[0:01] Um, second place, Jennifer. Is she not
here? I guess not. Good job, Jennifer.
[0:08] » Um, third place, um, was Equity Bank,
Shelby Bannon.
[0:14] » Y,
congratulations.
[0:20] » Thank you.
[0:24] Congratulations to all of our winners
and a huge thank you to everyone who
[0:29] participated this year. Each arrangement
I think added something special to our
[0:34] downtown and we appreciate the time,
creativity, and the care that went into
[0:38] making our downtown beautiful. So, thank
you very much.
[0:41] » Thank you. I'll
>> give this to Jennifer.
[0:43] » Thank you,
>> Connie. Thank you for all you do in your
[0:45] position as go Augusta director doing a
fantastic job and thank you for
[0:50] participating every year most of you
>> and I I just want to thank everybody
[0:56] that had something to do with planting
the pots because I couldn't have picked
[1:01] a first or second place. They were all
good this year. Really appreciate it.
[1:09] Now, are there any visitors here that
aren't here about something that's
[1:13] already on the agenda?
[1:18] Okay,
we will move to our first item of
[1:22] business,
which is to conduct public hearings to
[1:26] take public input and comments on the
revenue neutral rate and the 2027
[1:31] proposed budget. And I'm going to uh
I've got a little thing I want to read
[1:40] first.
[1:46] I I was thinking about this over the
weekend and I just I wrote down some
[1:50] things.
I want to express that uh I hope you all
[1:55] actually took time to read the budget as
the narratives that are included in this
[2:01] budget explain the why and hows for the
proposed expenditures
[2:07] and our staff and council members have
spent several hours and the staff has
[2:14] spent days and days going over this
budget looking for the best outcomes to
[2:19] keep the services that our public
expects and to not be wasteful of our
[2:25] tax dollars. And when I say our tax
dollars,
[2:29] we all live here in town and we all pay
taxes, too. So, just remember,
[2:36] we're thinking of everybody, including
ourselves.
[2:41] We have the we the council have reserved
the option that after this public
[2:45] hearing tonight that we might have
another workshop next week to see if we
[2:50] can adjust anything downward before say
signing off on this budget. Uh we've
[2:58] wrestled with this a couple times
already, but maybe somebody tonight has
[3:03] a better idea.
And if you're going to speak tonight,
[3:09] remember to be called on and then when
you come up, state your name and your
[3:15] address and then you'll be asked to keep
your comments to five minutes or less.
[3:21] So with that, I'm uh turning it over to
staff for a presentation first.
[3:28] Mayor and Council, as part of the
presentation, uh what I'd like to walk
[3:32] through first is just the process that
is shown on the agenda. Um you had a a
[3:38] new statute that went into place in the
last couple of years. And so it's always
[3:43] good to get a reminder because we don't
do it very often, but explaining how the
[3:47] uh new statute on the revenue neutral
rate works. And so the process tonight
[3:52] is um after we do our staff report
presentation, we'll open the public
[3:56] hearing to take public comment. and that
is the public hearing on the revenue
[4:00] neutral rate. Uh once we've taken all
the public comments on that then we can
[4:04] close the public hearing and there is a
vote on the resolution. The resolution
[4:09] is simply to exceed the revenue neutral
rate which is what was published. You're
[4:15] not specifying what budget you're
adopting. You're not specifying what the
[4:20] final amount is. you're specifying that
you're planning to exceed, which was the
[4:24] notice that went out to the county
previously. Now, you still have the
[4:28] ability uh once we get to the actual
budget hearings to reduce the budget
[4:34] from there, but you cannot exceed what
was published. Uh but you do actually
[4:39] have to take action on the resolution
just saying that you plan to exceed the
[4:43] revenue neutral rate. Um once that vote
is taken, then you'll open the public
[4:48] hearing on the budget itself and then
take public comment, close that public
[4:54] hearing and then you have the option to
proceed with the budget tonight or as
[4:59] you did last year and what was discussed
during the budget work sessions was uh
[5:03] potentially scheduling a follow-up
session where you take the feedback uh
[5:08] go back have a work session and discuss
and then uh come back at the next
[5:12] meeting and make your final vote. So
that's the process that you followed
[5:16] last year. Uh you don't necessarily have
to follow that. You're able to proceed
[5:20] with it tonight if you wish. But my
recollection from the work sessions was
[5:24] that the plan was to have one more
session after this meeting, take the
[5:29] public comments, and then have a final
vote at the subsequent meeting. So uh if
[5:35] there's no questions about process, then
I'll go ahead and do staff's
[5:39] presentation. Are you good with us
moving to the presentation?
[5:42] » Yeah. Okay, I will give the uh the
presentation, provide everybody a
[5:47] background of what's going on with the
budget process, how the RNR stuff works,
[5:51] and then once I'm done with the
presentation, you can open the public
[5:54] hearing and take public comment.
[6:01] Okay. So, mayor and council, one of the
the first things that we uh talk about
[6:05] in the budget every year is assess
valuation. And um I'm going to do this
[6:10] uh this is for the benefit of anybody
typically working or watching at home if
[6:15] we can get the YouTube uh fixed. We will
try to get this recorded. If not, all of
[6:20] this is in the packet anyway and we'll
be able to to showcase it um online if
[6:25] we get the recording fixed and then also
uh at a subsequent meeting if you choose
[6:30] to have an additional work session. So
the first thing is our assessed
[6:34] valuation. Assessed valuation is
essentially your tax base. how much of
[6:38] the property in town is taxable. And
this chart just shows you the amount
[6:43] over time. So you can see back in the
2018 time period, we were about 57
[6:48] million. 57 million and some change. And
in our most recent uh numbers from the
[6:54] county, we're looking at a cess
valuation of 90,530,000.
[7:00] Um, compared to 2026, that number was
87,8
[7:07] sorry, 87,82,000.
So, we had a valuation increase of about
[7:13] 2.7 million, which overall was a
valuation change of about 3.11%.
[7:20] Now overall that's tracking
at at least on what they're forecasting
[7:25] right now that's tracking a little bit
lower than what inflation was but 3.1%
[7:31] is the current valuation change number.
[7:38] Now the mill levy is the actual tax
rate. So the previous slide was showing
[7:44] you how much property is taxable in the
city of Augusta. This slide tells you
[7:48] what is the rate that is being taxed. Uh
what was published for this hearing was
[7:55] a proposed mill levy of 59209.
Last year's mill levy was 58398.
[8:04] And so the published mill levy is
slightly higher about 081
[8:10] uh mills higher than last year's number.
The revenue neutral rate is 56.298
[8:18] compared to the published rate for this
budget of 59209.
[8:25] Now in the subsequent slides we'll talk
about what the difference is between
[8:29] those two rates.
[8:34] So this slide shows you the uh the
property tax dollars. You have five
[8:40] property tax supported funds. So those
are the ones that mill levy that taxes
[8:45] uh property taxes are assessed to. Um
you can see the difference between 2026
[8:51] budget and the 2027 budget.
And uh I believe that there's I think
[8:58] there's a typo on that 2026 one. I
apologize. Um the the change was
[9:03] 248,000.
I believe uh this was the 2026 budget
[9:07] number until you made your changes at
the hearing. It actually went down to
[9:11] like 5.1 million. And I apologize. I
thought I had that number updated in
[9:16] this chart. The change was 248,848.
[9:21] So you have an additional $248,000
of property taxes in the 2027 budget
[9:28] that were not in the 2026 budget. And
that is an overall increase of about
[9:33] 4.87%.
[9:38] and that includes um the new library
position that was added. So this is
[9:44] inclusive of that in terms of what was
published for the hearing.
[9:51] All right. So now we'll talk about the
revenue neutral rate. So, this was
[9:56] established by the legislature a few
years back. And essentially what the
[9:59] revenue neutral rate is, um, I'm going
to read this definition and then maybe
[10:04] try to give you a layman version of it.
But the revenue neutral rate is the
[10:09] property tax rate in mills that would
generate the same property tax revenue
[10:14] in dollars as levied during the previous
tax year using the current tax year's
[10:19] total assessed valuation. That sounds
really complicated. Essentially, it's
[10:24] just saying if you were generating last
year's property taxes with this year's
[10:30] assessed valuation, what would your mill
levy be? That's what the revenue neutral
[10:35] rate says. Um, it doesn't speak to
inflation. It doesn't speak to cost. It
[10:41] just speaks to if you were generating
the same amount of property tax dollars
[10:46] as last year with this year's tax base,
what would the revenue neutral rate be?
[10:58] Okay. So, the uh the 2026 levy versus
the 2027 levy. And again, I am so sorry.
[11:07] I may have a different version of this
presentation elsewhere. I apologize. Um
[11:14] the revenue neutral rate is 56.298.
The uh the published levy
[11:39] We'll use this one. The published levy
was 59.209.
[11:49] So this was the notice for the hearing.
Here was the published levy. Here was
[11:53] last year's levy. And then here is the
revenue neutral rate 56.298.
[12:17] So every year when we go through the
budget process, you put together what's
[12:22] called a budget adjustment list and
everything that's included in the budget
[12:27] that has a mill levy impact. So we
include staffing, we include wages, if
[12:33] you buy equipment,
um anything that that has a
[12:37] consequential uh mill levy impact, we
put on the adjustment list. We had nine
[12:42] potential adjustments that were included
in the adjustment list this year. Uh for
[12:47] the sake of the publication of the
hearing, none of those were selected for
[12:52] publication. Uh you still have the
ability to consider them. You still have
[12:56] the ability to reduce what was
published. You just cannot legally
[13:00] exceed what was published at this point.
[13:06] Um, last year, as you recall, there was
uh several positions that were added to
[13:13] the public safety budget. This year's
budget, the only position changes were a
[13:19] library position that was requested and
that was for the adult services desk
[13:24] clerk position. Um, and then there was
an explanation that was provided by the
[13:30] library board and the executive director
uh about the position request and that
[13:36] was discussed at your work session and
it was included in the budget and has
[13:42] not been removed um as of the uh the
work sessions or the publishing of the
[13:47] public notice. Uh we do have library
staff here if you have any questions or
[13:52] want to speak to them. Again, again, a
reminder, uh there's an explanation
[13:56] that's provided up here on the screen.
This was provided in the libraries
[13:59] budget uh about the uh the staffing
changes. Um so that was the only
[14:06] position that was added last year. We
had quite a few in the public safety.
[14:10] This is the only position change in the
2027 budget.
[14:21] Now on the uh the projects and
initiatives, there was a lot of the
[14:25] projects that are still carrying over
that were stuff that we had started in
[14:30] 2026. Some of it was in a design phase.
Now you're moving into construction
[14:35] phases. Uh some of them are just
projects that spanned over multiple
[14:39] years, but these are still the the top
projects, initiatives, and priorities
[14:43] are identified in the 2027
uh budget. The first one is the electric
[14:49] volt electric low voltage system
conversion project. Our staff is
[14:54] currently working with the engineer to
uh get all of the uh the design
[14:58] engineering done so we can essentially
bid that project out to move forward. Um
[15:03] that is a a a massive electric
uh grid project that is geared towards
[15:12] reliability
uh and sustainability of our system.
[15:16] It's replacing a lot of outdated
technology and a lot of um outdated
[15:20] structures which is poles, transformers,
uh substation that'll be replaced that
[15:27] they're on a completely separate voltage
system that does not match the rest of
[15:31] our modern grid. Council approved a
project previously
[15:36] um for us to move forward with the
electric voltage system conversion. So,
[15:41] we're in that process and uh we're just
in that design phase right now and the
[15:46] construction is going to be going on
through 2027 and and ultimately we'll
[15:51] see when uh the project winds down, but
uh for now it's going to be a pretty
[15:56] long-term project for us to get done
over the next year or two. The second
[16:00] project is public works complex
construction. You had essentially
[16:04] authorized the uh the bonds for that a
while back. We had done the first
[16:10] building already this year which was the
salt sand storage. You approved the the
[16:16] bonds and the financing for us to move
forward with that project. And actually
[16:19] on the agenda tonight is uh one of the
business items that approves the uh the
[16:26] the essentially the the maximum
guaranteed amount on that contract for
[16:30] us to move forward with that project.
