[0:25] >> jennifer, would you please call roll?
[0:29] >> thank you, mayor. Council member handley. >> here. >> council member iterish?
[0:35] >> here. >> council member charlton? >> here. >> council member nix. >> here.
[0:39] >> council member arroyo? >> here. >> council member williamson is absent.
[0:43] council member denny is absent. Council member harran? >> present.
[0:48] >> mayor sayers is present and presiding. >> thank you, jennifer. Any corrections to the draft minutes of the august 5 city council meeting?
[0:54] hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes. Motion by courtney. Second by john michael. All in favor.
[1:01] >> aye. >> those opposed. Minutes are approved. Jennifer, any modifications to the agenda?
[1:06] >> none this evening. >> thank you. >> we have one proclamation this evening and is
[1:10] national fentanyl prevention and awareness day. We're going to have a group come down to join me at the podium here.
[1:17] kathy moffatt, paul davis from johnson county med act, chief vaughn,
[1:21] chief lehman, jason hingle from the police department, and council member nix.
[1:42] >> hello. We'll take the picture all right here after I read it.
[1:50] whereas fentanyl is a powerful synthetic opioid taking lives every day,
[1:56] often without warning, and can affect anyone, family, friends, neighbors, and coworkers, and whereas one fake pill,
[2:03] often disguised as a legitimate medication, can kill, making fentanyl poisoning
[2:08] one of the most urgent public health threats of our time. Whereas the victims of fentanyl poisoning include children,
[2:13] teens, young adults, and seniors, leaving lasting heartbreak in families and communities,
[2:18] and whereas education, awareness, and access to lifesaving tools like narcan say it for me.
[2:25] narcan are critical for preventing deaths and empowering bystanders to save lives.
[2:30] whereas august 21 is a day to honor those we have lost, support the fighting to prevent further tragedy,
[2:38] and to unite our community in the fight against the fentanyl epidemic. Now, therefore, I, julie sayers,
[2:44] mayor of lenexa, kansas, to hereby proclaim august 21, 2025,
[2:48] in the city of lenexa to be national fentanyl prevention and awareness day.
[2:52] >> thank you. >> you're welcome. You have a few remarks?
[2:57] >> this is fun. [laughter] in our youth,
[3:03] we've all done something stupid, and I think we can all remember that moment,
[3:09] and somehow we managed to survive it. We just want our kids to survive, stupid.
[3:15] we've had over 149 drug deaths in johnson county,
[3:21] and that's only between 2018 and 2022.
[3:26] we can do so much more. Narcan availability and communication are our best friends.
[3:34] signs in the drug stores, just on the front door, saying,
[3:38] we have narcan would be a wonderful thing, just as a reminder to people.
[3:43] making it readily available to our youth.
[3:48] they're the ones that are going to be our heroes, unfortunately,
[3:52] and to give them a chance to embrace narcan, carrie kool is going to be a big deal.
[3:59] they need to become our heroes and support one another.
[4:04] the dea has a faces of fentanyl wall in arlington,
[4:08] virginia, and it has 7,000 faces on it.
[4:12] I wonder what would happen if we had posters here for
[4:16] our faces of fentanyl and put them in all the high schools.
[4:20] I wonder if it would make a difference to just one.
[4:26] I'd like to see tougher laws and particularly for repeated offenders.
[4:33] if somebody is selling illegal drug and one person dies,
[4:38] and they keep selling it, and another dies, and they keep selling another dies.
[4:43] I'd like to see them charged as a serial killer because that's what they are.
[4:47] we do have examples of that, but the laws don't support charging them as a serial killer.
[4:54] I think if we make our laws tougher, it will make a difference.
[4:58] thank you so much for your support, and we live in a great community that can do so much more for our community. [applause]
[5:20] >> mayor, council members, members of the community. Thank you for your leadership here in raising awareness about the dangers of fentanyl.
[5:29] on behalf of johnson county med act and our ems system partners, including the lenexa fire department,
[5:34] I want to reaffirm our commitment to responding quickly to opioid overdoses,
[5:39] engaging our community in prevention, and expanding access to life-saving naloxone,
[5:44] including leave behind kits for families. Earlier this year, med act helped advance house bill 2579,
[5:52] which was signed into law, which now allows emts and paramedics to distribute naloxone directly to those in need.
[5:59] to our community paramedicine program, we are also ensuring patients receive follow-up care,
[6:05] connections to resources, and compassion outreach to reduce repeated overdoses.
