City Commission - Regular Meeting

Ready, six, seven, We'll now call to order the city of Abling, Kansas City Commission meeting for April 27th, 2026. Shayla, may we please have a roll call?

Mayor Ry here. Commissioner Taylor here. Mr. Koff, present. Mr. Lidle, here. Mr. Meisenberg, here. Roll call's complete. Okay, if we could please stand for the pledge. Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. for which it stands.

Okay. Our first item is approval of today's agenda. I move that we approve the agenda for April 27th, 2026 city commission meeting. I second. Motion has been moved and seconded. Do we have any commission discussion? Seeing none, we would roll call vote. Vice Mayor Taylor, yes. Commissioner Koloff, Commissioner Lidle, yes. Commissioner Meisenberg, yes.

Myself, yes. Motion carries. Our next item is a consent agenda, which consists of the meeting minutes for the April 13th, 2026 regular meeting appropriation ordinance A-042726-26, AP payment register, and reappointment of Jill Goldmith and Megan Powell to the library board. terms expiring April 2030. I make a motion to approve the consent agenda as written. I'll second. Motion has been moved and seconded. Do we have any commission discussion? Seeing none, I'm going to roll call vote. Commissioner Kolhoff. I. Commissioner Lidle, yes. Commissioner Meisenberg, yes. Vice Mayor Taylor? Yes.

Myself? Yes. Motion carries. Our next item under heading six, public comments communications is 6A, a public forum. If there's anyone that here that would like to address an item that's not on our current agenda, they may do so at this time. Okay. Seeing none, seeing none, we will move to item 6B, which is rec recognition of Lauren Goodale, winner of the League of Kansas Municipalities Local Leaders of Tomorrow 7th grade essay contest. Um, so the league puts on an essay contest every year and Lauren won the North Central uh regional piece of that uh with a essay titled supporting seniors with healthc care challenges in Abalene. So, I won't read the whole thing in front of everyone, but uh just wanted to congratulate you uh for winning that essay contest and you did a great job and I'm going to take a picture and everything.

Where are we all? Let's Let's all join them. One, two, Yeah, very cool. Congratulations. Then our next item is 6C. It's a proclamation uh sexual assault awareness month proclamation. I have Jacqueline Lawrence with DVAC here, but okay.

Yep. That's my first one. So, might make sure that mic's on, too. Yep. Here we go. You can state your real name.

Okay. My name is Cayman Mson. I am the victim advocate at DVAC. Um, and they kind of threw me in the fire, so I'm here today. And this is the sexual assault awareness month, April 2026. Whereas April is recognized nationwide as sexual assault awareness month, dedicated to increasing public awareness about sexual violence, supporting survivors and promoting prevention efforts. And whereas sexual assault is a serious and widespread issue affecting individuals of all ages, background, and identities often occurring alongside domestic violence and other forms of abuse. And whereas in Kansas, 977 incidents of sexual assault were reported in 2024 with one rape reported every 8 hours, 57 minutes, and 58 seconds. And law enforcement making one arrest for rape approximately every 2 days, 19 hours, 23 minutes, and 31 seconds. And whereas EVAC provides vital advocacy and supporting services to survivors of sexual assault and domestic violences throughout the region. And whereas from January through December 2025, the EVAC served 132 survivors of domestic violence across 19 countries who also experienced sexual violence in their relationships, including but not limited to 96 survivors from Selen County and four survivors from out of state with 55 survivors receiving safe shelter services. And whereas DVAC also supported 89 survivors who primar primary victimization was sexual assault across 12 counties included including but not limited to 63 survivors of Selen County and two survivors from out of state with 21 survivors provided safe shelter. And whereas these numbers do not just serve as a statistic but represent individuals who whose lives have been impacted by violence and who show resilience, strength and courage in their healing journeys. And whereas communities play a vital role in preventing sexual violence by fostering education, awareness, and a culture of respect while ensuring survivors have access to trauma-informed care and

support. Now, therefore, let it be proclaim proclaimed that DVAC hereby April 2026 is recognized as sexual assault awareness month. And be it further proclaimed that all residents are encouraged to support survivors, promote prevention efforts, and work collectively to end sexual violence in our community. Thank you. We've got a signed version, too. If you want to come up for a picture,

one, two, three. One, two. Okay. Under heading seven, unfinished business, we first have 7A. Consider approval of ordinance number 26-3480, an ordinance authorizing the sale of alcoholic liquor in a portion of the city- owned parking lot and the consumption of alcoholic liquor and specified portions of the abuing public alley in North Spruce Street in Nabling, Kansas, and approving the temporary closure of such portions of the alley in North Spruce Street in connection with the special event hosted by Rackets Tap House, Inc. on May 23rd through 24th, 2026. City Clerk Moore,

Mayor and Commissioners, this is for the schools outfest hosted by Rackets on May 23rd and 24th. Um, due to them closing streets and being on public property, they have to have this ordinance in order to get their extension of their ordinance or of their liquor license from the state. Can you help uh clarify for me on the map here? I I guess my concern is that it looks like it includes Spruce Street, but then also additional space. And I guess my concern is that it's going to um include the sidewalks in front of other drinking establishments.

I assume since they're closing all of Spruce Street, it probably would include that, but they did get signatures from all local businesses that in the surrounding area that they approved the street closure. I guess I'm not so much concerned about the street closure, but my concern is that that they are that they would not be closing the sidewalk in front of other drinking establishments. Does that make sense? It does. I And I don't know the answer to that. Okay. I can tell you that they have to have this 10 days before they're uh can send it in to the state. So, okay. I think I'm fine with closing the street. I would just want to make sure we keep that sidewalk Yeah. Yeah. open and available. I know there's been some I would imagine it'll just be barriers at the fourth street and third street and then everything else will be open.

Okay. I know there was a little bit of heartache the last time there was an event that closed down the streets with those other establishments that weren't part of it. So I just want to make sure we're sensitive to that. The street closure request was uh signed by all the or the area businesses and approved by all city departments. So

okay. Yeah. Again I'm 100% on board with everything. I just want to make sure that the other businesses don't lose access or don't feel encumbered. Any other questions for staff? None. I'd entertain a motion. I'll make a motion to approve the ordinance 26-480, an ordinance authorizing the sale of alcoholic liquor in a portion of the city parking lot and the consumption of alcoholic liquor and specific portions of the budding public alley and north spruce street nin Kansas and approving the temporary closure such portions of the alley andor spruce sheet street in connection with the special event hosted by racket staff Inc. on May 23rd and 4th of 2026.

I'll second. Motion has been moved and seconded. Do we have any commission discussion? Seeing none, we'll do a roll call vote. Commissioner Lidle, yes. Commissioner Meisenberg, yes. Vice Mayor Taylor, yes. Commissioner Kolhoff, I. Myself, yes. Motion carries. Our next item is 7B. Consider approval to apply for FAA AIP grant eight place tea hanger project K78. Interim city manager Quind Day. Yeah. Before uh I start that, do you mind if I tell Lauren great job on your essay? I got a chance to read it and after uh three decades in municipal service, you're definitely going to be a future leader. It was really great. I appreciated it, especially for old people like me.

