City Council - Regular Meeting

Second place, Jennifer Eason. Is she not here? I guess not. Third place was Equity Bank, Shelby Bannon. Congratulations. Congratulations to all of our winners and a huge thank you to everyone who participated this year. Each arrangement, I think, added something special to our downtown and we appreciate the time, creativity and the care that went into making our downtown beautiful. So thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you.

Connie, thank you for all you do in your position as co Augusta director doing a fantastic job. Thank you for participating every year. Most of you.

i i just want to thank everybody that had something to do with planting the pots because i couldn't have picked the first or second place they were all good this year really appreciate it now are there any visitors here that aren't here about something that's already on the agenda okay we will move to our first item of business which is to conduct public hearings, to take public input and comments on the revenue neutral rate and the 2027 proposed budget. And I'm gonna, I've got a little thing I wanna read first. i i was thinking about this over the weekend and i just i wrote down some things i want to express that i hope you all actually took time to read the budget as the narratives that are included in this budget explain the whys and hows for the proposed expenditures and our staff and council members have spent several hours and the staff has spent days and days going over this budget, looking for the best outcomes to keep the services that our public expects and to not be wasteful of our tax dollars. And when I say our tax dollars, we all live here in town and we all pay taxes too. So just remember, we're thinking of everybody, including ourselves. we have the we the council have reserved the option that after this public hearing tonight that we might have another workshop next week to see if we can adjust anything downward before say signing off on this budget we've wrestled with this a couple times already but maybe somebody tonight has a better idea and if you're going to speak tonight remember to be called on. And then when you come up, state your name and your address, and then you'll be asked to keep your comments to five minutes or less. So with that, I'm turning it over to staff for a presentation first.

Mayor and Council, as part of the presentation, what I'd like to walk through first is just the process that is shown on the agenda. You had a new statute that went into place in the last couple of years, and so it's always good to get a reminder because we don't do it very often, but explaining how the new statute on the revenue neutral rate works. so the process tonight is after we do our staff report presentation we'll open the public hearing to take public comment and that is the public hearing on the revenue neutral rate once we've taken all the public comments on that that we can close the public hearing and there is a vote on the resolution the resolution is simply to exceed the revenue neutral rate which is what was published you're not specifying what budget you're adopting, you're not specifying what the final amount is, you're specifying that you're planning to exceed, which was the notice that went out to the county previously. Now you still have the ability, once we get to the actual budget hearings, to reduce the budget from there, but you cannot exceed what was published. But you do actually have to take action on the resolution just saying that you plan to exceed the revenue neutral rate. Once that vote is taken, then you open the public hearing on the budget itself and then take public comment, close that public hearing, and then you have the option to proceed with the budget tonight or as you did last year and what was discussed during the budget work sessions was potentially scheduling a follow-up session where you take the feedback go back, have a work session, and discuss, and then come back at the next meeting and make your final vote. So that's the process that you followed last year. You don't necessarily have to follow that. You're able to proceed with it tonight if you wish, but my recollection from the work sessions was that the plan was to have one more session after this meeting, take the public comments, and then have a final vote at the subsequent meeting. So if there's no questions about process, then I'll go ahead and do staff's presentation. Are you good with us moving to the presentation? Yeah. Okay. I will give the presentation, provide everybody a background on what's going on with the budget process, how the R&R stuff works, and then once I'm done with the presentation, you can open the public hearing and take public comment. Okay. So, Mayor and Council, one of the first things that we talk about in the budget every year is assessed valuation. And I'm going to do this. This is for the benefit of anybody typically working or watching at home. If we can get the YouTube fixed, we will try to get this recorded. If not, all of this is in the packet anyway, and we'll be able to showcase it. online if we get the recording fixed, and then also at a subsequent meeting if you choose to have an additional work session. So the first thing is our assessed valuation. Assessed valuation is essentially your tax base, how much of the property in town is taxable. And this chart just shows you the amount over time. So you can see back in the 2018 time period, we were about $57 million. $57 million and some change. And in our most recent numbers from the county, we're looking at a CESS valuation of $90,530,000. Compared to 2026, that number was $87,802,000. So we had a valuation increase of about 2.7 million, which overall was a valuation change of about 3.11%. Now overall, that's tracking, at least on what they're forecasting right now, that's tracking a little bit lower than what inflation was. But 3.1% is the current valuation change number. Now the mill levy is the actual tax rate. So the previous slide was showing you how much property is taxable in the city of Augusta. This slide tells you what is the rate that is being taxed. What was published for this hearing was a proposed mill levy of $59,209. Last year's mill levy was $58,398, and so the published mill levy is slightly higher, about .081 mills higher than last year's number. The revenue neutral rate is $56.298 compared to the published rate for this budget of $59,209. Now, in the subsequent slides, we'll talk about what the difference is between those two rates. So this slide shows you the property tax dollars. You have five property tax supported funds. So those are the ones that mill levy that taxes, property taxes are assessed to. You can see the difference between 2026 budget and the 2027 budget. And I believe that there's, I think there's a typo on that 2026 one. I apologize. The change was 248,000. I believe this was the 2026 budget number until you made your changes at the hearing. It actually went down to like 5.1 million. And I apologize. I thought I had that number updated in this chart. The change was $248,848. So you have an additional $248,000 dollars of property taxes in the 2027 budget that were not in the 2026 budget. And that is an overall increase of about 4.87%. And that includes the new library position that was added. So this is inclusive of that in terms of what was published for the hearing. All right, so now we'll talk about the revenue neutral rate. So this was established by the legislature a few years back and essentially what the revenue neutral rate is. I'm gonna read this definition and then maybe try to give you a layman version of it. But the revenue neutral rate is the property tax rate in mills that would generate the same property tax revenue in dollars as levied during the previous tax year using the current tax year's total assessed valuation. That sounds really complicated. Essentially, it's just saying if you were generating last year's property taxes with this year's assessed valuation, what would your mill levy be? That's what the revenue neutral rate says. IT DOESN'T SPEAK TO INFLATION, IT DOESN'T SPEAK TO COST, IT JUST SPEAKS TO IF YOU WERE GENERATING THE SAME AMOUNT OF PROPERTY TAX DOLLARS AS LAST YEAR WITH THIS YEAR'S TAX BASE, WHAT WOULD THE REVENUE NEUTRAL RATE BE? OKAY. SO THE 2026 LEVY VERSUS THE 2027 LEVY, AND AGAIN, I'M SO SORRY. I may have a different version of this presentation elsewhere, I apologize. The revenue neutral rate is 56.298. The published levy, We'll use this one. The published levy was 59.209. So this was the notice for the hearing. Here was the published levy. Here was last year's levy. And then here is the revenue neutral rate, 56.298. So every year when we go through the budget process, you put together what's called a budget adjustment list. And everything that's included in the budget that has a mill levy impact, so we include staffing, we include wages, if you buy equipment, anything that has a consequential mill levy impact, we put on the adjustment list. We had nine potential adjustments that were included in the adjustment list this year. For the sake of the publication of the hearing, none of those were selected for publication. You still have the ability to consider them. You still have the ability to reduce what was published. You just cannot legally exceed what was published at this point. Last year, as you recall, there was several positions that were added to the public safety budget. This year's budget, the only position changes were a library position that was requested, and that was for the adult services desk clerk position. And then there was an explanation that was provided by the library board and the executive director about the position. request and that was discussed at your work session and it was included in the budget and has not been removed as of the work sessions or the publishing of the public notice. We do have library staff here. If you have any questions or want to speak to them, again, get a reminder. There's an explanation that's provided up here on the screen. This was provided in the library's budget about the staffing changes. So that was the only position that was added. Last year we had quite a few in the public safety. This was the only position change in the 2027 budget. Now on the projects and initiatives, there is a lot of the projects that are still carrying over that were stuff that we had started in 2026. Some of it was in a design phase. Now you're moving into construction phases. Some of them are just projects that span over multiple years, but these are still the top projects, initiatives, and priorities are identified in the 2027 budget. The first one is the electric low voltage system conversion project. Our staff is currently working with the engineer to get all of the design engineering done so we can essentially bid that project out to move forward. That is a massive electric grid project that is geared towards reliability and sustainability of our system. It's replacing a lot of outdated technology and a lot of outdated structures, which is poles, transformers, substation that'll be replaced. They're on a completely separate voltage system that does not match the rest of our modern grid. Council approved a project previously. for us to move forward with the electric voltage system conversion. So we're in that process and we're just in that design phase right now and the construction is going to be going on through 2027 and ultimately we'll see when the project winds down. But for now it's going to be a pretty long-term project for us to get done over the next year or two. The second project is public works complex construction. You had essentially authorized the bonds for that a while back. We had done the first building already this year, which was the salt sand storage. You approved the bonds and the financing for us to move forward with that project. And actually on the agenda tonight is one of the business items that approves essentially the maximum guaranteed amount on that contract for us to move forward with that project. Once that's done, then we can actually begin the mobilization for construction. The Redbud phase two, you're currently in a design process, design engineering, and this is for the bridge over the river. And then the plan construction would happen later, potentially 2027, but I think stretching into the 2028 calendar year before we're able to complete that project. We're in the design phase right now, but you shouldn't expect that we'll be doing any sort of construction before the end of this year, if at best it's going to be happening in late 2027 and then spilling potentially into 2028, our conversations with KDOT goes. Santa Fe Lake OG Weir and also the dam. So this is a project that has been hanging out there for about 10 years. You saw the pictures during our budget work sessions where the current weir structure that holds the water in the lake is falling apart. It is crumbled. The concrete is crumbled. in the last 40, 50 years that that new weir has been in place. And beyond that, there are new standards that the Division of Water Resources requires us to upgrade both the spillway and the dam in order to comply with modern dam standards. And so we are having to, essentially the scope of that project includes the addition of a stem wall and also earthwork that will occur on the north side of the spillway and then replacement in kind of the existing OG Weir spillway. And then when that's done, we will have resolved a 10 year project that has been hanging out with the Division of Water Resources and the the santa fe lake og where we'll be able to move forward in construction in 2027. the water tower rehabilitations um i don't know that we're going to get those done this year i think we have our our kdhe there is an inspection that's coming up this this fall and i don't think we're going to have it ready to actually construct that this year if we can we will proceed with it And if we're not able to proceed this year, then that will carry into 2027. But that'll update the Arnold Tower and then also rehabilitation and work on golf that has issues as of the last inspection. The CDBG sidewalk project, that is not a guarantee right now, but the council has gone through all of the process for us to apply for essentially grant funding to help us rehabilitate sidewalks throughout the community that fall in that map area that we had done the surveys on and showed to the community. So if we're able to secure that grant, then we could potentially secure one and a half million dollars in funding to work on rehabilitation sidewalks in our community. As you recall, the community voted on a new sales tax that included modified language to allow the sales tax to be utilized for sidewalks and for streets. And so this will be the first time we've had funding that's dedicated for that purpose for us to do rehabilitation on existing sidewalks and then the final substantive project is the c-clip and this is highway 54 400 we secured a grant from kdot i believe it was a 400 000 grant for c-clip and that is for the highway 400 and i think it's from the overpass stretching west to the west city limits maybe just on the asphalt part. I have to check with the engineer to see where the full scope was, but it did not include the bridge. The bridge is a separate issue that we're working with KDOT on. It is just the asphalt, I believe, on 5400. So those are the major projects. The initiatives, again, most of these are just carryover from last year, but they are large substantive projects we've been working on for a very long time. and so we don't have a ton of new things that we have added for the the 2027 budget so with that mayor council i'm just going to pull this up one more time so this was the resolution that was published last year's mill levy 58.398 the proposed that was published for this meeting 59209 and revenue neutral 56298 So from here on out, you'll open the meeting, or sorry, you will open the R&R hearing for public comment. And then once you're done with public comment, you can move on to a vote to exceed the revenue neutral rate. And then you will move into the public hearing for the budget itself. So with that, I'll turn it over to council if you have any questions that I can answer before the The hearing takes place. If not, you can move into the R&R hearing.

