Grand Island City Council Special Meeting

Date: September 3, 2024 | Time: 6:13 PM (agenda stated 6:15 PM) | Location: Council Chambers, 100 E First Street

The Grand Island City Council held a special meeting on September 3, 2024, to consider two ordinances: a vacation of a utility easement and the adoption of a Good Life District Economic Development Program. Both items were approved after discussion. The meeting also included a brief executive session for contract and real estate negotiations. All council members were present, along with city staff. No public comments were made.

Discussion Items

Ordinance #9982: Vacation of Easement in Stewart Place Subdivision (2104 & 2120 S Blaine Street)

Public Works Director Keith Kurtz presented the final reading of this ordinance. He explained that a property owner requested to build a garage on an easement that was located in an unusual spot (eight feet wide in the middle of a backyard). After consulting with utility companies and confirming no utilities existed in the easement, staff recommended vacating it. The council voted unanimously to approve the ordinance.

Ordinance #9983: Good Life District Economic Development Program

City Attorney Carrie Fisk presented the 16-page ordinance, which establishes the framework for the Good Life District Economic Development Program following voter approval (2-to-1 margin). Key components include:

• Creation of a restricted fund for program revenue (occupation tax of 2.75% on businesses within the district, replacing the state sales tax rate of 2.75% – no net increase to consumers).
• Three paths for fund distribution: (1) city-initiated infrastructure projects, (2) responses to city requests for development proposals, and (3) direct applications from qualifying businesses.
• Administrative review by city staff, with final approval by the City Council.
• Application fees based on project size: $20,000 for projects under $9.9 million, $50,000 for projects $10 million and above (plus a 3% administrative fee on revenue).
• The ordinance can be amended by a two-thirds council vote.

Council members raised several concerns during discussion:

• Councilmember Lanfear questioned what assets the city would receive in return for providing land or tax revenues, and expressed concern about the risk of project failure and bankruptcy. He noted that the city needs protections to recover land if projects fail. He also asked about infrastructure costs on the north side of the railroad tracks.
• Councilmember Kaczynski asked about the timeline for applications (earliest: tomorrow) and the accounting burden on businesses from having to remit the occupation tax separately. She also expressed concern that program funds could be used to support religious or non-taxable entities, though City Attorney Fisk noted that such projects would face hurdles under the statutory requirement to expand the tax base.
• Councilmember Nickerson praised the work of Carie Fisk and recognized Woodsonia for securing the state application, but objected to the fee structure, calling the jump from $20,000 to $50,000 at the $10 million threshold too steep. He suggested more incremental steps and noted that the 3% administrative fee is already being collected, making the application fee an additional burden.
• Councilmember Hawsey asked about amending district boundaries (requires a two-thirds vote), and whether the application fee is refundable if the council denies the project (no – it covers administrative costs). He also noted that the city already charges a 3% administrative fee, so the application fee seems punitive.
• Councilmember Stelk asked about the role of the council in the review process (they have final say, administrative review is confidential for applicants) and the possibility of adding staff to administer the program (not immediate, but tracked). He also questioned the 3% administrative fee, suggesting it should be negotiable.
• Councilmember Sheard asked about constraints imposed by Woodsonia’s original plan (only two: boundaries and the ability to reuse materials from the state application). He also noted that the city could issue an RFP to avoid application fees for developers responding to city initiatives.

Assistant City Administrator Patrick Brown added that a new permitting software will create an online portal to streamline tax collection, reducing administrative burden.

Key Outcomes

1. Ordinance #9982 (Vacation of Easement) – Approved unanimously. (Motion by Councilmember Gacinski, second by Councilmember Lanfear).
2. Ordinance #9983 (Good Life District Economic Development Program) – Approved. (Motion to suspend statutory rules approved; motion to pass by Councilmember Sheard, second by Councilmember Hawsey. Vote adopted. No roll call tally given, but no opposition noted.)
3. Executive Session – Council voted to enter executive session to discuss contract and real estate negotiations and protection of the public interest. (Motion by Councilmember Lanfear, second by Councilmember Pollock.)

Note: The transcript includes a lengthy discussion of the Fawner Park Business Improvement District budget, which does not appear on the agenda. This portion is not summarized as it is inconsistent with the listed agenda items.