City Commission - Special Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the July 14th, 2026 meeting of the Manhattan City Commission. We are having a special meeting this evening. Chelsea, will you please call the roll?

Mayor Adamczak.

Here.

Commissioner McCullough. Yes. Commissioner Fox. Here. Commissioner Morrison.

Here.

Commissioner Von Lintel.

Here.

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

Thank you. Will you rise and join me in 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.

All right. In a little bit of Groundhog Day, we are starting this meeting with considering approving a resolution regarding The City Commission's intent to levy a property tax exceeding the revenue neutral rate. Apologies. Intent to levy a property tax exceeding the revenue neutral rate, setting a public hearing regarding its intention to exceed the revenue neutral rate on September 15th, 2026 at 6 p.m. at City Hall. 1101 points Avenue, Manhattan, Kansas and repealing resolution number zero seven zero seven two six B We'll have a presentation by our city manager Danielle Doolin Yeah, Thank You mayor city commissioners

When we went, you know, we had a very fruitful meeting last Tuesday when we discussed this resolution the first time and appreciate the feedback that we received from the commissioners. When we went back to our desks on Wednesday morning to start working through the charge that you all gave us, we were trying to get some additional information from the county appraiser's office. And through that discussion and those exchanges we had, we realized that the county appraiser's office had included the downtown TIF in the assessed valuation and that is one year too early. So we have to adjust that assessed valuation. So instead of being about a 6.7% increase, the increase in assessed valuation is now 4.4%. What that does to our revenue neutral rate is instead of being 51.056, our new revenue neutral rate is 52.210. So we need to, like the mayor read, we need to repeal the resolution we passed last week and we need to adopt this revised resolution that would say that we plan to exceed the 52.210, but we will not exceed 54.506. Staff has prepared those different scenarios that you all charged us with. However, those numbers look very different just because of the difference in assessed valuation and we will be going through those after you have your first work session item. I'm happy to answer any questions you all may have. Okay.

Doesn't look any better, does it?

It did not make it look better, Commissioner Morrison. It definitely changed the budgeting approach that staff had and that recommendation that we had to take advantage of the savings that we saw with the Riley County Police Department and that increase in assessed valuation and plugging those funds into any of those additional revenues into our bond and interest funds. So very similar conversation, just a continuation, but we will dive into that a little bit deeper later at this meeting, looking at those debt numbers and what we need to do as far as stabilizing that bond and interest fund with Mills and with sales tax.

So I'll go ahead and make the comment now that I've discussed with you. I've been through this 85 to 90 pages of proposed budget. And I've come up with a couple of modifications that in my mind would get us down to that revenue neutral mill levy. However, that is subject to increasing the franchise fees that we have talked about in past meetings from 4% to 6%. Now, we have not agreed to do that yet, officially, so I don't really want to go out on a limb and bet the farm that we're going to approve those sometime down the road. I'm gonna be supporting the resolution tonight, but knowing that once we approve those, I have a budget that gets us actually a little less than 52.2

one so just just a couple of minor changes I appreciate that Commissioner Fox and we can certainly we have additional analysis to provide you this evening additional conversations to have with you all this evening and we have another work session scheduled for August 11th to continue working on these budget numbers and continue getting additional information for you all to make decisions when you finally adopt on

september 15th still a lot more information and conversations to be had uh one thing i was looking at was the eco devo 4.6 million um so what i'm wondering is like what's staff's recommendation for using that money and why can't we use it for the bond and interest fund in 2027.

Sure, I think that is a really good conversation that we can follow up on, but does not necessarily relate to the resolution that is in front of you right now. And after we pass this resolution, I will go back to my desk over here. And like I said, we have a lot of additional information to share with you this evening. And I think that's a good conversation point for our second discussion item tonight.

would just add to that Danielle we we all have a number of things we'd like to bring up and I think that's for item 3 on our agenda tonight and I would just like to move that we approve resolution 0714268 and to Regarding the city commission didn't tend to levy a property tax exceeding the revenue neutral rate and setting the public hearing on September 15th at 6 o'clock at the City Hall and Repealing resolution number 0 7 0 7 2 6 B and then we could get started from scratch on the on the budget.

Thank you Do we have a second on Karen's motion second? Thank you. Pardon me before we vote that if we could request public comments. Yes I have my sign. Do we have public comment on this item regarding repealing the resolution we passed last week and coming forward with a revised resolution?

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Gary Oles. I live at 3308 Frontier Circle. I just wanted to give you some information that may not ever apply, but I just wanted to let you know. Two years ago, last year, previously Junction City published a notice that they were going to exceed it, and then they actually did not exceed it. They went to revenue neutral. and they canceled the public hearing. So if by chance, and they said it's statutorily allowed because they were at revenue neutral. Just by chance, if you do hit revenue neutral, actually, from what I understand, at least according to the other side of the river, you actually don't have to have the public hearing. Thank you.

Chelsea, is there anyone else who would like to make public comment? Seeing no one approach, we will close public comment. Chelsea, will you call the roll, please?

Commissioner McCullough? Yes. Commissioner Fox?

Yes.

Commissioner Morrison?

No.

Commissioner von Lentl?

No.

Mayor Adamczak?

Yes.

Motion carries, 3 to 2.

Thank you. We'll move on to the second item on our agenda tonight, moving into our work session. This pertains to a newly proposed subdivision and the potential request for workforce housing sales tax.

Good evening, Stephanie Peterson, Director of Planning and Development. I'm going to introduce this item for you this evening, give a little bit of context, and then I will turn it over to Craig and Lindsay Laupe for them to walk through the presentation that was attached to your agenda item summary. What we're seeking tonight is some feedback from the five of you on using workforce housing sales tax in a new subdivision. The subdivision is proposed to use a benefit district to pay for public infrastructure, as I think, if not all, most of our subdivisions do today. And the developers are proposing, and they'll speak more to this, they're proposing to utilize the workforce housing sales tax to pay back Or to help pay for the special assessments that homeowners would typically have to pay So the workforce housing sales tax dollars would go to benefit the homeowners Not necessarily back to the developer There is a, you have four housing policies. One of those housing policies is for reinvestment housing incentive districts, or RHID. RHID was envisioned to be utilized in this way, where in a new subdivision, the RHID revenue could go towards paying for those special assessments. However, the RHID that was tried to be passed a couple years ago, that was unsuccessful. And the county actually, Riley County actually wrote into their policy that they do not want to use the RHID tool for greenfield subdivisions or for paying for infrastructure. So that really limits us in the tools we have available. Which brings us to the workforce housing request that the developers will go through this evening. As you know, we are working right now to update our workforce housing sales tax policy So tonight we would like to not only get feedback on their specific project, but if this is something that you want to see worked into that policy, do you want to see workforce housing sales tax dollars being used to help future homeowners pay down those special assessments. Of course, given the feedback that you guys have provided, there could be a restriction on what that home price is. There could be some sort of threshold there in making sure that that benefit is going back to the homeowner rather than to the developer, which I know you've provided some feedback before on that. So with that, I would ask for the developers to come up this evening and to walk through their presentation. Okay, yep, I was going to write it before that if there's any questions.

First of all, I mean, I'm not sure I'm for it or against it, although I'm in favor of trying to do something, but any guess what specials would be and any guess of what the request is for dollars out of the sales tax fund?

I'll allow for them to walk through their projects. We haven't been presented with any specifics at this point. It's really, the request this evening is if you're interested in this type of project and this philosophy, we would work further with the developers to kind of put together that proposal with all those numbers.

Well, what that number is, it starts to change my attitude, yes or no. I'm sure it does.

Are there any other questions for me on either the policy or the direction that we're looking for this evening? And then after they're done, I'm happy to come back up if there's any additional questions that you have for staff.

OK. Thank you, Stephanie.

Good evening.

Good evening, Mayor, city commissioners. My name is Lindsay Laupe. We are here to talk to you tonight about Halcyon Park, a potential greenfield subdivision in Manhattan. I am co-owner of New Place Development and co-owner and designer of Gray Lane Homes. I was born in Manhattan, raised in Manhattan, We are raising our family here in Manhattan and I'm excited to be here with you tonight. I enjoy creating meaningful spaces for people and multiple projects of ours have won infill and interior awards from the Manhattan Riley County Preservation Alliance and I'm also an accredited professional member of the Congress of New Urbanism.

And my name is Craig Laupe. I am also co-owner of New Place. Would you like me to yell, sir? Or do you want me to use my coaching voice, sir? All right. All right, I'm more than happy to speak up. My name is Craig Laupe. I'm also the co-owner of New Place Development in Gray Lane Homes. And Gray Lane Homes is where I do hold my general contractor's license. So I am also a general contractor in the city limits of Manhattan and the state of Kansas. I also am an owner of Cobalt Real Estate Management, which is a residential real estate management company. that does fee management, and also we do manage 15 homeowner associations in the city limits of Manhattan. I also own Titanium Pain Construction, which is another construction company that offers residential remodeling, maintenance, and painting services, and I also own Copper Hill Clean. So the goal tonight is to gain feedback on utilizing workforce housing sales tax funds to be contributed to specials for the end consumer for a cottage core in a greenfield development that also utilizes a benefit district.

