[0:05] give you a really good reading.

[0:11] » Hey, how's that trailer been sitting in front of your restaurant? The one that

[0:15] » day before yesterday, >> the the whole chassis fell off of it.

[0:18] It's just sitting there. I guess he came back and checked on it the other day.

[0:22] Think he's going to get it out of there. >> Okay.

[0:23] » Yeah. It's kind of a weird It's a weird story.

[0:26] » Yeah. >> Yeah. I was

[0:28] » No, it fell off right there. I noticed that tonight, yesterday he ran into his

[0:31] restroom and said, "Is everything okay?" And he goes, "Not really." [laughter]

[0:36] » So,

[0:40] call the meeting order for Tuesday, September 1st, 2026.

[0:45] The I'm sorry. >> No, 2026. Oh.

[0:51] » Uh, as you see, Councilman U Constanescu is not here tonight. So,

[0:59] we'll just go ahead and proceed with the normal business. Uh, and do I have an

[1:04] approval of the agenda? A motion for the approval of the agenda.

[1:09] » A motion to >> do I have a second to approve the

[1:12] agenda? >> I have a second.

[1:13] » Second. >> All in favor say I.

[1:15] » I. >> All post say nay. Passes. Next thing we

[1:19] move to is to the consent agenda. Uh, for the matter of expediency, I won't go

[1:24] through every list like what I normally do. Uh, since the council has viewed

[1:29] that, do I have a motion for approval on a consent agenda?

[1:33] » Can I add just a couple? >> Sure.

[1:35] » Um, for the marching festival for Baker, that uh application was mailed in. I

[1:42] have emailed him for a map because uh that's really important for PD and um

[1:48] public works and we I I can't get a hold of them. So, it's pending that we get

[1:52] that map of what street they're wanting closed off.

[1:55] » Okay. And then on number four, um, everything's approved except for at this

[2:00] point we can't do a background check on the applicants, uh, because the record

[2:04] management system is down. So, as soon as that's done, we will go ahead and do

[2:08] the background check. >> Very good. Thank you.

[2:12] Do I have a motion for a quick question? So, does our approval of that is it

[2:18] going to be dependent on the street day? >> It's pending.

[2:21] » What's pending? the map. I >> understand, but we can't. Are we going

[2:26] to improve a pending? My question is we approve a [clears throat] pending

[2:30] street. Can they pick a street that we wouldn't want them?

[2:32] » Well, okay. So, they usually it is uh is that

[2:35] » Dearborn? It's Dearborn. >> Dear,

[2:37] » right? >> Fremont. So, usually it's Fremont from

[2:40] the stadium down to Third Street. The last year they wanted further and we

[2:46] denied that. >> This is for the first home game.

[2:49] » No, this is for the marching band festival.

[2:51] » Oh, okay. I'm sorry. I was thinking something else.

[2:52] » No, no. Um, so as long as as long as that's what they're requesting.

[2:57] » So why don't we just approve that? >> Okay.

[3:00] » If we're not going to approve anything else, if they requested it,

[3:04] » we just don't know what street that this is very vague on what street they're

[3:08] wanting. [laughter] >> I say we've approved what they did last

[3:10] year and if it doesn't work to come back.

[3:14] » Fremont. >> Be specific.

[3:15] » Fremont from the stadium to third. >> And that's what we're approving. Okay.

[3:20] » That's feel bad. the amendment to the consent agenda, her consent. Yeah. Or to

[3:25] the application. So, >> all right. Everyone good with that? Do I

[3:30] have a a motion to accept the consent agenda as

[3:34] modified? >> I move that we accept the consent agenda

[3:40] with the modification that we have conditionally approved for last year's

[3:45] map for the marching band festival. Um and if it deviates, we'll have to come

[3:50] back. >> Very good. Thank you.

[3:53] » Second it. >> All in favor say I.

[3:56] » All oppose say nay. Passed. Now we move to the public comment section where we

[4:02] allow members of our community public and the comm public to come up and

[4:06] possibly make a comment. You can feel free to approach the podium. If you do

[4:11] come up and comment, I ask you provide your name and your address.

[4:15] » My name is Rebecca McMillan. 1102 Dearborn Street.

[4:20] Mayor and city council, after working on the Save the Lake project since the

[4:26] night of November 5th, 2024, I understand what a difficult job you

[4:31] have had trying to listen to so many views that the people of Baldwin City

[4:36] have about everything. I also know that the problems of not having the money to

[4:41] meet everyone's needs and dreams of our community.

[4:44] It was a good experience for us as a committee to work with city council Jay

[4:50] and Julie and we learned so much that way.

[4:55] Our committee has worked hard at the lake putting in hundreds of hours of

[4:59] actual labor. We have been reopening the trails, repairing the signage,

[5:04] rebuilding the foot bridges, and rediscovering the staircase built in the

[5:08] 1930s by the WPA. No one had seen it for years.

[5:13] We tried to apply for grants. We were not able to get a grant this spring from

[5:17] Douglas County without either the Baldwin City's partial funding or

[5:20] matching funds of some kind. That's when we started our donation fundraiser and

[5:26] now have a little over 15,000. Committee member Kenny Nihoff has worked

[5:32] very hard and has officially been awarded this grant to fix the spillway

[5:37] from the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks. It's a CFAP grant and we met

[5:44] at the lake with the biologists last Friday to talk about how this will

[5:48] happen. And please, many city residents are

[5:52] behind us and we need Baldwin City to put whatever they can into the Baldwin

[5:56] City Park budget to help us fix the spillway. It is for the maintenance of

[6:01] their community lake. We need the city to do their part. Mowing is excellent.

[6:07] They always do this and it looks wonderful, but it will not repair the

[6:11] spillway. That part should be under the

[6:14] maintenance of this city park. It is the treasure of many acres of mature timber

[6:20] and grassland surrounding the lake. And the disc golf course was originally put

[6:24] there in collabor collaboration with the community development program which

[6:29] included Baker University. I just found that out this week. It was kind of old

[6:32] news, but it was 2014 that they did that in collaboration with them. The lake is

[6:38] a treasure for our f future generations. It may be the one thing that stands out

[6:44] and makes our community more unique than other small towns. Thank you for

[6:49] listening to me again and again and again. Thank you.

[6:54] » Thank you, Beggy. Thank you, everyone. >> Yes. Thanks, everyone. and

[6:57] [clears throat] Councilman Jay sitting down there to go through the lead the

[7:02] committees and everything else. Jay King, very good. Thank you. Do I have

[7:05] anyone else would care to make a comment?

[7:09] I take that as a no. So the public comment section for this uh uh

[7:13] opportunity is closed. Uh we move to E. We really have no special reports or

[7:18] presentations. Uh we move to F which is old business of which there is none. Now

[7:23] we move to G, new business. uh this is the thing that we've been working for at

[7:28] least for me the last three to four months in this uh budgetary issue. So

[7:34] I'm asking everyone please understand uh everyone does a budget different. I have

[7:39] been through numerous budgets. Please bear with me as we move through this. Uh

[7:44] so what I want to do is the first thing on our new business is uh the hearing to

[7:49] exceed revenue neutral. Uh, and um, since I have asked for that, I am going

[7:56] to open up the floor to the public to go through and make any comments they feel

[8:01] like they might want to make.

