Here.

Mayor, we have five commissioners present.

The quorum of three is Matt.

Thank you.

Will you please rise and join me with the Pledge of Allegiance?

I pledge allegiance to the lab of the United States of America and to the Republic for each standards, one nation under a individual with the need of justice for all.

Whereas Manhattan Parks and Recreation welcomes more than 700,000 visitors annually.

Well, uh, generating an estimated 57 million in annual economic impact while providing exceptional experiences for residents and visitors alike.

Whereas Manhattan's parks, trails, open spaces, the Flint Hills Discovery Center and Sunset Zoo preserve our natural and cultural heritage while promoting conservation, environmental stewardship, education, and opportunities to connect with nature.

And whereas the continued success of the Manhattan Parks and Recreation is made possible through the dedication of employees, volunteers, coaches, sponsors, community partners, and supporters.

And whereas the United States Congress has designated July as Parks and Recreation Month.

Now, therefore, I, Susan E.

Adam Jack, Mayor of the City of Manhattan.

Do hereby proclaim the month of July as park and recreation month in the City of Manhattan.

And I encourage all residents to recognize and celebrate the vital role that parks, recreation, and cultural resources play in strengthening our community.

Thank you.

Congratulations.

I promise to keep this short.

They're the ones that make this really happen.

Pretty much everybody in the community uses parks and recreation in some form or fashion, whether that's a trail or a park or one of our programs, again, the zoo or the discovery center.

One of the unsung heroes in here is building services, and you you see that a lot.

So just really want to thank the staff.

I appreciate everybody coming out tonight for the picture.

And if you see one out there, please thank them this month because they do work hard.

It is our passion.

But they are working hard to provide a service that everybody enjoys in the community.

Thank you.

Okay, say parks and rack on three.

Okay.

Thank you all.

Congratulations.

I will point out that Sunflower Summer is beginning today, Thursday.

And I think we have 15-ish sites in Manhattan, including the Discovery Center and the Zoo.

So please take advantage as you have visitors, as you have grandkids, as you have your own children to visit these sites.

Children and one adult are allowed in free.

Yeah, I think it's really exciting that one adult is allowed in free.

So gather up all the kids in your neighborhood and go.

Commissioners, I'm going to hold public comment for a moment since I dove right into our comments.

Would you, Larry, anything to add?

Or well, I wasn't there, but I want to make sure everybody appreciates what Karen and their family did at the Discovery Center.

Quite truthfully, I think it's more impressive than just the Discovery Center.

Blue Earth, the community.

And certainly any tribute to friend like Jan.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I too want to uh uh thank and congratulate Karen.

I attended the ribbon cutting uh Monday morning for the the bison uh exhibit in front.

It's awesome.

And uh it's a great addition to the Discovery Center, which in itself is a great facility.

So I appreciate that, and thank you, Karen.

I also want to thank uh again the city cleanup crews.

Uh pears that they're just about done with the uh the cleanup and hopefully no more uh 80 mile-an-hour windstorms uh rest of the year.

So thank thank you all for the great job of cleaning upper city.

Andrew just thank you, Manhattan for uh taking care of each them of yourself and each other for on for the 4th of July.

So seemed like we went through pretty well without any problems.

So thank you.

We'll have public comment on any item not on our agenda this evening.

Is there anyone who would like to make any remarks?

Will we be talking about budget later in the session?

We are talking about the uh revenue neutral resolution.

All right, well, I'll just talk about the uh three topics that are tied to your property taxes.

Okay.

I got three minutes.

You do?

And please state your name and address.

My name is Phil Schenklitz.

I live at 832 Briarwood Drive here in Manhattan.

And so the three topics I want to touch on is one, based on my experiences.

Should the city should I be excited about a tax increase?

Two, is the city using data and facts to make good fiscal decisions?

And three, I'll suggest the budget planning process to better understand and manage the city budget.

So my experiences with the city.

I've called the health department, the fire, the fire department, and the public works.

Nobody returned my phone call.

After multiple calls, I finally got a hold of public works and they sick me on Brian Johnson.