So the first slide you're going to see tonight is the overall subdivision that features the 36 lots of the benefit district. Those lots fall into two different categories. 16 of those are the single-family home cottage court lots and then the other 20 are single-family home lots These are located in the southwest Manhattan region on the next slide when we get to the workforce housing sales tax We will talk more about the cottage courts, but right now I'm going to focus on the single-family home lots These are in the top left Of the image kind of that perimeter all the way down to the bottom left These are not going to be part of the workforce housing sales tax request But they would be part of the benefit district because land development would occur concurrently the square footage of these homes would range from 972 square feet to 1950 square feet they'd primarily be three three or four bedrooms two to three bathrooms probably mostly two stories where The cottage court would be more of a single story layout, but those floor plans would also be allowed on these lots. The anticipated for sale price range would be 300,000 plus on these lots. One thing that's not on here that I think is important to note, a sale price of 308,000 still falls at the 110% AMI range, worth $336,000. falls at the 120% AMI range. So although we're not asking for workforce housing sales tax dollars in that request, it still is within your community's workforce housing sales tax brackets.

Lindsay, can I just ask a point of clarification for both the cottage court and the single family homes? I presume they all have garages?

Some of them will some of them won't that kind of gets into the very price point of the projects So are the the square footages that you're showing here does that exclude or include? The upper range can include it the upper range of the cottage court homes the 1150 that includes a attached garage single-car garage For the workforce housing sales tax request, these are noted on the aerial of the houses that are sketched and platted in that cottage court surrounding the central green space. These would be for home ownership and primary residency. The square footage of these homes would range from 972 square feet to 1,150 square feet. These would primarily be two bedrooms, two bathrooms, single story. The anticipated for sale price range of these is $265,000 to $275,000 or 90% AMI. Our requests for feedback tonight, and again, this is not a formal application, but we're gauging your feedback on funds to use to pay to help offset or avoid the homeowners having to pay specials. This is not a request that would go to us. This is to go for the infrastructure for the future homeowners. Um, so here we have a Singapore floor plan financial estimate that we ran for you guys, um, with three different scenarios. This features a two bedroom, two bathroom, 972 square foot cottage home. Um, we were able to calculate the sale price. We actually just got back our RFPs. We are building this exact house in a neighboring community in the fall. We are not currently able to find anywhere to build it in Manhattan. Any greenfield lots it doesn't meet the typical covenants and bylaws. It's too small So the only way we would be able to build it is if we were to find an infill lot so scenario a Focuses on no workforce housing sales tax, but with the benefit district. This is kind of the typical Mechanism you see for greenfield development in Manhattan currently and the ones that the single-family home lots those other 20 would follow and So zero workforce housing sales tax dollars were awarded and the sale price is $270,000. By the time we take out principal taxes, insurance and all that, they would still have to pay their $167 in specials, and that would make that estimated monthly homeowner payment of $2279.43. Below that scenario, I included it's kind of blurry on here. My apologies. The local tax jurisdictions that they would get from the sale price of that home. Scenario B is no workforce housing sales tax dollars awarded and no benefit district without the benefit district We have to roll over the cost of the infrastructure into the cost of the lot Which affects the builders input cost and then raises the sale price of the home so that would raise that price of that exact same home to three hundred and ten thousand dollars and although that owner would not have monthly specials taken out and Their estimated monthly payment would be $2,429.16. Scenario C is the workforce housing sales tax dollars awarded for the 16 cottage courts as well as a benefit district. If that $40,000 is able to go and pay off the infrastructure cost, the sale price of the home could say $270,000. They would not have the monthly specials and their estimated payment would be the lowest of the three scenarios. at $2,112.43. So taking these different housing tools and how they are used affects the end consumers or the future homeowners monthly payments that they would have to pay for the exact same product. Scenario B would cost the homeowner over a year's time, $3,876 for the exact same home, where scenario A over scenario C cost them over $2,000 a year.

So our goal tonight.

Sorry, I'm going to Commissioner Morrison's question. So are you testing the waters here tonight to request a workforce housing sales tax amount of 40,000 per each of the 16 units?

That's a great question. So we are at the stage of the project where we're trying to get feedback on how we should proceed forward. We're kind of at the stages where we're ready to kick off the scopes of work. How we came up with that $40,000 is we took the last couple of developments that have been bonded and we assigned them a lineal square foot price based on the lot width. We took that lineal square foot price and we averaged it out between those and then we applied that to a lineal cost per a Cost for the lineal width of our lots and that's where we came up with the $40,000. So again that figures very nuanced We really can't answer to the infrastructure costs based on detention retention stormwater. That's so site-specific We're just at that stage where we're trying to kick that off and we're just seeking feedback tonight on this is how you want to use those tools for this type of development so we really tried to be specific but unfortunately this is the formula we could come up with for tonight so ballpark estimate would be a potential request of six hundred forty thousand correct

So, again, our goal tonight is for feedback of utilizing workforce sales tax funds to contribute to the specials for a cottage court in a greenfield development that also utilizes a benefit district. This project fits the commissioner's desired for sales price points, desired AMI ranges, and would be the first single-family home workforce sales tax project in Manhattan. We are open for questions and feedback.

Well, since you're involved in a lot of businesses, construction otherwise, have you done any idea of what street sewer and water is going to cost to do this development? Because at $1,400,000, I don't see us spending that kind of money for sales tax credit.

So the past couple that have been bonded, we took those total infrastructure costs and divided them by the number of lots, so the equal share per that lot. and then we assigned it a price per lineal foot. But again, those costs are such project specific, this is what we felt like we could present tonight.

So let's assume that my math is correct and don't assume that, I think it is. If it's 1,400,000, how much do you think is appropriate, if any, that sales tax cover?

I have, again, what Mayor Adam checked, shared was $640,000. That would be the 40,000 times the 16 lots. If I did that correct.

There's 36 lots, aren't there?

So 20 of those we're not seeking workforce housing sales tax for. It's just, do you want to go back to that? It's just the 16 of the cottage courts. So the ones that have the houses sketched on them. The others would be developed at the same time. They would be part of the same benefit district, but they would not be eligible for workforce housing sales tax. Even though those anticipated ranges would fall within the 100 to 120% AMI, we're just trying to present you the houses that would fit in that 90% AMI range.

So in the previous projects we've done, we've committed up to 25,000, but we've gotten 16, 1700 square foot houses, 350, three and a quarter to 350. And at least I've said that that's not my goal for workforce housing supported by taxes. It needs to be something less than in the range you're talking about here, 1,100 down to 1,000. And clearly 25,000 isn't enough to get people to build the smaller houses like that. So I would support, I think you're going in the right direction here. These are the smaller homes that sell for a lower price in the 200,000 range. and I think it's a worthwhile project.

Thank you. We got quite a bit of pushback on the $300,000 homes that we supported before. And I know that people aren't really cognizant of what it costs to build something. I am a little concerned about the density in the parking in that these, you know, if one of those places were to have a party, they'd have to park outside the limit somewhat, and I don't know what neighborhood it might impact.

Karen, Karen, we... We were really trying hard not to get into zoning. You're going to have a complete discussion about that separately. I appreciate where you're going, and I'm sure that neighborhood does, too. Tonight is really about that financial piece. If there's concurrence, this is all coming back from an annexation, zoning, petition, and workforce housing sales tax approach. So we've got a lot of conversations. We've got a lot of people to notice to have that conversation too. Thank you, Jason. Thank you.

And I just keep suggesting that we look at assisting with down payments so that people can... have their first home and sort of get it under their belt. That's just another way of addressing this. But, you know, I think we should go forward with the request, but I do have some zoning issues.

I agree, Karen, with your comment about whether we could be creative and help people with down payments, but I think helping to eliminate or find another source of revenue to cover the specials is one way of having a direct impact on those home buyers that would affect their monthly bottom lines. So I also appreciate that aspect of this. I agree with Karen in that this is a fairly densely developed area. and I will look forward to future conversations about that. Is this the small segment that's in orange, is that a park or community space? What is...

It's to be determined. We've gone back and forth on a couple ideas, whether we break it up into lots, we make it more of a green space, or some other ideas, so we just left it out of the figures tonight for simplicity.

One thing that, you know, given that this is a fairly condensed or dense area, one thing I might throw out, if I can, Jason, is, you know, there are some small communities that do reserve a designated space for visitor parking, and maybe, you know, I don't know all your figures in terms of calculating out how this would be profitable for you, but you might want to consider having a visitor slot in there somewhere.

We are thrilled to be able to bring that to you in the future.

Not that I have any design skills myself, but just a suggestion.

I have a question for staff. I understand most specials are 20-year. Is there some way that we can stagger it 10-year? part of it and the last half they start paying part of it because at some point in time, reality's gonna hit these folks and by then I assume they either are gonna be stable or otherwise, because I'm not sure I'm willing to spend 600,000. On the other hand, if we could do some staggering, are we able to do that in our agreements with them on specials?

let me make sure i'm i'm tracking where you're going 20 years today obviously spreads out the total over that period of time including interest they're asking for workforce housing sales tax dollars to be applied towards annual payments that would per parcel are you suggesting the city pick up more or i mean if you narrow the time frame you're going to increase everybody's costs

My concept was it's 20 years. I understand our Manhattan theory of specials. But that doesn't mean that the city, under the sales tax, would have to pay all of it, either up front or annually as it goes from sales tax. And I'm just saying, can we stagger it? Can we say five years free, 10 years free that we cover? And the last 10, they pay half or a third?

There's ways to structure it like that, yep.

I don't know that we've ever done it, but we can do it if that's the plan.

It would be. There's some consequences of doing that. People may move in five years. People may move in 10. You would be placing that burden back on the 10 through 20 year of that debt. There's ways to look at it, though. I think we can give you some options to react to.

Can you? I'm pleased with the program. Don't get me wrong. It's just that I'm not sure. Sales tax, I would pay $600,000 for it. But on the other hand, to give a boost for homeownership and get them started, I'm willing to do something if we can do other.