[8:07] Seeing none, we'll move on. Move on then, please. Uh, I am going to

[8:12] introduce resolution 2026 hyphen 10 hyphen exceeding revenue

[8:18] neutral. Uh and uh what I want to do is I'm going to actually introduce that

[8:25] resolution and I'm going to open the matter for the council for discussion at

[8:29] [clears throat] this time.

[8:37] Do I have any >> I'm sorry, sir.

[8:41] » Yeah. Go ahead. >> I just want to tell you the impact of

[8:45] adhering to the RNR would do to your budget. um your proposed

[8:53] uh the mill we're proposing for this year uh if you were to not go with that

[8:59] and go with RNR, it would be a negative $286,000

[9:03] to your uh mostly to your general fund. Uh if you were to go with RNR, it would

[9:08] be $323,000 less than what you adopted last year and it would be $352,000

[9:14] less than what you adopted in 2025. Now, those are based on current year

[9:18] valuation. So, it's not quite a true apples to apples comparison. But when

[9:21] you take into account your valuation versus the mill levies you applied in

[9:25] those particular years, that's the impact it would have. It would virtually

[9:28] wipe out all of the general fund fund balance that you've managed to build up

[9:32] over the last couple of years or that we've managed to maintain anyway going

[9:35] into going into next year. So, I just wanted to point that out. Thank you.

[9:40] » Very good. Thank you. And that was Matt Wolf with Baker Tilly.

[9:46] Sorry, >> Matt Long.

[9:49] » Matt Long. Matt Wolf. I called you a different name. Matt Long. My apologies.

[9:54] » A long apology. Okay. >> You got to do it back.

[9:57] » That's right. Come back up here and do it again. Thank you. Uh, so no really

[10:02] discussion from the council. >> Um, so yeah, there's discussion. Um, so

[10:07] exceeding revenue neutral, we were exceeding by how much?

[10:12] is >> you want to step back up to the podium

[10:15] please. Matt Long >> L A WN

[10:19] » lawn lawn >> like that dead thing in the front of

[10:21] your house right now if you don't have mind.

[10:23] » Thank you. >> Okay. Versus so as compared to what we

[10:26] are proposing this year which is still a 6 mil less than what you adopted last

[10:30] year. It is still a it would be a loss of $286,000.

[10:35] » So the current proposal is is less of a mill. It's it's a mil decrease as

[10:39] compared to last year >> compared to what you adopted last year.

[10:42] It is a mill decrease. We adopted last year with an error being made in that

[10:48] essentially [clears throat] we forgot to inflate the uh dollar amount of what we

[10:54] adopted because we had to. So what ended up happening is when you have an RNR or

[11:00] a u not RNR um excuse me um NRP program like

[11:07] you do uh neighbor revitalization the way it works is they pay their full

[11:11] amount of taxes and they get rebated a certain portion. Well last year we did

[11:14] not include the amount of the rebate on the revenue side. It was included on the

[11:18] expenditure side not the revenue side. So the amount you levied we paid a

[11:22] refund on money that never got paid. So that's why we're we're putting that back

[11:27] in this year. And so we're still getting a

[11:30] it it still ends up being about 06 mil decrease over what you adopted last year

[11:35] even though the actual amount that was build to people was lower because we

[11:39] essentially they got they they got a rebate for not taxes that didn't get

[11:43] paid >> as it averaged out. That's what

[11:46] happened. >> So this is to fix that error.

[11:48] » This is to fix that error. Correct. >> We are not exceeding the the mill levy.

[11:52] » No. compared to last year. >> Mill levy you adopted last year was I'm

[11:56] sorry. Give me one moment here. I've got a uh

[12:01] I'm used to using a mouse, not a um

[12:08] millia adopted last year total was 42.890.

[12:13] The mill levy we're requesting this year is 42.269. So it's technically about a

[12:17] point just over a 6 uh reduction in adopted mill levy versus this year

[12:23] versus last year. Um most of that is

[12:28] uh I mean most of that change is coming out of the general fund and it's it you

[12:32] know it's not nothing but it's we still we as we've shown you we still think we

[12:36] can achieve a very close to uh you know your 15% reserve target next

[12:43] year with this mill levy and other other revenue coming in as well. But we think

[12:50] that you'll be able to achieve that with the mill levy we've proposed.

[13:02] But the point of this exercise is to show you how much I mean you you would

[13:06] wipe it out. You you would go negative in general fund I I believe without if

[13:10] if you if you adopt the the RNR rate which is 37.4. [clears throat and cough]

[13:27] questions. Just just a we we're using a lot of acronyms. We're saying a lot of

[13:32] words. Uh just want to put it out there real clearly that that the proposed

[13:36] budget your property taxes will not increase. They will go slightly down

[13:41] » on the municipal side. >> And I can't talk about other taxing

[13:44] agencies, but Yeah. For the portion you pay to your

[13:47] city taxes that you were you would requesting that we are staff is

[13:52] requesting that you adopt a budget that is about 6 mills lower than what you

[13:56] adopted last year. >> So let's restate that because the mills

[14:00] is only a part of what your tax bill is made on. So the property tax went up 5%.

[14:06] Yeah. So even with Right. Right. Sorry. >> So so be careful. I mean we get mill

[14:10] concerned confused with what you actually

[14:12] » right right yeah >> it's going up based on the assessed

[14:16] valuation going up >> right but that's every year

[14:18] » the point is it's going up less than it would have

[14:21] » correct >> had we increase the mill levy

[14:23] » right so the point of the RNR is to is to intentionally lower the amount of tax

[14:30] paid and received to the dollar amount that was that was uh levied the prior

[14:37] year. So the whole point of this is just the basically that what that shows is

[14:42] between 4.890 and 37.447 mills that is the diff that's the impact that

[14:47] valuation increase had overall for the city. Now, it's not going to hit not not

[14:51] everybody's house went up by that much, but citywide the total valuation

[14:57] increased by for about five and a half mills versus

[15:03] um versus versus last year overall. Now, it

[15:08] doesn't mean it's like I said, doesn't mean it's going to hit everybody, but

[15:10] yes, the tax calculation is rate times base. So if your base went up because of

[15:14] uh because of appreciation and value, then even a lower rate is you're going

[15:19] to pay more than you did the prior year. >> Right,

[15:25] » Matt, when you're talking these totals, I'm just looking at the summary page. Um

[15:31] uh you know, it's got the actual tax rate from 26 with a total I mean the

[15:35] different general debt service libraries in there. Um,

[15:43] and so it's got the totals down at the bottom. So when you're Are you speaking

[15:47] of totals as far as >> Yeah. So the the to the amount you

[15:52] actually adopted last year, and I can produce the certificate if you want to

[15:54] look at it. The amount you actually adopted last year was 42.890 mills

[15:57] total. That, like I said, because it did not have the RNR rebate included in that

[16:02] that it it the county artificially lowered it.

[16:04] » The amount of revenue you're receiving >> got as to what is showing on the actual

[16:07] tax on the the actual that's what it automatically brought it down to is that

[16:10] actual tax amount. >> Um

[16:14] okay, that's that was my question.

[16:17] » Yeah.

[16:23] » But be I'm not saying we're doing anything wrong here, but um if you do

[16:27] have a motion or anybody wants to make a motion to exceed the RNR, we still need

[16:33] to have budget hearing discussions in the regular budget hearing. So Okay.

