April 7, 2025 Commission Minutes

GOODLAND CITY COMMISSION

Regular Meeting

April 7, 2025                                                                                                                         5:00 P.M.

Vice-Mayor J. J. Howard called the meeting to order with Commissioner Ann Myers, Commissioner Sarah Artzer and Commissioner Brook Redlin responding to roll call.  Mayor Jason Showalter was reported absent.

Also present were Chris Douglas – Electric Production Superintendent, Lukas Wolak – Electri Distribution Superintendent, Jason Erhart –Chief of Police, Joshua Jordan – IT Director, Kenton Keith – Director of Streets and Facilities, Neal Thornburg – Director of Water and Wastewater, Danny Krayca – Director of Parks, Zach Hildebrand – Code Enforcement/Building Official, Jake Kling – City Attorney, Mary Volk – City Clerk and Kent Brown – City Manager.

Vice-Mayor Howard led Pledge of Allegiance

PUBLIC COMMENT

1. Kent read a letter addressed to City Commission from Bret Mangan, Sherman County Attorney.  Bret was unable to attend meeting and relay his thoughts of appreciation for Chief Erhart and the Goodland Police Department.  They demonstrate professionalism, quality work ethic and dedication to serve the community.  Vice-Mayor J. J. Howard stated, this says a lot for the department; thank you Chief.

PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS

1. Proclamation National Public Safety Telecommunicator’s Week – Vice-Mayor Howard proclaimed the week of April 13-19, 2025 as National Public Safety Telecommunicator’s Week in the City of Goodland.  Vice-Mayor J. J. Howard thanked all people involved as they keep the system organized.  Crissy stated, each year I approach commission and ask for proclamation to be signed.  We appreciate you housing our department and the recent remodel of our facilities. 

CONSENT AGENDA

1. 03/17/2025 Commission Meeting Minutes
2. Appropriation Ordinances: 2025-07, 2025-07A and 2025-P07

ON A MOTION by Commissioner Redlin to approve Consent Agenda seconded by Commissioner Myers.  MOTION carried on a VOTE of 4-0. 

ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS

FORMAL ACTIONS

1. Library Board Appointments – Kent stated, Paige Snethen has volunteered to serve on the Library Board and Katherine Franklin, Chelsie Howard and Jacque Schields volunteered to a reappointment on the board.  Karen Gillihan, Library Director recommended approval of the appointments.  Vice-Mayor Howard stated, I appreciate each of them donating their time and stepping forward to volunteer.  ON A MOTION by Commissioner Myers to approve the appointment of Paige Snethen and reappointment of Katherine Franklin, Chelsie Howard and Jacque Schields to the Library Board seconded by Commissioner Artzer.  MOTION carried on a VOTE of 4-0. 
2. Planning Commission Appointments – Kent stated, Matt McKenzie and Grady Bonsall have submitted applications for reappointment to the Planning Commission.  They are valued members of planning commission.  Matt is serving as chairman on the board.  ON A MOTION by Vice-Mayor Howard to approve the reappointment of Matt McKenzie and Grady Bonsall to the Planning Commission seconded by Commissioner Redlin.  MOTION carried on a VOTE of 4-0.