And I'm happy to report Brian Johnson of I exchange emails, and uh he's helped me understand the situation, how we move forward.

But one out of three, unacceptable.

Uh may I just interject for a moment that the the health department is not a city department, it's a county.

All right.

Still 50 percent.

Would you be happy with that?

Okay.

Also, uh broken curve.

C click fixed 311 CRM.

This winter, uh snowplow went over a curb on an island, broke the curb.

I submitted the uh CRM.

A week or two later, a city truck drives up.

I happen to be in the yard, and two guys were in the truck, two employees, and they came and looked at the curb.

So I walked up to them and said, Hey, are you here for the curb?

They said yes.

So, okay.

Um there's where it was.

They said, Yeah, we see it's broke.

I said, when can I expect it to be fixed?

And they laughed and said, eh, a couple of years.

So you got two people driving around in a truck.

Yep, curbs broken.

Really?

Get one out fixing the curves.

Where's the efficiency there?

So um, so based on my experience with the city, there's a lot of waste.

And instead of just throwing a 6.7% tax increase out there, maybe we should look at efficiencies within the organization.

And I can go on and on, but I don't have time.

Okay.

Is the city using data and facts to drive budget discussions?

So in the pool survey, we spent 20 grand on that, and 51% have general opposition to a tax increase.

That's what your survey said.

Also, um, community priorities, 83% recommended street maintenance as a top priority.

Okay.

Two years to fix occur.

Priorities.

Okay.

Robotic lawnmowers.

You talked about those, and they're really cool.

But has anybody done an ROI on that?

Have you?

What was the percent?

Sir, please address your comments to the commission.

Thank you.

All right.

No worries.

So has anybody done RI?

A quick look would be what was the employment of Parks and Rec in 2025 versus what was employment in 2026?

Okay.

So thank you.

And please sign in and uh at the podium.

Can I come back and talk about my third topic session?

Is there anyone else who would like to make any remarks?

Seeing none, we will close public comment and move on to the first item this evening, which is approval of our consent agenda.

Commissioners, is there any uh are there any items you wish to have removed from the agenda for additional discussion?

I wish to remove 2A, 2B, and 2C.

Uh Andrew may ask, do you have basic questions of these that staff can respond to such that they might not need to be discussed in great depth?

Oh we probably need to talk about it.

All right, do we have a motion, please?

I'd move we approve the uh consent agenda uh uh without items A, B, or C on it uh uh and consider those later.

Mayor, before we do the roll, we need to take a public comment on the uh consent agenda excluding 2A, B, and C.

Is there anyone who would like to make public comment on the consent agenda excluding the first three items?

New closed public comment.

Chelsea, we call the roll, please.

Commissioner McCullough.

Yes.

Commissioner Fox?

Yes.

Commissioner Morrison.

Yes.

Commissioner Von Lentel.

Yes.

Mayor Adam Chak?

Yes.

Motion carries five to zero.

All right.

Andrew, your comments regarding item two A.

So this would go for all three, but for 2A.

My suggestion is that instead of it being general funds to pay for this, I would prefer to use the transient guest tax.

Andrew, we're approving the minutes for this last week's meeting.

Oh.

The meeting of two weeks ago.

There's something in the minutes you had questions about.

No, sorry.

Okay.

I'm jumping ahead.

Second.

Thank you.

We'll need to take public comment on the minutes.

Can you inform us what the correction was?

Yeah, Chelsea had an extra sentence in there and she caught it and she deleted it.

So my error is this.

I said 2A, B, and C.

I meant to say 2 F to A, B, and C.

That was that was what my mistake is.

Well, we've already approved that part of the agenda, so I'm sorry we're not able to uh discuss that.

My mistake.

Is there any public comment on approval of the minutes from last uh from the Tuesday June 16th minute meeting?

Seeing no public comment, do we have a motion to approve the minutes of that meeting?

Slow move.

Second.

Chelsea.

Commissioner Fox.

Yes.

Commissioner Morrison.

Yes.

Commissioner Von Lentel.

Yes.

Thank you.

Mayor Adam Chak.

Yes.

Commissioner McCullough.

Yeah.