Once that's done, then we can actually
[16:35] begin the mobilization for construction.
The red bud phase two uh you're
[16:41] currently in a design uh process design
engineering and this is for the bridge
[16:47] over the river and then the uh the plan
construction would happen later
[16:53] potentially 2027 but I think stretching
into the 2028 calendar year uh before
[17:00] we're able to complete that that
project. We're in the design phase right
[17:04] now. Um, but you shouldn't expect that
we'll be doing any sort of construction
[17:09] before the end of this year if at best
it's going to be happening in late 2027
[17:14] and then spilling potentially into 2028
depending on our conversations with Kate
[17:19] Odd goes uh Santa Fe Lake OG wear and
also the dam. So this is a project has
[17:27] been hanging out there for about 10
years. You saw the pictures during our
[17:31] budget work sessions where uh the
current weir structure that holds the
[17:38] water in the lake is falling apart.
um it has crumbled the the concrete has
[17:43] crumbled in the last you know 40 50
years that that uh new weir has been in
[17:50] place and uh beyond that there are new
standards that the division of water
[17:57] resources requires us to upgrade both
the spillway and the dam in order to
[18:03] comply with modern dam standards. And so
we are having to uh the the essentially
[18:10] the scope of that project includes the
addition of a stem wall and also uh um
[18:17] earth work that will occur on the north
side of the spillway and then
[18:23] replacement in kind of the existing OG
wear spillway. And then when that's
[18:29] done, we will have resolved a a 10-year
project that has been hanging out with
[18:33] the Division of Water Resources and the
and the um the Santa Fe Lake OG wear
[18:40] will be able to move forward in
construction in 2027.
[18:45] The water tower rehabilitations,
um I don't know that we're going to get
[18:50] those done this year. I think we have
our our KDH.
[18:55] Um there is an inspection that's coming
up this this fall and I don't think
[19:01] we're going to have it ready to actually
construct that this year. If we can, we
[19:04] will proceed with it. And if we're not
able to proceed this year, then that
[19:08] will carry into 2027, but that'll uh
update the Arnold Tower and then also uh
[19:14] rehabilitation and work on uh golf that
has issues as of the last inspection.
[19:20] the CDBG sidewalk project. Uh that is
not a guarantee right now, but the
[19:25] council has gone through all of the
process for us to apply for uh
[19:30] essentially grant funding to help us
rehabilitate sidewalks throughout the
[19:35] community that fall in that that map
area that we had done the surveys on and
[19:39] show to the community. So, if we're able
to secure that grant, then uh we could
[19:44] potentially secure $1.5 million in
funding to work on rehabilitation
[19:49] sidewalks in our community. As you
recall, the the community voted on a new
[19:55] sales tax that included modified
language to allow the sales tax to be
[20:01] utilized for sidewalks and for streets.
And so this will be the first time we've
[20:05] had funding that's dedicated for that
purpose for us to do rehabilitation on
[20:10] existing sidewalks. And then the final
uh substantive project is the CCIP. And
[20:16] this is Highway 54400.
Uh we secured a grant from KOT. I
[20:22] believe it was a $400,000 grant for Ccl.
And that is for the uh highway 400. And
[20:29] I think it's from the overpass
stretching west to the west city limits.
[20:34] Um
maybe just on the asphalt part. I I have
[20:38] to check with the engineer to see where
the full scope was, but it did it did
[20:42] not include the bridge. The bridge is a
separate issue that we're working with
[20:46] KOD on. Um it is just the uh it is just
the uh the asphalt I believe on 54400.
[20:54] So those are the uh the major projects,
the initiatives. Again, most of these
[20:58] are just carryovers from last year, but
they are large substantive projects
[21:02] we've been working on for a very long
time. And uh so we don't have a ton of
[21:06] new things that we have added for the
the 2027
[21:11] budget.
So with that, mayor and council, I'm
[21:14] just going to pull this up one more
time. So this was the resolution that
[21:19] was published last year's mil levy
58.398.
[21:24] the proposed that was published for this
meeting 59209
[21:30] and revenue neutral 56298.
So, uh, from here on out, um, you open
[21:38] the meeting. You, or sorry, you will
open the the RNR hearing for public
[21:43] comment and then once you're done with
public comment, you can move on to a
[21:49] vote to exceed the revenue neutral rate
and then you will move into the public
[21:56] hearing for the budget itself. So, with
that, I'll turn it over to council if
[22:01] you have any questions that I can answer
before the the hearing takes place. If
[22:05] not, you can move into the RNR hearing.
>> Josh, I have a quick question. It's
[22:09] about our technical difficulty. Are we
able to go live yet?
[22:14] » Okay. Thank you. Just for transparency.
[22:21] » Okay.
>> Let's open the public hearing.
[22:28] So, if anybody here has something they
want to say about the revenue neutral
[22:31] rate, now is the time.
[22:41] Okay, I don't see anybody stepping
forward, so we'll close the public
[22:45] hearing and I'll entertain a motion to
uh get this revenue neutral rate vote
[22:53] started.
[22:57] Josh, uh, a yes vote means
>> just that you plan to exceed the revenue
[23:03] neutral. It doesn't it doesn't specify
what the amount is, just that you plan
[23:08] to exceed, which is also what you
publish to the county already.
[23:13] » I got that.
>> And then it'll be finalized once you
[23:15] actually vote on the budget.
[23:20] » And so what you're exceeding is that
56.298, 298 which is just under just
[23:27] under three ms higher than what was
published
[23:34] » or 3 ms sorry what was published is
about 3 ms higher than the revenue
[23:39] neutral
[23:50] I hear a motion so
If we vote to exceed it,
[23:58] we don't have to pass it. We can go back
and rework it to a lower rate, right?
[24:02] » You're Yeah. So, the way And again, this
this is one of the things that's kind of
[24:06] goofy in the legislation,
but you have to pass a resolution if
[24:12] you're going to exceed the revenue
neutral rate. And it says you have to
[24:16] pass it essentially on the date of the
hearing. And so you're not committing to
[24:22] what the final mill levy is until you
pass the budget. You're just saying that
[24:27] you're planning to exceed the 56.298.
>> Doesn't mean you have to either.
[24:32] » So we can still come in.
>> So if we
[24:35] » if we could find a way to do it,
>> you can still be lower, but you could
[24:40] not be higher if you do not pass it.
>> A vote yes does not indicate a plan to
[24:45] exceed revenue neutral. It simply
authorizes you
[24:48] » to do that. Should your budget final
decisions do that?
[24:53] » It means you're going to
>> The way it's worded is you intend to
[24:55] exceed.
>> That's what it means.
[24:57] » But it doesn't mean you have to.
>> What' you say, Mike?
[25:00] » That's not what it means, Mike.
>> Means you're going to exceed revenue
[25:03] neutral rate if you vote yes for it.
That's what it means.
[25:06] » That's not correct.
>> It means you plan on it, but that
[25:10] doesn't mean you're necessarily going to
do it.
[25:13] » So, you're not required.
>> You're not required to.
[25:14] » We could hit revenue neutral still even
though we say yes right now.
[25:18] » Correct. or under.
[25:24] » It's pretty confusing.
>> It is.
[25:27] » It is.
>> It is. What?
[25:29] » Confusing.
>> They're saying it's confusing. It is.
[25:32] » Yes. A yes vote does not bind you to
exceeding your revenue neutral rate. Y
[25:37] » correct.
>> I think the journal
[25:39] » allows you to say the general publicly
assumes.
[25:42] » I'm sorry. What was the answer?
I I I
[25:47] believe that it does. Um now it doesn't
specify
[25:54] what number that you're arriving at. Um
if it's 59 58 57 56.3
[26:03] but I believe if you pass that motion
then you are um saying you plan to
[26:09] exceed the revenue neutral rate. It
authorizes you to plan to, but it
[26:14] doesn't bind you to
>> Now, if you adopt 562981,
[26:18] technically you exceeded it.
>> You're still you're still pretty flat at
[26:24] that point. But,
>> but we hit 55.
[26:27] » Huh?
>> Can we hit 55? I mean, if we were able
[26:29] to, are we allowed to do that even if we
voted to exceed it?
[26:36] » I don't know the answer to that. The way
it's reading, it says that you still
[26:39] find it after taking public testimony,
you still find it necessary to exceed
[26:44] the RNR rate.
>> So, it indicates that you have every
[26:47] intention of exceeding it, but
>> I agree.
[26:51] » It doesn't specify if you're bound to
it.
[26:56] » I I can't imagine
>> if you don't adopt this, then you cannot
[26:58] exact.
That's the point.
[27:00] » That is that is clear.
>> That's the point. If we go into a public
[27:05] comment on the budget and we are
profoundly enlightened on other options
[27:11] and we find ways to reduce the budget
even below what revenue neutral maybe I
[27:16] can't see that at the peak a statute
would require us to pass something
[27:20] higher
>> spend more than we need to
[27:26] » I want you to be right
>> it's it's poss and again we've never had
[27:30] that scenario before so it's I'm trying
to think through it. Erica, can you help
[27:36] me? Is it Is it possible then that if
they did go below
[27:41] revenue neutral
that they would just pass another
[27:45] resolution?
>> If they if they publish it now
[27:52] saying they plan to exceed, they can
still they can still go below what was
[27:57] published for the hearing, but not right
revenue neutral. if they want to pass a
[28:01] different resolution,
>> you could either you could resend the
[28:04] resolution. You could I mean you you
wouldn't even have to do that because it
[28:09] all it it's not binding you to a number.
It's only saying you have the intent to
[28:14] » um I can clarify that before the next
meeting if if there's another work
[28:17] session, but um that's never this it
requires a ro roll call vote.
[28:25] Um, so I mean again it's indicating that
you have the in that you still feel it
[28:29] is necessary to exceed it
but it doesn't bind you to a number. So
[28:35] » thank you.
[28:39] » And I'm sorry that that that's
confusing. What what Erica is reading
[28:43] was essentially the the bullet point
recommendations
[28:47] that that are laid out for that statute
and and what you were reading to me
[28:51] earlier. It just says that
>> it just says that um so the governing
[28:56] body passes a resolution to exceed the
RNR prior to adopting the budget,
[29:01] records the roll call for the governing
body vote, and then can formally adopt a
[29:05] budget any time after the resolution is
passed anytime within the time frame
[29:08] they've set. Um but the resolution must
be passed at the RNR hearing and before
[29:13] the budget is adopted.
>> Yeah.
[29:14] » So it has to happen before the
conversation about the proposed budget
[29:18] itself. So that's why
[29:25] » the city attorney have any
opinion on that conversation?
[29:32] » So I think I think you can if even if
you pass this resolution you can pass a
[29:37] budget
lower or at the revenue neutral rate.
[29:42] » Perfect.
>> Thank you. What I need to know
[30:04] that Kip just found something on the
internet
[30:09] and it says going lower,
collecting less property tax revenue or
[30:15] setting a lower mail levy than the
calculated RNR is fully allowed.
[30:21] Lowering the property tax collection
does not trigger any special penalty or
[30:27] extra hearing requirements.
>> I think that's what that's what Andrew
[30:33] just said.
>> Yeah.
[30:36] » Thank you, K.
[30:41] I move for resolution number 2026-18
to exceed revenue neutral rate.
[30:49] » A second.
>> Okay, I've got a motion and a second.
[30:53] Erica, will you call the role?
>> Martin,
[30:56] » no.
>> Lick lighter.
[30:58] » No.
>> Bailey,
[31:00] » yes.
>> Scott,
[31:02] » no.
>> Richardson,
[31:04] » yes.
>> Davis,
[31:06] » yes.
>> Whitey,
[31:07] » no. Martin, I'm sorry. Mar,
>> yes.
[31:17] » That's a tie. What it is
>> doesn't have. It doesn't say.
[31:46] I agree. Thanks a lot.
[31:58] » We're We're trying to check the statute
to see what the requirement is. So,
[32:04] typically the mayor would have a
tiebreaking vote. We're trying to verify
[32:08] if that's actually what happens for a
budget. We've never seen that before.
[32:12] So, we have to check
>> cuz the rules change on this stuff all
[32:16] the time.