I'll just remind you, this is the first. We're halfway through this year, and this is the first request we've had for these funds. Second. Can you tell us, Stephanie, about what the balance is in the workforce housing sales tax?

goodness of course I said I was gonna do that with every presentation it has has not changed from the last time it is over it's like 1.8 million I think it's we have several million that have accumulated the total fund will run out at eight million I think we have over a million in a balance but as far as running it out and giving you a balance you're you're over six million dollars available

So, Jason, you talked about even if we make this grant, we somehow have debt service payments. It's my understanding if we're putting $40,000 into each lot, that's paying for it up front, and there is no debt service on that.

There's an education with specials. People will come in and pay off their specials. That doesn't mean the debt goes away because you have to look at it collectively, and when we place that debt, we never really know who's going to pay off their specials. So we issue that temp note and then we issue the permanent debt before really a lot of the lots are even sold. So we do take that money. We take that property out of the mix in terms of being assessed annually from the specials. But the debt probably has a refunding eight years, maybe 12, before you can actually buy down that debt. We'll hold that revenue. And if the opportunity presents itself, we will buy it down. It is not automatically bought down. We keep that revenue.

You just really made that complicated.

Yeah, I did. You asked a very complex question.

I just wondered if you've ever thought about working with the Manhattan Area Housing Partnership and getting tax credits. They've been quite successful with that. I know it's complicated, it's very complicated, but they have managed to build almost 300 units using those things. They're just finishing up that one on Grand Mirror. Just a thought. Thank you.

Appreciate the feedback.

Craig and Lindsay, I think I can summarize for the commissioners that they are looking at your project positively. Anybody, shake your heads. And so I think our recommendation would be for you to confer with staff about next steps and be prepared to come back before us in a couple of months.

Thank you.

Good luck with this. Thank you. Is there any public comment on this project? All right, seeing no one approach, we will move on to our final and somewhat dense item for this evening, discussion of our debt, mill levy, and possible sales tax renewals. And we will hear again from City Manager Doolin.

So good evening again commissioners. When we had had our conversation last week you all had asked for us to come back with a revenue neutral scenario with a midpoint number as well as the recommended budget. So with the news coming from the county on Friday morning we did spend some time refiguring these numbers and recalculating And so that is what we are prepared to share with you this evening. So I'm going to run through what those mill levy analysis look like. And then Deputy City Manager Hilders is going to run through how that impacts your Bond and interest fund and then we are going to talk about the sales tax renewals really this evening we are expecting and hoping to get a lot of robust conversation and amongst the commissioners particularly on the mill levy analysis where you want us to that mill levy to land and then we can come back with recommendations on what the numbers will look like. And then we also are hopeful that we can have a robust conversation on in direction on where that sales tax renewal you all would like to see the amount, the allocation projects, etc. So we are, as the mayor said, this is a dense conversation this evening, but we are very much looking forward to hearing where you all are at on these conversations. So just a quick reminder, 2026 city commission goals was stabilizing the budget, working on the sales tax renewal, investing in infrastructure and this communication transparency. And then you also talked about housing development tonight. So we are really hitting all of those points this evening. Budget strategy, we had that June 30th budget work session, two revenue neutral rate resolutions, and then tonight we are with our, again, diving in a little bit deeper with this work session. Those conversations that we had when we were putting together the 2027 budget development was creating a structurally balanced budget, mill levy stability, maintaining service levels, addressing our debt issue, and including increases for salaries, and also being able to replace aging equipment and vehicles. You've seen this revenue assumption slide, circled the mill levy, the new assessed valuation from the county, and then diving into these additional scenarios that we put together. So the first one that you have here, and we did print out a paper so you can see them all side by side. I think that that will be helpful. However, to put all of these on one slide in a presentation is very small numbers. So I appreciate the patience on this. but did not make, so if we look at what our new mill levy going from 798,000 to approximately 780,000, that new revenue neutral rate would be 52.210. We did not make any changes to the original recommendation to RCPD, those library funds or the library employee fund. Just as a reminder, we are required statutorily to provide RCPD with their request. The commission does not have any oversight or any input. We are statutorily required to pay that budget requirement amount from RCPD. However, the city commission can set the mill levy for the library. So with the general fund, if we went to a revenue neutral, again, we are lowering to reflect those increases in those franchise fees and using those to pump back into that bond in interest fund. We in our original proposal we had left the employee benefit fund the fire equipment reserve fund the Kansas police and fire fund we had left those at 0 we had left them flat however with the quick turnaround with the new numbers we did not change the budgeted numbers in we just raised that mill levy to leave those numbers flat. So what this would look like in total would be, of course, no increase in property taxes, revenues generated from property taxes. Does anyone have any questions about this revenue neutral rate that is presented? So if we look at the recommended budget, so my recommendation, even with the lowered assessed valuation, would still be to leave the mill levy flat at that 54.506. to be able to capture any increase that we've seen in that assessed valuation and be able to pump that into the bond and interest fund. We know that in a few short years with the additional bond, general obligation bond payments that we have coming on with the reduction that we saw in that mill levy in the bond and interest a few years ago, that we will quickly be spending through any balances that we have. And so we need to start injecting mills revenue streams into that bond and interest fund. Commission on Tuesday last week had asked to take a look at what a 2 mil decrease would look like. So from that 54.506 to a 52.5. When I ran those numbers, that would have been about a $1.16 million increase. So when I backed into that with our new assessed valuation, that leaves us with 53.69. Again, the difference that you see here is in that bond and interest fund. We did not That decrease in your general fund is because of those franchise fees coming in And then trying to use any savings that we were able to get with our general fund Efficiencies and cuts that we were able to make and then also considering the additions that we had for Those priorities that were identified We are Still projecting just a 2% increase in your general operating fund, but really the impact of the changes in the mill levy will be in that bond and interest fund. Commissioner von Lintel, I wanted to answer the question that you had raised when we were talking about the revenue neutral rate resolution. You had asked, what about that $4.2 million that's sitting in cash in a balance in the Economic Development Fund? That Economic Development Fund is your 2023 sales tax. So those are the sales tax that are being collected for jobs, and those are sales tax that are being collected for workforce housing sales tax for projects like you just heard. So those funds are not discretionary and cannot be used for bond and interest.

Well, that's not what I heard previously, but.

those funds from that sales tax are already funneled into the bond and interest line item, Andrew. They're not separated out. The 4.9 million is the balance of the 30% that's allocated for workforce housing and for job creation.

Yeah, so again, that's your half cent economic development sales tax that was passed in 2023. 70% of that half cent goes into payoff debt for the North Campus corridor and in Aggieville. And then 20% is used for economic development, particularly jobs. And then 10% is used for workforce housing sales tax. So that 4.2 balance that you see in there are commitments that we've made for PTMW for those jobs and those ongoing agreements that we have and for ongoing agreements that we have for other workforce housing sales tax projects that we've passed.

In our conversation, we highlighted there's a payment that comes back to the city of about $457,000 a year, repaying the city for the construction of the NISTAC building, KSUIC. That revenue is available. It typically goes into the broader economic development fund. It's probably a portion of a much smaller balance that we have. That four million, and when we talked about that, I did point out that is probably where the 20% and the 10% are, but there are additional revenues that come in annually. We have taken some of that 457 and put it towards the Lee Mill Village development. with tyler hollerman and we have used it in other circumstances too just to round out that conversation andrew are you are you cleared are you satisfied do you need additional well i mean i just i think we need to the way it was rena's numbers was 4.6 million at the end of 2026.

So I'm just looking for ways that we can transfer some of that money to free up space in the general fund. And so hopefully there's economic development that we can do that can, that general fund is funding, that we can use that eco-development money to replace.

I don't think there are other funds in the general fund that are being used for economic development. It is a dedicated sales tax. that it's the source of that funding. Am I incorrect?

We provided you all a breakdown of where economic development funds go. The Chamber of Commerce at $535,000. There's $290,000 that goes to ATA. Yeah, we provided you all a list. That's essentially what I believe he's speaking to. There's available revenue there beyond the jobs and beyond the housing sales tax.

Right, but the source of that funding is the sales tax.

It's tied to the question that went to the voter.

Yeah, it's not general fund.

Well, I guess I wanna, I just want clarification on what, how much, what number is actually kind of free to go to the bond and interest fund?

We can give you a full breakdown of the four million and we'll provide that to you. There's very little of it that's gonna be discretionary that can be diverted to the bond and interest fund that isn't already going there.

I would also share with the commission that economic development fund, occasionally the city is approached with opportunities to jump on economic development opportunities that come in throughout the year and that if there is any free discretionary money I would not recommend tying it up in a different way because we need to be able to have flexibility when the chamber comes to us with opportunities that we want to take advantage of.

So you wanted robust conversation. So to go back to what I discussed in the first topic, I've made four adjustments to your proposed budget that get us to basically the same revenue as last year. The first one being involving the franchise fees we talked about. We were sold on the idea if we raise franchise fees 2%. we'd gain about $1.9 million. In your budget, you raised the franchise fees from 3.1 million to 4 million, a $900,000 increase. So I know you're being conservative, but you left a lot of money on the table there. I proposed raising that line item to 650, or raise it by 650, up to 4.6 million. and reduce the ad valorem tax by that amount. Number two, in your general operating expenses, you proposed in 26 we had a line item for cash reserves of $11.5 million. In 27, we have a line item for cash reserves of $14 million. That's a $2.5 million increase in cash reserves. I've reduced that by 550,000. So between those two, we still get a healthy cash reserve, just reducing it by 550. I increased the Bond and Interest Fund. You had in there $2,331,000. I just raised it $2,005,000. That's a $2 million increase over last year. Finally, on the library, they're proposing an increase of $244,000 this year. Last year, they got an increase of $261,000. So between those two, that's 500,000 they've increased their budget, their taxes in the last two years. So I've reduced their requested increase in half, 130,000. And if I make those adjustments to the budget, we get about the same income as we got last year. And a mill levy of 52.207.

