City Commission - Regular Meeting

2:32•SASusan E. Adamchak

Good evening, and welcome to the September 15th meeting of the Manhattan City Commission. We will now take roll call.

2:58•SASusan E. Adamchak

Thank you. Would you please rise and join me in saying the Pledge of Allegiance?

3:16 – 5:28•SASusan E. Adamchak

Thank you. We do have a proclamation this evening regarding Constitution Week. Will those who are present for the proclamation please come forward? All right. Thank you all for being here. Whereas September 17th, 2026 marks the 239th anniversary of the drafting of the Constitution of the United States of America by the Constitutional Convention, and whereas it is fitting and proper to officially recognize this magnificent document and the anniversary of its creation, whereas it is fitting and proper to officially recognize the patriotic celebrations which will commemorate this occasion, and wh

7:16 – 7:43•SASusan E. Adamchak

That part of the job is right up there with dropping the balloons on New Year's at the Discovery Center. We will now open public comment on any item not included on tonight's agenda. If you would like to approach the podium and make any remarks, you will have three minutes. And please, if you have not already signed in, do so when you complete your remarks.

10:15 – 10:53•SASusan E. Adamchak

Thank you, Mr. Feltz. Rex, had you signed in? And your comments are quite germane this evening, considering later we will consider the Manhattan Historical Preservation Plan. I have participated in that walking tour myself, and it is quite fun and educational. And who doesn't want a pretty walk on Halloween? So I'd encourage you to consider that. Is there anyone else who would like to make a comment at this point? Seeing none, we will close public comments. Commissioners, have you anything to offer today?

10:55 – 11:17•ALAndrew Von Lintel

Oh, nowhere to go. It was an honor to be invited to the 9-11 commemoration ceremony at Fort Riley's Global War on Terrorism Memorial. Mayor Adam Cech and myself represented Manhattan at the event. Solemn but important to remember the victims of 9-11 and the soldiers who died serving in the Global War on Terror.

11:18 – 11:41•KMKaren McCulloh

And with that, I'm good. I would just echo the mayor. Thank you, Mr. Faust, for doing that. It's really great, and we should work on that. I've had a number of people ask why we can't just stick some of those tombstones up where they were. But I've taken that tour, too, not on Halloween. But we'll get on it.

11:44 – 15:20•SASusan E. Adamchak

I had the pleasure this afternoon of attending the 2026 Business Awards hosted by the Manhattan Area Chamber of Commerce. This is an opportunity to recognize awards in six businesses in six different categories. This year, there were over 100 nominations for these six awards. These were brought down to 16. Two of those 16 included our Parks and Rec Department and the Sunset Zoo. And so I'd like to just extend my congratulations to Director Stewart, to your team for being so honored and recognized. Thank you for that. I will be speaking with Manager Doolin over the next couple of weeks, as we o

15:24•SASusan E. Adamchak

Second. Thank you. Chelsea, will you please call the roll?

15:42 – 16:13•SASusan E. Adamchak

Thank you. Tonight we will move into conducting two public hearings. The first concerns the revenue neutral rate, and we will consider adopting resolution number 091526F, levying a property tax rate exceeding the revenue neutral rate. And we will have a presentation from City Manager Doolin.

24:46•SASusan E. Adamchak

Thank you for that presentation. Commissioners?

24:49 – 25:13•ALAndrew Von Lintel

So looking at the library funds, I'm seeing that the library funds grew compared to the RCPD fund went down, but the library funds went up. I think you told us that we legally can't do anything to prevent the library from getting their increase in budget.

26:09 – 26:23•ALAndrew Von Lintel

Thank you. So as far as the employee, the salary adjustment of 3%, how did we come up with the 3% number as opposed to 2% or 4% or? What's your thoughts on that?

27:52 – 28:20•JMJim Morrison

I have a question looking at our state government declared accounting form. You would say that we are $90 million ahead of 2025 in our expenditures. And I think that is not reflective in 25 and 26 of our reserve funds. Is that why it appears to be 90 million? And so do our reserve funds approximate $90 million?