[6:10] johnson county is leading the way regionally with youth focus campaigns,
[6:15] freedom naloxone access libraries, and by aligning with national best practices to stay ahead of this crisis.
[6:22] together with our partners, the lenexa fire department, and our other ems system partners,
[6:27] we will continue working to ensure our patients have the best possible outcomes and that
[6:32] our community remains safe and healthy. Thank you. [applause] [background]
[7:24] >> next, we have the consent agenda. There are three items on tonight's consent agenda.
[7:29] matters listed in the consent agenda are considered to be routine, will be acted on collectively with no separate discussion.
[7:35] an item can be removed from the consent agenda for separate discussion by a member of the governing body,
[7:39] city manager, or a member of the public in attendance at the meeting. In the event an item is removed from the consent agenda,
[7:45] it can be placed on the regular agenda. Does anyone wish to remove an item for discussion?
[7:51] hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to approve items 1-3 on the consent agenda. Motion by bill.
[7:57] >> second. >> second by melani. All those in favor. >> aye. >> those opposed. Consent agenda is approved.
[8:04] item number 4 is a consideration of
[8:09] tax abatement and issuance of industrial revenue bonds for lenexa logistics center east, building 1, located at the southeast corner of 116th and rener boulevard.
[8:17] item 4a is a public hearing to consider the exemption from valorm taxes for the property financed with irbs.
[8:24] item 4b is a resolution determining the intent of the city to issue approximately $9 million in
[8:29] irbs and approving a 10-year tax abatement with the payment in lieu of taxes agreement. Sean.
[8:35] >> good evening, mayor and council, sean mclaughlin, city attorney. I'm here to present on
[8:41] the proposed tax abatement and bond issues for lenexa logistics center east, building 1.
[8:47] as was stated in the packet memo, this is the final building in lex logistics east business park development,
[8:55] so I thought I would start by giving a little background on how we got here. This was done all under a master resolution that was approved in
[9:01] 2019 to develop the 80 acres east of rener boulevard.
[9:07] the master resolution terms included four buildings and infrastructure,
[9:11] a 10-year fixed abatement, as well as an effective abatement of 71% for each building as they came in.
[9:17] including tonight's building, the total capital investment at this point was approximately 72.5 million.
[9:25] specifically, on lenexa logistics center east building 1,
[9:29] it's an approximately 50,000 square foot commercial office warehouse facility.
[9:34] they're proposing nine million in irbs. The fixed abatement is based off $1.20 square foot
[9:40] with a 71% effective abatement over the 10-year term, which would equate to approximately
[9:45] 191,000 in total pilot payments over that 10-year term.
[9:50] this was staff for you only. It did not come to you for a while, so I am providing just a picture looks generally like
[9:57] the other buildings and similar contractors and consultants who we are used in that.
[10:02] with that, I am happy to answer questions, but staff does recommend approval of the resolution, as well as the abatement.
[10:09] there are representative for the applicant as well. Should you have questions for them?
[10:13] >> any questions or discussion before we open the public hearing? I will open the public hearing.
[10:19] if anyone present would like to speak on this item, please come forward to the podium, sign in, state your name and address for the record.
[10:29] seeing none, I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing.
[10:33] motion by john michael. Second by courtney. All in favor? >> aye.
[10:38] those opposed, public hearing is closed. Any additional questions or anything from
[10:44] the applicant before we start voting on the items? No, you guys are good. Any comments from the council?
[10:57] entertain a motion to adopt the resolution determining the intent of the city to issue
[11:02] approximately $9 million in irbs and approving a 10-year tax abatement with payment in lieu of taxes agreement.
[11:08] motion by chris, second by bill. All those in favor. >> aye. >> those opposed. Motion passes.
[11:17] does that cover all parts? Thank you very much.
[11:22] >> item five is consideration of an ordinance vacating two sidewalk easements located between lots 51 and
[11:28] 52 of canyon creek forest subdivision and within tract a of the wheatley point west subdivision.
[11:34] item 5a is a public hearing to consider vacating the two sidewalk easements.
[11:39] item 5b is an ordinance vacating the sidewalk easements. Stephanie.
[11:44] >> good evening, mayor and council. Stephanie sulvan, with the community development department.
[11:48] as mentioned, item number 5 is a vacation request for a sidewalk easement.
[11:53] [noise] I'll just really use this graphic from our packet to explain the request.
[12:00] basically, what happened with the sidewalk is that in canyon creek forest,
[12:06] which is the subdivision here on the lower left part of the screen,
[12:10] a sidewalk easement was platted on private property for lot 51 and lot 52,
[12:16] so it is not what we would typically see, like in a tract that's controlled by the hoa.