[32:25] So, who are you going to fire?
[32:36] That's all I need to know.
[32:42] Okay, it does say majority vote.
Um
[32:50] 29
[33:17] All
[33:29] right, mayor and council. So, it looks
like the relative statutory reference is
[33:34] KSA79-2988.
[33:42] I'm going to read this. It says,
[33:49] "A majority vote of the governing body
by the adoption of a resolution or
[33:52] ordinance to approve exceeding the
revenue neutral rate shall be required
[33:57] prior to adoption of a proposed budget
that will result in a tax rate in excess
[34:01] of the revenue neutral rate. Such vote
of the governing body shall be conducted
[34:06] at the public hearing and on the same
day as the commencement of the public
[34:10] hearing. After the governing body has
heard from interested taxpayers and
[34:14] shall be a roll call vote. If the
governing body approves exceeding the
[34:17] revenue neutral rate, the governing body
shall not adopt a budget that results in
[34:22] a tax rate in excess of its proposed tax
rate as stated in the notice provided.
[34:30] So I read that as a simple majority
vote. Do does that give the mayor
[34:37] Okay. So mayor, you have the ability to
break is that what that says that the
[34:41] mayor has the ability to break the tie.
[34:51] » Okay.
So in this uh mayor votes and breaks the
[34:57] tie and you need a majority in order to
pass. We'll
[35:01] » call a Rawlings for your vote.
>> Yes.
[35:06] The motion carries
>> again. So what that vote is is that it
[35:11] exceeds or that you plan to exceed that
uh revenue neutral rate of the 56.
[35:17] Again, you have not adopted a budget
yet,
[35:21] » right? and you still have the ability to
adjust it.
[35:29] Okay. So, with that,
we will open the public hearing for the
[35:35] 2027 budget.
And if you're here to speak about that,
[35:41] you come up to the podium, state your
name and address,
[35:46] and give us your comments in five
minutes or less.
[36:07] Hey. Um,
>> you'll have to speak loud.
[36:11] » Okay. Um, Kobe Johnson. I live on 1426
Dearborn Street. Uh, I have a wife at
[36:18] home and one daughter. Okay.
>> Little baby under one year old. Uh, my
[36:23] question, it's my first time, so excuse
my ignorance here and you might have to
[36:28] clarify some stuff. you already have.
But just reviewing the budget, I saw the
[36:33] rear loading trash trucks and you guys
were originally planning to pay with
[36:37] cash and saving up for that and then it
got diverted into I think something
[36:42] utility related, a solid waste facility.
How do you guys plan to save for trash
[36:48] trucks? And also, how do you source
alternatives? I saw these listed 360 to
[36:53] 400K. I did some quick searches and
found two other cities had spent 260k on
[37:01] standard kind of rear load trash trucks
and I searched online and found on RDK
[37:06] two 20 yard 25 yard trash trucks for
about 260. So how do you source and make
[37:12] sure that I don't want to use the word
gouging but someone's giving you
[37:15] competitive pricing on your your
vendors?
[37:19] » Fair question.
[37:24] I I can answer that normally we do ask
for competitive bids
[37:30] unless we use there's a source that's a
government approved source where the
[37:36] federal or state government have already
done the bidding
[37:40] » and they list the people that are low
bidders and that way you can just order
[37:46] it right that way.
Our staff
[37:51] goes around and recommends the best
truck that they see to fit our needs.
[37:57] » Yeah.
>> Um 20 years ago, we had rear loaders
[38:01] that were single axle and uh we had two,
if I remember right, we had two wrecks
[38:07] with those on the landfill road because
they weren't stable. So, we opted for
[38:14] dual axle uh trucks to to maintain more
stability.
[38:19] Yeah,
>> that that's just some knowledge that I
[38:22] have. But
>> did that answer any of your question?
[38:25] » Answer a little bit. How do you plan to
save for those trucks? And are you guys
[38:29] planning to end up I know you said by
28, 2030, but you got to start saving
[38:33] today. Do you guys start keeping
reserves for that? And do you go into
[38:37] like CDs? I know Kansas does allow you
guys to invest and save money that way.
[38:44] » Josh.
>> All right. Um, so several things going
[38:48] on there. So one, the utility is
separate from the property taxes. So the
[38:54] utility is the closest thing that we
have to a business. It's considered an
[38:57] enterprise fund. So with each of those
essentially means that we have customers
[39:02] that we charge a utility rate for and
then the rates pay for the operations.
[39:07] Now in solid waste you have another
project that is kind of unrelated to the
[39:14] fleet which is the public works complex.
And the public works complex is a
[39:19] combination of buildings. Some of it is
for the utility, some of it is for taxup
[39:23] supported operations like the street
crews and the parks team. um the utility
[39:29] for solid waste is going to be
contributing some of the money for the
[39:33] project and then the rest of it was bond
finance meaning that it has a property
[39:38] tax impact. The way that we handled that
in the budget over the last couple years
[39:43] was to make it a neutral property tax
impact by reducing something else by the
[39:48] equivalent amount. So that's how we
handled the building infrastructure.
[39:53] Now that still leaves the trucks which
are funded by the utility. Uh we have
[40:00] replaced two of the um we have two
different types of trucks. We have
[40:06] automated which are uh sidearm loaders.
And then we have the standard rear
[40:12] loaders which are the the commercial
boxers. You see the 2 yard, the four
[40:16] yard, the sixyard. And they serve
different purposes and they handle
[40:19] different types of equipment. We have
replaced the two um automated side
[40:27] loaders already with cash and we were
able to save that up over the last 10
[40:32] years to pay cash for that which is one
of the goals that the council
[40:35] established. Um in recent years though
the truck costs have gone up
[40:41] considerably. We also got hit with
tariff pricing. That was one of the
[40:45] things our vendor told us uh that those
trucks were going up based on that sort
[40:50] of pricing as well. And so the cost of
the rear loaders is what's left. Um the
[40:56] conversation we had with council at the
work sessions was if the goal is to
[41:01] still pay cash and buy those outright
without issuing debt. We think you have
[41:08] to do a a rate increase of some kind if
that remains the goal. You don't have to
[41:14] buy cash. That was just one of the
goals. If we're willing to finance it
[41:18] and spread the costs out, we could
potentially manage that differently. But
[41:22] if we're trying to get enough cash to
buy it outright, uh we're likely going
[41:26] to be looking at a rate increase towards
the end of this year going into next
[41:31] year. As the mayor indicated, there are
different truck types. Um there's
[41:36] different axles, there's different
engine setups. Some of them have an
[41:39] engine in front, some of them it's a cab
over where they're and those are
[41:43] differently priced. And um I don't know
that I can answer all all the questions
[41:49] about which types of trucks uh we're all
looking at, but um we have evaluated the
[41:55] fleet. We did test runs with a variety
of different equipment and price is not
[42:01] the exclusive thing that we look at.
It's an important thing that we look at,
[42:05] but we also have done demos and things
to make sure that it's the best piece of
[42:10] equipment for our purpose. So sometimes
we're looking at the long-term
[42:14] maintenance cost. Sometimes we're
looking at uh you know in the example of
[42:18] the cabover chassis versus the one where
the engine is in front, the ability to
[42:23] navigate in some of our alleys, the
ability to make turns and culde-sacs,
[42:27] one of them is better than the other. So
some of that goes into the choice as
[42:31] well. And then what the mayor was
speaking to is some of the equipment we
[42:35] buy, not all the time, but some of it we
buy through something called a n a
[42:40] national purchasing contract. So there's
a solicitation that is done on a
[42:45] national level with vendors across the
country where they look at pricing and
[42:49] then they look at all of the other um
criteria that they may establish for
[42:55] engines for maintenance and otherwise.
And we're able to piggyback on those
[43:00] contracts. So that's an option. Uh you
don't always end up with the cheaper
[43:05] equipment. Sometimes you do, sometimes
you don't. It depends on which contract
[43:08] we participate in. Um, so we'll
ultimately we'll have to choose what
[43:15] trucks we get. I don't think we've
chosen at this point, but that's that's
[43:20] some of the logic that goes into it and
what the plan is right now. So, we've
[43:23] replaced half the fleet with cash right
now, but we have two more and we've got
[43:28] to figure out how to pay for them. And
if the goal is pay cash, then we we're
[43:33] looking at a a rate increase.
>> So, when you save, do you put into CDs?
[43:38] Do you do any kind of accumulation or
investing on our reserves? Do we have
[43:42] any?
>> Yeah. So, uh there's something called
[43:45] the the municipal investment pool and we
participate in that and uh that is
[43:51] invested in in different ways. Um so,
yeah, we we have a couple of things like
[43:56] that where money goes into it and you're
able to generate a little off of it.
[44:00] That's been better the last couple of
years. In prior years, it generated very
[44:04] little for us. Um, but recently we were
able to get a little bit more out of it.
[44:10] » All right. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[44:13] » Thank you,
>> Cody. I just like to say thanks for
[44:17] coming to our meeting and asking
questions and things. We appreciate
[44:21] that.
>> Yeah,
[44:22] » I echo that.
>> Come back anytime.
[44:29] » Is there anybody else?
[44:34] Okay, let's close the public hearing and
consider approval of the proposed 2027
[44:40] budget. Or we have an option that we
could just table it because we're going
[44:45] to go to a workshop possibly.
So that's your choice, council. Mr.
[44:50] Mayor, I make a motion to to uh table
the approval of the 2027 budget,
[44:54] schedule work session review, discuss
potential reductions or changes to the
[44:58] proposed 2027 budget.
>> Second.
[45:00] » Second. Got a motion and a second. Are
there any other questions?
[45:10] » Okay.
>> Now, can we schedule
[45:14] » the official work session then? And
>> well, can I vote on the motion and then
[45:19] schedule the work session?
>> Do both in one?
[45:23] » Yes. If we haven't done that. Yes.
>> Yes.
[45:28] » Okay. All those in favor say I. I.
>> Any opposed?
[45:32] » Motion carries.
Do you plan on is it next Monday night
[45:38] you want to do the work session?
>> The off Mondays are typically when
[45:41] you've had them. Uh 21st you have to
adopt the budget before our deadline. So
[45:46] I think sometime next week is your only
opportunity. The off Monday makes the
[45:50] most sense based on your previous
schedules.
[45:53] » Okay. 5:30. Josh,
>> it works for me.
[45:58] 21st
>> 14th.
[46:01] So may
>> I make a motion to schedule the uh
[46:04] hearing I'm sorry the the meeting to
discuss the potential reductions changes
[46:10] on Monday September 14th at 5:30 p.m.
here at council chambers.
[46:16] » Second.
>> Got a motion and a second.
[46:19] » All those in favor say I.
>> I.
[46:22] » Any opposed? Motion carries.
Thank you.
[46:27] » 14th to 14.
>> Okay.
[46:31] » Don't be late, Mike.
>> Say what?
[46:34] » Told him not to be late.
>> Okay, other Mike.
[46:39] » That moves us to item two. Finally,
ordinance establishing the maximum
[46:45] property tax dollar amount
for the library fund and library
[46:50] employee benefit fund. And we only need
half of that, right?
[46:55] » We don't we don't table or we table that
tonight, right?
[46:58] » That this is tied to your budget
adoption. So you would not take action
[47:01] on this item tonight. You would table
it.
[47:03] » Yeah.
>> Till the hearing date.
[47:07] » So make a motion to table that somebody.
[47:14] Uh,
>> I make a motion to table the proposed
[47:18] ordinance number 2270 establishing the
maximum property tax dollar amount for
[47:22] the library fund and library employee
benefit fund for the Augusta Public
[47:25] Library until after the
>> until the 21st.
[47:30] » Yeah, until September 21st.
>> Second.
[47:34] » Got a motion and a second. Erica, do you
want to call a roll call vote? No. All
[47:40] right. All those in favor of tableabling
this say I. I.
[47:44] » Any opposed?
Motion carries.
[47:50] Okay.
[47:53] Item number three, annual request for ex
to exchange federal funds staff.