28:48 – 29:16•JMJim Morrison

So if their form also had been a little more artful, we would have known in 25 we had extra million dollars in these same reserves that don't show up in their current form. Is that correct? In other words, it said 165 million and 25. I assume if we had had those reserves, it might have been 190. So it really isn't reflective of what we're doing?

29:47 – 30:02•JMJim Morrison

So if our reserve funds are 82 million that we have approximately now, that's almost 50% of an annual budget that we're intending to expend, is that correct?

30:09•JMJim Morrison

Is there a limit of how far we need to be or you're recommending we do with reserve funds?

32:13 – 33:51•LFLarry Fox

So I said this before at our work session on the budget. First of all, I commend you. I think the three of us are up here because we ran on the idea that we wanted to get the mill levy down, that it increased over almost five mills in the last couple years. We wanted to get it down. I certainly commend you in this budgeting process for getting it down 1.7, but we are off, Personally, I would like to see it at $52,500. And I said that before. And to do that, you'd have to reduce the expenditures by $236,000. Now, where could that come from? In your budget, so last year the cash reserve budgeted

36:20 – 36:54•LFLarry Fox

And I certainly understand that. I mean, we've budgeted, like I say, A $500,000 increase in the cash reserve is a pretty good increase. I just, you know, 52.5 versus 52.8. I think when we're going to the public to ask for a sales tax increase, it'd be nice to be able to say we reduced the mill levy two mills.

38:42 – 39:06•SASusan E. Adamchak

Commissioners, I would just remind us that in terms of having that cash on hand between the snowstorm last year and the windstorms this year, we paid out close to $1.5 million, a little bit less than that, I think. But note that it's not an insignificant amount that we needed to have in order to respond quickly.

39:07 – 41:36•JMJim Morrison

to those conditions Well, I don't disagree with Larry's comment I think from our first meeting in January It was concerned about where our expenditures were and we needed to lower the mill levy Mill levies are kind of a magical term that nobody in the general public pays attention to. I think you've done a good job of keeping us under what the inflation rate for valuations on property are, but I think we need to remind ourselves, or at least I'm reminding myself, that come January of 27, if we have that same kind of meeting, I'm gonna be saying we gotta do better. And we've done better, but I

41:36 – 42:41•KMKaren McCulloh

I would just say sometimes we fixate on the mill levy so much that we stop and don't realize what does it cost to run this city business and what are we doing for the public. And having the mill jump around up and down and in and out the way it has in the past, I think this is a very conservative budget. Three years ago we went down so Susan and I had to go up. And so I think just let's keep it steady and hopefully next year we will see some new revenue coming down with the downtown area. I feel very comfortable with this budget, and I think this group has worked really hard to get the mill le

42:44 – 43:30•SASusan E. Adamchak

Commissioners, I'd just like to remind us all We're in a public hearing to consider Exceeding the revenue neutral rate. We haven't really talked about that We don't write into talking about passing this budget So the current revenue neutral rate is fifty two point two one Mills City manager is proposing that we settle on fifty two point eight which is a difference of point So are there any comments pertaining? I think we're dancing around that discussion, but that is the point in question for this particular hearing.

43:33 – 44:02•JMJim Morrison

Well, it seems to me the comments that Larry's made and I've made, we had to acknowledge that we're not doing it revenue neutral. We had to recognize some growth within the community. And revenue neutral next year may be still the battle, but it's going to be at least a target that we have to keep as a marker on the road where we are. I think for the last rounds of all of these meetings, we've had to acknowledge that neutral wasn't going to work this year.

44:03•SASusan E. Adamchak

Thank you. Daniel, thank you for your presentation.

44:06 – 44:22•ALAndrew Von Lintel

One second. So just for clarification, so we've got to do the revenue neutral rate. If we do that at 52.8, then we can still do 52.5? Or do we have to do the 52.5 here in this first?

45:31 – 45:59•SASusan E. Adamchak

So at this time I will open public comments on the weather on our decision to exceed the revenue neutral rate. Is there anyone who would like to address the commission on this topic? I would. Please come forward. After you make your remarks, if you have not already signed in, please do so over at the desk.