Josh, I have a quick question. It's about our technical difficulty. Are we able to go live yet? We've been live. Okay. Thank you. Just for transparency.

Okay. Let's open the public hearing. So if anybody here has something they want to say about the revenue neutral rate, now is the time. okay i don't see anybody stepping forward so we'll close the public hearing and i'll entertain a motion to get this revenue neutral rate vote started josh uh a yes vote means

Just that you plan to exceed the revenue neutral rate. And no means you don't want to. It doesn't specify what the amount is, just that you plan to exceed, which is also what you published to the county already. I got that. And then it'll be finalized once you actually vote on the budget. And so what you're exceeding is that 56.298, which is just under three mils higher than what was published. So three mils, sorry, what was published is about three mils higher than the revenue neutral.

Do I hear a motion? So if we vote to exceed it, we don't have to pass it. We can go back and rework it to a lower rate.

Yeah. So the way, and again, this, this is one of the things that's kind of goofy in the legislation, but you have to pass a resolution if you're going to exceed the revenue neutral rate. And it says you have to pass it essentially on the date of the hearing. And so, you're not committing to what the final mill levy is until you pass the budget. You're just saying that you're planning to exceed the 56.298.

It doesn't mean you have to either.

We can still come in lower if we could find a way to do it.

We can still hit lower, but you could not be higher if you do not pass it.

A vote yes does not indicate a plan to exceed revenue neutral. It simply authorizes you to do that should your budget final decisions do that.

The way it's worded is you intend to exceed. It doesn't mean you have to.

That's not what it means, Mike. means you're going to exceed revenue neutral rate if you vote yes for it that's what it means yeah correct it means you plan on it but that doesn't mean you're necessarily going to do it you're not required you're not required we could hit revenue neutral still even though we say yes right now correct or under it's pretty confusing it is it is it is what confusing

They're saying it's confusing. Yes.

A yes vote does not bind you to exceeding your revenue neutral rate. Correct? I think the journal allows you to.

I think the journal publicly assumes that we are.

I'm sorry. What was the answer?

I believe that it does. Now, it doesn't specify what number that you're arriving at. If it's 59, 58, 57, 56.3. But I believe if you pass that motion, then you are saying you plan to exceed the revenue neutral rate.

It authorizes you to plan to, but it doesn't bind you to.

Now, if you adopt 562981, technically you exceeded it. you're still pretty flat at that point.

But we hit 55. Can we hit 55? I mean, if we were able to. Are we allowed to do that even if we voted to exceed it?

I don't know the answer to that.

The way it's reading, it says that you still find it after taking public testimony, you still find it necessary to exceed the R&R rate. So it indicates that you have every intention of exceeding it.

It doesn't specify if you're bound to it.

I can't imagine.

But if you don't adopt this, then you cannot extend. Correct. Yes.

That's the point.

That is clear.

That's the point. If we go into public comment on the budget and we are profoundly enlightened on other options and we find ways to reduce the budget even below what revenue neutral maybe i can't see that a topeka statute would require us to pass something higher yeah i want you to be right it's it's possible and again we've never had that scenario before so it's i'm trying to think through it

erica can you help me is it is it possible then that if they did go below revenue neutral that they would just pass another resolution if they if they publish it now saying they plan to exceed they can still they can still go below what was published for the hearing, but not revenue neutral. But if they want to pass a different resolution.

You could either, you could resend the resolution. You could, I mean, you wouldn't even have to do that because it's not binding you to a number.

It's only saying you have the intent to.

I can clarify that before the next meeting if there's another work session, but that's never, it requires a roll call vote. So, I mean, again, it's indicating that you have the, that you still feel it is necessary to exceed it. But it doesn't bind you to a number, so.

Thank you.

And I'm sorry that that's confusing. What Erica is reading was essentially the bullet point recommendations.

that are laid out for that statute and what you were reading to me earlier, it just says that- It just says that, so the governing body passes a resolution to exceed the R&R prior to adopting the budget, records the roll call for the governing body vote, and then can formally adopt a budget anytime after the resolution is passed, anytime within the timeframe they've set. but the resolution must be passed at the R&R hearing and before the budget is adopted. So it has to happen before the conversation about the proposed budget itself. So that's why, yeah.

Does the city attorney have any opinion on that conversation?

So I think you can, even if you pass this resolution, you can pass a budget LOWER OR AT THE REVENUE NEUTRAL RATE. NEW SPEAKER P. PERFECT. NEW SPEAKER P. THANK YOU.

