So the street.

Every week crossed.

I know.

It's seven o'clock.

It is now time to call this meeting to order.

This is an open meeting of the Grand Island City Council.

The Grand Island, the City of Grand Island abides by the Open Meetings Act in conducting business.

A copy of the Open Meetings Act is displayed in the back of this room as required by state law.

The City Council may vote to go into closed session on any agenda item as allowed by state law.

Please join us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

You can do the roll call.

Councilmember Stelk.

Councilmember Conley.

I'm present.

Councilmember Nickerson.

Present.

Councilmember Brown.

Present.

Council President Sheard.

Present.

Councilmember Housey.

Present.

Councilmember Mendoza.

Present.

Councilmember O'Neill.

Present.

Councilmember Pollock.

Present.

Councilmember Lanfear.

Present.

Also present is City Administrator Patrick Brown, City Attorney Kerry Fisk, Public Works Director Keith Kerr's, and City Clerk Jill Grenier.

Not present, as you will notice, is Mayor Roger Steele, who I am not.

He will not be with us tonight, so I will be acting the best I can in this role.

No jeers from my teammates up here, please.

Just to clarify, I will be voting on things as I normally would.

If we have a 5-5 vote, if that happens, then there's no tiebreaker.

So know that now.

All right.

Individuals who have appropriate items for city council consideration should complete the request for future agenda items form located in the information booth.

If the issue can be handled administratively without cancel council action, notification will be provided.

If the item is scheduled for a meeting or study session, notification of the date will be given.

Council members, does anyone have anything they want to take off of the consent agenda?

Fantastic.

A sign up sheet was available in the lobby for individuals wishing to provide input on any of tonight's agenda items.

If you did not sign up to speak on an agenda item, please come forward, state your name and the agenda topic on which you will be speaking on.

Appears there is no one.

All right.

Councilman Housey.

Councilman O'Neill.

I second that motion.

Any uh any discussion is the word.

Please vote.

Motion adopted.

All right.

Uh item 6A 2025 BE6, consideration of determining benefits for sidewalk repairs at 928 East Oklahoma Avenue, Mr.

Kers.

Yes, uh before you is the uh proposal for assessment of a sidewalk repair that we had to umage for a uh property owner here on Oklahoma Avenue.

The total assist value is two thousand nine hundred and ninety-two dollars.

Is there a motion?

I would make a motion to approve 2025 B E six.

Mr.

Brown.

I second that motion.

Any discussion?

Please vote.

Motion adopted item 2025 BE-7 consideration of determining re-establishment of tap fees for subdivided lots in Platte Valley Industrial Park East, Sanitary Sewer District No.

Sanitary Sewer District Number 527 T.

Yes.

So in 2014, the city completed a sanitary sewers uh assessment district, tap district out for the uh east addition of the Platte Valley Industrial Park.

As you can see here on this map, the shaded colors were the original assessed areas.

Since then there's been multiple subdivisions uh in this area, and so this um action is to reappropriate those uh areas based on the new subdivided areas that are shown here.

So we're actually just breaking it down by area uh and reassessing the properties accordingly.

Mr.

Brown?

I move reappro we approve 2025 TAC BE TAC 7.

Mr.

Pollock, and I would second that.

Any discussion please vote?

Motion adopted item 2025-BE-8.

Consideration of determining benefits for parking district number three off-street parking.

That is Mr.

Brown.

Thank you, council.

Property owners within the parking district, the off-street parking will be charged a special assessment based off in the entire square footage of their buildings.

Total square footage of the area is 1,639,997 square feet.

The total assessment is uh for 80,032, which comes out to five cents a square foot.

There will be there is available a $15 credit for owner occupied uh stalls, which is roughly 10,012 in credits, so equaling a net assessment of 70,020.

Mr.

Hazy.

I would move to approve 2025 BE8.

Mr.

Pollock.

And I would second that.

Thank you.

Any discussion.

Please vote.

Motion adopted.

Item 6D 2025-BE9.

Consideration of determining benefits for South Locust Business Improvement District.

Mr.

Brown.

Thank you.

Assessments for the South Locust Business Improvement District is by front footage of the property.

Owners are billed up for the assessments after approval by city council sitting as border equalization on October 14th, 25.

The budget of assessments of 104,617 will be charged to the property owners in the district based off the front footage.

Notice was mailed to owners within the BID and published in the Grand Island Independent on September 19th, 26th, and October 3rd.

Mr.

O'Neill.

I move that we approve 2025 BE9.

Thank you.

Mr.

Lanfear.

I second.

Thank you.

Any discussion?

Please vote.

Dad Billy and Fear, could you vote, please?

Thank you.

Motion adopted.

That's the end of the board of equalization.

Do we have a motion to return to regular session?

Mr.

Lanfear.

I move we return to regular session.

Mr.

Brown.

I second that motion.

Any discussion?

Please vote.

Motion adopted.

Mr.

O'Neill.

I move that we approve the consent agenda items A through W.

Thank you.

Mr.

Lanfear.

I second.

Any discussion?

Please vote.

Motion adopted.

All right.

Public hearings 8A.

Public hearing on acquisition of utility easement.

2209 South Locust.

McDonald's USA LLC.

Go ahead.

Sure.

Um this is just an alteration to the original easement.

Um the path veered a little when the um contractor put it in.

So this is just to adjust the easement to fit.

Public hearing is now open.

Is there anyone that would like to speak on this item?

If not, public hearing is now closed.

Council, is there a motion on item 8A?

Mr.

Brown.

I move we approve 2025 TAC 352.

Mr.

O'Neal.

I second the motion.

Thank you.

Any discussion?

Please vote.

Motion adopted.

Go ahead.

Item B, C and D.

I'll go one at a time, but they're all partial utility easements out at legacy 34 to serve the area.

Public hearing is now open.

Is there anyone that would like to speak on this item?

If not, public hearing is now closed.

Is there a motion on item 8B?

Mr.

Hausy.

I move to approve resolution 2025-353.

Is it a resolution?

Yeah.

Okay, good.

I respect.

Mr.

Lanfear, thank you.

Any discussion.

Please vote.

Yeah, me there, John.

Motion adopted.

All right.

Item 8C, public hearing on acquisition of utility easement outlaw J, legacy 34 N86 LLC.

Another easement also at Legacy 34.

Thank you.

Public hearing is now open.

Is there anyone that would like to speak on this item?

If not, public hearing is now closed.

Mr.

O'Neill.

I move that we approve 2025-354.

Thank you, Mr.

Brown.

I second that motion.

Thank you.

Any discussion?

Please vote.

Motion adopted.

Keep rolling here.