[12:20] it was actually platted on these two private properties, split through what that property line would be right in the middle of lot 51 and lot 52.
[12:30] later on, wheatley point west here along clare road came along and staff opted
[12:37] to have them plat a sidewalk easement within an hoa tract because that's our typical practice,
[12:43] and basically, this tract a sidewalk was going to connect through
[12:49] lot 51 and lot 52 of canyon creek forest to provide access from canyon creek forest over to clare road,
[12:57] and you can't see it on this area here, but there's a sidewalk there now.
[13:01] the prospective buyers of lot 51 and lot 52,
[13:06] in conjunction with the developer of wheatley point west, have petitioned to vacate the sidewalk easement.
[13:13] the potential owners of lot 51 and lot 52 have some concerns about having that sidewalk for public access on their private property,
[13:22] and from this experience, ford staff has not been putting sidewalk easements on private property like this,
[13:29] instead, we've been putting them within tracks that are maintained by hoas. It's a little bit of a private property type situation with the sidewalk easement here,
[13:41] and so they are looking to vacate that, and staff is supportive of that vacation request.
[13:48] as mentioned in the memo, it has met all four of the criteria for a vacation,
[13:53] as you see on the screen. Staff did provide responses for each of those criteria.
[14:00] for a vacation request, we do have to conduct a public hearing. I do want to note that,
[14:05] as per any easement or vacation request, we have contacted all of the utilities that serve lenexa.
[14:11] we have not received any issues from utilities with this sidewalk vacation request,
[14:17] and because of that, and the reasons within the application and your memo, staff does recommend approval of vacating the sidewalk easement.
[14:24] that concludes my presentation. >> any questions before we open public hearing? Go ahead.
[14:36] >> can you remind us when the canyon creek forest was developed?
[14:45] >> I do not know that off the top of my head, but I can look that up for you.
[14:49] >> thank you so much. >> I will now open the public hearing.
[14:55] if anyone present would like to speak on this item, please come forward to the podium, sign in, state your name and address for the record.
[15:04] seeing none, I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing.
[15:08] motion by courtney, second by melani. All in favor. >> aye.
[15:13] >> those opposed. Public hearing is closed. Any other questions or comments? Well, go ahead.
[15:20] >> I was just going to respond to council member arroyo's question. Canyon creek forest was rezoned in 2020 and the first plat approved in 2021,
[15:29] a second plat approved in 2024, so it's been roughly the last five years and still under development.
[15:36] >> something down there? >> not a question, more of a comment.
[15:43] I think it absolutely makes sense. It's outside of our standard practice.
[15:47] it is disappointing that then everyone who lives on that cul-de-sac,
[15:53] and everyone further south on 98th place, has to go all the way around to get to clare.
[16:00] it's unfortunate, but it's the right thing to do so as long as that's something that we're paying attention to in the future,
[16:06] I'm absolutely in support. >> thank you, john michael. Anything else?
[16:11] I entertain a motion to pass the ordinance vacating the sidewalk easements.
[16:16] motion by mark. Second by bill. All those in favor? >> aye.
[16:21] >> any opposed? Motion passes. Item number 6,
[16:25] we have old business. We'll hear from staff regarding fiscal year 2026 recommended budget.
[16:32] >> good evening, mayor and council [inaudible] with the finance department.
[16:38] >> I have a few slides for you with an update on the fiscal year '26 recommended budget.
[16:44] just briefly talk about the update, few comments on sales tax revenue,
[16:49] and then briefly talk about next steps as well. As always, any time we're discussing the budget,
[16:56] I'd like to bring up the budget principles. I'm not going to go through these. As you've seen them several times before.
[17:03] I will note that the first one that we fund ongoing operating expenses with ongoing revenue sources,
[17:08] and then we use a conservative approach revenue estimating, second from the bottom,
[17:13] are directly related to some of the topics we'll cover tonight.
[17:17] as far as the update for fiscal year '26 recommended budget,
[17:22] if you remember back on june 24th, our preliminary recommended budget, budget overview presentation,
[17:29] we included a 26.459 mill recommended mill levy.
[17:34] that's a half mill reduction, which is our initial target in the budget year.
[17:40] then on july 15th, after human resources and lockton got done with our mini compensation plan.
[17:49] it was adopted by council. It did come in under budget for fiscal year '25.
[17:55] that is an ongoing expense paid for with ongoing revenue, so it will impact 2026.
