[0:32] I will now call to order the July 27th,
[0:35] 2026 city of Abling, Kansas City
[0:36] Commission meeting. Shayla, may we
[0:38] please have a roll call.
[0:38] >> Mayor Rin,
[0:39] >> here.
[0:39] >> Commissioner Taylor here.
[0:41] >> Commissioner Kolhoff, present.
[0:42] >> Commissioner Lidle,
[0:43] >> yes.
[0:43] >> Mr. Meisenberg,
[0:44] >> here. Roll call's complete. Okay, if we
[0:46] please stand for the pledge.
[0:50] I pledge algiance to the flag of the
[0:52] United States of America and to the
[0:55] republic for which it stands nation
[0:59] indivisible with liberty and all.
[1:08] [clears throat]
[1:09] >> All right. And our first item is the
[1:11] approval of today's agenda.
[1:16] I make a motion we approve as written.
[1:19] >> A second.
[1:20] >> Motion has been moved and seconded. Do
[1:22] we have any commission discussion?
[1:26] » Seeing none, we'll roll call vote. Vice
[1:27] Mayor Taylor?
[1:28] >> Yes.
[1:28] >> Commissioner Koloff?
[1:30] >> I.
[1:30] >> Commissioner Lidle?
[1:31] >> Yes.
[1:32] >> Commissioner Meisenberg?
[1:33] >> Yes.
[1:33] >> Myself? Yes. Motion carries. Our next
[1:35] item is the consent agenda which
[1:38] consists of those multiple items in
[1:41] there.
[1:43] I'll make a motion we approve as
[1:46] written.
[1:48] >> I'll second.
[1:49] >> Motion has been moved and seconded. Do
[1:51] we have any commission discussion?
[1:55] » Seeing none with a roll call vote.
[1:57] Commissioner Koloff.
[2:00] >> I.
[2:00] >> Commissioner Lidle?
[2:01] >> Yes.
[2:02] >> Commissioner Meisenberg?
[2:03] >> Yes.
[2:03] >> Vice Mayor Taylor?
[2:04] >> Yes.
[2:04] >> Myself? Yes. Motion carries. Our next
[2:07] item under heading six, public comments
[2:09] communications is a public forum. If
[2:10] there's anyone that would like to
[2:11] address the commission on an item not on
[2:13] our current agenda, they may do so at
[2:14] this time.
[2:16] If you could just state your name,
[2:18] address, and there is a threeminute time
[2:19] limit.
[2:23] » Okay. My name is Cindy Peterson. Address
[2:25] is 709 Northwest 11th Abene, Kansas. Um
[2:30] we are going to put a map for you on the
[2:33] property I am looking at. It says, "Good
[2:35] afternoon, mayor and commissioners.
[2:37] Thank you for the opportunity to speak
[2:38] with you. I am requesting consideration
[2:40] for the purchase of the cityowned lot at
[2:42] 800 North Vine. We currently own the
[2:44] property immediately in the front of
[2:45] that lot and acquire this parture would
[2:49] allow us to improve and maintain the
[2:50] property while creating opportunities
[2:52] further development. Our plan is to
[2:54] clean up the lot by removing the dead
[2:56] trees and eliminating the poison ivy
[2:57] that continues spread throughout the
[2:59] property. We have opport obtained
[3:02] estimates and expect these improvements
[3:04] to cost approximately 15,000. We are
[3:07] prepared to make the investment
[3:08] ourselves because we believe property
[3:10] has potential and would be an asset to
[3:13] the neighborhood and properly
[3:14] maintained. Looking ahead, we own the
[3:16] property on the north and have discussed
[3:18] the possibility of constructing a duplex
[3:20] on the combined properties. The current
[3:22] lot does not have significant frontage
[3:24] in the development in the particular
[3:26] manner on its own. By combining the two
[3:29] partials, we would have adequate
[3:30] frontage and a more functional building
[3:33] site. We're still maintaining
[3:34] appropriate space around the function
[3:36] structure. I would ask the commissioners
[3:38] to consider the economics of the
[3:40] project. An estimated value of frontage
[3:42] was that we own is about $6,200 and we
[3:46] anticipate spreading about 15 just to
[3:48] clean up the dead trees and the poison
[3:49] ivy. That means an investment in the
[3:51] property would be about 21,000 before
[3:53] any future development takes place. In
[3:55] addition, comparable usage lots areas
[3:58] have land value on the south side of
[4:01] 19,900
[4:02] on the north side and 910 north fine is
[4:06] 195. The cleanup cost and loan con
[4:08] combined with the current estimate value
[4:10] of the property would exceed those
[4:11] values before any construction or
[4:13] additional improvements are made. Giving
[4:15] that significant upfront expense, we
[4:17] would re respectfully request
[4:19] consideration of a reduced purchase
[4:20] price that recognize the current
[4:23] condition of the property and
[4:24] substantial investment requirements to
[4:26] be made it usable. We believe this
[4:28] purchase would benefit everyone
[4:30] involved. The property would be cleaned
[4:31] up, maintained by a private owner rather
[4:33] than maintained an unutilized cityowned
[4:36] lot. It has also returned the property
[4:39] to a tax roles generate property tax
[4:41] revenue for the city and other tax taxes
[4:44] entitlements. In the future, any
[4:46] residential federal in the property
[4:48] would further increase its taxable value
[4:49] and property additional long-term
[4:51] revenue to the community. I thank you
[4:53] for your time and consideration and I'd
[4:55] be happy to answer any questions.
[4:57] >> Thank you, Cindy. And I think uh inter
[4:59] city manager, you said you guys have
[5:01] already discussed this a little bit.
[5:04] >> Yes, sir. City staff discussed the uh
[5:06] potential future use by the city of that
[5:08] parcel. Uh and we do not anticipate any
[5:11] future use. It's landlocked. Uh so
[5:14] there's nothing we can do with it. Um,
[5:17] what we're looking for is I invited Miss
[5:19] Peterson here to make their desire known
[5:22] and if it's the uh consensus of the
[5:24] commission, then staff will start to uh
[5:27] work with her on a possible
[5:30] um [clears throat]
[5:31] offer and the whole process to sell the
[5:34] lot.
[5:35] >> Okay. What is the current policy on
[5:37] selling city land? Uh
[5:39] >> it's any real property transactions
[5:41] require commission approval. That's it.
[5:46] I'm all for it.
[5:47] >> I'm too
[5:51] good.
[5:51] >> Thank you, Cindy.
[5:55] [clears throat]
[5:59] » Do we have anyone else uh in the
[6:01] audience that would like to address the
[6:02] commission on an item not on our current
[6:04] agenda?
[6:07] Okay, seeing none, we will move to item
[6:09] 6B, Abling Public Library 2027 budget
[6:12] presentation. Dr. Molton.
[6:21] » Hey. Um, I think I'm gonna pull up my
[6:23] PowerPoint here. I just have a little I
[6:25] didn't know how much information you all
[6:27] wanted this year. It's been kind of
[6:28] sporadic and different over the years.
[6:30] So, um, I'm happy to listen to feedback,
[6:32] too, of what all information you want
[6:34] for future years from the library.
[6:37] Um but I think um the manager Quinday
[6:41] included the copy um we sent to him for
[6:43] the library budget for 2027.
[6:47] And a lot has been involved with the
[6:49] library board and the finance committee
[6:51] of the library board developing this
[6:54] budget. Um but I'm just going to give
[6:56] you a brief overview for that. Our
[6:59] little mission statement here. Oh, I can change it myself.
[7:10] Okay, just for a little mission
[7:12] statement there.
[7:43] we go. It said on but it wasn't.
[7:47] Um there's a little overview about um
[7:49] library tax um funds and li other
[7:52] library funding. Um and you can see our
[7:56] other sources of revenue there listed um
[7:58] besides the tax levy. But uh for next
[8:01] year our percentage is 89.8%
[8:05] will be from tax revenue and 10.2 from
[8:08] other funds like our endowment grants
[8:10] and um any fees we charge here like for
[8:13] copies and printing and faxing and
[8:16] things like that.
[8:19] A second
[8:30] Um, and just uh some brief overviews of
[8:32] what it went into putting together this
[8:34] budget and changes from last year. Um,
[8:37] like we used the same employee benefits
[8:39] plan as the city. So the same increase
[8:42] applies for our budget. Um, and this
[8:45] year to kind of offset that, we decided
[8:49] to cut benefits for our part-time
[8:51] employees um that we will hire in the
[8:53] future. So, we don't have to have that
[8:55] budget cushion. Um, and the total for
[8:58] the employee benefits is 2.45633
[9:02] of the mills that the 8.22 mills that we
[9:04] have. That much is just to cover the
[9:06] employee benefits. Um,
[9:09] and the budget has a 2% increase for
[9:13] staff salaries. And as um, you know, we
[9:16] did zero last year with you all. And
[9:20] that total amount of money to get the 2%
[9:22] is $8,674.
[9:26] Um
[9:28] the other line items, any increases are
[9:31] for maintenance,
[9:33] utilities, and then we're really trying
[9:36] to u make sure we have all those
[9:39] reoccurring expenses calculated
[9:41] correctly for software, the phone,
[9:43] internet, insurance, and we just got a
[9:46] new copier. So, we're still trying to
[9:48] figure out what the actual costs of
[9:49] that's going to end up being. So, it
[9:51] might go up or down. We're not sure yet.
[9:52] We've only had it for we've only had one
[9:54] bill so far. So, it's hard to calculate
[9:56] what we should know more in a few
[9:57] months, but just to make sure those are
[9:59] all in there. And um pretty much every
[10:02] line item is budgeted as like our actual
[10:05] expenses that we anticipate. Um
[10:09] and besides reducing the employee
[10:11] benefits, we um supplemented with $8,000
[10:17] from our endowment fund to keep the mill
[10:20] levy at 8.22. and that required
[10:23] eliminating um our Hoopla app that
[10:25] patrons use for ebooks, audiobooks,
[10:28] videos, music, and magazines. Um we'll
[10:31] have to cancel that for 2027 um to get
[10:34] to the 8.22 ms.
[10:45] Wonder if the battery is dying.
[10:53] And just a little bit more about the
[10:54] budget. In 2025, we our cash balance in
[10:58] our general fund was $24,458.
[11:01] So that's what we have to carry over
[11:03] into 2026.
[11:05] Um and we didn't budget any in 2026 to
[11:09] increase that at all. So,
[11:12] um, and just a little overview of, um,
[11:16] some of the budget issues that we're all
[11:19] facing. The city faces the same thing
[11:21] where if people don't pay pay their
[11:23] property taxes, we don't collect that
[11:25] money. So, we're anticipating to collect
[11:27] that amount, but we don't. Um, and with
[11:30] like limited other sources of income,
[11:32] it's hard for us to make up that
[11:33] difference. So these are the amounts of
[11:37] um money we had anticipated for those
[11:40] years that we didn't receive um because
[11:42] people um didn't were delinquent in
[11:44] their taxes. And then um the so it's
[11:48] about 4.95%
[11:50] just for property tax and if you offset
[11:52] it with people who paid their past
[11:54] delinquencies brings it down to 3.55%.
[11:58] So for 2027, our projected shortfall
[12:01] will be between those two numbers. And
[12:03] so incorporated into the budget, we got
[12:05] it to 17,800, which probably won't be
[12:08] quite enough, but that's um what we were
[12:10] able to get that number to. So we're
[12:13] anticipating um not having that revenue.
[12:15] So we budgeted that in this year.
[12:23] And just some fun things I uh was
[12:26] looking at some stats and for from
[12:29] January to June of this year I compared
[12:32] to last year and we have library visits
[12:35] are up 15.5%.
[12:37] So 15.5% more people are coming in here
[12:40] than last year. Um circulation of
[12:42] physical items is up 6.6% and the
[12:46] digital circulation is up 16% over last
[12:48] year. And so far this year, we've gotten
[12:51] $55,000 in grants. Um, which of course
[12:54] we can't spend for like operating
[12:55] expenses or utilities, but for other
[12:58] special projects that we're able to do
[13:00] um since we got that grant money. So,
[13:06] and that includes children's literacy.
[13:08] Um this year adult literacy projects
[13:10] will probably my training will start
[13:13] this year but the projects will probably
[13:14] start next year for adult um literacy
[13:17] and computer literacy for adults. Um we
[13:21] I think we all know like the age of AI
[13:22] is kind of scary for especially our
[13:25] older citizens uh even younger ones to
[13:27] determine you know what's real and
[13:28] what's not anymore. So, we're hoping to
[13:30] focus on some digital digital literacy
[13:32] skills next year and um also some
[13:38] building projects.
[13:40] Um some door automatic door openers for
[13:43] our restrooms um because they're not the
[13:47] doors are the the bathrooms are really
[13:49] nice for um any person in a wheelchair,
[13:51] but getting into them is hard cuz the
[13:53] doors aren't don't have openers and
[13:55] they're really heavy. So, we're hoping
[13:57] to add those um with one of our grant
[13:58] projects as well.
[14:01] And I love my quote from uh President
[14:04] Eisenhower. Don't be afraid to go to
[14:06] your library and read every book. So,
[14:08] take you a long time.
[14:11] Um
[14:13] and this is just um myself and my
[14:16] assistant director, Cara. And those are
[14:18] all our library board members currently.
[14:20] if you all have any other questions um
[14:22] for any of them at any time.
[14:25] Like I said, I'm happy to answer
[14:26] questions. If I don't know right now,
[14:27] I'm happy to find the answer for you.
[14:29] And um if you want specific things for
[14:32] this kind of presentation in the future
[14:34] years, just let me know. I'm happy to
[14:36] put whatever information you're looking
[14:37] for in there. So, do you have any
[14:39] questions? Now,
[14:41] >> you did have a reference to an attorney
[14:42] general's opinion 2006-4.
