Welcome to our meeting.

The date is December 30, 2025.

The time is 7 p.m.

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

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.

And to the Republic for which stands one nation under God.

Councilmember Sheared.

Present.

Councilmember Stelk.

Present.

Councilmember Conley.

Present.

Councilmember Nickerson.

Present.

Councilmember Brown.

Present.

Councilmember Hazi.

Present.

Councilmember Mendoza.

Present.

Councilmember O'Neill and Pollock will be absent.

Councilmember Lanfear.

Present.

And Mayor Steele.

Present.

Also present.

Or Jill Grenier, the City Clerk.

Patrick Brown, the City Administrator, Carrie Fisk, the City Attorney, and Keith Kurz, the public works director.

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

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

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

Do you council members wish to remove any other consent agenda items?

Hearing none, we shall continue.

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.

Mayor and Council, I didn't sign up ahead of time, but I'm here to answer questions if any should arise for the Heartland Event Center.

Thank you.

Mayor and Council, I apologize.

I also missed the sign in.

She but uh would be glad to talk about any questions about State Fair Livestock Show and specifically uh item 10a.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

Not on the sign-up sheet as well, but here to ask any answer any questions on item 7H.

And your name, sir.

Carlos Dillon.

Pardon?

Carlos Dylan.

Thank you.

We shall continue.

Item 6A.

Annual report of tennis center utilization and availability.

Good evening, Council.

I'm Ron Bender.

I'm with the Grand Island Tennis Association.

The Secretary.

And uh Josh Butler is our tennis pro.

And we have the contract for the city to run the tennis center, so if there's any questions on the report, we'd be happy to answer them.

Okay.

Thank you.

And are you going to present or is Mr.

McCoy going to present?

I don't know if there's really any presentation other than the report itself.

And it should be in the packet.

Okay.

You're available for questions.

Yes, if there's any questions on the usage or uh of the facility, we're we're here to answer that.

Sure.

And Mr.

Brown.

I just uh I really appreciate you uh allowing the pickleball people to use that too.

Uh we hear a lot from them and they can cohabitate with you a little bit and fill up the center.

That's that's really good.

Yeah, it's no problem.

We we work with them and uh we work with them and they play every day and they they fill in a lot of the hours where we can allow them to use it where we're not using it for taxes.

That's that's really good.

Then that way you can get more of a percentage full.

Thank you.

Any other questions for these gentlemen from the council?

Then we shall continue.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda with the exception of 7F?

Mr.

Lanfear.

I move that we approve agenda A through T with the exception of F and Mr.

Brown.

I second that motion.

Okay, I'm gonna redo that.

It jumped.

Um who made the first the motion?

Mr.

Landfair.

And the second?

Mr.

Brown.

All right, there we go.

Please vote.

Motion adopted.

7F approving request from IME Madre LLC, DBA, I mean Madre, 316 East 2nd Street for a change of location for their Class C liquor license to 112 West Third Street.

Mrs.

Granier.

Okay, I'm Andre.

Um they just did a application to do a change of location to their new address.

Um, and I think there was some questions on it.

Mr.

Shear, do you have a motion?

Yes, thank you.

I move that we approve item number 7F.

And Mr.

Lanfear?

Thank you.

Mr.

Nickerson, discussion.

Yes, thank you.

Like most of my colleagues, I just wanted to go on the record and make sure that we understand that reading through the police report, they had concerns, and so do I, based on what I read.

And I Norma, I'm assuming that you're here to to interpret as needed.

Would you would you go ahead and come up then and can introduce our applicant here since she I mean this is a liquor license transfer?

We can ask her to come up.

My name is Ruth Carvajal.

I am the owner on Amy Madre Bar.

Okay, very good.

First of all, this has nothing to do with what I'm going to to talk about, but how did you come up with the name?

It's an interesting name for your business.

So how'd you come up with that?

Well, you know, before we have we fly a lot, we we have a vacation a la everywhere in Mexico.

And um like five years ago, my husband died.

So I decide like uh invest in something, you know.

And I hear a lot of like a restaurants, bar, nightclub in Mexico, like uh with that kind of name, like I'm mi madre, uh Mia Mamacita, or something like that.

So we're looking for a lot of a lot of names, and my my older daughter, she she's the one that picked that name.

That's like oh mama mia, or you know, but Mexican, like I me madre.

I see.

It's just interesting.

That yeah.

The way I look at it says, Oh, my mother.

Oh my god, yeah, oh my mother, that's kind of an interesting.

Like, oh my god, like but that's all my mother.

Oh my mother, okay.

Well, very good.

The police report had some questions, and I and I just I'm gonna ask you some things.

You you're very well aware of Sergeant Devoric and those that uh that that visited with you, but it looks like as we look at your old establishment on 2nd Street, you had quite a few calls from the police.

The call police had to come 11 or at least got 11 calls in a three year period.

And so that raises some red flags, and I don't it doesn't raise enough red flags based on what I read on the report to deny the move.

But but my question is a hundred and eleven calls over three years is kind of a problem.

By moving from second street to third street, what changes are you going to be able to make to make that less of a hassle for the police and less of a hassle for you because you have to deal with that too.

So what changes are you anticipating making to make it better than it's been?

Yamadas de la policía you are conestable.

She said um the area where it was on second street, it was more of a secluded area, and a lot of times there's the apartments in the back, and then a lot of times when people would leave um second street's a one way, they would go the opposite direction.

They would head the opposite direction on that one way, so a lot of times those calls would be made or there would be traffic stops because of that, or because of the apartments from the back.

Um, because of the way the cars were parking all around them.

That was one of the biggest problems that she had then with that establishment location.

There was not too much for parking, so they're kind of staggered all around too for the parking to get over to her bar.

Did she have much trouble with clients wanting to fight and cause trouble and and los carros pegaban uno con otro or ya saliendo tomados?

Then a lot of times um the fights would be people leaving or trying to back out, and then they would hit a diff another car park just because of the way cars would start to park because of the parking the way it was there isn't too much parking.

It was really dark in that area.

So it sounds like that was primarily the it was just the whole situation of the location and difficulty coming in and getting out.

And I can't corroborate that with the police.

I don't know.

I just I know that when I see that the police have a concern, and I have a concern.

And they cuando la policía tiene tantas entonces también el dice que es un problema para usar.

Right.

So third street is very busy.

It's gonna be a very visible place as well.

And I know that she's changing her business model a little bit, maybe with more security.

I don't know if security is the right word here.

And just passam much carrosito.

Yeah, it's more security.

Okay, because I think it's very important.

We you don't want problems, and we don't want problems on second street or third street.

We want things to be as smooth as possible, and I know you do too.

And as a council tonight, we're we're voting to allow your license to be relocated from second to third street.

And and so that's really what we're voting on tonight.

I don't see a reason for us to say for me to say no.

I don't see a reason for me to say no tonight because of that.

But I do know that it's I want to make sure that you understand how important it is to have your establishment as peaceful as possible.

You're not the only bar that ever gets calls to it.

I know that.

But we just want to make sure that you understand that we want everything to go as smooth as possible for your sake as well as ours.

Um porque you sabe que no es el único bar que was that I poresa area.

Um she said she's uh been in the business for four years, and in those four years, um first time doing this business, she has learned a lot.

And with each of those calls or you know, as things go on, she has learned quite a bit, and she's also learned that you know it's better, you know, working with police department, and then um she said that feels that being on third street is going to be better location for very good.

Well, thank you for coming up and good luck on your new location.

I hope things go very well.

Yeah, thank you.

Okay, thank you, Norma.

Please vote.

Motion adopted.

We will now take up our public hearings.

8A.

Public hearing request from Lulie and Julie, LLC DBA Napolese, 3333, Romata Road, Suite B, Grand Island, Nebraska, for a class I liquor license.

Mrs.

Grenier.

An application for a class I liquor license was filed with the liquor control commission and received by the city on November 13th, 2025.

A notice to the general public of date time and place of hearing was published on December 20th, 2025.

A notice to the applicant of date time and place of hearing was mailed on November 18th, 2025, along with Chapter 4 City Code Alcoholic Beverages.

Departmental reports were received as required by city code and recommendation is to approve upon final inspection.

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 resolution 2025-435.

Mr.

Brown.

We approve 2025 Tag 435.

Thank you, sir.

Mr.

Landfeer.

Thank you.

Any discussion.

Please vote.

Motion adopted.

Public hearing A B.