[18:02] as staff has stated, if the market does not justify using the funds for compensation,
[18:10] we'll bring back a recommendation for you all. The savings are equivalent to approximately a quarter mill in 2026.
[18:20] as of tonight, we're proposing an additional quarter mill rollback for 2026,
[18:27] and the recommended mill would be 26.209 mills three quarter mill reduction.
[18:35] this is what staff is planning on bringing back to you all on september 2nd.
[18:40] this does not hold you to anything. It can still be adjusted at that date during the public hearing.
[18:47] I did want to point out a couple of direct impacts we've had this year that have directly impacted the mill levy reduction.
[18:54] I just talked about personnel cost savings of the quarter mill. We also had three abated properties that returning to the tax rules.
[19:02] they are generating about $450,000 to the city.
[19:07] just the city portions, 450,000, again, it's about a quarter mill in 2026.
[19:12] like looking at other revenue and new growth throughout the city, additional 0.25 mills is recommended for the three quarter mill reduction.
[19:22] we are keeping an eye on some impacts potentially to
[19:26] the budget over the past the state legislation,
[19:31] negatively impacting revenues over the past few legislature sessions.
[19:35] there's been several bills that would have impacted our ability to raise revenue,
[19:39] whether it be property taxes investment income. There were some sales tax impacts a couple of years ago.
[19:45] we do anticipate some of those being brought forward in the next session. Federal tax and trade policies, trade.
[19:52] we haven't really seen anything with the tariffs yet. We haven't built anything into the 2026 budget.
[19:58] if that were to impact us later on, we would make adjustments within the budget, but it could potentially have an impact.
[20:04] as far as federal tax law, every so often, the mini bonds tax exemption gets brought up,
[20:11] and that would severely impact us and some of the capital projects that we're able to do if that passed.
[20:17] looking at debt financing for required capital projects. If you remember in our recommended budget,
[20:24] the debt service fund expenditures are exceeding revenue for the full five years,
[20:28] and that reverts where revenue exceeds expenditures in the out years.
[20:33] that's purposeful. We are spending down reserves for the next five years.
[20:38] but that does take up a lot of our debt financing capacity and we have several major road projects in the tens of millions of dollars,
[20:45] 83rd street, 91st and canon creek boulevard. We also have some public safety needs as well,
[20:54] and leading into the county sales tax renewal, we generate about $2 million annually that we receive our share of that sales tax.
[21:04] obviously, there's going to be election this fall, that was moved to next spring, pending some litigation.
[21:11] if that does not pass or does not go through,
[21:15] that would impact our budget next year, and then going forward as well.
[21:20] obviously, the sales tax ends in 2027, march. But then as far as planning for future years, that would impact us.
[21:28] we have to look at other revenues to pay for some of the public safety projects or possibly even delay them after next year.
[21:38] looking at our property tax rate since 2018,
[21:43] we were at in 2018, we're at 31.832 mills.
[21:48] the original 2026 proposal had us at 26.459 mills,
[21:53] and then the additional 0.25 mills proposed tonight would bring us to 26.209 mills.
[22:02] cumulative mill levy reduction since 2019 would bring us to with the additional quarter mill would bring us to 5.623 mills,
[22:12] so significant decrease since 2019, with the value of 1 mill being approximately 1.89 million,
[22:20] that value of deferred revenue that we've given back taxpayers is 10.6 million.
[22:27] that is not one time, it is annually. As our assess valuation grows with new growth,
[22:34] and a lot of new development, that number continues to increase.
[22:44] each year, becky and I meet with our peers across johnson county,
[22:48] discuss some of the proposals for each of the cities in johnson county for the next budget year.
[22:55] we did that in july, so the mill levy shown here or as of july 2025.
[23:01] obviously, we've adjusted ours. Again. You'll see 26.209,
[23:10] is a full 0.75 mill rollback we're proposing tonight places us about median in johnson county.
[23:19] far as mill levy. Several of these cities do not have a fire department,
[23:24] but they do use a consolidated fire district, which has a mill levy.
[23:29] we have added the city mill levy and the district mill levy where applicable.
[23:34] well, next is one of four jurisdictions in johnson county planning to lower to the mill levy in 2026.
[23:41] I believe there's two cities that are increasing it for 2026.
[23:45] we have the largest rollback aside from desoto. Obviously, there are some structural changes there with the panasonic plant.
[23:51] aside from desoto, we have the largest mill levy rollback for 2026 in johnson county.
[23:58] I will note that all jurisdictions, even desoto, with the larger mill rollback are
[24:03] exceeding the revenue neutral property tax rate for 2026.