[48:01] » Yes. Uh mayor and council, the federal
fund exchange is KOT. Federal fund
[48:05] exchange is a program that KOT launched
many years ago and you get an annual
[48:11] allocation from the federal government
an annual amount of funding that you're
[48:14] able to use on transportation related
projects. But if you use that money
[48:18] there's a whole lot of red tape that
goes along with that and it can make
[48:23] your project quite a bit more expensive
because you have to follow all of the
[48:26] federal requirements anytime you do a
project. Uh so what KOT launched I want
[48:32] to say back in like 2008 2009 time frame
is something called the federal fund
[48:37] exchange where what they do is they are
willing to give you 90 cents on the
[48:42] dollar. They assume all of the federal
requirements and they take the federal
[48:47] money and then they give you 90 cents
and then they free you of that burden of
[48:51] having to comply with all of the federal
requirements.
[48:55] And so um the uh the amount that is
appropriated to us this year is
[49:01] $133,653.13.
[49:05] So the fund exchange would be 90 cents
on the dollar which is $120,288.13.
[49:16] Um attached are the forms and the
description of the program. What we're
[49:22] recommending is that you go ahead and
utilize uh the form to get reimbursed
[49:27] for the uh the PPP, the pavement
preservation projects that we recently
[49:32] did throughout the city. And then that
money can go back in to our uh our
[49:38] transportation funds and uh be used on
other projects or just be used to um put
[49:45] our put our cash balances back in place.
Um, I'm going to go ahead and speak a
[49:51] little bit to the subsequent item. They
are separate items, but uh, in the PPP
[49:57] program, we had two roadways that are
technically park roads. They're not the
[50:02] same thing as residential streets. That
was Garvin uh, Park Road and Augusta
[50:07] Avenue. And our plan on on those was to
utilize funding out of capital
[50:12] improvement fund 16 instead of street
sales tax fund because the street sales
[50:18] tax fund exists for you to do
maintenance essentially on platted city
[50:22] roadways. Those are unplatted roadways.
So those two we were paying for capital
[50:26] improve out of the capital improvement
fund. Uh, one of our recommendations,
[50:31] and you'll see this in the subsequent
item, is that when you reimburse uh,
[50:36] your project for the streets that you
reimburse the capital improvement fund
[50:41] as well, and then that helps you pay for
the uh, the next item that's on the
[50:45] list. Again, they're they're unrelated
for your action right now, but I wanted
[50:48] to explain that relationship briefly
before we get to that item. So, the
[50:53] action item tonight is for council to
consider the federal fund exchange for
[50:59] the 90 cents on the dollar in the amount
of $120,288.
[51:04] And it was for the pavement preservation
projects
[51:10] that uh we recently completed throughout
town. With that, I'll turn it over to
[51:14] council for consideration.
>> Council
[51:26] Make a motion to approve the request to
exchange federal funds for 2026 under
[51:31] the fund federal aid fund exchange
master agreement. Authorizing the mayor
[51:35] to sign the request form and authorizing
staff to reimburse the capital
[51:38] improvement fund for the portion of the
2026 pavement preservation project that
[51:43] was initially paid from that fund.
>> Second.
[51:48] » Should I get a second?
Okay.
[51:52] Got a motion or second. Questions? Mike
is the amount of money we're talking
[51:56] about that 133,000
>> 120,288 is what we would be reimbursed.
[52:03] » What we would receive from
>> Okay. And it's to go against the
[52:08] $334,000 amount that we paid advance.
>> Yeah. So ba basically you just have to
[52:13] submit enough of an invoice to cover
that amount. So that our project invoice
[52:18] was that $334,000.
So we're just verifying that we had
[52:22] enough expenditures to justify the the
reimbursement.
[52:26] » Thank you.
>> Yes, sir.
[52:28] » Any other questions?
All those in favor say I.
[52:33] » I. Any opposed?
>> Motion carries.
[52:38] Thank you.
Item four, agreement with JEO for
[52:42] engineering services for the Red Bud
Trail levy crossing staff
[52:49] » and Brad.
>> Yes, mayor and counselor, city engineer,
[52:52] uh Brad Schwarz is here tonight. Um as a
matter of introduction,
[52:57] uh will provide background. So the uh
council previously se re received grants
[53:03] and completed construction on the uh the
phase 1 red bud bridge over highway
[53:08] 54400.
You've subsequently received uh grant to
[53:13] do the uh the bridge over the whitewater
river which is currently in the design
[53:18] phase and ultimately moving to
construction once design is satisfied.
[53:24] Uh you also signed a memorandum of
understanding with a local nonprofit
[53:29] group called Arty. That's the Andover
Augusta Rail Trail Initiative. And uh
[53:35] they are committed and working towards
the fundraising to complete the trail
[53:40] segments between the bridges and the
trail portion extending all the way to
[53:46] the levy which is our west city limits.
So all of that is in place right now. Uh
[53:53] once those projects are done, you are
still left with a small segment in order
[53:59] to complete the connection that
currently exists. So right now, our
[54:04] existing Redbud trail stops at Lulu
Street. It does not extend past that. So
[54:10] you have the levey crossing itself. And
when I say levy crossing, the levey has
[54:15] a designated footprint according to the
core of engineers. So, we're talking
[54:19] about within that footprint, the core
has permitting requirements if you're
[54:24] going to have any sort of construction
that goes on there. Outside of that, it
[54:28] would essentially just be building a
similar sort of paved um trail as what
[54:34] we built east of Lulu to make that
connection. But the project that we're
[54:39] doing with this agreement tonight is
simply on the on the levy crossing
[54:45] itself. So the reason we're proposing
this now is you are working kind of on
[54:51] multiple timelines at the same time. So
you have the transportation alternative
[54:57] grant and the calendar that uh JO is
working on where uh the project is
[55:04] likely to start construction in maybe
late 2027 and then finish in 2028.
[55:10] Ideally, my thought is if you've
completed those bridges, you don't want
[55:14] to have a big gap where you're still not
connected. You want people to be able to
[55:18] finish that connection and get into the
city limits. And so, we started talking
[55:23] with JEO uh to brainstorm what do you
have to do to get on the other side of
[55:28] the levy. Uh so they've been working uh
to prepare some information regarding
[55:34] the flood plane, regarding the work with
the core and it's uh it's a lot of
[55:39] engineering. I I don't know that the
project construction wise is necessarily
[55:43] all that complicated. It's just that the
permitting is and you have to go through
[55:47] that permitting process with the core
and on the flood plane stuff to navigate
[55:51] it. So JEO has put together an
engineering agreement for scope of
[55:55] services and that totals $62,500
and that moves the levy crossing portion
[56:03] through all of those permitting
requirements and then I believe also
[56:06] included the bidding and the uh yeah the
bidding for construction to actually
[56:13] build.
Um, I'll let Brad speak to any of the
[56:18] other details that are in the scope. And
Brad, if you can highlight just some of
[56:21] the things that are in there, you know,
why why is there so much to it? It is a
[56:25] short section, but what are all the
different types of permits and things
[56:28] that you have to to go after? Um, the
previous item that you just voted on,
[56:34] what I said is through your federal fund
exchange, you can reimburse pedestrian
[56:40] or sorry, transportation related
projects. This pedestrian trail is a
[56:44] transportation project. It's an eligible
expenditure. With all of the other
[56:48] grants and things that you've pursued,
the goal has been to try to finance that
[56:52] whole project without having to use
local tax dollars. So, with the previous
[56:58] action by reimbursing
the uh some of that federal fund
[57:02] exchange money to the capital
improvement fund, you were then able to
[57:05] use those federal fund exchange dollars
or essentially what got reimbursed to us
[57:10] to pay for this engineering. That is an
eligible expense.
[57:15] That's the 2026
federal fund exchange. That still
[57:20] preserves the 2027 federal fund
exchange. That still preserves the 2028.
[57:25] And if you're averaging about $120,000 a
year, those are the sources of funding
[57:30] that will help you do the construction
when time actually comes for you to
[57:34] build the crossing and also to get your
connection down to Lulu. Again, the
[57:40] whole point of that plan is to fund it
with outside dollars without having to
[57:44] use your your local money. So, Brad,
I'll turn it over to you if you could
[57:49] speak to the permitting. Why why is why
is there so much involved in that little
[57:54] crossing and then we'll turn it over to
council for any questions that they they
[57:58] might have.
>> Yeah. So, I guess the first thing I'd
[58:02] say is
uh for any road engineer, the worst
[58:08] scope of fee to put together is for a
sidewalk project because the
[58:11] construction cost is relatively small,
but all the engineering they do behind a
[58:15] road project is being done on that
sidewalk. So, our fee looks very high in
[58:20] comparison to the construction cost. Uh
we are doing um what's called a 408
[58:26] permit, a levy permit, which could be
pretty challenging in on here. And then
[58:31] there's everything else that we're
normally doing um when we're in an area
[58:36] where there's water. So um DWR, KDA,
Shipo, all of those as well. In addition
[58:43] to uh we're wanting to be ADA compliant,
we're considering a couple different
[58:48] scenarios. We also have to maintain
access for the homeowner. Josh has a
[58:53] very good picture on the top there. So,
there are some some ADA requirements and
[58:59] also some access and some coordination
we're going to have to do there. So, it
[59:04] looks it is a relatively straightforward
project, but there are a lot of things
[59:08] we need to think through to make sure
we're doing it right.
[59:16] And I'll stand for any questions.
I do have an update on the Ccliff as
[59:21] well that Josh mentioned earlier, but
maybe hit this one first.
[59:29] » Council, any questions for him on the
red bed trail crossing?
[59:37] » Is the uh levy going to be cut or is
this going to go over the top of the
[59:43] levy?
>> No. And please do not ever use those
[59:45] words again. We'll get in big trouble.
It's a good question. We uh we will be
[59:50] adding fill to the side. So, we kind of
have two options here. And I think we're
[59:55] coming around to seeing this the way
city staff was saying. I was trying to
[59:59] keep us kind of on alignment for the
sidewalk. Um there's some safety in
[1:00:04] keeping the pedestrians away from the
road, but particularly that homeowners
[1:00:10] access on the northwest corner there
makes that kind of challenging.
[1:00:13] » Farm, it's farm field. It's not a home,
but
[1:00:16] » Sorry. Thank you. land land owner. Um
anyway, we're not committed. We're going
[1:00:20] to explore our options, but the other
solution would be to bring up the
[1:00:24] sidewalk and kind of come up closer to
the road. Uh that would allow that
[1:00:31] access road there to um we're not having
to push the trail out further, but we're
[1:00:38] going to work through some options.
>> Doesn't the trail have to stay where the
[1:00:41] rail road used to be, where the rail was
before? No.
[1:00:46] Well, I think Well, I'm not aware.
>> Short answer is no.
[1:00:49] » Huh?
>> Short answer is no.
[1:00:51] » No.
>> And and it's a very short distance that
[1:00:54] we're talking about bringing it up to
the road and then bringing it back.
[1:00:58] » So, for most of it, it will be on the
the old rail alignment
[1:01:02] » to make it stay within the rail for
trail, you know, whatever they call it,
[1:01:07] you know.
>> Yeah.
[1:01:10] Uh
>> I had thought about that. Um, we'll we
[1:01:14] can make sure, but I'm not aware of any
crank.
[1:01:16] » Your rightway is not simply where the
bed is. Your w your rightway, I think,
[1:01:20] is 100 ft.
>> 50 ft on each side. I got that. I
[1:01:23] understand that
>> there's quite a bit too,
[1:01:25] » but I thought
right on the
[1:01:28] » That's a good point. We'll we'll double
check. I mean, certainly an option is to
[1:01:32] keep it on alignment. So, if that if
that's a requirement, I think we can
[1:01:35] make that work.
>> And this is basically the 62,000 is from
[1:01:40] the levy back to Lulu Street. Is this
we're talking about
[1:01:44] » and a connection to the west? So both
sides of the levy.
[1:01:49] » So is it from Lulu to the levey and pass
the levey to the west?
[1:01:54] » Yes.
>> So how far west are you going?
[1:01:56] » As far as we need to to touch down and
meet ADA. So we can't just go straight
[1:02:01] down. We've got to, you know, meet ADA
requirements. As soon as we touch down,
[1:02:04] we're done. RD takes over and then the
K.A. project is going to pick back up.
