Meeting Tuesday, January 20th.

Would you call the roll, please?

Mayor McCullough?

Yes.

Commissioner Fox?

Yes.

Commissioner Morrison?

Yes.

Mayor, we have three commissioners present.

The quorum of three is met.

Yeah, Jared, I'm Mayor Pro Tem.

That's okay.

Mayor Pro Tem.

Yes.

Fine.

Yeah.

Would you find me in the Pledge of Allegiance?

I pledge the agents through the flag of the United States of America.

And to the Republic for which it stands.

One nation under God.

Indivisible.

Liberty and Justice Paul.

Thank you.

Next thing on our agenda is public comment.

And before we start that, I would just like to make sure everyone in the audience knows that items A, B, and C from the general agenda have been moved to February 3rd.

So if you're in the audience for that, those okay.

Thank you.

Public comments.

Should I swing that up?

It's on.

Can't touch it at church.

Messes with the audio somehow.

I don't know how.

I just want to take a minute and uh since I've not been able to attend previous meetings this year to welcome the new uh commissioners to the commission.

I know that they and others have worked very hard to get elected.

And uh I just want to say that uh we're gonna be watching, as you know, and I think I've said that to you privately.

Um we're gonna make sure that you don't disappoint us.

Uh there is uh there is a history of uh challenges uh for the taxpayer, and as I've said in the past, I wouldn't say that it's all the taxpayers, but I would say there is a significant number of folks that are struggling, they show up for the RR hearing just to voice their opinion, or at least they present themselves as struggling.

Um I hope you don't think that I'm struggling, because I'm not.

I've said it before.

Um all the good people on the other side of the river get to pay my property taxes.

And uh I would just ask that uh as you look at your decisions in 2025 and beyond.

Um don't just ask the question, what are we spending, but ask the question because we're spending this.

What are we saving for the taxpayers?

I think tonight with the Mowers is a good example of asking that question.

But uh thank you for your service.

You've been here many, many years here in other positions.

It's not easy.

Uh I hope you think uh you don't think that any of this is personal for me because it's not, it's just a matter of uh being involved as citizens, and I know you encourage uh people to come up and voice their opinion because you want you want them to be heard, uh which is a little different than listening, but nonetheless it's semantics.

Welcome and uh blessings in 2025 as you as you steer the city side and the citizen side 2026, off of here already.

Any other public comment seeing none commissioner comments?

Okay, I just say the the new exhibit at the Discovery Center is really fun.

There was t uh there were a lot of people there for the opening.

It's sort of a theme of science and mini golf, if you can put picture those two together.

Okay, we'll move on to the consent agenda.

Items on the consent agenda are those of a routine and housekeeping nature, which are items which have been previously reviewed by the city commission.

Is there any comment from the public on the consent agenda?

Seeing none.

Is there the commissioners have any questions?

Uh so I want to uh look at item G.

I want uh I would like to remove that from the consent agenda and have that considered separately.

Okay.

Do you want to put that at the end of the regular agenda or do you just want to talk about that at the end of the consent agenda?

Well, there's an item here after consent agenda for items removed consent agenda.

So I assume that's where that's okay.

It looks like we need a motion to approve the consent agenda except for item G.

Second.

It's moved and seconded.

Jared, would you call the roll?

Commissioner McCall.

Yes.

Commissioner Fox, yes.

Commissioner Morrison?

Yes.

Motion passes three to zero with the exception of item G, which has been moved.

Okay, item G.

Brian.

Brian.

Yep.

Oh.

Thank you.

So I would just say, since I asked for it to be removed, I'd like uh some explanation of what exactly it is uh we're buying and why we need $67,500 more of these mowers when we've already spent 205,000 uh in the last six months.

So just uh bring a point of clarity 117,000 that was expensed was done from a grant that had no match.

Uh so that was uh specific to that grant, and we purchased 23 mowers with that.

Uh we are currently uh expanding our fleet uh as high as possible.