Yeah. Thank you. Uh the next three items on the agenda are all tied together as part of the airport tea hanger project um has been working on for several years. Uh the first item is a request for approval to apply for the uh FAA airport improvement program grant for the AP place tear project. This step allows the city to pursue the federal funding to offset the cost of the project. Uh the anticipated FAA participation is $942,757 which would cover a significant portion of the eligible project cost. Uh I put on the uh dis or the commissioners or an updated funding plan after we received notice from KOT uh on Friday, Thursday or Friday after the packet went out. Um Brian Combmes with Olsen reached out to KOT and said that the price uh of the the project went up and asked for additional funding. And just because he asked and made that effort, KOT uh is adding another $40,000 to our grant. you know, uh definitely showing that Brian and Kelsey, you're doing a great job working for us. The application that is in your packet does not reflect that $40,000. Uh and those would be on page 46, 51, and 52. Those numbers will be updated to reflect the additional KOT funding, which lowers our share by uh $40,000. Um approval of the item does not obligate the city to spend the funds. It simply allows us to move forward with the application and position the project for the federal support we're seeking. Uh it'll help us reduce reliance on local funding while still allowing us to improve the airport facilities and get those muchneeded hangers uh built. The application is due on May 1st and we're asking the commission to authorize the submission of the grant application and authorize the mayor to execute the

required documents. Any questions for staff? We've got the document that you prepared in front of us here. I'm seeing K. KIPP. Does this document reflect this grant that you're Yes. The $900 and some,000 should be reflected on there. Okay. That's the FAA share. That's what we're applying for. The 942757. Yes. Okay. So that's that's what we're applying for with this.

That's what this is for. Okay. The K dot grant in the updated one is now um 332 370. That's the amount that the governor announced last week for us. So um the city share is now reduced down to the 332,373 for eight place hangers. I think this is still a big question mark for me is there was an insurance there were insurance funds that I think is just about that maybe not quite $332,000 that had mysteriously disappeared. Have we identified where those funds have gone?

They were placed into the airport's operating fund and they were spent where I don't know. They weren't put into an insurance reserve or into a a a special fund to hold them back. They were just deposited into the airport operating. And I believe because there was uh no funds levied for the airport, they were used to operate the airport. Do we have I mean it sounds like you've done some work around that. Is there a detailed accounting of that?

Uh just the operating budget, just where it was deposited and then what was spent every month? Do we h um I think the other I guess important piece for me is that the leases go to pay off that $332,000. Do we have a plan for making sure that happens?

Uh that would be a decision for the future or for the commission to make in the future be a policy decision on what those uh fee schedules would be. Currently it's $90 uh a month. If you take the city share of the 332,000, uh assuming a 20-year at 4% amortization, you're looking at uh about $252 a month you'd have to charge for the uh the hangers. If you did not factor in any interest uh and you advertised it, you would be looking at $173 a month to recoup those cost over 20 years.

Have there been any discussions? I know uh we've got Mr. price here this afternoon. Have there been any discussions with I think there were some other folks who had leased those hangers previously about what they would be willing to pay that 252 dollars seems like a steal for that amount of storage space, but uh I know that that's not reflected in other hangar rental rates throughout the state. So I'm just kind of curious if uh what your thoughts are or if you've got a if your committee has had a chance to address that. I guess that for me before I can approve anything like that I guess I would want to know that's maybe more on the next item I guess but I would want to know that we've got a mechanism to to pay for it. Uh I've not had any conversation with the airport advisory board. I know that they addressed that last year when we the commission was talking about whether or not to go after six hangers or eight hangers. I think there was some opposition from those present to increasing that and it was decided it would be addressed once whether six hangers or eight hangers was decided moving forward but those rates are set by the city commission in that fee schedule.

Yeah. So I think on this item I think it's a resounding yes. We want to apply for those funds but I think this project is dead in the water without them. I guess I'd make a motion to uh approve the application for the FAA AIP grant a place T hanger project. I'll second. Motion has been moved and seconded. Do we have any commission discussion? Seeing none, we'll roll call vote. Commissioner Meisenberg, yes. Vice Mayor Taylor, yes. Commissioner Khoff, I. Commissioner Lidle, yes.

Myself, yes. Motion carries. Our next item is 7 C. Consider approval of the low responsive bid from votes construction company in the amount of $1,484,186 for the construction of an eight place tea hanger at the Abene Municipal Airport interim city manager Quende. Yeah. After uh opening bids and uh reviewing all the bids, we're recommending approval of the low responsive bid from Voitz Construction. Uh the low bid followed the appropriate competitive process and they met all the requirements to be considered the lowest responsible bidder. Uh we're asking that you approve this uh low bid contingent upon concurrence from the FAA and approval of the FAA grant uh that you just approved us to apply for. This will ensure alignment with the federal funding requirements before proceeding. With those contingencies in place, the approval allows us to stay on schedule and move into uh construction upon FAA approval and receiving those funds from them and KOT. Questions for staff on this item.

What would be the drop dead date to approve that contract without having a mechanism in place to pay for that $332,000 to approve the U VO contract. Right. So this is uh you're asking for approval contingent on the uh FA grant. The FAA grant. So, I guess I would like it also to be contingent upon an approved funding fee schedule mechanism to help pay that $332,000 that we clearly don't have in our bank account.

You have the uh funds set aside from reallocated funds. You reallocated $575,000. Uh so, you wouldn't be taking all of that. Um the bid will be good for uh 30 days, I believe, is is the date. If we don't accept the bid, uh, we'll have to go back out and and rebid. What's the expectate u expected timeline for the FAA approval on the grant? Do you have anything in mind?

No. I the way the federal government operates nowadays, no. Um, this has been part of the airport improvement plan. So, this is a project they're aware of. They're aware of the cost. and uh Brian with Olsson has been in regular contact with them. I hate to use the word but applying for that grant is basically a formality. So John, I am online. If if yall can hear me if um if there's any uh feedback that I can provide, I'm happy to apologize. I wasn't able to be there in person today. Yeah. The question is uh you have an estimate of how long you would hear until you hear from the FAA on the airport improvement grant?

Sure. Um, yeah. And just a refresher of how these work, they're they're slightly different from what your historical context of a grant is. In the FAA world, the grant is essentially the contract that they use to transfer the funds to the city. So, as John mentioned, we've been in conversations with the FAA for years. And so the 942,000 that we're applying for with this grant, um we've confirmed with them as recently as last week that that's available and that um it will be awarded. So the the grant is as as John mentioned somewhat not necessarily a formality, but those funds are available and we will receive them, you know, if we apply. And typically we would expect that that grant offer which is essentially the written contract from the FAA to you for those funds would come sometime around mid July. Um for projects of this maybe even a little sooner um at which point you could accept the grant offer and then the funds would be available uh for use at that 955 split for that first um 942,000. And then maybe just a slight clarification, our bid hold is actually uh 90 days. So the contractor, so we're anticipating that grant period, but the contractor has to honor those bid prices um for a 90-day period, and that would give us time to receive that grant offer, accept it, and then issue a notice of award would be the way that that process would historically have happened.

Brian, once the U notice of award issued. What's the construction time? I'm sorry, I missed uh I missed that question. Is your mic on? Is your microphone on? Yes. The um from the time we to give a notice to proceed until substantial completion. How many days is that?

We've allowed 150 calendar days from the notice to proceed to substantial completion. But there can be a pretty significant gap on a project like this from when we would award the contract to when we would issue the notice to proceed. Um we would expect for them to um procure their materials particularly the building and have that on hand really before before we started. So we would anticipate construction starting in spring of 27 and then once construction commences they'd have 150 calendar days to complete the project.

Thank you. And the reason I ask is um that would give the commission time to look at and discuss um what you want to do with the fee for uh renting the hangers. Brian, when does that 90 days start for approval of this contract? It started um on the day of the bid opening. Last Thursday, I believe. Yes. which would have been correct the 21st.

Yeah. Um I guess I would like to have that agreement in place before we approve this. If there is going to be funds that are going to come out of the general fund that aren't supported by the rentals, I think we owe it to our constituents to know what that is. I think if we've got 90 days, there's no urgency to pass this today. Yeah. You said agreement. I'm not sure what you mean by approving the agreement. Are you just talking about updating the fee schedule?