Motion carries five to zero.

Thank you.

Mayor.

At this point, I would move that we approve consider agenda B and C.

Second.

Is there any public comment on items B and C, which pertain to paying the claims register and approving several licenses.

Seeing none, we will uh call the roll, please.

Commissioner Morrison.

Yes.

Commissioner Von Lintel.

Yes.

Mayor Adam Chak.

Yes.

Commissioner McCullough?

Yes.

Commissioner Fox?

Yes.

Motion carries five to zero.

Thank you.

We will now move on to our general agenda.

We have one item this evening, which is to consider approving resolution number 070726B regarding the city commission's intent to levy a property tax exceeding the revenue neutral rate and setting a public hearing regarding its intention to exceed the revenue neutral rate on September 15th, 2026 at 6 p.m.

in this room at City Hall.

One on 1101 points Avenue Manhattan, Kansas, and we will have a presentation.

Yeah, thank you, Mayor Adam Chak and Commissioners.

Again, this is a very detailed resolution that I won't read through again.

But tonight, the action that you are taking is uh setting your intent to exceed that revenue neutral rate would be which would be approximately 51 mils, and also setting a ceiling or a maximum mill levy that you are not going to exceed, which is proposed to be that 54.5 that was presented during the uh recommended budget last week.

Um what you are not doing tonight is adopting the budget.

What you are not doing tonight is setting the mill levy.

You are simply setting a public hearing for September 15th, um, and we are preparing uh to bring back um additional uh mill levy analysis based on the comments that were made last week, um more in-depth conversation about the bond and interest fund as well as our um debt schedule that we have.

Additionally, we will be bringing back um information regarding that sales tax renewal uh question that we have next week.

Happy to stand for any questions, Commissioners.

Thank you.

I'll start.

I would consider that rather than taking action tonight on this that we table it and that we schedule a public discussion led by somebody, you, which would be appropriate on discussing the ways and knots and the ins and outs of a budget and how we're getting to where we're needing to be.

Commissioner Morrison, we are bringing back additional uh scenarios to represent the conversations that we've had about the mill levy analysis that you all asked for last week.

And so we will be bringing those back for discussion next week.

So you won't be you will have that opportunity to discuss.

The reason we need to go ahead and set this hearing tonight is that we need to publish notice, and it we have at least 30 days' notice that is required, so we need to make sure that we get that done.

Is it 30 or 45 days?

We owe the county this resolution by July 15th.

Yeah.

But basically by the end of this next week.

So it's a notice on the revenue neutral rate alone.

You actually set another hearing in August for September 15th in regard to the budget and numerous years cities publish two different budgets for the same hearing because the state requires us to take action on this revenue neutral rate at this point in time.

It is a notice back to the public that the county will send of your intent to exceed the revenue neutral rate.

We are required during this action to identify a mill rate.

It is a cap.

But you have to take this action tonight.

Could I just point out too that in years past we have published one and we have come down in the next two months?

If you know we knew to do it at a certain level, but we also knew we needed more information and more flexibility.

And so this we can't go up after tonight, but we certainly can go down.

And I just I think it's really important if you look back and you see mill rates, and you see six years ago, five, four years ago, um the mill rate was definitely lower.

They even lowered it four mills in 23, but they also plugged the gap with COVID dollars.

So to get a realistic picture of what we were spending in 2021, 22, 23, you'd have to kind of look at that too, to really see where the mill levy without the COVID, if it hadn't used COVID dollars, where it would have gone.

And just to emphasize the point that Commissioner McCullough is making last year, uh the commission set their uh maximum at 56, and they ended up coming in at 54.

So again, this does not set the mill levy.

This is just letting them know we do not plan to go any higher than keeping the mill levy flat from what it was in 2026.

And therein lies the issue my experience in life is when you set a lid, that is that the maximum you think you can do.

You don't have much incentive to take a look at going down.

I'd be much more comfortable either not setting that limit tonight, scheduling another special meeting or meeting, what we have to do, so we can have a discussion between ourselves.

What are we willing to live with?

I understand the 51 isn't going to cut it.