[14:46] Um that wasn't in our packet. Um, I just
[14:49] kind of glanced at it and um, just
[14:51] wanted maybe to make everyone else aware
[14:53] of that attorney general's opinion,
[14:55] specifically our city attorney. If we
[14:57] are going to have a discussion later,
[14:58] that might be um, that specific attorney
[15:01] general opinion was a county um,
[15:05] requesting funding, not a city. And, um,
[15:07] there are some relevant differences
[15:09] between the two. So, I just want to make
[15:10] sure that we're aware. And you know,
[15:12] frankly, from my perspective, as long as
[15:14] you're within the mil levy budget that
[15:15] the city has set, you can do whatever
[15:17] you want. And so, um, I think if you are
[15:20] needing funding beyond that, that's
[15:21] where I think you really need to maybe
[15:23] communicate early and often,
[15:25] >> um, because that would require changing
[15:26] that, I believe. I'm not sure about what
[15:29] the attorney general thinks, but I think
[15:30] we'll have to change that um, ordinance
[15:32] if you're going to need funding beyond
[15:34] that.
[15:34] >> Yeah, like I said, the board got it down
[15:37] to the 8.2 by cutting those few things
[15:39] for next year. Um, but we'll have to
[15:41] look at what that future holds next year
[15:43] about what we can do then. So, and if I
[15:46] think they're comfortable either way, if
[15:49] they really feel like because we've
[15:50] considered next steps would be cutting
[15:52] hours um and cutting other services and
[15:56] programs. So,
[15:58] but we made it work for next year.
[16:07] » Any further questions for Director Mold?
[16:10] No, I appreciate your PowerPoint and
[16:13] I've only heard good things about the
[16:14] library. So, I say that every time, but
[16:16] it's true. So,
[16:18] >> well, we left our tables here. We have
[16:20] Rodeo Queens coming to read to the kids
[16:22] in the morning. So, we were trying to
[16:24] get set up a little early. Uh last
[16:26] Tuesday, Cinderella, we had about 108
[16:29] people, I think. So, we're expecting a
[16:31] We always have a big crowd for the rodeo
[16:33] queens. So, um that's what these tables
[16:36] are are here for. So
[16:39] >> very excited about that.
[16:40] >> Yeah,
[16:46] » thank you.
[16:50] » Might actually work now.
[17:04] » Okay, moving on to heading seven,
[17:06] unfinished business. First up is 7A,
[17:08] consider approval of a Kansas Department
[17:09] of Transportation airport grant
[17:11] agreement. Interim city manager Quind
[17:13] Day.
[17:14] >> Thank you. Tonight, uh staff is asking
[17:16] the commission to consider approving the
[17:19] KOT airport grant agreement so that the
[17:22] city can accept the state funding and
[17:24] move forward with the T- hanger
[17:26] replacement project. As you uh remember,
[17:29] the commission has discussed this
[17:30] project, the funding strategy, and the
[17:32] replacement of the tornado damaged
[17:35] hangers for more than a year. Tonight's
[17:37] action is simply to approve the grant
[17:38] agreement so those funds can become part
[17:41] of the overall project financing. Uh
[17:44] this grant, as you know, is just one
[17:46] piece of the overall funding package. Uh
[17:48] the project is funded through three
[17:50] primary sources. the uh Federal Aviation
[17:53] Administration, the KOT grant that's
[17:56] before you, and then the city's required
[17:58] local contribution.
[17:59] Um the agreement establishes K DOT's
[18:03] participation in the project. Under the
[18:05] agreement, KOT will reimburse 50% of the
[18:07] participating costs up to a maximum of
[18:10] $333,700.
[18:12] You'll see in your packet that the
[18:14] estimate that we're going with is around
[18:16] 292,000.
[18:17] Um but if those prices increase, we can
[18:20] get up to 333.
[18:23] The city's responsible for the remaining
[18:25] participating cost once KOT's maximum uh
[18:27] participation is reached. And we're also
[18:30] responsible for any non-participating
[18:32] cost. Um there's standard grant
[18:34] provisions. They're outlined in article
[18:36] two of the agreement. Uh that's on page
[18:38] 42 of your packet.
[18:41] Uh, and also in your packet is an
[18:43] updated funding plan which provides for
[18:45] the overall financial picture of the
[18:47] project. Current estimated project cost
[18:49] is $1.65 million and combines federal,
[18:52] state, and local funding over multiple
[18:54] funding years. The FAA uh remains the
[18:57] largest funding source, approximately
[18:59] 940,000.
[19:01] ADOT providing funding uh we're
[19:04] estimating 292,500
[19:07] but up to 333,000.
[19:09] and then the city's local share would be
[19:11] uh the $292,000.
[19:14] Um [clears throat] the agreement allows
[19:17] the city to leverage significant federal
[19:18] and state funding to replace that
[19:20] infrastructure that was lost in the
[19:22] tornado.
[19:23] One question that's come up uh in the
[19:25] year that I've been here is whether the
[19:27] airport will construct six or eight
[19:29] hangers. Commission has had a lot of
[19:31] discussion the grant application and
[19:34] then the agreement addresses that
[19:35] directly. The project will be bid with a
[19:39] sixth place T-hanger as the base bid,
[19:41] eight place T- hanger as the alternate
[19:43] bid, but the grant application uh was
[19:46] written at the cost for the uh eight
[19:48] hangers. So that way um if the engineers
[19:53] are close on that cost, then we can do
[19:54] the eight hangers if they come in
[19:56] significant.
[20:00] It is for uh replacing eight of those
[20:02] hangers. So, our intent is to construct
[20:05] the largest project completed with the
[20:07] available funding. Um, that's on the
[20:10] application on pages 56 and 63.
[20:14] Um, the application also explains that
[20:17] replacing the hangers helps the airport
[20:19] maintain its minimum number of based
[20:21] aircraft needed to preserve future FAA
[20:24] entitlement funding. Um, it further
[20:26] notes that there's currently 11 aircraft
[20:28] on the hanger waiting list,
[20:30] demonstrating that demand already exists
[20:32] for additional hanger space. Replacing
[20:35] the hangers not only restores the
[20:36] infrastructure with loss, but also helps
[20:38] protect the airport's long-term
[20:40] eligibility uh for federal investment in
[20:43] the future. So, we recommend that the
[20:46] commission approve the grant agreement
[20:47] and authorize the mayor and staff to
[20:49] execute the related documents so that we
[20:52] can accept the grant funding and
[20:54] continue moving the project forward.
[21:01] Any questions for staff on this one?
[21:04] Um, your page numbers aren't lining up
[21:06] with the online one here, so I'm having
[21:08] trouble finding that, but you said that
[21:10] there is no obligation to build an eight
[21:13] place hanger with either this or the
[21:16] federal grant.
[21:18] >> Correct. Uh, the project is being bid
[21:21] for six hangers uh and eight place or
[21:24] eight hangers as an alternate bid. The
[21:26] grant application was written at the uh
[21:29] estimated cost for eight hangers.
[21:33] And I guess that's exactly what you said
[21:34] I think previously that I wanted to
[21:36] clarify. So if the estimated cost was
[21:38] for eight, that's there's not an
[21:39] obligation to build eight. It's just we
[21:41] might get less grant funds if we build
[21:44] six.
[21:44] >> Correct.
[21:45] >> Thank you.
[21:45] >> Yes. And this um approving this grant
[21:49] agreement tonight does not obligate you
[21:50] to six or eight. Uh that'll be when the
[21:52] bids come in and uh you authorize the
[21:55] construction contract.
[21:59] » Yeah. Yeah. And that was the only thing
[22:00] I had on there to note was I think our
[22:02] stated preference is aid if we can make
[22:04] it work.
[22:06] >> That's how the funding was written in.
[22:12] » Any further questions?
[22:25] I'll make a motion to consider the
[22:28] approval of a Kansas Department of
[22:30] Transportation Airport Grant Agreement.
[22:33] >> I'll second.
[22:34] >> Motion has been moved and seconded. Do
[22:35] we have any commission discussion?
[22:40] Seeing none, I'm a roll call vote.
[22:41] Commissioner Lidle,
[22:42] >> yes.
[22:42] >> Commissioner Meisenberg,
[22:43] >> yes.
[22:43] >> Vice Mayor Taylor,
[22:44] >> yes.
[22:45] >> Commissioner Kolhoff,
[22:45] >> hi.
[22:46] >> Myself, yes. Motion carries. Our next
[22:48] item is 7B. Consider ground lease
[22:50] agreement for fairgrounds concessions
[22:52] concession buildings. Interim city
[22:54] manager Gwendai.
[22:55] >> Yeah, this has to do with the U
[22:57] concession buildings that are on city
[22:59] owned property at the fairgrounds. The
[23:01] item tonight was originally uh prepared
[23:03] to ask the commission to approve the
[23:06] lease agreement that's in your packet as
[23:07] to form and set an annual rental amount
[23:10] for the buildings. Uh but since that
[23:13] agenda was prepared, the owner of the
[23:15] two concession buildings that we often
[23:16] refer to as the Gaywith buildings, uh
[23:18] they're the red ones and in the poor
[23:21] shape. Um those have since been sold by
[23:24] Mr. Gaywith to uh a family out of
[23:27] Chapman and the u the owner of those
[23:31] buildings has looked over the lease and
[23:33] is acceptable to it depending on what
[23:35] the um the annual rental amount is for
[23:39] the city. So, if the commission were to
[23:42] approve the lease as to form tonight, uh
[23:44] we would intend to use this agreement as
[23:46] a standard ground lease for the
[23:47] remaining concession building owners
[23:49] with the exception of the central Kansas
[23:52] free that's already covered by them. Uh
[23:55] tailoring it only as necessary to
[23:56] reflect the applicable building uh
[23:58] ownership information
[24:01] um which is consistent with the
[24:03] recommendation your packet. But what we
[24:06] will do is uh if you're comfortable with
[24:08] it is ask you to set a lease amount for
[24:12] um the two buildings since that owner is
[24:14] agreeable to the um lease as as it's
[24:17] presented to you and then authorize the
[24:20] mayor to uh execute that lease.
[24:24] I don't think it has to be done tonight
[24:26] if you want to take a look at it. um
[24:29] actually might be better if you wait uh
[24:31] till the August 10th meeting because
[24:33] depending on what you said is the annual
[24:35] rent that may change the uh building
[24:38] owner's
[24:39] um decision. Also,
[24:43] uh there is a section in there, section
[24:46] 9.4 four in there that requires the
[24:49] tenant at their expense to make sure the
[24:51] concession buildings are brought into
[24:54] compliance with the applicical city
[24:55] building codes and to obtain
[24:57] certificates of occupancy by June 30th
[25:00] of 2027. That gives them a year to bring
[25:03] specifically those two buildings uh that
[25:05] Mr. Gaywith used to own up to code um
[25:09] and that get a certificate of occupancy.
[25:12] If by
[25:14] uh they don't say they accept the the
[25:17] lease as written and uh they don't get
[25:20] it done by that date, the lease
[25:21] automatically terminates.
[25:24] I would personally like to see this on a
[25:26] study session. I think there's I'm not
[25:28] sure what time frame the free fair's
[25:31] range is that it covers the lease of
[25:32] that building or whatever it is they're
[25:34] paying back to the the free fair, but I
[25:36] don't feel like there's any urgency to
[25:39] ramrod this through. And I think
[25:40] especially without any money, I think a
[25:42] lot of those other questions are up in
[25:44] the air. So I'd like to do a study
[25:45] session and maybe chat with. Seems like
[25:47] we have a new owner than we were even
[25:49] contemplating 3 months ago or the last
[25:51] time this came in front of us. So I'd
[25:52] like to get some input from them and
[25:54] potentially I don't know if there's
[25:56] other building owners. I know the fair
[25:58] owns one of those buildings. I think
[25:59] maybe there's another private owner as
[26:01] well. Is that accurate? Yeah, there's a
[26:04] private owner that uh I've asked the
[26:06] city attorney to send a letter to
[26:07] because she's not responding to our uh
[26:09] request to review the lease. Um this
[26:14] basically what we're asking for and
[26:16] Aaron can weigh in on this is when Mr.
[26:18] Gaywith came to the city and said he
[26:20] wanted to sell those and wanted our
[26:22] permission. We can't find a lease.
[26:24] There's not a lease on record at the
[26:26] courthouse and none of the people who
[26:28] say they own those buildings to provide
[26:30] a lease with the city. Um so and Erin
[26:34] maybe you can explain if absent a lease
[26:36] how that those structures are treated.
[26:41] >> Sure. As uh Mr. Quundai mentioned
[26:43] there's no evidence that we were able to
[26:45] find that the occupancy has been
[26:48] formalized or that the structure has
[26:51] been severed in terms of ownership from
[26:54] the underlying real estate which is
[26:56] clearly owned by the city as the record
[26:59] owner of the whole fairgrounds. So in
[27:01] Kansas, the default rule if if we do
[27:04] wish to recognize any form of lease is
[27:07] that the law will supply and imply the
[27:11] terms of it in the absence of a written
[27:13] agreement. And again, that assumes it's
[27:15] actually a lease uh in the first place.