Well, I think we need some buyin from the people who would be leasing those properties. I guess um I assume most everybody who would lease those is probably on your board or one degree separated from them. So, I think um if we can get that from those individuals, I think we'd be I'd be good to go on this. So, buy in. you want to know what they're willing to pay or what we need to break even after a certain period of time. It's I think if you ask them for buyin last budget season I believe they said $90. Um but if you're looking at what are we going to do to break even is that five years, 10 years, 20 years. I plugged in 20 just cuz you know just nice even number. But

yeah, I'd like to have all those details figured out. I mean if they're if they're only willing to pay $90, I think we have to ask our constituents, are you ready to subsidize the rest of it? I mean, to me, that's the conversation that needs to happen before we rubber stamp this.

Do you have Jim eight people identified that's going to render them? Because I don't know who I'd reach out to. Do I have eight people? Yeah. No, I wish Mr. Curtis was here because I think he probably does, but Okay. Because I mean, I'd have to know who to reach out to and ask him, you know, what are you willing to do? I guess if that's what you're asking me to do. I don't know that it needs to be you, but I mean, if uh Mr. Curtis is the right person, if he had those eight people and said, "Hey, if the rent was 273, are you signing the lease?" I'd say we're good to go. And if they say no,

then we then we have another discussion about this. I guess we've got I mean, like I said, we've got three months to do it. But I think that if we need to have a discussion with the airport board or, you know, with the members of the public who might be running those, I think that that's that gives us plenty of a timeline to do that.

Right. Would that hypothetically if uh you were at impass just say that everybody I'm not just going to rent it for that hypothetically are you gonna is it is your thought then you don't build the hangers you reject this is really if your if your plan is to build them regardless I don't see an issue with awarding the contract contingent on FAA funding recouping that you have time to have those conversations even invite the airport board and those folks here to have a joint meeting uh with the uh city commission to discuss it, get their feedback, your feedback. It's open to the public. It's televised. Um I guess uh this is my thinking and I'm the only one talking, so I'd like to hear from some other people here. But if we're going to approve it regardless, I think we change the lease rate regardless and just say, "Hey, here's what it's going to take to pay for it. This is what it's going to be." If we if we want to have a discussion, I think we have the discussion. But if we're going to uh rubber stamp this, I think we rubber stamp the rate change to pay for it. And I still think 273 is a ridiculously inexpensive uh rate for a a place that can hold an air airplane. So

what do you by rubber stamping the uh bids? I'm not sure what you mean. Approval. If we're going to approve this, we I think we need to also approve the rate change that will pay for it. And there's I think there's a gentleman back here that might want to speak. If you want to speak, you need to come. You want to take the mic? Sorry.

Jeremy Gorman. I'm one of the airport board members. Um the reality is is um uh I that's not a competitive rate. It's just not for the local area. Um I know it seems inexpensive to you for um for what that is, but it's not. It's not a competitive rate. Um, it's way less than that in Sal. It's way less than that in Junction City. It's way less than that in, you know, other airports that are of similar. Um, so if you I'm not going to say for sure that everybody's going to say no to that, but I have a strong inkling that they would probably not agree to that. Jeremy, do you have rough numbers of what like Salena or Junction City?

Um, uh, not Salina specifically. I can tell you exactly what we charge over in Junction City is um 125 a month is what we um what we get over in Junction City. um that is going to go up a little bit uh uh fairly soon. U Manhattan Airport um for the new hangers that they built over there, they're getting 180 I believe is what they're getting. Um so um that's gone up a little bit, but that's a different type of hanger than what we're talking about here as well. So it's more of a consolidated do what So the the hangers in Manhattan you were referencing, those are diff they're a little different than what we've got here.

They are. Yeah, they are different. Yeah, they're uh where the aircraft are kind of combined with one another as opposed to individual. Well, I believe they did. Actually, Brian could probably talk to this a little bit more. I did believe they built some uh T hangers over there. I know for sure they're also building some up in um Clay Center as we speak there. Those ones are almost complete, I believe, up there. So, and their rate um I believe I I don't want to quote what that rate was going to be, but it was nowhere near the 200. what did you say? 270 some odd dollars. I think there's kind of a range there like kind of depending on what we use for a payment cycle and that sort of thing, right? I guess that's kind of where I think maybe the discussion would be useful. Yeah.

Um I'd also like to have kind of really hard numbers from again I don't I don't know that it matters what other airports are charging. I do think you know like Salena is probably using old infrastructure from 1945 that they're leasing out and we're building new hangers in 2027. So, I don't think that Sure. that's going to be comparable either, right? Um, yeah, I'm I'm just I'm just throwing that out there. Yeah, I appreciate it for sure.

Jim Price, I'm a chairman of the board. And I think what you're missing the point here, John, is that this FAA does not expect you to charge enough to make this paid off in 10 years or whatever. They think that it should be a a relative price that the community and the people that want to use it can afford. To me, $250 is outlandish. Uh I can get a hanger in Ellsworth for $50, but then Elworth is not abling and I appreciate that. $90 was what we were paying when I had a hanger that blew away and it was good good value but it was also a wooden building that we built back in ' 85 etc etc city had very little money involved in it to start with and when the insurance money come up the city didn't really take care of that insurance money so I don't know why we want to turn right around and start charging the user for somebody else's false economy the FAA Hey, if you start charging too much, we'll want to pull the money out from underneath you and the airport will be sitting there as a ghost town. And I realize you guys think airplane, my airplane's $30,000 and it's older than you are. Much older than you are. But I can't afford anything else. And it flies and it keeps me in the air. All I need to do is keep the sun and the weather off of it. Now, some other people in this community have a nice hanger by themselves, but they've got $400,000 in the airplane, too. I'll bet you anybody that's got a vehicle sitting up here right now paid more than $30,000 for it, and it's probably much newer than my airplane. The FAA doesn't expect you to take their money and turn right around and pay off

your share of it just because. And is that the way you understand it, too? because they'll want to say, "Okay, your community though it's close to salin to junction city etc. What can the community and the users actually afford and it might not pay it off in would you think 20 years?" Yeah, I just figured 20 I mean you could you could make that 30 or 40 years.

Well, in fact, the silly things were built in 85 the ones that blew away. So, I mean, you know, they there for a long time and all the money that came in off of it. Every building on that airport is privately owned on lease property with the exception of the maintenance building. And all of those people are paying money every year in property tax and money back to the city. I have no idea where that's going, but I'm sure part of it would pay back towards this uh 200,000 or whatever it was you're talking about, too. But if if you don't care about the airport, and it's really a nice airport right now. If we don't get more traffic in and out, it won't be come out this weekend. There's supposed to be a dozen people flying in and going to the Eisenhower Center and stuff. So, that should generate a buck or two for this community. But, uh, you know, come out and see us. Anybody else got a question?

Jim, do you have a a figure in mind that would be Well, I figured $125$150 would would be about right be about the right amount of market that we've had over the years. But if not to interrupt you, but if you figure 30 years for a building, that young man back there said his hanger's 70 years old, but if you 30 years, uh, and that number drops down to 150, 140s. In fact, the hanger that he's in was built in 52 52 185. That's older than me. Yeah. My mother ran that airport when it first opened in York City. I know a thing about it. So,

but I I don't think you can put a dollar in and a dollar out on this deal, John. I really don't. Well, I mean, I think if that's the only way you'll vote it, sorry about that. Well, I think that's the reason for having the conversation. I mean, I think it's very clear that the FAA is willing to support this. If they're throwing $972,000 and the state's thrown another $300 some,000 out, there's obviously a lot of support for it, but I do think that it is something that benefits a very small portion of Abalene directly. Um, and even the indirect benefit to the community might be hard to quantify. So, I'm I think I guess this is my feeling you there's four others up here, but I would like to know that we've got a way to pay for it that isn't coming out of the general fund to to subsidize that.

I should have talked to that pharmacist some years ago that wanted to learn to fly. You remember him? Maybe he'd have a different attitude. I don't think so. I still think I still think you got to pay your bills. Thanks, Jim. Yeah. And I'm glad we had that conversation because in my head I was I kind of had around 150 uh because it is it's going to be a brand new facility, right? Um yeah. Am I under the right assumption that the 332,000 that we've got in reserve to help pay for this should have been there from insurance?