NEW SPEAKER P. KIPP JUST FOUND SOMETHING ON THE INTERNET. And it says, going lower. Collecting less property tax revenue or setting a lower mill levy than the calculated RNR is fully allowed. Lowering the property tax collection does not trigger any special penalty or extra hearing requirements.

I think that's what Andrew just said. Thank you, Chip.

I move for resolution number 2026-18 to exceed revenue neutral rate. Second.

Okay, I've got a motion and a second. Erica, will you call the roll?

Martin?

No.

Licklider?

No.

Bailey?

Yes.

Scott?

No.

Richardson?

Yes.

Davis?

Yes.

Whitey? No. Martin? I'm sorry, Marr?

Yes.

That's a tie.

It doesn't say.

We're trying to check the statute to see what the requirement is so. typically the mayor would have a tie-breaking vote we're trying to verify if that's actually what happens for a budget we've never seen that before so we have to check because the rules change on this stuff all the time so who are you going to fire

That's all I need to know.

Okay, it does say majority vote.

All right, Mayor and Council, so it looks like the relative statutory reference is KSA 79-2988. I'm going to read this. It says... majority vote of the governing body by the adoption of a resolution or ordinance to approve exceeding the revenue neutral rate shall be required prior to adoption of a proposed budget that will result in a tax rate in excess of the revenue neutral rate. Such vote of the governing body shall be conducted at the public hearing and on the same day as the commencement of the public hearing after the governing body has heard from interested taxpayers and shall be a roll call vote. If the governing body approves exceeding the revenue neutral rate The governing body shall not adopt a budget that results in a tax rate in excess of its proposed tax rate as stated in the notice provided. So I read that as a simple majority vote. Does that give the mayor, okay, so mayor, you have the ability to break, is that what that says? The mayor has the ability to break the tie. Okay. So in this, mayor votes and breaks the tie and you need a majority in order to pass.

Call Rawlings for your vote.

Yes.

The motion carries.

Again, so what that vote is, is that it exceeds or that you plan to exceed that revenue neutral rate of the 56. Again, you have not adopted a budget yet. and you still have the ability to adjust it.

Okay, so with that, we will open the public hearing for the 2027 budget. And if you're here to speak about that, come up to the podium, state your name and address, and give us your comments in five minutes or less. You'll have to speak loud.

Okay. I'm Coby Johnson. I live on 1426 Dearborn Street. I have a wife at home and one daughter, a baby under one year old. My question, it's my first time, so excuse my ignorance here, and you might have to clarify some stuff you already have, but just reviewing the budget, I saw the rear-loading trash trucks, and you guys were originally planning to pay with cash. and saving up for that. And then it got diverted into, I think something utility related to solid waste facility. How do you guys plan to save for trash trucks? And also how do you source alternatives? I saw these listed 360 to 400 K. I did some Quick searches and found two other cities had spent 260K on standard kind of rear load trash trucks. And I searched online and found on RDK two 20-yard, 25-yard trash trucks for about 260. So how do you source and make sure that, I don't want to use the word gouging, but someone's giving you competitive pricing on your vendors?

Fair question.

I can answer that normally we do ask for competitive bids unless we use there's a source that's a government approved source where the federal or state government have already done the bidding and they list the people that are low bidders and that way you can just order it right that away our staff goes around and recommends the best truck that they see to fit our needs. Um, 20 years ago we had rear loaders that were single axle and, uh, we had two, if I remember right, we had two wrecks with those on the landfill road because they weren't stable. So we opted for dual axle, uh, trucks to, to maintain more stability. That that's just some knowledge that I have, but did that answer any of your question?

It's a little bit. How do you plan to save for those trucks and are you guys planning to end up? I know you said by 2820 30, but you gotta start saving today. Do you guys start keeping reserves for that and do you? Go into like CDs. I know Kansas does allow you guys to invest and save money that way.

all right um so several things going on there so one the utility is separate from the property taxes so the utility is the closest thing that we have to a business is considered an enterprise fund so with each of those essentially means that we have customers that we charge a utility rate for and then the rates pay for the operations now In solid waste, you have another project that is kind of unrelated to the fleet, which is the public works complex. And the public works complex is a combination of buildings. Some of it is for the utility. Some of it is for attack supported operations like the street crews and the parks team. The utility for solid waste is going to be contributing some of the money for the project. And then the rest of it was bond finance, meaning that it has a property tax impact. The way that we handled that in the budget over the last couple of years was to make it a neutral property tax impact by reducing something else by the equivalent amount. So that's how we handled the building infrastructure. now that still leaves the trucks which are funded by the utility we have replaced two of the um we have two different types of trucks we have automated which are sidearm loaders and then we have the standard rear loaders which are the the commercial monsters you see the two yard the four yard the six yard And they serve different purposes and they handle different types of equipment. We have replaced the two automated side loaders already with cash. And we were able to save that up over the last 10 years to pay cash for that, which is one of the goals that the council established. In recent years, though, the truck costs have gone up considerably. We also got hit with tariff pricing. That was one of the things our vendor told us. that those trucks were going up based on that sort of pricing as well. And so the cost of the rear loaders is what's left. The conversation we had with council at the work sessions was if the goal is to still pay cash and buy those outright without issuing debt, we think you have to do a rate increase of some kind if that remains the goal. You don't have to buy cash. That was just one of the goals. If we're willing to finance it and spread the costs out, we could potentially manage that differently. But if we're trying to get enough cash to buy it outright, we're likely going to be looking at a rate increase towards the end of this year going into next year. As the mayor indicated, there are different truck types. There's different axles, there's different engine setups. Some of them have an engine in front, some of them it's a cab over where they're, and those are differently priced. And I don't know that I can answer all the questions about which types of trucks we're all looking at. We have evaluated the fleet. We did test runs with a variety of different equipment. And price is not the exclusive thing that we look at. It's an important thing that we look at. But we also have done demos and things to make sure that it's the best piece of equipment for our purpose. So sometimes we're looking at the long-term maintenance costs. Sometimes we're looking at... You know, in the example of the cab over chassis versus the one where the engine is in front, the ability to navigate in some of our alleys, the ability to make turns in cul-de-sacs, one of them is better than the other. So some of that goes into the choice as well. And then what the mayor was speaking to is some of the equipment we buy, not all the time, but some of it we buy through something called a national purchasing contract. So there's a solicitation that is done on a national level with vendors across the country where they look at pricing and then they look at all of the other criteria that they may establish for engines, for maintenance and otherwise. and we're able to piggyback on those contracts. So that's an option. You don't always end up with the cheaper equipment. Sometimes you do, sometimes you don't. It depends on which contract we participate in. So we'll ultimately, we'll have to choose what trucks we get. I don't think we've chosen at this point, but that's some of the logic that goes into it and what the plan is right now. So we've replaced half the fleet with cash right now, but we have two more and we've got to figure out how to pay for them. And if the goal is pay cash, then we're looking at a rate increase.

So when you say, do you put into CDs, do you do any kind of accumulation or investing on our reserves? Do we have any?

Yeah. So there's something called the municipal investment pool and we participate in that and that is invested in different ways. So yeah, we have a couple of things like that where money goes into it and you're able to generate a little off of it. That's been better the last couple of years and prior years it generated very little for us. But recently, we were able to get a little bit more out of it. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank okay let's close the public hearing and consider approval of the proposed 2027 budget or we have an option that we could just table it because we're going to go to a workshop possibly so that's your choice council mr mayor make a motion to table the approval of the 2027 budget schedule work session review discuss potential reductions or changes to the proposed 2027 budget second Got a motion and a second. Are there any other questions? Okay.

Now can we schedule the official work session then?

Well, can I vote on the motion and then schedule the work session?

Do both in one?

Yes, if we haven't done that, yes. Okay. Yes. Okay. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Do you plan on, is it next Monday night you want to do the work session?

The off Mondays are typically when you've had them. 21st, you have to adopt the budget before our deadline. So I think sometime next week is your only opportunity. The off Monday makes the most sense based on your previous schedules.

Okay. 530, Josh.

It works for me.

21st 14th Samara make a motion to schedule the hearing I'm sorry the the meeting to discuss the potential reductions changes on Monday September 14th at 530 p.m.