[16:38] Yeah, good point. We're probably getting into that next hearing. [clears throat]

[16:41] This I think this resolution is just to exceed

[16:46] » Yeah. Revenue. >> Revenue neutral.

[16:50] The next one is by how much? >> Right.

[16:58] » Right. Doesn't mean we have to. >> So, okay.

[17:04] » When will that do we know when that hearing is going to be?

[17:06] » Right. Right. >> Oh. Oh. Oh, yeah. Okay. Yes.

[17:09] » I'm snatched. >> Okay.

[17:11] » Was like I'm slightly confused, but now it makes sense.

[17:14] » Okay. Thank you. >> So, just so we're clear, a yes vote is

[17:17] to exceed revenue neutral and no vote would be not to.

[17:21] » Yes.

[17:30] has everyone had an opportunity to go through and kind of look at it and make

[17:33] a decision to go ahead and uh >> just to be clear um

[17:39] because and I know I'm getting into the weeds on it, but because of the the the

[17:43] library uh error that occurred that we now have to there would be no way that

[17:47] we could go less than revenue neutral because we have to have the pass through

[17:52] from them. I >> mean, you could it just come out of the

[17:55] budget somewhere else, >> but it's a pass through. I mean, it's it

[17:58] shouldn't come out of our budget at all, >> but it was a shortfall,

[18:01] » right? >> So, you either pay the shortfall back

[18:04] out of your budget or you you pass it through with with higher mill rate.

[18:15] » We understand that. But if you wanted to make them [snorts]

[18:20] whole, uh, yes, it would have to come out of your budget. I mean, there's no

[18:24] there's no way to get around RNR because of that. You still have the authority to

[18:28] set the levy. So, it's still >> okay.

[18:29] » Up to you.

[18:41] » So, real quick with the library. So, the library is good with what you presented

[18:45] in working with Matt the resolution of the

[18:49] shortfall last year. >> Yes. Okay.

[18:52] » Included in the budget that I >> That's what I thought. Okay.

[18:56] » Okay. Just want to make sure.

[19:06] » That's all I had. No, they're kind of I don't want to push everyone if they

[19:10] don't want to to kind of move this along, but are we discussion complete?

[19:16] » If so, I'll move that we pass resolution number 2026-10

[19:21] um to with the ability to exceed the revenue neutral rate.

[19:26] » A second. >> Okay, have a motion [clears throat] and

[19:29] a second. I will now call for a roll call vote on resolution 2026 hyphen 10.

[19:35] I'll start to my left and move to my right. Council Lordson,

[19:39] » yes. >> Councilman Vendibal,

[19:42] » yes. >> Council Lynch,

[19:44] » yes. >> Council King,

[19:46] » no. Motion passed.

[19:51] Next thing we move to is resolution 2026,

[19:56] uh, the hearing for the budget, the 2027 budget. And I will now open to

[20:03] the public for the hearing for the 27 budget. Again, this is an opportunity

[20:07] from anyone from the public to step up and voice their concerns or maybe

[20:11] questions they might have. Much like our previous open form, I asked if you

[20:15] approach the pro podium, you please provide your name and address.

[20:27] » Yeah. My name is Jim Breitman. I live at 50510th Street. sitting through this,

[20:32] [sighs and gasps] you mentioned that you were speaking a

[20:35] lot of acronyms. I had no idea who this person is. I have no idea what was just

[20:39] said. It was just all code. I don't know how you expect us to have

[20:45] any comments if we don't know what you're talking about.

[20:51] I mean, could we make this a little bit clearer? What's what's RNR?

[20:55] » Revenue neutral rate. >> Okay.

[20:59] And if I understood correctly, there were some monies that were collected

[21:04] that were rebated last year and that's what caused some of

[21:09] the problems. Is that correct? >> I

[21:14] Scott the library. >> That's what that's what I'm saying. This

[21:17] is >> you know and I I think you you bring up

[21:20] a valid point. Uh Matt Lawn, can I have you address this gentleman's concerns?

[21:26] Yeah. So, I'll I'll just start with what what revenue neutral rate is. Revenue

[21:29] neutral rate is a rate uh a tax rate that if the council were to levy that it

[21:36] would not it would essentially it would collect the same amount of the same

[21:40] dollar amount of tax as they collected last year. So, let's assume for the

[21:43] prior year they collected $100 >> um and but they charged a 1% rate. Well,

[21:48] let's say they kept a 1% rate but the value of the house went up to $105. So,

[21:53] they're going to collect $5. they would collect $5 more just keeping the same

[21:56] flat rate. But because they intentionally lowered the amount of

[22:01] their rate to offset the uh increase in valuation would have generated.

[22:11] » Yeah. Well, okay. But okay. So, >> podium.

[22:16] » So, NRP is a neighbor neighborhood revitalization program. And what that

[22:20] means is that um qualifying properties in that are eligible to get a rebate on

[22:27] a portion of their tax. Uh essentially what the I'm I'm going to speak very

[22:32] broad terms here, but essentially any improvements they make to their home

[22:35] that would have increased the value, uh they get that portion of the value

[22:39] rebated in in the amount of tax they paid. So let's say you know your your

[22:43] house is worth $100,000, but the work you put into it doubles that value. you

[22:47] would only pay value and I'm using extreme situation here that's not so

[22:51] basically what happened is uh normally when you are going when when you're

[22:55] filling out the budget form you need to anticipate the amount that you're going

[22:59] to rebate when you adopt the budget and last year that the the amount that was

[23:03] going to be rebated was taken into account for budget adoption but the

[23:07] amount that was uh they didn't we didn't do the offset on the revenue side of

[23:11] that. So normally what you would do is you would figure out what that amount

[23:14] that you're going to rebate is and you would add that to the amount of tax

[23:18] you're going to levy so that you have that much more that can be paid back

[23:21] when you pay those rebates rather than not charge not having it included in the

[23:26] the levy in the first place. So that's what happened. There's different kinds

[23:29] of these economic development programs that are, you know, meant for homeowners

[23:33] to increase or to, you know, encourage uh, you know, investment in their homes

[23:38] so they can, you know, get get more value out of it, which, you know, on one

[23:41] side is going to generate more value for the cities. But again, it's going to

[23:43] also, you know, the natural impact of, you know, improving, uh, you know,

[23:48] neighborhoods and residents like that, you know, helps, you know, beautify the

[23:53] the the city and helps, you know, spur more development. So different ones work

[23:59] different ways. Like we were talking I was we probably also heard us talking

[24:02] about the RHID which is a a rural housing incentive district program which

[24:07] is through the state that is a similar program in that you know you are um it

[24:14] it takes into account the increased value of a home based on some kind of

[24:18] economic incentive or economic development program. But the way that

[24:21] one works is that the before the city gets notified of what their increase in

[24:26] valuation is, the increase in valuation that would have applied to that property

[24:30] is automatically taken off first. So it doesn't get calculated with taxes the

[24:34] same way that NRP does. >> So what percentage of the property

[24:39] within that local density is taxing has some sort of a rebate attached to it?

[24:43] And can the average person >> there? It's it the way the program

[24:48] works. It it that's very specific on who can who qualifies for it. It usually has

[24:52] to do I I'm not the right person to ask about inter I'm not very

[24:56] » so so usually so I can answer some of that questions is is usually a lot of

[25:00] times it's it's a it's a new construction. If they built a new house

[25:04] that would automatically qualify. If they, let's say you added on to your

[25:08] house and you increased your value 10% or greater, then you could get it on

[25:14] that 10% or greater that it added value. >> How's the person supposed to know this?