I'm trying to I'm not discrediting what Commissioner Fox is saying, please. I don't want anyone to think that I've seen his proposal. What I'm trying to do is just pull up these presentations side by side so we can talk about them so uh... the one thing i would uh... i i appreciate that the back commissioner fox uh... again uh... as we've talked about uh... this is this is my recommendation to you all uh... you all certainly uh... take this recommendation and provide additional feedback back to us um it's my job to put forward a recommendation to think through future opportunities uh and where we we may be in the future and just make sure you all are aware of those things so in regards to the franchise fees yes we were incredibly conservative just because again very similar to sales tax we don't know if those revenues are going to come in so while we did budget that it would could potentially be a 1.8 million dollar increase We wanted to be conservative. I agree with you. We did bring our actuals in 2025 were three point two. And so and we only budgeted three million in twenty twenty six. So there is an opportunity for us to look at increasing that revenue stream. However, I would again just cautious us to to be too reliant on unknown revenue sources, particularly in the first year that we are bringing it on board. The second thing when we're talking about those cash reserves, the cash reserves that we are projected to, again, we talk about the, it's not, I want to make, sorry. These are not reserves. The city of Manhattan does not have a reserve policy, so these are cash balances. The balance that we have in the general fund, the reason it is so important for us to be able to have a healthy cash balance there is when, if something were to happen and we We had a flood on Wildcat Creek and we had a tornado that went through, knocked out one of our big revenue generators, such as a sales tax generator, such as a Walmart or a Target. I obviously don't ever want something like that to happen, but it would take a long time for us to start realizing those revenues coming back in to our coffers, but yet we would still have the expenses of needing to be able to take care of those things. The other reason it's important for us to have a very healthy cash balance is I hear this commission talking about how important it is to start using cash to pay for things rather than issuing debt. The way that we can pay cash for things is to start collecting cash. So that was the initiative. That was the intent behind that cash balance. But if the commission gives direction to not build that balance, we will certainly make that adjustment.

This is a comment, I'm not unreceptive to Larry's comments of where we're at as to those items. We still have to keep worrying about spending more than we've got. And I think that is an issue. Even if we have cash reserves and we're gonna pay cash, we need to make sure we're making good decisions on what we're spending it on and what the flexibility we have down the road. And the other thing that you've made me aware of, and I assume society understands, the legislature has tried to engineer what we do with income and expenses and how we do it. And in their great wisdom several years ago when they took off, some of the caps did that. When we have a new revenue, a new industry, a new construction, whether it be city-sponsored or if the TIF comes off, we can't capitalize on any of that money. And that's stupid because they've gotten free money for 20 years, and now they don't have to pay it back because the legislature put a cap on it. it may drive down the base revenue neutral number but it doesn't help the city because they're stuck with the same money and it's insane but that's something we really are going to look at next year when we have what 15 20 million dollars come back on the tax roll that we paid for for the last 20 years and so I think we have to how we're going to deal with next year and the future years when that stuff comes on. I don't think we have a whole lot of choice. I like Larry's comments. The library, they have needs. Everybody that I've talked to has needs and wants. the needs have to be taken care of. And maybe the library can't be open from nine to nine. And if that's where their money is going for security for nine o'clock p.m., that may not be able to be done. Or they may have to look at, I know they have capital problems, elevators, roofs, those things, but so does the city. The laundry list that you have on CIP for So I think we've got to be aggressive on holding this and also being creative. Maybe even going to the legislature and say they're idiots and change their policy about how they want to control property taxes and how they do that because they have left us no choice. That's the editorial, Mr. Seaton.

I think you're absolutely right with the state legislature. They constantly harp on property tax, and hardly any of the property tax except for the school tax goes to the state. But I do think we get hung up a little bit on what the mill levy is. especially because the mercury often prints things that say, oh my goodness, our mill levy is at such and such. When they point out Parsons has a mill levy of 118 or something, that's because Parsons doesn't have any, their mill's not worth $2.50, so they have to go to that kind of thing. I think we should figure out what is... How much is a mill? If you have a $300,000 house, I think your property tax will go up about $40 with one mill. And so are people really going to, if they constantly hear, oh my gosh, we gotta keep the mill levy even all the time, I think Larry has some good points. I think the cash reserves, we probably could borrow a little bit there because while we need to keep

a decent level for sure we've gone from about 10 years ago having 2 million to having 14 million you know so it was really a yeah yeah that um the uh one-time um american rescue plan act funds that the federal government um gave to municipalities and other local governments is how we were able to increase that cash reserve from one and a half million. So that was one-time money. That's how we were able to do that in such a short timeframe.

We also use that money to pay for some things that we're doing in the general fund.

Yep.

Now, the library... Yes, we had to increase their staff to have, sadly, a person there to help with security, or three FTEs, I think. I just got my print, what?

Two, one full-time, two part-time.

Well, that's what I heard, but then I heard three, okay, two. I just went to the library, and I go a lot, and they said, this year, I have saved $1,478 by using the public library instead of buying what I wanted to see. Over the past I've saved $62,000. So I think we're nicking people who don't have much money with the franchise fees going up, with the sales tax fees going up, and they're all regressive taxes. If you have less money, they are a bigger impact on your selling. One thing I wanted to ask about is, as I was going through all the different 51 pages of budget, I noticed that the IT costs, which we allot to all the different departments and then pay back. you know, for various things. For example, the city manager in 24, they allotted 61 million and now it's 86 million. I mean, 86,000, sorry. Sorry. 86K is what I've got, sorry. But when I added it all up, in 24, we basically billed all the different departments for two million. Two million, 577. But this year, in the budget, we're billing all the people for $2,667,000, but the IT budget's $606,000,000. I mean, it didn't look like cash in, cash out like it usually does. Also, some of that COVID money was supposed to go to IT to buy all of our new stuff. Are we not still seeing some of that in our costs?

So I'm going to have to spend a little bit of time trying to identify where you see that six million for IT because what I'm showing is our internal service fund for IT being 3.396.

I saw in IT the revenue in 2024 was $3 million. In 2027, it's $6 million. The services are $2.9 million in 2024 and $3.7 million. And the contractual services are $1.4 million in 2024 and $1.8 million. So I just didn't know where that's all going. Yeah, Rena.

Yeah, thank you. Good evening, Mayor and City Commissioner. So, Commissioner McCullough, in terms of the IT fund, in 2024, the expenditures were about $2.5 million. 2025, about $2.9 million. The budget for 2026 is at about $3.8 million. And then for 2027... it's about five million. And part of that reason is due to the cash reserves building. So that's the detail sheets. So when you're looking at that particular set of spreadsheets, actuals, yes ma'am, the budget. So the budget for 2026 and 27 does not include the reserves. And so for the past two years, that's how the budget has been presented. It's just what we need to operate the revenue and the expense and then the reserves are backed out in the cash, beginning cash balance is backed out as well for all funds.

But even with the 3.396, I show IT funds going to various departments at 2,667,000 when I go through and add them all up. It just seems to me that when we have these bill backs that we have, it's hard to know where the dollars, because we're building the fire department for IT, and then IT has it in their budget, and so it's just complicated to me.

That is...

So this is something that is unique to me.

This is not something that I've experienced in previous organizations. But with these two internal service funds that we have fleet and it is my understanding that this was a way for us to have a comprehensive idea of what fleet and what it were costing the organization as a total. and then having those fees charged back to the departments. So ultimately, it all does come out of that general fund, those revenues. This is just a way for us to track it. And then when we talk about what those cash balances are that you saw, I know that there are purchases, large purchases, again, equipment, servers, other network equipment, being able to keep our laptops and our computer systems on a healthy replacement cycle, which I believe we are at ten years.

We replace laptops every ten years, every five years.

Sorry, we replace laptops every five years. So again, this is our strategy to keep this organization healthy. And the conversation that with Jared being sorry, with Our director Wassinger being in this role one of the things that he did bring to management's attention he does feel like his Reserves are healthy and so we would not be adding any in the next several years Assuming we didn't have any big purchases or emergencies that we needed to purchase surprised me that in 2024 it seemed like cash in cash out for IT and

And we, and then, in a new budget, it looked like there was a lot more cash in. I mean, a lot. The IT budget was much larger than the budget throughout the whole.

On paper, and when you look at these numbers from a picture standpoint, it does kind of look alarming and different over years. We established this fund in 2023 for the first time, and really we were only accounting for hardware. So those laptop and computer replacements that were being replaced. In 2024, we added software. So we added almost a million dollars in software that was being paid for and other department funds that are now into the IT fund getting charged back to it. So that's where you see that incremental increase. And then we also added staff in years 2025 and 2026. 2026 specifically was the first full year that communications, which used to be Staff budgeted in the city managers offices now budgeted out of the IT fund as well as GIS Those four employees in GIS were originally funded out of the public works department are now funded in IT as well And I do want to reiterate just the the importance of the cash reserve Mainly there's a lot of things that go into play of why I believe we need a cash reserve from emergencies for one thing, but then there's the unexpected rise of cost in certain hardware. You guys may have, even if you bought a personal laptop in the last year, that has skyrocketed exponentially. We had just one example of we needed to replace a specific server for our camera systems here at City Hall that jumped over 100% within the span of two months. So that's just one example of a purchase that costs $10,000 more in the course of three months because these costs for hardware and hard drives continue to just rise exponentially.