Here at council chambers second got a motion and a second all those in favor say aye aye any opposed motion carries Thank you. 14 to 14. Okay. Don't be late, Mike. Say what? Don't be late. Okay. That moves us to item two, finally. Ordinance establishing the maximum property tax dollar amount for the library fund and library employee benefit fund and we only need half of that right we don't we don't table or we table that tonight right that this is tied to your budget adoption so you would not take action on this item tonight you would table it yeah until the hearing day so make a motion to table that somebody

make a motion to table the proposed ordinance number 2270 establishing the maximum property tax dollar amount for the library fund and library employee benefit fund for the augusta public library until after the until the 21st yeah until september 21st second got a motion in a second erica do you want to call a roll call vote no all right all those in favor of tabling this say aye aye any opposed

Motion carries. Item number three, annual request to exchange federal funds, staff.

Yes, Mayor and Council, the Federal Fund Exchange is a program that KDOT launched many years ago, and you get an annual allocation from the federal government, an annual amount of funding that you're able to use on transportation-related projects. But if you use that money, there's a whole lot of red tape that goes along with that, and it can make your project quite a bit more expensive because you have to follow all of the federal requirements any time you do a project. So what KDOT launched, I want to say back in like 2008, 2009 timeframe is something called the Federal Fund Exchange, where what they do is they are willing to give you 90 cents on the dollar. They assume all of the federal requirements. and they take the federal money and then they give you 90 cents and then they free you of that burden of having to comply with all of the federal requirements. And so the amount that is appropriated to us this year is $133,653.13. So the fund exchange would be 90 cents on the dollar, which is $120,288.13. Attached are the forms and the description of the program. What we're recommending is that you go ahead and utilize the form to get reimbursed for the PPP, the pavement preservation projects that we recently did throughout the city. And then that money can go back in to our transportation funds and be used on other projects or just be used to put our cash balances back in place. I'm gonna go ahead and speak a little bit to the subsequent item. They are separate items, but in the PPP program, we had two roadways that are technically park roads. They're not the same thing as residential streets. That was Garvin Park Road and Augusta Avenue. And our plan on those was to utilize funding out of Capital Improvement Fund, 16 instead of street sales tax fund, because the street sales tax fund exists for you to do maintenance essentially on platted city roadways. Those are unplatted roadways. So those two, we were paying for capital out of the capital improvement fund. One of our recommendations, and you'll see this in the subsequent item, is that when you reimburse your project for the streets that you reimburse the capital improvement fund as well and then that helps you pay for the the next item that's on the list again they're they're unrelated for your action right now but i wanted to explain that relationship briefly before we get to that item so the action item tonight is for council to consider the federal fund exchange for the 90 cents on the dollar in the amount of 120 288 dollars and it was for the pavement preservation projects that we recently completed throughout town with that i'll turn it over to council reconsideration council

Make a motion to approve the request to exchange federal funds for 2026 under the federal aid fund exchange master agreement authorizing the mayor to sign the request form and authorizing staff to reimburse the capital improvement fund for the portion of the 2026 pavement preservation project that was initially paid from that fund. Second.

Did I get a second? Yes.

got a motion or second questions mike is the amount of money we're talking about that 133 000 120 288 is what we would be reimbursed what we would receive okay and it's to go against the 334 000 amount that we paid bands yeah so basically you just have to submit enough of an invoice to cover that amount so that our project invoice was that 334 000 so we're just

verifying that we had enough expenditures to justify the the reimbursement thank you yes sir any other questions all those in favor say aye aye any opposed motion carries thank you item four agreement with jeo for engineering services for the redbud trail levee crossing staff And Brad?

Yeah, Mayor and Councilor, City Engineer Brad Shores is here tonight. As a matter of introduction, we'll provide background. So the Council previously received grants and completed construction on the Phase 1 Redbud Bridge over Highway 54-400. You've subsequently received a grant to do the bridge over the Whitewater River, which is currently in the design phase and ultimately moving to construction once design is satisfied. You also signed a memorandum of understanding with a local nonprofit group called ARTIE. That's the Andover Augusta Rail Trail Initiative. And they are committed and working towards the fundraising to complete the trail segments between the bridges and the trail portion extending all the way to the levee, which is our West City limits. So all of that is in place right now. Once those projects are done, you are still left with a small segment in order to complete the connection that currently exists. So right now, our existing Redbud Trail stops at Lulu Street. It does not extend past that. So you have the levee crossing itself. And when I say levee crossing, the levee has a designated footprint according to the Corps of Engineers. So we're talking about within that footprint, the Corps has permitting requirements if you're going to have any sort of construction that goes on there. Outside of that, it would essentially just be building a similar sort of paved trail as what we built east of Lulu to make that connection. But the project that we're doing with this agreement tonight is simply on the levy crossing itself. So the reason we're proposing this now is you are working kind of on multiple timelines at the same time. So you have the Transportation Alternative Grant and the calendar that JEO is working on. where the project is likely to start construction and maybe late 2027 and then finish in 2028. Ideally, my thought is if you've completed those bridges, you don't want to have a big gap where you're still not connected. You want people to be able to finish that connection and get into the city limits. And so we started talking with JEO to brainstorm, what do you have to do to get on the other side of the levee? So they've been working to prepare some information regarding the floodplain, regarding the work with the Corps. And it's a lot of engineering. I don't know that the project construction-wise is necessarily all that complicated. It's just that the permitting is. and you have to go through that permitting process with the Corps and on the floodplain stuff to navigate it. So JEO has put together an engineering agreement for Scope of Services, and that totals $62,500, and that moves the levee crossing portion through all of those permitting requirements, and then I believe also included the bidding and the, yeah, the bidding for construction to actually build. I'LL LET BRAD SPEAK TO ANY OF THE OTHER DETAILS THAT ARE IN THE SCOPE, AND BRAD, IF YOU CAN HIGHLIGHT JUST SOME OF THE THINGS THAT ARE IN THERE, YOU KNOW, WHY IS THERE SO MUCH TO IT? IT IS A SHORT SECTION, BUT WHAT ARE ALL THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF PERMITS AND THINGS THAT YOU HAVE TO GO AFTER? THE PREVIOUS ITEM THAT YOU JUST VOTED ON, WHAT I SAID IS THROUGH YOUR FEDERAL FUND EXCHANGE, YOU CAN REIMBURSE sorry, transportation-related projects. This pedestrian trail is a transportation project. It's an eligible expenditure. With all of the other grants and things that you've pursued, the goal has been to try to finance that whole project without having to use local tax dollars. So with the previous action, by reimbursing some of that federal fund exchange money to the Capital Improvement Fund, you were then able to use those federal fund exchange dollars or essentially what got reimbursed to us to pay for this engineering that is an eligible expense. That's the 2026 federal fund exchange that still preserves the 2027 federal fund exchange that still preserves the 2028. And if you're averaging about $120,000 a year, those are the sources of funding that will help you do the construction. One time actually comes for you to build the crossing. and also to get your connection down to Lulu. Again, the whole point of that plan is to fund it with outside dollars without having to use your local money. So Brad, I'll turn it over to you if you could speak to the permitting. Why is there so much involved in that little crossing? And then we'll turn it over to council for any questions that they might have.

Yeah, so I guess the first thing I'd say is... For any road engineer, the worst scope of fee to put together is for a sidewalk project because the construction cost is relatively small. But all the engineering they do behind a road project is being done on that sidewalk. So our fee looks very high in comparison to the construction cost. We are doing what's called a 408 permit, a levy permit, which could be pretty challenging on here. And then there's everything else that we're normally doing. when we're in an area where there's water. So DWR, KDA, SHPO, all of those as well. In addition to wanting to be ADA compliant, we're considering a couple of different scenarios. We also have to maintain access for the homeowner. Josh has a very good picture on the top there. So there are some ADA requirements and also some access and some coordination we're going to have to do there. It is a relatively straightforward project, but there are a lot of things we need to think through to make sure we're doing it right. And I'll stand for any questions. I do have an update on the C club as well that Josh mentioned earlier, but maybe hit this one first.

Council, any questions for him on the Redbed Trail crossing.

Is the levee going to be cut or just going to go over the top of the levee?