Not the full amount. Uh it was I believe 70 or $80,000. Uh this uh damage occurred in 2019 21 I believe it was 250 was it? I think it was I believe it was north of 200 anyway. Yeah. December of 21. 21. And then when the insurance finally settled probably in 22 or 23, that was just put into the airport operating fund. And so it sits there as cash carryover. Then the city did not uh levy any funds for the airport, which earned that down. Basically using reserves, but they weren't reserves, they were insurance. That's the best I can track it.

I don't feel like that's a satisfying enough answer for me. I don't know if any of my fellow commissioners would like a more robust accounting for that. I don't know.

I mean to me to me I'm just going to tell you what I'm hearing and what the airport is hear what I'm hearing from the airport is that the city spent it and what I'm hearing from Mr. Quinday is that the airport spent it. And so I think that that's an important distinction if we're going to be making decisions about a quart of a million dollars. Well, I can tell you that the money was deposited in the airport operating fund and prior to my arrival, the airport was allowed to make purchases and do anything they wanted with those funds until I got here and stopped that and made them follow the procurement policy. So, until then, I can't uh give you an accounting. I can tell you the money was put there and it was spent from there. But the oversight uh to the airport, and I know it uh probably upset some people out there, but they have to um no longer just go buy things and order things and they have to go through the city's procurement policy. They've been turned off their city credit card because they're not city employees. They have to use uh a designated one for the city. So, we can control things like that. Can't speak to you. that happened before I got here.

Is the airport on our standard accounting software? Yes. Okay. So, I mean there is a record of everything that was spent and there I mean we could get a detailed ledger of the whatever amount it was going in and everything getting subtracted out between 2021 and today.

Yeah, sure. I mean, it's going to be volumes of pages, but yeah, it would be in and since I've been here, it' be in every uh packet you've had under the appropriation ordinance and the detailed listing you've gotten said what happened before I got here on July of 2025. I can't tell you. I'm still trying to figure some of that out, but I don't know that you're going to be able to tie whatever amount was deposited over a four or five year period to this came from that 250,000. It goes into the airport operating fund which is one line item and then they just have an expenditure line item. They don't have the detailed lines like we do. Yeah, I guess that's what I was asking you. They're Why is that that they don't have the detailed lines like the rest of the city?

Because before I got here, they didn't code anything. They just charge it to the airport. And that's and you know that's not Jim's fault or anybody. It's just how the organization was operated. Oh, I'll have Kelsey from the date that was deposited until today and give you an accounting of every receipt and expendure if you'd like to look through it. But I won't be able to tie dollar to dollar. That money was spent before I got here again because we were trying to maintain revenue neutral. So nothing was levied. So that's what they were using to operate out of.

I think that'd be helpful if you can have Kelsey just send it out to us. So, um I guess I would make a motion to table this for 30 days or till then uh two meetings from today and I guess with the direction I'd like to have some interface with the with Mr. Curtis and maybe members of the airport board to see if we can rightsize this. And I guess uh before I forget, Brian, do you have any hard data on te hanganger or similar rental rates in our neighborhood.

I don't off the top of my head. Um we have done some research for some other communities. I could see about pulling some of that data. Um, I think the numbers that were being recited in the meeting would have matched my expectation from what I recall seeing, but um, I would hesitate to put a number out here, but but yes, that's something we could get. Thank you, Brian. When we met with the bids, there was some sort of deadline with the grant. Does that affect this at all if this isn't approved today and it goes for 30 more days? No. Um May 1st is the uh FA grant deadline.

Okay. I just submit the FAA grant by May 1st. I most of the communities I've been through the these you know items happen concurrently but there are times where uh the um we've submitted the grant application and then brought the award of the contract acceptance of the grant and construction phase services for approval at a later meeting date. So, it wouldn't be unprecedented um as long as Mr. Quende has the authority to move forward with um submitting that grant application.

Yeah, Brian, uh before you dialed in um they approved applying for the grant and the mayor to execute the required documents. Yeah, I actually was online for that as well. So, yes.

So, I guess if the desire of the full body is to interface as Mr. or Commissioner Khoff uh phrased it with the airport board and others impacted. Do you want to schedule a joint meeting with them? So, you're all involved or do we approve these things and you have that discussion and get what you or do you tell us that you want the the money returned over 30 years or 40 years, uh, 20 years, 10 years, and that's easy enough to to figure out what that rent would be if that's your goal is just to recover the money over a certain period of time. I think kind of the problem with that is that unless it matches the bonds, if that's the pool of money that we're going to use that underly it, unless it matches that term, we're still subsidizing it on a cash flow basis. And I we would have some flexibility on what type of a bond and I don't know if we can separate that out individually, Mr. Quende. Is that something that

uh when you issue the bonds? I'm I'm sure you can. Uh I don't anticipate that the city will issue uh general obligation bonds until 2029. Well, we could as soon as 2027, correct? You could if you want to start um making principal and interest payments, but remember you borrowed a million dollars, so you didn't have to until 2029. So, you're leaving that there. We would save on that though. We wouldn't be We're only paying for what we actually Yeah. I mean,

I would have to check with Brian. I think early uh redemption is March of 2027. I'm not positive on the month, but I think it's March 2027. You could easily do that. Um financially, is the city in a position to uh start making payments on those? Not with the current finances that you have now. Well, I mean, I think you're really just kicking the can down the road then, aren't you? I mean, I think your your point is well taken, right? We don't have the cash to do it, but we're just sitting on a credit card to allow us that flexibility. That doesn't really change our underlying financial position. It's just that we've got a loan to be able to pay the bills

with the exception that depending on what uh later in the meeting what your budget goals are. If the uh commission's desire is to stay revenue neutral, then you're never going to be able to to do it or I mean staff has to know what your goals are as a body before we can bring you a budget that says, "Hey, we can afford to uh pay this start paying this off in 2027 or we can't because of A, B, and C." So, you know, in a half whenever we get to that point, does the uh commission want us to get back to the fund balance policy that you have of 15%. Do you want us to start putting money aside in capital improvement and equipment reserve uh as you have in the past or continue deferring that? Those all play into when we'd be able to recommend that you can uh pay that off early. The target is March of 2029 because that's the road you send us down. You can always take a left or right if you want.

Just an update, Kelsey's listening from afar and she said that she's provided those numbers to you for the airport expenditures and that she will reforward them and that she also has um comparisons of local hanger rentals that she'll send out. Okay. When is when is your next airport advisory meeting? Next Monday. Okay. 4 o'clock. Okay. Next Monday at 4:00. Yeah. Did you say that's right here or next in the Okay.

Yeah. So I guess if the um intent of the commission is to proceed with the u construction of the eight place tea hangers with the grant money from the FAA and K dot. Um I would still recommend that you approve the uh bullet construction contingent on the FAA approval. You've got a long time before um you're going to be able to rent those out, have those discussions and set those fees. Uh, same thing with the next item for the construction administration. We were sending the whole package into the FAA. It's not required. Brian's already said that it's common, but it's not unprecedented that you don't have these things taken care of when you submit. But if it's a question of maybe we don't do this because we can't come on to terms on what we're going to rent those out for, I mean, table it. I think I have a motion on the floor.