[1:02:11] Okay, there's not been much discussion
about any of this in planning, you know,
[1:02:16] what's how it's going to be or the
layout and going on further west over by
[1:02:21] the river and and the bridge itself. You
know, it's going to be an interesting
[1:02:29] time to figure that out. I guess what
you know, tie to it.
[1:02:34] » Yeah. So, these two projects will not
touch. RD will be in between if that
[1:02:38] makes sense. Um, and we are in the
middle of design on the the river bridge
[1:02:44] and that has been very interesting.
>> Thank you,
[1:02:53] » Brad. I would be aiss if I didn't ask
the same question I always ask.
[1:02:58] » Okay.
>> On your expedience of how quickly you
[1:03:00] think you're going to uh
>> be able to get this. I don't want to
[1:03:04] buckle you down on a time frame, but
>> I just wanted to know.
[1:03:09] » That's a really good question. Hopefully
in the contract it gives a time frame. I
[1:03:13] mean, our intent is to sync it up with
the bid of the other project. So, we'll
[1:03:18] have this design
um bidding with the K.A. project, which
[1:03:24] is the the river bridge.
>> Thank you.
[1:03:33] What I would say, Shane, is that the
hard part in any of those times is just
[1:03:37] however long it takes the permitting
agency to complete it. Um, so I
[1:03:45] » Yeah, I'm assuming I'm assuming the
permitting is much harder on the bridge
[1:03:49] itself and they're in the middle of that
right now. And so my my whole point in
[1:03:54] working on it now was again so you don't
end up fully connected except for that
[1:03:58] last thousand feet. it would make sense
for it to all open at once if you're
[1:04:02] going to do that. So, you're trying to
coordinate to accomplish that goal.
[1:04:14] » I move for the approval of the
engineering services agreement with JEO
[1:04:18] for the engineering services in a lump
sum of $62,500.
[1:04:22] » Second.
>> Got a motion and a second. Any other
[1:04:25] questions?
>> All those in favor say I. I.
[1:04:29] » Any opposed?
>> Motion carries.
[1:04:34] » Would you like a quick update on the CC
clip limits?
[1:04:39] » Sure.
>> Uh, so I asked Riley, um, so from the
[1:04:43] western city limits to Walnut,
we are designing Milan overlay and
[1:04:49] patching. Uh, so some significant street
maintenance. And then from Walnut East
[1:04:55] to the bridge which is currently
concrete pavement today is my
[1:04:59] understanding. Uh that is going to be
part of this project was
[1:05:03] nonparticipating. That means you guys
are paying for it and that's just
[1:05:06] pavement marking from Walnut to the
bridge. So
[1:05:09] » this pavement marking
>> from Walnut to the bridge.
[1:05:12] » Yeah. Okay.
>> No significant street maintenance.
[1:05:16] » Thank you.
>> Thank you so much.
[1:05:23] Okay.
Item number five, Osage pipeline access
[1:05:28] agreement staff.
[1:05:34] All right. Thank you, council. Um, so
just to kind of give everybody some
[1:05:39] information, that handout that I gave
you at the beginning of the meeting,
[1:05:41] that will be for this item here. Uh so
on May 14th of this year, staff received
[1:05:47] an access agreement uh request from
Osage pipeline. The agreement would be
[1:05:53] to bore into areas on or near the levy
system to perform soil and groundwater
[1:05:58] monitoring wells. Osage is planning to
put in about seven wells. Um you can see
[1:06:05] the locations on that map that I handed
out. Um, I received that today from them
[1:06:11] as an update to what was originally sent
and was included in in the packet. Uh,
[1:06:16] Osage is planning on beginning work on
September 14th with approximately
[1:06:22] 18-month time frame which would have
work concluding in March of 2028 or
[1:06:29] thereabouts. Um, when staff first
received the access agreement, we raised
[1:06:35] significant concerns and questions about
whether or not the levy uh or whether
[1:06:38] the work would be permitted by the core
uh concerning that it was near the levy.
[1:06:42] Um, we requested that Osage provide any
kind of documentation that they have
[1:06:46] communicated with the core um and have
received any kind of relevant permits
[1:06:51] that they uh required. Um after
little bit of time, a couple of months,
[1:06:57] we got word back from Osage uh with
email documentation from the core saying
[1:07:01] that there was no 408 uh permit required
or any kind of NWP. Um and that is why
[1:07:08] we are bringing this um to your
attention today.
[1:07:14] And I believe that's that's more or less
it. So, just kind of as an update for um
[1:07:21] what the site plan was in the original
packet versus what I handed out today.
[1:07:26] Um
I can read out the site numbers for you
[1:07:30] if you'd like. Um the far northern
location PISB21 has been relocated from
[1:07:37] the west side of Dyke Road there over to
the east side. um PISB26 has been
[1:07:45] removed and then there may have been
slight discrepancy on the location of
[1:07:50] PISB23 but that would be a difference of
maybe a few feet which could just be
[1:07:54] attributed to somebody clicking on a
different pixel on their mapping system.
[1:08:02] So, what we are requesting tonight is
that council authorize staff to sign the
[1:08:07] agreement uh forward that signed
agreement over to Osage Pipeline and
[1:08:11] permit them to begin their work um as
early as September 14th.
[1:08:23] » Any questions?
>> I do. Um
[1:08:26] » not sure what to ask.
Rob, you said you got this map today.
[1:08:33] » Different Cooper.
>> Oh, yeah. Sam, sorry. Yeah, there we go.
[1:08:37] Sam, yes, you got this map today,
>> correct?
[1:08:40] » Yes. So, the concern I think I've got is
just as I'm looking at the
[1:08:44] correspondence between TRC and the core.
Um, this email is July 7th and it says,
[1:08:52] "Our team has reviewed your items for
the subject request and does not believe
[1:08:56] a 408 review will be needed for the
project as shared. Please note, should
[1:09:00] the scope of the project change, I ask
that you share that with our team to
[1:09:03] re-evaluate to see if a review is
needed." So, is what you got today
[1:09:07] different than what they looked at
before July 7th?
[1:09:11] To that end, I'm not sure, but I don't
believe that the difference between what
[1:09:15] we originally received and this would be
a difference in scope.
[1:09:19] » That would be the only concern I have
based on the levy and the core's
[1:09:23] restrictions on touching that.
>> Great. The the main the main difference
[1:09:28] that I see between the two maps is that
northern the PSIB21
[1:09:33] » um moving that from the west side of
Dyke Road over to the east side. But
[1:09:37] functionally, it's going to have the
same concern to the core one way or the
[1:09:40] other. So, if they didn't have an issue
with it being over on the west side,
[1:09:43] they wouldn't have any issue with it
being over on the east side.
[1:09:47] Thanks.
[1:09:52] I suppose I should um clarify that as
part of uh the negotiate, I'll call it
[1:09:58] negotiations with Osage, we did have
them add language into the agreement um
[1:10:03] that strongly suggest or um strongly
reinforce the requirement that they were
[1:10:08] going to be responsible for uh repair
and maintenance of of the work site
[1:10:12] areas and that it would not be the
responsibility uh for the city to to
[1:10:16] clean up any work.
[1:10:30] You look like you have a question or
comment.
[1:10:41] » Any other questions?
>> Do you have any idea how deep these
[1:10:46] lines are? The pipes are in the ground.
I can't hardly hear you over here
[1:10:51] anyway.
>> Sorry. Off the top of my head. I I don't
[1:10:53] have that information available.
>> You don't know how deep they are. I
[1:10:56] mean,
>> not off the top of my head. No,
[1:11:08] » maybe this is just like me missing
background because I'm new on council.
[1:11:16] I just feel like um I need a little bit
background of like how
[1:11:23] like the pipeline wants to use this land
right to to do some kind of groundwater
[1:11:29] monitoring monitoring for their company.
Is that correct? Correct.
[1:11:34] » Is that much? Okay. So
then
[1:11:39] they tear up our ground. They fix our
ground
[1:11:44] but to no benefit of the city other than
just
[1:11:49] allowing them to use it for their
research. Is that right? Is that what
[1:11:52] I'm getting?
>> They have they have pipeline in the area
[1:11:55] already. So a lot of this is just making
sure that the lines that are there are
[1:11:59] not leaking or negatively impacting the
area.
[1:12:03] » So there there is a benefit for the
community to be able to to know that
[1:12:06] information.
>> So there there there's monitoring wells
[1:12:10] spread all over. this area because of
the old refinery.
[1:12:15] » Yeah.
>> Um and some of that I think they're
[1:12:18] required to do by KDH and other types of
of sources. I I don't know their
[1:12:23] particular circumstance, but a lot of
times
[1:12:26] » it's it's a requirement that's attached
to that old refinery.
[1:12:30] » Um
>> and yes, to to your point, we've never
[1:12:34] had an agreement like that other than
the restoration where there's like
[1:12:38] compensation that is tied to that. It's
just the restoration.
[1:12:43] » And is it like because it's so close to
the levy that it it needs approval of
[1:12:47] it's because it's on the city property
that
[1:12:50] » our concern was it because it's so close
in proximity to the levy that we wanted
[1:12:53] the court to be able to weigh in to say
whether or not there was permitting
[1:12:56] requirement. Our goal was to make sure
that the city didn't just say go ahead
[1:13:00] and drill do what you need to and then
the court come in and say
[1:13:04] » you've ruined the levey we have to
descertify it and create a whole bunch
[1:13:07] of issues there.
>> I know the levy is a big deal.
[1:13:09] » Yeah. And similar to the last item that
we just discussed, if it fits within the
[1:13:13] the levy footprint, so you have the
levey itself, which is the structure,
[1:13:18] and then there's something called the
toe where essentially all of those
[1:13:21] slopes stop. So within that footprint,
uh the core of engineer has permitting
[1:13:26] abilities. And anything that goes on in
that footprint, they want to know about
[1:13:30] it and make determinations what sort of
permitting applies. And so in this case,
[1:13:36] I think some of it was in the footprint,
some of it's adjacent. So, we wanted to
[1:13:39] make sure that the core was involved and
weighed in before we did anything
[1:13:44] accepting the agreement. So, that that
was the background on
[1:13:47] » it. Okay, that makes sense. Thank you.
And when staff received it, they had
[1:13:51] indicated that they'd received approval
from KDH and we said, "Great, we're
[1:13:55] going to send it to the core."
>> Yeah. Okay.
[1:13:57] » Um they're not the final approver on
this item. So,
[1:14:01] » yeah. Yeah. I just know we've talked a
lot about how picky they are about the
[1:14:05] levy and how expensive it can be to fix
that. And tell me if I'm wrong. What I'm
[1:14:08] hearing is they're required to do this
maintenance to make sure nothing's
[1:14:12] leaking and ruining our ground. Is that
correct?
[1:14:15] » That's my understanding.
>> They're not doing it because they're
[1:14:20] such a good citizen. They're doing it
because the EPA and the Kir
[1:14:26] them to do it or some other government
agency.
[1:14:30] » I'm not trying to bash them, but
>> no,
[1:14:34] » they're a business. They wouldn't do
this if they didn't have to.
[1:14:38] » I just think it's in our town's best
interest also to make sure it's not
[1:14:41] leaking.
>> Yeah. Containing command
[1:14:46] » turn our land up.
>> Contaminating.
[1:14:50] » I move for the approval of a requested
access agreement with Osage Pipeline
[1:14:54] Company LLC to access city property to
perform soil boring and groundwater
[1:14:58] monitoring activities on or near the
city's levy.
[1:15:01] » Second.
>> Got a motion and a second.
[1:15:05] All those in favor say I.
>> I.
[1:15:07] » Any opposed.
>> Motion carries. Thank you, Sam.
[1:15:13] » Are you here for the next item?
>> Yes, I am.
[1:15:17] Item six, 2026-03
reszone from R2
[1:15:24] small lot
line and R1 single family residential to
[1:15:30] an I1 industrial with a planned
development overlay
[1:15:35] staff.