Item 8D, public hearing on acquisition of utility easement outlaw outlaw K, legacy 34, N8 Development 2 LLC.

Thank you.

This would be the last of the three outlaw easements for different pieces out there to run our electric services in.

Thank you.

Public hearing is now open.

Is there anyone that would like to speak on this item?

If not, public hearing is now closed.

Mr.

Brown.

I move we approve 2025 TAC 355.

Thank you, Mr.

Stelk.

I second the motion.

Thank you.

Any discussion.

Please vote.

Motion adopted.

All right.

Item 8E, public hearing on dedication of permanent trail easement for Grand Island West Connector Trail.

Project number TAP 4070, control number 43028, City of Grand Island.

Mr.

Kers.

Yes.

So as you all are aware, we applied for a TAP grant, transportation alternative project.

There will be a trail head at that location.

As a part of that, the the grant award was for 80% of the funds to be awarded to the city.

But for the most part, and what you're what you're acting on tonight is only on city owned property today.

So a vast majority of this route is already city property.

We're just asking to dedicate an easement on top of that to satisfy DOT to fund the project.

Public hearing is now open.

Is there anyone that would like to speak on this item?

If not, public hearing is now closed.

Mr.

Hausey.

I would move to approve resolution 2025-356.

Mr.

Brown.

I second that motion.

I have a question.

How long do we think it's going to take for this project until we're connected all the way through?

If you can just remind us, do you know?

Um, I believe it's supposed to be constructed in fiscal year 28.

Okay.

Granted, this is a uh state project, federally funds uh funded, so oftentimes they take a little longer.

Um that's the intent at this point.

It is moving fast in terms of these type of projects.

So I I think it'll be done by then.

Um in fact, this is the only one that was selected in this group that were at this point.

So a lot of other cities are are working through the process, and we're actually ahead of the game in that regard.

So I I'm cautiously optimistic.

28 would be the year.

Fantastic.

Thank you.

Please vote.

Motion adopted.

All right.

Item 8F public hearing on acquisition of portion of U.S.

Highway 30 from Nebraska Department of Transportation in connection with Grand Island West project number S341046, control number 41704.

Came up with these titles, right?

I thought it was you.

So actually, no.

This is outside my uh control as well, so I apologize for that.

So with this project, uh, as you all know, highway 30 is uh nearing completion, I'll say uh west of essentially North Road out to beyond the city limits.

As part of that, the state is going or is asking that we accept their relinquishment of a portion of the old highway 30, which is technically today highway 30.

The semantics of this are kind of confusing because we do have old highway 30 uh east of this of this location, but they're asking us to essentially take over uh maintenance and and control.

This will become a city street, similar to old highway 30 that we currently uh own and operate.

Um essentially, we're looking at from city limits to where the old highway and the new highway used to split.

Uh, there's a portion of the old road that is no no longer present, so that would not be accounted for in this, and then from Stalley Park Road, north to North Road, uh, would also be accepted by the city as part of that.

The state is um offering 1.337 million dollars to the city to essentially bring this up to our standards.

Our intention with that would be to um obviously let the project take its course.

Uh once we receive that project or that section of road, we would more than likely use those funds to potentially resurface that road.

Um it's obviously been used for construction traffic and whatnot.

I think the condition of the roadway is in pretty good shape.

I don't know that you would see that right away.

Um, but we figure we probably could resurface that stretch of road that we would be looking at probably two times with these funds.

Um with that being said, we're recommending approval of of this uh process.

Public hearing is now open.

Is there anyone that would like to speak on this item?

If not, public hearing is now closed.

Mr.

Lanfear, I move we are approve.

Um 2825 357.

Thank you, Mr.

Stelk.

I second the motion.

Any discussion?

Please vote.

Motion adopted.

We'll move on to our resolutions.

Resolution 9A, 2025 358, approving the re-establishment of connection fees for Platte Valley Industrial Park East Sanitary Sewer Division District number 527 T.

That's you, right?

Yeah.

Uh please reference the earlier statements that we made on that uh uh item.

Mr.

Hazi.

I move to approve resolution 2025-358.

Thank you.

Mr.

Pollock.

I would second that.

Thank you.

Any discussion.

Please vote.

Motion adopted.

You guys are killing it so far.

This is fantastic.

Uh resolution 9B, 2025 359, approving bid award for transfer station facility improvements.

Project number 2025 SWTS-1.

That one we did come up with.

Sorry about that.

Sorry.

Uh yes, so uh this project obviously has been uh talked about for a long time.

Uh we recently uh advertised for bids and received bids for uh the transfer station improvements uh out on old potish highway.

Um a little bit of background on this.

I think most of you guys are aware.

Um this project originated 2021.

Uh we evaluated operations, future outlook of the site.

Um obviously the existing transfer station was built by the county in the 80s, um, so it served uh its life very well.

Um when we looked at all this, uh we we did evaluate the rates.

With that being said, we moved forward in that time frame to begin design and permitting of the project.

In 2023, we updated the rate study that was completed back in 21 based on obviously cost increases incurred with the COVID situation, as well as we also wanted to include cell four at that time, which is needed for our landfill expansion out west of town.

So those two projects were kind of merged into one updated look in 2023.

To try to get a whole picture of the situation, make sure that we aren't doing something foolish with spending in that regard.

So we did update that in 2023.

We opened bids for this project for the transfer station of this product portion of the project in uh September.

As you can see, our estimated bid at that time was 6.1 million dollars.

The low bid that we received was uh a little over seven and a half.

We had five bids.

Uh the bids were pretty consolidated.

They were they were close.

Um I feel like we got a good true bid.

I don't feel like there was anything that was really missed per se.

I think everybody was bidding on the same project, but obviously it was higher than what we expected.

Um there was three big items that were over what we were anticipating.

Um the scales, we have three scales in this project.

Obviously, are pretty critical to the operation.

A big portion of the improvements, um, they were a little bit more than we expected.

The the building itself, the transfer station itself, uh, is probably a little bit more complex than we uh would have anticipated.

I think that drove the cost up a little bit.

Uh it's it's a unique situation.

Uh the tipping floor is up high, it's elevated.

Uh instead of pushing the trash up against the wall and lifting it into a truck like we do do today.

We're actually pushing the trash off essentially a cliff, so to speak, and the truck the trucks are below.

So again, very efficient and loading trucks, but a lot of reinforced concrete.

I think that's kind of what drove the cost on that.

Um, and then the grading uh earthwork type process in this was a little higher than anticipated, too.

Again, more than what we had at thought.

Uh I don't really know what drove that cost.

Um, again, though, being higher than what we anticipated, we wanted a relook at the rate study itself.

Um, kind of update that with those new numbers, and we also wanted to potentially reach out to the low bid and um evaluate if there was any value engineering that we could do.