These specifically will go to CECO, which will have a fully uh steel well specifically at SICO uh steel and pipe supply ball uh ballpark, which will be a fully automated system, including what's outside the park, which would be the uh storm drainage area that requires an all-wheel drive mower.

Uh but the on-field uh mowing and the in-complex mowing uh would be achieved with automation as well.

Uh that was not picked up in the grant.

Uh this wasn't a location that was identified for automated mowing.

Uh automated mowers work really well on sports facilities uh for two reasons.

Um that is a higher level of maintenance care, and these mow pretty much every day, keeping the grass link the same, uh which is pretty important, especially when you're dealing with something like uh baseball, which requires uh a much shorter cut.

Uh it does conserve our personnel resources.

Umberg itself has saved probably at least 20 hours a week of seasonal employment that we struggle to find.

Uh so rather than dedicating personnel to that area, we uh turn around and allow staff to accomplish other things that are needed while these mowers mow autonomously.

I'm happy to answer any other question.

Um so in the first purchase, we bought 23 mowers for 119,000.

And the second purchase we bought nine mowers for 85,873.

How many are we buying in this one?

It's hard, uh it appears to me we're buying four for 675, but I may be wrong.

Uh so I believe in this purchase there should be four.

Two of them are the Sierras, the SIORs are the big ones, those are the 25,000 mowers.

Um so, and then the uh the 550s are the smaller mowers, the all-wheel drive would be included.

It's a version of the 550.

Uh we did need to pick up two Cioras for the baseball fields because they are assigned to specific locations uh based on their acreage that they can cut.

Uh last year we increased our uh our overall fleet to 34, and so this would be this year's, and we at this time we don't necessarily have a plan to purchase any others.

Um, but part of what we're doing in these replacements is looking at the contracts that we pay for mowing or internal mowing and trying to create the best efficiency around that.

So, how many are we buying here?

Four four?

Yeah.

So, how many contracts for mowing do we have that we don't do?

That's a great question.

I don't have that answer off the top of my head, but uh um last year we went through a major overall uh contract to put all the city contract mowing together uh for parks and rec specifically.

Um there's several locations.

Uh most prominent Douglas, uh Blue Earth Plaza, um the area outside of Blue Earth Plaza next to the depot, uh are several on there.

So with 34 mowers plus four, 38.

Well eliminate all major mowing contracts except for those small places?

No, um we do plan on deploying several like Douglas.

We do plan on deploying several, like Douglas.

Here's another location.

So we are working to deploy those to reduce down the contracts, but we won't be able to eliminate them.

You have used people from Sunrise and Sunset Cemetery staff to mow other things in Park and Recks, right?

So their primary care is both the cemeteries.

Occasionally they've gone over and uh cared for areas right outside of uh sunset.

So Girl Scout Park, etc.

So I guess being new to this and and not seeing any presentations on these previous expenditures.

I guess I'd like to see a more comprehensive presentation on how these things are all being used, where you know the size, uh how big are these, you know, $25,000 mower must be a pretty good size uh mower.

Um sorry I didn't mean interact.

We got a lot of parks.

And you know, where are they all being used and how they being used?

And I mean we're spending 273,000 dollars for mowers.

Yeah, I think that's a great suggestion, and we're absolutely happy to bring that information back to you uh when we bring that presentation back.

We can uh also get data on our acreage that we mow as long as our total contracting amount.

So uh my recommendation would be to um table continue continue or um table this item until the February 3rd uh legislative meeting.

Okay, would you someone like to move to table this item?

I would do that.

I'd move to table this item and all second.

It's moved to Jared.

Would you call the role?

Commissioner Fox.

Yes, Commissioner Morrison?

Yes, Commissioner McCollow.

Yes.

Motion passes three to zero.

Okay, we'll move on to the general agenda.

And as I said, A B and C are have been removed till February 3rd.

Sound like a long meeting.

Um D.

Letter D to consider Stonehaven addition unit three improvements.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tim.