Public hearing concerning the redevelopment plan amendment of area number one for 309 West Second Street, the Chamber Building, Starkel Real Estate, Inc.

Mr.

Nabity.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um the item before you this evening is a tax increment financing project.

This is a request for 20 years of TIFF, $609,000 over the over the course of that 20 years.

The Starkles are not here this evening.

That they were unable to modify so that they could be here.

Amos Anson is working with them and did help them prepare their application, and Amos is here if you have any specific questions for them.

Two one bedroom apartments on the first floor.

The reason we end up with one bedroom apartments on the first floor is for accessibility reasons.

It isn't practical to put an elevator in that building and affordable to put an elevator in that building, but if they put the two units on the first floor, they meet the accessibility guidelines for the right ratio.

So they are looking to build that out for their own office space.

Thank you, Mr.

Navity.

Public hearing is now open.

Amos, did you want to speak or just if they have questions?

Okay.

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

If not, public hearing is now closed.

Mr.

Sheard.

Thank you.

Uh I move that we approve uh two zero two five-436.

This is Mendoza.

I'll second that.

Thank you.

And for discussion, Mr.

Brown.

Yeah, Chad.

Just seems like a lot.

600,000 for two million investment.

It seems like 30 percent, huh?

That's usually what downtown projects end up at.

Um if you look at historically where the downtown projects have ended up, it really does end up being right at that 25 to 30 percent.

Are they requiring a uh fire system in there, sprinkler system?

Yes.

And it currently doesn't have any?

Does not have one.

Mr.

Nickerson.

And I think Doug Tuck just touched on that.

I think Amos, I'm gonna go ahead and have you come up for a second here too.

But I I know on the CRA meeting I made the statement.

Right when I think we're running out of places for one bedroom apartments, Amos finds a place to get some more one bedroom apartments.

So it's amazing to see you filling up.

So come on up for a second here.

And I don't remember if I ask in the meeting about how many square feet are each of these apartments.

Um they're just a freckle smaller than the ones at the Hetty building.

They're a variety of different sizes, and I I helped the Starkles um pick out, you know, originally they wanted two bedrooms and they were really big, and I helped them see what is what rents them the best in downtown Green Island.

So they're 600 to 800 square feet.

Which is about equivalent to the Yancy's.

A lot of the ANTI apartments are around 600, the one bedrooms are about 600 square feet or so, I think.

And so that's that's in line with that.

And then you've got the life safety grant requests, which will come with this.

So that's another 15 times eight, 100 twenty thousand dollars.

Um we're repurposing a building that's really been sitting there for quite some time now without a heck of a lot of use.

So that's a good thing for us.

Parking across the street, I'm assuming is just adequate for what we need for that.

Yep, they're way more lucky than I am at the Hetty building.

They actually have parking right close to their building.

So yeah.

And any idea, I don't know if you've talked about it, what you think the rent rate will be.

It may be varied based on a little bit of the square footage or is it considered it is in yeah, it's in the packet, but it's right around 1200 bucks.

That's where that's the sweet spot for for downtown for a new apartment.

Okay, it would be nice to get a lot more, but that's that's the realistic number.

All right.

All right, very good.

Thank you.

Mr.

Hawsey.

Thank you, Mayor.

Chad, has this property received any prior uh funding for facade or anything else?

Yes, the um there was another projects grant to do the facade on the building when the chamber owned it.

Um 2022, and that was 290,000 that the CRA invested in this, and quite frankly, is probably part of the reason that the Starkles are interested in the building because it does have a nice modern facade on it.

Okay, thank you.

Sorry, my computer keeps jumping.

Um Jack, you made the motion right?

And Maggie seconded it.

Yep.

All right, please vote.

Motion adopted resolution 9A.

Approving replacement of three boilers and control system at the Heartland Events Center.

Mr.

Brown.

Thank you, Mayor.

Council, before you is uh a replacement, it's a contract with uh Sourcewell through Honeywell.

It's replacing uh boilers B2, B3, and B4.

There's actually five boilers uh at the facility.

One is still working, one is is just completely gone.

So for this contract, we're looking at uh 1,975,005.

Thank you.

Would you like to speak uh once again it some odd to speak here in between holidays, but nonetheless appreciate your leadership in the council meeting tonight?

Um just questions on this item.

Um I understand the packet, this is recommended from a consultant, so uh I would just ask a couple things.

What's the urgency of this item?

Is it operational or is this something that could potentially be delayed somewhat?

So that's the first question, Mr.

Brown.

So we are down to one boiler, and if that goes, we're in lots of trouble.

Okay.

Then secondly, under the 1.9 million dollar replacement, uh, what's the funding source that would go ahead and be used for this?

We were going to uh procure uh probably bond proceeds.

There will be further um asks of council for the Heartland Event Center.

Um, namely, we couldn't put it under the source wall like a like a state contract because of competitive bidding, but we're looking at lights, sound, um, the vestibule, and other such items that will be coming forth to council very soon, and I hope to kind of wrap it all up into one bundle.

Okay, because I assume the 1.9 million wasn't any capital improvement budget that was approved for next year's budget.

Right.

So the 1.9 million funding sources would be eligible.

It's kind of coincidental because it also appears when an item we are looking at chapter 23 to potentially increase lodging taxes.

So with that in mind, I just raise the question of the two million dollars to go ahead and fund it.

Why couldn't other revenue streams be used?

Casino revenue might be a logical explanation, and I've never heard how many dollars you anticipate the city would receive from casino revenue, but then you go on and on for from keynote to food and beverage to property taxes to on and on and on.

It just brings up the fact that it sounds like it's recommended and needs to occur, but in light of the presentation and council packets, that's why I raised the question for public awareness.

So funding at this point is not been determined yet.

Is that correct?

So the so the projected funding is it is tied to the next item, which is the hotel occupation tax.

So all of these repairs that that need to be done, depending on council discretion, obviously, adds up to 11 to 12 million dollars.

So it's a hate $800,000 payment for 20 years, and the incremental part of this hotel occupation tax covers that payment.

So this is just kind of the way I'm looking at this.

Okay.

Well, I raise a question.

Thank you.

Mr.

Lanfear.

I move we approve resolution 2025-437.

Thank you, Mr.

Landfear.

Mr.

Connolly.

I'll second the motion.

Thank you.

Discussion, Mr.

Sheard.

Thank you.

So I just want to follow up with what uh was just talked about.

1.9 million that we'd be approving the expense for tonight with this action.

But that is dependent upon the next action for funding.

If we if that funding doesn't happen on the other one, is there a backup plan for funding this?

Yes, I have a contingency built into the budget.

Yep.

Cool, cool, cool.

Please vote.

Motion adopted.

Ordinance 10A, consideration of ordinance to amend Chapter 23, Article 6 of Grand Island City Code.

Mr.

Brown.

Thank you, Mayor.

Well, I'm sorry.

Is first of all, is there a motion to suspend the statutory rules?

Mr.

Lanfear.

I move that we suspend the state statutory rules considering ordinances.

Thank you, Mr.

Brown.

I second that motion.

Any discussion.

Please vote.

Motion adopted.

Mr.

Brown, please present on this.

Thank you, Mayor.

So as uh everyone knows our hotel occupation tax expires December 31st, 2025.

Uh administration is proposing uh of renewing this tax at a 5% level.

Currently, the 2% is being used for a Harland Event Center operations.

Any shortcomings that they may have.

The hotel occupation taxes is a tax paid by visitors to hotels or other facilities in the city of Grand Island.

The total amount of hotel occupation tax revenue in fiscal year 25 was 574,215.

In the near future, City Council will be presented, including this agenda with several deferred maintenance items.

On August 19th, 2025, replacement chillers were ordered for a purchase price of 1.2 million.

Other item City Council will be presented with is arena lighting replacement of a million dollars.

Lighting replacement other than arena 698,000, sound replacement system of 1.1 million.

We are seeking a grant for the ice rink revival.

Um with and that's at $2 million.

Roof replacement of $974,000 and a vestibule of $951,000.

So all these in in total is approximately $11 million in maintenance.

So administration is proposing it a 20-year bond.

The additional 3% of the hotel occupation tax would provide the funding for these repairs for the next 20 years.

Thank you, Mr.

Brown.

Mr.

Catulak.

Your last name, please.

Janice.

And I have seen and I have heard guest complain, yell, scream, absurdity to our employees, our staff, of saying why are taxes so high?

We have no answer.

The hotels have no answer.

I'm not here to speak for every hotel.

Um I get a little concerned with them being that.