[24:10] just a quick snapshot. There's a lot going on on this slide.
[24:15] the left hand tax value illustration is a snapshot from our budget book as posts line from last year.
[24:22] the average lenexa of home value is 467,000.
[24:26] the one on the right is a tax value illustration for 2026 estimate.
[24:32] the average lenexa of home value about 493,000. That includes new and existing homes as well.
[24:40] typically the newer homes skew that average up a little bit. But the average lenexa taxpayer will see an impact with the 0.75 mill
[24:50] rollback of about $2.98 or 2.46% over last year.
[25:01] what that does to our property tax revenue. The original projection was about a little over 5% increase to about 50 million.
[25:12] it lowers it, we're about 4.2% increase over last year, including new growth,
[25:17] which was about 30% of total assess valuation increase, and we're at 49.5 million,
[25:23] almost exactly 2 million over last year, in addition to last year.
[25:29] the property tax revenue is split between the general fund and debt service fund,
[25:33] 40.9 million going to the general fund, and then 8.6 million going for the debt service fund.
[25:44] here's a general fund breakout. Since this mill levy rollback,
[25:49] additional 0.25 mills is tied to cost savings in the personnel line item.
[25:55] it's coming from the general fund. You can see that personnel services are going up just over 4%.
[26:02] that includes the 6% compensation pool allocated for next year.
[26:09] it also includes estimated vacancy savings. It also includes the budget savings that we
[26:16] experienced this year carried forward into 2026.
[26:20] just over a 4% increase. I think it's gotten lost in a lot of the discussions we've
[26:26] had over the budget process over the last couple of months, total expenditures and transfers,
[26:32] that's the amount where we expect to spend and transfer out of the general fund next year going up 1.14%,
[26:38] so a very marginal increase over last year. As you know, the state requires us to budget reserves as we're expending them.
[26:47] if you add those in there, it would be 2.42% increase over last year,
[26:52] still below current inflation rate.
[26:56] >> nate, there was a question at one of the meetings about that vacancy rate.
[27:02] can you clarify that point, please? >> the vacancy estimate? We look at some of our major departments that have
[27:08] quite a few employees or fte within the departments. We're looking at pd.
[27:13] we're looking at fire parks, municipal services and comdev.
[27:18] we're essentially estimating a 3% vacancy rate for the year.
[27:23] we take that out of their budget. The total dollar value of that estimated vacancy savings is about 1.7 million.
[27:29] the reason we do that is so that it doesn't fall to fund balance at the end of the year,
[27:34] because we can't really control our vacancy rate too much,
[27:39] especially in public safety. Since we don't have a whole lot of control,
[27:43] we're trying to estimate that and reduce the amount that falls to fund balance at the end of the year.
[27:49] >> thank you. >> that's all I had on the quarter additional quarter mill rollbacks.
[27:55] is there any other questions related to that? I can answer at this point before I talked about sales tax.
[28:01] >> yeah. >> nate, you said we have some abated properties returning.
[28:09] is it typical that we have properties returning every year?
[28:15] >> it depends on the year. We're going to be starting to see more of those because typically they're anywhere 5-10 year abatements, I believe.
[28:24] we're going to start seeing a lot more of those. The properties that we invested in
[28:28] a decade ago are now going to be coming back on the tax roll. We should start to see quite a few more coming on in the near future.
[28:35] >> thank you. >> other questions? Oh, mark.
[28:44] >> nate, are you still going to be continuing to evaluate, tariffs and stuff to see if sales tax projections are going to be increasing,
[28:53] and when is a deadline where can we do anything further with any reduction because of that?
[29:03] >> I'll actually get to that here in a second. If you don't mind, I'll go through a couple of
[29:07] slides and I'll try to answer your question. That'll you're fine. Any other questions?
[29:13] just a reminder, when we talk about sales tax and
[29:17] our conservative estimates for the fiscal year '26 budget, we get sales tax revenue from three revenue sources.
[29:24] the city's general sales tax, we also have the city's 3/8 cent sales tax that was recently renewed by voters,
[29:31] and then we have our share of the county wide sales tax.
[29:35] those all go into the budget estimate that you've seen on our slide and in our budget documents and budget presentations.
[29:44] as you know, the city's 3/8 cent sales tax is dedicated solely to parks and pavement.
[29:49] literally, it comes into the general fund, and it goes right back out, doesn't stay in the general fund.
[29:54] it's not used for general fund expenditures. It's used for parks and pavement.
[29:59] same with the county's public safety sales tax three.