And Commissioners Brian Johnson, Director of Public Works, City Engineer.

Uh, this item is for petitions for a new subdivision in the southwest quadrant of the city off of Miller Parkway in Amherst.

Uh this is phase two of a project that started in about 2020, 2021, uh, with some road work, uh, park that the city was uh dedicated, donated, uh, dam trails, uh some uh BMPs, uh just the the total project that was put together for that subdivision.

Uh this is the second phase of it, which includes some additional townhomes, additional roadways, water sewer main.

It also includes some oversizing and some water main uh trunk mains that are gonna uh help Randy get water out of the Stag Hill booster and over to the Miller Parkway uh water tower.

Uh the applicant is here tonight.

They have submitted three position uh petitions, water, sewer, and street.

All those petitions have been reviewed by our bond council, and they found them adequate.

Um, we'll start with the street petition.

So the street petitions are equal share per lot, 42 total shares.

We are a lot owner, so we're 142nd owner in that petition.

Salina Catholic Diocese is also a lot owner at 142nd.

And just to give you reference, our lot is here where the Miller Park uh Miller Parkway tower sets, and then the Salina Diocese is here.

They are stubbed out for a future street extension there.

So we'd be a 140 second property owner, so uh Salina Diocese also would be 142nd.

Costs are assessed 100% to property owners, so no city at large.

We're not gonna do any oversizing, overwidening.

We're not gonna add any trails here, so this is 100% developer.

Approximate share our cost per share is about 41,000.

Questions on the street petition?

Questions on the street?

Nope.

Keep going.

This is the actual area in the petition here.

Water petitions, uh, again, equal share, 49 total shares.

City at large of 43.65% for oversizing the water main from our standard 8 inch to 16 inch for a future transmission main.

Costs for that will be paid for by the water fund, and total approximate cost for those 43.65 shares is 412,000.

That cost share is determined by city cost share policy, which was adopted by the commission in 2012, and that equates to our approximate cost per share of about 10,900 once you take that 43% out.

Here is the area.

Again, a future transmission main will go from Miller Ranch Tower down over here over the river through the woods under K18 and back to Stag Hill for a redundant feed to the Stag Hill booster station.

I do have a question on that one.

Your presentation says 49 total shares.

Yes.

Your petition only has 40 lots.

Okay, I'll have to double check that.

I thought there was 49.

Lots one through 36 and then 48 to 51.

Okay.

I will double check that.

Thank you.

So this is the water petition here.

Any more questions on the water petition?

Sanitary sewer petition, 41 total shares.

Equal share again, city at large is 10.4%, and that's for a generator that will set down in this corner to pump uh sewage up over the hill and to the East Miller Ranch interceptor.

That generator will run that lift station in case we have a power outage.

Equates to about a 10.4% cost share in that.

Cost share per share, approximately 15,000.

The city's share is about 60,000.

That will be paid for through the sewer fund.

So questions on that one.

Again, on that one, I count 42 lots looking at the petition, and you show 41.

Okay.

I'll double check those.

The applicant is here if you have questions, or I'll stand for questions if you have any.

Perhaps the applicant could clear up the numbers.

Yeah, actually that would be in the resolution also, which we could pull up, but yeah.

Good evening, Brad Trimble with uh Benish uh consultant representing the uh the developer.

Um I was going through the petition series.

You're talking there, and you're correct on the the number count as far as the the number of lots that you rep uh noted.

So it's 40 uh on the the water, it is lots 136, one through 36 and 48 through 51, and then on the sewer it is lots one through 36 and 46 through 51.

Yep.

So what do we have in the end?

40.

And those are represented in the green.

I don't know if I can so the lots that are highlighted in green represent the the lots that are beneficiaries of the the water line.

So there'll be a water line run in parallel to the the street that will service all the lots adjacent to that street, then a lot will or uh sorry, excuse me, a line will run down the cul-de-sac, and that will service this cul-de-sac.