Um at this time, there are some items that we think we probably could value engineer, um, but I didn't feel it was big enough at this point to really impact the bigger picture.

So we were asking for approval of the full bid amount.

Um, I would anticipate the potential for a deduct change order if we move forward uh to to account for some of those items at a later date.

So, with that being said, uh this again kind of the situation that we looked at.

Uh obviously, we're gonna look at our growth, how it works today, uh, customer you know, experience and the cost of the project is obviously a big thing.

Um, so in terms of market growth, as you guys can see, population-wise, we are growing somewhat, uh, not huge, steady, obviously.

You can see from the line on the on the graft.

Uh Hall County population kind of trends with city population.

Uh again, nothing really normal or abnormal in this regard.

Operational growth.

Um, so you can see this is at the transfer station, tons that we process the number of customers that we see at the transfer station.

Uh, the purple line was what was anticipated uh in our 2022 rate study that we originally uh looked at.

Uh the green line was showing where we thought the customers would be at.

Uh obviously you can see we're trending above on the tonnage, which obviously drives revenue.

Our customers are a little below.

I really don't know why.

I can't really speak to that.

But I think the the bigger picture is we're we're trending above revenue at the transfer station itself from what we were looking at before.

Again, what it does in the future, hopefully, we're you know consistent with this, but their estimates at this point.

But I just wanted to show you guys where we were thinking we would be versus where we are today.

Um so again, the transfer station itself, uh you know, operationally safety is gonna be a huge thing, it's gonna be taller, better lighting.

Um we're looking at a bigger tipping floor itself with six bays.

Today we operate out of four.

Um obviously we won't see the peak of that floor without some other steps in the process.

So, for example, I can dump more trash, but if I can't haul it away, that's gonna be the next bottleneck.

So, you know, in the future, as we grow, we'll be talking about potentially another operator, another tractor trailer truck, those kind of things as we grow into this facility.

But again, obviously, our existing transfer station has lasted almost 50 years to this point.

This one I anticipate, same situation.

We're just gonna have to step into it as we go.

Uh better traffic flow, which I'll show you in a minute.

Uh the Q lengths today we all know, especially in busy times, back onto old pot ash, obviously, not a good situation.

Kind of a bottleneck coming in and out, all going through the same scale today.

Uh those things would be improved.

Again, the scales are a pretty big part of it.

We'll talk about that a little bit.

So in 2023, uh, when we last updated it, um we were showing a 4.2% increase in rates uh through fiscal year 28.

Uh, you guys have seen this pretty much every uh year when we talk about our overall budget.

Um again, most of what we're talking about here is compacted rates, which are what the haulers pay at the transfer station.

So all of our trash that goes into the transfer station, essentially we're all paying that compacted rate because it's all running through a garbage truck.

So we're still paying the the garbage companies to get it there, but those are the rates that we're living in.

Um these rates down below where we compare to the other regional areas, they're probably more comparable to the uncompacted rates.

But as you guys can see, we're very much below where our neighbors are at.

Uh obviously, you can still haul to the landfill directly, and you can see how we compare with those uh uh facilities as well.

So, with that being said, uh, we had our uh consultant that had done the previous rate study who happens to be the consulting engineering firm that is actually helping us on the transfer station itself.

I wanted an update, I wanted to have a good feel with that bigger number before I would ask any of you to approve a project that's that much over what we were anticipating.

So, what they came up with was a potential 2.5% rate increase uh through 35.

So it's lower than what we were anticipating initially, but it grew uh further into the future.

Um again, the suggestion is every three years uh we should update that.

Um that was kind of our intent before was to let the dust settle on all these projects, the transfer station and the landfill, and then re-evaluate.

Um but I wanted to get a little bit of a jump on that because of uh the bid prices.

With that being said, I know this is a lot of numbers.

I kind of broke it down into a graph here so you guys can see.

The one thing I'll say about this is obviously we're we're two years further down the road here.

There is a gap uh in the rates at the 2033 mark.

I believe, which I'll address on the next slide, that the previous 2023 rate study would have had to we we probably would have needed an adjustment in the in the latter years.

Um primarily because uh in the latter years, our anticipated fund balance versus our minimum targets uh were trending down pretty steeply.

Uh so this is the updated 2025 uh numbers.

Granted, cell four isn't uh an estimate at this point, um, but uh we feel we got some contingency in that, so we feel pretty good about it.

Um, but we're we're trending down.

So that's uh not a super great feeling.

Um the primary reason for this is we have a pretty good cash reserve, uh restricted account uh you primarily to be used for projects like this.

So that's what's helping us out in the near term.

Uh 20 2032-ish, we run out of that, and obviously downhill.

Um so with that being said, uh, because we're looking at financing this for 20 years, uh, which Pat had talked about, I believe, at a couple meetings ago.

Uh we we solicited some options for that, or we were in that process.

Um, I wanted to look a little further.

So we we considered three options for you guys to to consider to contemplate on this.

One obviously is the cell four and the transfer station as we bid out right now.

Total thing complete.

Second option would be uh that we considered was to complete cell four, which again operationally we feel is probably the most important.

That is not if it's when we have to do it just to have the space to put the trash.

Uh so we feel that that is probably the most critical.

Then we also looked at we do that, we complete an initial phase at the transfer station, which would be the scales, the inbound, outbound scales, and the new scale house.

We feel that operationally um things would be improved, and then let's was consider putting off the rest of it till 32.

Why did we pick 32?

I don't know.

It seemed like a good year.

The thing about this scenario is we were trying to essentially build back up our cash reserve before we pulled the trigger on that.

The one thing I'll say about this scenario is we assumed that we would pay more for we escalated the cost a bit for separating the projects because now I get the economy of scale.

Later on, if I split them, I'm gonna pay a little bit more now, I'm gonna pay a little bit more later.

Plus, we're also working against inflation.

Uh, our rate study assumed a 3.1% construction inflation number.

Um we're looking at 4.25 borrowing, and I'm escalating the cost because I'm breaking them up.

So we might mitigate our risk a little bit by not biting off as much at once, but as you'll see, it doesn't really benefit the ratepayer as much as you would want.

We also considered uh complete cell four, and only the existing first phase of the transfer station.

We build the new scale, we build a new scale house, the new entrance exit, and we call it a day.

So I don't really like this plan, but I wanted to give you an option of looking at what if we did this.

I feel like operationally it would be good, uh, but it's not gonna solve the whole problem.

Is there any questions before I proceed?

What?

Okay, well, oh, so maybe I should wait.

Maybe I should let you make a motion.

Okay, we'll pause there.

Sorry.

You let me go ahead and okay, all right.