46:06•SASusan E. Adamchak

Please state your name and address. Yes.

49:09 – 49:26•SASusan E. Adamchak

Thank you for your comments, Colin. Have you signed in? Thank you. Is there someone else who would like to make comments regarding the revenue neutral rate? Yes.

52:50 – 53:05•SASusan E. Adamchak

Gary, had you signed in? Is there someone else who would like to approach the podium? Then approach. One or the other of you, please. Hi.

57:40 – 59:21•SASusan E. Adamchak

we do recognize when the city does make some decisions that incur cost savings. There was an item on the consent agenda tonight that we're changing our phone service for moving to cloud service, which will have a much lower cost and we'll be upgrading the equipment that we have here in the city We are operating on old systems that have been in place for 20 years, 30 years, and have not kept up with current developments. And our IT department considered more than 30 vendors, I believe, in making that decision. And we don't often talk about those types of savings. Now, Relative to a budget of a

1:00:22 – 1:00:42•SASusan E. Adamchak

That's my concern. Thank you. Ma'am, would you please sign in? Again, just as a point of clarification, I would note that the county appraiser establishes the value for real property here in Manhattan and it's not something the city does.

1:00:44 – 1:01:33•KMKaren McCulloh

Could I just add, as a past county commissioner, please go down to the appraiser and ask them what they're using for your comparables because a lot of times they do get things slightly wrong. I'd also like to point out that the city, you get the city, you get the bill and you think the city. There's also the county and there's also the school district. And of course the school district, you see a lot of people running for office at the moment at the state level and they're promising to cut your property taxes. Well, they could do that if the legislature would just fund education and special ed

1:01:35 – 1:02:26•LFLarry Fox

I would also comment to the lady's point that the state legislature has determined this is how we're all going to be taxed. and how cities are going to gain their revenue is based on the so-called market value of all of our properties. The county is supposed to determine that. If you think your house is way over appraised, then it's your responsibility to go to them and say, argue that it's over appraised. You need to lower it, and many times they do. There are also a lot of houses in this city that are under appraised, particularly when they put them on the market, you'll see they're asking w

1:02:29 – 1:02:44•SASusan E. Adamchak

Thank you. Commissioners, do you, sorry, members of the public, is there anyone else who would like to make any comment? Please approach. You're welcome to just stand and look for if no one else is there.

1:05:22 – 1:05:54•SASusan E. Adamchak

Anyways, that was not any type of suggestions, but yeah, that's just my perspective from not a retiree unfortunately yet Thank you, we appreciate you coming out and expressing your opinion Is there anyone else with hand raised or otherwise All right, we will close public comment on whether or not to proceed with exceeding the revenue neutral rate. Commissioners, any other comments?

1:06:01 – 1:09:06•JMJim Morrison

I do agree it's important to have this discussion. Probably ought to be ongoing more annually during the year so you understand and we understand where we're at. I'm satisfied that we've made an attempt to reduce the levy. I think it's important in light of the issues that are coming for the city, which is the sales tax, because even though one is going off, it is apparent in our community, the streets and other public facilities have been unable to keep up with the need of repair and maintenance and upkeep because it was not dedicated funds sufficient to keep it that way so maybe we're saving

1:09:07 – 1:09:36•ALAndrew Von Lintel

I appreciate Colin, Gary, John, Anthony, Trish, Alex for coming and talking and giving their thoughts. We heard it a lot on the campaign trail. We definitely hear it's inflation, it's taxes, it's inflation, it's taxes, it's inflation, it's taxes. And we've got to continue to work harder to be more efficient with the city, and we're going to keep trying to do that. So that's where I'm at.

1:09:39 – 1:09:54•SASusan E. Adamchak

Commissioner, do we have a motion to adopt resolution number 091526F? That is the one that.

1:10:17•SASusan E. Adamchak

So moved. Second. Thank you. Chelsea, will you please call the roll?