So a couple questions on uh just probably involve you and how this was split between them.

Uh as you can see, there are several duplexes that are probably smaller, relatively smaller townhomes, I would guess in the 300,000 range.

And then you get into the big lots over there, those are probably going to be half a million to three quarters of a million, and they're they all have equal cost of their infrastructure.

That is correct, it's a one per share.

Uh so each lot is uh a shareholder to that petition.

Regardless of the size of regardless of the size size of the the unit.

Yeah, when we sent this to Bond Council Commissioner, we had the same question.

Uh although these lots are significantly bigger, the buildable area is very small on them.

You can see the contours here.

This is a big cliff, and so the buildable area of each of these lots is about the same.

But we have the same questions.

So just some general questions about special assessments, and I know we've done it for 50 years.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I had about 70,000, yeah.

That's about right.

One question would be those are the costs of these.

By the time we get to bonding.

That's total.

Is that 70K is total?

That's interest bonding, insurance, that's everything.

That's everything.

Okay.

That's that's a question.

So at that price, then the specials would be roughly, I don't know, 5,000 to 5500 per year.

Be close to 35 to 4.

Yep.

We we expect the buyers of these lots to pay the specials.

Yes, that's correct.

Uh what effort is made on the part of the city to make sure that the buyers of these lots know that they're paying 67,500 for their infrastructure when they buy these lots.

Do you want to?

Yeah, go ahead.

I'd during my campaign, I had a lot of uh complaints from people in new areas that knew nothing about their specials, or maybe they did and they just told me they didn't.

But good evening, commissioners.

Rena Neil, Director of Finance.

So with the special assessment process, the first process will be once we issue temporary notes, and then that'll be about a three, three and a half year time frame.

Well, then after that, we'll issue bonds.

And that time frame starts in January.

So if we're going to issue temporary notes, say in June of this year, um, that'll be three, three and a half years from now.

So 2029, maybe 2030, we will then begin to notify property owners that there are special assessments that are on the property.

We send out a notice of public hearing letters, they have the opportunity to come to the city commission for a public hearing to learn about the special assessments as well.

During that time frame, however, there are the sale of lots, and so a lot of realtors and the developers do contact the city to ask for the estimated special assessments, and we do provide that information to them during that time frame.

So also, Commissioner, once you pass these resolutions, these resolutions then go to the county.

They'll be filed against these lots on the plat.

So anybody that does a title search on that lot on that plat will get these resolutions with them.

I don't know what our legal uh approach is to all this regarding potential buyers, but it just seems like we as a city need to make a better effort to the buyers that these expenses they'll have when they buy these properties.

You raise a very valid point, and I think a lot of times people don't realize what specials add up to or they're cognizant of the fact they're specials, but then they get their tax bill and they think the city is charging them you know property tax for the cost of that special and um I'm not sure what the city could do, particularly perhaps the county uh uh register of deeds could put a giant sign on their their deed.

Um but you know, one thing that we have uh discussed in the past is whether the city should go in and put all that infrastructure in before.

And we have basically started doing that when we had developers who didn't have the capital to develop more than say two houses at the time.

Made a lot of sense to put in the infrastructure for eight to ten houses and then charge it back as specials.

This does um come back to the bond, and that the debtedness of the you know, and while we are not uh in a problem unless we had one major um debtor not come through, the one on north south wreath.

Um but it is you know it's it's something that we could bring up and discuss.

Um most of our developers in town now are very capable of doing multiple units at once.

Well, my question is why do we wait three years to bond it?

I mean, once you know what you did is you can bond it any time.

And I think the discussion goes to we don't have any specials anymore.

The developer pays for it, puts it in, it's accountable, and I'll tell you, I think they're a lot more attentive, and I I don't know, but I think we're only one of four or five in Kansas that uses specials.

Yeah, I don't know what that number is.

I know that there's a like you said, a half dozen, maybe over the past ten years.