Mr.

Brown, move we approve 2025 to Act 359.

Thank you, Mr.

Stoke.

I second the motion, Mr.

Nickerson.

I appreciate the good overview.

And Jeff, you should be very happy.

I would expect you up here dancing or something, but I don't see that tonight.

But this has been a long time coming.

And you've shared a lot of good information, and toward the very last, there now I'm questioning what in the world are we voting on tonight?

Because you're giving us three.

I know, but you're giving us three options.

You're giving us three options.

So which of those three options are we looking at tonight?

Motion is to approve the bid.

And I I want to I want to guide you through that, I guess, is my intent.

So the bid for 7.5.

That's so the question tonight before us is approve that, which is above and beyond what the estimate was, which I understand, and postponing it only creates higher costs.

So we've got to deal with that.

So I guess you're asking us tonight to look at approving 7.5, then you're gonna tell us what the best, or then we want to discuss what the best use of that 7.5 is.

Okay.

Yeah, I apologize for that.

Got a little ahead of myself.

Mr.

Lanfear.

Okay, guys, take a look at the county.

Fourteen years ago, they had 14 million enough to build a courthouse, and they've just put it on.

It was a lot of ego and uh game playing.

So now they're having to spend 40 million.

Let's go ahead and get it done before inflation just eats it up, the budget.

Now would be the time to do it.

Thank you.

Mr.

Housey.

I agree that the first option that you listed is getting it done, which is what the motion is.

I support that.

I think you just got to go forward and you have to figure it out.

And if there is value engineering, you can add to this, we'll do that.

But we'll do it on the run.

We'll relook at the rate studies.

There's probably a few other things we need to look at at the same time, but I think we need to move forward for the same reasons that Doug talked about.

Mr.

Nickerson.

So again, help me understand, help us understand what your three options are, and the impact of all three of those, because I don't know what it costs to do everything.

Is the 7.5 to do everything?

Well, so you want to have done?

7.5 for the construction of what you see on the on the screen.

Uh everything at the this is at the transfer station, which is what you are voting on with this with this particular resolution.

The next resolution is an engineering amendment that we need.

Total project cost 7.8 is what we're really looking at for this project.

Um, but we wanted to include the the engineering amendment after this bid, right?

So that we didn't again get ahead of ourselves.

Um bigger picture, we're looking at financing essentially 9.9 million dollars, which we need to stay under a 10 million dollar threshold, from what I understand from the financing ease of financing standpoint, the remainder of cell four and this project would be funded out of cash reserve, and that's what the rate study uh update reflects uh in those numbers.

So this is one part of it.

We're looking at all of it kind of put together when I talk about the rate study because cell four, I mean, we're I'm gonna say 90% engineering on that.

Hopefully, we intend to bid that out soon.

Um, so it's only a matter of time in which it would be right in front of you as well.

We feel that that is probably the most critical part of this solid waste operation at this point.

This obviously being a very critical thing too, uh, otherwise we wouldn't be here.

But if we're only gonna do part of it, that has to be part of it, if that makes sense.

Of the nine point whatever million point nine million dollars.

That covers what?

What does that include the finance charge or just the cost of the project?

That would be the revenue that would come to the city or the the solid waste uh division again, 7.8 engineering and construction of this plus I think we were 2.6 plus another 150 grand or something like that for the engineering on cell four.

So those two added together.

9.9 funded through bond type situation.

I I don't know if bond is right words.

Yeah, so when I came to council, I don't know, probably three meetings ago.

Uh y'all passed the ordinance uh up to financing up to nine million.

So in getting this and with the estimates, and in order to stay paid qualified, meaning you have to stay below 10 million.

We are looking at 9.9 million uh for the financing, and then what's over that, which is very little use in cash.

So the restricted cash would actually be making the bank payment, and that's how we'd use that, and that's why it's so gradual.

Yeah, so we're we're burning through that first, and we'll if we get this far, which maybe everybody feels we need to proceed, but we could run through this again.

This is the overall view of the the transfer station modifications.

Um again, one option would be obviously to build it all.

Uh the existing facility is down here in the corner.

Uh, the the old scale house and scale would go away.

Old driveway would go away.

Is that part of the 7.5 now?

Yes.

Okay.

And the 7.5 is all of this.

Yes.

So this is all of it.

Uh this facility would remain, it would be a backup.

Uh that's been another hurdle in this whole thing.

The permitting.

Uh, we wanted to permit our situation here such that if for whatever reason our new facility would not be accessible.

If we had an emergency, we could use the old facility.

That's pretty rare, I guess.

It was a kind of a little bit of a hurdle.

That's the way the permit reads uh right now.

So the intent would be to leave it, we would use it for storage, park uh equipment in, whatever.

If we had to, we could use it.

The second option would be we don't build any of the big stuff up here, but we build the scale house and the inbound to outbound scales, and we route traffic into the old facility.

That's because of potential cost concerns, is what you're doing.

I'm just giving you an option.

I'm just talking through the options, more so just to show what I believe to be the strongest case of just going forward as planned, even though it was more than we intended.

Um third option would be, and and then later on, we would build the remainder of it in 32.

Third option would be we just build the inbound outbound, we never do this, which again I think is short-sighted.

Right.

But I wanted to give you guys an option just to talk about conversation.

Well, I again I I think we'd be foolish not to attack the whole project as long as it's taken to get this far.

I think the sentiment I've heard on the other side of the room as well.

It's important that we get it done, we get it done right.

I'm still not sure.

I mean, what we're asking for tonight on this particular request is the 7.5, it sounds like.

But then there's still another two point something in there somewhere that that has to be factored in somewhere down the road here.

7.5 on this resolution, roughly 300 on the next resolution, which would be item Cell 4, which would be in front of you, hopefully, within the next month or two.

Cell four engineering, which would be right behind that one as well.

But that's when we're looking at it, that 10 point whatever.

But the financing would be one joined the financing would majority we would try to find as much as we can from the financing that Pat is working on.

The near term would come out of the cash reserve.

The initial payments for that loan would be out of the cash reserve, and then we got to sustain it with our rates.

And that's kind of the cliff that I was talking, and I call it a cliff.

That's kind of what I see here.

So again, this is our fund balance, and this is where we need to stay above the green line.

The green line for whatever reason on these transfer station studies, we're looking at 50% of the operating and maintenance, which is a little higher than the city 30 percent that we aim for.

So I want to you know keep that in mind that we're being conservative in that regard.

Um Jeff's equipment budget is very spiky, but it's very consistent.

We have a big piece of equipment, then we have a kind of a year off, so to speak, and then we have another big piece, and then a year off.

And then it just so we have to be able to cover that or be very close to that.