[27:18] But if if there is a lease and we don't
[27:20] have all the material terms, then it's
[27:23] deemed a tenency at will and terminable
[27:25] at any time by the landlord, which is
[27:28] the city upon 30 days advanced written
[27:30] notice. So uh the correspondence will
[27:33] advise that we wish to formalize in the
[27:36] same manner as this lease or whatever it
[27:38] is that you all approve and if an agre
[27:41] agreement is not reached then we have no
[27:43] choice but to treat it as a tenency at
[27:45] will and possibly terminate it that
[27:48] would be a decision to make as well but
[27:50] that is the those are the implied terms
[27:53] uh in the absence of a written agreement
[27:55] that spells those out
[27:58] and I guess for the purposes of a study
[28:00] session Uh the lease
[28:03] um
[28:05] describes the property being lease, the
[28:07] permitted uses, the maintenance
[28:08] responsibility, utilities, insurance,
[28:10] alterations, inspections, default
[28:13] provisions, and termination procedures.
[28:15] Um I guess for a study session, I don't
[28:19] what additional information the
[28:20] commission would like us to bring. Uh
[28:25] I guess characterizing this as a
[28:27] standard lease except for provision 9.4.
[28:29] for
[28:30] >> I think more than anything I think it
[28:32] would be how much can the place support
[28:35] lease-wise, moneywise? Um, have they
[28:37] been have these properties any of them
[28:40] been paying anything over the past prior
[28:43] years?
[28:44] >> Uh, no. We've had no lease had no leases
[28:46] with them. Uh, it's my understanding
[28:48] that they pay the fair board $300 to
[28:51] operate during the fair.
[28:52] >> Okay. But as far as uh a lease amount to
[28:56] be on our property, no, there's no
[28:58] record of it. And our recommendation
[29:01] would be
[29:03] something is uh $100 and that would take
[29:06] care of, you know, any paperwork that we
[29:07] have to do or inspections, things like
[29:09] that.
[29:10] >> And $100 a month or per year?
[29:12] >> Per year.
[29:12] >> Okay.
[29:13] >> Because I was looking at the insurance
[29:14] requirements, too. Do you know if they
[29:16] currently have to have that level of
[29:18] insurance on it for to operate out of
[29:21] the fair board?
[29:22] >> No, not what the fair board requirements
[29:24] are, I'm not aware of. Okay. And that's
[29:26] why we think it's important to have an
[29:28] actual lease since it's on the real
[29:30] property owned by the city to have those
[29:33] things spelled out
[29:34] >> within the lease.
[29:35] >> I just didn't know what that um a policy
[29:38] like that would would cost, you know,
[29:40] somebody to operate that over the year.
[29:43] Um, so that would be my question is
[29:45] whether it'd be financially feasible for
[29:48] an operator to pay that level of
[29:50] insurance to justify it throughout the
[29:53] year.
[29:54] >> I thought our previous discussion was
[29:56] that they couldn't use it outside of the
[29:57] fair anyway.
[29:58] >> I mean that's what I meant through the
[29:59] fair. I mean to justify it.
[30:00] >> I think the discussions we've had
[30:02] previously when we've discussed those
[30:03] buildings that may have been before your
[30:04] time
[30:05] >> probably. So
[30:05] >> but was that they weren't allowed to use
[30:07] those those buildings for
[30:08] >> right just three weeks renting them
[30:10] something that they can't use.
[30:11] >> Yeah.
[30:14] I I'm
[30:15] >> They do use them uh during the fair
[30:17] time. Now, uh Mr. Gaywith, I believe,
[30:21] used them. I'm not sure if he did at the
[30:23] last fair. And the um what's the last
[30:26] name, not Martinez? Lucero
[30:29] >> Sora.
[30:30] family out of Chapman plans on
[30:33] using them during this fair.
[30:34] >> Okay.
[30:35] >> But that they already have an agreement
[30:37] with the fair for those for that period
[30:39] of time. I I think it's the same thing
[30:41] that any food vendor whether you're
[30:43] mobile or in a building would pay
[30:47] the two different um items. One, the
[30:51] fair charges v food vendors to operate
[30:54] uh as part of the fair's revenue.
[30:56] Vendors pay that because they think
[30:57] they'll make a you know profit
[30:58] operating. This is they have buildings
[31:02] on city- [snorts] owned property. We
[31:04] have nothing that governs, you know,
[31:08] those types of things as far as their
[31:09] responsibilities, our responsibilities,
[31:11] what they can use them for. It's all up
[31:13] in the air. So,
[31:15] >> my only concern would be is I don't want
[31:17] to put anything in place monetarily wise
[31:20] that would hinder them from wanting to
[31:23] continue operating would be my only
[31:25] >> right. Uh the one building and I
[31:27] couldn't tell you it's the one closest
[31:29] to the carnival is the one they plan on
[31:31] using. they do not plan on using the one
[31:33] on the other side because they realize
[31:35] it needs to be fixed up. So, uh getting
[31:38] these this lease in place, uh
[31:43] this family will they say they're going
[31:45] to fix it up. They've already started
[31:46] working on the one and we give them a
[31:48] year to bring it up to code.
[31:51] I guess my biggest question when I was
[31:52] looking through that lease was, you
[31:53] know, are there any comparable lease
[31:56] amounts from other I know it's kind of a
[31:58] unique situation, but
[31:59] >> yeah, I mean, we're fine if it's a
[32:01] dollar. It's our goal is to get uh the
[32:05] basic terms outlined. So the uh building
[32:10] owners if if you will know what's
[32:12] expected of them for being on city
[32:14] property and then city knows what the building tenants or owners are
[32:21] responsible for. Right now there's
[32:22] nothing.
[32:24] Well, knowing that the yearly rate can
[32:27] be next to nothing, the only thing that
[32:28] I would be concerned about is how much
[32:30] they'd have to pay for that insurance
[32:32] requirement and whether that would be a
[32:35] um hindrance to them or not. If we could
[32:37] find that out, then I would be
[32:39] definitely just pull the trigger and
[32:40] have them sign that lease written as it
[32:42] is.
[32:43] >> I'm not sure on that amount. Uh but Mrs.
[32:47] Goria brought the lease back signed.
[32:49] >> Okay. And I told her that
[32:52] we need to bring this before you first,
[32:54] make sure you're okay with it, and then
[32:55] we would ask her to sign it.
[32:59] >> I'm okay with Miss Gwith or Mrs. Sora,
[33:02] did you say, has signed it already?
[33:04] >> Yes, there's actually they put two
[33:06] people's name on there, but we require
[33:07] that they provide us with a bill of
[33:09] sale. Uh, and there's only one name on
[33:11] the bill of sale.
[33:12] >> Okay. I'd be okay with moving forward
[33:14] with the lease if if they're okay with
[33:16] the with the terms. Sounds like they are
[33:19] based on the fact that they've already
[33:21] >> signed it. I don't want to charge them
[33:23] any more than we need to then to cover
[33:24] the cost of processing the paperwork to
[33:28] do the lease.
[33:29] >> So, whatever that is on a yearly basis
[33:31] for the admin fee, $100 a year.
[33:34] >> Yeah. I mean, that just the number we
[33:35] picked. It could be anything that you
[33:37] want, but like you mentioned, we don't
[33:39] want to charge them something for a
[33:40] building that they're able to use a
[33:42] couple weeks ahead of year.
[33:44] >> Same. Yeah. I don't want to stop the use
[33:46] of it at all.
[33:47] >> Right. And that was my concern.
[33:48] >> This would be great to get it
[33:50] formalized. Here's your expectations.
[33:52] Here's what you can expect from us. And
[33:53] oh, by the way, you have to bring it up
[33:55] to code or the it goes away.
[33:57] >> Okay. Do we have to agree on the amount
[33:59] today on the lease or is that something
[34:01] that you can negotiate?
[34:03] >> Uh that's completely up to you. Uh but I preferable if you would set that
[34:07] because then when we get a hold of the
[34:10] third building owner, we already have
[34:12] that number set.
[34:13] >> Okay.
[34:14] >> Does that make sense?
[34:15] >> Yeah. I don't want to charge the uh
[34:17] >> somebody different
[34:17] >> story is something different.
[34:21] >> Would there be a benefit to waiting
[34:22] until after this fair is over?
[34:26] >> A benefit uh unless you there's
[34:29] something that uh the commission
[34:31] analysis study something you want us to
[34:34] bring back for you to consider chew on
[34:38] whatnot. [clears throat]
[34:38] Commissioner Kof, I think he said that
[34:41] he would like the potential um
[34:45] at lease
[34:47] the suras to come to a work study and
[34:49] walk through this with you. Um not
[34:51] necessarily them, but anybody else. It
[34:53] sounds like we're maybe not reaching out
[34:55] or we're not finding any of the other
[34:57] owners, but if we're going to have
[34:58] things that apply universally, I don't
[34:59] think one person's signature should
[35:01] dictate their neighbor's rent or terms
[35:03] for a lease. Well, we've uh reached out
[35:07] several times, even twice by uh letter.
[35:11] One of them, I believe, was certified,
[35:12] but I'll have to confirm that to the
[35:14] other property owner, other building
[35:17] person who has similar buildings at
[35:20] other fairgrounds, and uh she's just
[35:25] won't respond.
[35:25] >> Not responsive.
[35:26] >> Yeah,
[35:28] I we've been trying now for several
[35:31] months. The last phone call I had with
[35:32] her was probably at the beginning of the
[35:34] year, maybe at uh it probably at the
[35:36] beginning of the year, and her comment,
[35:38] if I remember correctly, was,
[35:41] "I had a lease. I turned it into the
[35:43] city.
[35:44] I don't need another one." Well, we
[35:47] don't have it. You don't have it. The
[35:49] courthouse doesn't have it. We need a
[35:51] new one. Just basic, simple, and we
[35:54] can't get a response. That's why I asked
[35:56] the city attorney to write a letter
[35:58] saying, "We'd like you to get a hold of
[36:00] us so we can discuss this before we move
[36:02] to the next step and ask the
[36:03] commission," what do you want us to do?
[36:06] >> Well, all four of those buildings serve
[36:07] the same purpose and aren't going to
[36:09] serve any separate purpose outside of
[36:11] their purpose that they're serving now.
[36:13] Is that correct?
[36:14] >> As I understand it, yes.
[36:15] >> Yeah. Then I'd say make it a standard
[36:17] dollar a lot lease.
[36:19] >> Annual.
[36:20] Annual. Would it help to have
[36:23] this in place before the fair actually
[36:25] gets here so you can hand deliver it to
[36:27] that lady that's not getting back with
[36:28] us?
[36:30] >> I don't know that she's going to have
[36:31] one there. Uh
[36:33] >> but you know that's a good idea. If the
[36:35] commission were to approve the lease as
[36:37] a form if she's open we can have
[36:40] somebody drop it off to her and say hey
[36:42] and have another conversation with her.
[36:45] >> I would imagine she'll I would imagine
[36:47] she'll be there.
[36:48] >> Yeah. I mean I've spoken to her on the
[36:49] phone a couple times. long conversations
[36:52] that Yeah. reaching out another time
[36:54] does hurt.
[36:56] >> That's a good idea. When she's there
[36:57] working.
[36:58] >> Yeah.
[36:59] >> You know, if she's not responding, maybe
[37:01] that would be one way to get into her.
[37:02] So,
[37:02] >> yeah.
[37:03] >> And as a landlord, you have a standard
[37:05] lease regardless of who's
[37:08] occupying.
[37:09] >> Correct.
[37:10] >> So, that's I'm okay with a dollar a year
[37:12] standard lease. I'd approve it.
[37:15] >> You say one
[37:16] >> a dollar a year. Yeah.
[37:17] >> Does that cover your paperwork and
[37:18] everything that you probably
[37:20] >> $1? No, but that's that's okay.
[37:21] >> Just errands.
[37:22] >> Okay. [laughter]
[37:24] >> It covers an hour of errands time.
[37:27] >> Pretty cheap lawyer.
[37:39] » Or if there's a definite amount, I'm
[37:40] open to it. But just keep it cheap.
[37:43] >> I would think $100 a year would cover
[37:46] anything we have to amend.
[37:51] I'll make a motion to consider the
[37:52] approval of the ground lease of the
[37:54] fairgrounds concession buildings
[37:57] at an annual rate of $100 a year.
[38:00] >> I'll second.
[38:02] >> That would include the uh authorizing
[38:04] the mayor to execute those.
[38:07] >> Correct.
[38:11] » I I'll second again.
[38:14] >> Motion has been moved and seconded. Do
[38:15] we have any commission discussion?
[38:19] Seeing none of the roll call vote.
[38:21] Commissioner Meisenberg,
[38:22] >> yes.
[38:22] >> Vice Mayor Taylor,
[38:23] >> yes.
[38:24] >> Commissioner Kolhoff,
[38:24] >> nay.
[38:25] >> Commissioner Lidle,
[38:26] >> yes.
[38:26] >> Myself, yes. Motion carries. Our next
[38:29] item is 7 C. Continue discussion
[38:31] regarding the storm water financial
[38:32] review and recommendations. Interum city
[38:34] manager Quinday.
[38:35] >> Yeah. To purpose of tonight's discussion
[38:38] is uh not to revisit the KMU storm water
[38:40] rate study. Uh the discussion is
[38:42] intended to be much narrower. We're
[38:44] asking for the commission for direction
[38:47] on how you would like to implement the
[38:48] revenue requirements uh already
[38:50] identified by the KMU study. The report
[38:54] uh in your packet evaluates three
[38:56] implementation schedules that all reach
[38:58] essentially the same long-term rate but
[39:00] differ in when the customers experience
[39:02] those uh rate increases and when the
[39:05] utility receives the resulting revenue.
[39:07] What has not changed in the report and
[39:10] our presentation is the underlying
[39:12] financial analysis. uh KMU with staff's
[39:15] assistance evaluated operating cost,
[39:17] maintenance, capital improvements,
[39:19] reserve requirements, future
[39:21] infrastructure replacement, and
[39:23] anticipated debt service. Based on that
[39:26] analysis, CMU identified the revenue
[39:28] needed to keep the storm water utility
[39:30] financially stable over the long term.