We've done roughly 75 million dollars of petitions, so this is not uncommon for us to do, but we can certainly come back and do a work session on petitions and uh get you educated and then you can make your decisions.

I think there's two parts.

One is why do we wait three years to bond it?

We can buy interest rates, I think we can you know look for that.

Um it certainly doesn't take three years to bond it once we have a project that's defined.

So we can issue temporary notes for up to three and a half to four years.

Um, in the past we've been issuing them for that long period of time to allow for the developer to be able to market and sell the lots, and because of the interest rate was low on those temporary notes and the issuance of the bonds.

So if that was to flip, then we would issue the temporary the bonds earlier.

It is also expensive to to have bonds, and so you don't want to do it for each little pile.

Well, we were told it had flipped that temporary bond now more expensive than that long term as far as rates.

Right.

But when the developer requests to issue um the petitions for the special assessments, that is usually their ask is to have those up to three and a half, four years.

So we can look at issuing the bonds earlier.

As of right now, we don't have any temporary notes outstanding to issue for special assessments.

Um, but once this particular issuance goes forward, we can review it and come back with that information.

So, what benefit does it do the city to be the financier for developers?

I'll I'll defer to the management for that to Jason for that.

Yeah, before we get into that, uh I I would look to Brian.

The infrastructure itself is usually 18 to 24 months to get in place and know the actual costs.

So we a year would maybe be the difference between a project actually being ready to fully bond with streets, water, sewer, and storm versus the three and a half year window that you have.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So I do think we have presentations and information from probably a three or four different points in time in the last 25 years where the commission has asked these questions, and we've engaged with a history with an understanding of how they work, the positives, and the negatives of doing so.

I think overwhelmingly the positives have put developers in a position with local builders to be able to spread the inventory of available lots that you can react and have construction take place on a fairly um rapid pace.

Couple different instances in Manhattan's history where the Fort Riley has grown.

Special assessments and benefit districts have put us in a position where a lot of inventory can be built at one time without leveraging a local developer to go to a bank and borrow a lot of money.

There are a lot of local developers and builders who would contend they wouldn't be in this industry without special assessments.

Now, again, these the circumstances may have changed, the finances may have changed, but a lot of them will give us the feedback.

You're gonna see more developers out of Wichita and Kansas City come to Manhattan, wait for that pent-up demand and put that large scale development in place versus the 10, the 20, the 30 lot subdivisions that we've been rolling out consistently for quite some time.

I do think we can provide you data.

I think we can bring the information to the table, get that guidance and direction from the commission and have a dialogue with developers and builders in the community, pros, cons, and really see what direction you want to go moving forward.

The the topic has been frustrated for a lot of people in the community.

Uh we we've had a lot of people buy lots, buy their homes.

Two years later, they get a special assessment.

And they didn't even they honestly just didn't realize it was even going to be there.

It's gonna shift that $60,000, $70,000 per lot back to the developer to negotiate for that land sale.

Um our lot costs in Manhattan will bring that data for you as well.

Um they used to range $30,000, 40,000, $50,000 a decade or two ago.

They're they're edging up towards $100,000 in Manhattan today.

And you're gonna you're gonna need to account for that infrastructure cost and that potential future lot cost as well.

So I think philosophically they've been around to keep the housing industry moving and growing in Manhattan.

Maybe we've realized that point in time where the taxpayers, this entity, no longer needs to be that financial arm to allow that infrastructure to go in.

It will shift that burden.

Well, I'm not out to change course tonight on how we do things.

Absolutely.

Roger Schultz was developing, I believe, at the time Rena and I met with a group down at the conference center.

It was like right when it first opened.

So it'd been 2012, 2013, filled all filled the room.

A lot of feedback, a lot of perspectives.

I'm not saying we have to do that again, Commissioner Fox, but there's just a lot of people that are involved with this industry.

At that point in time, I I kind of thought we were teetering towards doing away with them.

And we kept them.

But every so often we need to go back through that and have that conversation and get that direction.