I mean, we're raising them, we're we're at 14.75 percent right now, and you're raising it another five.

19 percent on hotel taxes.

Why are hotelers having to foot the bill for a center, which we all use, I know we do.

We all go and see concerts, but again, why is it put on the hotelers?

The hotelers put had paid for that for the first what, 20 years now, we they put into that, they paid for that.

Why, like Mr.

Vavichek noted, why can't some other people why can't everybody pay for it?

Why can't one two percent go to food and beverage?

Foot sum of the bill for that.

I'm not sure if not if all of you realize not all hotels are busy 12 months of the year.

All hotels are busy May through August or September, but not October, November, December, January.

If we don't have anything here in Grand Island, some of those smaller hotels don't doesn't have any business.

So that creates a trickle-down effect for the employees.

So then they have to let employees go, or they have to shorten their hours.

Is that fair?

Just because we want to raise taxes to pay for to pay for a building.

I get it.

I understand that.

That you know, everything's the cost of it.

But Grand Island is thriving.

Grand Island is a tourism city.

We want people to come to Grand Island.

We want them to enjoy what we have.

And we have the best of the best, I think.

We have a great up north.

It's beautiful up north.

Down south by the new hospital.

It's beautiful down there.

That's thriving down there.

So thank you.

I just I am just concerned of the high cost in that.

And I just wish that we would all realize what it takes for those frontline people to get the guests in to get the business in to these hotels and what it takes.

Because it's hard work.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I appreciate your perspective.

Brad Malama.

Thank you.

Brad Meloma, Grand Island Tourism.

And to clarify, it's not a 5% increase, it's a 3% increase.

The current two up to a so I wrote down some things.

Typically I would speak more off the cuff or bullet pointed, but I want to keep specific to what I wanted to say.

First of all, I do not represent specific hotels.

I represent the tourism industry as a whole, and uh want to make that clear.

Uh Grand Island's built a world class facility in the Heartland Event Center.

And Kyler and his team have done an outstanding job in the past year, building events and hosting events, and we see complement after complement.

It's the staff and not the stuff that makes the difference, and their staff is really getting it done, and we support that.

I want to know that before I get into some of the nitty-gritty of the conversation here.

The proposal before you tonight represents more than an increase in occupancy taxes.

An increase to a 5% hotel occupy occupancy tax is effectively an admission that the improvements needed on this campus cannot be made without additional tax revenue, particularly at Fawner Park, whether the buildings are city owned or not.

It takes tax money to do the things that you're trying to do with Heartland Event Center and the other buildings that are there as well.

We'll get into the specifics of that in just a second.

This reality deserves an honest conversation, and we don't want to hide behind technicalities.

We want to get it.

The elephant in the room is it's really hard to work with the parties simultaneously.

It is not just a city thing, not just a CVB thing, not just a fawn or park thing, not just any particular thing, it's private business all coming together to make this work.

I want to be very clear, you cannot govern from what you can't do under statute.

We have we have statutes and codes.

I understand your world is that.

So the real policy decision in front of you night question is not the increase of this use, whether it's legally permissible or not.

We believe it is.

A focused team-oriented solution can get us to this end.

Multiple issues are being comp are being discussed, and so that is a complicated thing.

Remember, fixing a building is not the same thing as fixing tourism.

Two different things.

Capital improvements, while important, are not the same as protecting the demand for tourism in our community.

Tourism is an ecosystem.

When you tax one part of it without protecting the source of the demand, you create unintended consequences.

Livestock shows are a primary source of hospitality revenue in our city.

If the source of overnight demand is not supported, the shows will go dark.

And once those events leave, they don't come back for years and years.

Feed the source, don't tax the source.

Hotels are not a limitless funding mechanism.

They're the collection point for this tax, as Carla talked about, but they're also the first to feel the consequences when pricing, perception, competitive, competitive advantages change.

They're the front lines.

They really are.

This is visitor-generated tax revenue collected by hotels on behalf of the city.

That distinction matters.

Hotels have already contributed millions of dollars over decades.

Any additional burden should come with strict guardrails, accountability, and a clear return on investment since the inception of the current 2% that's been in place for the past 20 years, hotels have generated nearly $7 million for the operation of the Heartland Event Center, and another $2 million came from the visitor improvement fund through our office.

That's $9 million.

If I understand right, the city paid for approximately a third of that building.

The rest was private donations and these types of funds.

Okay?

Keep that in mind that these funds came from a lot of sources.

Hotel occupancy tax is not a donation, it is an investment that requires a return on investment.

We compete with facilities and communities that are watching what you're doing tonight.

The associations that use the facilities are paying attention to that tax uh perception that we have.

We do not agree with the city's current interpretation of how to broadly tax how this tax should how broadly this tax should be used under state statute.

Broadening the scope invites future councils to spend these funds in ways that may have little or no impact on hotel occupancy.

Once that language is in code, it's really difficult to undo that or back it out.

Be careful with the words and the phrasings that you approve tonight.

On your code 23-61, it is the intent of city council that city shall use the revenue generated by the occupancy tax imposed by this article to fund the maintenance, repair, and operation of city-owned facilities frequented by out-of-town visitors, such as but not limited to the Heartland Event Center or to service debt issued in support of this attempt.

So it's pretty much wide open.

And how do you determine what that visitor need is?

Do you need a new traffic signal in front of the tennis complex?

Who decides whether that's tourism use or not?

Be very careful with that broad language and what those unintended consequences could be and look at that as an investment in tourism so that our hotel years can reap those benefits.

You're not simply voting on a tax rate, you are deciding how Grand Island values tourism partnerships and long-term competitiveness.

I live, eat, and breathe tourism.

It's my job to protect this community's reputation in a highly competitive market and to ensure the decisions made here help us grow and not retreat.

I respectfully ask you to slow this down, rework this proposal, and engage in a broader conversation with the hospitality community about funding responsibility, equity, and return on investment before making a decision that cannot be easily reversed.

Going to 5% without a well-thought plan isn't a strategy.

It's basically funding a problem that you have.

I understand I want that Heartland Event Center to be first class.

I get it.

But listening to like Carla's comments, for example, uh, what is the plan?

Okay.

Um it fixes an issue, but to what end to the hospitality community.

I'm in short, I'm concerned about that jump to 5%.

We would be equal with Omaha in the highest occupancy tax in Nebraska.

That's the reputation that would be in front of us as we're trying to bring events to this town.

That's my comments for this evening.

Available for any questions or the next comment.

Junior Robeck.

I always just call them right attached off.

Okay.

Uh Jay.

Well, thank you, Jill.

Um, as you know, I'm very supportive of all the efforts that the city has undertaken in recent years, unbelievable.

Support of this administration.

Um, but I'm concerned that I don't support the ordinance as it's presented.

And it's difficult for me to go ahead and elaborate without uh well, first acknowledging the fact that 25 years ago, this council chamber was packed when we had a discussion about increase in lodging taxes, two percent.

In fact, Mayor Kent at that time said only five people could speak for, five could be against.

And uh there is no limitation for people to come forward tonight.

So I appreciate that openness, Mayor Steele and and Mr.

Brown for allowing comments to be fully expressed.

And I don't have really a dog in the fight.

Uh, years ago someone said the best taxes a tax that someone else pays for.

So if I don't have any lodging taxes to be paid for, the hotel, I guess I'm not paying for them.

But I'm concerned about our community's ability to compete.

And when you talk about the fact that years ago, if I proposed, as mayor, then we're going to have a 150% increase in taxes.

At this point, 2% has been dedicated for the Heartland Events Center.

And I don't know if the lodging industry would object to maintaining the 2%.

But when you look at the lodging tax ordinance, which was somewhat camouflaged in some circles perspective, because it said we're going to have a discussion on chapter 23 of the city code.

It doesn't say anything about increasing lodging taxes, another 3% or another 150%.

But when you look at the extra 3%, knowing that as the ordinance is written, that it could go towards city facilities that frequent out-of-town visitors.

This does not benefit the Heartland Event Center.

It probably doesn't benefit Fawner Park.

But why would the city now want to potentially have more revenue to fund improvements that the council's already made?

Island Oasis Redevelopment, Heartland Public Shooting Park, you go on and on, all those different things.

I mean, there's literally many things in our community underway, the ordinance is written where 3% could go ahead and be dedicated.

I don't think it's almost looks like the fact that there isn't a need there, but because there's an allowance under state law to go ahead and expand it to 5%, let's get while the getting's good.

And I don't think that's a message that you want to send.