1:10:38 – 1:11:16•SASusan E. Adamchak

Thank you. With that, we will close our initial public hearing, and we will now open a second public hearing to consider... Ordinance number 7839, adopting the 2027 city budget and concurrently approving ordinance 7840, establishing staff salaries for 2027. So this public hearing is now open. We'd like to have our presentation first, Gary.

1:20:44 – 1:21:29•SASusan E. Adamchak

Another point of clarification that I would like to make is that, in fact, almost two mills were shifted from the general fund into the bond and interest fund. Again, we do have a talented staff, which is familiar with the budget line item by line item in all 185 pages of it. They are making those changes as they are able. Is there anyone else who would like to approach? All right. I will close public comment on the second hearing commissioners.

1:21:31 – 1:23:00•LFLarry Fox

First of all, to Gary's comment about the authorized spending of 262 million. When I read that, I was kind of shocked as well. but then discovered that part of that authorized spending is putting $76 million of that into cash reserves. So I guess technically I consider that can't be spent. That's supposed to go to cash reserves. So what we're really spending is $186,600,000 with that. So I would just, I would throw out, I guess, I don't know what other discussion you want to have. I'm going to make a motion here that we approve ordinance number 7839 adopting the 2027 city budget with the excep

1:23:00•SASusan E. Adamchak

recess and we'll resume this meeting at 735

1:37:36 – 1:37:50•SASusan E. Adamchak

It is 7.35. We will conclude our recess. Will you please retake your seats? Okay.

1:41:04•LFLarry Fox

Yeah, that was going to be my question. Are we adopting the number or the rate?

1:41:23•SASusan E. Adamchak

Commissioners, have you any additional discussion?

1:42:07 – 1:42:21•SASusan E. Adamchak

Thank you. We will now have our third public hearing of the evening regarding revisions to our salary rates. And is there any presentation on this?

1:43:33•ALAndrew Von Lintel

Do we have any employees that are getting stuck at the maximum?

1:43:57•ALAndrew Von Lintel

And just so everybody's getting a 3% raise, but we're also changing the salary scale. Is that what you're saying? Correct.

1:44:21•SASusan E. Adamchak

Commissioners, any other questions for the city manager?

1:44:27 – 1:45:28•JMJim Morrison

Well, 3% is an arbitrary number that makes sense, but when you look at what else we're doing in the neighborhood, county is lower than that, but they also have step and pay grade automatic for tenure. And so I assume when I do the math, that's well beyond 3%. Police department was only like one and a half, as I recall, but they have step and pay. which put them beyond 3%. Have no idea, I'm not smart enough to read the school board budget information, find out what they're doing, but I assume that they are not less than 3%. But we do have to keep staff. Our concern is do we have the right staff

1:45:30 – 1:45:53•KMKaren McCulloh

I'm supportive of this, but I do think I would like to see the raises in base. The people at the upper end will get a $5,000 to $8,000 raise, and the people in the $40,000 will only get $1,200 or something like that. And so I don't, you know, next year, I mean, I've asked for it this year, but next year maybe we could look into that.

1:46:17 – 1:46:30•SASusan E. Adamchak

Thank you, Manager Doolin. As with the previous two hearings, is there anyone from the public who would like to make a comment regarding pay scale?

1:49:45 – 1:51:27•SASusan E. Adamchak

I would like, again, to take my prerogative to make a point of clarification that the first 10 pay grade levels included in this classification their starting salary, it's below the median income for Riley County. This is our middle class as well. And we also just this afternoon met manager Dolan and I had a discussion about the difficulties in hiring for an engineering position, which has been vacant for close to a year because we are not competitive. These are real world salaries for people who have qualifications, who have upper level education, who have experience. We just underwent three

1:55:56 – 1:56:42•LFLarry Fox

anyone else would like to make comments this item commissioners do we have a motion before I do that I just comment as well that it is a balancing Act... With with... In businesses and employees government organizations... You know what's the right level of staff what's the right level of pain and I'd like to think that you know we've hired a have a city manager and her staff that hopefully are looking at that and making sure we have the right people in the right places. I would move that we approve ordinance number 7840. Second.