Yeah. I'm not doubting the need for dollars. There's not at all. It just seemed to me that the revenue in 2024 was $3 million and then it had gone up to $6 million, but I didn't see that much charged back to offices. And I can understand you need a cash reserve, but in some ways, shouldn't the whole city have a cash reserve that anybody can sort of, excuse me, dip into? And I think... For the public, it would be really good if they knew the total cost of IT. Because when we're trying to defend public spending, and it's hard to say to people, the concrete's more, the oil's more, the gas is more. But if we can really point to the fact that we have to spend two million a year more on IT, that sort of really does help things, I think.

What I proposed in our technology communications budget for 2027, that 3.3 million, is the cost that it takes to run the organization from personnel to the contractual services and then the commodities that we talked about when it comes to software agreements, hardware purchases and replacements.

But when I looked on page 45 or something of that budget you gave me, there was a $6 million thing there.

And I believe Rena's going to explain that side of it. OK. So the $6 million includes fleet as well. So there's about $2 million in fleet. And then the IT fund has the remaining balance.

And you're combining fleet and? Fleet is?

That was a combination of both of our internal funds.

Those funds, yes. So then when you compare the actuals from 2024-25 and then the budget, again, that's excluding any reserves to balance the budget, but that is, as Jason, I mean, Jared mentioned, the increase for software and then staff over the years. That's where that's coming in at.

Okay. As you can see, it's rather unclear. and I mean when you explain it it's very clear thank you but when you go through and look at certain things and you know just basically I think it'd be clear if we had it a number for IT The 3.396 is the number for this particular year

Just for folks who are in the audience and for anyone watching at home, we did share detailed budgets with commissioners, and so we are getting those pulled up so that we can talk through those and point to those. I think it would be easier if we could all be looking at the same and Karen can direct me to which page she's looking at. So I'm asking you.

I can't get it up here, but I'm going to.

Okay, all right, perfect. Where you click on the budget.

Yeah, Jared's working on it. We'll get it up. So, again, to answer the question, the IT costs the organization $3.3 million. So are there other questions from commissioners about that I can answer? Nope.

My turn. We've kind of strayed, but part of this was precipitated by talking about the reserves or the cash balance and how we could reduce that and utilize those funds. I'd just like to remind the commissioners of the importance of maintaining a very healthy cash balance vis-a-vis our bond ratings and our credit ratings for our overall health. That was something when I first joined the commission was an issue because the reserves had been allowed to dip quite a bit and it was affecting our larger financial perspective. And so I'd like to just remind us that there is You know, we're not just sitting on that cash for the sake of sitting on cash. It is serving purpose, and it's contributing to our financial well-being.

Yes and our bond rating went down but now we're up again and I do think it's important to have cash reserves I'm just questioning as Larry as perhaps what level is good for our bond rating?

Quick clarification on our bond rating we did drop we had we went from a double A to an A with a negative outlook and we are now an A with a positive outlook

Again, I would point out, I'm not proposing using the cash reserves, I'm not proposing keeping them the same. I proposed limiting the increase in reserve just slightly, from 2.5 million to two million, so increase.

Yes, and again, just for clarification really quick, we are going to end, we are projecting to end 2026 at 12.6, We ended 12-6 in 2025, and so we are hoping not to have to have any reason to spend that this year, but that is why that increase looks so high is because it was higher than what that budget was. We ended higher than what we thought we were going to in 2026. So your point is very well taken, Commissioner Fox. All right. Mayor Adam Jack, I would recommend that we have deputy city manager Jason Hilgers come up and run through his debt presentation. I will leave all of this up here and we can continue to talk through specifics, but I think that that debt presentation is important. I would recommend that we get through this debt conversation do public comment on the mill analysis and the debt, and then we can talk about the sales tax renewal and do public comment on the sales tax renewal separately.

Thank you.

Thank you, Manager Doolin. Mayor, Commissioners, I want to provide you an opportunity to dive a little bit deeper into the debt. There are a lot of details in our debt. We're going to get into a certain level today. There's obviously a lot of data and information that are behind this. We have current And past debt, our past debt is really everything up until 2026 that we have serviced. It goes all the way back to 2006 because as Commissioner Morrison pointed out earlier, we have about a 20 year run on special assessments. Current debt is comprised of 88 projects. It's really the past debt, sorry I said current, but that's our 2026 debt service is 88 projects part of that debt total that you all will see here in the next slide. We have 44 projects that are currently part of TempNotes. These are projects that you're either actively seeing under construction or have recently finished construction. We have over 20 revenue streams that go into these 132 improvements and projects. Eight major categories of revenue sustain the Bond and Interest Fund, and a lot of them you're very familiar with because we talk about them a lot. There's sales tax, special assessment revenue, storm, water, waste water, special revenue funds from both street and park, and the Bond and Interest Fund has a category that's a combination of a lot of different revenue streams, but property tax does feed into that. This year, our annual debt payment will be over $22.7 million. That is servicing this picture of your debt. There is a top-down way to read this and there is a left-to-right way to read this. I will start left-to-right with general obligation and special assessment bonds. When you look at that $140 million in GEO and the special assessment at 46, there's $186 million, almost 187, being serviced in those two categories today. It's comprised of city at large, utilities, and specials. next one down tent notes these are the projects as i mentioned either under construction or have recently been constructed within the last three years that is almost another hundred and ten million dollars we have not issued geo for these yet or special assessments but we anticipate doing so in the next two to three years all of it the tiff bonds As we covered earlier tonight, we still have another year to pay off these bonds. We have that revenue that'll come through based on the valuation this year, so that revenue will be realized in 2027. We have a TDD bond that's also been issued for the northern end. We have Department of Health and Environmental Loans, 29.5 million. Lease purchases are comprised of our last debt instrument at 1.78. All total, $334 million in debt service. Keep in mind, 110 of that has not been formally issued. It has been issued by way of temp notes, but not in general obligation debt. any questions on this slide before i leave it reena provides this multiple times a year you get it sent to you we put it on the website we get it we analyze it it's constantly updated because those temp notes will convert to geo bonds sometimes twice a year and we issue temp notes sometimes four times a year jason two questions the the third line the subordinate lean tiff special yep

almost $3 million, so this is the last year of payment for that?

It's a TIF-B bond. It had an original structure of $4.1 million. TIF-A paid off a couple years ago, and we've been realizing revenue to support the TIF-B bond. It ends next year. That valuation that, yeah, the valuation they just thought we had and when they just took off, it will be there next year in that analysis.

And then all the temporary notes, the $102 million, some of those will be paid with sales tax money that... Yeah, there's quite a bit of that $102 million that's part of the 2023 sales tax.