I don't think a hundred and fifty percent increase in lodging taxes is warranted without a dialogue from the very providers that collect it.

And with that in mind, I can't speak for the lodging tax industry, but we're second to Carney.

Okay, let's just face it.

We're second to Cardi, outstanding community and fantastic filsies, and we have this community has lured significant investments from people in Kearney to locate here, and we're now gonna have 600 more hotel rooms this year than we did last year.

The ordinance, in my estimation, does nothing about promoting more occupancy.

In fact, it probably hinders occupancy, where we would have a larger availability of more rooms and less people use them.

If we have less people coming to Grand Island to spend an overnight stay, what's gonna happen?

We're gonna have less sales tax collection, less purchases, less satisfaction, and a conscious thought of if we're trying to lure livestock exhibitions and multi-stay things like the forage horseshoe event and so forth, it's gonna be tougher to compete with other rival communities when we have higher taxes.

So I think we ought to be thinking, okay, or you ought to be considering if you maintain the two percent.

I don't know if there's any objection to that to Heartland Event Center, and in some respects, Venue Works is here, and they made a proposal here several months ago, if not a year ago, that said they're gonna double and triple revenues at the Heartland Event Center.

If a double and triple revenues, then once again, does that mean there's gonna be the same degree of support needed of the two percent, let alone potentially having more money on three percent?

So when I when I go down this whole road, it also brings up the fact that tourism is so important, and trying to discuss ways that we can go ahead and broaden that support and have more visitors what we ought to be focusing on, rather than potentially having a hundred and fifty percent increase in lodging taxes that will make us in my community, in my estimation, probably, and maybe hotel owners could step forward and say it.

Is this gonna make us more competitive, or is it gonna hurt our ability to have more rooms used?

Is it gonna hurt our ability to have more people stay overnight in Grand Island?

But then finally, in conclusion, here we are on the the last day of the year on having a council meeting, and sometimes there's unintended consequences that occur of some of the smallest things.

I would hate to have this consequent impact a multi-million dollar industry.

Some could say it's kind of like the golden goose.

You know, we all know the store of the golden goose or laid a golden egg each and every day, and all of a sudden, out of greed and also aggravation that killed the golden goose.

I would hope that this ordinance, if it's passed or 5%, does not hurt the golden goose of tourism that is also a part of our pillars of our community.

And then finally, once again, because this impacts our economic well-being, in my estimation.

As Mr.

Mel Brad brought up.

Having some time to discuss this, way into the Chamber of Commerce have an input, EDC economic development have an input, the citizens have an input, but to go ahead and place another tax increase.

To me, it just seems like it's there ought to be a better solution.

So your position is if there is an occupation tax going forward, it remain at 2%.

I I think the history shows the 2% has well been been well served beyond that.

I don't think there's support beyond the two percent.

We get pressure from outside groups who want some of the money.

So then we have people saying, be careful how much you tax, but then others saying, give me some.

So you see the conflict and the balancing act, the council has to deal with.

Right.

Well, you know, and and once again, we need livestock shows and coming up with some type of revenue stream to provide incentives and combat that as I understand cannot occur from lodging taxes, but that could occur from Grow Grand Island, maybe uh the uh food and beverage taxes.

But once again, Mayor Steele, casino revenue.

Uh if you have people using and being taxed and providing Hall County and the city with keynote revenue, that may be a revenue stream that could be dedicated for tourism, just unlike other general fund things.

But but the last thing is if if this 5% is implanted, then it also creates an unfair playing field, and that establishments outside of Grand Island may be taxed at a different rate than a higher rate in Grand Island.

Thank you.

Appreciate the opportunity.

Thank you for leadership, each one of you.

Jamie Parr, did you want to speak to the thank you so much for your time and Mayor?

I understand what you're saying.

I go back and forth with that in my head, being a part of the uh being one third of the entity that has brought livestock shows to Grand Island over the last uh 14 or 15 years.

Um, we do hear from the exhibitors that hotel rooms are too expensive in Grand Island.

Um it's a very common reason that a livestock show might choose not to come here.

Um, those livestock shows do bring a lot of tourism.

Also here Carla up here saying the hotels are full in May through September.

I can say that if livestock shows go away, and um I venture to say that they probably will if we don't find enough funding to support them.

If the livestock shows do go away, uh Carla can shorten her occupancy of full to probably August and September.

So I don't know what the answer is, but I do ask you to consider if you are if you are considering to increase the lodging tax, I ask you to consider to diversify how that money can be spent and consider helping find a solution for the livestock shows that do want to come to Grand Island, Nebraska.

They do want to use those facilities.

Um they do need support from the convention and visitors bureau.

Um they do need the the hotels that have been built recently to help offer right uh competitive rates.

Um they bring a lot to our community, and I'm here um just to express that, I guess.

Also, if you have any questions about Gilka or how the livestock shows began, um it doesn't seem like this is the point and time to go through that, but I'm always available to talk about that and how important I believe that they are for our community.

And you mentioned diversifying the income that could be used for livestock shows.

Livestock shows are right up the state fair street.

Is the state fair willing to participate financially?

Sir, the state fair has participated for all of the years to date.

The State Fair donated about 10 years worth of labor and resources to put on those shows.

It became apparent that the fair could no longer afford to give that type of investment to shows that didn't support our mission statement.

So the State Fair also most recently has put in 25,000 a year, as have the other partners of Gilka in order to keep Gilka afloat and not be in the red.

It is a balance that has to be found.

Almost all of the other venues that produce livestock shows or that book livestock shows are funded somehow by a municipality.

Yes, but I want to understand going forward, the state fair will not be a contributor to the financing of livestock shows.

Is that correct?

The state fair would like to not contribute uh automatic 25,000 to maintain livestock shows.

We do believe that those who benefit from the livestock shows, which would be this community, um, if you define that as a city or a county or the state, um, we're we're open to all of those solutions and hope that we can come together to create something sustainable that continues to bring livestock shows and tourism from out of state to Grand Island, Nebraska.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Chris Kudalek, did you want to speak now?

Thank you all, Chris Katulak, CEO of Fawner Park.

Um, despite being first on the list to speak tonight, I apologize.

I uh appreciate you uh allowing me to not speak first.

I was hopeful I wouldn't have to speak, but uh I was hopeful that those who spake uh spoke before me would carry a cornucopia of messages and they have.

Everyone that stood up here and spoke spoke specifically about their interests, but how it should be the major concern of the city of Grand Island.

And I I will do the same thing.

Um the December 9th council meeting, I canceled plans to be at a global horse racing symposium.

Um, but I sent all of you an email really explaining some things about the plight of the livestock show in Grand Island.

And nothing has changed there.

You all have that email, so I won't I won't drill down on that.

Jamie did an excellent job touching on her position and her role of the state fair about the importance of what the livestock shows bring to Grand Island, and certainly uh Carla did, Brad did, and others did as well.

Um I I do come forward to speak tonight, however, as a matter of clarification rather than to be punitive, and I say that because I want to go back three years, at least three years ago, when discussions began with uh with City Administrator and the May about the Heartland Event Center and the management contract that Fawner had that was going to run out at the end of 2024.

And we were an open book for more than two years explaining what the situation was at at the Heartland Event Center.

Uh we we talked about repairs that we made.

We've made millions of dollars of repair there.

We talked about service contracts that were in play, we revealed inspection reports.

None of this is a surprise, this 11 million dollars that Patrick talked about, about things that need to happen at Heartland Event Center.

I'm aware of it, others should have been aware of it.

I want nothing more than the success of Heartland Event Center and Kyler and his his role.

I've said that all along.

What's good for Heartland Event Center is good for Fawner Park.

Those are big numbers.

And I just, as others have spoke here also.

I don't think maybe tonight is the night to make a final decision on things that are gonna be very important to Grand Island.

Um that was my reflection back to three years ago.

And if there is any, I hope there is no punitive viewpoint towards Fawner Park in the way we manage the Heartland Event Center.

We did it on a bare bones approach to handling business.

It was difficult, it was risky, and when we had the opportunity to not manage it anymore, we decided that was going to be the best choice.

My Heartland Event Center board, my Fauna Park Event Center board, and I endorsed that idea.

So Venue Works came along and they have it, and I I wish them all the best of luck, despite all of those uh the massive numbers to make that venue go.

For years, we've been visiting with city leaders, senators, others in town about the plight of the livestock show and how the model for these shows is broken, it's not working, it's a sinking ship.

Well, the SIP, the ship has sunk, and Fawner Park can't handle it anymore.