[25:21] » Well, um, >> you fill out your building permit

[25:23] » when like as far as like building permits

[25:26] » then >> was that the contractors fill out the

[25:29] permits? >> Not necessarily. A lot of times, I would

[25:32] say probably eight out of 10 people that fill out permits here in town are are

[25:36] actually are homeowners from from from my experience. Um there is there's some

[25:41] stuff on the website um you know that used to be we used to do a lot of NRP

[25:47] but now it's really gone into RID where it's the rural housing incentive

[25:51] district. It's >> my concern is this. If you're giving

[25:56] rebates to the people that are building the new $300,000 plus houses, where's

[26:02] the burden of that lost revenue falling? It's falling on the people who are

[26:06] living in the older houses in town and among many of us are on fixed incomes.

[26:20] And I'll also jump in with Russ here. If you're building in the RID, if you're

[26:25] one of the developments that's a RID project, you can't get the NRP.

[26:29] » Yeah. So, cuz because with RID, the RID, like say for a subdivision, if they if

[26:33] they put in the subdivision, the RID, it goes back to the developer. Um, which

[26:39] that helps cover the cost for, you know, the infrastructure and, you know, for

[26:42] the roads, utilities, and those kinds of things.

[26:50] » I'm new to town here. been here a couple years. One of the main concerns I've

[26:54] heard over the years is the good old boy network that was in place before where

[26:59] if you were connected, you could get your house, you get these things built

[27:04] and you get a test. >> Well, I you know, I think some of those

[27:09] things and the only thing I can address about that is just the rumors, a lot of

[27:14] it. Uh I I >> No, no, no. I understand I understand

[27:18] what you're saying because you know I've been I've had people voice those rumors

[27:21] to me and say hey here you know you and I discuss this uh and u you know I can

[27:27] assure you at least coming into this I I can see nothing like that taking place

[27:33] now. We still have some programs out here to encourage growth and try to

[27:38] attract building. And let me explain why. Cuz like you, I'm like, how are we

[27:42] how are we going to benefit from this when the builders are getting all the

[27:46] brakes and you and I, cuz I'm like you, I'm not getting kind of red program or

[27:50] anything. I haven't made an improvement on the house. But the goal is not for

[27:55] today. It's for 5 years down the road when all this new construction starts

[28:00] paying those taxes, starts paying utilities because we get that benefit

[28:04] while they're there. That's we're trying to look forward down the road. Uh and

[28:10] and you know to answer your question about well how's the person know this? I

[28:14] I understand uh believe me I really do but sometimes that's one of those things

[28:18] you just kind of have to get out and research see what's out there talk to a

[28:21] builder see what they say or you know call city hall and go are there any

[28:26] programs that I can get a break on trying to improve my house my windows or

[28:31] or whatever. And I know that's not going to make you happy. You know what I'm

[28:34] saying? I'm just trying to explain a little bit.

[28:36] » My point also is you're looking to the future. If I'm looking at what looks to

[28:41] me to be on mine roughly

[28:47] a 19.1% proposed tax, that's going to double my property tax every 3.7 years.

[28:56] » What number are you reading? >> Top there. It says the proposed tax

[29:00] exceeding the 2025 tax. >> Is that county?

[29:06] » That's city. body.

[29:15] » So they're not >> you want to step up to nobody can hear.

[29:19] » Okay. So this is this this notice goes out when you uh notify the county that

[29:24] you are going to exceed RNR. And what they do is when they send out this

[29:27] notice, they put in the maximum amount of that you allow yourself to adopt

[29:32] above RNR. you for you guys that was um

[29:38] » yeah Baldwin's on the >> at the top there. So for you guys that

[29:41] was 45.4 mills. The mills we're proposing is 42

[29:46] uh 468 I believe. I I don't have my >> Yeah, they just send out the most

[29:50] extreme scenario I guess. So again, they're not they're not actually going

[29:55] to adopt that amount, but they let you they they're required to uh you know,

[30:00] should they're required to notify the county of something if they plan to go

[30:03] above >> that automatic reduction in mills. So we

[30:06] they built in because it was it's it you have to you have to report that by July

[30:10] 20th at the latest to the county. And so because we were still working out what

[30:15] exactly the mill levy was going to need to be to accomplish what they need to

[30:18] accomplish this year, we put in that number to give them room to do it. And

[30:22] that's that's not an uncommon practice. A lot of times with this uh the notice

[30:27] that was sent out again, I mean uh the notice that Russ actually sent out this

[30:31] that they approved to send out for this hearing actually included a higher mill

[30:36] levy also than what we're proposing they adopt tonight.

[30:39] » Right. With that and with that understanding, again, I'm assuming that

[30:43] the council is looking at this and and considering when you're compounding

[30:47] these increases, how frequently that's going to double because for the people

[30:51] who are on fixed incomes, that's an important issue because the same thing's

[30:55] happening with insurance on the homes. And I think what you're going to have

[30:57] happen is you're going to have the potential here for

[31:02] not to be for retired people not be able to stay here because they can't afford

[31:05] it. >> Yeah.

[31:09] Well, you know, and the other thing I can just tell you, and it might not seem

[31:13] like it, and I'm sure to the public it doesn't,

[31:17] that they say, "Well, the council and the mayor just sets up here and doesn't

[31:20] try to consider the average person within this community and tax rates and

[31:25] things going up." But I can assure you, and I'm sincere, every single one of

[31:28] these people up here really look at this and try to do the best they can to keep

[31:34] everything where we can to make the city manageable and livable. Uh, and I know

[31:40] doesn't matter to you, doesn't matter to me, but I just talked to a friend up in

[31:44] Synica today who's been up there now for 5 years. She goes, "Can your council

[31:48] come up here? We've got hit twice again on mill levies and are talking about

[31:51] doing another one." Uh, so it's and it's always Yeah, that's the neighbor. But

[31:56] I'm just letting you know we really try very hard. At least since I've been

[31:58] here, it's everyone's tried hard. >> No, and I'm not going to dispute that

[32:02] you're not. I just wanted those concerns and also I just wanted to

[32:06] » sitting in the audience. It just it felt like a good old boy club because I

[32:10] didn't understand a thing. >> That that's on me.

[32:13] » No, that's why that's I always try to explain it a couple more times

[32:16] afterwards cuz I'm like nobody's unders made a comment. I worked at state

[32:21] government and I'm I'm equally as [clears throat] guilty of it when we

[32:23] would get >> Yeah,

[32:24] » it's the acronyms, man. Yeah, >> back and that's what I was asking.

[32:28] » No, I appreciate it. I I agree. >> And thank Hey, thank you for stepping up

[32:32] and asking. It's very nice of you.

[32:37] » Oh, and to answer your first question, I'm sorry. This is Matt Baker Tilly is

[32:41] the finance uh group that we uh they advise uh the committee as well as the

[32:46] council on budget decisions. They they're the ones who um externally

[32:50] manage our budget. And this is Matt Lawn.

[32:52] » I wasn't sure if he was you're accountant or exactly.