I do understand the revenue neutral at 51 isn't going to cut it, but 54 isn't reasonable either, where we're taking a hundred percent advantage of the six percent increase that we can't track.

So I'm not willing to vote for the 54 mill levy today for our revenue neutral uh number and with the promise that we will come down, can come down or might come down.

Just a reiteration last year it was set at 56 and it was finally adopted at 54.

As one person once says past performance is no evidence of future performance.

So I would just say I do not agree with approving the revenue neutral mill levy of 51056 in the proposed resolution because we have not been presented a budget that would result from that mill levy reduction.

So we have no idea of its impact on the residents of the city.

If it's a terrible impact and we don't like it, we can't change it if we approve this resolution tonight.

As much as I'd like to lower the mill levy to that level, I think it's irresponsible to establish that mill levy without first knowing the repercussions of that decision.

One of the biggest challenges we have to deal with is the increased debt service resulting from previous commission's decisions to build facilities and pay for them with debt and advalorm taxes.

Just last year, we finally started paying for the Douglas Recreation Center to the tune of $550,000 a year.

This year, we're starting to pay for the joint maintenance facility and two phases of the North Campus Corridor.

The joint maintenance facility is costing us a million seven forty-three, the other million three.

So that's three million dollars of new debt service this year we're paying for.

Next year, 27, we start paying for the Aggieville parking garage at a million five a year, and another phase of North Campus at 560.

So that's $2 million of new debt service next year that we pay.

So in three years, $5.7 million.

And we have a lot more temporary debt that's going to be converted to long-term debt in the next few years.

Given this new debt service and the projected additional debt service in the coming years, our focus needs to be salvaging the bond and interest fund.

Up through 25, the fund was realizing healthy surpluses each year to support our positive bond rating.

The 2026 budget provides for a $3.37 million loss.

That can't continue.

I do not support holding the mill levy flat.

The tax base is increased by $50 million or 6.75%.

And we have agreed to increase the Evergy and Kansas gas service franchise fees by 2% and use that money for the bond and interest.

Those two increases plus a couple of other additional income line items to fund to the fund allow us to make significant progress in salvaging that bond and interest fund and still reduce the mill levy.

I urge the commission to approve the resolution tonight so that we can continue our discussions about the appropriate mill levy.

If approved, I then highly suggest that city staff develop three possible budgets for the commission to consider.

One budget utilizing the revenue neutral mill levy 51056.

One budget utilizing a mill levy in the middle, say 52 and a half, and one budget with the existing mill levy of 54506.

The two budgets with the reduced mill levy can then clearly describe to us and the public exactly what services, if any, will need to be cut because of the reduced mill levy.

Thank you.

Larry, thank you.

Commissioner Fox, thank you for that statement.

Um I just want to make clear in terms of semantics that Danielle has been uh using the term maintaining a flat budget.

You are uh you are stating that you would not support the mill levy at 51.056, which would be the revenue neutral amount.

I might support the lower one.

I won't support the higher one.

I won't support the 54506.

Well, depending on the data that you just requested looking at three different budgets.

You just asked for that information.

I don't think you'd want to dismiss it up.

But Larry, I'm confused.

So where do you want it?

What I heard um Commissioner Fox asked for, if I could please jump in, um Commissioner Fox if I misinterpreted.

Um I think what Commissioner Fox has asked for is to be able to compare three different scenarios.

That first scenario being the recommended budget, which is maintaining a flat mill levy at 54.506.

The second scenario would be closer to that revenue neutral rate of 51 mills around in that area, and then something in between, which would be what does it look like if we um reduced between uh one and two mills?

Um, so uh middle ground scenario.

Well put.

Thank you.

Very good.

Thank you.

And Commissioner Fox, I also appreciate your focus on our long-term debt and the need to address that with the reductions that were incurred by previous uh commissions.

Uh we find ourselves in the position we do now.

And while several other commissions have kicked to the can down the road, I appreciate very much your willingness to face this head on and see what we can do.

I'm still confused as to what you want.

Where do you want my understanding is that Larry would like us to approve this resolution with 54.

54.506.

Okay.

Thank you.