[39:34] The report does not revisit those
[39:35] conclusions. Um
[39:38] what we're visiting tonight is at a
[39:40] previous work study or study session the
[39:43] commission asked staff to evaluate
[39:45] different ways to implement those rates.
[39:47] Uh
[39:49] the three that they asked us to uh
[39:51] evaluate were the KMU recommendation
[39:55] um that minimizes customer impacts
[39:57] during the first two years which would
[39:59] be a 75 cent increase per drainage unit
[40:02] in the first year 8 cents in the second
[40:04] year and then it has a significant jump
[40:06] in year three when we anticipated
[40:09] potential debt service. Uh and we used
[40:11] $1 million as that number. Um that
[40:16] approach aligns with the increase when
[40:19] if the commission were to say go fix
[40:21] this drainage issue here, the timing it
[40:24] would take for us to uh get it
[40:26] engineered, go out for bids and get the
[40:29] uh debt service to you would be in three
[40:32] years. The other alternative uh spreads
[40:35] the increases more evenly over the first
[40:37] three years. It'd be uh 76 cents a year.
[40:41] we had talked about at study session 75,
[40:44] but the math is about 76 cents. So
[40:47] instead of one significant adjustment,
[40:49] uh customers experience a more gradual
[40:51] progression while still uh reaching the
[40:54] same long-term rate in year three. And
[40:57] the other alternative uh put forth by
[40:59] Commissioner Kolhoff was to implement
[41:01] the increases immediately. Uh it
[41:04] generates additional revenue sooner but
[41:06] also results in the largest customer
[41:08] increase in the first year. that would
[41:10] be taking uh going from our rate now to
[41:14] the 354 I believe is what that number
[41:17] is.
[41:18] So the residential impacts for
[41:20] residential customers uh the analysis is
[41:23] straightforward. Nearly 99% of our
[41:26] customers are assigned one drainage
[41:28] unit. That means almost every homeowner
[41:30] experiences essentially the same monthly
[41:32] increase regardless of where they live.
[41:35] Uh the only difference is when that
[41:36] accre occurs under each implementation
[41:40] schedule.
[41:42] Commercial customers are different
[41:43] because the businesses with larger
[41:46] parking lots and roofs generate more
[41:48] runoff and therefore are assigned more
[41:50] drainage units. Again, the rate itself
[41:53] does not change among the alternatives.
[41:55] Only the timing changes. Likewise, all
[41:58] three alternatives ultimately generate
[42:00] essentially the same annual revenue at
[42:01] the end of three years. The difference
[42:04] is when the utility receives that.
[42:06] Alternate uh two that would be
[42:10] um doing it all at once provides the
[42:12] strongest early cash flow. Alternate one
[42:15] falls in the middle. That's doing it
[42:16] over three years. And then the KMU
[42:19] recommendation delays the largest
[42:21] increase until the projected debt
[42:23] service begins.
[42:25] Ultimately, this is a policy decision
[42:27] rather than a financial one. Uh the
[42:29] report concludes that all three
[42:30] alternatives achieve essentially the
[42:32] same long-term objective. All three
[42:34] produce essentially the same revenue and
[42:37] the commission's decision is really a
[42:39] choice between customer impact and the
[42:41] timing of revenue. Staff is not
[42:43] recommending one implementation schedule
[42:45] over another. What we're asking from the
[42:48] commission is to review the analysis,
[42:50] discuss the alternatives, and provide
[42:51] direction regarding which schedule you
[42:54] would like staff to prepare for for
[42:56] adoption or for your consideration.
[42:59] Should the commission elect to revise
[43:01] the schedule uh or choose AMUs,
[43:05] alternate one, alternate three, uh we
[43:09] would recommend an effective date of
[43:10] those rates of January 1, 2027 to
[43:13] provide customers adequate notice and
[43:15] allow sufficient time for public
[43:17] communication and implementation and
[43:20] also for those entities that uh budget
[43:22] annually to prepare for it.
[43:26] Are there any question?
[43:39] » Have any thoughts on those three
[43:40] options?
[43:42] >> A little bit of discussion.
[43:43] >> I think we get before we get to the
[43:44] money raise option. I've had obviously
[43:46] quite a bit of time to think about this
[43:48] since our last meeting. I really want a
[43:50] concrete plan for fixing the issues that
[43:52] we know about, preparing for the ones
[43:54] that we don't know about before we raise
[43:55] a single penny in taxes or revenue from
[43:58] our customers. It's all fine and good.
[44:00] We've got 5 years of runway if we don't
[44:02] do anything. So, I don't think we need
[44:04] to approve this today or next week or
[44:05] next month. We need to get a plan for
[44:07] fixing the issues that we know about.
[44:09] They were brought to a head here.
[44:10] There's what, a half a dozen areas that
[44:13] get water in their front yards,
[44:15] backyards, driveways, basement,
[44:18] including our own city building. Um, and
[44:21] it's an issue that's been going on as
[44:23] long as I've been in town. I've been
[44:24] here 17 years, and it's been exactly the
[44:26] same. Fourth Street floods,
[44:29] uh, summit or whatever it is up
[44:31] northwest, there's something northeast,
[44:33] there's something in the south. The
[44:34] people, uh, actually I had the privilege
[44:36] of talking with a gentleman over the
[44:37] weekend. They don't even, you're
[44:38] correct. They don't actually tell us
[44:39] anymore when the southside floods. They
[44:41] just expect it. Um, so that's those people aren't coming to meetings.
[44:45] They just know that we don't care. And
[44:47] so before we come up with a plan to
[44:49] raise the money, I think we need to come
[44:50] up with a plan to fix it. Then we'll
[44:52] know how much money we need and then we
[44:53] can raise it appropriately.
[44:59] Well,
[45:03] I can't speak for the commission, but
[45:04] speaking for city staff, I'm not sure I
[45:07] would characterize it as we don't care.
[45:09] Um, we also do have a plan that was
[45:12] approved by the city commission
[45:14] identifying the top, I believe, five.
[45:17] There's a few more um drainage priority
[45:20] areas that you want us to address.
[45:23] The first one, of course, is the uh
[45:25] South Park, which is anywhere between 16
[45:28] and more than $20 million. Unlikely
[45:30] we'll be able to do that without some
[45:32] significant federal uh funding grants,
[45:35] but there are also others that were
[45:37] identified on there. We brought those
[45:40] costs to the commission, those
[45:42] estimates, and they range between$1 and
[45:44] $2 million. And then the young man, I
[45:46] always keep on thinking Gary, but uh
[45:49] that came and spoke to one of the
[45:51] commission meetings and his neighbors.
[45:53] We asked uh the engineers to come on
[45:55] site when they were already here for
[45:56] something else to get twice the bang for
[45:59] our buck. Uh they walked that area with
[46:03] um public works and came up with a plan
[46:07] and a opinion of that construction cost
[46:10] which is close to $2 million.
[46:12] >> That was the void and the
[46:13] >> Hess. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Uh now that is
[46:17] just a okay here's what we can see from
[46:20] available information. Um I told the uh
[46:26] Olsson folks and the people in that
[46:28] neighborhood that we will bring that
[46:29] back to the city commission and say okay
[46:31] here's what they have. Here's what they
[46:33] think it's going to be. But to move
[46:35] forward and get a high dollar cost or a
[46:37] high cost, they'd actually have to
[46:39] engineer it. So we'd, you know, enter
[46:41] into an engineering agreement uh with
[46:43] them if that's the priority that you
[46:45] want. So, I bring that up because we do
[46:48] have projects um
[46:51] that were identified as being priorities
[46:53] by the commission. And even without
[46:57] those projects being identified, yes, we
[46:59] have $600,000 in there, but um the
[47:04] photograph I sent you of the hole over
[47:06] here by city hall, uh the estimate for
[47:09] that is anywhere between 13 and $28,000
[47:13] to uh repair. Now, that $13,000 is
[47:17] repairing what's in the hole. the uh
[47:20] 28,000 or $23,000 is to go about almost
[47:24] a half a block farther. If that pipe,
[47:27] which is that bitrius clay, which is
[47:29] cracked, is cracked even further, that
[47:31] price will continue to grow and at some
[47:34] point it will exceed our capabilities.
[47:37] So,
[47:38] realistically, um staff would be able to
[47:41] use that $600,000 to start fixing those
[47:44] issues that we have now. Um, you know,
[47:47] in the past, and I'm not an engineer,
[47:49] and I'm not speaking to anybody's
[47:51] decisions that they made before, but in
[47:53] the past to save money, they would wrap
[47:56] it in tin uh and pour concrete over and
[48:00] hope that it didn't break again. I can't
[48:02] find anybody in the uh that part of the
[48:07] profession, engineers or other cities
[48:10] that say cut out the bad pipe, slide in
[48:14] new pipe, put in some couplings, and fix
[48:16] the problem. Don't pour concrete over
[48:18] it, and hope that it it works. So, u we
[48:21] either have to start fixing the drainage
[48:23] issues or just pick them down the can
[48:26] again. Now, that may sound
[48:29] counterintuitive because our
[48:30] recommendation is if you implement any
[48:33] of these schedules, not to do it
[48:34] effective till January 1 of 2027.
[48:37] However, whatever implementation
[48:40] schedule you choose, if you pick one, uh
[48:42] as opposed to doing nothing, then that
[48:45] gives us time to plan. Okay, based on
[48:47] this implementation schedule, the number
[48:49] of meters we have, here's the revenue we
[48:52] can anticipate that we can start
[48:54] planning on. Can we do these bigger
[48:57] projects and we can show granting
[48:59] agencies that we have the funding
[49:01] mechanism in place uh to apply for
[49:04] grants? That makes sense.
[49:09] » And that's where I was at too just from
[49:11] I mean this uh spring and summer has
[49:14] been a good indication or indicator and
[49:16] a reminder of how bad it actually is.
[49:17] And that's got it in the front of
[49:20] everybody's mind. So now is the time to
[49:22] invest in this cuz it needs reveal. We
[49:25] need action. We need John, I agree with
[49:27] you 100%. We need momentum on this. And
[49:30] I understand that without a plan or
[49:33] purpose set forth before the money is
[49:36] in, it's kind of like the snake eating
[49:38] its own tail in my opinion on how that
[49:41] works. Um,
[49:44] I was I I came in today looking for
[49:48] alternative two, just like what
[49:50] Commissioner Khof mentioned last time on
[49:53] let's get the ball rolling on the
[49:55] funding and let's get the money in the
[49:57] bank faster so we can fix Gary and
[49:59] Andy's problem and whatever else we have
[50:02] on the list that we prioritized as far
[50:05] as the one and $2 million projects. And
[50:07] that way, you know, like you said, the bonding and the grant writing, I
[50:12] mean, we'll have a idea of now we've got
[50:14] this much money to work with as opposed
[50:16] to
[50:18] um, you know, having that hang in the
[50:20] balance as we try to figure out what we
[50:22] need and priorities and, you know, we
[50:25] got engineering to pay for all up front
[50:27] to get an idea of actual hard cost money
[50:30] on what these projects are going to
[50:32] spend as opposed to just best guess. So,
[50:34] we're going to have to start spending
[50:35] money for design, engineering, and and
[50:38] you know, long before construction. So,
[50:41] >> well, so to your point, we already have
[50:42] design and engineering from uh prop the
[50:45] project up at 15th Street that
[50:47] >> Sure.
[50:47] >> I don't even know what the the tag was,
[50:49] but we decided the price tag was for
[50:50] that, but we decided that wasn't
[50:51] important. And so, I I want a plan. I'm
[50:55] willing to carry out a plan, but I want
[50:56] a plan before we come up with the money.
[50:58] I mean, it's the same way we did the
[50:59] baseball field. Get the plan for the
[51:00] baseball field, raise the money. Let's
[51:02] get a plan for the water department,
[51:04] storm, uh, water, sewer, storm. Let's
[51:07] get the plan and then let's go fix it.
[51:09] We can raise the money after we have the
[51:10] plan. I think we're putting the cart
[51:12] before the horse by just saying, "Hey,
[51:14] we're taking more and more money." I
[51:15] don't know. Uh, I hope that you have. I
[51:17] think, um, I'm not the only one who's
[51:19] gotten threatening emails from people
[51:21] about water and sewer rates. Um,
[51:23] ironically, not even in the city. Um,
[51:25] but nevertheless, I think that we need
[51:28] to be judicious about how we are
[51:31] spending other people's money.
[51:33] >> 100% are, but we're so far in the hole
[51:35] that even this increase isn't going to
[51:38] >> well
[51:38] >> be effective to cover all that's out
[51:40] there that we have now. I mean, this is
[51:42] just a small portion of what needs done.
[51:45] We know we need to spend it.
[51:48] I don't have it right in front of me,
[51:49] but I think the five-year projection
[51:50] without any of the capital expenditures
[51:52] was that we would still have $600,000
[51:55] after five years. So, I I don't disagree
[51:57] with you. I I agree we need to do
[51:59] something and we need to do a lot of
[52:00] things, but I don't think that we need
[52:02] to do so much that we don't need to come
[52:05] up with a plan for how we do it. And I
[52:06] think we're going to rather than playing
[52:08] whack-a-ole, which is what it feels like
[52:10] we're doing right now. Um whether it's
[52:12] southeast, oh that's too expensive,
[52:14] we're not going to do that. Northeast,
[52:15] oh, we're not going to do that. Who
[52:16] knows now? Now, maybe the the west side
[52:18] is what's more important. Um, and I I
[52:21] don't I don't feel that we've got a good
[52:23] plan number one for assessing it or
[52:25] fixing it. I don't even feel that we
[52:26] know really what the problem is. I can
[52:28] tell you I looked over at Gary Boyd's
[52:30] place um when it was raining and there's
[52:34] three unique water levels if you drive
[52:36] up um that's Malberry Street, right?