>> One second, Sam. Um, so mayor and
[1:15:38] council, just for clarification, since
you took no action on the library
[1:15:43] ordinance, I believe that number was
going to be ordinance number 2270. So I
[1:15:49] think that that is the number that you
would be considering here where it shows
[1:15:52] as blank. So uh, that plugs in the blank
that's currently shown.
[1:16:00] All right. And I'm sorry, the train was
going. Are you ready for me?
[1:16:04] » The train was going and I couldn't hear.
Are you ready for me? Yes.
[1:16:07] » Okay. All right.
>> But if the train starts, stop.
[1:16:10] » Okay.
All right. Uh again, thank you, council.
[1:16:14] So, the
um item that we have before us today is
[1:16:20] little bit of a convoluted um item. It's
a reasonzoning request for five
[1:16:25] properties with a plan development
overlay. Um the project location is
[1:16:30] going to be roughly at the North Ohio
and High Street intersection.
[1:16:36] Um
the uh developer and their agent are
[1:16:41] here tonight, so if you have questions
for them, um you can ask them here in a
[1:16:47] minute. Um so 11:06 North Ohio and 1124
North Ohio are two properties that are
[1:16:55] part of this. they were acquired at uh
um auction.
[1:17:00] Um the developers plan to expand their
current existing commercial self-
[1:17:06] storage and recreational storage uh
facility um by introducing I believe
[1:17:12] three new or upwards of three new uh
commercial storage facilities. On August
[1:17:18] 12th, uh, planning commission heard the
request for the reszone and plan
[1:17:22] development overlay and recommended
approval.
[1:17:26] Um, since we don't see PDO requests in
all that often, I did want to give kind
[1:17:31] of a background on what a PDIO is and
kind of the purpose. Um, so PDIO is a
[1:17:37] plan development overlay. Uh really what
the goal of a PDIO is is to provide site
[1:17:42] design flexibility um and development
standards um for different kinds of
[1:17:46] projects that may not necessarily
cleanly fit into what zoning regulations
[1:17:50] would ordinarily require. Um in addition
to that, if if a developer comes in
[1:17:56] request says, "Hey, I'd like to do this
PDO." Um the city then has the option or
[1:18:01] opportunity to say we can do that but
we're going to also put in some sightsp
[1:18:06] specific uh restrictions and
requirements um that are going to be
[1:18:09] specific to this particular development.
U some of those restrictions can be um
[1:18:14] restricting uh land uses um requiring
buffering requiring lighting
[1:18:20] requirements u fencing standards and
operational standards. PDO will run with
[1:18:25] the land and any kind of major
deviations from the approved site plan
[1:18:31] um the applicant would have to seek or
the property owner in future years would
[1:18:35] have to seek an amendment to the
approved PDL.
[1:18:42] All right, so we've got the site plan up
here. Um couple of things to note. Uh
[1:18:46] the green does not necessarily show up
real well on the overhead there, so I
[1:18:49] apologize for that. Um but what we're
looking at here overall is um the red is
[1:18:57] the uh site plan for the uh proposed
resoning and plan development overlay.
[1:19:04] The two green areas there are also going
to be part of their property, but it
[1:19:09] will be outside of the plan development
overlay. Um the developers are intending
[1:19:14] to leave those areas as as uh there are
one designated zones uh for potential
[1:19:20] redevelopment uh into um single family
homes. Um but with the focus being on
[1:19:26] that red area. Um you can see that there
are uh several existing buildings. Uh in
[1:19:33] the north there's going to be two new
proposed buildings and then down to the
[1:19:37] southwest is going to be a proposed
building. um planning commission did
[1:19:43] request that the applicants um add in a
30-foot
[1:19:49] um landscape buffering and then a 20 or
excuse me 40 foot um building set back
[1:19:55] to that front yard area. Oh, excuse me.
Um that was to kind of help protect the
[1:20:00] aesthetic along the north Ohio corridor.
[1:20:13] Ohio Street's right here.
[1:20:17] » I want to see the other map.
>> Next slide. Yeah.
[1:20:23] All right. Then as part of the
recommended approval of the PDO, our
[1:20:28] sites uh requirements um those will be
dictated in the ordinance that's before
[1:20:33] you. Um it's going to articulate
permitted uses. Um basically it's going
[1:20:38] to say that the only permitted land uses
that are going to be within that uh PDO
[1:20:42] area is going to be commercial self
storage and the ancillary um office
[1:20:47] space uses. Um it's going to specific or
excuse me it's going to prohibit uh
[1:20:53] specific industrial uses. Um it's going
to set different operational
[1:20:56] restrictions uh set free street frontage
restriction or standards. uh require
[1:21:02] screening and buffering uh set lighting
standards and set traffic circulation
[1:21:07] standards. Uh so the goal with with all
those restrictions is to really make
[1:21:11] sure that whatever development is going
to be there um is going to be restricted
[1:21:15] specifically to essentially the already
existing um commercial self storage. Um,
[1:21:21] so wi if it ultimately ends up being
reszoned to that I1 with the PDIO
[1:21:26] overlay, um, no other highintensity
industrial use could come in and say,
[1:21:32] "Hey, yep, I want to build whatever
facility here. It would have to adhere
[1:21:36] to the standards that are in that PDO
requirement."
[1:21:41] » Hey Josh, can I see that Google map
again?
[1:21:44] » Yeah. And I can provide a little bit
more background. So currently there's
[1:21:49] the commercial self storage facility
that is there existing that existing
[1:21:56] property had three different zonings on
it. So it was residential up front and
[1:22:02] I'm sorry please correct me if I'm wrong
from memory. I'm going off of memory
[1:22:05] right now. I believe the front lot there
were three lots. The front lot was
[1:22:09] residential. This um second lot where
the office building is where that green
[1:22:13] roof is. Wait, that's residential.
>> Yep. Then there was commercial and then
[1:22:18] a portion of it is zoned is currently
zoned industrial.
[1:22:22] » Um so when the developer came in they
were looking at acquiring additional
[1:22:27] property to expand the business which
those three houses off of Ohio. So those
[1:22:32] are zoned residential and those
properties go like all the way back. So
[1:22:37] they're really
long properties. Um, and they were
[1:22:44] looking to acquire a lot of that green
space to expand the business. Um, they
[1:22:49] were able to acquire two of those homes
at auction. Um, and so we're what we're
[1:22:55] doing is we're separating those
residential lots. The front portion will
[1:22:58] remain residential zoning and the rear
portion will be absorbed by the business
[1:23:04] and the whole property that's going to
be used for the business. We're
[1:23:08] requesting a reszone to industrial with
that plan development overlay to protect
[1:23:14] the use intensity into the future. So
the PDO allows just the commercial self
[1:23:20] storage to be on that property. Um and
if it was ever to become any other
[1:23:26] business or sold, it would need to have
an amendment done to that PO PDO. It
[1:23:31] couldn't just be any industrial use. So
>> So Cammy,
[1:23:36] » there's a lot of moving parts, but But
on on Ohio, we're keeping the
[1:23:40] residential homes, though. Okay.
>> I I would say we're not necessarily
[1:23:44] keeping the homes. It's keeping a
residential zoning.
[1:23:47] » Okay. This is the second option that we
had. We had the first one that kind of
[1:23:52] put those out on the island, but we've
corrected that.
[1:23:54] » All right.
>> I will say the developers had taken all
[1:23:57] of our feedback and made adjustments to
their PDO along the process. So all of
[1:24:02] the recommendations and feedback that
staff has they've incorporated the
[1:24:05] feedback we heard from the public and
the planning commission they
[1:24:09] incorporated and this is the final
submission that was approved by the
[1:24:13] planning commission.
>> Thank you guys for working with us on
[1:24:15] that. I was at that meeting and uh
because that's W two and I had citizens
[1:24:19] concern but we haven't changed it what
you presented to the planning zoning
[1:24:25] that hasn't changed on the since we've
correct since they approved that. Right.
[1:24:29] Okay. Good. Thank you.
[1:24:38] Council
[1:24:47] » looks good to me. Yeah, I mean this was
our way of supporting, you know, an
[1:24:53] existing
business um and really trying to take
[1:24:58] advantage of some underutilized
land um within the city still.
[1:25:04] it will. So we, you know, we also hear
through
[1:25:09] all when we work with developers and
different business owners, you know,
[1:25:12] having to invest a lot of money into
these engineering plans and site
[1:25:18] concepts. Um, so we did work with the
developer to get them through the
[1:25:22] reszoning and PDO process first and then
as long that way they get the support
[1:25:28] from you guys to move forward and then
they are also actively in the platting
[1:25:33] and drainage process. So this will also
come before you again as a plat with the
[1:25:38] drainage plan as well. My next question
is we had the residential upfront,
[1:25:45] right? And so our house is our our town
is in need of housing as we all know.
[1:25:50] We're in a housing crisis.
Will you be able to allow any builders
[1:25:55] to develop those two up front that are
residents? You will and you'll work with
[1:25:59] them. Okay.
>> Yeah. I will make a note that that does
[1:26:05] not have an impact on your vote for the
reasoner PDIO. So we are
[1:26:10] » an impact on mine.
>> I'm sorry
[1:26:14] on mine.
>> Well the reasonzoning
[1:26:18] that is more of a business transaction a
private business dealing and it cannot
[1:26:22] be used in your decision making process
for the reszone. You're looking at it's
[1:26:28] whether you want those front lots to
stay residential and whether you want to
[1:26:32] look at industrial I could look at the
big picture in our future 5 years down
[1:26:36] the road.
>> But who they enter into a development
[1:26:40] contract with is not for the city
council to decide.
[1:26:44] » Yeah. Not really.
>> That's what I'm getting at is
[1:26:46] » Yeah. I think you and I are not on the
same page. I think you think I'm trying
[1:26:49] to uh do something I'm not trying to do.
I'm just I'm just asking
[1:26:53] » I'm just trying to give you the
appropriate legal advice for the things
[1:26:56] that you're considering when you're
making your decision.
[1:26:58] » Thank you.
>> You said moving parts.
[1:27:02] » There are a lot of moving parts. Yes.
[1:27:06] » My name is Jimmy. Um I'm the developer.
Thank you for having me here. Thank you
[1:27:10] for seeing this project. Um letting it
be presented. Our our intention as
[1:27:16] storage developers is to not take away
viable residential housing. um because
[1:27:21] it is a crisis all over the nation.
With that said, those two houses, I
[1:27:27] walked inside of them, they are
unlivable. They are in an unlivable
[1:27:31] state. Um so our intention is to scrape
them and then put two blank residential
[1:27:38] lots back on the market.
>> Thank you.
[1:27:40] » That that's our intention.
>> Thank you, J. So, uh, when you build the
[1:27:44] the next couple pieces back here, is is
it going to be like a
[1:27:49] a lot of concrete or is it going to be
rock, some kind of pvious?
[1:27:52] » It'll be asphalt as Yeah, that's what's
on the PDIO overlay is is asphalt
[1:27:56] paving. An imperous pavement,
[1:28:01] » any kind of ponds for runoff or
>> because I mean, we we all know how the
[1:28:08] the water travels through town. that
that will be at a later date once we get
[1:28:11] through the platting process.
[1:28:16] » And we had those preliminary
conversations with them when they first
[1:28:19] came into our office before we even went
down the PDO route is that there would
[1:28:25] be some drainage that needed to be
addressed, some significant drainage.
[1:28:30] Um, so they they've been aware of that
as they're building out these plans.
[1:28:35] » Thank you. So, um, Matthew Tucker, agent
for the applicant. Um, what the next
[1:28:41] thing that you guys are going to see, as
Cammy had mentioned, is the platting
[1:28:46] process. And inside that platting
process, we have to do a drainage report
[1:28:50] that will be based on the site plan that
also has to go through permitting. And
[1:28:54] um, a big part of this was actually the
discussions and we've had meetings.
[1:28:59] we've got to satisfy some drainage needs
in the area because of the capacity of
[1:29:02] that channel back there because of some
city requirements and things. So, um
[1:29:07] those documents are all in the process
of getting submitted. They'll have to go
[1:29:11] through their reviews and a final site
plan review to make sure that we don't
[1:29:14] negatively impact the drainage. I can
tell you that this PDO doesn't show any
[1:29:18] final design for drainage, but it is
absolutely something that we have to
[1:29:22] consider on the site.