Sorry, I just Andrew, would you like to make a comment?

I don't think we're gonna go to 54.506, so I don't know why we need to put it in why we need to do a revenue neutral break to.

I would just do it lower.

I would do it 53.

Is where I would be at.

Andrew, based on what information, considering that you you're saying you have not yet received enough information from the budget to make a you're just being arbitrary, you're picking a number out of the hat.

I mean, I really want to be a revenue neutral, but you know, for a compromise, I'm going saying 53.

So we're not establishing a mill levy tonight.

Correct.

All we're doing is saying we're not gonna do the 515 at 506, at least at this point.

We may do it in the future, I don't know.

But we're not gonna do 50, and we might go up to 54.5, but probably not.

But commissioners, I had an opportunity this week to observe our colleagues at the county discussing their budget as part of their preparation for their revenue neutral uh announcement, and they are in the position, they they've lowered their the mill levy for the county portion from 43.08 to 37.99 over the course of six years.

They're in the position now where they were talking about no longer maintaining Fairmont Park, cutting services from the health department and moving five million dollars from reserves into their general operating fund because they have so dramatically cut the mill levy over these last several years.

My recommendation would be to follow Larry's uh suggestion of approving this resolution tonight, studying the data that we are presented with with these three scenarios that have been proposed and seeing where that leads us.

Um could I just suggest that we go ahead with Larry's suggestion, but then after we vote on it, we um explain to Danielle what exactly we would like to see from her because I've spent the week off and on with all the numbers and looking back at the 25, um, what came out at 2025, you know, at the end of the year, and I think we just need a lot more information, quite frankly.

But I do think we should go at 54 just because we don't know what it is that we're gonna be asked to do.

And we have in the past gone down, so you know we're not we're not stuck there.

The only merit I see to Larry's is is if we get the three budgeting, we can at least see what we're spending in my life when I run out of money, I quit spending, and I haven't seen yet emphasis on how we are going to control spending.

We don't have total control.

We've got debt, we don't control debt.

We bought into it over the last 20 years, 15 years, whatever.

So we have to live with it.

But if we've got debt we have to deal with, we have to figure it out how to pay for, and automatically raising property taxes and other taxes is not necessarily an intelligent scenario.

So I think Larry's idea of requesting those three.

What do we give up if it stays uh neutral?

Um I'm not agreeable quite to Andrew's 53 yet.

I think there's something that we can live with that does make progress on debt and our responsibilities.

We do have the the second elephant on the whole issue, and that's our sales tax, is going to be critical for this community.

We're losing the streets.

We we complain about the streets no progress.

You aren't gonna ever make any progress in this town if we only put three million dollars into the year.

I mean, I don't know what Brian's number is, but I think it's six or eight million minimum for the next 10 years.

Um we have all of these other things, and we can't ignore that.

I had one lady lives on one of our famous streets.

Truthfully, it's a gravel road.

That's not acceptable, but we have that problem, and we have to come up with a scenario.

And it may be that we don't do some of the things we think we want to do now, because one it doesn't cover the bill for the debt, and the other things we have to do.

And the other things we have to do.

So the only way I can live with Larry's is if we get those three, and we can then have a good articulation of what we're willing to do and not do my my number other than 53 would be probably 52 maximum if we have a scenario of accountability for expenditures and debt payment.

Commissioners, I suggest we take public comment at this time.

Yeah, and then I want to come back and follow up on Commissioner McCollis' comment.

Oh, I'm sorry if you'd like to do that.

No, I'm first.

Is there public comment on this item?

Amber Starling, 408 Houston Street.

Uh I read the executive summary.

It says that maintaining a mill levy could generate an additional 2.7 million dollars in revenue from growth in the community.

Which I found rather interesting.

Um I think that the premise of the argument may be false.

We may have grown in property value, but we have not grown in the number of taxpayers.

The Kansas Division of Budget just published.

It's 2025 certified Kansas population by county that showed the city of Manhattan at a loss of 27 residents.

So what we're talking about doing is taking an extra 2.7 million dollars from the same number of people.

That's a 6.76% increase, and inflation over this past year has been at 2.66%.