[52:40] There's one in the river by the by the
[52:42] park, right? And that's lower than the
[52:43] one that's on the right side, which is
[52:45] where there's some type of drainage
[52:46] structure that arguably the city the
[52:48] city is maintaining or owns. And then
[52:50] there's Gary Boyd's property, which is
[52:52] like 5 ft higher. And so I don't think
[52:55] that the problem is I don't think it's a
[52:58] million- dollar problem. I don't think
[52:59] it's a half a million dollar problem.
[53:00] I'm afraid that we're going to spend a
[53:02] million dollars fixing something that's
[53:03] probably a a5 or $10,000 problem. And I
[53:06] don't know if it's I don't know if it's
[53:07] tree roots. I don't know what I don't
[53:09] know what the situation is. But I can
[53:10] tell you that just looking at that
[53:12] situation right there tells me that
[53:13] there is a there is an issue that
[53:16] frankly shouldn't cost $2 million to
[53:18] fix.
[53:20] >> Oh, may I ask a question?
[53:22] >> Yeah.
[53:22] >> Uh
[53:24] if
[53:27] staff says we think this is the issue
[53:29] and engineers say we think this is the
[53:31] issue and you don't believe it, what are
[53:34] you going to believe? I mean how do we I
[53:36] guess what's the definition of a plan?
[53:39] Um, your current storm water management
[53:42] policy requires Brad to come to you with
[53:44] a list of drainage area issues. He did
[53:48] that. You didn't accept verbatim what he
[53:52] suggested. You moved those around and
[53:54] said, "These are more priorities." So,
[53:56] for me, that's a plan. Uh,
[53:59] >> well, I think there's a difference
[54:00] between saying $2 million we'll fix this
[54:02] and here's what's wrong with what you
[54:04] have now. I don't I haven't seen
[54:05] anything from those folks other than
[54:06] this is the first I've heard about it is
[54:08] you telling us about it. So I don't know
[54:09] if that's real or not, but I think we
[54:12] we've brought it up a dozen times here
[54:13] that we think that there's probably
[54:15] things in the storm drains and we need
[54:17] to go look and we need to see that.
[54:19] >> So can I ask another question then?
[54:21] You're saying that I'm telling you that
[54:22] but you don't know if it's real. Does
[54:24] that mean that I'm making it up?
[54:26] >> No, I don't think you're making it up. I
[54:27] think absolutely if we spend $2 million
[54:29] up there, we can fix the problem.
[54:31] >> I I 100% believe that. But if the
[54:33] engineering firm says this is what we
[54:35] think it's going to be,
[54:37] then who else do we believe? If they say
[54:39] we think it's going to cost this, you
[54:41] know, for example, the um CCIP project,
[54:45] you know, at one point they thought it
[54:46] was going to be $1.8 million, 1.6, but
[54:49] they're in the ballpark. Um
[54:52] you've got to start somewhere. And right
[54:55] now what we have is opinion of probable
[54:57] construction costs from an engineering
[54:59] firm that's looked at these and there's
[55:01] work for the city looking at your
[55:02] drainage areas and all of that. So to me
[55:05] you have a priority list. The plan is,
[55:08] okay, now we've got to be able to pay
[55:10] for these. Once you have that mechanism
[55:12] in place and you know, okay, based on
[55:15] the 3,000 [clears throat] properties,
[55:18] whatever that number is, we know we're
[55:20] going to go from $60,000 a year revenue
[55:22] to $21,000.
[55:24] So then we can plan, okay, how much of
[55:27] that needs to go towards debt service.
[55:29] And if the commission says we can't
[55:31] afford south, that's $20 million. We
[55:34] want you to do this one. Focus on that
[55:37] first. Well, now we know when we go to
[55:39] the granting agencies, the state and
[55:41] that that okay, we're not bringing in
[55:44] 60,000. We're bringing in $200,000.
[55:47] We're able to service that as opposed to
[55:50] saying, you know, uh, well, we got
[55:53] $60,000 and in five years we're going to
[55:55] have $600,000 like we do today. It's not
[55:58] going to fix anything.
[56:00] I haven't
[56:02] come across a project yet in the year
[56:04] I've been here for uh drainage that has
[56:07] been under $600,000.
[56:09] I just haven't. Um
[56:16] yeah I you know it's you had mentioned
[56:19] and maybe I misunderstood the process
[56:21] for the uh sports complex but it was my
[56:25] understanding that the uh public voted
[56:28] for that quality of life sales tax and
[56:32] the idea was to put some ball fields out
[56:34] there and the city I believe bonded that
[56:37] amount. Well, you did because it
[56:39] happened right when I got here. $4
[56:41] million for it. But it took several
[56:44] months before
[56:46] the design was brought to the commission
[56:48] to say yes, move forward.
[56:50] >> I'd encourage you to look at the history
[56:52] of that. I think there's some people
[56:54] sitting up here can tell you the amount
[56:55] of planning that went into it before
[56:57] that ever went up for a vote.
[57:00] >> I can just read what the uh the ballot
[57:03] question was. quality of life and that
[57:05] uh
[57:06] >> yeah, there's been a lot of meetings
[57:07] that happened before that though and
[57:08] many of them in this room that happened
[57:09] before we ever got to that point. I
[57:11] think Kelly can speak to that as well.
[57:12] There were there was a ton of work and
[57:15] frankly if that same amount of work was
[57:16] done on the storm water study, I would I
[57:18] would pass it today. If we had all the
[57:20] work that they had done before that had
[57:21] gone to a ballot question, I would
[57:23] absolutely sign off on this today.
[57:25] >> And what kind of work was that?
[57:27] >> Kelly, do you want to you want to share?
[57:28] I mean, no. I mean, you're telling me
[57:30] that the amount of work that they uh
[57:32] did.
[57:33] >> Yeah. They had a plan for
[57:34] >> explain to me what that work is that you
[57:36] need me to do for storm water.
[57:37] >> I I would you I mean, you're coming up
[57:39] here and you're giving us what your
[57:41] perspective is. I'm telling you, I was I
[57:42] was in the room when we had plans and
[57:44] drawings for I think at one point there
[57:46] was like eight or 10 ball fields. I
[57:48] mean, so there was a lot of work that
[57:49] went in before we went to raise money
[57:52] from the public before we asked them to
[57:53] spend their money on public
[57:55] improvements.
[57:55] >> Was that who gave you the the drawings?
[57:57] I'm just curious now. At this point, I
[57:59] don't remember. We've had six different
[58:01] people who had their hands in it. Um I
[58:03] think it was Mammoth if I was guessing.
[58:06] Um I think they were the ones who's kind
[58:07] of started the process.
[58:08] >> I think they were the first ones. Yeah.
[58:10] >> Yeah. So
[58:12] I I think it's fine to raise rates. I
[58:15] think there's things that need to be
[58:16] fixed. I think I would like to see the
[58:17] plan first.
[58:18] >> And I still don't understand what your
[58:20] definition of plan is.
[58:21] >> Okay. So was that you said you have an
[58:23] opinion of probable cost from
[58:26] >> the engineering firm on that project
[58:28] >> for the folks that came in last time,
[58:30] >> right?
[58:31] >> Yes.
[58:31] >> And I think we did have that discussion
[58:33] at that time. [clears throat] I don't
[58:35] believe I can't remember if that was on
[58:37] our approved priority list or not. At
[58:40] that time
[58:41] >> it was not,
[58:41] >> but that was one that you're actually
[58:43] facing risk of loss
[58:46] for the those two homes right there. So,
[58:48] it kind of I guess got elevated on that
[58:51] list. Is that something you can you can
[58:55] send that to us? I don't know how
[58:57] detailed it is.
[58:58] >> It's a a one sheet based on, you know,
[59:01] what they think they're going to need,
[59:02] whether it's um 48 inch pipe, RGB. It's
[59:06] a little bit technical on the details,
[59:08] but it'll tell you what the cost is. Uh
[59:10] they also have a I believe a map showing
[59:13] where they would build that. Um, and I,
[59:17] it's not Gary, but the gentleman that
[59:18] came in and started it, uh, the
[59:21] engineers agree with him that when a lot
[59:23] of that work was done up by Pizza Hut
[59:25] and stuff, where that water was going to
[59:28] go was not accounted for
[59:30] in there. And I've seen um,
[59:34] where our guys have tried to secure the
[59:36] manhole cover, but it won't hold. It
[59:39] blows up in the air because of that. But
[59:40] yeah, it's a it's an issue.
[59:44] So I guess if you could send us details
[59:46] on that specific one. Um because I mean
[59:49] even if none of these are really going
[59:50] to go into effect until next year
[59:51] anyway. So we could review that and
[59:54] [clears throat] see if that's something
[59:54] that we want to prioritize first since
[59:56] there is risk of loss to homes. Um which
[59:59] I think warrants
[1:00:01] rising rising that prior or rising up
[1:00:04] that priority list. Right.
[1:00:06] >> Um and
[1:00:07] >> we can bring that and the currently
[1:00:09] approved priority list to you. Uh, and
[1:00:11] if you want to readjust that, we're
[1:00:14] supposed to do it annually, but you're
[1:00:16] can do it anytime you want.
[1:00:18] >> But if we have that opinion of probable
[1:00:19] cost and then the mapping on it too to
[1:00:21] kind of show what exactly would be
[1:00:23] happening and
[1:00:25] >> put on the I think that would be put on
[1:00:27] the agenda.
[1:00:28] >> I think that would be helpful. Yeah,
[1:00:29] that would be good to have that list up
[1:00:31] in front
[1:00:32] >> front and center. That way we can just
[1:00:35] look at the amounts y
[1:00:36] >> and what we're talking about. That way
[1:00:38] we can get an idea about a plan and
[1:00:42] what's actually been engineered and what
[1:00:44] has a plan behind it and funded on it.
[1:00:47] >> None of those on your list have been
[1:00:49] engineered,
[1:00:50] >> right? And we need money to do that. So,
[1:00:51] we got to get started sooner rather than
[1:00:54] later on this
[1:00:55] >> because we have to have it uh but to get
[1:00:59] a uh a grant, you'll have to have a
[1:01:02] professional engineering report. Most
[1:01:04] granting agencies now require that. It's
[1:01:07] not a full design, but they've got to
[1:01:09] come out and say, "Okay, we're not just
[1:01:12] looking at aerials and and whatnot.
[1:01:14] We've been on the ground and here's what
[1:01:15] we think it's going to cost."
[1:01:17] >> An actual survey and they open actually
[1:01:19] open the hood and look at it. Yeah.
[1:01:21] >> Once you identify a project before we go
[1:01:23] look at granting agencies, we've got to
[1:01:24] get them going on that cuz they're
[1:01:26] required for most of them,
[1:01:27] >> right?
[1:01:32] I think that'd be helpful just because
[1:01:33] it felt like that one kind of jumped up
[1:01:35] the priority list a little bit.
[1:01:37] >> And it's not even on the list, too.
[1:01:38] >> It's not on the list. It wasn't on It
[1:01:40] wasn't on Well, was it?
[1:01:42] >> No.
[1:01:44] >> I will say if I can real quick, there's been a little bit of property
[1:01:48] loss on the fourth of my street area
[1:01:50] with flooded cars and stuff like that.
[1:01:53] That's been ongoing. So, my opinion that
[1:01:55] area, it's all part of the Southeast
[1:01:57] drainage project, but I think we need to
[1:02:00] look at the new drainage
[1:02:03] uh possibilities of more structures and
[1:02:06] stuff put in between downtown and Brady
[1:02:10] specifically before it had gone out into
[1:02:12] that area because that that could be one
[1:02:14] whole project by itself.
[1:02:16] >> What is the public interest in this
[1:02:18] project? I think uh one of the things I
[1:02:20] was told with the Northeast 15th Street
[1:02:23] project was that that was a private
[1:02:24] concern. How does this one on uh Summit
[1:02:28] differ from that?
[1:02:33] » Yeah, because I don't know where Summit
[1:02:35] >> Yeah. So that
[1:02:38] was that
[1:02:39] >> that's the boy.
[1:02:41] >> Yeah. So that was that was more of a
[1:02:43] private there was a little bit of a
[1:02:44] situation that that was done years ago
[1:02:46] before any drainage study requirements
[1:02:48] were actually needed or implanted by the
[1:02:51] city at that time. So we had a a
[1:02:54] facility they got that built and so all
[1:02:57] the water water runoff went directly to
[1:03:00] neighboring properties without any type
[1:03:03] of a drainage control. And so there was
[1:03:05] a I'll just say it a little bit of a um
[1:03:09] situation between the two adjacent
[1:03:11] property owners that really did had
[1:03:13] nothing to do with what the city
[1:03:15] developed or put in um for the
[1:03:18] structures of drainage that were needed
[1:03:20] from our side of things at that time. Of
[1:03:22] course, this is way before my time, but
[1:03:25] um that's the history of the situation
[1:03:27] there. That's kind of why we did look
[1:03:30] into how we could improve some drainage
[1:03:33] up in that air area, but it also um
[1:03:37] basically started with um two adjacent
[1:03:39] property owners.
[1:03:41] That's why that situation kind of got
[1:03:43] pushed to the side because I I know um
[1:03:46] city attorney Martin got involved in a
[1:03:48] little bit of that and and and
[1:03:51] why we were making some discussions and
[1:03:54] ultimately we kind of decided that the
[1:03:57] main complaint wasn't necessarily a city
[1:04:00] situation.