So I was doing home lending in the 70s when Candlewood edition first started, and that's one of the first I remember of special assessments.

And it took a long time for that development to take off.

Yeah.

But it finally did.

Yep.

And so and the infrastructure is important.

We have a lot of resources internal to this organization dedicated to this task.

Give them an opportunity to talk about how hard it is to get into some of these areas in our community and expand a footprint into the residential world.

But on the same hand, we've been doing this for 30 plus years.

Well, the conversation started what should the city do to warn people.

In that industry of construction, development, sales, every one of those people have a liability to their customers, and they all know exactly within $100 a year and what specialists are going to be.

So I don't feel guilty that the city has done anything wrong in not telling buyers that they're going to get whacked two, three, four years down the road.

If there's somebody going to get whacked, it's the developer and the realtors that are handling it.

Because I know the title people, when you get a title policy, have it right on there.

And the county has it as a registered document.

So I don't think the city has liability for any of that.

It's the people that we've been aiding and trying to develop those things, responsibility, contractors, the builders or the developers and the and the real estate people, not the city.

Because they can have access to the information if they take the time and energy and responsibility to do their job.

And I I would concur with you, and I think the loan officer in Commissioner Fox's scenario, though those individuals end up realizing what that special assessment is going to be before you close because it's in the documentation.

They know it's going to be due.

They've done their due diligence and they understand that full breakdown of costs that are escrowed and what is accumulated on a monthly annual basis.

And it's absolutely involved.

A lot of home buyers don't realize it till the day of closing when they get their full settlement statement, then it's in there, and then they wonder what that is.

And then they start asking the questions.

Don't disagree with you, Commissioner Morrison.

But again, there's a lot of information.

There's a lot of perspectives.

And they have been to the advantage of commercial districts, development opportunities where we have spread cost over time.

And it existed and helped to get adjacent properties to participate in an expansion of a major corridor in our community.

So I don't think the tool is all like throw it out, but I do think there's an education that needs to be had in it in a discussion on the pros and cons.

Well, I know you know Commissioner Morrison commented it doesn't affect the city.

Well, we as Karen said, we did have an instance where it did affect the city.

We got the lots back, and then we end up paying the developer 260,000 to take them off our hands.

So yeah, yeah, Lee Mill Village.

I'm I'd be happy to give you a history lesson on that at some point in time.

Um there were you know, we had a just a defunct developer, and and when they have that many lots that were slated for townhomes, um obviously the the market couldn't support them.

Uh so that Missouri based developer picked up and left, and the city has been wrestling around with them since 2017.

I think we're finally free of of all that land, it's actively being developed.

Uh, but it took nine years to get to a point where we're not paying special assessments anymore on that property.

But total in for the taxpayers is significant.

I mean, it's hundreds of thousands of dollars the taxpayers have had to pick up and go into that district and and shore it up and get it to a point where it's back on the tax rules.

It can happen.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

It is an interesting discussion.

Um, do we have anyone in the public that would like to make a comment on this?

Um see none.

Uh entertain a motion.

So I would move to find let's see, find the petition sufficient, approve resolution number 012026A, 012026b, and 012026C finding the projects advisable and authorizing construction for Stonehaven Unit 3 improvements, ST 2516, WA 2513, and SS 2512.

What question with the just the correct lot numbers?

Yes, Commissioner Morris.

Yeah, Commissioner Morrison, we verified that the resolution is correct.

Okay.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Would you call the roll, please, Jared?

Commissioner Morrison.

Yes.

Commissioner McCullough.

Yes.

Commissioner Fox.

Yes.

Motion passes three to zero.

Okay.

Okay.

Now we're on to consider increase to a construction contract amount, Anderson Avenue from Harris Avenue to Connecticut Avenue, water streets and stormwater improvements project.

Well, thank you, Mayor Pro Tem.

Commissioners.

Uh this item is to add some storm sewer work, some inlets along Anderson Avenue from about where they're at now, east towards Lee School.