>> Okay. Thank you. Y
[1:29:24] » thank you.
[1:29:30] Any other questions,
>> Cammy? For that Southwest building
[1:29:34] that's proposed where it has that 30foot
landscape buffer, what does that
[1:29:39] actually
>> look like?
[1:29:41] » Um, would you like to speak to it, Matt?
>> Thank you.
[1:29:46] » So, uh, the landscape buffer is kind of
a unique thing to this site and we had
[1:29:50] to kind of jump through some hoops to
define what that really was. Uh the
[1:29:53] intent of that or or um the reason that
that's there is it was one of the
[1:29:58] outcomes of the back and forth with the
planning commission and and city staff.
[1:30:03] There's a an old Yes, that tree right
there. That tree right there is what's
[1:30:08] driving the landscape buffer. We wanted
to make sure that we stayed outside of
[1:30:10] the root system for that tree. Um
there's a desire that was expressed at
[1:30:15] the planning commission meeting that we
don't ruin the feel of the neighborhood.
[1:30:19] And so we wanted to ensure that there
would be street tree space and green
[1:30:23] space out front um beyond just what you
govern with a building setback. So the
[1:30:30] landscape buffer is going to prevent any
paving out front there in that space. So
[1:30:36] it's going to make sure that our our
screening fence and any paving or orisle
[1:30:41] is back behind that 30foot. And that's
why we put that in there. um that is in
[1:30:46] line with what would be the building
setback for those residential lots to
[1:30:51] the north. So, we're actually going to
ensure not only are we not upstaging
[1:30:55] those residential lots, but we're
ensuring a a nice green space out in
[1:31:00] front and then our building set back is
even further back yet.
[1:31:05] » Thank you. And I saw in the PDO
requirements that some type of
[1:31:09] architectural
element was for the street facing side
[1:31:13] of it as well. So there's intended to be
some of that on that that faces Ohio.
[1:31:17] » Correct.
>> And then on that Google map photo where
[1:31:20] the stone fence to the south of that
proposed building ends and it turns to
[1:31:25] rot iron. Is there an intent to screen
that more so that that new building is
[1:31:30] not visible from the cemetery right
there or what is that plan?
[1:31:34] » So there is a screening requirement that
requires that 8 foot solid screening. I
[1:31:39] believe I'd have to go back to the
survey. I'm not sure if you can tell on
[1:31:42] the PDO where the end of that uh masonry
>> wall is versus the the landscaping
[1:31:48] buffer, but the landscaping buffer, that
30 foot landscaping buffer, that's going
[1:31:52] to be about where that screening wall
is. And so that screening wall would
[1:31:55] would be required to be continuous at
least to to connect to that if that
[1:31:59] doesn't come as far forward as that
30-foot buffer. I think that may
[1:32:02] actually be pretty close to where your
30- foot buffer is.
[1:32:05] » Yeah, it kind of looks like that. And I
just noticed that on that PDIO, the 8
[1:32:09] foot buffer is delineated on the north
side of it, but it's not on the south
[1:32:14] side. So that's why I was asking
>> the 8ft buffer.
[1:32:18] » Yeah, the 8 foot buffer.
>> We've focused more on the north side
[1:32:23] around the residential properties,
>> right?
[1:32:26] » Yeah. The 8ft screening fence. Yeah.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So it's got to come
[1:32:30] there's if you zoom in on that, I don't
know if you can, but there's kind of a
[1:32:33] squared fence line. That fence has got
to come all the way down along those
[1:32:38] residential lots on the back, too.
Right. Um it's it's a general screening
[1:32:42] requirement. And it actually should stop
um at the landscaping buffer there where
[1:32:49] it hits Ohio.
>> Yeah,
[1:32:50] » it looks like it does not. It should. Uh
and then that that buffer fence would
[1:32:56] then come down along the landscape
buffer line.
[1:33:01] » And did we have public comment for the
planning?
[1:33:04] » We did. And what was the public comment?
>> Um, well, we received some written
[1:33:08] communication. We had some conversations
over the phone. We did have some comment
[1:33:14] at the public hearing, but do you want
to speak to it?
[1:33:18] » Yes, I would kind of preface
>> summaries. Um yeah, I would kind of
[1:33:22] preface the the public comments um with
the idea that we had originally sent out
[1:33:27] public notifications for an original
version of the PDIO site plan um that
[1:33:33] ultimately was not presented to planning
commission. So some of them the public
[1:33:37] comments that received are in relation
to that first plan that weren't
[1:33:40] necessarily applicable to the current
plan. Um but in general a lot of the
[1:33:46] concerns were related to uh traffic um
impact to just kind of neighborhood
[1:33:53] character and then kind of what the
ultimate vision for the city is long
[1:33:58] term.
there there was some feedback about
[1:34:02] maintaining those three front properties
as residential
[1:34:06] um and keeping those as residential and
then also some feedback of they're
[1:34:12] supportive of this PDO and the expansion
um but they don't want to see a lot more
[1:34:18] industrial and probably even some
commercial in this specific corridor.
[1:34:26] » That's my questions. I would just say I
applaud you guys for working with them
[1:34:30] and building the feedback into your
plan. So, appreciate that.
[1:34:34] » Agreed.
[1:34:48] Council,
[1:34:52] I move for the approval of ordinance
number 2270
[1:34:56] reszoning certain property within the
city of Augusta, Kansas to an A1
[1:35:00] industrial zoning district with a plan
development overlay PDIO approving a PDO
[1:35:05] site development plan and amending the
official zoning map of the city of
[1:35:09] Augusta, Kansas.
>> Second. And then that's I1.
[1:35:13] » Oh, sorry. What did I say?
>> A1,
[1:35:16] » guys. It's almost 9:00. I'm real tired.
You want me to resend
[1:35:23] it to I1.
>> You still second.
[1:35:28] » She amended her movement motion. I said
second. Second, third, fourth, and
[1:35:32] fifth.
>> All those in favor say I.
[1:35:36] » I. Oh, it's a roll.
>> It doesn't say that.
[1:35:42] Well, I said Martin.
>> Hey, I'm sorry.
[1:35:46] » It's a roll call vote since it's an
ordinance.
[1:35:48] » Oh, it is.
>> Martin, it doesn't say that on the
[1:35:51] » Yes.
>> Lick Lighter,
[1:35:52] » yes.
>> Bailey,
[1:35:54] » yes.
>> Scott,
[1:35:55] » yes.
>> Richardson,
[1:35:56] » yes.
>> Davis,
[1:35:58] » yes.
>> Whitey,
[1:35:59] » yes.
>> Mah,
[1:36:00] » yes.
>> Motion carries.
[1:36:03] » Thank you. Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you, gentlemen. Thanks for
[1:36:08] investing in our town.
[1:36:14] » Wow.
>> Item seven, guaranteed maximum price
[1:36:17] amendment with Don Winger and Sons
Construction for the August public works
[1:36:21] complex
staff.
[1:36:26] » Yes. Uh, mayor and council, this item is
uh related to past actions that you've
[1:36:32] taken on the public works complex as you
recall uh in
[1:36:37] » Hang on. Josh, I
>> I can't hear you. Something's wrong.
[1:36:41] » Yeah, I've been
>> Okay.
[1:36:50] In uh May of 2026, the council entered
into a contract, a construction manager
[1:36:56] at risk semar contract with Don Linger
and Sun's construction. As you remember,
[1:37:03] as you might recall, under that model,
we are working in partnership where the
[1:37:08] contractor, our engineer, and the city
are a team that are actively working on
[1:37:14] the design on value engineering from the
beginning as a team. And up to this
[1:37:20] point, the council has authorized the um
the maximum amounts for certain line
[1:37:27] items but not for the overall project.
And uh those it those line items were
[1:37:33] updated on August 3rd, 2026. It shows
that list that was included tonight.
[1:37:40] What you have before you is the uh the
guaranteed maximum limit essentially for
[1:37:46] all of the other line items in the
project. So this is setting the maximum
[1:37:50] for the overall project. Uh that number
was negotiated between staff, between
[1:37:56] the engineer and with Don Linger. And
the guaranteed maximum price came out at
[1:38:01] 7,520,913.
[1:38:06] That is also inclusive of uh over
$300,000 in contingency. So we've left
[1:38:12] us some some room in case anything comes
up. uh if it doesn't come up then that
[1:38:18] that is money that we don't necessarily
have to spend. Um this also gives this
[1:38:23] the ability to to be under as well. But
if you're going to exceed any of the
[1:38:29] align items, that can only be done by a
change order approved
[1:38:34] uh by council.
Um
[1:38:39] what I'm going to show you as you have
this contract. I'm going to skip down to
[1:38:45] where the line item proposal is because
this shows you
[1:38:50] um essentially the whole scope of the
project. If you all can see it, you may
[1:38:55] not be able to read every single line
from what I'm showing up here unless I
[1:38:59] zoom in really close, but do you see the
green color that's in the notes section
[1:39:02] off to the right? That bullet point
list. Uh this green color is showing
[1:39:08] what you had previously approved and
what you had locked in. The amendment
[1:39:13] before you tonight, everything that is
not shown as green is getting locked in
[1:39:17] as a maximum price. So that's the
overall contract, but that's also on a
[1:39:22] line item basis as well. And so uh this
sets the overall uh maximum number of
[1:39:30] 7,520,913.
[1:39:34] You can see down here.
[1:39:45] So there is your maximum number. This
number includes 375,000 of contingency.
[1:39:51] So there is protection in case we uh we
run into something as part of the
[1:39:56] project. Uh but otherwise I think staff
was happy with the discussions with Don
[1:40:02] Linger. we've already come up with a
couple of small things or there may be
[1:40:05] more along the way. The point of having
the team is to do value engineering and
[1:40:09] work throughout uh the process to to try
to save money where we can and where it
[1:40:14] makes sense. And so we already have a
couple of small ideas, but there may be
[1:40:17] some other things that come up as we're
building where we can potentially try to
[1:40:21] lower that even more. Uh but this is
within the budget that we had
[1:40:25] established for the project and so we uh
feel comfortable with this pricing and
[1:40:32] uh the recommendation tonight is for us
to go ahead and move forward and lock
[1:40:37] this in our guaranteed maximum price. In
uh in doing so, we will officially begin
[1:40:45] the uh the mobilization process. So all
the way up to this point, all the
[1:40:50] decades and years that we've been
working uh towards this moment, we're
[1:40:54] still not technically in a construction
phase, but once you authorize that
[1:40:57] amendment and have set the guaranteed
max on the project, then Don Linger uh
[1:41:01] can start planning their construction.
And I believe that their mobilization
[1:41:05] plan is to be on site in November
starting. Um and then it's going to be a
[1:41:10] pretty lengthy construction. There's a
lot of buildings and things that go
[1:41:13] along with it, a lot of utility
upgrades, but they will be mobilizing
[1:41:18] in November according to the latest
project schedule that's conceived in
[1:41:21] this amendment. So, with that, I'll turn
it over to you if you have any
[1:41:25] questions. Uh Brad is also uh up to
speed and in speaking with the other JO
[1:41:31] folks that have been working with us on
this. So, we'll we'll try to answer
[1:41:34] everything that that you have for us
tonight.
[1:41:39] If if I could, Josh always does a really
good job of summarizing just one
[1:41:43] insertion. So, between now and
groundbreaking in November,
[1:41:49] uh we're going to advertise
uh hopefully within a week. So, if you
[1:41:53] guys approve tonight, we advertise
within a week. So, what you have in
[1:41:57] front of you is like this is my
understanding is this is what Doner says
[1:42:03] they'll bid it for. And that's why it's
a guaranteed max price. But every item,
[1:42:08] every line item we can get a competitive
bid on, we're going to get at least
[1:42:12] three competitive bid on bids on so the
price can come under that GMP. So that's
[1:42:19] going to happen a week from now. We'll
have three weeks of bidding. Uh so
[1:42:23] that's kind of open book. It's very
transparent. It's very regulated how it
[1:42:27] has to happen in this in the Semar
process. Um where we're getting these
[1:42:31] competitive bids. Doninger has to submit
theirs kind of in a sealed envelope.