[1:04:03] >> How many homeowners are affected in this
[1:04:05] area?
[1:04:07] >> Which which area again? Sorry, the
[1:04:09] summit northwest area there.
[1:04:13] >> Um, specifically right in the corner
[1:04:17] that I know that it cuts through. I
[1:04:18] mean, you're probably at least three for
[1:04:20] sure. Could be up to five. And I know
[1:04:22] part of the plan that you guys haven't
[1:04:24] seen yet was some drainage um upsizing.
[1:04:26] Generally, uh, they look at 20 to 30%
[1:04:30] upsizing of of drainage structures and
[1:04:33] tubes um, for replacement to increase
[1:04:36] the flow rate.
[1:04:39] Uh Mr. Boyd did come to my office here
[1:04:41] the other day when the between the two
[1:04:43] days we got Abling got the combined
[1:04:45] about five inches um about a week ago
[1:04:48] and last Thursday and Friday and um said
[1:04:51] that the manhole lid did stay on after
[1:04:53] we kind of um [clears throat] u
[1:04:56] rubberized it down and it stayed in
[1:04:58] place and he said that it did flow
[1:05:00] through there pretty good on that one.
[1:05:01] So maybe it just wasn't the volume on
[1:05:03] that particular rain. So,
[1:05:07] but I would recommend that if we're if
[1:05:09] we're going to look into this more, you
[1:05:11] giving Mr. Quinay and myself the
[1:05:13] authority to get another probable cost
[1:05:15] of um improving fourth and fifth because
[1:05:18] that was one originally on part of the
[1:05:20] plan. And I personally do believe that
[1:05:23] we need more structures to carry that,
[1:05:25] but it's going to be a major project.
[1:05:28] >> Do we have any kind of ballpark on that
[1:05:30] one?
[1:05:30] >> No. I think there's an overall cost of
[1:05:32] the complete southeast drainage project
[1:05:34] structure and I think that's maybe
[1:05:37] entailed into that a little bit but to
[1:05:40] see the breakdown of what it takes to
[1:05:42] get everything over to Brady would be
[1:05:44] one thing. Just as a reminder from
[1:05:46] everything about 13th Street, I'm
[1:05:48] talking east, so east of Buckeye. From
[1:05:51] 13th Street um to about the fifth,
[1:05:54] fourth and fifth street area, there are
[1:05:55] no very limited drainage structures.
[1:05:58] Basically, when the town was designed,
[1:06:01] it was designed for gravity flow
[1:06:03] downhill until it reached the plateau of
[1:06:06] flat area of the fourth and fifth street
[1:06:08] and then it makes its way on its own.
[1:06:09] Um, so helping guide it into structures
[1:06:13] um would probably help take away some of
[1:06:15] the downflow that all ends up down in
[1:06:18] the areas of fourth and fifth. And I was
[1:06:20] told that those areas um flooded the
[1:06:23] other night again. I don't know if it
[1:06:24] was Thursday night um
[1:06:27] >> be Friday. Friday night. So, but I know
[1:06:29] that there was high water. I'm sitting
[1:06:31] down there again because I heard from a
[1:06:33] resident um that uh
[1:06:35] >> was on Fourth and Fifth Street.
[1:06:37] >> Yeah. Around 1:00 a.m. uh couldn't get
[1:06:40] to their residence for a little bit. And
[1:06:42] it does reach car doors and everything
[1:06:44] down in there very easily. And I know it
[1:06:46] gets up into yards. Have we had any into
[1:06:49] um foundations yet? That that I don't
[1:06:51] know. But um I know um it's been awful
[1:06:55] close. on that one. Uh the fourth and
[1:06:57] fifth street, if we do uh put in more
[1:07:00] structures, will that um southeast
[1:07:02] drainage project, that tube that's
[1:07:05] perhaps undersized and collap
[1:07:08] >> it's all going to head to that area. So,
[1:07:10] I mean, you you pick your poison on how
[1:07:12] much you want to do at a time.
[1:07:14] my and maybe I'm wrong, but my initial
[1:07:16] thought is start at the river and work
[1:07:17] your way backwards because if it's if it
[1:07:20] uh you know and of course unfortunately
[1:07:22] that's the largest price project, but if
[1:07:24] you if you can't get it to flow out at
[1:07:26] the highest limits, all you're going to
[1:07:27] do is continue to condense it. Can you
[1:07:29] carry it away a little bit better with
[1:07:32] local drainage? Probably. Yeah. But
[1:07:34] ultimately, it's still all got to flow.
[1:07:37] >> What's the timing on getting those
[1:07:39] opinions of probable cost?
[1:07:40] >> I don't know. Jared got that last one to
[1:07:42] us within the two week time period or
[1:07:44] so.
[1:07:47] >> Yeah.
[1:07:48] >> Okay. So, I think it'd be helpful. Yeah.
[1:07:49] I think it'd be helpful to have both of
[1:07:51] those uh just to kind of see and if it's
[1:07:54] something that we want I mean you kind
[1:07:56] of mentioned just a little bit ago that
[1:07:57] you'd like to see some costs on several
[1:08:00] of the different projects on what it
[1:08:02] would take. Um, I mean, if we're willing
[1:08:05] to spend a little bit of money for
[1:08:07] investigation purposes without doing a a
[1:08:10] full lot of engineering,
[1:08:11] >> I think we have to
[1:08:12] >> we we can gladly just have them start
[1:08:14] working on all of them in my opinion.
[1:08:16] So,
[1:08:17] >> I think you got to open the hood and
[1:08:19] that's where it starts. I think you have
[1:08:21] to use a part of what we got in the fund
[1:08:24] now, part of the 600,000 and open it up
[1:08:26] to engineering to figure out to hatch a
[1:08:29] plan. Yeah. We've got to start somewhere
[1:08:31] and we've got to open the hood and we're
[1:08:33] not qualified to do so. So, an engineer
[1:08:36] would have to be the one to do that,
[1:08:37] >> right?
[1:08:38] >> That'd be the uh the list that's been
[1:08:41] identified in addition to
[1:08:43] >> with the summit. Yeah. Yeah. And uh like
[1:08:47] I said, if you guys are good with that,
[1:08:48] um however you want to handle it, but
[1:08:50] and giving us permission to go ahead and get all those
[1:08:57] uh five slash six areas kind of an area
[1:09:00] of probable cost, I guess, at this
[1:09:02] point. And
[1:09:03] >> timing wise, I mean, we're at the end of
[1:09:05] July, so it's not like we're in October,
[1:09:07] November already where this would go
[1:09:09] into effect in, you know, a month or
[1:09:10] two. We've got time still to get those
[1:09:14] >> guys. I just think $2 million is
[1:09:16] ridiculous. I don't I mean, there's five
[1:09:17] homes there. I'm not sure those five
[1:09:18] homes are worth $2 million.
[1:09:21] >> But you got to open the hood up to see
[1:09:23] what it is. And if we get an engineer to
[1:09:25] actually do a legitimate study on it and
[1:09:28] if it's $2 million after he does it and
[1:09:31] looks deeper into it, then that's
[1:09:33] something that gets de prioritized. But
[1:09:35] we got to have a number on everything
[1:09:36] else though. At least a an estimate,
[1:09:39] whether it's a $500,000 to $2 million
[1:09:42] estimate. At least we have an idea of
[1:09:45] how can we start knocking these things
[1:09:46] off the list. That's where we start
[1:09:48] making the plan is we open the hood, we
[1:09:51] have an engineer look at these, get a
[1:09:54] cost associated with them, and then
[1:09:56] that's how we can prioritize our list.
[1:09:58] >> Yeah. My opinion.
[1:09:59] >> And I and I just I can see some of the
[1:10:01] things that kind of can take place up
[1:10:03] there in that area. You know, you got a
[1:10:04] lot of backyards, you got a lot of
[1:10:06] landscaping, you got a lot of fencing.
[1:10:08] If you're if you're excavating and
[1:10:10] placing in new, you're going to have
[1:10:12] easement costs. You're going to just all
[1:10:14] the little things are going to add up.
[1:10:15] And and I think I I'd like to keep
[1:10:19] reminding that just because we've got a
[1:10:20] water line or a sewer line or a storm
[1:10:22] water drain that needs replaced, when
[1:10:24] they fall within the street area, you're
[1:10:26] talking street basically brand new
[1:10:28] street replacement costs. And those
[1:10:30] costs are extremely expensive right now
[1:10:34] um with asphalt prices and everything
[1:10:35] else. So you're you're talking about the
[1:10:37] whole um part of the plan just to get
[1:10:41] something replaced underground that you
[1:10:43] don't visibly see. You have to refix the
[1:10:45] surface. So I mean some of those costs
[1:10:47] can add up there. That's just a reminder
[1:10:49] for you.
[1:10:51] >> We'll bring back those opinion follow
[1:10:52] construction costs
[1:10:55] the ones that are identified as
[1:10:56] priorities by the commission plus the
[1:10:58] summit one uh to you. We have the one on
[1:11:03] um the south drainage area. They've
[1:11:05] already studied that in depth. So, I
[1:11:07] don't think we should ask them to to
[1:11:09] redo that. Just the other ones. We can
[1:11:11] bring that back to you probably in a
[1:11:12] month. Um, we'll ask Jared with Olsson
[1:11:16] what he thinks is doable based on their
[1:11:18] schedule and timing and then we can
[1:11:21] bring that back. There's, like I said,
[1:11:23] we're not recommending that whatever you
[1:11:25] implement, whether that be KMU's uh
[1:11:28] schedule, um the over three years or the
[1:11:32] more aggressive all at once, we don't
[1:11:34] recommend that take effect till January
[1:11:36] so people can plan for it and budget for
[1:11:38] it. So, you have some time. Um what we
[1:11:42] need to know really for planning
[1:11:44] purposes is which one you're looking at.
[1:11:48] uh because yeah, they all get there at
[1:11:50] the same over a different period of
[1:11:52] time. But if you if the commission says,
[1:11:54] you know, we're going to do the
[1:11:56] alternate two, the one up front, well
[1:11:58] then we know starting in 2027, we can
[1:12:01] pretty much count on this much rep and
[1:12:03] we can start planning with those
[1:12:05] numbers. Uh as opposed to over three
[1:12:07] years, then we're limited. We have to
[1:12:09] start building them. That's what we're
[1:12:10] asking for. It's just uh which route you
[1:12:14] think you're going to go, which
[1:12:15] implementation schedule it's most about.
[1:12:18] >> And when you uh talk with Olsson, you
[1:12:20] might have them um not completely
[1:12:24] revisit the southwest or southeast
[1:12:26] drainage project, but see how it affects
[1:12:29] the others. Like I know the fourth and
[1:12:31] fifth street one,
[1:12:31] >> right,
[1:12:32] >> is upstream from that. So how they
[1:12:35] affect each other and and what their
[1:12:37] opinion is on that.
[1:12:39] >> We can do that. Is it going to cause
[1:12:40] more problems down there if we open it
[1:12:42] up?
[1:12:42] >> Right.
[1:12:43] >> Yeah.
[1:12:45] >> Or is it at least get it underground to
[1:12:47] where it's not you're [clears throat]
[1:12:48] not having as as bad as surface
[1:12:50] flooding? I don't know. A little more
[1:12:53] capacity if you can at least get it
[1:12:55] underground.
[1:12:56] >> Do we have a an idea of which
[1:12:59] implementation schedule you're looking
[1:13:01] at or do you want to wait until you see
[1:13:04] all those costs?
[1:13:06] >> I think I would wait to see all the
[1:13:08] costs. I would I'd like to see have an
[1:13:10] idea of what it's going to cost and then
[1:13:12] we can have the engineer say this one's
[1:13:14] going to be the most effective and then
[1:13:16] go from there.
[1:13:17] >> Most effective to what though? I mean
[1:13:20] for
[1:13:20] >> valuewise.
[1:13:21] >> Okay.
[1:13:22] Impacting the most correct
[1:13:24] >> residents.
[1:13:25] >> Yeah.
[1:13:25] >> Okay. Most impactful to
[1:13:27] >> citizens. Absolutely. To the Yeah. To
[1:13:30] alleviate
[1:13:31] >> Okay.
[1:13:31] >> The most amount of potential property
[1:13:33] damage.
[1:13:34] >> He may be able to get it done sooner,
[1:13:35] but we'll probably plan on a month. It
[1:13:36] probably be at the end of August,
[1:13:38] beginning of September.
[1:13:39] >> But we've got plenty of time.
[1:13:41] >> Okay.
[1:13:41] Thank you very much.
[1:13:49] » Okay. Our next item is 7D, discussion
[1:13:51] and direction regarding the city manager
[1:13:53] search request for proposals. Inter city
[1:13:55] manager Quinn Day.
[1:13:56] >> Yeah. The purpose of tonight's item is
[1:13:58] for the commission to review the
[1:13:59] responses received for the RFP for
[1:14:02] recruiting a city manager. Um before you
[1:14:05] begin your discussion, I did want to
[1:14:07] briefly walk through the evaluation
[1:14:09] report that was included in your packet.
[1:14:11] Uh it was intended to summarize the
[1:14:13] evaluation process, explain how the
[1:14:15] proposals were reviewed, and provide
[1:14:17] information to assist you in determining
[1:14:19] how it how you would like to proceed
[1:14:21] with the recruitment. Um page one is
[1:14:24] just the executive summary provides an
[1:14:26] overview of the process, who responded
[1:14:28] and the overall evaluation results. Then
[1:14:32] we have a background um explains why we
[1:14:35] did it and
[1:14:37] what was from staff's understanding from
[1:14:40] the commission important uh the emphasis
[1:14:42] on qualifications recruitment
[1:14:44] methodology due diligence and
[1:14:46] stakeholder engagement. Then we go into
[1:14:48] the responses received. It identifies
[1:14:51] the re the firms that submitted
[1:14:53] proposals. We did receive eight seven we
[1:14:56] considered respon
[1:15:01] the league was the non-responsive one
[1:15:03] and they did advise they could not
[1:15:04] provide the comprehensive recruitment
[1:15:06] services requested and instead submitted
[1:15:08] a limited recruitment assistance
[1:15:10] proposal um because they did not respond
[1:15:13] to the requested scope of work. It was
[1:15:15] not included in the evaluation.