[30:03] it's dedicated to the justice center project. Again, it comes through as a revenue and sent our projections for the general fund,
[30:11] but then immediately gets transferred to those projects.
[30:16] we also have the city share of the county wide sales tax, and that's based on a state formula that uses population for one portion of it,
[30:23] roughly half, and then property taxes levied for the other half.
[30:28] it's basically our population compared as a percentage of the total johnson county population.
[30:34] as cities fluctuate, it can change a little bit. Same as property taxes levied,
[30:40] it's basically our percent of property taxes levied compared to all of johnson county,
[30:45] and we get a certain percentage. That's how we get our sales tax allocated to us. Population has been fairly static.
[30:51] we've been growing over the last couple of years, along with most of johnson county.
[30:56] property taxes, on the other hand, you saw the 5.63 mill reduction since 2019, including 2019.
[31:05] what that's done is it has lowered our percentage as
[31:11] far as our total percentage compared to all of johnson county.
[31:16] a couple of years ago, we were over 9%, so we had received approximately 9% of the county wide sales tax.
[31:24] through the end of 2024, we were down to 7.2%.
[31:29] as we continue to lower our mill levy, we obviously reduced our property tax revenue,
[31:36] but it has impacted us from a sales tax perspective too.
[31:40] at the end of 2024, both the counties, our share of the counties, sales tax, and use tax did not come in year over year,
[31:48] so it was actually down at the end of 2024, and that was mainly due to our reduction
[31:54] as far as our property taxes levied compared to everybody else. I'm looking ahead to 2026.
[32:00] if you look at your property tax estimate that you've received in the mail,
[32:06] you'll see that johnson county is showing a 6.5% increase and taxes levied next year.
[32:14] there'll probably be some fluctuations with appeals and everything when we get to november.
[32:19] we're showing the 5.2%, which is a half mill rollback,
[32:24] since we're rolling back another quarter mill, that'll be in the low fours.
[32:28] we're losing ground as far as a percent of total property taxes levied in johnson county compared to other jurisdictions.
[32:36] obviously, the county is the largest. They get about 50% of that. Where we are compared to them.
[32:41] that is before any increases or fluctuation with sales tax in general,
[32:47] but it did affect us quite a bit in 2024. It's one reason, a little cautious about we do show
[32:54] an increase in the county sales tax for 2026, but it is a little bit less than what johnson county
[33:01] is projecting for their sales tax, and that's the reason why.
[33:06] >> just a couple other points. I just wanted to highlight why we use conservative sales,
[33:12] and use tax estimates. Obviously, we've had our budget principles for over two decades.
[33:17] weathered a lot of storms. We've got a really good financial position right now.
[33:22] a lot of it is due to our conservative revenue estimating.
[33:27] I do want to talk about, there's been a lot of comments about revenue projections going down.
[33:33] we're not going down from actual collections in 2024.
[33:37] the original budget for 25 had 2% increase in 2024,
[33:41] had 2% increase in 2025, another 2% increase in 2026.
[33:46] obviously, due to the state formula,
[33:50] our allocation of county sales tax, and use tax did not come in in 2024.
[33:55] we also saw some other impacts such as the information services sales tax exemption.
[34:02] so we reset. We also saw a significant decrease in the city's sales tax all the way through june.
[34:11] that's based off of our estimates. We're using a lot of that data based off of the conservative estimates that we show here.
[34:19] even though sales tax was down for the last six months, we have not projected it to go down,
[34:23] and it's slowly making its way up. In fact, july was a significant increase.
[34:28] we had a large month, and it brought it slightly positive. But I just wanted to make the point
[34:34] that even though sales tax was down at the end of '24, for six months of this year,
[34:39] we have not projected sales tax to go down, we've just lowered our projected increases.
[34:47] then our conservative estimates impact capital projects,
[34:51] not necessarily the mill levy in the proposed budget. The reason for that as I mentioned the 38 cent sales tax,
[34:56] quarter cent sales tax, do not impact the mill levy because it's generally a pass through to those projects.
[35:05] you can see this is the original general fund breakout that was
[35:09] presented with the personnel services change that we talked about tonight.
[35:13] you can see the impact to the transfer line item based off of the conservative sales tax numbers.
[35:25] we do want to be conservative with our 38 cent sales tax, and quarter cent sales tax.
[35:30] I know municipal services is already putting together contracts for pavement management next year.
[35:35] they're using our budget numbers, so I'm trying to be conservative.