State Fairs given their position on it as well.

And we've had a variety of meetings with various people at various locations in the last year alone.

Last month, Jack Sheared called a meeting in the Hetty building, and he had many of you here that were in that meeting, some that some that weren't at the meeting that aren't here as well.

And every option we brought up for a way of finding money to help these livestock shows was shot down.

Carrie Fisk was there, and frankly, I was very impressed with Carrie's knowledge of the situation, the things we were asking for.

She was very quick to say, yep, I know, but no, it can't work this way because of this or that.

And I appreciated that.

She seemed to have a very good command on that.

I think she does.

But subsequent to that meeting, I expressed some of the things that occurred in that meeting, and I believe there are contrary legal opinions to what Carrie said, which brings me back to those things need to be sussed out and to make a decision, a sweeping decision for this five percent tax, an increase from two percent, I think really leaves the livestock shows in the lurch, and maybe a consideration that this council will have to face is how do you handle five to ten million dollar shortfall because the economic studies reveal two that were done last year in a Hereford show, it brought over two million dollars in revenue to the city.

An Australian cattle dog show brought similar numbers.

I'm starting to go back to that email that I sent you last last uh well almost a month ago, so I'll stop right there.

I'm happy to answer any questions, but um I I do want you to consider something that is for livestock shows, however, you get there.

One thing that's been said is we need to search out a variety of funding sources.

The State Fair said we're out.

Uh again, I think since the county can do ag societies and put on livestock shows, it's right up the county's street.

I don't think they'll participate.

What's say Fauner Park?

As far as a funding source, is Fawner Park going to join the city and help fund livestock shows.

Well, we're in the process of doing that right now.

We are in the process of losing money doing those shows, so no would be the answer.

Uh the funding source you're looking for is just the city.

We have spelled out our needs for $550,000.

We have entities in the city that have said they are willing to come forward with a portion of that, specifically the EDC.

We've had conversations with them as well.

It doesn't have to be entirely one element of the city.

It can be a consortium, and I've spelled that out also as well.

And as somebody in the visitor and tourism trade, uh, do you stand with Mayor Vaverchek?

The tax if it's imposed should be two percent or something else.

I I would see an increase, could make sense.

Uh certainly you've got a building that you need to pay for and and make repairs and upgrades.

I understand that, but you also have livestock shows that are tremendously important and possibly I would have to say certainly bring more money than what the Heartland Event Center is currently bringing in, certainly based on expenses to operate that building.

Thank you.

Thank you all, appreciate it.

Mr.

Hawsey.

I have a motion to approve ordinance number one zero zero five five.

Thank you, Mr.

Hawsey.

Mr.

Brown.

Second that motion.

Thank you, sir.

And discussion, Mr.

Hawsey.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um the first thing I want to do is I want to make a motion to amend ordinance number one zero zero five five, page two hundred and eighty-five, section twenty-three-sixty-one by removing the words city owned.

Okay, second that yes.

I'll second that motion.

Please vote.

Motion adopted.

The second thing I wanted to add about the economic development.

This is all about economic development.

The city does economic development in a number of different ways.

We want to see the occupancy rate at hotels up.

You know, and that's the whole thing.

The one thing the city doesn't have is we don't have an economic development department.

So we rely on the EDC.

We rely on the community as in its large, all of the community involved.

That's why these discussions are so important.

When we have good economic development and things happen in the city of Grand Island, the city benefit benefici the beneficiaries of the city become the lodging tax, the food and beverage tax, the sales tax, and the casino tax.

So the lodging taxes because we want to bring in activities that puts people in beds in hotels.

So the hotels, their occupancy goes up when we do activities or Heartland Event Center, or somebody else does an activity.

The food and beverage, because these people who come to Grand Island, they buy meals.

They're the benefactor as well.

So from my view on our economic development, we have four different buckets of activity that are generating tax revenue.

Now, how do you divide and conquer, like Carla said, should it all be on one?

And it it isn't.

It isn't all on one.

Tonight we're only talking about the lodging tax, and it's gonna go to zero at midnight tomorrow.

Okay, so we've got to do something as a council.

And this conversation, all it's very good, and it needs to happen.

We still haven't had the discussion of how do you do what shows?

How do we do the Heartland Event Center?

This was a proposal.

How do we do the Heartland Event Center 11 million?

But maybe that's not it, maybe it doesn't all come from one.

We haven't had the 11 million come in front of the council yet, and say we've had 1.9, but we haven't had 11 million come in front of the council.

So the council has future decisions to look at on how do we do all the stuff that needs to happen at the Heartland Event Center.

We have future decisions about what do we do with the livestock show, the the past Gilka stuff because bringing in national shows to Grand Island is great for the community.

It's great for everybody who's a part of this thing.

It just brings in people the community, and they they're in hotel rooms, they're in the restaurants, everybody is the beneficiary of when we have those.

A national event here is just an awesome ability for us to have because we have the facilities here.

So I I remove the city owned because there are facilities in Grand Island that when the cheerleaders come, they don't all just use one facility, they use probably use the high school.

I don't know, they probably use many facilities.

So it's not about you know one facility.

This is about how do we have an economic development arm.

But tonight, our only question is about the lodging tax, and we have to do something as a council, or it goes to zero tomorrow night at midnight.

Uh the question is is it two?

Is it three?

Is it four?

Is it five?

Well, tonight it's five, and I'd like to hear other members of the council.

I'd be willing to listen to other members' thoughts on what the right number should be if it isn't five.

Mr.

Nickerson.

My first question is do we have to do something tonight?

Do we have to do something tonight?

Because we've had two weeks.

This is to sunset tonight, or sunset at midnight tomorrow night.

Then I understand there's without something in place, we'll just have that dead time until something's decided.

That could be two weeks, it could be four weeks, and that will cost us on average 48,000 a month if we do nothing until we come to a better decision.

So that's my first question.

Do we have to do something tonight?

No.

Okay.

Ask an answer.

So when I listen to the proposals tonight, it's there's a lot of things I've learned, and I appreciate everybody's comments.

I appreciate Brad, the letter that you sent.

Yesterday I was asking questions of Pat and Carrie.

Just try to get my mind wrapped around this as well, and they did a great job responding.

But I I think it's too much to come to a good decision tonight.

I just don't, I think there's too many muddy pieces here that we can come up with a better solution, the best solution.

And I'm not sure that adding 3% is that best solution tonight to a lodging tax.

I think we need to look at all of our options.

And when we look at the the net requests, what are we really looking for?

Oh, and I also see Carlos sitting here.

Carlos, you do not have to sit here for the rest of this meeting if you'd want, okay.

Because your yours was approved.

Just one just wanted to let you know.

Not every not everybody enjoys this stuff.

All right.

Good for you.

You're a trooper.

All right, so we need to sort through the weeds on this thing.

And as I look at really what the request is tonight, overall, the reason that we're asking for 3% increase is for revenue to cover a bond.

That's really what we're looking for.

That number, based on the information I had, was about $800,000 a year for 20 years.

Does all $800,000 have to come from a lodging tax?

Not necessarily.

So I think there are options to Chuck's point.

Is three the right number?

I don't think three is the right number.

I've I wonder as I noodle through this in my head again, really wishing more for a study session to really get into the nitty-gritty than what we're going to be able to do tonight.

You know, what if you what if you had one percent increase?

And then we have roughly a $500,000 revenue source we need to find.

Where's that half a million dollars come from?

So I think we have options.

I think we need to be careful and not think we have to do something tonight.

Yes, it will cost us something in the short term, but I think in the long term it's going to give us a better decision.

I had no idea that our total taxes was 14.75% because when we're living in our world, we're only looking at this little segment.

You see?

We're only looking at raising this from two to five, but we're not, as a council, necessarily aware of all these other taxes that come into that bill that the customer pays.

And I just came back from a week in Colorado with uh in Colorado Springs, and my room rate, they said was very favorable at $55 a night before all the taxes.

Okay, when it was all said and done, it was $60 some dollars a night.

I sorted through it a little bit to say, okay, what did all this amount to?

Interestingly enough, Colorado Springs occupancy tax is only 2%.

That surprised me.

But there are plenty of other taxes that took that 55 up to over 60 some dollars a night.

We need to be aware that we're not the only person asking for money from the lodging industry.

And we've got to look at that cumulatively and see what is the best way to find this $800,000.

I don't disagree that part of that can come from lodging tax.