[1:15:17] The report also notes that Austin Peters
[1:15:20] Group declined to submit a proposal.
[1:15:22] Um, if you turn to page three of the
[1:15:27] RFP, you'll find the evaluation criteria
[1:15:30] and that was municipal executive
[1:15:32] recruitment experience, city manager
[1:15:34] recruitment experience, due diligence
[1:15:37] methodology, recruitment methodology,
[1:15:39] public engagement approach, project team
[1:15:42] qualifications and cost.
[1:15:44] Then you have the evaluation summary. Uh
[1:15:48] from those based on those criteria um
[1:15:51] GMP consultants received a score of 96,
[1:15:55] Colon Basinger and Associates 94, MGT
[1:15:58] 88, Cleur Professionals 87, GPS 85, WBCP
[1:16:04] 83, and then Bob Marine Associates 78.
[1:16:08] What was not included in the packet was
[1:16:10] the cost uh for each proposal that was
[1:16:13] put on your desk along with the uh
[1:16:15] composite scores. Uh and then the
[1:16:18] proposed timing. Uh the schedule
[1:16:21] anticipates the commission discussion
[1:16:23] that this evening hopefully um
[1:16:27] you direct interviews with a short list
[1:16:29] of firms uh
[1:16:32] by the August 10th meeting or if you
[1:16:34] choose just one, we can move forward as
[1:16:36] far as
[1:16:38] getting a professional service
[1:16:39] agreement. So what we're asking the
[1:16:41] commission to do is to have a discussion
[1:16:44] and u eventually select a recruitment
[1:16:47] firm and authorize preparation of the
[1:16:49] professional service agreement. One
[1:16:51] thing that I did note in what I sent to
[1:16:53] the commission um earlier in the week so
[1:16:56] you had time to review all of those 498
[1:16:59] pages that came was that uh another
[1:17:01] option would be for uh the recruitment
[1:17:04] to be handled in house using uh staff
[1:17:07] and
[1:17:10] got pretty qualified. Yeah.
[1:17:14] » Okay.
[1:17:16] >> So, that first one, the GMP,
[1:17:19] I one of the things that kind of stuck
[1:17:21] out to me when looking through theirs
[1:17:22] was they're extremely heavy in the
[1:17:24] Pacific Northwest and they don't I mean,
[1:17:26] I think the furthest east they ventured
[1:17:28] is maybe one or two searches in
[1:17:31] Colorado.
[1:17:33] >> I guess what
[1:17:35] do you have any insight into? Does that
[1:17:37] really limit us on,
[1:17:39] you know, I guess this area or
[1:17:42] >> No, because I I believe that most of
[1:17:44] them do their um advertising and their
[1:17:47] recruitment from the same fishing holes.
[1:17:49] Uh whether they're they focus in uh the
[1:17:54] Pacific Northwest or the East Coast, a
[1:17:56] lot of them will do recruitments in
[1:17:58] other areas. Largely, they'll focus in
[1:18:01] those areas because they're familiar
[1:18:03] with those people in that area. that's
[1:18:05] where they're they're housed out of.
[1:18:08] But, uh, ideally, if you have somebody
[1:18:10] that's from the Midwest, that's
[1:18:11] preferable because they're more familiar
[1:18:13] with the people that they're going to be
[1:18:15] [clears throat] trying to get here. I do
[1:18:18] know that, uh, John Deirof did spend
[1:18:20] quite a bit of time on the phone calling
[1:18:23] people, uh, saying, "Hey, there's an
[1:18:25] opportunity for you."
[1:18:28] So, he just didn't put ads out in the
[1:18:30] paper. He was doing some calling and
[1:18:32] trying to get people out.
[1:18:34] But no thank
[1:18:37] » was that when they were doing the search
[1:18:39] or was that here recently?
[1:18:41] >> What's that
[1:18:41] >> for? When did he make those phone calls?
[1:18:44] >> Uh that was during the last search.
[1:18:45] >> During the last search. Gotcha.
[1:18:48] >> Yeah. I think uh what might have been
[1:18:50] missing and what we added to this one
[1:18:53] was the uh the vetting and the public
[1:18:55] engagement portion.
[1:19:01] As far as my ranking, I went through and
[1:19:04] read a majority of the 437 page
[1:19:08] RFP
[1:19:10] responses. Um, Colin Bainger, uh, I had
[1:19:14] them as my had that firm as my number
[1:19:17] one. They had a great warranty. They
[1:19:20] really had a good price guarantee, too.
[1:19:23] Uh, good search process. They all had
[1:19:25] good search processes and they were all
[1:19:27] very good. But what stuck out to me with
[1:19:30] them is the fact that they were so
[1:19:34] staunch on their reputation and um said
[1:19:37] they get it done at at that price
[1:19:40] regardless of what it cost them. Um my
[1:19:43] second choice would be Clear uh Career
[1:19:46] Professionals. Um they're localish
[1:19:50] Midwest Oklahoma got a podcast. I think
[1:19:53] that's a unique avenue to recruit and
[1:19:57] find uh city managers. Um I liked GPS
[1:20:01] also. Uh they have a former Kansas guy
[1:20:03] on their staff. They placed um Salina
[1:20:07] Junction and have done a lot in in
[1:20:10] Kansas. Um I steered away from GMP
[1:20:15] because they were all Pacific Northwest
[1:20:17] for the most part. Same thing with MGT.
[1:20:21] um they didn't travel much further east
[1:20:24] than Montana. Um and I didn't really see
[1:20:27] much in in WBCP or Bob Marie as far as
[1:20:32] compatibility with regionality or um
[1:20:35] experience in our areas.
[1:20:38] So that was my list.
[1:20:53] » Yeah. My my I guess when I was going
[1:20:55] through them too, my top was that Ben
[1:20:58] Colin Benzinger, however you want to
[1:20:59] pronounce that.
[1:21:00] >> Yeah, that's my one.
[1:21:01] >> And then um I think we just had our
[1:21:04] second and thirds flipped. I think I had
[1:21:05] GPS and then clear career if I remember
[1:21:08] correctly. I didn't. I should have
[1:21:10] numbered them on here.
[1:21:12] [snorts]
[1:21:25] » Did you say in-house is a possibility?
[1:21:27] Is that what you said? And what would
[1:21:30] that look like? like we just have our
[1:21:32] staff find us a city manager.
[1:21:38] » Okay. Yeah. I mean I kind of like that
[1:21:40] idea that
[1:21:43] >> you still have cost associated with that
[1:21:47] checks.
[1:21:48] >> Okay.
[1:21:50] on
[1:21:52] city negotiations,
[1:21:55] which I believe you did the last.
[1:22:00] What do you think a timeline on that
[1:22:02] would be? Would that be something that
[1:22:03] we can give that a shot internally and
[1:22:06] um save $30,000
[1:22:08] and put a timeline on it? And if that
[1:22:11] doesn't turn up any good candidates then
[1:22:15] we can revisit with interviewing um you
[1:22:20] know using this existing
[1:22:22] results
[1:22:24] and interviewing the three companies. I
[1:22:26] don't know the job.
[1:22:33] » I don't know that we'd be able to give
[1:22:34] you, hey, we're doing great on
[1:22:36] recruiting folks because we'd have to
[1:22:38] come up with the same thing that the um
[1:22:40] these firms would be. What are your
[1:22:41] priorities uh as a manager? Maybe they
[1:22:44] haven't changed a lot. What do you
[1:22:46] what's the salary going to be? What are
[1:22:48] the educational requirements? Is there a
[1:22:50] residency requirement? Package that up,
[1:22:52] send it out, and then how long do we
[1:22:54] give them? Then we give them 30 days to
[1:22:56] respond. Uh, and then we said, "Hey,
[1:22:59] we're not getting anything. I'm not sure
[1:23:01] these bids would still be good."
[1:23:02] >> Yeah.
[1:23:04] That's what I was asking. That's
[1:23:05] what I was curious on.
[1:23:09] >> Yeah. And I kind of I kind of like
[1:23:11] having a third party involved just to I
[1:23:14] mean, [clears throat] you had mentioned
[1:23:15] there's a warranty aspect to it as well.
[1:23:18] Um, and I think they have the I mean
[1:23:20] they have the real world experience of vetting these candidates and really
[1:23:24] digging into them.
[1:23:25] >> Yeah.
[1:23:26] >> Not saying staff couldn't do that, but
[1:23:28] they I mean they do this dayto day
[1:23:30] >> and the network to find them,
[1:23:32] >> right?
[1:23:32] >> That's huge.
[1:23:33] >> I think it would open up our pool a
[1:23:36] little bit, but it's kind of like
[1:23:38] publishing things in the or putting
[1:23:39] notifications in the newspaper. It's a
[1:23:41] third party record. And kind of the same
[1:23:43] thing here. you get a third party to
[1:23:44] kind of I guess weed through a lot of
[1:23:46] that for you.
[1:23:47] >> Well, and they probably keep track of,
[1:23:49] you know, who's getting close to or
[1:23:51] getting ready to move
[1:23:53] [snorts and clears throat] on or
[1:23:54] >> things like that. So,
[1:23:55] >> yeah,
[1:23:56] >> who to go after,
[1:23:57] >> right? Yeah, they have a lot of inner knowledge as far as the that
[1:24:04] world, especially u you know, uh GPS. I
[1:24:08] mean, they deal almost strictly with
[1:24:10] city officials. So,
[1:24:12] >> yeah. I think you mentioned that that
[1:24:14] one of them was former city manager
[1:24:15] camp,
[1:24:16] >> right? Yep. Yep.
[1:24:17] >> And I believe they're both attorneys
[1:24:19] now,
[1:24:20] >> Commissioner Taylor. Um I think I had
[1:24:23] WBCP a little bit higher. Were they on
[1:24:25] Did they make your list?
[1:24:26] >> They did not.
[1:24:27] >> Okay.
[1:24:27] >> I did not have ABCP on on mine. I had um
[1:24:31] Banezinger one and you could probably
[1:24:35] put clear career and GPS type for two.
[1:24:38] That was kind of where I was sitting. I
[1:24:40] think WB CP was my fourth.
[1:24:51] And I think honestly I think the only
[1:24:53] reason they were my fourth was just
[1:24:54] because it was a lot of add-ons.
[1:24:57] Um which could be beneficial if we're
[1:24:58] not needing all of them. It could lower
[1:25:00] their cost a little bit
[1:25:02] >> unless we end up needing them all.
[1:25:04] >> It's kind of like 50/50 on additional
[1:25:06] expenses and they were
[1:25:08] >> kind of the low
[1:25:09] >> Yeah. low cost out of the gate and it
[1:25:11] seems like they're very qualified. I
[1:25:13] don't think there's any question about
[1:25:15] competency. I was just kind of curious
[1:25:16] if you had a
[1:25:17] >> right
[1:25:18] >> reason why they didn't rank higher.
[1:25:23] » I think no, nothing really stuck out. I
[1:25:27] was I was looking for a lot of regional
[1:25:30] um experience just because I want them
[1:25:32] to know
[1:25:34] um I don't know, I guess who we are, I
[1:25:37] guess. So, I was looking for that.
[1:25:38] That's why I eliminated a couple of
[1:25:40] those West Coast firms
[1:25:43] and that's why I bumped up um
[1:25:47] Clear and GPS so high because I know GMP
[1:25:50] looked fantastic too, but them just
[1:25:52] being on the West Coast, I mean that's
[1:25:54] just my internal rankings.
[1:25:57] >> Yeah,
[1:25:58] it's no fault of them and it knocked
[1:26:00] them down a few pigs for me too.
[1:26:02] >> Yeah.
[1:26:02] No, it's a great firm. just
[1:26:06] I feel like having local knowledge is
[1:26:08] important.
[1:26:09] >> You think I mean I guess doing a Zoom
[1:26:12] interview with four of them is that
[1:26:15] excessive.
[1:26:17] >> I think three would be like I don't
[1:26:20] know. I'd like to do fewer if possible.
[1:26:24] >> Going to say this. I'd have to agree
[1:26:25] with Commissioner Kohhoff. Three would
[1:26:26] be the fewer the possible.
[1:26:28] >> Mhm.
[1:26:33] » [clears throat]
[1:26:37] » I did just pull up their list. They've
[1:26:38] got a bunch of states. WBCP has a bunch
[1:26:40] of states, but it's six people outside
[1:26:43] of the state of California. [laughter]
[1:26:45] There's like one person in Idaho, one
[1:26:47] person.
[1:26:48] >> That's Yeah, that's probably why they
[1:26:50] didn't make mine.
[1:26:56] It seemed like Benzinger was definitely
[1:26:59] one that we'd want to consider.
[1:27:01] >> Yeah, for sure.
[1:27:04] >> Would you want to do the interviews
[1:27:05] during the August 10th meeting or
[1:27:07] schedule a special meeting so that focus
[1:27:09] just on that and they're not back to
[1:27:11] back. For example, if you're
[1:27:13] interviewing all say three, you schedule
[1:27:16] 30 minutes for each same regular
[1:27:18] meeting. It's a regular meeting. Well, I
[1:27:21] guess any meeting, but uh they could
[1:27:23] listen into your interviews.