1:56:53•SASusan E. Adamchak

Chelsea, would you call the roll, please?

1:57:10 – 1:57:33•SASusan E. Adamchak

Thank you. We will now move to the remaining items on our agenda for this evening. is to consider approving ordinance 7841, which repeals a prior ordinance 7804 and amends the Manhattan Development Code.

2:09:09 – 2:09:58•JMJim Morrison

I perused all the stuff you gave us. And I'm not in your field of expertise. But on new developments, the lot and all these rules really don't concern me. east of Sunset where they don't have a whole lot of platting restrictions about lot size, you know, association restrictions. If I've got one of the ward lots that is a 50 by 150, which would accommodate two facilities at 3,000 or more, do they have to replat, rezone each of those?

2:10:39•JMJim Morrison

So it would be a front and back division?

2:10:44•JMJim Morrison

If there's an alley, does that allow the primary access to the new 3,000 square foot lot off the alley as a primary access?

2:10:55•JMJim Morrison

I mean, do our ordinances allow that as the primary access? I know it does for garages and other things, but if it's a separate home?

2:11:27 – 2:11:40•JMJim Morrison

subsequent topic to talk about, that easily could change the character of a neighborhood. And how does that fit in with what we're going to be having to discuss and discuss?

2:12:56•JMJim Morrison

And looking at it again, it looks like it's statewide, so there's no variation as the first class, second class, third class county. It appears to be...

2:13:11•JMJim Morrison

The classes of the cities, so therefore no charter ordinance can restrict or limit the wisdom of the legislature. Interesting.

2:14:02 – 2:14:32•JMJim Morrison

Yeah. My thought is if we have a raw piece of land that somebody wants to develop with 3,000 square foot lots, whoever buys it knows what they're gonna get and that's their issue and their decision. But I think in some of our older neighborhoods, it's going to be disruptive and not necessarily well accepted. And so if we can't do nothing about it, all we can do is tell the legislature, maybe they shouldn't have done it, but that isn't very effective either. Thank you.

2:14:34•KMKaren McCulloh

Stephanie, could we charter out from some of these things, like letting everybody know? No. I mean, to me, that's one thing we've always been very open.

2:15:09•KMKaren McCulloh

So basically, we've made these changes to stay with Senate Bill 48. We don't really have a lot of choice.

2:15:16 – 2:15:44•SASusan E. Adamchak

No. Of interest to some of our constituents who are in the room today we had at least one protest petition last year regarding rezoning I can't recall if we had a petition also for the hunting neighborhood for the Acacia fraternity but that that Avenue would no longer be available for citizens to bring forward it's that so

2:15:58 – 2:16:22•LFLarry Fox

Go ahead. So to maybe clarify some of Jim's questions here, so in the Ward District, say east of the park, could a buyer acquire an entire half block, eight lots, and replant it to 3,000 square foot lots. Tear down all those houses and put up a bunch of little houses.

2:16:31•LFLarry Fox

You all said the lots couldn't be divided.

2:17:01•JMJim Morrison

But if they cleared the block out like Larry asked and replanted it, they can make the lots design any way they want, as long as 3,000 feet.

2:17:17•LFLarry Fox

The frontage might be on the alley. It could be. If you've got the back half.

2:17:34 – 2:17:45•LFLarry Fox

So again, how do we balance that against this preservation program we're trying to do to not tear down old houses?

2:18:17•SASusan E. Adamchak

Thank you, Stephanie. We will take public comment on this item.

2:20:08•SASusan E. Adamchak

Thank you, Colleen. Colleen, would you sign in, please?

2:23:02•SASusan E. Adamchak

Thank you, Mel. Mel, would you sign in, please?

2:23:47 – 2:23:59•SASusan E. Adamchak

This is in response to that bill having been passed by the legislature and what adaptations we need to make in order to conform to state law.