No. Please do not ever use those words again. We'll get in big trouble. It's a good question. We will be adding fill to the side. So we kind of have two options here. And I think we're coming around to seeing this the way city staff was saying. I was trying to keep this kind of on alignment for the sidewalk. um there's some safety in keeping the pedestrians away from the road but particularly that homeowner's access on the northwest corner there makes that kind of challenging farm it's farm field it's not a home but sorry thank you landowner um anyway we're not committed we're going to explore our options but the other solution would be to bring up the sidewalk and kind of come up closer to the road that would allow that access road there to uh we're not having to push the trail out further we're going to work through some options doesn't the trail have to stay where the real road used to be where the rail was before no well i think well i'm not sure the short answer is no huh short answer is no no and and it's a very short distance that we're talking about bringing it up to the road and then bringing it back So for most of it, it will be on the old rail alignment.

To make it stay within the rail for trail, you know, whatever they call it, you know.

Yeah. I hadn't even thought about that. We can make sure, but I'm not aware of any.

Your right-of-way is not simply where the bed is. Your right-of-way, I think, is 100 feet. 50 feet on each side. I got that. I understand that. There's quite a bit, too.

But I thought you had to be right on that. it's a good point we'll we'll double check i mean certainly an option is to keep it on alignment so if that if that's a requirement i think we can make that work and this is basically the 62 000 is from the levee back to lulu street is this just what we're talking about and the connection to the west so both sides of the levee so is it from lulu to the levee and pass the levee to the west yes so how far west are you going as far as we need to to touch down and meet ada so we can't just go straight down we've got a you know meet ada requirements as soon as we touch down we're done already takes over and then the k.ta project

is going to pick back up there's not been much discussion about any of this in planning you know what's how it's going to be or the layout and going on further west over by the river and and the bridge itself you know it's going to be an interesting time to figure that out i guess would you know tie to it yeah and so these two projects will not touch arty will be in between if that makes sense

And we are in the middle of design on the river bridge and that has been very interesting Thank you Brad I would be amiss if I didn't ask the same question I always ask on your expedience of how quickly you think you're going to Be able to get this. I don't want to this lucky you down on a time frame, but I

just wanted to know that's a really good question hopefully in the contract it gives the time frame i mean our intent is to sync it up with the bid of the other project so we'll have this design bidding with the k.ta project which is the the river bridge thank you

What I would say, Shane, is that the hard part in any of those times is just however long it takes the permitting agency to complete it. I'm assuming the permitting is much harder on the bridge itself, and they're in the middle of that right now. my my whole point in working on it now was again so you don't end up fully connected except for that last thousand feet it would make sense for it to all open at once if you're going to do that so you're trying to coordinate to accomplish that goal

move for the approval of engineering services agreement with jeo for the engineering services and a lump sum of sixty two thousand five hundred dollars second got a motion and a second any other questions all those in favor say aye aye any opposed motion carries

Would you like a quick update on the C-clip limits? Sure. So I asked Riley. So from the western city limits to Walnut, we are designing mill and overlay and patching. So some significant street maintenance. And then from Walnut east to the bridge, which is currently concrete pavement today, is my understanding. That is going to be part of this project was non participating. That means you guys are paying for it. And that's just pavement marking from Walnut to the bridge. This pavement marking from Walnut to the bridge. Yeah. Okay. No significant street maintenance. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Okay. Item number five, Osage pipeline access agreement staff.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNCIL. SO JUST TO KIND OF GIVE EVERYBODY SOME INFORMATION, THAT HANDOUT THAT I GAVE YOU AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING, THAT WOULD BE FOR THIS ITEM HERE. SO ON MAY 14TH OF THIS YEAR, STAFF RECEIVED AN ACCESS AGREEMENT REQUEST FROM OSAGE PIPELINE The agreement would be to board into areas on or near the levee system not to perform soil and groundwater monitoring wells. Osage is planning to put in about seven wells. You can see the locations on that map that I handed out. I received that today from them as an update to what was originally sent and was included in the packet. Osage is planning on beginning work on September 14th with approximately 18 month timeframe, which would have work concluding in March of 2028 or thereabouts. when staff first received the access agreement we raised significant concerns questions about whether or not the levy or whether the work would be permitted by the core concerning that was near the levy we requested that osage provide any kind of documentation that they have communicated with core and have received any kind of relevant permits that they required after a little bit of time, a couple of months, we got word back from Osage with email documentation from the Corps saying that there was no 408 permit required or any kind of NWP. And that is why we are bringing this to your attention today. And I believe that's that's more or less it. So just kind of as an update for what the site plan was in the original packet versus what I handed out today, I can read out the site numbers for you if you'd like. The far northern location PISB 21 has been relocated from the west side of Dike Road there over to the east side. PISB 26 has been removed. And then there may have been slight discrepancy on the location of PISB 23, but that would be a difference of maybe a few feet, which could just be attributed to somebody clicking on a different pixel on their mapping system. So what we are requesting tonight is that council authorize staff to sign the agreement, forward that signed agreement over to Osage Pipeline and permit them to begin their work as early as September 14th.

Any questions? I do.

I'm not sure what to ask.

Rob, you said you got this map today.

Different Cooper?

Yeah, Sam, sorry. Yeah, there we go. Sam, yes, you got this map today. Correct. Yes. So the concern I think I've got is just as I'm looking at the correspondence between TRC and the Corps, this email is July 7th and it says our team has reviewed your items for the subject request and does not believe a 408 review will be needed for the project as shared. Please note, should the scope of the project change, I ask that you share that with our team to reevaluate to see if a review is needed. So is what you got today different than what they looked at before July 7th?

To that end, I'm not sure, but I don't believe that the difference between what we originally received and this would be a difference in scope.

That would be the only concern I have based on the levy and the course restrictions on touching that.

Correct. The main difference that I see between the two maps is that northern, the PISB 21, moving that from the west side of Dyke Road over to the east side. But functionally, it's going to have the same concern to the core one way or the other. So if they didn't have an issue with it being over on the west side, they wouldn't have any issue with it being over on the east side. I suppose I should clarify that as part of the, I'll call it negotiations with Osage, we did have them add language into the agreement that strongly reinforced the requirement that they were going to be responsible for repair and maintenance of the worksite areas and that it would not be the responsibility for the city to clean up any work.

You look like you have a question or comment.

Any other questions?

Do you have any idea how deep these lines are, the pipes are, in the ground? I can't hardly hear you over here anyway.

Sorry, off the top of my head, I don't have that information available.

You don't know how deep they are?

I mean... Not off the top of my head, no.

Maybe this is just like me missing background. Cause I'm new on council. I just feel like, um, I need a little bit background of like how, like the pipeline wants to use this land, right. To, to do some kind of groundwater monitoring monitoring for their company. Is that correct? Is that much? Okay. So then, they tear up our ground, they fix our ground, but to no benefit of the city other than just allowing them to use it for their research. Is that right? Is that what I'm getting?

They have, they have pipeline in the area already. So a lot of this is just making sure that the lines that are there are not leaking or negatively impacting the area. So there is, there is a benefit to the community to be able to know that information.

There's monitoring wells spread all over this area because of the old refinery.

Um,

And some of that I think they're required to do by KDHE and other types of sources. I don't know their particular circumstance, but a lot of times it's a requirement that's attached to that old refinery. And yes, to your point, we've never had an agreement like that other than the restoration where there's like compensation that is tied to that. It's just the restoration.

And is it because it's so close to the levy that it needs approval?

It's because it's on the city property that- Our concern was that because it's so close in proximity to the levy that we wanted the court to be able to weigh in to say whether or not there was permitting requirement. Our goal was to make sure that the city didn't just say, go ahead and drill, do what you need to, and then the court come in and say, you've ruined the levy, we have to decertify it and create a whole bunch of issues.

Because I know the levy's a big deal.

Yeah, and similar to the last item that we just discussed, if it fits within the levy footprint, so you have the levy itself, which is the structure, and then there's something called the tow, where essentially all of those slopes stop. So within that footprint, The Corps of Engineers has permitting abilities and anything that goes on in that footprint, they want to know about it and make determinations what sort of permitting. And so in this case, I think some of it was in the footprint, some of it's adjacent. So we wanted to make sure that the Corps was involved and weighed in before we did anything and accepted the agreement. So that was the background on it.