[32:56] » So I'm I'm a certified public finance officer, meaning that I've gone through

[33:00] the training by the government finance officer association. I was the finance

[33:03] director for the city of Goddard, west of Witchah for 13 years. Uh joined Baker

[33:07] Tilly a couple years ago and I do financial advising for municipalities.

[33:11] Oh, you're 13. Okay. Yeah. [clears throat]

[33:14] » Thank you. Any other questions on the hearing? Public

[33:20] hearing have an opportunity to come up and say something.

[33:28] Hi there, Jeff Flory, 215 Highway 56. >> [sighs and gasps]

[33:34] » I know you guys have a really tough job and take this very serious, but looking

[33:40] over the figures here, I just have one question

[33:45] on the the totals. The 2026 was 18 million

[33:53] and we're jumping to 21.8 million for proposed 2027.

[34:00] So, where is that 3.8 million increase going? That would be my question.

[34:12] » So, Matt, you may help us here with those totals.

[34:15] » That's right off of your page 18 out of your information packet.

[34:20] » So, you know, this also shows electric utility, water utility. So, so

[34:25] » you you're looking at the summer expenditures. Yeah.

[34:31] Yeah. So this is uh this is actually um yeah you you do have the more accurate

[34:37] one the the updated one based on the actual mill levy. So the increase is

[34:42] this 21 number right here is not a budget for expenditures. It's a budget

[34:46] for expenditure authority. What that means is this is the amount that they

[34:50] are approving to that they give themselves the opportunity to spend. But

[34:54] when we're developing these budgets, we are also building in their reserve fund

[34:59] balance as a uh [laughter]

[35:02] essentially they're they're budgeting their fund balance as an expenditure. So

[35:06] if they wanted to, they could they could spend down to zero dollars for the next

[35:12] year. >> Didn't we do that last year too or a

[35:14] year before? >> This is this is what they anticipate

[35:16] they will actually spend this year. >> Yeah. This is what they actually spent

[35:20] last year and this is what they will this is includes

[35:23] » so they only spent 17 million then last year

[35:27] » right but again that is not a number that they plan to spend that is the that

[35:31] is the legal authority of what they could spend but the and the reason you

[35:36] do that is because if they did not uh budget the that amount of fund balance

[35:42] in their budget it would automatically reduce the amount they can levy. So

[35:47] » and Isn't that the whole purpose of a budget? So you don't overspend.

[35:52] » Yes. And this is but like I said that's that's what I said that's that's the

[35:57] limit on what they can spend. >> Okay.

[35:59] » That includes that. So that is enough to operate the city plus if they

[36:03] [clears throat] plus it includes the amount of their

[36:06] » um essentially of their their cash that they'll have at the end of the year

[36:10] going into next year. If they needed to in an emergency situation they could

[36:13] spend up to that much. So it's all and this is the way that every city and

[36:17] every county operates is the way the state forms work. The whole per the

[36:22] purpose of the of the budget process is a to give yourself the legal authority

[36:27] to spend but also the process is to determine what your tax uh what the tax

[36:34] will be and so and just based on the way the formulas work for the state form

[36:37] that's how they do it. So, it's not actually a budget to go above the uh to

[36:44] spend an additional $3 million. That includes a lot of carryover fund

[36:47] balance. For instance, if you look here on the I'm going to bring this up so

[36:51] everybody can see it. If you look >> I think one of the confusing parts are

[36:55] there. >> There's no there's no easy way to

[36:57] explain this. >> You're not looking at if you're looking

[36:59] at the state form. >> They're mixing

[37:02] um sales tax and utility rate revenue with the whole mill levy. So that's

[37:09] everything. So we've been talking mil levy for the general fund and all a

[37:13] sudden this thing shows the max authority on sales tax revenue expected

[37:18] and and and utilities which a separate budget in this includes everything the

[37:23] city is legally allowed to spend for over multiple funds and but and the way

[37:28] fund accounting works is that there's different rules for each type of

[37:31] government operation. So the general fund uh you know that's where your tax

[37:35] money is received and that's where it's either spent for certain services like

[37:39] police, fire or it gets transferred out to other services that use a certain

[37:43] amount of money. Uh debt service that is where they make their debt payments from

[37:47] money that they're already obligated to pay back that they levy a debt for that

[37:50] that gets paid from there. Uh the library that is a pass through to where

[37:54] they levy on behalf of the library and the library receives those funds for

[37:57] their operations. uh cemetery operates similarly and then you've got all these

[38:02] utility funds farther down here like water wastewater just guesstimates.

[38:08] » Yes. >> So So every budget's a guesstimate.

[38:12] » Yeah. >> We don't know to the dollar amount what

[38:14] they're going to spend. >> Well that that was my question when you

[38:17] see that >> 3.8 million.

[38:21] » But again I would I would I would reiterate it's not it's not that they

[38:24] are going to spend that. It's that's the uh essentially the bottom line of what

[38:28] the legal process for budgeting allows them to uh legally spend if they had to.

[38:34] » Jeff did today answer your question for the most part.

[38:40] Anyone else?

[38:44] » 27. >> I'm sorry, Jeff. Did that answer your

[38:47] question? Okay. Thank you, sir. Uh, I seeing no one else that wants to

[38:51] approach, I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing and ask that I

[38:56] go through and introduce resolution 2026 hip-h

[39:00] which authorized the city to approve the 2027 budget. Now turn over to council

[39:05] for discussion.

[39:09] So, I guess I'm interested in um understanding, Councilman King, you

[39:16] know, where your suggestion would be to um get back to revenue neutral in a

[39:23] budget. >> Well, I just basically was thinking like

[39:29] I don't know what we're going to do with mill levies, if you guys are going to if

[39:32] we're potentially raise them or not. And I don't didn't want to do one or the

[39:37] other. So I I voted no.

[39:45] » Okay. But you do realize >> I do.

[39:47] » Revenue neutral would have been about [clears throat] 5% y

[39:50] » less than what we've been talking about in the budget.

[39:52] » Yep. >> Okay. And at the when we uh voted

[39:58] two months ago to even exceed revenue neutral, uh I kind of if if you go back

[40:04] and watch, I was pausing then and and I uh and I I voted with you guys to say

[40:10] yes to exceed revenue neutral to have the possibility of it. And it just I it

[40:16] didn't sit well with me. And so I'm just correcting my vote from earlier this

[40:23] year. That's all. >> Don't get me wrong, I would support a

[40:25] revenue neutral if we could find a way to

[40:27] » I mean, you got to have a plan to do it. >> Yep.

[40:31] » Um and I would be all over on board with it. You know, that's why we went through

[40:34] that exercise and you saw how difficult it was.

[40:36] » I know. >> Um and I didn't since there was much

[40:39] appetite from anybody to do that level of cuts, which is what it would require

[40:44] to get to this revenue revenue control. So,

[40:47] » just wanted some clarification. Maybe you had something that you were

[40:51] » No, I mean I I I mean I think I it you know it goes back to me saying we could

[40:58] sell the building to maybe help with that a little bit.

[41:00] » Yeah. >> And still still valid

[41:02] » and we could next year but obviously I don't want to do that while there's

[41:06] tenants in there. >> So I get that part but um

[41:11] » yeah. >> So do I want to would I want to cut 5%

[41:15] to what we you know when we did the exercise? No. because there was things

[41:18] in there we need. But um with the off with the off chance that

[41:24] we may increase mill levies cuz I mean I haven't talked to anyone about the

[41:28] increases. I'm that that's why I voted no. So I appreciate that. That's that

[41:34] that's that makes sense, you know, and I guess the conversation needs to be what

[41:39] we're proposing is not a mill levy increase in this budget. Correct.