I do agree that we don't want to broaden the scope of this to where we potentially create problems in the future where somebody says, Well, I think we can use this money for this, this, and this.

We need to be as clear as possible, and I appreciate the hotel groups helping us understand that.

The question comes is other money coming, you know, to help us with these projects.

And the answer is yes, the food and beverage tax does help some of the things that we've been talking about tonight.

The food and beverage tax helps cover a match for the state fair.

That brings in a lot of people, over 300,000.

They don't all spend the night here, but it brings in a lot of a lot of bodies.

We have quality of life issues that affect sports that do bring people in.

That's part of our food and beverage tax.

That's helping put heads in beds.

We do have money through Grow Grand Island and other things that do help the livestock shows.

And if I'm wrong, somebody tell me.

But I think they're part of their mission now, is trying to help generate funds to help make that happen.

So money from food and beverage is helping us do what you're asking.

It is getting those heads in the beds, and we want to do that.

But we also may have to look at some additional help from lodging.

I think 3% may be too big of an ask.

But I I personally cannot make that decision tonight.

I will not be supporting it as it is tonight, because I think we can do better.

I think we have to talk through all the issues here and just make sure we're doing the right thing.

Realizing that we're not the only entity requesting money from the lodging group.

There's a lot of different things out here, so I tally these up as you showed us tonight.

At the end of the day, does three bucks on a hundred dollar room be a deal breaker?

I don't know.

I I don't know that.

But I just want to be able to look at the whole picture and make the best decision possible.

And I I think we can do better than that.

I'd almost, I'm not going to say almost.

I would prefer to have a study session to where we could actually talk through this in detail.

But I will not be supporting it tonight as it is because I think we have time to make a better decision.

Mr.

Still.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

I too agree a lot with what Mitch said had the same thoughts in that.

And also with Chuck on his input.

I think this is too much of a big issue.

It's too complicated to make the decision tonight.

I think we need a study session to kind of talk where the money is going to come from.

I kind of felt in my talks during a week that this would also include money from food and beverage.

It doesn't.

I don't think the lodging tax can support it.

So I'd like to make a motion to table this for one week, and that uh the administration come back with some ideas on how to how to come off a better lodging tax so we're not talking taxing our motels to death and running the business off.

Um that's my motion.

Are you wanting to table it for a week or until the next council meeting?

The next council meeting would be January 13th.

We don't have a meeting in one week.

What's the recommendation on staff until the I'd ask you to table it until the next council meeting?

Okay, yes.

Which would be January 13th.

All right, we'll do that.

Mr.

Lanfair.

I second that motion.

I agree.

Discussion.

I would like to have a discussion on the motion only but objects, that's something on it too.

Let's talk about it.

Mr.

Shear, thank you.

Um both that motion and all of this.

If we table this, I guess my first question is, does that give us time to gather more information in two weeks?

And what information do we need to gather?

That is a great question.

I don't know what information more we would gather, quite honestly.

Um I believe it was Brad or Chris mentioning something about other opinions, legal opinions, maybe forward that to carry.

That's the only thing I can think of.

Because I'm not against holding off.

Um matter of fact, I had more feedback probably on this uh, maybe even in the Good Life District.

Uh and part of it was that they didn't know this was coming because it, as Jay said, it doesn't say anything about a hotel tax.

You have to know what Chapter 23, Article 6 of Grand Island City Code is, which I didn't either, uh, until I dug deeper to find out where's the hotel tax thing.

I thought we were going to talk about that.

So I totally understand uh those comments that came my way.

Uh question I have, I guess if we're going to continue the conversation, Carrie for you, the way this has been amended so far that we're removing the city-owned part.

If that were to pass tonight or in two weeks, does that in any way the way it's now we're being asked to vote on this motion, this article, does it in any way prohibit us from using this what would then be five percent of hotel occupancy tax on tourism to support Fonner Parks that the the not Funner Park, but the Funer X, the Gilka, the livestock shows.

Does this motion do anything to to suppress that?

The motion to remove city owned facilities, frankly, doesn't have any legal impact at all.

Our occupation tax authority is a statutory creation, which given the specificity of the statute is available for the payment of debts and expenses of the city.

So whether it says city owned facilities or not, we're still admitted by law to debts and expenses of the city.

So it really has no legal effect at all.

Um I think what you're saying is we can't we can't modify by city code what is required by state statute.

Correct, yeah.

So whether those words are there or not, it doesn't change our legal authority.

I think it might be helpful, it might be helpful to note this is an occupation tax, not a lodging tax, so it has a very specific set of rules.

It is an occupation tax imposed on hotels, um, but it is different than the state and county lodging taxes, which do have that tourism mandate here.

So there are some slightly different rules at play between these two types of taxes on hotel services.

Um and so we're very much limited by the authority of state statute for what we can use these special taxes and assessments for.

Um in particular, this restriction has been in place since 1901, unchanged, that limits these other taxes unless there's a specific statutory authority to those payments of debts and expenses of the city.

Some of our taxing revenue has extra authorities.

The good life district tax, for example, has a lot more permissible purposes.

This one is very narrow to uh payments of debts and expenses of the city.

So this particular type of tax does not solve for um, I think that second part of the question, which is can we use this money for something else?

But if this particular motion, let's say hypothetically, the other stuff you said, hogwash.

Okay.

Let's say well Chris thinks that maybe he's got a different opinion.

If that is accurate, is there anything we'd be voting on this language tonight that prevents if your other opinions wrong?

Does this specifically say we can't use it on Fauna Park on livestock shows?

No matter what language you put in the statute, it doesn't change anything.

So this motion doesn't, it doesn't really change that there.

One of the changes that has occurred to the occupation stack tax in general is it is much more amendable now than it was before.

So you do if the percentage you want changes, if the purpose is changed, if this other opinion shows up, even once imposed, this ordinance could then be amended at subsequent meetings in a way that it did not used to be able to.

The legislature passed some new uh statutes that went into effect in June that made these changes um much easier for city council to effectuate rather than voters.

So you do retain that ability to tinker whether you continue or not, whether you change language or not, all still limited out by the law.

But if the if the concern is you have one bite at this apple and better have it perfect, that is no longer the state of the law with occupation taxes.

You can come in and make changes a little more.

You could do 5 percent now and change your mind and go back to 4 percent and then go up to 3 percent logistically, operationally, and I guess this finance would not like that, but legally, legally you can do that in a way that you could not do up before June of this year.

Um so you can this can be a much more living ordinance than it used to be able to.

Okay.

Shouldn't we be addressing the amendment?

Yes, the amendment.

Yeah, and uh I appreciate that.

I'm trying to get to whether or not we need the amendment or not.

If we were to vote tonight, is it changeable?

And if it's not changeable, then I agree with the amendment.

But this sounds like we're not stuck in stone for something we do tonight.

We could change it next month anyway, but it would keep it going.

Uh we could amend it to 2 percent to keep it going as is, and come back and have the conversation down the line with more people at the table to get it to three, four, five, whatever that number ends up being.

But I guess on this motion, that's why this is relevant.

Maybe we don't need this, maybe the amendment needs to be to change it to two for now.

Mr.

Hawsey.

Thank you, Mayor.

I'm against the motion to table.

Uh I am in favor of reducing the percentage and have a continuing conversation.

But I I don't want to lose.

I don't want to go from two to zero tomorrow.

And so I won't I, you know, I think I'm against the motion to table.

Mr.

Lanfear.

I we've heard from quite a few people.

I would say they would be called experts on work this possibly they could do.

I'd like to hear from more though.

That's the reason I back this.

I want to know how far this could reach.

You know, it's only three dollars in a hundred dollar room.

But there's an image.

Every vacation town, tourist town has an image.

Vegas has one.

Atlantic City had one that failed, primarily because they priced themselves up too high.

I really don't want to Grand Island to have the venues that we are looking that we're looking at uh visitors as cash cows that are going to support other projects.

That's my main concern.

And I'd like to hear what other people think that about that.

Mr.

Nickerson.

One of the things that I'd learned from Renee Edwards after sitting under her tutelage for many, many years is that the term we do not want to use in this, Mark, I'm just going to let you know that.

Just you do not want to say table it during this meeting.

We do it when you table it, that means you're laying it on the table and you're going to address it again before the meeting is over.

So the right word we want to use is postpone.

So to be Robert's rules of order accurate, I would just say that we do not want to use the word table because table means we're going to still deal with it tonight.

That's just a Robert's rules of orders thing that she embedded in me after many, many years.

So just make sure that Mark's okay with that because the word the word is postpone, not table.