Anything associated with Aggieville or North Campus has a dedicated revenue stream. And I'll show you that here in a second. Any other questions on the debt and how it's categorized? So some of the conversations we've had, there's been a question of the 22 million, let's get past water, let's get past utilities, let's get past these other funding streams, special assessments, and let's understand the bond and interest. That $7.4 million that's part of this year's annual debt service is something that has been in existence for quite some time. It's supported probably about half traditionally from property tax. The other half comes from a variety of revenue streams throughout the organization. That $7 million It's 30 projects in our community. The next slide highlights them all, but before I get there, it's roughly $70 to $80 million that is supported in that bond and interest category. We currently have .66 mils, or just under a half million, going to support that $7.4 million. Just over 6.5%. We are relying on other revenues currently to support debt that used to have a four and five mil dedication. Annual debt payment, property taxes are 2.2% of the annual 22 million that we make. These are the 30 projects. A lot of these projects you will recognize throughout our community that have been built in the last 10 to 15 years. There are some of these that are stretched out 15 years, some 20. And when they were put together, there are reasons we stretched them out that long. You can see the first four are associated with fire stations. It has been a while since we've constructed a fire station in Manhattan, yet they are still active in our debt. They were structured in a way long-term to try to allow the growth in the community at which most fire stations are constructed to accommodate over time to realize and help with that debt service. Discovery Center exhibits. This is the $7 million in debt we issued back in 2010, 11 that allowed us to pay for the exhibits that were not Starbond eligible. We built the facility for $17 million. We issued debt for $7 million in exhibits. We're still paying the debt service on that. Downtown parking garage. We issued $6 million for the construction of the downtown parking garage. $3 million of it came from Star Bonds. $3 million, bond and interest fund. Conference Center. $9.5 million project completed 2011-2012. That has... a long-term debt service associated with it, over 20 years. We had a 30-year lease with HCW to operate it, again, allowing revenues to come in associated with conferences to help pay for that over time. I'm not going to run through all of these, but if there is one you want to ask about or you have questions about, I'm happy to get into that. A lot of these have partials. A lot of the ones highlighted have other revenue streams that have been dedicated towards them. There's just a portion of the debt being picked up by the bond and interest fund. You see down at the bottom the ERP cloud software. We did use some of the ARPA money to buy some of that, but the bond and interest picked up a portion. West Anderson before, that would be my last one, I swear. West Anderson was a six to $8 million project, stretched from Annenberg all the way out to the roundabout. We anticipated growth and expansion at the roundabout. We haven't realized that growth and expansion like we anticipated. There are transportation development districts surrounding that roundabout that in the event we do get some retail, we will be able to capture some sales tax to help pay for this debt, but the bond and interest is picking up its fair share. Mill levy support and the bond and interest has been fairly consistent for the last 15 years, with the exception of the last couple. The desire is to return to that past rate established and really left off in 21 and 22. A sustainable and reliable revenue stream goes a long way with the rating agencies. It goes a long way with covering those expectations that were issued so many years ago. We don't have that currently happening. We are under a half million dollars supporting that bond and interest payment of over $7 million. And it is causing a reduction in a cash balance at a very fast clip and is putting more pressure on existing revenue streams and the bond and interest to cover that debt. One mil, approximately $780,000 now. That slide did say 798, but we had to change it as of Friday. Five mils would generate roughly that 3.9 million. We get into a lot of sales tax questions too. Do we want something to go out later this fall that would allocate some of the sales tax towards debt service? For every .1 in sales tax, it generates approximately 1.6 million. quarter cents going to generate real close to four. This can be a combination. It can be isolated. I think if we would have had the growth, city manager Doolin's recommended budget, you would have had close to 4.9 mils in the bond and interest, and it would have closed the gap in a hurry. We recognize 4.5 to 5.5 mils will do that. They're consistent, reliable revenue streams. Those are what the rating agencies prefer. Commission discretion. You have control over mill levies. You don't have control over sales tax. You gotta go ask the voter. Point two and point two five in sales tax, what we referenced here previously, get us to that three and a half to four million dollar range. It is financial support, it's just an inconsistent revenue stream that has its own volatility in our community. And we have a pretty well documented past. It is not always three, four, five percent that we've been experiencing the last three or five years. And as I mentioned, voter discretion is what you're waiting on if you go with that route. So for the past five years, this is what our bond and interest fund payment, beginning fund balance, total resources and revenue, total expenses, and our ending cash balance. It's no real mystery as to why in 24 and 25, we lowered the mill rate. That's a lot of cash. But that cash was purposefully set in that fund. And we mentioned it. The 2023 sales tax kicked in. It's over 6 million a year. dedicated to Aggieville and North Campus. That money started accumulating and it became attractive to lower the mill support in those funds. If we remain at .66 mills through 2034, you'll run out of money in that fund midway through 2031. We highlighted this in a graph chart with our Baker Tilly consultants and Ben Hart. This really starts to put numbers to his charts in terms of where the revenues are, where the expenses are. And I would highlight expenses pre-2026, that gray line in the middle. That is reducing from 25 to 22 to 21 to 19 to 18 to 14 over that stretch of eight years. That is us bringing that existing debt down roughly $20 million at a time, two to $3 million annually. That pays down that debt that we currently are strapped with. expenses post 2026 they start to climb from the 1.6 all the way to the 13 million that's how our total expenses really crest at about that 32 million dollar per year debt service number in 2030 and 2031. that is a bulk of that new Expense we're realizing in districts where we were trying to stack cash and absorb that debt and ride that wave out we had a Good strategy you start reducing revenues in the bond and interest it starts impacting that strategy Trying to get back to four or five Mills Levels us out If you go back to the presentation City Manager Doolin just gave you, and you look at those different mill levies in the bond and interest, this one references the high end. This is the 54.506. This is the 3.799 mills at 2027, and it remains at 3.799 mills thereafter. We've moved the negative balance from 2031 to now 2033. which tells you even taking the recommended at 54.506 doesn't clear it up. The 3.79 million, nine mils will not clear up that debt service gap. If you go to the 53 mil scenario, that's where you'll see the 2.9 mils, roughly the 2.3 million in the bond and interest. your negative number shows up a lot more drastically in 2033 in that scenario and it holds it. If we go to 2.9 next year, which is that 53 mil overall approach, it's the 2.9 mils in 2027, we would need to grow it by another mil in 28 and another mil in 29. You can see we stay out of the negative numbers in that scenario. We're looking for feedback. We obviously have revenue streams. You have time. The more time down the horizon you look, the harder it's going to be to make it up. rather not get to the cliff and have to jump off, rather address it way in advance. Even the conversation in 23 and 24, when that mill levy was reduced, there was a recognition, you can do it, it will have an impact in the future. And it's why dealing with city budgets and mill rates and sales tax should have five and 10 year outlooks. If we just look to the next year, we're pushing something. We can consciously say we're going to push it. We're not going to address it. But in this circumstance, you start to take funds that are highly important and putting them in a very negative state. So trying to find out where you'd like to go for next year, trying to find out where you'd like to go on the horizon with a debt. I know a lot of you would like to see all 132 of those projects. I'm happy to get that detailed out for you and show that debt all the way through 2042. And we can get you those projects and show you that debt schedule. We thought we'd give this to the community and you all tonight to see if we can get some direction on where you want to go with the mill rate and where you want to go with the sales tax discussion. Questions?

Go back to the chart right before we head. When you have post-26 expenses, explain the increased relevance. Where does that come from?

A lot of it is that $110 million in that temporary note. That's debt that will be realized permanently in the next three years.

So it's just an expression of additional debt liability.

Once it goes beyond the temporary construction phase to the permanent phase, yes.

And currently on the temporary, we only pay interest, is that correct?

Correct. Jason. What about future things? Like Danielle was kind enough to give me the CIP out until 2031, and the fire station move and various things is $26 million.

It is. should have a note on it that either says future revenues or we really need to get into a mode either not issue tech notes anymore and dedicate the revenue streams or not issue the debt for whatever it is without having the dedicated revenue streams. What happened in 23 and 24 is a good example though. You can't bind a future commission for making a decision and taking advantage of a situation. You can't undo it, you can't prevent it. You can adopt policies, they can undo the policies. It really takes that stewardship from every group to look at not only what's ahead of you in the next year or two, but that three, five, seven year look, especially with debt. CIPs, there's a lot of things we need, there's a lot of things we want within that list. New approach to debt. You get into a situation much like we did with the rec centers in Seco. You accumulate cash and you pay for it. You get a sales tax out there and you start talking with the public about that. We're not interested in issuing any more debt. We're gonna accumulate cash and we're gonna approach our streets that way. We're gonna approach our facilities and our projects. We're all on board with that. These conversations are not easy catching up later. We want that. We'll figure out a way to pay for it later. It's not where we want to be moving forward. You can see what that's doing to this discussion.

Yeah, I think, sadly, in 23 and 24, there was such emphasis on the mill levy and where it was and could we lower it. And then, of course, we had some COVID dollars we could stick that again. And so we're kind of back to where we were with inflation and that kind of thing. But yeah, if you look at the CIP, there's some giant tick, you know, things. Just the airport... Yeah, anyway, so.

There are different strategies out there. I think Ben Hart with Baker Tilly forecasted some of those, too. When we go out for revenue streams, we don't spend those revenue streams until we're ready to complete a project. The best example I can give you is the last 10 years with those three projects. And I was approached multiple times, and I'm sure past commissions and past staff were, too. In 2017, people wanted to see go done right away. And we're like, yeah, it's going to be about eight years. And people are like, what are you talking about? We've got to let the money accumulate. There are certain projects that we may feel like we can do that with. There are certain projects we may feel like we can't. $8 million a year dedicated towards streets? That's a pretty comprehensive approach we can put together. Five years from now, it'll probably shift. That's just the nature of the beast.

I think, too, what we've done with the north entry thing, having no property tax coming in from the majority of those buildings out there, that kind of thing. And I think people are very upset with us for allowing development without property taxes and that kind of thing. But there we are.

So to answer your question on the CIP, we're not going to do any of those projects if we don't. come up with funding sources. I think I've made my stand clear on the Bond and Interest Fund. I've proposed a certain amount in the budget along with my other adjustments. We've got a proposed sales tax renewal question that we're looking at. Certainly, it would be dependent on how that comes out. If we don't get that, then we're gonna have Some hard questions to answer. So I think for next year, we start working on it. We don't have to solve it all in one year. We've got the TIF coming off next year. That'll help with the assessed valuation. So we can't do it all in one year, but get started on it.

No, but we do are a bit under the gun with the fire station things because we have to be out by 2035.

You'll have that update on August 11th. I think the university is willing to extend beyond 2028, 1231, 2028. Still need some feedback on just exactly what we want to improve, status of the current facilities, what are the next steps in the next three or five years that we do want to take. We obviously own the land down at Amherst. If they give us 10 more years, what's the approach the commission would desire at that site? So we don't feel like we're under the gun to make that decision, but MFD owes you some information on their current facilities, some of their new plans and opportunities, and really get some feedback on where we want to go with that. But we are in a comfortable place with K-State. They're willing to grant more time if we need it.

Mayor Adam Chak. Oh.

They were just wanting the salt storage out of the way still?

Yes, at this time.

And it blew away in the last storm.

We got to do something with it anyway. I saw that. Mother Nature gave us an assist on that.

Mayor Adamczak. Demolition fees. A reduction in demolition. Yeah, yeah. Yes, yes.

Mayor Adamczak, I recommend that you all take public comment on the mill levy analysis and the debt presentation. And then we can get into more discussion.

Is there anyone who would like to make comment on the mill levy discussion and the debt analysis? Going once, going twice. Seeing no one approach, we will move into the third part of this, which pertains to this discussion, which

i was just going to comment that i think during the recent campaign pretty much all the candidates weren't really selling the community on build this or build that or do you know i think the community realizes that we're we've got to be more financially responsible and that we've got to you know put off some put off all the projects that we can and really focus on debt and property taxes

I don't disagree with you Commissioner on the focus on debt and taxes, but I also don't think it's appropriate for us to stagnate and to not take on any new projects given the age and deterioration of some items. I'm thinking specifically about some of the park infrastructure that was identified in Move MHK. We know that our park system is well used by the community. We don't want to have a dangerous situation emerge where playground equipment is to the point of rusting apart and becoming a hazard. So I would just would not have us go down a path of saying we're absolutely not going to take on any of the CIP improvements or other projects that contribute to the livability of our community.