[1:42:36] um you know they can't get the other
biders bids and say I'm going to be at
[1:42:41] $1 under that. So they have to submit
first and then you get these other bids
[1:42:45] from the other vendors. So hopefully we
come in even below and then everything
[1:42:51] everything before and after that what
Josh said is correct. So we're hoping to
[1:42:55] break ground. They told me this calendar
year they told me November but they said
[1:42:58] don't promise council November. So this
calendar year for breaking ground
[1:43:03] hopefully November. I think we should
ribbon cutting in November no matter
[1:43:07] what.
>> I heard it. Yeah.
[1:43:10] » Or a groundbreaking. Maybe get the
golden shovels out there or something.
[1:43:16] » Josh, not related to the guaranteed
maximum, but just the project in general
[1:43:20] when they do break ground. Um, will the
compost pile be still available and
[1:43:24] relocated or what will that look like?
>> We've already relocated the compost pile
[1:43:28] to its location
>> for it was moved for this project. Yeah.
[1:43:33] So it won't be moved again.
>> It No, it should be perfect.
[1:43:44] » This might be a stupid question, but uh
we got this maximum bid of 7 million
[1:43:49] five. What happens if it goes above
that? If something happens and we got to
[1:43:54] go above that.
>> The point of the guaranteed max is for
[1:43:57] that to be your guaranteed max. Now, if
it's going to exceed any of those
[1:44:02] individual line items, that cannot be
done without your approval.
[1:44:06] » It cannot be what?
>> It cannot be done without your approval.
[1:44:12] » So, if they go over and they come back
and say, "We can't finish this project
[1:44:17] because
we don't have your approval."
[1:44:20] Are we stuck with a halfbuilt situation?
>> I I wouldn't believe so. I mean the
[1:44:26] point of having a guaranteed max is you
are setting the limits on the project.
[1:44:30] So Don Langanger has bid it accordingly
to deliver the project.
[1:44:34] » Okay.
>> I'm just playing the devil's ad going
[1:44:37] through this process where you have the
individual line item and the individual
[1:44:40] elements. It'll have competitive bids as
well. The goal is to try to get it even
[1:44:44] lower. It doesn't it would not behoove
them at all to not deliver on that
[1:44:49] contract. And and part of the reason for
doing the selection process you did when
[1:44:54] Don Linger was selected was to work with
a vendor that you felt comfortable
[1:45:00] forming a partnership with of that
nature to deliver the project. Don
[1:45:04] Linger has is an experienced developer,
an experienced builder. They have built
[1:45:08] many projects for us quite substantial
scale and uh we went through a selection
[1:45:15] process to choose them as opposed to
other potential vendors. part of that
[1:45:19] consideration being the likelihood that
they deliver the project. So
[1:45:26] that that was background before this.
Now you can have issues with any single
[1:45:30] contract that you ever execute, but we
went through a process to end up with a
[1:45:35] good vendor that we trusted and and
that's where we're at at this moment.
[1:45:39] » I've been snake bit before. I need more
money. I need more money. So that's what
[1:45:42] I'm coming from.
>> Josh said that very well. Um, staff has
[1:45:47] talked about
I think we have a very good contractor.
[1:45:53] I think they have a good reputation. I
think they're local. I think they
[1:45:56] understand that their reputation rides
with these. Uh, but there is never no
[1:46:02] risk. This is a this is a site that has
had what's underground. We don't know
[1:46:08] exhaustively. When they start breaking
ground, we might find unsuitable soils.
[1:46:12] We might find un unanticipated
utilities.
[1:46:16] So, like I think the key risk that we've
talked about internally and with staff
[1:46:21] is uh when we're digging foundations,
what are we going to find there? Like
[1:46:25] it's if if we come back to you,
hopefully we don't come back to you at
[1:46:30] all because we're doing this under the
sub the GMP, but if we do, it's probably
[1:46:34] because we're finding something
underground that we just we don't know
[1:46:37] till we start digging.
>> Good point.
[1:46:49] Make a motion to approve
the guaranteed maximum price amendment
[1:46:56] pursuant to section 3.2.6 of the
agreement with Doninger and Suns
[1:47:00] Construction Company for the Augusta
Public Works campus project to approve
[1:47:03] and establish a guaranteed maximum
price.
[1:47:07] » Second.
>> It keeps going.
[1:47:09] » Got a motion and a second. All those in
favor say I.
[1:47:13] » I.
>> Any opposed?
[1:47:16] Motion carries.
[1:47:20] » Thank you. Thank you.
[1:47:26] » Okay. Item number eight. We want to
appoint somebody to the League of Kansas
[1:47:32] Mun Municipalities voting delegate
appointment.
[1:47:39] Kip,
you want to do that?
[1:47:43] » I'm the only one going to it. Already
said I get to it.
[1:47:47] » Make a motion to
>> point Kip Richardson as the city's
[1:47:51] voting delegate at the League of Kansas
Municipalities annual business meeting
[1:47:54] and convention of voting delegates.
>> Second.
[1:47:57] » Got a motion and a second. All those in
favor say I.
[1:48:00] » I.
>> Any opposed?
[1:48:03] Motion carries.
Item H,
[1:48:08] matters from and for council.
So, we need to consider selection of the
[1:48:14] city council members to serve on the
safe streets for all steering committee.
[1:48:19] What
>> Cammy? Is that your committee?
[1:48:24] » You do or don't?
>> Um, sure.
[1:48:27] » Yes.
>> Yes. We
[1:48:29] » Yes.
>> We need one or two.
[1:48:31] » You told me it was your
>> Yes. We need one or two council members.
[1:48:35] Um, it's not a fixed number how many you
want to appoint. I think any more than
[1:48:39] two is probably too many. Uh, if you
only want one, that's fine. But if we
[1:48:43] can find one or two that would
participate, that would be great.
[1:48:46] » I volunteer.
>> I volunteer.
[1:48:49] » Yep.
>> Kip volunteer.
[1:48:51] » Did I hear Jake?
>> Jake.
[1:48:53] » Yeah.
[1:48:59] » Do we need to vote on them? if he could
motion and vote to appoint.
[1:49:04] » Okay.
Make a motion.
[1:49:07] » I make a motion to appoint Kip
Richardson and Jake Maher uh to let me
[1:49:14] find it to the city's voting delegation
at the League of Nove to serve on the
[1:49:22] state streets. I'm sorry. All staring
committee. I apologize.
[1:49:26] » Second.
>> These glasses don't work.
[1:49:28] » Got a motion in a second. All those in
favor say I. I.
[1:49:31] » Any opposed? Motion carries.
Okay. Mr. Martin, do you have anything
[1:49:38] tonight?
Yes. I have one item um
[1:49:44] in the
block of um Clark Street, the 200 East
[1:49:51] block, eastern 200 block of Clark
Street.
[1:49:56] um
had a citizen
[1:50:01] very upset about the bricks that are in
the road.
[1:50:06] And uh when it does rain, we haven't had
any rain for a while, but when it does
[1:50:09] rain, it holds water where he parks his
car, his truck, and it uh very slippery,
[1:50:18] but some of the bricks are coming clear
up out of the road. I drove through it
[1:50:23] today and
uh it is a site that needs to be taken
[1:50:29] care of, but a lot of the people that
live on the south side of that street in
[1:50:34] there, it's really, really, really
rough. And um
[1:50:40] that's all I have, Mr. Mayor.
>> Okay.
[1:50:45] Matt, have you got anything?
>> Nothing, Mr. Mayor.
[1:50:47] » Bob,
>> nothing. Mr.
[1:50:51] I all I got is to echo what Mike said. I
had people reach out to me this past
[1:50:57] couple weeks about the same thing, same
spot, same place, and they're getting
[1:51:01] highly frustrated over there.
And that's all I got.
[1:51:07] Kim.
>> Yeah. I just wanted to um I guess
[1:51:11] reiterate that we got this meeting
coming up on the 14th
[1:51:15] and you know public participation you
know would be great in input and things
[1:51:22] on this so we know kind of have an idea
what you want. I know we've heard from
[1:51:27] and listened to and seen on Facebook and
things several things that have been
[1:51:32] mentioned and things, but uh I'd like to
like I said rather I'd rather somebody
[1:51:37] come down and talk to us rather than see
it on Facebook
[1:51:43] can just Monday the 14th at 5:30 here.
[1:51:48] » Sean,
>> nothing for me.
[1:51:52] » Nothing, Mr. Mayor.
>> Okay.
[1:51:54] » Nothing, sir.
Mr. Richardson. All right. Mr. Mayor,
[1:51:59] make a motion to go move into recess and
executive session from 9:07 p.m. to for
[1:52:08] 15 minutes um for preliminary discussion
of the acquisition of real property
[1:52:12] pursuant to the preliminary discussion
of the acquisition of real property
[1:52:16] exception KSA754319
[1:52:19] uh B6. I asked the city manager Shaw,
assistant city manager Cammy Schro, and
[1:52:24] the city attorney join the council
executive session. The open meeting of
[1:52:27] the governing body will reconvene at uh
7:15 20
[1:52:35] » 22
>> 9:22 p.m.
[1:52:38] » Second.
>> Motion a second. All those in favor say
[1:52:42] I.
>> Any opposed? Motion carries.
[1:52:47] Let's go to the little room over there.
Thanks, Major.
[1:52:55] » Do you remember Major
[2:06:34] You're
>> okay.
[2:06:36] » Mr. Mayor, I make a motion to exit
executive session where no action was
[2:06:40] taken.
>> Second.
[2:06:42] » Got a motion and a second. All those in
favor say I.
[2:06:45] » I.
>> Any oppose? Motion carries. Mr. Mr.
[2:06:48] Mayor, I make a motion to recession
executive session
[2:06:52] from 9:23 to 9:38 p.m. for preliminary
discussion of the acquisition of real
[2:06:56] property property pursuant to the
preliminary discussion acquisition of
[2:07:00] real property exception KSA 754319B6
as the city manager Josh Shaw assistant
[2:07:07] city manager Cammy Shro and city man
attorney join the council in executive
[2:07:11] session the open meeting of the
governing bar reconvening the council
[2:07:14] chambers at 9:38 p.m.
>> Second. Got a motion and a second. All
[2:07:19] those in favor say I.
>> Any opposed? Motion carries. We'll be
[2:07:24] back in 15 minutes.
[2:22:54] May I make a motion to executive sess
exit executive session where no action
[2:22:59] was taken?
>> Second.
[2:23:00] » Got a motion and a second. All those in
favor say I.
[2:23:03] » I.
>> Any opposed? Motion carries.
[2:23:07] » Mr. May I make a motion to go in
executive session for 20 minutes um from
[2:23:12] 9:38 p.m. to 9:58 p.m. to discuss a
developers agreement pursuant to the
[2:23:17] consultation with an attorney for the
public body or agency which will be
[2:23:21] deemed privileged in the attorney client
relationship justification of executive
[2:23:25] sessions under the Kansas Open Meetings
Act KSA 75 4319B2 and to invite city
[2:23:31] manager Josh Shaw assistant city manager
Cammy Schae and assistant city attorney
[2:23:36] Andrew Marino. The open meeting will
resume the city council chambers at 9:59
[2:23:41] p.m.
>> Second. Got a motion and a second. All
[2:23:45] those in favor say I.
>> I.
[2:23:47] » Any opposed? Motion carries. We'll be
back in 20 minutes. Just about 10:00,
[2:23:53] folks.
[2:42:20] He can make it there before they close.
>> May I make a motion to exit executive
[2:42:26] session where no action was taken?
>> Second.
[2:42:28] » Second.
>> Got a motion and a second to exit
[2:42:32] executive session where no action was
taken. All those in favor say I.
[2:42:37] » I.
>> Any opposed? Motion carries.
[2:42:40] » Mr. Mayor, make a motion to journ this
meeting. Second.
[2:42:44] » Got a motion and a couple seconds to uh
end the meeting for the evening. All
[2:42:48] those in favor say I.
>> I.
[2:42:50] » Any opposed? Motion carries. Remember,
next Monday night, 5:30 here, budget
[2:42:56] meeting.
[2:43:05] » Yeah.
>> Good night.