[41:43] » Right. No mill levy increase. But even though that's the plan, I mean if

[41:48] » and once we pass that >> Well, I know I know once we pass it, but

[41:51] I'm saying if you three wanted to say, "Hey, we let tonight Russ we want to do

[41:57] a mill levy increase, >> right?"

[41:58] » Then >> so I mean absolutely right.

[42:02] » I don't know cuz I I don't talk to you guys about how we're voting.

[42:04] » No, no, I get it. So is that's why we're having this discussion. if we if anybody

[42:09] supports a mill levy increase, we need to have that conversation.

[42:12] » Yeah. >> And understand why and maybe change some

[42:15] minds or not. But that's >> that's really the conversation is you

[42:19] have good ideas like I didn't think about that. Let's you know, jump on

[42:22] board. So >> yeah,

[42:24] » I'm I'm not for raising the mill. >> I do not want to raise the mill levy.

[42:29] » So you won't hear that recommendation from me.

[42:32] » Okay. Well, I mean, >> but now we're at the point we can talk

[42:35] about it. So >> yeah,

[42:37] » and that's what kind of makes it tricky is obviously we don't want to talk we

[42:40] can't talk about it behind closed doors, >> right?

[42:42] » Cuz then that's colluding. But when it's this is the only opportunity for us to

[42:46] all talk about it, >> it you know that's what makes it pretty

[42:51] difficult >> because we only have a short amount of

[42:54] time to talk rather than sit down and you know really discuss it. So,

[43:04] so I guess the only other things I had from last time we talked about budget

[43:08] that we're making some decisions were left open around the chamber and the

[43:12] maple. Correct, Russ? You had all of the cuts

[43:19] loaded in >> all the cut all the budget.

[43:21] » Yeah, all the cuts are still loaded in this budget. So, I know there's

[43:24] discussion around splitting that up and reducing the cuts

[43:29] this year. What are your thoughts on that?

[43:31] » I mean, the I guess my thought is is that if if you do want to switch that

[43:35] up, then where are you going to take it from?

[43:37] » It comes out of reserve. >> So, it would have to potentially come

[43:40] out of reserve or you would have to cut something that's already already in

[43:45] there. So, >> well, you know, I I in my kind of again

[43:50] simplistic view and people go, "Yeah, he's real simplistic and I understand it

[43:52] and I get that." But, you know, the way I see this budget, we've kind of

[43:56] basically went through cut and rated everything we could possibly do to get

[44:01] to the budget that we have and that if we want to go through and start taking

[44:05] away and increasing, we're gonna have, as Council Lord said, we're gonna have

[44:09] to do something somewhere else. We just can't, you know, and I know again me

[44:14] come back being the doomsayer. I'm telling you right now, Topeka is going

[44:18] to pass that 3% cap. I'm telling you, it's there. They're going to do it this

[44:23] time. And I think we need to be prepared because Jay, I was one of the ones to

[44:27] sit here and go, I want to go mail right now because we need to be prepared not

[44:32] just for this year, but going into 2027, 2028, we need some momentum to carry us

[44:40] in. And it's uncomfortable, but it's just I I think we're better prepared if

[44:46] we did that. But with the with the budget we've come out with now, I go

[44:51] with what you all want. I I'm good with it. Personally, I don't I'm like you

[44:56] all. I don't want to raise a mill, but there's going to be some point we are

[44:59] going to have to. Our backs are going to be against the wall.

[45:02] » I don't know that that's accurate. I I We had such a strange year where

[45:06] assessed value was so down. That's why we're in this math problem here. And I I

[45:11] just wonder if it's going to if it's going to average out somewhere in the

[45:15] middle there and we won't have as as I don't I don't know that it's as

[45:18] inevitable as we're thinking. And we don't know exactly what if it's going to

[45:22] be a 3% cap or what until they go back to the state house in January and do it.

[45:29] But um I mean but even if Corey though if

[45:33] the property taxes next year come in at a higher rate, we still wouldn't it

[45:38] doesn't matter because it would just be 3%. So, but but Scott, that is why I

[45:43] voted no because not that I knew the mayor was going to say that he would

[45:47] like to do a mill, but just in case someone

[45:51] » did suggest it, >> you know that.

[45:54] » So, >> it's got it.

[45:55] » It's 3% ex in addition to your previous year's

[46:01] budget. >> It's 3%. Um I think the growth doesn't

[46:05] count in that, right? So, if we add property rooftops, million taxion

[46:14] » regardless of >> no 30,000 30,000

[46:18] » the tax base. >> It's not a percentage of the mill levy.

[46:20] It's a percentage of >> the property tax but we can't couldn't

[46:24] also raise mills because we've already done the 3% because the 3%'s always been

[46:28] on the property >> percentage of the property tax.

[46:30] » It's both correct. >> So it depends on what they decide it

[46:33] that I mean I I will tell you this. It depends on what they what was proposed

[46:38] was a 3% cap >> on revenue period

[46:47] » if you you know collect sales tax all day whatever you have you get. But for

[46:52] specific for real real property tax if you levy a million dollars last year you

[46:56] can only levy $1 million $30,000 this year. Even if your value

[47:03] » number number of propert not even the val you know just the number of

[47:06] » the property tax based on growth >> the the one that that this year that

[47:11] » sustainable anybody that knows anything >> that's why the governor vetoed it

[47:15] » like that doesn't work anybody >> the legislature has been doing this for

[47:19] as long as I >> I cannot they had the they had the tax

[47:22] lids they had the uh RNR they had you know various ways to try to you know

[47:28] limit the amount that cities with their home rules power to levy taxes. We're

[47:31] allowed to levy and so now they've it's likely they will have the political

[47:36] power to get it passed next year. >> Well, I sincerely hope Jay and everyone

[47:41] Cory can look at me and go, "See, I told you so it didn't pass." And I'm sincere

[47:44] about that. I really am on that 3%. No, it'd be great.

[47:47] » Agree with So, I agree that something's coming because I mean, I've talked to

[47:50] people and >> I get it. But,

[47:54] » yeah, >> until we know what it is, I don't know

[47:56] how we can fight it >> and do what's best. Yeah, I agree with

[48:00] that to >> because what if you know say we you did

[48:04] want to raise the mill and then they come back and then they don't it doesn't

[48:10] pass for some some reason or it's not at 3% he gets it to 5% or 6%. Well then

[48:18] that's more in line with what our increase usually is. So, just

[48:25] to be clear, the way it the way it would have worked had it passed this year is

[48:28] you would still be able to levy whatever you want to. You just have to go to a

[48:31] vote if the dollar amount is going to be above 3% more than the prior year. So,

[48:35] » yeah, >> a vote

[48:37] » by the city the holdition

[48:41] of 5% or something >> um would

[48:44] » Yeah, it's a very low threshold for what the petition would require for a vote.

[48:48] So, it's something like uh I want to say it was like 5% of the average of the

[48:54] prior number of voters in the prior election or some something similar to

[48:58] that. >> You'd have to do that right before the

[49:00] primary so you don't spend every community be spending 40 grand on an

[49:02] election. >> And that's another thing that they

[49:04] that's >> you have to move the schedule.