[35:40] if I overshoot that or over promise them, then what we publish next year,
[35:45] and early in the year may not happen. We can adjust where they can add
[35:50] new projects or new road to those agreements at a later date,
[35:54] should the sales tax come in. I've also had conversations with logan,
[36:00] and some of the projects that we anticipated funding with rates, and sales tax this year.
[36:04] just even with the first half being down, we've had to look for other funding sources as well.
[36:11] that's some of the impacts that we see when we see sales tax go down or not meet projections.
[36:18] >> nate, could you repeat what you said about the roads,
[36:23] and the contracts for next year? >> I know cody, I spoke with him a couple of weeks ago,
[36:28] and actually several times this year, about the sales tax revenue, obviously,
[36:32] the 38 cent sales tax is going to pay for 50% of its going to pay for pavement.
[36:37] we use it for pavement management. Cody is putting together working with contractors to get the agreements in
[36:43] place now based off of our projections for next year.
[36:47] then they can begin work as soon as they can in 2026.
[36:52] >> that's just a matter of getting out to bid in the winters. [overlapping] >> correct. >> [inaudible] construction spring.
[36:58] >> did you say something about if the sales tax doesn't come into your estimate. How's that affected?
[37:09] >> it impacts what they can do next year. If we project say nine million dollars, it comes in at 8.5,
[37:17] obviously, their budget, and their work is based off a nine million.
[37:21] I think they use a little bit of contingency, but it's based off of that. We publish those roads,
[37:26] the roads that are impacted by the pavement management program early in the year.
[37:30] we may not be able to do those because we do not have another funding source for that project.
[37:37] then I'll also say
[37:45] instead of funding some of our high priority projects,
[37:49] such as pavement reconstruction, 83rd street, second phase, some of the public safety projects.
[37:57] we've instead chosen to use the mill levy reduction, and not use property tax revenue.
[38:03] we do anticipate, and we hope that sales tax comes in better.
[38:07] we can adjust those projections going forward, and our recommendation would be to
[38:15] fund some of these high priority projects that we do not have funded in the current budget.
[38:23] then just sales, and use tax revenues remain volatile revenue source.
[38:28] I know there was discussion about potentially using three month rolling average.
[38:34] our projections earlier in the year would have had down, even using a rolling average would have been down further
[38:40] than what we projected for sales tax, would have had used tax high,
[38:46] and then immediately start coming down. July did impact that.
[38:51] we did have a really strong july, and if that continues,
[38:55] and to council member charlton's point,
[39:00] we will update our sales tax projections in march, april of 2026 again.
[39:07] we would have basically until the budgets adopted to update any sales tax projections,
[39:14] which would be september 2nd or whenever it's adopted before september 20th.
[39:20] >> chris.
[39:28] >> thank you, nate. To your knowledge, does the state intend to roll back any of
[39:37] our taxing authorities like they've done with some other taxes?
[39:42] I know obviously you affect your calculations, and projections.
[39:47] >> as far as property tax, I know there was several bills that were eliminating
[39:51] the potential increase, and assess valuation. There was talk at 3 and 4%.
[39:58] just for reference, we haven't been below 5% for over a decade.
[40:03] there's also talks about the, I think I've brought this up in the past.
[40:09] our investment income of course at last year anyway, they were talking about forcing us to go with lower securities,
[40:17] lower rates, which would impact revenue, which wasn't any tax implications to it.
[40:23] then sales tax, there was some discussion about a couple of bills a couple of years ago.
[40:27] I think it was two years ago where they were looking at sales tax reductions would impact the city.
[40:34] do that answer your question? >> other questions? We have had.
[40:43] thank you, nate. There's been quite a bit of email traffic since our last discussion on the budget.
[40:48] we did agree to allow public comment this evening regarding budget.
[40:53] per our standard procedure, if anyone includes questions in their public comment,
[40:58] we will collect those, and distribute answers back either via email or a website as we have throughout the budget process.
[41:04] if anyone would like to speak on this item tonight, please come forward, state your name,
[41:09] and address for the record and make your comments.
[41:19] good. >> my name is john geisler. I live at 8339 mullen road.
[41:25] I'm in ward 1, john, and courtney. I've lived here in lexis since 1988.
[41:32] I have a couple of questions about the budget. I'm sure nate can answer those,
[41:36] but right now, if I'm not mistaken, we have about 2.5 mills dedicated to servicing our debt, is that right?
[41:47] >> page 165. >> well, I'm just talking about the meals.
[41:51] the reason I'm talking about the meals is because it looks to me like we're going to pay the debt off about five years early.
[41:56] does that mean that the mills dedicated to servicing that debt didn't go away?