So that goes far above inflation.

I know that what you guys are going to end up doing is shooting high and then coming down lower later.

I would like that later to be sooner rather than later because I have other things to do.

I have a house to fix, I have a baby bird to raise, we have a data center trying to go into Pod County.

I have a business to run.

We don't want to be here talking about this.

We had three commissioners, one, two, three, that ran on the promise of stabilizing or lowering the budget.

We do not need more public meetings.

We need at least three spines.

All right, we will close public comment.

Um I'd just like to say inflation in June was up 4.2%.

And you want your curb fixed, and I I wish I could fix it for you.

But the cost of cement, the cost of diesel, the cost of everything it takes to fix roads and bridges and that kind of thing is up significantly.

And just to be able to do what we're doing now, we're gonna need a few more dollars in that fund.

So I would I would hope we could put it at 54 and then be reasonable and find some ways to um slim it down some.

But quite frankly, it it takes money to run our government.

And I think there's this misconception that we have all these extra funds going into things that are just drills.

Most of our money goes into running city government efficiently.

And um, you know, if you can find a bunch of fat, then let us know.

But I don't run an awful lot of budgets, and I think quite frankly, this the county is they're gonna be sorry if they go down that because they have to come back up.

So I want to follow up a little bit on what you all um are going to be expecting or anticipating when we bring back these three scenarios.

Um the presentation uh that we presented uh last week is very high level.

Um, and I I understand um that there is um a desire for more um budget details.

So we have pulled together those budgeted um those budget detail sheets for you all.

Um do appreciate your patience on that.

We had hope to have them for you, um, but with our new system, we are still negotiating and and working with that.

It is very um tedious to go through um 43 pages of um detailed sheets line item by line line item for not only each of our funds, each of our cost centers, um, each of our divisions.

And so I would like to be able to provide those budget detail sheets for you as they are presented as they are compiled now.

I will come back to you all with what the service impacts will be if we do go to a lower mill rate.

But I do not plan to um put together for you all and have um go through Rena, what is it, tens of thousands of line items and adjusting each and every one of those to in printing all those and compiling all those just to have you try to track down where we have massaged um a number here or there.

Um so we will be looking for big changes, but we will get those first round of budget uh details to you.

Um you do you we owe you that and you deserve that.

And so uh we will do that.

Um but when we talk about what a budget will look like, a budget scenario that will look like with 51 mils or 52 or 53.

Uh we will be talking about service impacts broadly versus details, if that is okay with all of you.

Okay.

Um Danielle, I think that people and the commissioners are asking for more detail.

And you know, I've asked you for a CIP for CIP's coming next week too.

Well, you know, it's kind of hard to figure where we want the mill of if I haven't seen the CIP and I want to see the CIP out.

You know, we've got all these fire department things coming on, so I want to see the CIP out to 2029-2030 if we're gonna have you know another fire engine that we have to think about.

Um we're preparing that'll be in your budget.

I do think we have in the past received those line item budgets, and they're on the you know there used to be a book that was you're getting it.

You're getting it.

Okay.

I I I'm just asking if we can just produce that for you one time versus going in with three different scenarios for each of those um line items.

We will it I go ahead.

I don't I don't think we're looking for the minute minute details on each line item.

We're looking for the the big the eight or nine or ten line items that make up the general fund, say, or you know, they uh the parks and rec budget makes is part of the general fund expense.

The fire department those major line items.

Yeah, okay.

So we're gonna do that.

And if we have to cut parks and rec ten percent to to get down to 51, that's what we need to know.

Well, I I see I don't want us to cut park and recently.

Well, we need to know if that if it's gonna be 51.

Yeah.

Where's it being cut?

Uh but I need not getting funded.

I need to know what Park and Rec's is responsible for.

As I understand they're now responsible for building maintenance.

And so what kind of a chunk is that?

And I I get really confused with the money coming into admin and going out of admin.

You know, we have all these other um sources, you know, the sewer veil and that kind of thing, have admin overhead.

Uh I mean, I think it needs to be clearer.

And you know, like the cash balance at the end of last year was 25 million.