So again, this is why I was a little concerned.

Should we look a little longer term uh then 32, which is when our cash reserve kind of runs out?

You want to adjust rates before then?

So yeah.

Several years before that.

So again, with that being said, um this is kind of my approximation of what things might look like.

So I took the 10-year uh numbers that the consultant uh built for us, and then I think in 33, we're probably gonna need to look at a little steeper rate increases uh to to make things work.

Um, and then we can kind of level out as we go into the future.

Obviously, this scenario, if we build it all in 26, we would be paid off in 46.

But then we're just looking at sheer inflation of this thing.

The operational and maintenance stuff.

I mean, if we're considering a three percent, which is what we've been trending, our consultant says is what all their clients are seeing.

That's the number that we're using for our equipment, our personnel, all of those expenses.

Good, bad, or ugly.

Is my crystal ball any better than any years?

I don't know, but that's what we're we're using uh today.

So this is what we're looking at in my approximation.

Uh it looks scary.

Uh there's there's some pretty steady increases, but the thing about this that I like is it's not huge jumps.

Try to keep it gradual.

Again, I would argue that two to three percent you're gonna need just to keep up if we didn't do anything with operations.

What's our current plan?

We have our current rate increases that we're dealing with.

When was the next step, or do we have another step still?

What was what we were talking about in um back in the day, we were looking at 4.2 through 28, which is the orange line.

What our consultant helped us with was the blue line, uh, which is a little flatter, and so we aren't because we're using our cash, so we we could spread that out a little bit, but obviously it was longer rate increase, if that makes sense.

I guess I'm not sure why you're so concerned about the need to raise rates because our rates are already pretty good.

You know what I mean?

Pretty low.

Yeah, we're building a big project.

I think mine's 84 bucks for three months.

I consider that fairly good, a fairly fair rate for having somebody take my trash away for me.

And I I think that's good.

So I'm not sure.

I kind of feel you're very reluctant.

I mean, I don't want to have to raise rates again, knowing that we do need to raise rates again, but I don't see a problem personally, not again knowing exactly what we're up through FY28, taking that step because to the consumer like me, it hasn't been that many years ago that I think it was 25 bucks a month, 75 dollars for every every three months.

Now it's 84.

That hasn't been a huge jump over this last year or two.

And I know people are on fixed incomes and all that, but to me, I don't think it's unfair, unrealistic to realize that we will need to raise those rates, which to a customer like me isn't gonna be a heck of a lot, maybe a couple bucks more a month, but it helps cover these costs.

I yeah, I 100% agree.

I just wanted to paint the picture for you.

This is a 20-year project.

I I don't want to show you this little short-term snapshot because we're sitting on a very uh large fund that's been built up for these projects.

I just want to be transparent that in the next 20 years rates are gonna double or not more.

It is what it is.

I I don't disagree with what you're saying.

I just I wanted to show you guys so that you knew what we were up against.

And and just again, I I still think this is the way to go.

Um Jeff thinks this is the way to go.

We we're all on that page.

I I I just trying to be transparent.

Again, here's a little bit longer term outlook.

You can kind of see where we're going.

Uh with what this projected rate schedule.

There's a couple years we dip below the 50%.

We're still above the 30%, so we're still within the city guidelines.

I feel okay about that.

Uh I assume the finance director does too.

Uh so this is kind of where we're at.

Again, this is this is a long plan look.

Like it's based on some good approximations, but that is what it is.

So we'll we really need to update this every couple three years and make sure we're not if we're doing better, we can back that down a little bit.

Well, I appreciate the in-depth view because that's what we want to do, but we also know that we need to do what we should have done.

And it's taken how many years?

FY21 is when we first started this, something like that.

That's a long time.

I know Jeff has been waiting for this.

I'm for the 7.5 million tonight.

I have no problem with that.

I think everybody's going to appreciate it.

All of us that go out there on a regular basis, understand what it's like waiting for your turn to get on the scale.

And I don't go out on Saturdays because it is backed up.

So I understand the importance that's going to smooth out that process so much.

I I know that uh Deanna and uh who's the other one I'm thinking of?

Tanya's gonna love that.

So no, it's gonna be great in all of the upgrades.

There's just one critique I have, Jeff.

You still haven't made those bays wide enough based on those pictures for me to back up in one swipe.

That's the that's the only problem.

Well, with the current design, the bays aren't necessarily wider, but we have at each side of each of the bays uh built like a a tank, uh blocks and ballards, etc.

to where you won't damage the building, you'll damage the bigger.

Okay, that's good.

All right, well, that makes me feel better.

I I try and I try hard, and everybody laughs at me, but I I do make it gradually.

I think it's it's a great plan, long overdue, and to Doug's point, the longer you hold these things out, that price is gonna be 10 million before we know it.

So we don't want to go down that road.

Today's the day to do it in today's dollars.

Mr.

Conley.

I just just curious, are is there still gonna be the yard waste area?

Because I know up uh top there is where all the yard waste is that still gonna be there, part of this project.

Yeah, so as part of this project, it'll be a new entrance to the yard waste area further north and moving the existing what we call the little guard shack and that type of stuff.

Okay, yeah.

Just have to move it north to keep it out of the construction area and to avoid what you see there at the top of the screen, the new entrance that's exclusively for our semis pulling in and out.

Okay.

That's another advantage of this design, having our semis come in and out their own specific gate versus now they come in the east gate and have to hope and cross their fingers that there aren't 20 customers parked waiting to get into the building, 10 waiting to get out, and nowhere for our semis to go.

Okay, I just was curious about that.

Thank you.

So on the rates, you said that we would adjust them every we'd think about them every three years.

We would look at it every three years.

Right to maybe adjust you because now you'd say two and a half percent each year for the next three years.

In 28, we would say, you know what, we're going well, let's keep it at two and a half percent.

Maybe when we get to 2033, you say five percent here.

Maybe we've been over conservative, and it's not five percent.

Maybe it's three and a half percent.

But is that is that your intention that we look at it uh growth that we monitor every three years?

Yeah, uh I think that's typical on any of these enterprise funds that we're operating.

Obviously, we want to look at it.

We don't want to overcharge, we want to be reasonable in that so that we can you know account for some growth and and paying our our current loan operating situation, all of all of those things.

Again, this is this is only a snapshot, right?

So we you have a good year, we might be able to back that down a little bit.

We have a low year, we might need to you know uh up it a little bit.

This is only the best of our knowledge today.

That's it.

Well, I think I think it's worst case scenario.

I appreciate the worst case scenario being a little conservative, but knowing that we're gonna be monitoring it.

We're not just saying today, rates are gonna double in 2053.

That they could if we continue this way, but they don't we're gonna we're gonna watch it entirely every day through there, every year through there.