[42:02] >> mayor, let's not get into back, and forth with [overlapping] public comment.
[42:06] we're happy to answer mr. Geisler's comments later. >> we can take your questions,
[42:11] and answer them either via email or the public website, I could have been.
[42:16] >> we don't answer any questions on the budget today. >> you can ask your questions.
[42:20] we'll collect them, and get in touch with you to answer. >> the other question I have is about,
[42:27] I didn't see any slides about what the revenue is going to be going forward.
[42:33] how much of it was going to increase. The reason that I asked that is because the reserve continues to grow every single year,
[42:40] and it's already over the maximum. I'm just wondering if we're ever going to spend that money on something.
[42:48] it just continues to grow every single year. At some point, how far above the maximum are we going to go?
[43:00] >> clarifications on revenue policy, and how it transfers the capital improvement program?
[43:05] >> right. >> anything else? >> no. Thank you.
[43:10] >> thank you for coming out. Anyone else?
[43:24] >> galen vanhorn, 8131 rose hill road,
[43:28] mary, and council. This is speaking to the budget,
[43:32] probably into the future, but certainly there is something in the 26 budget that is of great concern to me.
[43:39] if I recall correctly, dan roe, and coy hunt had a citizen meeting early in 2021 at the 87th in monroe via station,
[43:48] three of us attended from ward 3. This, by the way, is the only meeting that I've
[43:54] ever known to have a citizen meeting for our ward. At that time, corey,
[43:58] and dan told us that they wanted to demolish the building, and build a new fire station because they needed
[44:04] accommodations for our women firefighters. Page 109 of the 2025 budget under core services, first section,
[44:12] and first bullet states provide emergency medical services for sick, and injured.
[44:18] this presents a conundrum for me. The statement along with the meeting in 2021,
[44:23] which was nearly five years ago, or right at five years ago.
[44:27] begs the question why didn't the city work with the county when they were
[44:31] contemplating the lenexa medac location at 8755 long street?
[44:37] according to director chief paul davis,
[44:41] medac did leave space from lenexa at the community center.
[44:46] further, medac was asked to vacate that area. I'm guessing because of the renovation there.
[44:52] the johnson county board of county commissioners approved the future medac station at 8755 long in december of 2021?
[45:02] interesting that a new fire station was discussed at ward 3 early on in 2021.
[45:08] but the city was unable to coordinate with medac to co-locate.
[45:12] did the city investigate the option of co-locating with medac?
[45:16] why did the city decide not to co-locate with medac?
[45:24] our emergency call response times significantly different for medac,
[45:29] and city fire, and operations. Recently, it has come to my attention that
[45:35] the department's historic baseline travel times were not acceptable to protect the amount of people,
[45:41] and property within that area that that station covers.
[45:46] here to date, the fire engine serving this area of location is the busiest of all fire engines in the city,
[45:54] which I found phenomenal. Why is it so much busier in that area than it is in a lot of the other areas of lenexa?
[46:03] how much would it have cost the city to co-locate?
[46:08] on page 110 of the 2025 budget under future opportunities, and issues,
[46:14] bullet 6 states continued collaboration, and partnerships with county,
[46:18] and regional emergency response agencies is important.
[46:23] why was this option not pursued when the county built lenexa, and medac?
[46:28] why is this bullet 6 included if the city really doesn't collaborate?
[46:35] then page 110, future opportunities issues bullet 1,
[46:40] secure dedicated funding for future construction of a fire department training center.
[46:45] what is the glacier station number 3? When I look at the website that indicates that it is a training division,
[46:53] and I have actually visited that location. It's been a couple of years ago,
[46:58] but certainly they had the state of the art educational facilities at that time.
[47:02] what are the new additional needs? I look forward to hearing your responses because I know there's a
[47:09] $400,000 study in the 2025 budget. As a property tax paying constituent,
[47:16] none of us can afford a $30 million expense for a new fire station at that location.
[47:23] yes, we want to keep that property at 87th in monrovia.
[47:27] it does belong to the city, and it would be ideal to have a park there,
[47:32] and have it a simple park, but not with a bathroom facility that costs $500,000.
[47:39] this property must not be given to a developer for another tax incentivized mixed use structure.
[47:46] I ask you, counsel, and mayor, are you leading the city with your highest degree of integrity,
[47:53] and transparency, and spending our money judiciously? Thank you.
[47:57] >> thanks galen. Other budget comments.
[48:05] seeing that, are there any council member reports? Anything from staff?
[48:15] >> nothing tonight, mayor. >> this does, and the recorded portion of the meeting.