That's what we published.

Um that we in February when we had a report on that.

So, you know, where are we and how much do we need?

And um, I know we don't we have to keep uh a very decent cash balance for our bond rating, which is very important, but um I just there's just the number of things that I'd kind of like to know where we are.

And I can that doesn't that yeah, I can be specific on one particular expense, the bond and interest fund.

I think the expense went this year from 19 million to next year 27 million.

It seemed like a huge increase.

There you go.

When I have done the debt service calculations, and I only see two or three million a year increasing.

So where's the eight million?

Yeah, where's the eight million or you know, huge increase in one year coming from?

The five million in the bonded interest.

Uh Rena, can you tell me what bond payments are coming on?

Thank you.

I would also say one thing I notice a lot in our budgeting budget versus actual is a lot of times we budget for revenue and we make a lot more than we budgeted for.

Or we budget for expenses that we end up spending a lot less than we budgeted for, which is good.

It's good to spend less than your budget for, but we don't seem to take those into account sometimes, at least in my opinion.

Yeah.

We we budget off we budget for next year off this year's budget versus actual.

When we're talking about revenues, um so and and that is one of the challenges that we face as we are starting to put together you know we start working on our budget numbers and putting together our budgets in in March because we have to give a certified you know we have to certify and give our numbers to the county in in September.

So we start working when we are only one quarter into the year.

So that is a challenge that we face all cities face knowing that we really only have half a year of everything.

Any organization faces that do what any organization faces that your budget for next year based on the first five or six months of this year.

Yeah so and and so when we start we start with the first right we started talking about budget in January when we didn't have any numbers that were in yet and so and just trying to project where we were going to be and it's so right when we first talked in January we were anticipating what our property assessed valuation was going to increase and we were basing it off the year before which was three and a half and here we are we come in and it ends up being six or seven but we don't know that until June.

So that's one of those challenges that we face one of the other um you know just kind of talking through what our budgeted expenses are when we um when I first came here in 2024 our budgeted expenditures were at 44 million for the general fund.

And so however the um budgeted revenues were closer to that $36 million number.

So even though the expenditures were at 44 management had to make those decisions to tell department directors we have to wait until revenues are coming in because there's no way we're actually going to bring in 44 million dollars.

So since I came here one of the things that I have been tasked for is bringing our expenditures in line with our revenues and that is something that I have really tried to work on and work with department directors on and work with our team at Baker Tilly in our finance department on how can we try to more accurately forecast our revenues but also being realistic about those expenditures that we have rather than just saying we're gonna budget for them and we'll just cut back during the year in order to be transparent to our community and to provide clarity for our community those numbers really need to be in line and so that is something particularly with the general fund that I have been trying to work towards and so again one of the conversations that I've tried to kind of point out here so in 2024 our actuals was 36 and a half again in 2025 our actuals was 36 and a half we budgeted 38 in 2026 and we did end up bringing in about 38 in 2025 in revenue.

So we were about a million and a half over but again when you look at a total of a 38 million dollar budget that's about you know a three four percent uh margin of error and so again when we're looking at this 2026 um budget compared to where we're at in 2027 we are really only looking at that 1.7% increase so I I appreciate um your comments Commissioner Fox and I want you to know that that's something I'm diligently working on is bringing our expenditures in line with revenues.

And I appreciate your comments I mean that is your job we budget you try to keep within the budget not go over you know I think you're doing a good job so thank you appreciate it.

So okay Rena what what I worry about if we only know these numbers is we haven't really put our imprint on what we think is important and what should be kept um you know cutting everything 10% maybe there are programs that I don't want to be cut 10% I want to see them increase 10% if I don't know what makes up and and I don't want to pick on park and rix because I really support Park and RICs.

But they've gone from $7.5 million in 21 to 11 point six million last year.

And I think they've taken on more tasks and I need to know that kind of information to see if that's a fair and reasonable thing.

I looked at the 2021 thing that's where I got the 7.5 you know um just you know what is their responsibility and should some of those things be their responsibility but if not there well I don't know if you can budget if not there but then who should they be and um I don't think we can budget program by program by program on what goes up and what we're doing.