Uh a total about 14 inlets in total.

We want to rebuild while we're there and while we're doing construction.

I also want to take this opportunity though to give you and the public an update on where we're at, kind of where we're headed and what to expect over the next several months.

So this is the project management team.

Karen Becker, our principal engineer, is here with us tonight.

Uh Whitney is our project manager with Lighthouse Construction.

She unfortunately couldn't make it tonight, but she's been a key and instrumental person in the project so far.

So overview of the project.

What drove the project?

Well, primarily we had a series of water line breaks along Anderson Avenue over the well, since my since I've been here, uh about two or three a year from Lee School all the way down to Connecticut.

Uh that infrastructure was put in the ground somewhere in the 30s and 40s when Anderson Avenue was two lane.

Uh we also had a joint deterioration at concrete pavement on Anderson Avenue, Anderson Avenue, the inside lane, we think was constructed in the 50s to 60s, and then that outside lane in the late 60s, early 70s.

So you're talking about 60 to 70 year old infrastructure, water mains getting close to 100 years.

Uh secondary, we also wanted to do some improvements on the side streets.

We did quite a bit of street maintenance in the Bellhaven area.

Oh gosh, probably 10 years ago, but we did not get too close to Anderson because we knew this project was coming, so while we were there, we wanted to finish those tie-ins there right off Anderson.

Uh it also helps provide us with a crosstown water main again.

Uh Randy is looking to put some additional water main in the ground for some trunk mains between the zoo and um the zoo and sequel sequencing, excuse me.

Uh we also want to incorporate a little bit better sidewalk system, especially on that south side, uh, where we can expand to about seven feet.

So again, overview, water main was the main drivers.

Uh Anderson Avenue was a six and four-inch water main constructed mainly in the 40s and 50s, lots of maintenance breaks.

Uh, I mean, I'm sure you drive Anderson, you know, about two or three a year.

Uh, our current city man is minimum standards that's eight-inch ductile iron.

That was six and four inch, so we had um quite a bit of maintenance issues.

So the benefit of the replacement is obviously new pipe reduced maintenance, also with the larger diameter.

Also with the larger diameter, we get increased pressure and fire flow.

Project overview.

So we had a bid letting November 5th of 2025.

Two bidders, buyer construction was a low at 10.1 million, and Ogilneck was second low at 13.5.

Commission awarded that contract to buyer in November of 25, and then in June of last year, we issued a notice to proceed.

So the current work is in the red, it's on those future eastbound lanes on Anderson between Timber Lane and Connecticut.

That red is just about done.

They're going to be doing some switching, some phase switching here within the next three or four weeks where they'll switch it out to the south side, they'll start working on the north side.

Then they're going to also start working on phase A or 2A, excuse me.

So this is our next phase change here.

That future westbound lane, the eastbound lanes you'll be driving on then, those new lanes, new sidewalk, new driveways.

We anticipate sometime in February of 2026, weather permitting.

So to the curb inlets.

Most of these were cast in place in the 1970s on those outside lanes of Anderson.

55, 60 year old infrastructure.

Got lots of deterioration after pavement demolition.

Lots of broken corners on sides and castings.

Basically, that slab was holding those inlets together.

Once you pull that slab apart, it's kind of a house of cards.

They all started coming apart.

And then also the concrete apron, those conditions of those uh aprons were in poor shape also.

So here's a picture of kind of what happened as we remove this pavement around here.

That pavement was kind of holding those things together, uh just squishing them together.

Once we took them out, there's no support in them.

Edges broke, sides broke, lots of deterioration.

Again, another another piece that is uh in poor shape.

This is actually looking inside of the manhole, and you can see this whole interior wall is gone or deteriorated, eroded.

Um really in poor shape.

So the base bid on this, we had about 10 new inlets in the base bid.

Uh, we're requesting another 14 inlets to be replaced.

Uh we have talked with the contractor, they are willing to hold their bid prices, so we are never going to get it cheaper than we're gonna get it now because we have a 10 million dollar project there that this was bid with.

