Commission debates mill‑levy options, project‑manager hire and debt schedule during fourth budget workshop

The Junction City Commission spent the bulk of a budget workshop discussing staffing proposals, the city’s debt schedule and how much property‑tax revenue to budget for fiscal 2025–26. Jamelle, the city’s finance director, told commissioners the city’s preliminary budget comes in at 45.022 (mills, as presented) and recommended they “come in at R and R.” Jamelle said the published debt schedule shows several large payments falling off in later years, noting a $5.2 million reduction in payment obligations by 2029 for a particular set of general‑obligation bonds. “So when debt payments fall off, use that money for something useful,” Jamelle said. Commissioners questioned the need for several proposed new or reclassified positions included in the draft budget. The discussion focused on a proposed project manager position, a grant writer and a city planner. Commissioner(s) raised concerns that Kaw Valley, a longstanding consultant, and current staff already perform some project work and asked whether adding a project manager would duplicate duties. Ray, the director of public works, and others said the proposed project manager would handle project management tasks and relieve Ray of day‑to‑day project tracking so he could focus on grants and agency coordination. Requirements for the posted project‑manager job include a college degree and project‑management experience; Jamelle said the job listing also “requests military experience as a plus” given Fort Riley‑area applicants. Commissioners discussed succession planning for Ray and called the new hire a potential “stepping stone” to future department leadership. On capital financing, Jamelle walked commissioners through the debt workbook and three‑column layout used in the schedule: interest, principal and total payment. He said some rows represent KDOT loans, general obligation bonds and other financing, and that the debt schedule in the packet will be expanded and clarified before the next workshop. The commission debated whether to adopt the finance director’s recommendation or a lower mill‑levy option. Commissioner Pinares moved that staff return two budget options: one at R and R and one three mills lower. That motion was seconded and a voice vote followed; the transcript records the chair announcing, “Motion was defeated.” After further discussion, a second motion to “come in at R and R” was moved and seconded; commissioners voted by voice on that motion during the meeting. The finance director recommended adopting the R and R figure to preserve flexibility and increase the city’s cash carry for potential future costs such as state or EPA‑driven water treatment projects. Commissioners discussed pay levels and a citywide salary study; Jamelle and other staff said a full, formal salary study had not been completed for all departments and that DPW and parks and recreation were the two areas most frequently raised as under market. The session produced these explicit directions: Jamelle will finalize and clarify the debt tables and state budget sheets for the next meeting, provide the requested two‑option budget materials if commissioners still want them, and accept emailed changes from commissioners prior to the next workshop. Commissioners also moved and seconded a motion to adjourn later in the meeting; that motion carried by voice vote. No ordinance, resolution or appropriation was adopted during the workshop; commissioners provided direction to staff on the budget’s structure and staffing assumptions and scheduled further review at subsequent budget meetings.