But if we see the that's we see their job at CIP and we see which funds are supposed to pay for what and we see a giant amount for carpeting the city hall and it's under park and recs then we know perhaps that's something we should ask them to wait another two years on right.

Um I appreciate those comments, uh, Commissioner McColly, and we will have um that CIP brought forward um to you for you all to take a look at uh really how we you you know those um CIP projects while they do fall under certain departments really where our focus is on how they're being funded, and so um it's more uh when we talk about those CIPs, for example, this year we are planning to transfer $700,000 from general fund to our CIP fund.

Um so when we do look at that uh CIP plan that's before you it might fall under a uh parks or it might fall under public works, but um I hope we can really focus on the funding source.

So if it's under the general fund or if it's under um water or if it's under special street and highway, or if it's being funded by um you know special alcohol tax.

So they help, thank you.

Yeah, Irena.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and Commissioners.

Regarding our debt service, um, from 2025, 26 and 27.

So in 2025, we paid about 18.7 or 18.8 million dollars in debt service.

In 2025, we added quite a few projects.

Um, there were some special assessment projects that went on, a water line, um, our joint maintenance facility that was mentioned, North Campus Corridor, um, some two improvements related to that, some water line improvements, um, little kitten 10th, and so those interest payments went on in 2025, and then their full debt service went on in 2026.

So, of those that debt service was 4.2 million dollars that got added, and then there's drop-off as well.

Um, so then in 2026, we just issue bonds, and so those bonds were for um sorry, my spreadsheet is small.

Another North Campus corridor phase, the reconstruct runway, city share, water booster station, Twelfth and Laramie, and then the Aggie Bill Garage.

And so the interest payments will be due for that debt in the fall, and that is roughly half a million dollars, but the debt service for that is for those projects is 3.224.

So over the next from 2025 for 2026 and 2027, that's about a seven and a half million dollar increase in debt service payments.

A lot of those that new debt should be paid for by some of the special revenue funds, water sewer.

Yes, uh but in terms of debt services paid from the bond and interest fund, and we transfer money in those resources.

That's what we're all trying to figure out.

What truly is the ad valorum tax paying for versus water, sewer currently the abdomen tax is at 0.66.

So it's not really paying for much of anything.

I know I understand that.

Okay.

But we're trying to figure out where it should be.

Agree a hundred percent with Larry.

It's giving me a headache.

Yeah.

It gives me a headache too.

There's a lot.

Complicated.

Um it is complicated, and I do think it would help if people understood what makes up that debt.

That some of it's specials on people's houses.

And a lot of it is.

Yeah, a lot of it is, and and a lot of it has uh um direct revenue streams that go to it, you know, sewer water, that kind of thing.

So I think that's that's what people need to see that we're we're not just getting in debt, you know, without having established streams of revenue for it.

Yeah.

Um thank you.

You're Rena.

Uh I will share with you all we were sitting down with our um debt spreadsheet today, and when we did identify um where our debt was by funding source um in 2027, that is about general fund is response or um bond and interest fund, which does not have any other dedicated source, so not water, not specials, not special street and highway, but that bond and interest fund.

When we sat down with Commissioner Von Lindell and we went through that spreadsheet today, it was 7.6 million.

That was in 2027.

That is only has primarily bond and interest funds dedicated to it.

So we will bring that back to you all next week and go over that in additional detail.

And I eagerly await that spreadsheet when it's or the excel spreadsheet when it's done.

So that'll be good.

We will get that printed to PDF and share it as soon as we get it finalized.

Commissioners, I'd like to make a motion that we uh approve resolution number 0707 26b regarding the governing body's intent to levy a property tax exceeding the revenue neutral rate and setting a public hearing related thereto.

Do we have is there a second?

Second.

Chelsea will you call the roll, please.

Commissioner Von Lintel.

No.

Mayor Adam Chak.

Yes.

Commissioner McCullough?

Yes.

Commissioner Fox?

Yes.

Commissioner Morrison.

No.

Motion carries three to two.

Thank you.

Do we have a motion to adjourn?

I move we adjourn.