Okay.

Now let's talk about tabling it.

Or postponing it.

Let's talk about postponing it.

Let's not table it.

Postponing it to the next meeting is probably okay.

Because it does allow us a chance to still sort through some things over these next couple of weeks.

So I guess I'm not a hundred percent opposed to that.

I'd rather see a study session to where we can really delve into our options rather than trying to make it all fit into one specific category tonight.

I don't know that that's necessarily the right answer.

I don't know that it's the wrong answer.

I don't know that's the right answer.

Now Chuck said if we if we don't do something tonight, you know, it goes to zero.

Well, from what I understand, no matter what we do tonight, there's two weeks lag time where we cannot collect anything anyway.

Is that correct, Carrie?

Yes, because the current uh occupation tax sunsets at midnight on December 31st, an ordinance you pass tonight has 15 days before it becomes effective.

So a vote tonight, the ordinance would still have a January 1st through the 14th where it would not be imposed.

Um whenever you have your final vote, there's another 15-day delay after that before it can become effective.

Yeah, so say we're gonna have two weeks where we can't collect anything anyway.

And it doesn't bother me if we're gonna lose a little bit of revenue here to try to find the best answer.

And if we can come up with that best answer in two weeks or at our next meeting, I'm okay with that.

Now, having said that, I kind of like what Chuck said too.

You know, what if we just say let's hold it at two percent and then we regather and have more in-depth discussion, which now we lose maybe two weeks of revenue just because of the ordinance, and we're able to continue that revenue stream on day 15.

That helps us there.

So I'm okay with that too.

I think it's a nice way to look at it.

I I don't think before we leave tonight.

I don't think it's smart to just say let's slap another three percent without having further discussion as a group and go on from there.

I also I'm interested in the fact of any controversial issues on Carrie's viewpoint versus somebody else's.

It's always it's always good to have multiple attorneys look at things because one of my concerns was the way things are drafted now, and and carry some of her feedback was to me was that I'm not concerned with the way I have it drafted because I don't think there's any way it could happen down the road.

Well, I'm so I'm thinking in the back of my mind, that's what you think, but what if the next attorney down the road here says, oh no, I've I've interpreted this differently.

So that's where I think it's good to have all the attorneys at least flesh out what's that we're all on the same page on what can be used for, what can it be used for?

And I'm not well, I know we're not there tonight.

So again, worst case scenario, we may lose two weeks of potential revenue.

Best case, you know, we'll just we'll keep it going after the two weeks.

So if we stick with the two percent.

That's a long way of saying, am I for this or am I against it?

I and I'm still not sure whether I'm for postponing it or not.

It would depend on if we turned around and said, or is there a proposal on here for a two percent?

So I guess I guess we have to just vote on this up or down at this point, and then we'll go to the next step.

Mr.

Connolly.

So that's kind of what I was gonna bring up, and Chuck beat me to it with the with continuing the two percent.

I I agree with that.

I think we should.

I don't know what we need to do what cut what type of motion, but I mean at two weeks is gonna would turn into four weeks, and then you know, the whole point of trying to up this tax is to make these repairs of the Heartland Event Center need.

So I think delaying uh you know the two percent, I think wouldn't be good.

So um I agree with Chuck and Mitch's comments here.

So is there do we need to make a motion?

We have to vote on the postponement first.

Mr.

Sheard.

Okay, thank you.

So I'm clear, we're gonna vote on this.

My suggestion to everyone, or what I'm going to do is vote no on this motion, and then if that were to fail, then we will make an amendment to change it to two percent.

But I would hope that we would still have this on a very future agenda, like Mark is asking for to continue the conversation to get where we can go.

So I'll vote no to the amendment and then talk again.

Okay, so this is the motion to vote on postponing postponing.

Please vote.

Motion failed.

Mr.

Hossey.

Thank you, Mayor.

I would move to amend the revised rate from 5% back to 2%.

Mr.

Brown.

Second that motion.

Discussion, Mr.

Sheard.

I meant to just make the motion, sorry.

I didn't.

I I I'm in favor of this.

I think we've already said that.

Mr.

Hawsey.

Well, I think it's the best solution in front of us is to just try to sustain where we're at today, have the continued conversation, and please I want to make sure the hotelers and everybody who's got a stake in this discussion be invited to the next one and know ahead of time.

Because we need your help to try to make this successful because we're just trying to do economic development in the community.

Mr.

Nickerson.

Carla, can I have you come up for a second here?

I'm going to share with you something that really shocked me here many months ago.

And and so some things you told me tonight totally went contrary to what I was told many, many, many months ago.

So Paul Eunice was here building some hotels here, and we were I was challenging him on, you know, what about competition?

What if you get a you know surplus of rooms and now all the rates have to be adjusted and you can't get them filled?

And he's comment was you know, competition is good.

Okay, so that's great.

But the other thing he told me, and I'm gonna ask my counsel colleagues here to test their memories as well, but this this has stood in my brain for a long time.

And I'm almost 99.9 percent sure that he said that there are 133 nights in Grand Island where all hotels are full.

Um, there's 130, what was it, 133 nights where nobody could find a room?

I think is what he told me.

That's the same thing.

133 nights.

Now, does that ring true to you?

Is because you're telling me now there's several months here where it's just kind of slim picking sometimes, and I guess I can understand that.

But does that that stuck with me that there that we were so packed, which prompted the need for more hotel rooms?

It and and I I respect Mr.

Paul Eunice.

He is a he's an excellent business person.

He knows what he's doing, he's been in that hospitality world forever and ever, and he's great at what he does.

Did he happen to mention what months that he no, no, no.

So the 133 nights, he's probably referring to probably one state fair time and two husker harvest days.

Husker Harvest Days when they are in town for that three days, four days, they do fill Grand Island.

And you cannot find a room, even when if you the closest you would probably find would be either York or out towards Kearney.

So those are probably the two months, and again, I cannot speak for Mr.

Eunice, but those are probably the two months he was referring to when he had said that 133 nights.

Okay.

Well it just blew my mind at the time that there would be that many rooms, which in my mind warranted the need for more hotels.

So now as those hotels are expanded now and increased, the impact on the entire industry is going to be felt because now you're distributing people amongst all these other establishments, and you because competition is good, rates will be adjusted more than likely to try to get them to come to your establishment.

And so I just wanted to kind of connect with you on that because it just seemed like a very bold statement.

And I don't know, I see Brad has something too that he may want to add.

You'll have to come up to the microphones.

Yeah, I just it just blew my mind when he said that.

And and again, what would I think?

Please keep it.

Please stand in front of the microphones.

What you might have to keep in mind, and and what you have to realize is that again, when Grand Island has events and they're thriving, which that means cattle shows, baseball tournaments, softball tournaments.

We have state tournaments here.

When Grand Island is thriving through those months of what I said before, from May through September, hotels thrive on that.

Okay.

It's the off months, such as October, November, December, January, part of February until horse racing season starts up, and when cheer and dance come into town, those then it starts to pick back up.

So that's when hotels thrive.

Do all hotels fill up those seasons?

Not necessarily, because it depends on the events that are here and depends on what the I what the rates are for each hotel.

Some hotels charge three to four hundred dollars a night.

Other hotels can charge a hundred to two hundred dollars a night.

So it just depends on whoops, excuse me, where that's where that fluctuation goes.

I appreciate that.

I don't want to speak for Paul.

Most likely it refers to his two properties that he has here.

He's building two new ones.

So that number I could check with Paul and confirm that.

Most likely he's talking about the two properties that he has, not the whole city.

Oh, so may have been 133 nights that at his properties would be my most likely the way that is.

Uh and just to talk about that occupancy, we're a bell curve, meaning we're heavily used in the summers, and as Carla mentioned, the colder season months not as busy.

Carneys are a little more flat because they're a major convention business there.

Humans in warm places.

We have animals in cold places, right?

So that's a differentiator between the two industries that we would have, but that would be likely what he was referring to.

Okay, well, that that helps me quite a bit because it just seemed like a shocking number to me at the time that there was that much that we are that full.

I can call him and confirm that, but my my sense is that's what he was saying.

And I I wouldn't I wouldn't waste my time talking to him, but I do appreciate that.

And I guess the same thing holds true.

The reason I was able to get 55 bucks a night in Colorado Springs is because they weren't as busy as they are in the middle of summer.

So and it's not 55 bucks at the same place where I stay, so I guarantee you.

So yeah, that makes sense.

Uh so again, Chuck, thank you for bringing this up.

