[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.

September 8, 2026 City Council Meeting

Transcript