Every every three years.

And and to that point, I mean, I could run through all these different scenarios.

You know, it sound like we we really need to.

I I think in all of that, just to kind of put it in perspective.

If you were to build it all today, like we we intend on build building it all today, versus if we only built cell four, which we we have to do, and we built that initial phase of the transfer station, we walked away, which again I don't think is the right solution, but it would be the the lowest cost solution for the average homeowner.

Again, this is a based on some assumptions.

I believe it'll cost between 13 and 20 dollars a year for the next 25 years.

That's the difference that we're looking at for either building the whole thing today or not.

So again, I I respect that everybody uh you know has a uh set amount of dollars and it is what it is, and I want to be respectful of that.

But in the grand scheme of things, this is not a huge impact, even though you look at those rates and you say, Man, five percent every year for six, seven years.

I mean, sounds a little crazy, but we're looking at such a small amount.

So I think I I agree with everything that's been said.

I think let's do it all at once, and let's not kick the can down again on another project.

So Mr.

Hazy.

Yeah, I just wanted to point out is that we have had lower than our Nebraska neighbor rates for over 30 years.

And it's because a couple of points is we were the early innovators with federal compliance.

And so Grand Island was one of the early innovators, maybe even the first in central Nebraska for sure.

And and it's because it has benefited our consumers for the last 30 years.

If if you put our neighbors' rates up there, it wouldn't look near as bad because we are looking that good.

But it's also with Jeff's management of the place, which we've been monitoring.

I've been on here for 18 years, and I've been watching it for 18 years.

No, I think our staff has done a great job.

I think our leadership has provided that guidance to to move forward and be the early innovators and get cell four done.

Uh I remember back when it was cell one and we were talking about this and how it's gonna last 75 years, and so 30 years ago we had a 75 year plan, and it's paying out, and we're in the middle of it.

But I think I still want to be the early innovators.

I still want to continue to to do exactly what option one does for us tonight.

Mr.

Nickerson.

I think just one more thing I didn't touch on.

The interesting thing in your presentation, which caught me off guard is and I'd asked Jeff earlier via email.

A lot of this stuff had been based on FY 2017 tonnage, and then you showed us what the current is.

Even though the customers aren't uh going as high as we thought, the amount of waste is and always blows my mind.

Where's this conservation?

Where's this recycling thing that we always used to hear about?

And it seems like I don't know how we can continue to generate more trash, but somewhere we're getting more pounds of stuff going out there, and I don't know why.

I don't know what we do to control that.

But I guess that was one of the most interesting parts of your presentation is that the amount of waste per customer is actually increasing based on just the numbers.

This is at the transfer station though, right?

And that's not overall operation.

Yeah, and that just amazes me.

So I it just seems like we used to have a recycling effort out there, but I'm not sure that that happens anymore.

Or things way more.

I don't know what it is, but just that was a shocking part of the graphs there.

But that's another reason why we need what we need here.

Please vote.

Motion adopted.

All right.

Resolution 9C, 2025-360, approving amendment number three for transfer station operations and facility improvements.

Yes, so as we discussed, this is for the uh construction engineering on the previous uh project for the transfer station.

There are motion, Mr.

O'Neill.

I move that we approve 2025-360.

Thank you, Mr.

Lanfear.

Second.

Any discussion please vote.

Motion adopted.

All right.

Resolution 9D, 2025-361, approving Grand Island Police Department request for an amendment to the agreement between the Central Nebraska Humane Society and the City of Grand Island for sheltering care and disposition services.

Chief Denny.

Thank you, Council.

Uh, as you know, we agreed to an agreement with uh a contract, three-year contract with uh Central Nebaska Humane Society uh and the city just a few weeks ago.

Since it's a new contract, there's a couple things that came up.

This is one of them that uh we needed to clarify.

We're asking for clarification for uh Article 5, section four of what constitutes a day.

So any time an animal, mainly on the time an animal is dropped off, we're on the hook for three days regardless.

And so uh when an animal is dropped off, whether it's at 1 a.m.

or whether it's at 11 p.m.

Um, it counts as a day.

That that first time it's dropped off, whatever day it is, whatever time of the day, it counts as a day.

And so that's what we're asking to clarify for the Humane Society and for our accounting purposes as well.

I don't think it's going to have much of a fiscal impact to the amount that we have and what amount that we pay the Humane Society because I think it will all come out in the wash, quite frankly.

Some animals will be dropped off early in the morning, midday, and late in the evening.

So it really to me would probably be negligible as far as fiscal impact.

But we're just asking for that as far as a clarification for mainly for a humane society purposes, so they're comfortable that uh they can count that first day as the whole day.

Right.

Mr.

Landfear.

I moved that we approve resolution 2025-361.

Thank you.

Mr.

O'Neal.

I second the motion.

And Mr.

Hazy.

Okay.

Thank you.

So I have a question about you you said we're on the hook for the first three days.

So if if uh somebody loses their dog and they take them in at noon on one day and they pick them up at 5 p.m.

the same day.

Is that still do we still have to pay what what is the city paying at that point?

We're we're on the hook for a max of three days, unless it's a rabies observation.

Um so normally if we pick up an animal, which is now the police department, we pick up an animal, uh, or an animal is um found and turned in to the humane society, uh, regardless of when it's turned in that day, that day counts as one.

Uh if it's picked up during the same day, then we're still on the hook for the one day.

Um, but um we are on the hook for a maximum of three days if we bring an animal in uh and the owner's not found or it's picked up or anything like that.

Right.

So the so the max that we're on the hook for is three days.

Yes, except except for a rabies observation.

So isn't this gonna cost uh so we have a in the way that we pay the Humane Society?

We have this $300,000 we're paying them for a year for the first 2200 animals that we take out there.

That's $136 a day per animal.

And then we pay an additional fee of $45 a day, in addition to the 136.

That's correct.

$45 a day for that animal, and this could be right now it we have it as a 24-hour clock.

We take them in at five, five p.m.

you know, five p.m.

the next day, the next 45 dollars hits.

So this this could create a doubling of that $45 in but no more than three in in a day or two.

I mean, it you could actually pay more under this amendment.

We we could pay more, and we'll see what that looks like because the good thing is we'll have um a little more oversight on the animals that we take in, because obviously we're gonna be running animal control through our code enforcement, and so we'll be able to monitor how many animals uh we drop off, bring in, how many days that they're there, um, all of that.

So we kind of are in uncharted territory because we've just done a lot of changing up and we've taken over animal control services.

Well, I mean, I see the police reports every day, and there's a lot of things that go on there, and but you you in your police department, you have it down to the minute.