[49:05] » That's another one of the reasons it failed was or the the governor vetoed at

[49:09] least with what she said was because they didn't put that timing into

[49:12] account. It would not have worked this year. It's important

[49:15] » and that's that's my big question with it because you get your count the

[49:18] assessed valuation from the county say mid June say

[49:21] » you have a month >> so but to get stuff on the ballot you've

[49:25] got to have it 60 to 90 days ahead of time so the primary election that would

[49:29] take place in August you wouldn't be able to hit so right

[49:32] » you would have to hit the November election

[49:35] » guessing that's by design >> well and so so there's there's a whole

[49:39] bunch of >> so does the county get capped in the

[49:42] school district and >> well And so that's that's the other

[49:45] question. >> Are we still doing a valuation? What's

[49:48] the point if it's just a cap? >> Well, so the I don't think it was going

[49:51] to hit the whatever number of mills schools are automatically allowed for

[49:55] » 20. Yeah. >> 20 I think. Yeah.

[49:57] » Oh, >> it would have applied to

[50:00] » would have applied to counties. It would have applied to uh you know the other

[50:03] other taxing districts as well. So >> let let me ask you this then going back

[50:07] to the question gentleman answered earlier. boil this down to the public so

[50:11] they understand because really as Jay said, we we're just kind of dealing in

[50:15] hypotheticals right now. We really are just guessing uh and look and and

[50:20] talking back and forth as the budget stands right now for the community,

[50:24] throwing acronyms out and stuff. What are I mean, what are we looking at?

[50:27] » Let me let me put it this way. I think most people can understand this. the

[50:31] when we talk about the need to increase uh you know taxes we're talking about

[50:35] the need because we have increased costs you know and we call that typically we

[50:39] call that inflation if it's just everything you're doing year in year out

[50:42] is becoming more expensive is we call it inflation the metric that we use for

[50:46] tracking inflation for our everyday lives is a consumer price index we call

[50:50] it the CPI and it's basically it's the average increase in cost of average

[50:55] household's goods and stuff that you and I buy every day for uh municipal

[51:00] governments. We use something called the municipal cost index and it tracks a

[51:03] different set of you know regularly used items that governments use. It's more

[51:08] things in the line of gravel and other you know materials for road improvements

[51:13] and you know parts that you will be using and fuel you'll be using for your

[51:18] various operations like your electric utility, your water and sewer utilities.

[51:21] That's the kind of those are the kinds of things that it's tracking. Uh you

[51:25] know, a pretty good calcul a pretty good estimate for what you're going to need

[51:30] to spend next year for especially when it came to materials was always going to

[51:33] be well it's going to be about 3% because that's what the municipal cost

[51:36] index told us it was going to be. That's the amount that inflation is growing

[51:39] year to year is about 3% somewhere between two and a half to three

[51:42] depending on how the economy is doing whatever. Well, this year it's over

[51:45] almost 6% through August, which means that if you are in an environment where

[51:51] you're going to see 6% growth in all your costs every year and the county is

[51:54] only going to let you levy an additional 3% a year for general fund operations. I

[52:00] mean, not over it's not all of your general fund operations. And you know,

[52:02] if sales tax is continuing to, you know, grow, then great. But, you know, your

[52:08] mill levy essentially pays for your police department is basically what it

[52:10] pays for. If you wanted to split out what every cost within your general fund

[52:14] gets paid for the the mil what amount of uh property tax you get basically pays

[52:19] for PD that's essentially what it pays for. So you're going to see, you know,

[52:24] that's where you're going to feel the biggest pinch is those type of general

[52:27] fund operations are going to have to operate with less every year that

[52:30] they're going to have to delay maintenance on vehicles and delay

[52:34] purchasing new vehicles and delay maintenance on equipment and purchasing

[52:37] new equipment and other every everything else that they do that they regularly

[52:40] spend money on. So >> means lack of morale because you're not

[52:44] being able to compete with other police departments for pay and benefits, etc.

[52:49] So thank you.

[53:04] other questions, concerns, discussion.

[53:10] Being clear, we are not raising a mill. We are not raising a mill. Just so

[53:15] everyone's clear about that. We're not increasing a mill.

[53:20] We're taking what we have and trying to work with what we got

[53:33] anyone [sighs and gasps]

[53:35] this time. Now I might uh ask for a [sighs]

[53:40] I'm going to introduce a resolution 202611

[53:43] which authorizes the city to approve the budget. Matter's been open for

[53:47] discussion. Is there a motion to approve resolution 2026-1

[53:52] 11

[53:58] » with no mill increases >> with no mill increases.

[54:02] » It goes down a little bit. >> That's coming.

[54:06] » I'm sorry. Sir, >> could you could you please include the

[54:09] language in that motion to adopt a mill levy not to exceed 42.268 mills?

[54:16] » Yeah. Okay. And I'm sorry, sir. Read it to me again.

[54:19] » 40. >> Okay. Thank you.

[54:21] » Mill levy not to exceed 40 exceed 42.268 mills.

[54:25] » All right. That's to include that the mill levy not exceed 42.268

[54:30] mills. Yes. Correct. Thank you.

[54:36] » Yeah. I'll make that motion to not raise the

[54:40] millivy and adopt the budget.

[54:44] » And adopt the budget. Do I have a second?

[54:47] » Second it. >> All in favor say I.

[54:49] » I. It'll be roll call. >> Oh, roll call.

[54:51] » Yeah. I'm sorry. You're right. Thank you. I'm going to start with the right

[54:54] this time. Uh, Councilman King, >> yes.

[54:58] » Councilman WZ, >> yes.

[55:00] » Council Venimal, >> yes.

[55:02] » Council Lordson, >> yes.

[55:04] » Motion passed by roll call. The 2026 hyphen 11 2027 budgets adopted.

[55:12] Now we'll go on to an easier thing. That's a council appointment to

[55:15] interview board for open library position.

[55:18] Who wants to do that? >> So, just want to kind of give you an

[55:21] update. The uh one of the individuals that we appointed earlier uh this year

[55:26] has has resigned from from the library board. Um so, we need to interview again

[55:33] for to fill that position. So, we need one of the members um from the council

[55:38] uh to set on that interview um committee.

[55:44] volunteers. I did it last time [laughter]

[55:49] and I'll I'll be more than happy to do it again. I mean, it was it was it

[55:53] wasn't painful or anything. It was nice to hear their stories. So, if if no one

[56:00] wants to do it, I'll do it. I mean, so appreciate it.

[56:06] » Okay. >> Getting good at it. Well, Councilman

[56:09] King, I guess you're it. [laughter] Thank you for stepping up, sir. It's

[56:12] much appreciated. >> Thanks, Jay.

[56:14] » Thanks, J. >> Okay, now we're going to go to the

[56:17] council and committee reports, budget and finance. Scott,

[56:21] » uh, yeah, let me pull up. Let's see here.