[1:27:26] >> You can't interview them in executive
[1:27:27] session.
[1:27:30] >> Uh no, because they would not be
[1:27:32] employee personnel that we're hiring.
[1:27:34] They're independent contractors. So, it
[1:27:35] would need to occur in an open public
[1:27:37] setting. And the rule is if any portion
[1:27:40] of our meeting is televised, the
[1:27:42] entirety of that meeting needs to be
[1:27:44] televised. If you wish to have a special
[1:27:47] meeting for this purpose so as to
[1:27:49] preclude interviewed candidates from
[1:27:51] seeing the responses from those who go
[1:27:54] before them, you could do that with the
[1:27:55] plan of not televising any portion of
[1:27:57] that meeting.
[1:27:58] >> We could do a study session also.
[1:28:01] >> Yeah.
[1:28:02] >> Yes. If it it would be a separate
[1:28:04] meeting uh apart from any other
[1:28:08] regular meeting that's televised. Yes,
[1:28:11] you could call it a study session. Mhm.
[1:28:12] Well, I guess I'm saying our study
[1:28:14] sessions aren't televised if I I guess I
[1:28:15] don't know why we wouldn't necessarily
[1:28:16] want this to be televised unless there's
[1:28:18] something that they don't want to be
[1:28:19] televised. I guess um I'm not sure if
[1:28:22] that's the case.
[1:28:23] >> I don't think they'd have a problem with
[1:28:24] it. Just if the other people were
[1:28:26] watching, so if I'm WCBP and I'm third
[1:28:30] to be interviewed, I might want to watch
[1:28:31] the other two. And
[1:28:33] >> I think that's all fair.
[1:28:35] >> Yeah,
[1:28:38] I'd go Bayinger for sure. Um, and then I
[1:28:43] don't Deb Amy, what are your thoughts on
[1:28:46] two and three? I, like I said, I'm clear
[1:28:49] career and GPS. Those are my
[1:28:51] >> That's where I was at.
[1:28:52] >> I'm good with those, too.
[1:28:53] >> Okay. Do you want to set up interviews
[1:28:55] for those three?
[1:29:00] » I'd be fine with that.
[1:29:02] >> Yes, please.
[1:29:02] >> Sounds good.
[1:29:03] >> Special special meeting or during the
[1:29:05] August 10th meeting? Let's do
[1:29:08] I I don't
[1:29:09] >> I'm no preference
[1:29:11] >> was kind of having trouble. It just hit
[1:29:13] me that they're going to go like one
[1:29:14] bang bang bang, right? So having that
[1:29:15] televised like
[1:29:16] >> arguably the third one might have some
[1:29:18] benefit.
[1:29:20] >> So I think from that perspective I think
[1:29:22] >> study sessions the way to go
[1:29:24] >> off camera.
[1:29:24] >> Yeah. Or you just have it under August
[1:29:26] 10th study session.
[1:29:27] >> That's what we were alluding to and that
[1:29:29] not to say that's right or wrong but
[1:29:30] that's a consideration uh for you if
[1:29:33] you're going consecutive interviews.
[1:29:35] they noticed we were favoring this
[1:29:37] aspect over a different one, they could
[1:29:38] kind of tailor theirs real quick to
[1:29:41] >> Yeah, I think that is going to give us
[1:29:43] better information too.
[1:29:44] >> Study session then
[1:29:46] >> August 10th.
[1:29:47] >> Yeah, let's do it.
[1:29:48] >> Um,
[1:29:50] do you want to just be a free interview,
[1:29:52] have them introduce themselves and their
[1:29:54] philosophy and then you can ask
[1:29:55] questions based on that or do you want
[1:29:57] to have set questions?
[1:30:00] >> We'd want to have it to be interactive.
[1:30:02] >> Yeah. Are we assuming they're all going
[1:30:04] to be on Zoom or are we planning for in
[1:30:06] person or Zoom?
[1:30:08] >> I would guess Zoom.
[1:30:09] too. Yeah,
[1:30:11] >> I think we would just I think we should
[1:30:12] just set it up as Zoom and not give them
[1:30:13] the option that way.
[1:30:14] >> Yeah, they'll be in the room.
[1:30:16] >> The travel costs aren't associated with
[1:30:17] it.
[1:30:18] >> Yeah.
[1:30:19] >> And then just have just tell them that
[1:30:20] uh you'd like to interview them and they
[1:30:23] can start by introducing themselves and
[1:30:24] >> Yeah.
[1:30:25] >> Uh then you guys can ask questions. How
[1:30:28] long
[1:30:29] >> would they anticipate?
[1:30:31] Uh, I would think I mean 30 minutes
[1:30:33] >> 30 minutes
[1:30:34] >> piece we could leave
[1:30:34] >> that would be good
[1:30:36] >> 20 minute interview with a 10-minute gap
[1:30:40] >> between
[1:30:42] definitely want to leave a little gap
[1:30:43] just to
[1:30:44] >> Yeah, I would think that' be fine.
[1:30:46] >> Do you want to see what they I mean is
[1:30:47] there a
[1:30:48] >> Yeah. Do they have to remember what we
[1:30:50] did on there
[1:30:51] >> industry standard pitch time? I guess
[1:30:53] they have
[1:30:54] >> sure. I don't last time with you guys uh
[1:30:58] the last recruitment you just selected
[1:31:00] uh
[1:31:00] >> yeah we didn't interview
[1:31:02] >> I just didn't know if there was a
[1:31:08] » hey 30 minutes apart
[1:31:09] >> we 30 minutes with 10 minutes in between
[1:31:12] so that way if you guys want to discuss
[1:31:13] something if you're done discussing it
[1:31:15] we can pick up the phone and say are you
[1:31:16] ready and dial them in
[1:31:18] >> yeah I think so
[1:31:19] >> just ask them to be ready in this window
[1:31:22] right Okay.
[1:31:24] >> And just to be clear, uh, Basinger,
[1:31:27] Clear, Clear, and GPN,
[1:31:29] >> correct?
[1:31:30] >> Thank you.
[1:31:38] » Is this going to be at the study session
[1:31:40] after the regular meeting on August?
[1:31:42] >> Yes. Make that agenda light.
[1:31:44] >> Okay. Because we'll have to we won't
[1:31:46] have a definite start time depending on
[1:31:48] how long the agenda is either to give
[1:31:49] them either if it's after a meeting.
[1:31:51] >> Yeah.
[1:31:53] I mean technically if they if we had to
[1:31:56] if something came up they could adjourn
[1:31:59] uh or recess the uh regular meeting and
[1:32:02] then come back if they had to.
[1:32:04] >> Okay,
[1:32:06] >> that was a good thought too, Shannon.
[1:32:08] Hadn't thought of that. So
[1:32:11] >> um next item under heading eight new
[1:32:14] business is 8A. Consider scheduling a
[1:32:16] joint meeting with the Abene Public
[1:32:17] Library Board. Yeah, this is just to
[1:32:19] gauge whether or not the city commission
[1:32:21] would like to schedule a joint meeting
[1:32:23] with the libraries board to discuss
[1:32:25] issues that have been discussed recently
[1:32:27] between city staff uh library staff and
[1:32:31] the library board. The uh beginning on
[1:32:34] pages 98.99 of your packet, we summarize
[1:32:37] the recent correspondence between city
[1:32:39] staff and the library board regarding
[1:32:41] the interpretation of the 2011 lease
[1:32:44] agreement, the statutory budget process
[1:32:46] for the library, uh the ordinance which
[1:32:48] establishes the maximum levy and the
[1:32:51] respective responsibilities of city
[1:32:53] commission. Um
[1:32:56] you may ask well why a joint meeting?
[1:32:58] Well, the lease agreement specifically
[1:33:00] recognizes that issues concerning the
[1:33:03] application of the agreement uh may
[1:33:05] arise and provides that unresolved
[1:33:07] issues may be addressed through a joint
[1:33:09] meeting of both boards. Uh the intent of
[1:33:12] the meeting would to bring everybody
[1:33:14] together at the same table so both
[1:33:16] governing bodies uh have the same
[1:33:18] information, can ask each other
[1:33:20] questions and develop a common
[1:33:21] understanding moving forward. Um, the
[1:33:24] recommendation for a joint meeting
[1:33:27] between the two governing bodies should
[1:33:29] not be viewed as suggesting that either
[1:33:31] party is right or wrong. Rather, it
[1:33:34] flect city staff's belief that matters
[1:33:36] involving shared governance are best
[1:33:38] resolved through open discussion among
[1:33:39] all parties rather than continued
[1:33:41] written correspondence back and forth.
[1:33:44] Um, proposed topics which they can be
[1:33:46] anything that you and the library board
[1:33:48] uh choose, but staff would recommend
[1:33:51] reviewing the lease agreement.
[1:33:53] clarifying the respective
[1:33:54] responsibilities of the city and the
[1:33:56] library under the lease. Reviewing the
[1:33:59] statutory budget process applicable to
[1:34:01] the library fund. Uh reviewing the
[1:34:04] ordinance establishing the maximum levy
[1:34:06] and then develop a shared understanding
[1:34:08] of these matters moving forward. for the
[1:34:10] governing body's supposed to understand
[1:34:12] and then uh Wendy and I and other staff
[1:34:16] Cara and Carrie I mean case we all have
[1:34:19] a shared understanding
[1:34:22] and since that's 15year-old agreement
[1:34:24] it's I think it's good that it's
[1:34:26] revisited and the boards get together
[1:34:28] and decide how you want that to look.
[1:34:30] Um,
[1:34:32] so our recommendation is if the uh
[1:34:35] library board, I believe they're still
[1:34:36] all here, uh, would like to is for us to
[1:34:39] schedule a joint meeting, uh, at a
[1:34:42] mutually agreeable date, time, and
[1:34:44] agenda and then, um, we'll develop an
[1:34:48] agenda focus on those topics.
[1:34:51] Any that's something you'd be interested
[1:34:53] in doing?
[1:34:55] Yeah, that would be would you like to be
[1:34:57] a regular study session or a special uh
[1:35:00] meeting focus just on that?
[1:35:03] >> What uh I'm curious what the library
[1:35:05] board might have in mind. Would you want
[1:35:07] to do that as part of a regular meeting,
[1:35:10] regular study session? I'm open to
[1:35:13] whatever works for you guys. Yeah, if we
[1:35:14] do a regular study session, we'd have
[1:35:18] to wait until the 24th of August
[1:35:22] because this that next the 10th would be
[1:35:25] pretty much eaten up with the
[1:35:26] >> the interviews
[1:35:27] >> interviews. Is there I mean is there a
[1:35:30] time?
[1:35:31] >> No, there's no hurry that
[1:35:32] >> I was going to say there's nothing to
[1:35:34] [clears throat]
[1:35:36] I would say a study session on the 24th
[1:35:39] if you guys are
[1:35:42] open. Does that work?
[1:35:45] works for me. My schedule study session
[1:35:47] on the 24th.
[1:35:49] >> Does that work for you guys?
[1:35:51] >> Yep.
[1:35:52] >> Yeah.
[1:35:53] >> Uh does the agenda topics
[1:35:57] are they okay with everybody? Something
[1:35:59] we need to add?
[1:36:03] I envision that I would ask the city
[1:36:05] attorney to review the lease agreement.
[1:36:09] Then we would discuss the statutory
[1:36:11] budget process.
[1:36:14] Then uh discuss the uh maximum levy.
[1:36:17] Then we open it up to just a discussion
[1:36:21] between the two boards.
[1:36:23] >> Staff will sit back and
[1:36:25] >> does that cover everything that the
[1:36:26] library wanted to discuss.
[1:36:31] » Thank you. Can always amend our agenda
[1:36:33] on the day of if something pops up.
[1:36:34] >> That works for me. In a study session,
[1:36:37] it'll be a lot of back and forth and
[1:36:40] might bring up new topics anyways. Yeah.
[1:36:44] >> 11. So there's
[1:36:49] » Yeah.
[1:37:00] » Sounds like a plan.
[1:37:01] >> Yeah. Yeah. Thanks.
[1:37:02] >> And we're going to interview people or
[1:37:04] you will and then on the uh 24th meet
[1:37:07] with the library board. Yeah.
[1:37:08] >> Yep. And then in September, we'll bring
[1:37:10] you some opinions of problem
[1:37:11] construction costs for I believe it's
[1:37:14] seven identified plus
[1:37:18] >> summit.
[1:37:18] Thank you.
[1:37:19] >> Yeah, 17th.
[1:37:21] >> Northwest 17th.
[1:37:22] >> 17th and
[1:37:24] >> yeah, thank you.
[1:37:25] >> I can only think of Gary. That's
[1:37:28] >> it is Gary Void.
[1:37:29] >> Yep.
[1:37:34] Okay. Do we have anything to add with
[1:37:36] the department reports that were
[1:37:37] included in the backup?
[1:37:39] >> I did. I forgot. So, no.
[1:37:40] >> Okay.
[1:37:42] We have nothing further. I'd
[1:37:43] consider a motion to adjurnn.
[1:37:46] >> Motion to adjurnn.
[1:37:48] >> Second.
[1:37:49] >> Motion has been moved and seconded. Do
[1:37:51] we have any commission discussion?
[1:37:54] >> Seeing none, we'll do a roll call vote.
[1:37:55] Vice Mayor Taylor.
[1:37:56] >> Yes.
[1:37:56] >> Commissioner Koloff.
[1:37:57] >> Hi.
[1:37:58] >> Commissioner Lidle.
[1:37:59] >> Yes.
[1:37:59] >> Commissioner Meisenberg?
[1:38:00] >> Yes. myself.