So that would lead us to a total of 37 new total inlets.

Again, the funding summary, original contract of 10.1 million.

We've used a little bit of contingency to date, about 1% of the contract total.

Uh, our request tonight is to include those other inlets and tops for a total of 266,000 additional.

So our new contract amount would be 10.49.

Then here's our schedule as we look out through 2026.

Obviously, we're in this area here.

We're getting very close to switching traffic control switch, we'll do some uh demolition, waterline installations, backfill rock, paving sometime around May, and then that phase 2A also be kicking off here shortly, uh, and then we'll move to some pavement removal later this uh spring and summer.

Overall, we anticipate the project to be done early fall of 2027, but that's not all of Anderson.

There's a lot of side work that also happens too.

So we're talking project total uh Anderson and all the additional roadways.

We do have a dedicated uh website for this project.

We update it weekly or every other week.

Uh this is the best place to get up-to-date information.

And with that, I'll stand for questions.

And the contractor is here, also if you have questions.

Questions?

Yes.

So just be clear on that 2A, they're going down, continuing down the south side of Anderson with piping.

And then one B, they're going down the north side.

Correct.

Of Anderson with just street pavement.

There's some utility, but it's not the majority of the work is on the south side.

Yeah.

Uh as we get closer to 2A, maybe around April, we may come back before you.

We have been talking to the contractor about a full closure this summer while our counts are down, while our roadway counts are down.

We believe it could cut significant time off the project, also lead to some potential savings.

We've just started having those conversations, and I don't want to promise you anything that I can't deliver, so I'm gonna tell you that uh if those provide some fruit and if we think we're uh be able to cut some time off this project and save us some money, we may be back before you.

That would be great.

It'd be good.

This is really a corridor for the high school lee school K-State.

This is really a corridor for the high school lee school K State, so if we can get through that May time frame, we think we can probably close it and not really impact the other east-west arterials in the city.

Jim, did you have I don't look at construction documents?

I don't think that's my job, but asking the question probably is when we get done.

Will we have enough infrastructure of water lines going across so we don't dig it up three weeks after we pour the last concrete?

Because I would think we'd be stubbing in access to other lines.

I can I can speak for my infrastructure.

Yes, we'll be in good shape.

What concerns me is that north half has a lot of fiber optic in it, and I really hope ATT doesn't break or lose fiber optic or cable.

That north side is just chock full of utilities, and I really worry about.

Well, we had a water main break on Walters Drive just a couple of days ago.

We just milled an overlaid Waters Drive in August.

So it it happens.

It's in this case it'd be very unusual because this is all new.

My bigger concern is ATT and Cox and Kansas Gas because they're all on that north side.

Are they within the city right away?

Yes, they are.

They're actually under the slab because that right-of-way is so tight through there.

Anderson used to be state highway, so the right of way is really, really tight through there.

As I'm sure his buyer will let you know, it's very uh very tight construction area, but uh that's my bigger concern.

Well, that's why we hired the best, right?

Well, it is low bid, and I'll just leave it at that.

Lowest and best bid.

Other questions.

Thank you.

Is there anyone from the audience who'd like to make a statement or ask a question?

Or okay.

Seeing none, motion my turn.

I was so moving the approvement of the adjustment for these 14.

I believe he said new inlets.

It stood right there in the blue.

You can read it.

Right, all of those that are said out there in the blue action section.

I don't believe I need to read it all, but 266,000 21 dollars and forty cents proposal, that resolution 012026D.

Is that good enough?

That is adequate.

Thank you.

Okay, good.

Second.

Jared, would you read the Commissioner McCullough?

Yes.

Commissioner Fox, yes, Commissioner Morrison?

Yes.

Motion passes three to zero.

Thank you.

I would entertain a motion to adjourn.

I move to adjourn.

And I certainly second.

All in favor say aye.

Okay.

Thank you very much.