You know exactly when you get that whatever call it is, you know, and so trying to go on to a where they don't like the 24 hour clock is like they're not taking they're not trying to track it by the hour or the minute or the or the right.

It's just like whatever day it goes in.

I just don't know.

I'm trying to figure out is why should we approve more taxpayer money being paid for somebody who's stray dog or straight cat gets out.

And we've already spent 136 dollars for the base, whatever that base be is, and 45 dollars a day, and the owner is not paying anything back to the city to reimburse the tax money we're spending.

I don't want to pay them anymore.

And I and I think it's just a record keeping kind of a thing for them, but I think for the money that they're getting from us, they should take they should be okay with that.

I don't want to pay them anymore just because somebody doesn't want to keep track of what what time they came in.

Because I'm pretty sure they do.

They used to know when an animal came in and know when an animal left, there's a log.

I mean, it's not rocket science.

I I just don't know why we would want to pay them any more taxpayer dollars than we already are.

So I I'm not gonna be in favor of the amendment.

So to that.

Can you address that?

Because it the idea if I'm understanding what Chuck's saying, you bring them in at noon and they pick them up at 8 a.m.

the next day.

That's two days.

Correct.

But the current system is they bring them in at noon and they pick them up at 8 a.m.

That's one day.

Uh that I what I I believe so.

Uh we really don't have the way to to track that I know of that type of we could do that.

Um, but right now, the way the other two days work, the second and third day, is if they pick them up on the third day at noon, it still counts as a third day, as in a day, if that makes sense.

So we're we're counting the days as days going forward, but we're not counting the first day it's dropped off.

So we're we're slicing the pie on the first day or the first 24 hours right now, but we're not doing the same for day two and day three.

You know roughly how many of the animals, is there data to say how many were picked up within the first 24 hours?

Um I'm sure there is.

I'd have to ask the Humane Society because they would have those records.

Because I I would think that if they're not getting picked up within the first 24 hours, what we're doing is we're giving them another however much of a day to pick them up that we're covering on that third day.

Well, it's it really has to pertain to the first day, because the first day is on the 24 hour clock according to the contract, but the day two and day three, uh, if they pick them up day three, regardless of when they pick them up, it counts as a day.

That's the way we've been doing it.

Okay.

So in the way we will do it, if they drop off at again noon, day one, Monday, boom.

Day two is Tuesday, any time Tuesday.

Right.

Day three is any time on Wednesday.

Right.

Instead of going to the 72 hours, which would be noon on Thursday.

So we're really cutting off time that we're paying for.

Well, we're we're paying for three calendar days, is what what we're proposing.

Um, and it would be more difficult, probably accounting-wise, to count the first day in terms of 24 hours, and then day two and day three.

You know, if we're if we go into the second day, do we count the second day as as day two, or do we we we don't have in the contract right now the ability to run another 24 hours or another 24 hours?

It we don't work, we're not working that way currently.

And so the first day is the one that really is is a little ambiguous with the the hours as opposed to day two and day three.

So any time in day one is the full day.

Correct.

And day two is the full day, day three is the full day.

That's what we're clarifying here.

Yes.

Okay.

Uh Mr.

Hossey.

So do we have another option?

Could we can they go somewhere else?

Can we take a dog to some other I I talked to uh Pet Island Resort and they just charge $20 a day for boarding?

Because it's what we're talking about.

We hired we just got done on our budget of hiring your officers to go do the the dog catcher part.

I don't know, I don't follow the why can I take it somewhere for 20 dollars a day and now it's gonna be 45 dollars a day here when I'm already paying them 136 dollars an animal.

And if we get over the 2200 animals, it's 95 dollars a day.

So the the daily rate goes up to 95.

What why would the taxpayers want to pay 95 or 45 when they can do 20 somewhere else?

I even I know they're limited uh to capacity on uh in on the other.

Right.

Um well to answer it quickly, we don't have another option.

Uh and I did call around.

I've been doing this since April.

Uh today, as a matter of fact, I had a meeting with Humane Society and us because we're working on our policies on hiring the extra CSOs, all that.

So we're we've really been working a lot the last couple months to figure out what this looks like operationally going forward.

Um so there is no other option really for us.

Um I've called other humane societies and other cities.

Um they are full up as far as with their own cities animals, uh so that's not an option to take them anywhere.

Uh and based on previous contracts and what that looked like and and how many animals they're bringing in.

Um I do think it was a good idea, although I didn't I didn't really want to take animal control in-house.

I think overall was a good idea to do that because what we'll be able to do for the next three years is really assess um how many animals we're gonna get.

I don't think we're gonna get close to that 2200 number, probably.

Um, but we'll be able to uh more closely regulate it, standardize it, provide a better service to the community uh because of our response to um to animals, loose animals, animal bites, and we'll be more proactive as well.

Uh so I'm not answering your question with the second part of my response, but um we've been doing a lot of stuff behind the scenes to get it operationally smoothed out, but we have been working with the humane site since April, um, and this is really the end result of just back and forth uh collaboration con uh talking about it and then looking at what other options we have.

And we aside from building our own animal shelter um and running that uh which would be much more costly.

I looked at just rough numbers on that, and it's quite a bit more expensive than our contract with the Humane Society.

And so that's really the only other option we have is to is to take it fully in-house, uh, build our own shelter, our own adoption center, our own staff, all of that.

Yeah, I just you know, we've looked at this before.

I it just is cost prohibitive.

When we took it in-house, or but you know, uh the police department's always been responsible for whether it went to the humane society or or stayed in-house.

Um the Humane Society has their rates has gone up and up and up over the years, and I'm sure their costs have as well.

But it's one of those that I at some point it it just we're spending an awful lot of money taking care of domestic animals that just got out of the yard.

I mean, and that's that's kind of what we're talking we're talking about.

You're we're not talking about wild animals that are not domesticated.

So these are only domestic animals that somebody somehow slipped out of the fence or some kid you didn't shut the door fast enough.

That's all we're talking about here.

And and all of a sudden now we're racking up more than a half a million dollars chasing down pet owners.

We all have a challenge once in a while, but for somebody who you know doesn't get control of their dog or their cat or whatever it happens to be, and it's just it's an awful lot of money.

And I and I think it just at the rate it's going now, I think we're gonna be paying more out of more taxpayer dollars than we were with the Humane Society contract before when they were doing the dog catching all together.

I don't disagree with you, it's a lot of money.

Um, and I looked at all other options that I could, which unfortunately were really limited.

Um the other thing we are doing in the police department though, since we took it in-house, is we're gonna we're having chip readers.

Um we bought all kinds of animal uh capture equipment.

And the goal is, and our policy will state that that going forward, uh, we're gonna try to re-home the animals directly from the point where we where we get them, where we apprehend them, and not take them directly to the humane society.