Okay. That makes sense. Thank you. And when staff received it, they had indicated that they'd received approval from KDHE and we said, great, we're going to send it to the Corps. Yeah. Okay. They're not the final approver. on those items.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I just know we've talked a lot about how picky they are about the levy and how expensive it can be to fix that, so.

And tell me if I'm wrong. What I'm hearing is they're required to do this maintenance to make sure nothing's leaking and ruining our ground. Is that correct?

That's my understanding.

They're not doing it because they're such a good citizen. They're doing it because the EPA and the KDAG. Spend that money to do it. Or some other government agency. I'm not trying to bash them. No. They're a business. They wouldn't do this if they didn't have to.

I just think it's in our town's best interest also to make sure it's not like he can maintain a command. Turn our land up.

I move for the approval of a requested access agreement with Osage Pipeline Company LLC to access city property to perform soil boring and groundwater monitoring activities on or near the city's levee.

Second. Got a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, Sam. Are you here for the next item? Yes, I am. Item 6, 2026-03, rezone from R2, small lot slash zero lot line and R1 single family residential to an I1 industrial with a planned development overlay. Staff.

One second, Sam. So, Mayor and Council, just for clarification, since you took no action on the library ordinance, I believe that number was going to be ordinance number 2270, so I think that that is the number that you would be considering here. Where it shows is blank, so that plugs in the blank that's currently shown.

All right. And I'm sorry, the train was going. Are you ready for me? The train was going and I couldn't hear. Are you ready for me? Yes. OK. All right.

But if the train starts, stop.

OK. All right. Again, thank you, council. So the item that we have before us today is a little bit of a convoluted item. It's a rezoning request for five properties with a planned development overlay. The project location is going to be roughly at the North Ohio and High Street intersection. The developer and their agent are here tonight. So if you have questions for them, You can ask them here in a minute. So 1106 North Ohio and 1124 North Ohio are two properties that are part of this. They were acquired at auction. The developers plan to expand their current existing commercial self-storage and recreational storage facility by introducing three new or upwards of three new commercial storage facilities. On August 12th, Planning Commission heard the request for the rezone and plan development overlay and recommended approval. Since we don't see PDO requests in all that often, I did want to give kind of a background on what a PDO is and kind of a purpose. So PDO is a plan development overlay. Really what the goal of a PDO is is to provide site design flexibility and development standards for different kinds of projects that may not necessarily cleanly fit into what zoning regulations would ordinarily require. In addition to that, if a developer comes in request says, hey, I'd like to do this PDO, the city then has the option or opportunity to say, we can do that. But we're going to also put in some site specific restrictions and requirements that are going to be specific to this particular development. some of those restrictions can be restricting land uses requiring buffering requiring gliding requirements fencing standards and operational standards PDO will run with the land and any kind of major deviations from the approved site plan the applicant would have to seek or the property owner in future years would have to seek an amendment to the approved PDO All right, so we've got the site plan up here. A couple of things to note. The green does not necessarily show up real well on the overhead there, so I apologize for that. But what we're looking at here overall is the red is the site plan for the proposed rezoning and plan development overlay. The two green areas there are also going to be part of their property, but it will be outside of the plan development overlay. The developers are intending to leave those areas as as there are one designated zones for potential redevelopment into single family homes. But with the focus being on that red area, you can see that there are several existing buildings in the north. There's going to be two new proposed buildings and then down to the southwest is going to be a proposed building. Planning Commission did request that the applicants add in a 30-foot landscape buffering and then a 40-foot building set back to that front yard area. That was to kind of help protect the aesthetic along the North Ohio corridor.

Ohio streets right here.

I see the next slide.

All right, then as part of the recommended approval of the PDO, our site's requirements, those will be dictated in the ordinance that's before you. It's going to articulate permitted uses. Basically, it's going to say that the only permitted land uses that are going to be within that PDO area is going to be commercial self-storage and the ancillary office space uses it's going to specific or excuse me it's going to prohibit specific industrial uses it's going to set different operational restrictions set free street frontage restriction or standards require screening and buffering set lighting standards and set traffic circulation standards So the goal with all those restrictions is to really make sure that whatever development is going to be there is going to be restricted specifically to essentially the already existing commercial self-storage. So if it ultimately ends up being rezoned to that I-1 with PDO overlay, no other high intensity industrial use could come in and say, hey, yep, I want to build whatever facility here would have to adhere to the standards that are in that PDO requirement.

Hey, Josh, can I see that Google map again?

Yeah, and I can provide a little bit more background. So currently there's the commercial self-storage facility that is there existing. That existing property had three different zonings on it. So it was residential up front, and I'm sorry, please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm going off of memory right now. I believe the front lot, there were three lots. The front lot was residential. The second lot where the office building is, where that green roof is, wait, that's residential. Then there was commercial. And then a portion of it is currently zoned industrial. So when the developer came in, they were... looking at acquiring additional property to expand the business, which those three houses off of Ohio. So those are zoned residential and those properties go like all the way back. So they're really long properties. And they were looking to acquire a lot of that green space to expand the business. They were able to acquire two of those homes at auction. And so what we're doing is we're separating those residential lots. The front portion will remain residential zoning and the rear portion will be absorbed by the business and the whole property that's going to be used for the business we're requesting a rezone to industrial with that planned development overlay to protect the use intensity into the future so the pdo allows just the commercial cell storage to be on that property and if it was ever to become any other business or sold it would need to have an amendment done to that peo pdo it couldn't just be any industrial use There's a lot of moving parts.

On Ohio, we're keeping the residential homes? Correct.

I would say we're not necessarily keeping the homes. It's keeping a residential zoning.

This is the second option that we have. We had the first one that kind of put those out on island, but we've corrected that.

all right i will say the developers had taken all of our feedback and made adjustments to their pdo along the process so all of the recommendations and feedback that staff has they've incorporated the feedback we heard from the public and the planning commission they incorporated and this is the final submission that was approved by the planning commission thank you guys for working with us on that i was at that meeting and because that's ward two and i had citizens concerned but we haven't changed it why you presented

to the planning zoning that hasn't changed on the since we've since they proved that right right good thank you council

looks good to me i mean this was our way of supporting you know an existing business um and really trying to take advantage of some underutilized land um within the city still so it will so we you know we also hear through all when we work with developers and different business owners you know having to invest a lot of money into these engineering plans and site concepts so we did work with the developer to get them through the rezoning and PDO process first and then as long that way they get the support from you guys to move forward and then they are also actively in the platting

and drainage process so this will also come before you again as a plat with a drainage plan as well my next question is we had the residential up front right and so our houses our town is in need of housing as we all know we're in a housing crisis will you be able to allow any builders to develop those two up front that are residents you will and you'll work with them okay

i will make a note that that does not have an impact on your vote for the rezone or pdo so we are the impact on mine i'm sorry well the rezoning That is more of a business transaction, a private business dealing, and it cannot be used in your decision-making process for the rezone. You're looking at whether you want those front lots to stay residential and whether you want this PDO to be industrial.

I've got to look at the big picture in our future five years down the road.

But who they enter into a development contract with is not for the city council to decide. That's what I'm getting at.

I think you and I are not on the same page. I think you think I'm trying to do something I'm not trying to do. I'm just asking again.

I'm trying to give you the appropriate legal advice for the things that you're considering when you're making your decision.

Thank you.

There are a lot of moving parts, yes.

My name is Jimmy. I'm the developer. Thank you for having me here. Thank you for seeing this project, letting it be presented. Our intention as storage developers is to not take away viable residential housing because it is a crisis all over the nation. With that said, those two houses I walked inside of them, they are unlivable. They're in an unlivable state. So our intention is to scrape them and then put two blank residential lots back on the market.

Thank you.

That's our intention. Thank you.

So when you build the next couple of pieces back here, is it going to be like a lot of concrete or is it going to be rock, some kind of pervious?

It'll be asphalt. Asphalt? Yeah, that's what's on the PDO overlay is asphalt paving, an impervious pavement.

any kind of ponds for runoff or cause I mean, we all know how the water travels through town.

That will be at a later state once we get through the platting process.