[56:26] So, we went through the July year-to- date financials with Baker Tilly. Um,

[56:31] just looked at, you know, utility wise, where we're at, get an idea of where we

[56:38] expect to end the year. in with the reserve and that's all based

[56:43] on how much of the utilities used etc. So it's it's definitely a rough

[56:48] estimate. So we kind of got a happy year's worth of view. Um you know and

[56:53] and just right now and we've talked about this before. I mean the electric

[56:56] fund looks like it's in good shape because of the changes we made

[56:59] previously. waters, you know, right projected again, it's half a year away

[57:06] projected to get real close to fund policy at reserve and then it's

[57:11] wastewater that's, you know, well behind um policy on the reserve. So, um, when

[57:18] we go [clears throat] through the, uh, when we go through the, um, budget for

[57:23] the utilities, we're going to have to look hard at rates to try to figure out

[57:26] where we want to get the reserve back, how quickly,

[57:30] you know, a three-year recovery, etc. would kind of drive a projected rate

[57:35] increase over three years as opposed to trying to get it all back in a year. So,

[57:39] those will be the conversations we'll have

[57:42] um, as we go forward. But that was the pretty much um took up the entire

[57:48] agenda.

[57:52] » Real quick on that cuz in sorry >> do we need to meet

[57:55] » Go ahead. >> We we I think the last when we were in

[57:59] that meeting we had talked about um if you guys had done a smoke test

[58:04] » Oh yes, you did bring that up. >> Yeah,

[58:05] » I think that was >> for the waste water. Yeah, I mean they

[58:09] they have and they've identified identified some some areas, but you

[58:13] know, at the end of the day, um you know, it comes back to having some

[58:18] capital capital to do these projects. >> Yeah,

[58:21] » it it's one thing we we're identifying places, but we still got to fix them.

[58:25] And you know, this past week, we did a repair inhouse for one of our major

[58:31] intersectors between Third and Fourth Street, between Chapel and Dearbornne.

[58:35] Um there's a huge project that we did actually in house where we only hired

[58:40] out a loader guy to to do the work. So um that you know that saved the the city

[58:47] a vast amount of money to do that. It took us a little bit longer than it

[58:51] would a normal crew hiring somebody out but um you know they did a great job. Um

[58:56] they got that area fixed. um with that intersector, you know, there's a a mass

[59:00] amount of flow from north of 56 and east of uh Sixth Street flows all through

[59:08] that that intersector. So on its way to the plant. So um it was it was in dire

[59:15] need that we had to had to address it. So

[59:19] » Okay. Thank you. You're going to have a meeting. You need one?

[59:24] » No. >> Okay. No meeting. Okay. Thank you. Let

[59:26] me The next reg regularly scheduled one would be two weeks from this Friday.

[59:34] » It would be the 11th. >> It would be

[59:36] » no 18th. >> Be the

[59:39] be the 18th. Um I'm sorry. Yeah. Be 18th. Um at 9:00

[59:47] second floor city hall. >> Thank you. Community development Corey.

[59:51] » Uh we did meet um didn't have any real agenda items. just kind of had some

[59:54] general discussions about some of the uh possible upcoming projects. Um

[1:00:01] um prior prior business. Um we will be meeting the

[1:00:08] third Monday of this month which is

[1:00:16] uh the 21st. No, it's the 28th. 4:00 second floor

[1:00:23] city hall. That's the fourth Monday.

[1:00:26] » Uh, no, Monday was the 31st. >> No, but the 7th, 14th, 21st, 28th.

[1:00:31] » One, two. Yeah. No, it's 21st. We used to meet. So, here's the deal. We used to

[1:00:37] meet on the fourth Monday and then there were a couple uh of the fourth Mondays

[1:00:42] that fell on some holiday type thing. And then when we kind of switched over

[1:00:45] the 21st so um or for the 3rd. So, I in my calendar it still says 28th, but

[1:00:51] there's another one for the 21st. So, we will stick with what we've been doing on

[1:00:54] the 21st, the 3rd Monday of September at 4:00.

[1:01:00] » Thank you. Public safety Jay, >> uh, we have not met and we are scheduled

[1:01:06] to meet September 24th at 9:00 in the second floor, city hall. Okay.

[1:01:12] » Did you get the email from the lady in regards to the animal control?

[1:01:17] » Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you.

[1:01:18] » Yep. It'll be on our said be your guys' thing. will be what we talk.

[1:01:22] » Thank you, Jay. >> Things we talk about.

[1:01:24] » Uh, let's see. Do you want to mention anything about public works, Jay? Um,

[1:01:29] Julie, I can't remember. We haven't met since the last meeting. Okay.

[1:01:33] » So, and she hasn't text me. She always keeps me in line on that one when we're

[1:01:38] going. >> So, so that meeting is going to be um

[1:01:41] Thursday, September 10th at public works at 9:00 a.m.

[1:01:45] » Okay. Thank you. Jay, do you have anything

[1:01:50] else you want to add or N? >> Thanks.

[1:01:53] » Anything with strategic planning, Scott? >> Nope.

[1:01:55] » Okay. >> Jay, anything on the lake?

[1:01:58] » Uh, the lake committee will meet on September 15th at 6:00 in the executive

[1:02:03] room here uh before our scheduled city council meeting. So, got a lot of news

[1:02:10] to talk about and so it's actually good news. So, we'll keep hammering away and

[1:02:18] hopefully at the after we meet it on the 15th, um I believe the plan is for uh

[1:02:24] the count the late committee to maybe come that meeting and kind of give more

[1:02:30] details. So, >> good. Thank you, sir.

[1:02:34] » Mhm. >> City administrator, anything

[1:02:38] » legal? >> Nope. Nothing. to the clerk.

[1:02:44] Council mayor comments. Two quick things. Am Amra Packard's

[1:02:49] going to start joining us on the finance committee here in a couple weeks to sit

[1:02:53] in with us to kind of get an idea. My belief and the reason I'm doing that

[1:02:59] kind of gives a second in command kind of redundancy in case Russ was kidnapped

[1:03:03] by a flying saucer on the west side of town, never to be seen again. We can

[1:03:07] fall back on camera. She'll know what's going on. Uh, I just think it's it's

[1:03:12] kind of good redundancy and leadership. Uh, then my only other closing comments

[1:03:16] is real quickly, thanks to the fire department for last week and being

[1:03:21] during the third Friday and spraying the kids. That was a very nice

[1:03:27] communityoriented deal. I events

[1:03:37] like that. The kids were having a blast. Fire department was got their test their

[1:03:41] equipment out. It was good. Thank you, fire department. I appreciate it. And I

[1:03:45] want to thank each one of the council members tonight for their hard work on

[1:03:48] this budget. Again, I know it was tough. Uh setting up here is a lot different

[1:03:53] sometimes than sitting out there. And I appreciate everyone's hard work and

[1:03:56] dedication. Thank you. Do I have a motion to adjurnn?

[1:04:04] » Our jourer is not here. [laughter] >> Our adjourer

[1:04:08] I move we adjourn. Second >> second.

[1:04:11] » I'm sorry. Sure. >> No. No question. Pencil.

[1:04:16] » No. >> Well, can you do it after the meeting?

[1:04:21] » Can you do it I mean after the meeting? Can we

[1:04:24] » probably want to hear it? >> What's that?

[1:04:26] » Public comment time's over. Jerry, we're getting ready to adjourn the meeting.

[1:04:31] » I'm out of I'm out of the box, so I guess I can talk, right?

[1:04:34] » Second the motion. [laughter] >> All right. Meeting adjourned.

[1:04:39] Man, >> we didn't technically adjourn.

City Council Meeting 9.1.2026

Transcript