2:24:01•JMJim Morrison

We couldn't move as fast as the Wisdom in Topeka moved, but our ordinance is adjusted. Is, I think, a fair answer? Is that correct, Stephanie?

2:24:33•SASusan E. Adamchak

Mike, please sign in. I love that I'm first name basis with everybody who speaks at this point.

2:24:44•KMKaren McCulloh

So can I ask, do we have no wiggle room? Is that what you're telling us? I mean, can we not notify people? I mean, isn't that our right as a city?

2:27:21 – 2:27:44•LFLarry Fox

scenario that we were talking about my question before you can acquire four or five lots and replant them into 30 foot wide lot so you could still do that yes you had six lots that could become

2:28:53•LFLarry Fox

Well, as we know, developers tear down the old houses and put up new stuff.

2:29:58 – 2:30:14•JMJim Morrison

Setbacks on the side the back and all that. Mm-hmm. I did not see those specific numbers in the Legislative Act were those things that you're recommending that we would have to do they be orderly So anything so the setbacks here those were not you're right.

2:30:44 – 2:31:02•JMJim Morrison

Could we be sneaky and just not change those setbacks? We certainly have that option. And that would certainly restrict substantially the ability to do any interior lot modifications unless the house burned down and they did something stacking like you just showed. Would that cure most of that? Go ahead.

2:31:56•JMJim Morrison

So what you just pulled up, the blue numbers are things that you've created, not what the legislative action required. Is that correct?

2:33:19•JMJim Morrison

They'd be doing a three- or four-story building if they met requirements they have in place.

2:33:27•JMJim Morrison

But if we don't modify those, then we do force more problems on wanting to do that, don't we?

2:33:37 – 2:33:51•JMJim Morrison

If we don't change those setbacks and lower them down as you proposed, we have pretty well discouraged any development on the interior lots. The corner lots are still gonna be an issue, but not as big.

2:33:51 – 2:34:17•KMKaren McCulloh

yeah you're building envelope at that point would be a postage stamp if we kept the lower the minimum lot size and kept the same yes Stephanie we ran into issues with lots setbacks with the super duplexes and they were counting paved areas and that is that going to make any difference because we stopped that

2:35:18•JMJim Morrison

Well, I wasn't proposing we increase it to be totally obstreperous, but I don't know that we need to go to 25 to 10 or anything else. It may be 25 to 22 and a half.

2:35:32 – 2:35:43•KMKaren McCulloh

Well, I think, you know, with the super duplexes, they were counting setbacks that were paved and all that kind of, you know, on the sides. And we changed that. We said they had to be.

2:35:46•KMKaren McCulloh

Remember that on Colorado? We did change some things to make that illegal.

2:36:13•KMKaren McCulloh

And there's been some discussion of having adjacent structures, mother-in-law flats and that kind of thing. Would this impact that at all? No. I'm not saying for or against it, I just.

2:37:27•ALAndrew Von Lintel

I think there was a question about the conservation district. Can you maybe explain that for me a little bit?

2:38:49•LFLarry Fox

So A lot has to have street frontage, am I correct? Yes, okay, yes. It can't be fronting on an alley.

2:39:18•LFLarry Fox

So when we talk splitting a lot north-south, you really couldn't do that?

2:41:38 – 2:41:49•SASusan E. Adamchak

CHRISTIE WOODARD- You're welcome. CHRISTIE WOODARD- Commissioners, any final questions or comments? If not, do we have a motion to accept Ordinance 7841?

2:41:52•ALAndrew Von Lintel

I move that we accept Ordinance 7841. CHRISTIE WOODARD- Second.

2:41:58•SASusan E. Adamchak

Chelsea, would you call the roll, please?

2:42:18•SASusan E. Adamchak

Thank you. Commissioner Morrison, I must say I do agree with you, but I think our staff will.

2:42:25•JMJim Morrison

I know it's horrible. I mean, it's horrible.

2:42:31 – 2:42:45•SASusan E. Adamchak

So much for home rule. Our final agenda item this evening is to consider the Manhattan Historic Preservation Plan. And Ben will make our presentation tonight.