DISCUSSION

1. Generator: Armory building for backup dispatch center grant application – Kent stated, Crissy Ridnour Sherman County Communications Director, has been working on a 911 backup sight at Armory Building.  A backup generator is needed for the site to operate.  Crissy stated, a generator has been discussed briefly for this building but with us using the building as a backup site that might nudge it up the list.  My concern is if we have to move out to building to operate and lose power, it will be difficult to operate.  Ryan Murray, Emergency Management Director suggested applying for a mitigation grant through Kansas Department of Emergency Management.  With a mitigation grant you try to prevent an issue and the Sherman County Plan approved by the State identified the need for a generator.  There is also a generator assistance program through Kansas Infrastructure Hub which Ryan feels may assist.  I cannot apply for a grant because it is city property but I want to get discussion started with commission.  I think it would benefit the Police department as well.  Jason stated, we looked into applying for a grant but we did not meet the criteria for the generator.  I believe there is a match involved with grant and for operations the police department does not need a generator.  I am concerned if the match money comes from my budget because we have other needs.  I am happy to help get center up and running with backup power but I have other equipment needs that take priority.  I know Dustin Bedore indicated those two rooms could not be isolated so the entire facility would be tied to the generator.  Again, I do not need for police operations and do not have funding in my budget.  Crissy stated this grant is 25% local match.  Kent stated, the grant requires application in 2025.  We need to discuss with County Commission as this could be a point of collaboration between the two entities since it is a county department.  There are concerns from Jason about other equipment needs that are priority.  Crissy stated, during disasters natural gas and diesel are cut off to the community.   If the services were cut off to this building you would need a place to operate.  Commissioner Artzer stated, we need to research more grant opportunities.  Commissioner Myers stated, I feel we need to discuss with county commission as a joint venture. 
2. Request for SCCF Grant Application: Basketball Goals, Paul Medrano –Kent stated, Paul is asking permission to apply for a grant through SCCF to replace basketball goals at the courts on city property adjacent to West Elementary.  Paul stated, I donated existing goals to city 15 years ago and they are very used.  We have a large number in our group playing basketball every week and would like to get them replaced.  Current goals will be donated to the grade schools.  Vice-Mayor Howard stated, I have no problem giving permission to submit a grant application.  Paul stated, it gives young people something to do.  During winter months we play at GAC which costs money.  Commissioner Artzer asked, has commission discussed building new basketball courts for the city?  Paul stated, the city keeps weeds down and the area clean but there are a lot of cracks in cement.  Kent stated, the grant is through SCCF and requires a 20-25% match.  We discussed different ways to get match money as city funds for 2025 are used with pickleball courts and sprinklers in Steever Park.  Consensus of commission is to direct staff to submit a grant application. 
3. Power Supply Contract – Kent stated, we received three proposals for the power contract through Sunflower and Prairieland which expires December 31, 2026.     We have to provide notice of our intent by end of 2025.  Sunflower has provided two proposals that we have been discussing with them last couple months.  KMEA also submitted a proposal.  There are a lot of differences in the proposals but we tried to ensure information provided in proposals is apples to apples.  In discussions with Sunflower, we requested a shorter contract.  The last contract was for fifteen years.  Because of the terms of current contract this has become a big issue and a difficult relationship, specifically with the February 2021 event.  Sunflower’s proposal has some attractive features.  Option 1 from Sunflower includes:  a.) 5-year term of exclusive wholesale power provider contract; b.) no demand charge; c.) Sunflower pays $3.00/kw a month for full accredited capacity which is currently 15.5 MW for Goodland; d.) fixed energy rate on a schedule for each contract year – $15/MWh for contract years 1 and 2, $18/MWh for year 3, and $21/MWh for contract year 4 and 5; e.) no restrictions on adding city owned renewable generation where the current contract hampers addition of city owned renewable generation; f.) terms of this renewable agreement would be implemented during the remainder of the current agreement which would be a large savings for the city.  We do not come to same amount as Sunflower, but it will definitely save the city money.  Our generation in Sunflower’s portfolio is same as in current contract.  Option 2 from Sunflower is basically the same except the following:  a.) pay city $2.50/kw for accredited capacity; b.) city participates in SPP Integrated Marketplace and earns revenues associated with energy sold.  Vice-Mayor Howard asked, would that have helped in the February 2021 event?  Kent stated, if we were allowed to sell our power, it may have, but unsure what it would have been valued.  Some Cities were able to recognize a profit.   We will have to operate with a broker in the market.  Vice-Mayor Howard stated, I just want to avoid that from happening again.  Kent stated, that is a main concern of staff.  Sunflower proposals do not include WAPA or Solar Project in Pratt or a true estimate on the ECA.  In our evaluation, we used usage from 2023 to estimate rates on Sunflower and KMEA proposals.  Information in option 2 excludes estimate of losses earned from participation in SPP Marketplace, which could cost city more since the city is responsible for losses in the Marketplace.  A big difference from current contract is the new Sunflower contract cannot change unless agreed by both parties, which is a big point of consternation for staff.  The current contract could change when agreed upon by their board because we were considered a different type of member.  