Do Do you I believe I made the motion. You started and then you you went into something else. I wasn't sure if you actually were making it or not. So, I would have stopped it long ago if that was Okay. Yeah. My motion is still to table this until the second meeting in May. Okay. Can we consider approving the FFA grant and getting that started? We did. That one. That one's already done. Yeah. I think what the motion is is right now is

John wants to have a fee structure in place before we commit to spending the $1.48 million to VA construction, which we I'm on the fence. I totally agree with what John says, but I do know that it's going to get built regardless of how it's paid for, what fund it is paid for. Um, I'm open to I'm actually open either way because it'll get built. I would like to send it in. Personally, I would like to send it in all as one package as a standard process. That sound sounds like it's a SOP for um them to send it in as an A, B, and C together. So that would be my preference is FAA sees it all at once. They see the approved

um construction package. That's that's my preference. And then we work with the airport board and find out how do we capitalize this airport? Is it 30 years? Is it 40 years? If the original airport was 85 and it didn't blow, I mean that's 40 years and it would still be another 20 30 until the next natural disaster. So you could capitalize that down for for 50 years technically. So it will get paid back. It's just a matter of by who or what fund in my opinion. And once you uh we do have a motion on the table. I think this is a good discussion on that motion.

It technically need a second if we're going to discuss any. We have a motion on the floor to table it to the second meeting in May. Is that correct? Okay. Okay. So for to have any further discussion, we would need a second to table it to the second meeting in May. I I'll already send my motion, I guess, for the purpose of further discussion. Okay, motion's rescended. I guess to your to your point, um are you if you're if you're saying somebody's going to pay for it, we're going to build them anyway. I mean, are you also in favor of just changing the fee schedule so that that comes out of the rental rate, whatever we decide it to be? Because to me, that's really the

it's definitely got to be within reason within the area with what everybody's willing to pay. I think um what I'm getting at is you can capitalize this airport hang a brand new airport hanger that's built in 2026 for 40 years out and if it's a market rate it's going to pay itself off eventually. I guess the thing is really cash flow. So unless those bonds match that the we're we're subsidizing those monthly payments from the city general fund. Sure. for the first, let's say we have a 20-year bond and a 40-year amort amortization schedule for the the airport. We're basically using funds that could be used somewhere else to subsidize the airport for that period of time.

I do understand that, too.

I mean, I I think that there's probably mechanisms where that works. If we're going to subsidize it on the front end, we're going to tax it on the back end. I think there's still ways we can make that work. Again, I think those are all just details that I would prefer to have ironed out before we sign a $ 1.5 million contract. Yeah, that was kind of my point too, just when we were talk because it's obviously going to increase a little bit. I mean, from $90, I think it needs to um well, we can work out numbers and and uh adjust that amortization period on the bonds for those with those numbers in mind. So, it's not something we can't we can't work out. And it with you guys having a meeting next Monday, probably wouldn't have it worked out on Monday, but it can at least start the conversation and and just kind of see the I guess the the feelings on market rates and see if you know is $150 a month is I think we can get eight people at that rate. I do too. But

if Jim thinks that he can get eight people at $150, uh I think my number was $173 for 20 years. Uh is that something you just want to bring the fee schedule back and change at the next meeting? I think if this uh commission is willing to approve $173 and it pays off in 20 years, I'd be more than happy to approve this today. I'd be good with that. Yeah, I would too. Yep.

I'll make that motion. So, the motion so I'm clear is to consider approval of the low bid for votes construction company in the amount of 1.484 484 $186 for the construction of eight place t hanger at the Abilene Municipal Airport with the addition of adding the fee schedule change to $173 for the rental of such or uh less than that if it will pay off in 20 years. I'll second that.

Motion has been moved and seconded. Do we have any further commission discussion? I would have um I guess preferred to have those discussions with the airport board um to see if it's something that's actually they can sell. But I guess if you can't, you'll need to bring something back to us uh to down the road to adjust the fee schedule. Sure. Any further commission discussion? Okay, seeing none, we'll move a roll call vote. Vice Mayor Taylor, yes. Commissioner Koloff, I Commissioner Lidle,

yes. Commissioner Meisenberg, yes. Myself, yes. Motion carries.

Next item is 7D. Consider approval of amendment number two with Olsen for construction administration services t- hanger project. Interim city manager Quind Day. Yeah, this amendment uh with Olsson if approved provides professional engineering support during the construction phase which includes uh construction inspection coordination with the contractor and ensuring compliance with the project specification and FAA requirements and reporting. Um as with item 7C, we're asking approval of this amendment contingent upon FAA concurrence and the uh FAA grant approval. This uh agreement will ensure construction oversight is aligned in the with the same federal requirements and funding approvals. Um and that will be everything that we'll need until we get the FA grant funds out grant funds and a notice to proceed.

Was this put out for bid? Uh no, there are engineers for the airport. That was uh something that commission approved unanimously in 2022 to uh make Olsen our airport or the engineer for the airport projects. Thank you.

I will uh add the money the water but we're also having a independent fee assessment or estimate uh completed. It's required with federal grant dollars. So, uh, this would be the maximum the amount that you're seeing in here. Uh, if that, uh, independent fee assessment came in and said, you know, it should be $110,000. That's what it has to be. And Olson's knows that. Oh, further questions for staff on this item? Seeing none, I would entertain motion. I'll make a motion to approve amendment number two with Olsson for construction admin services for the TH hangar project.

I'll second. Motion has been moved and seconded. Do we have any commission discussion?

Seeing none, we'll move to roll call vote. Commissioner Khoff. Hi. Commissioner Lidle, yes. Commissioner Meisenberg, yes. Vice Mayor Taylor, yes. Myself, yes. Motion carries. Our next item is 7E uh 2027 city commission budget goals.

Right. Now we uh shift into the uh goals for the 2027 budget. Uh a lot of people think that uh the budget's just a 12 month planning project, but what the commission decides each year for a budget impacts future years. Uh just put you on a trajectory. Uh before opening the discussion or getting the commission input, I did want to provide some uh brief context. From 2022 to through 26 uh I'm sorry, 25 uh the city remained largely revenue neutral, which required the use of fund reserves to continue supporting operations. By 2025, most fund reserves were significantly depleted and on track to end the year in a negative balance. As a result, in July, we implemented immediate cost control measures, which included a hiring freeze, deferral of equipment purchases and deferral of capital improvements not already obligated, and the uh reduction in force of one person at that time in public works. In developing the 2026 budget, the city moved away from the strict revenue neutrality that it had the previous several years to stabilize operations. The levy distribution uh the 2026 the 2025 levy for the 2026 budget ended up being a total of 48.039 mills after the evaluation was certified in November by the county clerk. Of that 48.039 mills the general fund took up 34.5 mills or 72%. The general fund supports police, fire, streets, alleys, parks, levy maintenance, the pool, community development, inspection, municipal court, the senior center, and transfers uh to the equipment reserve fund and capital improvement. Debt service accounted for uh 2.75 mills or 6%. The library accounted for 8.22 mills or 17%.

Fire apparatus was 2.4 4 mills or 5% and $0 were levied for the airport capital improvement and corporate reserve in 2026. Rebuilding the reserves while maintaining current service levels will take multiple years as was discussed uh during the last budget cycle. Moving forward, this will likely require incremental increases to revenue to keep pace with rising operating cost, restore fund balances to the minimum levels, and if directed by the commission, start resuming transfers to the equipment reserve fund and capital improvement plan. staff's focus for the last 10 months has been balancing three things. Maintaining the services we provide, stabilizing finances, and rebuilding reserves. And as mentioned to the commission in July of last year, that will take time and deliberate decisions. In response to the question posed by the mayor uh the last meeting about feebased services and revenue opportunities, uh we've reviewed the current fee schedule and overall cost recovery. What we see is that many of the city's fees remain relatively modest and in some cases may not fully recover the cost of providing the service. So the opportunity is less about creating new fees and more about evaluating whether the existing fee schedule and fees are aligned with actual service cost. For example, the airport hanger rent is currently $90 a month. Many building and permit fees are $25. Parks and recreation rentals and tournament fees remain relatively low and recycling is currently 275 a month. Individually, these may seem small, but collectively they indicate areas where cost recovery may not fully reflect the level of service being provided. One example of how this plays out in practice is the city's support of the fairgrounds and stadium associated with the central Kansas free. Staff analysis shows the city's currently providing approximately $40,000 annually in labor, equipment, and materials to support those operations. Importantly, those costs are not limited

