In 2025 we added quite a few projects. Um, there were some special assessment projects that went on a water line. Um, our joint maintenance facility that was mentioned North campus corridor, some two improvements related to that, some water line improvements, Little Kenton, Plymouth, and so those interest payments went on in 2025, and then their full debt service went on in 2026. So of those, that debt service was $4.2 million that got added. And then there's drop-off as well. So then in 2026, we just issued bonds, and so those bonds were for... Sorry, my spreadsheet is small. Another North Campus corridor phase, the reconstruct runway, city share, water booster station, 12th and Laramie, and then the Aggieville garage. And so the interest payments will be due for that debt in the fall. And that is roughly half a million dollars. But the debt service for that is, for those projects is $1,000,000. 3.224 so over the next from 2025 for 2026 and 2027 that's about a seven and a half million dollar increase in debt service payments a lot of those that new debt should be paid for by some of the special

Revenue funds, water, sewer.

Yes, sir. But in terms of debt services paid from the bond and interest fund and we transfer money in.

That's what we're all trying to figure out. What truly is the ad valorem tax paying for versus water, sewer?

Currently, the Avalon tax is at .664 mil, so it's not really paying for much of anything. I know.

I understand that.

Okay.

But we're trying to figure out where it should be.

Yes, sir. I agree 100% with Larry. It's giving me a headache.

It gives me a headache, too. It's a lot.

It's complicated.

It is complicated, and I do think it would help if people understood what makes up that debt. Some of it specials on people's houses. A lot of it is. Yeah, a lot of it is, and a lot of it has direct revenue streams that go to it, you know, sewer, water, that kind of thing. So I think that's what people need to see, that we're not just getting in debt you know, without having established streams of revenue for it.

Thank you, Rena. I will share with you all we were sitting down with our debt spreadsheet today. And when we did identify where our debt was by funding source in 2027, that is about general fund is response or bond and interest fund. which does not have any other dedicated source, so not water, not specials, not special street and highway, but that bond and interest fund. When we sat down with Commissioner Von Lintel and we went through that spreadsheet today, it was 7.6 million. That was in 2027. That only has primarily bond and interest funds dedicated to it. So we will bring that back to you all next week and go over that in additional detail.

And I eagerly await that spreadsheet when it's, or the Excel spreadsheet when it's done. So that'll be good.

We will get that printed to PDF and share it as soon as we get it finalized.

Commissioners, I'd like to make a motion that we approve resolution number 070726B. regarding the governing body's intent to levy a property tax exceeding the revenue neutral rate and setting a public hearing related thereto. Do we have, is there a second?

Second.

Chelsea, will you call the roll, please?

Commissioner Von Lintel?

No.

Mayor Adamczak?

Yes.

Commissioner McCullough? Yes. Commissioner Fox? Yes. Commissioner Morrison?

No.

Motion carries three to two.

Do we have a motion to adjourn?

I move we adjourn.