Their bills came through Prairie Land, a cooperative of Sunflower, which added their adder to our bill.  Their pricing could change, many times on an annual basis, due to the wholesale member tariff. They also changed how the contract was executed.  Chris stated, they changed the rates for their demand structure twice and added two shoulder months.  Last year they changed the demand structure adding a coincidental peak and noncoincidental peak.  None of the changes have been a benefit for the city.  Kent stated, the shoulder months added were for summer months where demand for energy is higher.  Part of this is how the marketplace works, not necessarily the fault of Sunflower.  However, changes in current contract have been one sided and we did not have an option but to pay the bill, which makes negotiations difficult.  These issues will change if go with new Sunflower contract.  KMEA’s proposal provides a proposal using current market pricing with 5-year estimates.  They are anticipating gradual increases in market pricing in transmission charges, which are same regardless who supplies our energy.  Fixed energy offers will continue to increase due to AI and data center growth requiring additional power.  Offer received from their supplier for fourth quarter in 2024 was $58.50/MWH for the five-year 5×16 annual product.  This is guaranteeing you the price five days a week for the main sixteen hours each day.  Recent cost received from their supplier was $60.35/MWh.  Staff provided three spreadsheets for the commission to review.  The first sheet shows total pricing, including WAPA and the Large-Scale Solar project, using KMEA proposal.  The SPP market energy is 8 hours a day during week, like Sunflower proposal, and entire weekends which fluctuates quite a bit.  Transmission costs are set with any proposal.  KMEA has a fee for administrative and other operating expenses.  When total all costs for KMEA proposal, the average cost estimate is $53.33/MWh.  I appreciate the time Shauna put into providing information on the sheets.  The sheet with Sunflower’s proposal has two calculations because of how ECA is presented.  In first calculation, ECA is the average monthly ECA over the current contract term.  The second calculation shows actual monthly ECA paid in 2023.  The calculations show fixed energy cost at $15, WAPA, Large-Scale Solar project, transmission charge, ECA and a credit for our capacity.  The first calculation shows an average estimated cost of $46.32/MWh while second calculation shows $39.09/MWh.  The information provides commission an idea how energy varies by month with ECA cost.  The third sheet of information shows 2023 actual costs and total estimated annual cost for both KMEA and Sunflower option 1 based on previous calculations.  The city’s actual expense for power purchased has gone down past few years.  The next step is to evaluate information and guide staff on how to proceed.  Commissioner Artzer stated, evaluating information provided, KMEA is a little more expensive but surer and Sunflower is a little cheaper but more unsteady.  Kent stated, not sure I would say unsteady.  We have a trust issue with Sunflower.  Based on the numbers, Sunflower has the better proposal.  These are just proposals.  No matter which contract we have, we need to make sure we have information in writing as far as their guarantees with what type of generation we can use, contract changes agreed by City and fixed energy cost stays at rate stated.  We made it clear to Sunflower there is a trust issue with them.  It is hard for community to take any proposal from them based on past experience.  KMEA proposal is best they can do.  They are viable option which is one reason we went with Large Scale Solar project.  Chris stated, the initial two years of Sunflower proposal is $15/MWh but if you average the current contract cost over the life of the contract it is $15.07 which is a small savings.  Fixed energy costs are 20% of overall bill.  KMEA proposal was fixed energy 5×16.  In the exposure to the market, our greatest risk is our asset, the power plant.  If it gets to a point we dictate the cost, we generate.  We do not get a capacity credit from KMEA but we utilize our asset.  Sunflower is willing to leave 30% of their biggest charges from demand and the adder out of new contract proposal.  That sounds great if it is in writing.  My perspective, it sounds too good to be true.  The ECA makes up 30% of the existing contract which is a lot and they do not articulate that in their numbers.  It is not an industry standard not to charge demand, which has been a huge part of current contract.  How can they take that out of proposal?  We paid the adder over the years which was a big line on our bill.  I want to do what is best, but I do not like how they have done business with us.  There are big changes coming through SPP in 2026 and unsure how it will affect City. It is the hidden stuff that I am concerned about.  Vice-Mayor Howard stated, we just need to make sure we go through the contract thoroughly and information is spelled out how we want it.  Commissioner Artzer asked, what is proposed contract term for KMEA?  Kent stated, five-year contract.  If KMEA were selected, we would finish out current contract with Sunflower until end of 2026.  If you select Sunflower, the new contract will be effective immediately.    Chris stated, if we were under KMEA contract during the February 2021 event, the city would have made money from our generation.  Who knows if that will happen again, but under the Sunflower contract it would be same deal.  You cannot plan for all what ifs.  Mary stated, we discussed that with Sunflower and they have taken more measures to try preventing that from happening again and to have more guaranteed rates.  Chris stated, if there is anything in the contract about us being capacity deficient, we have surplus.  If Sunflower becomes capacity deficient, we may get an added charge to meet capacity for their portfolio.  Kent stated, Chris makes a good point in that our capacity will not be stagnant through the life of the contract.  Hopefully we will have additional demands and we are required to have 115% coverage of our capacity.  If we have additional users requiring additional power, our capacity will need to increase.  