to the fair itself, but they include ongoing year-round maintenance such as mowing, spraying, trash pickup, and other operational support in addition to the peak cost during the fair. When compared to the 1996 agreement, the original intent was far more limited. fair related use of the facilities primarily tied to timing of the fair with the fair association responsible for most maintenance and the city maintaining the stadium building. Over time, however, the use of the facilities evolved to more continuous year-round use while the city continues to absorb a significant portion of the operational and maintenance costs. This is one example of a broader theme that we see. Services continue or have expanded over time. costs have increased, but in some cases revenues and fee structures have not kept pace. As a result, the costs ultimately fell back on the general fund and then the tax property tax levy. Uh I would note that we've met with the uh central Kansas free fair board and are discussing uh that now and working out a way that they can maximize um the use of those facilities year round and that we can offset some of our cost with them. very productive meeting we had week and a half ago during their meeting basically memorializing what's going on now and try to recover some of the city's cost as we look ahead to the 2027 budget it's really about the improving cost recovery where appropriate ensuring that userbased services are supported by userbased revenues and aligning our agreements fees and operations with current realities with that context in mind we're looking to the commission for direction on priorities and expectations as we begin developing the 2027 budget. And I did uh include the current fee schedule which you adopted at the beginning of this year for your review.

we have any uh input from uh the commission on your goals and priorities? I do have a question um regarding the water cost of service and the sewer cost of service that we just enacted. How is that going to affect the upcoming budget as far as um the increased rates and the sewer and water not getting depleted? That will make them uh in the black. Okay. And how will that relate to the general fund?

It does not. Well, didn't say it does not. uh as part of the budget process um cities transfer a share or money from the general fund from the utility to the general fund similar to what a private utility would pay. So if water one say in in Johnson County was operating here, they would pay the city say a 5% franchise fee, we transfer that amount, which we did in 20 for the 26 budget. We budgeted 5% of gross revenues for each utility to be transferred from the utility to the general fund. Uh which just counts as revenue to offset or lower the property.

I guess what I'm hearing, I don't mean to jump on you here, but those were both being subsidized by the general fund. So that sub subsidy should go away. So the amount that was coming out of the general fund that was subsidizing those utilities is no longer going to be a negative for the general fund, but it'll be a break even plus the franchise fee for the city. No, the the general fund uh has not subsidized the utilities. There's we've not transferred money from the general fund to the water fund or to the sewer fund. It's vice versa. Okay. The water fund has transferred 5% of its gross revenues to the general fund. So, we were using water and sewer reserves basically to make up that deficit. In the meantime,

it's just common practice for uh cities with utilities, whether it's water, sewer, or electric. I guess I'm not sure you're understand what I'm what I'm saying. So, for the last three or four years, both the water and the sewer have been running at a deficit. Yeah. An operating deficit. Correct. Correct. And what my understanding is that that had to be subsidized somewhere. That's an a fact. Was that coming out of the general fund or was that coming from the reserves from each respective utility? From the reserves from each respective utility. Okay. That's what put you in the position that you're in. Okay.

And and the reason that those rates had to go up so significantly. Uh it's uh not illegal or a budget violation to transfer money between utilities and uh the general fund, but it's highly discouraged that you use a utility to support the general fund or vice versa because they become so unbalanced that some point one's going to collapse. They should be distinct separate uh functions as far as budgeting. So, they do not impact the uh property tax levy in the general fund unless the commission were to reduce or increase the amount transferred from the utility to the general fund.

Okay. And as far as the reserves, they were running out, correct? On on both of them, both the sewer and the water. All your funds. Yeah. But more specifically, the ones that we raised though with the sewer and the water, they were out, right? So, it's going to have to get subsidized somehow. And it's the increase the increase that you approve for the water and the wastewater will negate those uh

those negative you were projected to be in the negative without increasing those. Now that you have increased those we still have to be fiscally conservative and uh but they will should not be in the uh red and it's allowing you to transfer money into a reserve for those infrastructure over the years. Right. Okay. Y

and then uh the general fund in 2025 uh was going to end in the negative. We made all those freezes and cut that position hiring freeze. Didn't buy anything uh and had to actually work hard to budget for a $290,000 uh cash carryover, which we made, but it's not where you need to be at that 15%. Yeah. I'll tell you my preference and I don't know if it's uh possible, but can you remind me I guess what you were able to cut? I know some of that was just delaying certain expenditures, but what were you able to cut last year to keep us from being taken over by the state?

Uh I eliminated a position in uh public works uh enacted a hiring phrase. We also uh cut all spending unless it was absolutely necessary. And then we reviewed a maj not all but uh a majority of our agreements. For example, uh sang I can't know if I'm saying that the phone we got them to reduce I don't remember that percentage 30 40% uh that annual cost. Same thing with um Vive we only got them down 10%. But those types of items we did not transfer in 26. Uh there is no money scheduled to be transferred into capital improvement. Um and there's money scheduled to be transferred into equipment reserve, but those are for already obligations you've already committed to.

What was that total dollar reduction that you were able to achieve? Off the top of my head, I couldn't tell you. I'm thinking it was $800,000. $850,000, I believe. Well, I'd like you to do that again.

I wish I could, but uh there's no way to uh to do it again. I mean, there is a way to do it again, but not a budget that I would bring you. Um only because unless you tell me what services you want to uh stop and get rid of because the you know that my three months has been extended a little bit, but uh there are some and we've gone back and forth about organizational assessment. I've had enough time now that I'm seeing things and there's there's still some room for some cost savings and some uh restructuring, but the staff and the operations now are running at bare bones. We're not putting money away for equipment. We're not, you know, we're not sending people to training unless it's something that they need. U for example, the police officers required to have 40 hours of annual training. Kelsey is she's online, but she is at a finance course conference. Some of that stuff we still do. We're looking at grants, but they're operating at bare bones now.

And if I remember correctly, did the did the employees not get a cost of living raise this past year? Correct. Yeah. And that that bothers me because I know all of our costs went up. Yes. And so I would somehow like to see them get that this next year. Yeah,

I guess you said something there that I really liked and that's we weren't spending any money unless it was absolutely necessary, which I think should be our MO 365 days a year. Um, I guess I don't know that it's possible, but I think we should shoot for a 5% cut across the board and then put that money into reserves while remaining revenue neutral. And I don't know, I I asked and I unfortunately haven't had a time to review it, but we got a I got a list of all the equipment. Um, but was what I don't think was included in that was the actual usage of that equipment. Um, so there's unfortunately I think there's like 370 items on that piece of paper. But if we had information from our department heads on, you know, what do we have and what are we doing with it, I think we could probably thin out the herd a little bit and determine, you know, what we need to own and what we could potentially rent or um, do without. Frankly, I mean, I think we really need to be we should be 100% efficient 100% of the time. I mean, that I think that should be the goal. And so, looking at every single expenditure, every single piece of equipment um and only keeping what we absolutely need.

Well, I can tell you that uh my experience with your department directors and staff uh the last eight n I don't know how long I've been here, but since I've been here, they are doing that. Um, they've made cuts where I didn't realize we could make cuts. They have found funding or ways to get things to done, get them completed that I didn't know that we could do it that way. We even had uh people at a a water conference meeting with vendors and instead of us spending $10,000 to seal uh your storm sewer manholes, which you have a whole bunch that need it, uh we found a way we can get that done for $4,000 a manhole. So they're out there looking for it. But to say that uh to be revenue neutral when our property insurance uh goes up and basically everything is going up to main to do that and be revenue neutral is not realistic unless uh we get direction on what services you want to cut. You'll have to cut some kind of service. I mean, you don't have that many employees. You're a town of 6400, 6,800, and you have 50 some employees. Town I came from was 4,400 and has over a hundred. You're you're bare bones.