And we had those preliminary conversations with them when they first came into our office before we even went down the PDO route is that there would be some drainage that needed to be addressed, some significant drainage. So they've been aware of that as they're building out these plans.

Thank you. So Matthew Tucker, agent for the applicant. The next thing that you guys are going to see, as Kami had mentioned, is the platting process. And inside that platting process, we have to do a drainage report that will be based on the site plan that also has to go through permitting. and a big part of this was actually the discussions and we've had meetings we've got to satisfy some drainage needs in the area because of the capacity of that channel back there because of some city requirements and things so those documents are all in the process of getting submitted they'll have to go through their reviews and a final site plan review to make sure that we don't negatively impact the drainage i can tell you that this pdo doesn't show any final design for drainage but it is absolutely something that we have to consider on the site Thank you. Thank you.

Any other questions? Cammie, for that southwest building that's proposed where it has that 30-foot landscape buffer, what does that actually look like?

Would you like to speak to it, Matt? Thank you.

so the landscape buffer is kind of a unique thing to this site and we had to kind of jump through some hoops to define what that really was the intent of that or the reason that that's there is it was one of the outcomes of the back and forth with the planning commission and city staff there's a an old yes that tree right there that tree right there is what's driving the landscape buffer we wanted to make sure that we stayed outside of the root system for that tree there's a desire It was expressed at the planning commission meeting that we don't ruin the feel of the neighborhood. And so we wanted to ensure that there would be street tree space and green space out front beyond just what you govern with a building setback. So the landscape buffer is going to prevent any paving out front there in that space. So it's going to make sure that our screening fence and any paving or aisle is back behind that 30 foot. And that's why we put that in there. that is in line with what would be the building setback for those residential lots to the north. So we're actually going to ensure not only are we not upstaging those residential lots, but we're ensuring a nice green space out in front and then our building setback is even further back yet.

Thank you. And I saw in the PDO requirements that some type of architectural element was for the street facing side of it as well. So there's intended to be some of that on that that faces Ohio.

Correct.

And then on that Google map photo where the stone fence to the south of that proposed building ends and it turns to wrought iron, is there an intent to screen that more so that that new building is not visible from the cemetery right there? Or what is that plan?

so there is a screening requirement that requires that eight foot solid screening i believe i'd have to go back to the survey i'm not sure if you can tell on the pdo where the end of that masonry wall is versus the the landscaping buffer but the landscaping buffer that 30-foot landscaping buffer that's going to be about where that screening wall is and so that screening wall would would be required to be continuous at least to to connect to that if that doesn't come as far forward as that 30-foot buffer i think that may actually be pretty close to where your 30-foot buffer is.

Yeah, it kind of looks like that, and I just noticed that on that PDO, the eight-foot buffer is delineated on the north side of it, but it's not on the south side, so that's why I was asking.

The eight-foot buffer?

Yeah, the eight-foot buffer.

Yeah, we've focused more on the north side around the... residential properties.

Right. Yeah. They put screening fence. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So it's got to come. There's if you zoom in on that, I don't know if you can, but there's kind of a squared fence line. That fence has got to come all the way down along those residential lots on the back to. Right. It's it's a general screening requirement and it actually should stop at the landscaping buffer there where it hits Ohio. Yeah, it looks like it does not. It should. And then that buffer fence would then come down along the landscape buffer line.

And did we have public comment for the planning?

We did.

And what was the public comment?

Well, we received some written communication. We had some conversations over the phone. We did have some comment at the public hearing, but do you want to speak to it?

Yes, I would kind of preface the public comments with the idea that we had originally sent out public notifications for an original version of the PDO site plan that ultimately was not presented to Planning Commission. So some of them, the public comments that we received are in relation to that first plan that weren't necessarily applicable to the current plan but in general a lot of the concerns were related to traffic impact to just kind of neighborhood character and then kind of what the ultimate vision for the city is long term there there was some feedback about maintaining those three front properties as residential

um and keeping those as residential and then also some feedback of they're supportive of this pdo and the expansion but they don't want to see a lot more industrial and probably even some commercial in this specific corridor that's my questions i would just say i applaud you guys for working with them and building the feedback into your plan so appreciate that agreed

move for the approval of ordinance number 2270 rezoning certain property within the city of augusta kansas to an a1 industrial zoning district with the planned development overlay pdo approving a pdo site development plan and amending the official zoning map of the city of augusta kansas second and then that's i1

Sorry, what did I say? A1. Guys, it's almost 9 o'clock. I'm real tired. Do you want me to say it again? Okay, we're good. I amend it to I1.

Mike, are you still second? She amended her movement. Motion. I said second. Second, third, fourth, and fifth.

All those in favor say aye. It's a roll. Oh, it's a roll? It doesn't say that.

Martin?

I'm sorry?

It's a roll call vote since it's an ordinance. Oh, it is.

Martin? Yes.

Licklider?

Yes.

Bailey?

Yes. Scott? Yes.

Richardson? Yes. Davis? Yes. Whitey? Yes. Marr? Yes. Motion carries.

Thank you. Okay. Thank you, gentlemen. Thanks for investing in our town.

item seven guaranteed maximum price amendment with don winger and sons construction for the adjusted public works complex staff yes uh mayor and council this item is uh related to past actions that you've taken on the public works complex as you recall uh in uh hang on josh i can't hear you something's wrong yeah i've been

Okay.

In May of 2026, the council entered into a contract, a construction manager at risk CMR contract with Donlinger and Sons Construction. As you remember, as you might recall under that model, we are working in partnership where the contractor, our engineer and the city are a team. that are actively working on the design, on value engineering from the beginning as a team. And up to this point, the council has authorized the maximum amounts for certain line items, but not for the overall project. And those line items were updated on August 3rd. 2026 that shows that list that was included. Tonight, what you have before you is the guaranteed maximum limit essentially for all of the other line items in the project. So this is setting the maximum for the overall project. That number was negotiated between staff, between the engineer and with Donlinger and the guaranteed maximum price. came out at $7,520,913. That is also inclusive of over $300,000 in contingency. So we've left us some room in case anything comes up. If it doesn't come up, then that is money that we don't necessarily have to spend. This also gives us the ability to be under as well. But if you're going to exceed any of the line items, That can only be done by a change order approved by council. What I'm going to show you as you have this contract, I'm going to skip down to where the line item proposal is because this shows you essentially the whole scope of the project. If you all can see, you may not be able to read every single line from what I'm showing up here unless I zoom in really close, but do you see the green color that's in the notes section off to the right? That bullet point list, this green color is showing what you had previously approved and what you had locked in. The amendment before you tonight, everything that is not shown as green is getting locked in as a maximum price. So that's the overall contract, but that's also on a line item basis as well. And so this sets the overall maximum number of $7,520,913. You can see down here. So there's your maximum number. This number includes 375,000 of contingency. So there is protection in case we run into something as part of the project. But otherwise, I think staff was happy with the discussions with Donlinger. We've already come up with a couple of small things. There may be more along the way. The point of having the team is to do value engineering and work throughout the process to try to save money where we can and where it makes sense. So we already have a couple of small ideas, but there may be some other things that come up as we're building where we can potentially try to lower that even more. But this is within the budget that we had established for the project. And so we can feel comfortable with this pricing. And the recommendation tonight is for us to go ahead and move forward and lock this in, our guaranteed maximum price. In doing so, we will officially begin the mobilization process. So all the way up to this point, all the decades and years that we've been working towards this moment, we're still not technically in a construction phase. But once you authorize that amendment and have set the guaranteed max on the project, then Donlinger can start planning their construction. And I believe that their mobilization plan is to be onsite in November starting. And then it's gonna be a pretty lengthy construction. There's a lot of buildings and things that go along with it, a lot of utility upgrades, but they will be mobilizing in November according to the latest project scheduled as conceived in this amendment. So with that, I'll turn it over to you if you have any questions. Brad is also up to speed and speaking with the other JEO folks that have been working with us on this. So we'll try to answer everything that you have for us tonight.