The two percent continuing is better than the alternative right now.

And I think we need to we're gonna lose two weeks no matter what, because it's gonna sunset.

But if we approve this tonight, we're only gonna lose two weeks, and then we can regroup and find the best answer.

So thank you.

Mr.

Lanfear.

I think this is the most workable plan.

Um I really I am in favor of holding it too forever, but uh my main concern is obviously a lot of people have a strong opinion on this.

I I would like to see anybody who has a dog in this fight get have a chance to come out and speak their minds right here because it can make a big difference in how this city is perceived.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, so this is uh the motion to amend to keep at the two percent.

Please vote.

Motion adopted.

Before we move on, counsel, I guess just for I'm sorry.

Go ahead.

Did everybody vote?

Yes.

But we have to go back to the main.

Oh, okay.

Yeah, I just have to find a um.

Mr.

Sheard.

Thank you.

Well, she's digging for that.

We do have some of those people in the room.

I guess before we vote on this staying at 2%.

Any of you have feedback to not do that or to move it forward one way or the other.

Just I mean we keep saying we want to get your opinion, and you're all in front of us, so to keep it at the two percent.

I think that's an excellent choice for now, and I would advise moving forward very quickly.

We do want to be at the table to help resolve these issues, but we don't want to do it to the detriment of the industry and find those right solutions.

I think it's there.

I think we can figure this out.

To Mayor Steele's point earlier about ponying in, it is private business.

It is the events uh the our our organization.

It is, I think a solution with three, four, five, six funding streams is the smartest way to do this.

How do we get to it?

I think we get ourselves into a room, lock ourselves in, figure it out, it'd be a great step forward for Grand Island to be able to do that.

So I I the singular funding source is not the solution.

I'm talking about the livestock stuff in particular at this point.

And uh so I think there's could be a solution.

So two percent tonight totally makes sense.

I don't want it to wait a long time, two weeks, three weeks, whatever, convene this so we can get this resolved so that you can act on this within the next 30 days or whatever.

If if there was a way to get funding for the livestock shows, is five percent still a bad idea?

An increase is probably likely.

Five percent, your three dollars versus two dollars and seventy-five cents or whatever that is, yeah.

Is that it are we splitting hairs a little bit?

I'm concerned as a salesperson about the perception of taking advantage of the families that come here.

Now I'm thinking livestock shows.

Tourism is way bigger than just livestock shows, it really is.

I'm really concerned about that perception statewide.

It it do you want to be listed as one of the co-very highest occupancy tax, you know, because there's five percent, two percent here, two percent for us, one percent with the state, that's five percent.

So our tourism already takes five percent.

You add another five percent, pretty soon it's real money.

And so I'm really concerned about that.

What we can probably work this out, get the messaging right, get the hotel years input on that return on investment to find out you know how that works.

Just the concerns that I had was making sure that the future money doesn't get steered off into areas that are not pertinent to building and investing in the that's it.

Because you the reason I'm asking this is we have another discussion in two weeks, four weeks, six weeks.

But if we don't have funding for the events center, if we don't have funding for livestock shows, if we don't have I mean you mentioned casino, somebody mentioned the casino.

That's a million dollars a year right now.

Uh that's that's good money.

But we've we've talked about the casino money and every single conversation that I have had.

Well, we still got that casino money, that can go towards that.

That same bucket ain't gonna stretch forever.

I understand that, yeah.

And and honestly, to do the things we want to do, there's there's not an unlimited bucket.

So uh if we come back again in a month or two weeks, I just want to make sure that we're coming back with solutions and understanding that if we could just pay for all this stuff today, we would have done it and we wouldn't touch this.

Uh there's probably going to be an increase.

I just want Chris, you're standing up, like you want to come up.

I just want to get that input from from you guys.

Thank you.

I really kind of wanted to stand up and and say thank you, Carl Stillen, who's found entertainment in all of this.

Um little levity is nice, but this is a very serious important matter.

And I I feel a super effect uh in using a horse racing term has been struck because there are three individuals and now four per this meeting who have embraced the whole idea of realizing the importance of the livestock show subsidy and doing everything in their power to do it.

And that's Mary Burley from the EDC, it's Tanya Brown from Grove Grand Island, and it's Brad Melema from uh GI Tourism.

And now I see it from you, the council thinking let's give this some more thought.

I've got a lot more answers for you that I'm happy to present in a more organized manner.

And a lot of people behind me, I have heard speak uh with great more passion than they have here tonight with a little higher voice level than they're hearing tonight.

They didn't have a microphone from them when we were talking about this.

So I really am proud of the professionalism that people have shown in coming up to the microphone and the professionalism of everyone here hearing it out.

We got we've we kept in control.

We need to continue to stay in control to get the benefit uh that this city needs.

Thank you.

Did now I that was my preamble.

You had a question, Mr.

Shearard?

No, no, I think your preamble is great.

All right.

And that's my farewell.

Thank you.

Mr.

Nickerson.

Based on what Jack just said and what we've heard, I still think it's far more advantageous to have a study session and talk about the different options we have than to have another voting session where we won't have that freedom to discuss all the options we have.

That means finance bringing together their view of this is the funds we have available, and these are the options.

So I I don't think we're going to gain much if we were to come back in two weeks and try to have this discussion again.

I would really ask for a study session to where we can dive into this thing.

We may or may not come up with the best answer, but we'll be able to just talk about it more freely and look at all the options, and then we'll see what the best answer is if we talk about the casino tax.

Let's see what is designated right now for that.

Let's talk about if we were to add one percent to our occupancy for hotels.

We need 500,000.

Where are options to get that for this bond?

Let's have those conversations, but you're not going to do that in a voting meeting.

It's just not going to happen.

So my I'm advocating for a study session.

I am going to definitely support what we've got before us to keep the two percent going.

But another voting session without additional time to just really talk through this with all our options, doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

But I'm definitely going to vote for what we've got tonight.

The administration would prefer a study session.

Hi, everybody, I'm Kyler.

Um, I'd like to talk to this because it's a critical thing.

Obviously, we're talking about something that supports our building that has for 20 years, and it's critical that we have the support and um that cash flow to kind of make sure that we keep things going like we are.

Um it's important to the maintenance and the upkeep of the building.

But I don't want to, you know, one thing I do know about is livestock shows.

Um I don't want us to get so lost on that we have to keep the upkeep of the HEC taken.

I really want to point out that we want to do everything we can to make sure we don't lose these livestock shows.

Um our facility is probably one of the nicer facilities in the nation.

Um the buildings that we have are incredible.

Um they're high-end.

I mean, uh the amount of money and revenue that comes in from livestock shows is significant, and it's all outside money, like Chris talked about.

Um, it's critical we find a way to support those as well, too.

So I want as a person that that is a beneficiary of these funds.

I think they're urgent that we have them to keep the upkeep and maintenance of the building uh to keep us running like we need to.

But I don't want us to lose sight of.

We don't want to lose these livestock shows.

These they are they bring in money and they bring in a lot of money.

And the better we do it, the more we'll get, and the more we'll get um we'll increase the number of those shows as well, too.

So I just wanted to bring it up as an outside from an outside perspective.

We need to find ways to make sure we keep those shares here too.

So that's my thoughts.

Okay, this is voting on the original motion.

Please vote.

We voted on the amendment already to the two percent.

So this is clear back.

Do we have to go?

We have to go back to the original motion.

As amended.

As amended.

Correct.

Yeah, you're now on the new new main motion is to mo vote on the amended ordinance.

Yes.

Motion adopted.

Great discussion.

Moving on to ordinance 10B.

Consideration of repealing ordinance 10,054 and renaming U.S.

Highway 30.

Is there a motion to suspend the statutory rules, Mr.

Hossee?

Mayor, I make a motion to suspend the statutory rules.

Thank you.

Mr.

Sheard.

I'll second that.

Thank you.

Please vote.

Motion adopted.

Please proceed, Mr.

Navity.

Make this very quick.

We made a mistake on the last ordinance.

So we're trying to fix it.

While the existing section of old Highway 30 is just old Highway 30.

And as we were looking at updating that, we realized we had the U.S.

in there.

So all this does is change it to get rid of the U.S.

and make it old Highway 30.

Thank you, Mr.

Navity.

Mr.

Scheard.

Thank you.

I move that we pass ordinance 1056.

Mr.

Lanfear.

I second.

Any discussion?

Please vote.

Motion adopted.

Good night, everybody.

We are adjourned.

Have a happy new year.