Well, you have an additional utility as well, but it doesn't take 50 people to run, right? So, I mean, I'm just saying we're not comparing apples to apples. I guess I would ask I would ask you to I mean it sounds like the staff here and the ones who aren't here have done a phenomenal job at cutting those costs. I would just ask you to go back to them and say hey if your directive is to cut 5%. How do you do it? What equipment do you absolutely need? What equipment sits on the shelf 364 days a year and can we get it somewhere else? You know the I would argue that we're doing that daily.

Okay. I guess let's I guess let's see what that looks like in a budget. But I need to know from you from you what your priorities are. Are your priorities to put money away for capital improvements or to continue deferring capital expenditures? Is your priority to uh start putting money away for equipment or deferring any equipment purchases? Is your priority to continue funding uh I call them outside entities, maybe not the right term, but um sister city and the band and those types of things. Are are those your priorities? Is your priority to provide staff with a cost of living allowance? Is is your priority to uh work on more streets? Is it Those are the types of things we have to know to make those numbers in that work. But I mean just going in and say let's cut 5% be revenue neutral. I mean that's I mean it's math. You can make it happen. But to make it happen I didn't know what services we cut. If that's the goal of the whole commission is to be revenue neutral and cut 5%. or even just being revenue neutral.

I guess again I'm asking you to talk to your staff and say what what services are they providing? Where can we where can we nip and tuck? Um I guess I just have a hard time believing that we could cut $800,000 emergently and we don't have a single penny that we can cut with plenty of time to plan.

You cut $800,000 eently, but then we had to come back and say, "Can we reallocate $1.5 million?" because some of those were things that we deferred. When I talk about $800,000 that was cut, I'm not talking about $800,000 in gas, toilet paper, personnel. I'm talking not buying police cars. Uh that was $99,000. Not doing this capital improvement project, and I don't have them off top of my head. So, we didn't spend that money. That all adds up to the $800,000. It's not the operational cost. Just within the last month since diesel spiked, how much has the um have you noticed the hit from cost of materials, the cost of goods and the budget?

Yes. Already. Yeah. That's a scary thing to think about in the next coming year,

especially when you're looking at asphalt, anything that has to do with oil. But to to give an example, and thanks for bringing that up. um the fire chief during a staff meeting and it was not just kale but it was they're always talking about how do we save money and uh we're working on a uou with the county to share their fueling facilities because they buy it in bulk they get it discounted and if we all buy it you know they buy in bulk for us also the more you buy in bulk the lower that cost is so working on uh that with them currently so we fuel our vehicles at their facility to save us money. Now, you're not talking a ton of money, but if we can save 20, 30 cents a gallon over a year, that's some savings. Over three to five years, it starts to add up. And that's when I talk about it's going to take three to five, maybe longer, to get back to where you were financially. That's how you're going to do it is is incrementally Any other goals or feedback?

I would like to add that you guys have done an amazing job getting the budget down to where you've gotten it down. And from what I understand, it already is at bare bones. I don't know that there's a lot a lot left to cut. Yeah, I would uh put forward that to cut anything, we'd have to reduce services where we're at now, especially when you have the rising cost. Even that uh the insurance guy Kyle Becker, even though Kyle was able to get us uh a good rate, even the um if we' have stayed at the $1,000 deductible, that was higher than what we budgeted. I mean, those costs aren't going going down. But because we the commission approved a riskmanagement reserve fund, we were able to raise that. And again, that's a cost and those add up year-over-year. So I guess for I guess in terms of uh initial budget formation um I guess I would like to see um something created with a flat mill levy to start with so we can get a baseline and then start going through it. Uh starting Kelsey's online but so I may have this wrong. May 4th, I believe, is when uh they start meeting with uh department heads and submitting their budget request. So during the month of May, we'll be working on on request. June, by June 15th, the we get the valuation, we'll be able to take that valuation and match it with what those requests are. Then we have to okay, if our request more than what that valuation is going to bring in at a flat levy, let's say, for example, then we have to reduce. Um if it's not then the decision is do you lower the levy or do you put money aside for other things but we can bring that back to you.

Do you because June 15th we'll get the estimated valuation. Do you recall last year what the discrepancy was between the estimated valuation and the final valuation

uh tiff and it's uh it's just a certification. So, the estimated valuation was, and I have it in here, was 70,552,000. Uh, when it was certified, it was $7,554. But then when you take off the tiff, that was uh I don't know, $700,000. So, it knocked us down to 69 million. So, about 4/10en of a mill is that different. Remember, you know, it can go the other way also if you have delinquencies in and 30 of those mills or 34 of those mills are only 70% of that entire money that we levy just the city not the total goes to the general fund. The rest goes to the library, airport, debt service and uh our apparat improvements and equipment reserves. Those Anything further for now?

I guess uh Mayor Ryan, I'd be kind of curious to know what your goals are. I think last year I was vehemently advocating for a cut and then you voted with me but didn't provide any useful input to actually cutting the budget. So I'm curious if that's your goal again or or what your what your plans are. Yeah, I guess my last year my direction was um to keep the mill levy flat. That's what I had stated, but you didn't do anything to actually affect that. So, I guess if if that is your goal, are you going to I guess assist in that process this year or are you just going to vote against the budget if it doesn't meet your goals? No, I'll absolutely assist. I assisted quite a bit last year. Yeah. A lot of input from uh the commission.

Yeah. And a lot of that happens, I mean, behind the scenes. It's not all happening right here. Correct. through department director meetings um meetings with you and Kelsey. So

it'd be no different than uh like when I meet with Commissioner Coh and get his recommendations on where he think we should cut. I got quite a few of those. But I do get the input from all the commissioners. Okay. If you think of anything else. Okay. Our next item under heading 8, new business is 8A. Consider approval of ordinance number 26-3481, an ordinance reszoning certain property located within the parcel generally described as 1306 North Campbell Street from R1 Low Density Residential District to C3 General Commercial District and amending the zoning map of the city of Abling, Kansas. Uh, Deputy City Manager, Community Development Director Zuk.

Good afternoon. We received this application for resoning back in February. We've been working with Becky Rankin of Aland Animal Hospital since November time frame on this. Um, so the situation we have now is the parcel is currently for sale. Um, and it is, um, basically a perfect time for them to look into future business expansion. Um they're currently in negotiations for purchasing the property upon successful reszoning. Um and in the future they would like to pursue development of the parcel into kennel boarding. Um that's just a a three-year game plan, I think, at this moment. But if that were to happen, that would require a conditional use permit. Um and it would go back in front of the planning commission and city commission at that time. So as of right now, we're just looking at the resoning um for this. The planning commission held a public hearing back on April 7th and recommended approval with a resoning um with a vote of 6 to zero. The 14-day protest period expired on April 21st and no protests were received. Um staff report to the planning commission and a copy of those unapproved minutes um were attached to the agenda packet for your reference. Um, we didn't receive any citizen comments prior to the planning commission meeting, but we did have two residents within that area that did attend and express their concerns. Um, just with noise, um, gravel dust, things like that that are already legally non or excuse me, yeah, legally non-conforming. Um, also in the packet was a survey. If this were to be successful and the sale would go through, there will essentially be a lot split. So there are roughly 45 ft behind the FSA office off of 14th Street. That parking currently is on the 1306 North Campbell parcel. So if this AR is successful, that 45 ft will go with the FSA office and the remainder would go to Abling Animal Hospital if

they choose to pursue purchasing it. Um, we did have some reservations on um the timing as far as reszoning now and waiting for the conditional use permit. I did advise um Becky of the Abling Animal Hospital to to wait because typically conditional use permits are only valid for the first year um and then they'd have to go back and redo them a few years later. So, I did advise her to to wait on that. Um there was some reservations from the planning commissioners as far as that timing and the possibility of them reszoning it now, purchasing it and then in the future selling it. Um those are valid concerns, but I think that can be the case for any reasonzoning case that we do. Um the one that we just did for Kinder Connect, it reszoned. He could eventually sell it, parcel it out, sell it, things like that. um the Northwest 14th, the Windy Trails RV Park. We reszoned that, did a conditional use permit and it sat for a few years, no RV park, and now it's for sale. So, it's kind of you, we don't have a magic eightball to tell what's going to happen. So, they have every intent in a few years to pursue that.