2:48:54 – 2:51:22•JMJim Morrison

Well, the gentleman that was here last time, we had this saying, why hadn't we done anything? We're doing something, but probably not to his satisfaction. I've gotten it. I've tried to digest some of it. Being the kettle stirrer that I do, I have some serious questions about how we approach it and what the limits are. So my request would be that we give us all a chance to read and digest it and formulate questions so we can get answers, because probably, there's one of our long-term citizens once said, if it's historic, take a thousand pictures and do what you have to do. I don't agree to that

2:52:09 – 2:52:53•JMJim Morrison

well at the budget part you heard people say staff cost supervision we don't want to be responsible for some of the housing requirements that may accommodate some of these things I don't want our staff being obligated to be the watchdog for the preservation we may have to have ordinances to accommodate it we may need to have rules and regulations adopted but I don't think this is a At this point, I'm not convinced that's our city job to be responsible for this. But that's why I want more time to maybe cuss and discuss with the folks that are adamant about it and even to decipher what it does m

2:52:57 – 2:53:16•LFLarry Fox

I would certainly favor having more time to digest all this, having gotten this on Friday afternoon. It was 235 pages. I concur that we need more time to consider it and bring up good points, bad points, all that.

2:53:20 – 2:54:59•KMKaren McCulloh

I just point out that we've been at this since 2018 and this was approved on August 20th, 2025. I think we've really had plenty of time to think it over. It does not put anything on the historic register. It simply identifies neighborhoods which at some point might qualify and in other places definitely qualify. We're not going to have staff go out and preserve the houses around Marlette. That's just an area that this expert who came in and did our plan, it's a plan. and... yeah there were a lot of pages and you know that's what we're paid to read but it's basically the majority of it is sets

2:55:55•LFLarry Fox

So you've seen and dealt with it since 2018. We've dealt with it since Friday.

2:56:00 – 2:56:18•ALAndrew Von Lintel

Yeah, I would echo that. It wasn't really on my radar until Friday. So I would be very comfortable if we just took another two weeks and put it on the agenda, right back on the agenda in a couple weeks and get back after it. But it's a lot of pages.

2:56:21 – 2:56:35•SASusan E. Adamchak

Danielle is given the projected schedule for our legislative meetings over the next month or two. Would there be an opportunity to bring this forward?

2:57:04•LFLarry Fox

It might be helpful to have it in a work session. I think so too. Some of these different sections that I haven't even looked at yet.

2:57:10 – 2:57:41•KMKaren McCulloh

But we can't take, we can't pass something in a work session. I mean, we've canceled two work sessions in the, summer and fall. I mean, this has been on our plate forever. And I know that the Historic Resources Board has again and again told me that they didn't meet, that they were told nothing was on the agenda. And there, you know, people are very invested in this and very frustrated that it's taken so long.

2:57:43•JMJim Morrison

If it's been on since 18, there's been six years of city commissions before us that haven't dealt with it.

2:57:50•KMKaren McCulloh

Well, we were trying to do it, but it wasn't funded until...

2:57:52•SASusan E. Adamchak

Excuse me, this wasn't funded until two years ago with, as Ben pointed out, excess COVID money.

2:58:08 – 3:00:07•SASusan E. Adamchak

this this project wasn't wasn't funded until 2024 and completed in 2025 I would point out that much like the riverfront project which we adopted several months ago this is advisory it's not something we do not we are not obligated to implement the recommendations of this report it was done by a professional group with input from a the Historic Resources Board, the Historical Society, the Preservation Alliance. I found it to be very thorough and comprehensive. I would not be opposed to allowing the entire commission to take several more weeks to digest this, but as I said, I would just point ou

3:00:10 – 3:00:25•KMKaren McCulloh

Until the next legislative session. I would like us to be able to take action on this and that will give plenty of time to ask questions and talk to staff and for the people who really want to see this passed to have a chance to talk to their commissioners.

3:00:55•SASusan E. Adamchak

Thank you. Do we have a motion to Manager Doolin? Do you have any other comments for us this evening?