If I could, Josh always does a really good job of summarizing just one insertion. So between now and groundbreaking in November, we're going to advertise hopefully within a week. So if you guys approve tonight, we advertise within a week. So what you have in front of you is like, this is my lay understanding is this is what Donling says they'll bid it for. And that's why it's a guaranteed max price. But every item, every line item we can get a competitive bid on, we're going to get at least three competitive bids on so the price can come under the GMP. So that's going to happen a week from now. We'll have three weeks of bidding. So that's kind of open book. It's very transparent. It's very regulated how it has to happen in the CMAR process where we're getting these competitive bids. Donlinger has to submit theirs kind of in a sealed envelope. know they can't get the other bidders bids and say i'm going to be at one dollar under that so they have to submit first and then you get these other bids from the other vendors so hopefully we come in even below and then everything everything before and after that what josh said is correct so we're hoping to break ground they told me this calendar year they told me november but they said don't promise council november so

this calendar year for breaking ground hopefully i think we should have ribbon cutting in november no matter what i heard it yeah or a groundbreaking maybe get the golden shovels out there or something josh not related to the guaranteed maximum but just the project in general when they do break ground um will the compost pile be still available and relocated or what will that look like we've already relocated the compost pile to its location

It was moved for this project. Yeah, so it won't be moved again? No, it shouldn't be.

Perfect.

This might be a stupid question, but we've got this maximum bid of $7.5 million. What happens if it goes above that? If something happens and we've got to go above that?

The point of the guaranteed max is for that to be your guaranteed max. Okay. If it's going to exceed any of those individual line items, that cannot be done without your approval. It cannot be what? It cannot be done without your approval.

If they go over and they come back and say, we can't finish this project because we don't have your approval, are we stuck with a half-built situation?

I wouldn't believe so. I mean, the point of having a guaranteed max is you are setting the limits on the project. So Don Langer has bidded accordingly to deliver the project.

Okay.

I'm just playing the devil's advocate.

Going through this process where you have the individual line items and the individual elements, it'll have competitive bids as well. The goal is to try to get it even lower. It doesn't, it would not behoove them at all to not deliver on that contract. And part of the reason for doing the selection process you did when Donlinger was selected was to work with a vendor that you felt comfortable forming a partnership with of that nature to deliver the project. Donlinger has is an experienced developer, an experienced builder. They have built many projects for us, quite substantial scale. And we went through a selection process to choose them as opposed to other potential vendors. Part of that consideration being the likelihood that they deliver the project. So that was background before this. Now, you can have issues with any single contract that you ever execute but we went through a process to end up with a good vendor that we trusted and and that's where we're at at this moment i've been snake bit before i need more money i need more money so that's what i'm coming from josh said that very well um staff has talked about

I think we have a very good contractor. I think they have a good reputation. I think they're local. I think they understand that their reputation rides with these. But there is never no risk. This is a site that has had What's underground, we don't know exhaustively. When they start breaking ground, we might find unsuitable soils. We might find unanticipated utilities. So I think the key risk that we've talked about internally and with staff is when we're digging foundations, what are we going to find there? If we come back to you, hopefully we don't come back to you at all because we're doing this under the GMP. But if we do, it's probably because we're finding something underground that we just, we don't know until we start digging.

Good point.

Make a motion to approve the guaranteed maximum price amendment. pursuant to section 3.2.6 of the agreement with Donlinger & Sons Construction Company for the Augusta Public Works Campus project to approve and establish a guaranteed maximum price.

Second. Got a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, thank you. Okay, item number eight. We want to appoint somebody to the League of Kansas Municipalities voting delegate appointment.

Kip, are you wanting to do that? I'm the only one going to. I'm sure he's going to go to it.

Make a motion to appoint Kip Richardson as the city's voting delegate at the League of Kansas Municipalities Annual Business Meeting and Convention of Voting Delegates.

Second. Got a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Item H, matters from and for council. So we need to consider selection of the city council members to serve on the safe streets for all steering committee. Cammy, is that your committee? You do or don't?

Sure. Yes. Somebody from staff told me it was your committee. We need one or two council members. It's not a fixed number how many you want to appoint. I think any more than two is probably too many. IF YOU ONLY WANT ONE, THAT'S FINE, BUT IF WE CAN FIND ONE OR TWO THAT WOULD PARTICIPATE, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

NEW SPEAKER I VOLUNTEER.

NEW SPEAKER KIPP VOLUNTEERED.

DID I HEAR JAKE? NEW SPEAKER DO WE NEED TO VOTE ON HIM?

NEW SPEAKER IF HE COULD MOTION AND VOTE TO APPOINT.

NEW SPEAKER I MAKE A MOTION TO APPOINT KIP RICHARDSON AND Jake Maher to, let me find it, to the city's voting delegation at the League of Kansas.

No?

To serve on the state streets. I'm sorry. All staring community. I apologize.

Second. These glasses don't work. Got a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Okay. Mr. Martin, do you have anything tonight?

Yes, I have one item. In the block of Clark Street, the 200 East block, Eastern 200 block of Clark Street, had a citizen very upset about the bricks that are in the road. and when it does rain we haven't had any rain for a while but when it does rain it holds water where he parks his car his truck and it very slippery but some of the bricks are coming clear up out of the road i drove through it today and It is a site that needs to be taken care of. But a lot of the people that live on the south side of that street in there, it's really, really, really rough. And that's all I have, Mr. Mayor.

Okay. Matt, have you got anything? Nothing, Mr. Mayor. Bob? Nothing, Mr. Mayor.

Yeah, all I got is to echo what Mike said. I had people reach out to me this past couple weeks about the same thing, same spot, same place. And they're getting highly frustrated over there. And that's all I got.

Okay. I just wanted to, I guess, reiterate that we've got this meeting coming up on the 14th. and you know public participation you know would be great in input and things on this so we know kind of have an idea what you want i know we've heard from and listened to and seen on facebook and things several things that have been mentioned and things but i'd like to like said rather i'd rather somebody come down and talk to us rather than see it on facebook Again, just Monday the 14th at 5.30 here. Okay. Sean?

Nothing for me.

Nothing, Mr. Mayor. Okay.

Nothing, sir. Mr. Richardson.

All right. Mr. Mayor, I make a motion to move into recess and executive session from 9.07 p.m. for 15 minutes for preliminary discussion of the acquisition of real property pursuant to the preliminary discussion of the acquisition of real property exception KSA 754319. B6, I ask the City Manager Shaw, Assistant City Manager Cammy Schroep, and the City Attorney join the Council Executive Session in the open meeting of the governing body where we convene at 7 and 15, 9.22 p.m. Second.

Motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Let's go to the little room over there. Thanks, Major.

Mr. Mayor, make a motion to exit executive session where no action was taken. Second. Got a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Mr. Mayor, I make a motion to recess an executive session from 9.23 to 9.38 p.m. for preliminary discussion of the acquisition of real property PROPERTY PURSUANT TO THE PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION OF ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY EXCEPTION KSA 754319B6 AS THE CITY MANAGER JOSH SHAW ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER CAMMY SHROPE AND CITY ATTORNEY JOIN THE COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SESSION THE OPEN MEETING OF THE GOVERNING BUYER RECONVENE IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 938 PM. NEW SPEAKER 2. SECOND.

NEW SPEAKER 2.

GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. NEW SPEAKER 2. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. WE'LL BE BACK IN 15 MINUTES.

Mm-hmm.

Mr. Mayor, make a motion to an executive session, exit executive session where no action was taken. Second.

Got a motion and a second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries.

Mr. Mayor, I make a motion to go into executive session for 20 minutes from 9.38 p.m. to 9.58 p.m. to discuss a developer's agreement pursuant to the consultation with an attorney for the public body or agency which would be deemed privileged in the attorney-client relationship. Justification for executive sessions under the Kansas Open Meetings Act, KSA 7.5, 4-3-1-9-B-2, and to invite City Manager Josh Shaw, Assistant City Manager Kami Schroep, and City Attorney Andrew Marino. The open meeting will resume in City Council Chambers at 9.59 p.m. Second.

Got a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries. We'll be back in 20 minutes, just about 10 o'clock, folks.

Mayor, I make a motion to exit executive session where no action was taken.

Second. Got a motion and a second to exit executive session where no action was taken. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Mr. Mayor, I make a motion to adjourn this meeting. Second. Got a motion and a couple seconds to end the meeting for the evening. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Remember, next Monday night, 5.30 here, budget meeting.