Um I think that is all I have. Becky is in the attendance today. If you have any questions on that, um and as well as any questions for me, I'll try to answer those. Is there any zoning that allows for the kennel by right?

No, I don't. Well, let me I think that is in Let me pull my table here real quick. It is allowed in the C1 and C2 district, but to see stay compatible along the northwest 14th corridor, everything for the majority is C3, just general commercial district along that area. I guess my my concern is for Abene Animal Hospital that if they close on the property and their plan is to do this then that they're not allowed to they don't say for whatever reason the conditional use permit wouldn't get approved. It seems like you know with the current commission current planning commission that's not a concern. They just approved this unanimously. Um and so I don't I don't think as a city commission I would have any problem approving it. I guess my only concern is that they're able to actually do what they plan to do. So, I don't know guess how the rest of the commission feels on that, but if there was a good case for making that um allowed by right, I would be open to that. I imagine that's another visit back to the the commission. I think I know that site fairly well. I used to walk there. I lived a couple blocks away. And I mean, like there's storage units across the street, so it's not like it's um I don't know. I guess I I'm not sure what character we want to preserve in C1 versus C3, but that also has industrial properties um along that row two or ones that function like industrial properties whether or not they are labeled as such. So, I don't really have any concern personally about that being a C1 if that's what it takes to be allowed by right. Um again, I I think that's a fine use and I know you you already do this right now in the property that you have. So, um I know that you're a responsible operator and

um you know, unless someone gets annoyed by someone walking their dog, they're they're not going to be upset with whatever Ebene Animal Hospital plans to do here. So,

um I guess we we probably it's it's kind of up to you, I guess. I'm more than happy to approve this as C3. And if um you need to go back to the planning commission and they deny a CUP, I'd rezone it to C1 in a year if that's what it takes um for you to be able to do what you want. I don't know what, again, we don't really have any control over that. I think we'd want to know what could be done there with the with the C1 and maybe uh be a little bit judicious there, but um I think we'd like you to expand your business if possible. Yeah, I guess. Um I mean we would be boarding dogs on the property. So there wouldn't be dogs outside at night, but there would definitely be dogs housed on the property and and outside during the day. There'd be a tall fence, but there would be dogs outside. So it would need to be reszoned to something that would allow for that. So we don't if it's going to get resoneed to commercial, but we couldn't have dogs on the property. I guess that's an issue we we haven't addressed. But we Terry did tell us that we would have to basically have the conditional use permit for the dogs, but even if we got that today, we didn't build a building this year, which we're not going to, we'd have to do it again, you know, whenever we built the building. So, yeah, whatever it would need to be reszoned to actually have dogs on the property, um, would be ideal. And yeah, again, you're right, that is what we have now. And we have a vet clinic. The dogs go outside, they go potty back inside. So it would be the same but definitely on a larger scale um as far as that's concerned.

I'm going to interject really quickly. I was looking at the wrong line item that I had already highlighted. And kennel boarding is prohibited in C1 and C2. It must have a conditional use in C3 and C4. So that clears that up. I apologize. So that was the reasoning for C3. Yes. So C3 C4 is obviously the central business district downtown, but okay. It would have to be C3 to get that allowed to do a conditional use in that district. And Dr. Oh, sorry. Go ahead. Dr. Ranken, um, there were a couple So, first read it and then I read your letter in the packet as well. Yeah. Um, talks about So, you're going to have them outside sometimes during the day. Obviously,

you're going to you're already addressing the sight issues with the opaque fence or fencing. Um, do you can you speak to like I don't I've never owned a kennel so I don't know how this works but when you do exercise them out there during the day is somebody out there with them or are they just let out or how's that?

Yeah. So almost there there doesn't legally have to be but there would be someone with the dogs all the time just because dogs will be dogs. So um we'd probably have two outdoor areas probably a large dog area small dog area. There'd be groups of dogs together kind of like doggy daycare. Um, and again, we are not um we're not there yet to be able to do something like this. This is just a this propertyy's there. It's the only adjacent property to our business that is ever likely to be for sale. Um, and so we're just trying to capitalize on that. Sure.

Is there a a headcount on number of animals or anything like that with the conditional use permit or any other concerns that we might have going forward? nothing that comes to mind, but during that conditional use process, that's where the the planning commission would set conditions that you'd have to have the 90% density of the screening. You'd have to have certain things within the site plan. So, that will all condition wise will go from the planning commission and then to come to you guys for final approval. Okay. If there's no more discussion, I would make a motion to approve ordinance number 26-3481, an ordinance reszoning certain property located within the parcel generally described as 1306 North Campbell from R1 Lowdensity Residential District to C3 General Commercial District and amending the zoning map of the city of Awing, Kansas.

I'll second. Motion has been moved and seconded. Do we have any commission discussion? Seeing none, we a roll call vote. Commissioner Lidle, yes. Commissioner Meisenberg, yes. Vice Mayor Taylor, yes. Commissioner Koloff, hi. Myself, yes. Motion carries. Thank you. Do we have any additional department reports to add or just what was in the packet?

Yeah, I just wanted to uh besides what's in the packet, let the uh commission know that I've appointed Julie Effbeck as the city's municipal court judge effective May 8th. Uh Miss Effing brings over 30 years of legal experience. Um, she's been licensed in Nebraska since 1990 and in Kansas since 2004. She's operated her own law practice since 1997 and has extensive courtroom experience. Currently, she serves as a city attorney for Belleville, Kansas, and as an indigent defense council for the city of Salina Municipal Court. Uh, she's focused her work on municipal court matters, giving her both a prosecution and a defense perspective. She holds a jurist doctor from the University of Nebraska College of Law and a bachelor of science from Kernney State College. I'm confident that she'll serve the city well in this position. She begins on May 8th. She'll be here tomorrow. Chief's here, I believe, to uh Wednesday to um meet with court staff and take a look at the court and all that. So,

when you said you appointed Julie, I was wondering when Julie Roller Weeks had time to get her JD. Uh also um when I sat down I saw that uh the governor just announced that she has vetoed house bill 2043 and in that u we want to get out of here. I just wanted to go into the context of the what we've been talking about as far as the budget. But um when she in her message on vetoing it, she says that um since 2012 when the state had their tax experiment um at times when the state had no money to do anything, you might remember that they really increased how much cities had to and counties had to contribute to uh capers because they weren't contributing to it. But she said the state responded by among among other things cutting support to local communities for vital services, leaving the counties and cities to pick up the slack. Those additional burdens make it very difficult for municipalities to hold the line on property taxes. Um so that um House bill does not impact us. So we'll stay with the uh truth and taxation bill that we've been operating under. And then finally, and we're not going to let Brad up here to talk about it, but Union Pacific is uh scheduled to start work tomorrow.

We can't let Brad get up, otherwise it'd be six o'clock. Was there any uh I think you spoke on this at the last meeting. Is there going to be any city cost for that for the Union Pacific? Yeah, about $3,500 in materials. I I would consider a motion to adjurnn. I will make that motion to adjurnn.

Motion has been moved and seconded. We have any mission discussion? Um I guess during discussion we'll point out that the industrial park is we don't have final design back if everyone's amendable to holding off on the study session for um that piece of it until we have the final design in. Yeah. Yeah. The cost. So no study session today is what you're signific call vote. Commissioner Eisenberg. Yes. Vice Mayor Taylor. Yes. Mr. Koloff. Hi. Commissioner Lidle. Yes. Myself. Yes. Motion carries. We are adjourned.