Well, my observation is where we've been the horses out of the barn. So now we have to deal with, do we find the horse and do we fix the barn? And that's what we're doing with financing. We're trying to figure out how to dig us out of a hole. And that old cowboy saying was, if you're in a hole, quit digging. And that's my concern. We need to quit digging the hole for death. And so that may mean a lot of projects get delayed for a period of time or we don't do and we are going to be lucky to maintain what we've got until we figure this out. We've got tax exemptions we've given out that aren't gonna come back to help us for 10 years or more. We have this TIF issue that doesn't help us with our praise valuation goes up but we can't levy taxes on it. So I mean those are issues that we can't ignore. And so I don't care how we got here, we're here. And who did it, why we did it, was it smart? I mean, if you look at the projects that Jason read off, there's a whole lot of streets improvements and stuff that today are very expensive that we're paying for. Doesn't make any difference. We gotta deal with how we're gonna do it. And I think that's the thing I'm concerned about with the sales tax. If our community does not look at reality, which is debt needs to be paid, our sales tax will sink the ship and I don't care how many rusty trucks you got and parked deal, there won't be any money. If we don't come up with a strategy and a plan to take care of these debts And I don't know if that guru the first of the year that told us that our sales tax hadn't been fairly stagnant slow growth Is that harbor? What's coming? You know, it didn't take one big downturn to put us in a tailspin and so all i'm saying is The reserves are necessary. We've got to do those things. Do we add to it? Do we fund more? I think Larry's approach is intelligent, but we've got to figure out, are we going to be a leader in this thing and fix the door, find the horse, and take care of our debts? And so I'm more concerned right now with the sales tax than I am with our property taxes because without it, we sink. and simple in my humble observation we sink if the sales tax isn't adequate and it doesn't pass and of course that's to the whim of the community and that's why i fight for the responsibility of the budgeting for the property taxes because i want those people to realize that is a responsibility Sorry.

I think you make a lot of good points. And I am also kind of concerned about sales tax. I think it'd be great if we could figure out what's going on with Fort Riley. We have thousands coming, thousands going, some at the border, some in Poland. What's our total trip number there? I've heard we've gone from 15,000 to 9,000, but it's really hard to tell because, as I said, people come back. And if we've gone down that much, that's going to hit us in the sales tax. at some point, so Danielle, if you could maybe connect with them out there and let us know what's going on.

Yeah, of course. Danielle, do you want to proceed with talking about the sales tax, please?

I will. So again, just very quickly, a reminder of where we currently sit. Our current city sales tax rate is 1.95%. We know that we have two sales taxes, one that expires in 2026, one that expires in 2027. And that is really the impetus behind this conversation regarding a renewal. Our total current sales tax rate in Manhattan-Riley County is 9.15%. current sales tax rate in Manhattan Pottawatomie County is nine point four five percent we've been talking about needing two to three million in our bonded interest fund this evening seven to eight million for street maintenance we know we have a need for that fire training facility we have some other projects that we desire to do at the zoo and cemetery, as well as Mayor mentioned earlier, improvements and investments that are needed in our parks for Move MHK. Just as a reminder, this does not include indoor aquatics. $200 million in deferred maintenance, and you all have that capital improvement project list in front of you. And I have it pulled up, so if we talk about it, everyone in the room will know what we're talking about as well. Again, considerations. We have had success with these dedicated sales taxes, particularly when they are time bound. We mentioned earlier really having that 10-year run out allows us to do planning with those revenues that are coming in. We have success when we identify specific projects. We know that we have that pull factor where 30% of the sales taxes that are paid or generated in our community are from outside of our community. We've talked about the possibility of repealing that quality of life one year early to provide more clarity and transparency in what their sales tax is are going towards. And then we've talked again tonight about the combination of a mill levy and sales tax that's needed to stabilize that bonded interest fund. We've put together three different scenarios, amounts for you all, a half a penny or a half cent would pretty much keep us even. It would be a .005 increase. That three-quarter penny per dollar brings us to 9.45 in Manhattan and 9.75 in Riley County and 9.75 in Pottawatomie County. And then that one cent puts us at 9.7 in Manhattan, Riley County, and 10% in Manhattan, Pottawatomie County. These slides have changed a little bit from what you originally saw when we talked about this last week. With the change in the assessed valuation that we had been working towards in putting our numbers together, we talked about the possibility of capturing all of that in property tax revenue and potentially not needing to use any of our new sales tax for debt. I have deleted those scenarios. That is no longer a possibility for us. We are going to have to use mill and sales tax, at least for the first couple of years. So this half cent scenario that I put before you, this is looking at that $3 million that we need in our bond and interest fund, and then taking the other, the remaining 8 million, which would be a 5 million, and putting that towards streets. This is still below, sorry, Mayor.

So Danielle, this is implying that we would be dedicating part of the economic development sales tax from 2023 for debt payment as well as this one?

Yes. So we look at this five million dollars for streets. We know from director Johnson That we have a six to seven million dollars to catch up on our street maintenance issue So we will continue to fall behind if we only have five million dollars to inject into our street system and a very similar situation we could potentially face would be what happened to us when we passed our 2016 dedicated street sales tax where during covid and post covid we lost all of that purchasing power with the increases in asphalt concrete labor that we see in that industry this scenario also does not provide us any funding for a fire training facility or any of those other deferred capital maintenance needs that we have scenario b which would be a three-quarter cent which would bring our total to that nine point four five in riley county in nine point seven five in pottawatomie county uh... this would at and again These are suggestions. This divvying up, the only thing we're going to need to be pretty firm on is that $3 million for debt. Otherwise, we can move these numbers around based on conversation that you all are gonna have this evening, but just wanted to put something out there for you all to respond to, react to, and provide feedback on. So this scenario gets us to six million so we could start to catch up on our street maintenance. We would have the ability to start, one, putting cash aside for that fire training facility that we know we need to build, and then also having funding for deferred maintenance that we know we have. I'm going to show the next slide just for perspective and just for conversation piece for the Commission. Again, just something for you all to react and respond to. but this would be a one cent increase. This would be $8 million for street maintenance, that $3 million that we need to stabilize bond and interest. Again, we would be able to have two million to start stacking the funds to build that fire training facility. We would also have cash for deferred maintenance and other capital needs, and then we would also have one million to try to dedicate towards investments in our parks that were identified in that move MHK. I have had conversations with folks in the community as I'm sure you have and have shared these scenarios and presented them I I hear support I Hear support for streets. I hear support. I hear that folks understand the challenge we're up against with our debt But I also hear the challenge of creeping close to that 10% total in a sales tax number. So I wanted to share that with you all as we start to have these conversations for you all to keep in mind. We've put together, that's, based on the back that we heard from you all last week we need specifics on capital improvement when you say other deferred maintenance what are you talking about uh... so we have revised this capital improvement uh... sheet we have reduced it we got very serious about what our needs are so you will see some projects from the last several years have have been cut because we want this to be very specific and very realistic when we go out and we start having conversations with our community um kind of walk the folks through how to read this we have our different departments over here on the left hand side We talk about what the name of the project is, a very brief description of what the project is, how much it costs. So some of these projects you will note have cost in multiple years, but then we total it out and you will see very similar to those bonds sheets that we show how expenses come on throughout the next five years or so. At the bottom, At the bottom of the one that you all have in front of you that we distributed you will see a total for each year 2027 2028 2029 2030 and 2031 and We also identify when we are planning to pay cash. We also identify when we are planning to use grants or private funding, for example, the zoo. We know that a majority of that is being paid for with private funding. And then we've also identified when we don't have funds for these projects, when there is no dedicated funding, or when we are looking at future revenue, such as the sales tax that we are getting ready to discuss. The other thing that we put forward for you all is identifying which projects would be debt funded and whether they would be utility or general or again those unfunded or future revenue streams. Department directors are prepared to talk about any of these projects that you all want to dive into this evening. But I think I will at this time Mayor, I don't know if you want to have public comment on the sales tax now or if you want to have discussion amongst commissioners. That's your discretion.

Let's hear from the commissioners first. Thank you.

Well, the one that you have up now is not acceptable to me because we're losing ground on the streets. three million to the debt, possibly some amount, but not necessarily three. Fire, I'm not sure we can do two million. The other is the city infrastructure's failing, so I don't know we have a choice. The other design would be more acceptable to me, which would be the eight million getting close to the street, and the rest of them divide the pie out. When you, the 6.3 is, what is the MMK?

I can't remember. Move MHK.

Move MHK, so at your park.

That'd be a zero for me at this point, quite truthfully. I think they've had their Waterloo and we need to cut some of that off. I don't want us to go in the hole. but I think within our internal budget for a parks and rec they have enough to do maintenance and I don't see any need for quote new construction until we have figured out where we're going to be in three years So as far as I'm concerned, that 6.3 million can be gone. If I just look at our parking lot sidewalk getting in here in the handrail, it's rotted off on three of the four places I come in. It's offensive, but we have to live with it maybe. I think that's only in the one standard six I would not agree to I mean three quarters is acceptable if you had said 0.8 I would not have probably argued but three quarters is by I think a reasonable sum and we have to make sure the public understands these are not frivolous items and that's why I think we have to find support for the three-quarter cent sales tax and I do agree with undoing the park and rec one year but I know we have to obligate the funding to cover that one year sales tax that they're counted on which I assume has been spent we haven't received it so we haven't paid it yet correct so we have to maintain that dollar amount but I'd call that a dollar amount not a percentage to be in the future

That is correct. So just to summarize, make sure I heard you correctly, Commissioner Morrison. Comfortable at that three-quarter cent, but would like to see the dedication to streets closer to $8 million and then divvy up between debt and fire and maybe a smaller portion to other, but definitely nothing for Move MHK.