REPORTS

1. City Manager – 1.  Manager memo is in the packet.  2. Monthly reports from Municipal Court, Building Inspection, Police Department and March month end fund balance are in the packet.  3.  Chris stated, electric generator testing is a federal requirement every 5 years.  We tested three units last year and will have 3 units tested this year.  Testing is performed by an outside vendor and costs approximately $10,000.   4.  Zach stated, I have had no contact with the property owners at 1615 Center and 302 E 15^th.  I drafted a plan with Kayla Cowan for their property at 1004 Kansas Avenue.  They were checking for estimates from contractors to complete work but never got back to me.  I am submitting all three properties for demolition.  Commissioner Artzer asked, can the windows or other stuff from these properties be used by others if in decent shape?  Jake stated, that is still private property.  They need to discuss that with property owner.  5.  2026 budget calendar is in the packet.  6.  Annual Spring cleanup is scheduled for May 1^st and 2^nd.  7.  League of Kansas Municipalities is hosting a City Forum in Goodland City Hall June 4^th. 
2. City Commissioners

Vice-Mayor Howard – 1.  No Report 

Commissioner Artzer – 1.  Welcome to our new employee, excited for her to join staff.

Commissioner Myers – 1.  No Report 

Commissioner Redlin – 1.  No Report 

• Mayor Showalter– 1.  Absent No Report

EXECUTIVE SESSION

1. EXECUTIVE SESSION – Under the Authority of KSA 75-4319 (b) (2) for consultation with an attorney for the public body which would be deemed privileged in the attorney-client relationship – Vice-Mayor Howard made a motion at 6:13 p.m. to recess into executive session under authority of K.S.A.75-4319 (b) (2) for consultation with an attorney for the public body which would be deemed privileged in the attorney-client relationship not to exceed fifteen minutes.   I request City Commission, City Manager and City Attorney be present.  Commissioner Redlin seconded the motion.  MOTION carried by a VOTE of 4-0.  Meeting resumed at 6:28 p.m.

ADJOURNMENT WAS HAD ON A MOTION BY Commissioner Redlin seconded by Commissioner Myers.  Motion carried by unanimous VOTE; meeting adjourned at 6:29 p.m.  Next meeting is scheduled for April 21, 2025.

_____________________________

ATTEST:                                                                               J J Howard, Vice-Mayor

_______________________

Mary P. Volk, City Clerk