So the goal is to is to enforce the uh licensing and the um uh rabies vaccinations and uh chipping of our animals so that ideally over the next couple years um we're able to re-home those animals without taking them to the humane society shelter.

Uh that's the goal.

And um it but it is expensive, you're right.

I don't disagree with you.

Okay, thank you, Chief.

Mr.

Nickerson.

I like your goal.

I think that's very proactive.

What prompted this clarification in the contract?

Something drove this for you to bring it to us tonight.

Well, the Humane Society brought it up uh and they would like they'd like the clarification because um it's easier for counting purposes because we're counting this the other two days as days and not the first day.

We're and I think if there's just some difficulty with um with figuring out what that looks like from a billing standpoint, and I think it's just it is simpler to do count a day as a day.

It is expensive to Councilman Hossey's uh point.

Uh but again we'll see if it comes out in the wash um over the next year or so because we'll be able to uh when an animal is gonna be released, say to the owner that goes to the humane society and gets the animal out.

Um we're gonna send a code officer who's also ACO to the shelter most of the time to release the animal uh to to enforce that they have uh some licensing, hopefully a chip as well, and to write any citation if a citation is needed.

And so we're gonna be enforcing that uh strictly going forward, and so we'll have better accounting because every time we take an animal into custody, um that code enforcement officer, that police officer makes a report.

And so we're doing a lot more accounting as far as uh the animals that we encounter, and we're gonna do a lot more enforcement proactively to make sure that the owners, you know, we we all love animals.

Uh sometimes animals get away from us uh and it's a mistake.

Um, but we're gonna enforce the um chronic owners that uh uh we find their animals out on a regular basis.

So we're gonna we're going to be enforcing that going forward.

So with that said, I look I look to have the um the numbers of repeat animals out running around or things like that uh reducing over the next few years to a much lower level.

Okay.

Well, I I think it sounds like an acceptable plan at the moment.

And again, everything's subject to review, and we'll see how it goes overall.

Mr.

O'Neal.

Uh just a couple of questions.

So it sounds like this is something that both sides want.

Um you don't know exactly how it'll go with the amount or what the total billing will be.

Um if it didn't go the way that you wanted, how long would it be until it could be amended again?

Or what's the length of the contract?

Was it two years?

It's a three-year contract.

Three years, okay.

Just want to clarify.

And we were having a lot of frustration with the one-year contract and the timing of it.

Um I think over a three-year period, it gives them some relief, some uh confidence that they what they'll have coming in at least as a base income.

Um so we'll be able also over those three years to really because it's it's taken us a few months to stand up.

We just hired our code enforcement officers.

Now we're at 10.

Um, but it's gonna take us a month or so to get them trained and going.

And so with with that being said, it's gonna by the end of this year.

We'll have what will essentially be our policies in place, our procedures, how we're dealing with it.

Again, I've I've talked to the vets at four o'clock today.

I talked to Humane Side at 8:30 this morning.

Uh we had meetings uh, and we're gonna have another meeting in November, another one in December to smooth all this stuff out, what it looks like operationally.

Um but yeah, I think um I think over a three-year period, we're gonna be able to have a uh a very good idea of what it looks like when it comes to how much the city is spending on this service, and we'll be able to do a cost benefit on whether we enter into a longer contract after that, another three-year contract, uh, or we look at uh standing up our own independent um uh animal shelter and and adoption area, and just trying to make it as easy as you can for both sides as well.

So I get it.

So okay, thanks for what you're doing.

Appreciate it.

Please vote.

Motion adopted all right.

We'll move on to ordinances uh before we do.

Is there a motion to suspend the rules on ordinances?

Mr.

Lanfear.

I moved to uh suspend the statutory rules concerning ordinances.

Thank you, Mr.

O'Neill.

I second the motion.

Any discussion?

Please vote.

Motion adopted ordinance number 10,000 zero four zero.

I'm mixing my numbers there.

Uh consideration of assessment of benefits for sidewalk repairs at 928 East Oklahoma Avenue.

Mr.

Kirsch.

Ordinance uh approving the assessment of the sidewalk repairs as earlier discussed.

Mr.

Hazi.

I move to approve ordinance number one zero zero four zero.

Thank you, Mr.

Pollack.

I second that.

Thank you.

Mr.

Nickerson.

Keith, when we get into these sidewalk situations, did we get any feedback or input from the owner?

They just obviously they didn't do what was requested, and so now they're it's been done.

What what's the interaction like when we get to this point, just out of curiosity?

Want to obviously there was a lot of upfront work that occurred uh before we got to this point uh before we did the work before actually before we asked you guys to approve us to do the work, um they chose not to uh partake in any of those options, and so here we are.

Um so if they would have taken this upon themselves and filled out some paperwork, they could have had half of this paid for essentially by our sidewalk replacement fund.

Um so they chose not to.

I don't want to advertise my services uh in this regard, but that's the avenue they chose.

And I understand, I just always wonder what causes people not to want to do what needs to be done, especially when they have some financial assistance.

So I just I just didn't know.

I I can't see and I know we don't have those answers.

Okay, I I don't either.

Okay, thanks, Keith.

Please vote.

Motion adopted all right.

Um for ordinance one zero zero four one.

Is there a motion to suspend the rules?

Mr.

Brown, move to suspend the rules.

Um Mr.

O'Neill.

I second any discussion.

Please vote.

Motion adopted for ordinance one zero zero four one, Mr.

Brown.

Yes, this is the action item from the Board of Equalization for Parking Assessments uh for off-street parking.

Mr.

Lanfear.

I uh motion I approve.

I'm move to approve this ordinance uh ten thousand forty-one.

Thank you, Mr.

Powellick.

And I would second that.

Any discussion?

Please vote.

Motion adopted.

Uh for ordinance 10C.

Is there a motion to suspend the rules?

Mr.

O'Neill.

I move that we suspend the rules.

Mr.

Lanfear.

Second.

Any discussion?

Please vote.

We have a motion to uh approve this ordinance.

This is for the suspend the rules that you moved.

Are you seconded?

Very great.

Motion adopted.

All right.

So ordinance 10C.

10 uh 10042 consideration of approving assessments for South Locust Business Improvement District.

Mr.

Brown.

Yes, this is the action item from the Board of Equalization to approve the assessments for the South Locust Business Improvement District.

Mr.

Lanfear.

I now I have moved to approve uh or this one zero zero four two.

Mr.

Pollock.

And I would second that.

Thank you.

Any discussion?

Please vote.

Motion adopted.

All right.

We have made it through our agenda.

Thank you all for being patient.

And we're adjourned.

Okay.