Accurately stated. Thank you.

Danielle, I think it would be helpful if we did have an idea about some of the deferred maintenance as well. I mean, I'm not sure. One million doesn't seem like a lot to address some of the things that might need to be done. So I think at some point to see.

Do what? Yeah, let me see that. Thank you. Yep. Thank you, Jared. So, Mayor Adamczak, we did identify our deferred maintenance, our priorities for deferred maintenance in this list. So when we are, you know...

I'm not sure that a 10-page number

six font list is telling me what the priorities are is there an indicator in here somewhere so we we list them as by year 2027 so those would be the ones that we would want to tackle first and then pushing those out ones that we think are less emergent would be in 2031 versus 2027 thank you I do apologize for the size, just trying to get everything on one sheet.

So I just come in here. To be clear, we're talking about the two sales taxes, the total 0.45 right now, renewing those. And we want to renew them at 0.75, 0.8, 0.85. And now we've got the... We've got to deal with debt, and we've got to deal with fire. Those, in my mind, are the critical issues, and then somehow tackle this CIP project list that is mind-boggling. I can certainly support anywhere from .75 to 0.8, 0.85, but as far as streets, my number has always been about six to seven million because history's shown us that we're probably gonna make more than that, but six to seven, you add that to what's in the general fund budget, gets you to the eight million that we need for that. So that would be my thought, that we certainly don't wanna hit 10% total tax so we need to keep it at three quarters to point eight to your point try to do as many projects as as we can just kind of spread just to your point you're absolutely right we do have a conservative

s total estimate over the 10-year run out at the bottom again very conservative so about a 1.75 percent increase in sales tax over that 10 years but you do see that total investment so you're exactly right those numbers would increase over the course of the years One of the other conversations that we need to have this evening is really talking about the language, the ballot language that we have in trying to strike that balance between specificity and generalities. And so again, feedback that I've heard from community members is that they want specific projects they want to be able to point to those specific projects and uh... but also uh... recognizing that uh... things change particularly when we talk about priorities emergencies and things have to be uh... forwarded and pushed up So that is, I would appreciate some feedback from commissioners on where they are kind of falling on the specificity and generalities of the sales tax language, and we will try to strike the balance for you all. You all will have language to respond to at the August 11th meeting.

So in my opinion, what has been successful in the past with the parks and rec, it was like 95% parks, and 5% trails, something like that. In the last one we did, the economic recovery, 70% debt, 20% economic development, 10% workforce housing. Again, percentages that are very clear and understanding. So, I think we've got to break it down into percentage, not dollar amount, but percentage

Commissioner Fox I was trying to take notes and listen at the same time but you said your priorities you were comfortable between that three-quarter to point eight range point eight five range but your priorities would be streets fire and there was another one that service debt service and was there a third well I have pet projects but you know I appreciate you saying it I just want to make sure it's out there Deferred maintenance let's make that one of them deferred maintenance I'm leaning towards the three-quarter sales tax language

I think, I don't know if we need to put a percentage to fire, but just say we're going to build a fire training facility with, but, you know, because I'm wondering if we'll have extra money at the end in 10 years, but.

Well, I still argue, do we need a fire training center that we have or that we want to have? Is there a cooperation between five regional towns? Because I'm sure our firefighters would like to have one right next door, but is that a daily training exercise or is it periodic and can we not share with other cities? And for $18 million, I would like to at least explore the probabilities of that, and I don't know who our bird dog is on that, but I assume our fire chief.

Yep, so Fire Chief French is preparing a presentation to update you all on that fire training facility at our August 11th meeting. And he just groaned in the back, I know.

We're all looking at him.

I think hitting 10% is probably a psychological denial, because it's just, you know, even 9.75 sounds better. I would point out that I really think we need to have a good discussion of why we have park and recs, what the whole point of having places for people to exercise and be healthy and be busy, that kind of thing. And I'm concerned, I'm very supportive of park and recs, but I'm concerned that our mentality now is to make everything pay its way. and sometimes you have to subsidize those things and i think that what i've seen the number of people using the gyms down pretty significantly since we started charging for them so at some point i'd like this commission to talk about that you know what what is our feeling for that kind of thing. One other thing that's just off the wall is there are elections going on in November, a number of people running for state, and the state has taken $8 billion of sales tax off of various things. It'd be wonderful if some of our representatives would look at that list and see maybe if they could put a few back.

Danielle, do you have sufficient guidance to move forward as you prepare language for a sales tax question?

Yes, I do. I'm hearing that we are going to be between that three-quarter cent. Commissioner Von Lentl, you mentioned the fire training facility. Just based on conversations that we've had, you and I have had, I know streets are also a priority for you.

Yeah, I think the... What you laid out, I think, is pretty much where I'm at. The $6 million? Yeah. I'm just trying to think of ways, like at the end of the 10-year tax, like not having money left over in some of these accounts and having the flexibility for the next commission down that road where they can use it.

I appreciate that. Thank you.

I find it hard to imagine that there would be money left over in Truman.

Particularly when it comes to streets.

Yeah.

But we will, I understand the conversation that we've had that we've had is, you know, if I'm gonna pick on the fire training facility. So if we have a dollar amount, we know we want to spend up to, you know, a certain dollar amount on the fire training facility and we are stacking that cash over the course of, few years when we hit that dollar number we'll know um and i think that that that point though if we dedicate a percentage um we could end up and we have that growth and we have that percentage that's dedicated for that fire training facility when we really wanted just a dollar amount is that kind of where you're going danielle i would and andrew i don't want you to feel like i'm

countering everything you say, but I spent a little bit of time this afternoon looking at McCown Gordon's second quarter 2026 Construction Economic Insights, which has an even smaller font than your CIP list does, but I would be and i'm not trying to be fiscally irresponsible but i'd be reluctant to put a dollar amount to a construction project at this point in time what they are stating is just in the first two quarters of this year tariff and trade global supply chain risk construction pricing financing and labor conditions have all impeded the construction industry over just in this last six-month period. And given what we know in terms of materials for road construction, given what we've been hearing from developers in terms of housing costs, I think that I wouldn't want to hamstring us by stipulating a fixed ceiling to a building project. I don't want to have that, Scott, don't want to just give you a blank check, nothing personal, but I think we need to be cognizant of factors that are influencing our decisions that are way out of our hands.

I think in the past we've done both. So percentages are often found in our questions. But when we educate, we try to make it at least relatable. So we have forecasted. This is how much it can change. But at one point it was $8.5 million for one of the rec centers, $8.5 for the second rec center, and $8.5 for Seco. Seco ended up being $16 million. it tells you just how far that price point can go. But at the same time, $27.5 million, $29.5 million estimate originally turned into $40 million. So you can do it by percentage. It gives you that flexibility there. But for education, it got into, this is what it would be today. And it gives people a frame of reference.

I think anyone listening to the news today was not surprised by Jared's comment about a 100 percent increase in computer equipment in the course of three months. We know what's going on in the computer chip industry right now, and we would be negligent if we don't take into account some of these global influences. May I call for, sorry, are you?

Yes, I do want to come back up and have a few closing comments, though.

Is there anyone who would like to make a public comment on the sales tax proposal or these initial discussions about sales tax question?

All right seeing no one approaching we will close public comment Danielle your closing comments So just wanted to wrap up and give the Commission a couple of things work that we need to do in decision points that need to be made and so we will we have refined this capital improvement plan we brought that back to you you all have that i know you all will spend time with it you can zoom in when you were using looking on your laptop and we also are going to be working on that ballot language we will have another budget work session on august 11th but we will have to take action on this sales tax passing a resolution to repeal with our intent to repeal that 0.25% quality of life, and then also passing that ordinance, adding that question to the ballot, we have to take action on that on August 18th. So that is requirement for us to get that to the county in time so that the county clerk can get that added to our ballot. Other items that we are tracking is, again, we will have another budget work session. I'm very appreciative of the commission for the feedback that you all gave on the mill levy analysis, the time that you all have spent looking at those budget numbers and the feedback and direction that you provided us and for the seriousness and the consideration that you've all given to the challenge that we have. with our bond and interest fund and our debt service payments. The one thing, so we will take action on the budget though on September 15th. The one closing comment that I did just wanna kind of leave you all with is that this commission will be the same seated commission who will be developing the 2028 budget in 2027. And I say that just as you are going home and as you continue to reflect on the challenges that we are up against, I do think that we will be in a better position next year to look at lowering that mill levy. We will have certainty with our franchise fees. We will also have certainty with our sales tax and where we're sitting with that sales tax. And then we will also know that that downtown TIF is coming back on for 2028. So again, this will be the same seated commission, the commission that had all these hard conversations about our bond and interest conversation. You all will be the ones who are determining that budget for 2028. And I do think that we will be in a better conversation to make some of those reductions to the mill levy then so we will take everything that you all gave us this evening and we will continue to work on these budget numbers and continue to crunch them which just as a reminder that means they're going to be different the next time you see them so we appreciate your patience i know sometimes that's frustrating but we continuously work we continuously work on them until september 15th so thank you thank you danielle

Move we adjourn.

All in favor, please say aye.

That was way too quick, Commissioner Morrison.

We are adjourned.