Welcome to our meeting.

The date is March 24, 2026.

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 state law.

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

Now please rise and join us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Councilmember Sheard.

Present.

Councilmember Selk.

Councilmember Conley.

Present.

Councilmember Nickerson.

Present.

Councilmember Brown.

Present.

Councilmember Hazi.

Present.

Councilmember Mendoza will be absent.

Council President O'Neill.

Present.

Councilmember Pollock will be absent.

Councilmember Lanfear?

Present.

And Mayor Steele.

Present.

Also present are Jill Grinier, the City Clerk, Patrick Brown, the City Administrator, Carrie Fisk, the City Attorney, and Keith Kurtz, 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.

Mr.

Hawsey.

Yes, Mayor, I'd like to remove consent item number seven B, payment of claims.

Thank you, Mr.

Nickerson.

Seven I'm asking.

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.

As we start tonight's meeting, we have the honor of recognizing an extraordinary group of student athletes who have made our community incredibly proud.

In February, the Grand Island Senior High Girls Bowling Team brought home its first ever state championship, and it's been a long time coming.

After coming so close in recent years, finishing as a runner-up three straight times.

These girls in front of you showed what perseverance and belief in themselves can accomplish.

To the players, you've set a new standard and created a moment that will be remembered for years to come.

On behalf of the city of Grand Island, congratulations on an outstanding season and this historic achievement.

In a moment, we would like to invite the team and coaches forward one by one for recognition.

Do you wish to speak, sir?

I was just going to say exactly what you said, Mayor.

And I do want to add one quick thing.

Because our coaches are so tight knit.

Um, both of our coaches this year each earned one hundred wins on the boys and girls' side.

So um, in total in the last five years.

And so NSA bowling has been a five year sport.

We've been in the finals the last four years, and so our three seniors that are up here have bowled in the championship the last four years, and this year they got it done.

So we uh we appreciate you guys letting us come out here tonight, and uh, I just can't say enough about this group of girls and our coaches that dedicate their time to making our team and our sport better.

Well said, Mrs.

Grenier and I will now come down and ask each of the members to come forward for recognition.

We are going to present you with a certificate and a pin of Grand Island, like I am wearing, and we will start off with Riley Arnold.

Bailey Vodenall.

Brenley Rathchin, I'm not sure if you're Miles Gabby Westwood.

Head coach Brad Ernest.

Assistant coach Paul Lee.

Assistant coach Brittany Baker.

Spencer, we have the team with their trophies and their uniforms.

We need a group picture.

Those young people and their coaches are truly outstanding ambassadors for the city of Grand Island.

What a joy it is to have them here.

Agenda item six B presentation from Central District Health Department.

And for the folks walking, watching, please state your names.

So we have a record.

Hi, okay.

I'm Teresa Anderson.

I'm Lisa Falcon.

Thank you.

We're here from Central District Health Department at the request of Mr.

Stelk to provide you with some uh information that we're pretty excited about.

Uh we have received accreditation, national accreditation, and Liza will go over that.

We have a PowerPoint.

It should be pulled up on the bottom there.

Oh, we we can we can get to it if Liza can run it.

If there you go.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Okay.

So as Teresa just shared, we are, well, my main purpose for um being here tonight is to share that we're now a nationally accredited health department.

Um this is something we're really excited about.

We've been working towards this goal for years.

Um we submitted our application to the National Public Health Accreditation Board in December of twenty twenty-four.

Uh we had been preparing the application for years before that, and then we've been over the last a little bit over a year, we've been going through the national review process, including site visits.

Um, and then on February 18th of so last month, we found out that our application to be accredited was accepted.

So I know that a lot of people are familiar with accreditation is in different sectors.

For us, it's similar in that it means that we've been reviewed by an independent organization, and they look at all of our programs, our services, our internal infrastructure, the way we communicate, our relationships to see if we meet or exceed national standards, and they found that we do.

So for the public and for you all, what this means is that you can trust that we're prepared to handle national emergencies or public health emergencies.

We are committed to being transparent and accountable, and ultimately we're focused on improving the health of our community, and that's really why we applied for this award.

One thing that is unique to public health accreditation is it is very much an optional thing.

Um, it's something that public health departments do when they want to go above and beyond and receive uh very detailed feedback from that national organization.

So we are now joining a group of health departments that is only about thirteen to fourteen percent of health departments in the nation.

Um, and we're really proud of that and excited.

We have uh just a few report highlights that we pulled from our long uh final report that we received, some things that we just wanted to note because all of this ultimately impacts our ability to serve the public.

Um they noted that we have strengths in our ability to respectfully serve everybody to the best of our ability.

Um, our top three strengths that they identified was our ability to communicate with partners, with our board, with the public, um, regardless of like language access, things like that.

They noted that we have a strong ability to collect, analyze, and use data to make decisions.

And then we have a strength of addressing health inequities.

They noted that we're high performing, we're trusted stewards of public health resources and a trusted hub in the community.

And my last quote that we wanted to share is that I think this is a testament to our commitment to finding ways and being adaptable as the environment continually changes for public health.

They noted that we're creative, innovative, and resilient in the face of a challenging environment, and we're committed to continuing to uh rise to meet those different barriers that we find so that we can serve the population and protect everybody's health and well-being.

And that I believe is the end of my portion.

That's that.

And I don't have much to tell you except we're pretty excited about this rural health transformation project, which is our HTP for short.

Um, this is money that was uh allocated in the federal legislation that had to do with the one big beautiful bill.

We're seeing some of those funds now come back to the central part of the state and to Central District Health Department.

The whole project is 218 million for the state for each year over the next five years, and the priorities are listed here that you can see.

But one of the big ones is to make rural America healthy again.

Um, and then number two, sustainable access and navigation.

We're also working on the one at the bottom, the 1.5A, Nebraska Kids' Fitness and Nutrition Day, which is a one-time event that we work with UNK on.

We haven't done it before in our area.

It's been done in several parts of the state.

So it's our turn to take that on this year along with the other the 19 other health departments that we have.

The potential for us this year is about 1.8 million dollars.

Um, and that would be each year for the next five years if everything stays stable.

There's a big if.

Um the awards so far we've received is 380,000.

Um so the two that we've been awarded thus far is the strategic national stockpile, which some of you may remember from around COVID time where we were stockpiling drugs, uh equipment, protective equipment, uh personal protective equipment.

Um we didn't store, but some places they had ventilators, respirators, those kinds of things.

There were three health departments in Nebraska that were awarded.

We were one, Elkhorn Largan Valley Elkhorn Logan Valley, the second one, and the panhandle.

So each of us gets 233,000 a year for the next five years to develop and maintain that stockpile.

One of the things that we'll be doing with that, one of the lessons we learned during COVID is don't put pot, don't put items in your stockpile that nobody wants, and you can't exchange them with hospitals or rotate stock.

So we'll be working very closely with our Tri-City Medical Response Group and also with each of our area hospitals to order only things that they think that they can rotate out stock, so we have nothing that expires.

So over the next five years, we'll be building that stockpile and working closely again with the hospitals and with our trimmers, Tri City Medical Response.

And so that's pretty exciting for us.

We're able to take the garage on our property now and make it the temperature controlled, change out a few things and be ready to ready set go with that.

Um the second part of that that we've been awarded thus far is the oral health grant, and that's 147,000, so it's not peanuts either.

And that will allow us to hire a full-time public health registered dental hygienist and expand our dental program, which is pretty limited right now to just WIC clients, uh, pregnant women and children who come into WIC.

But we'll be able to expand that greatly throughout the community, uh, hopefully do some outreach in schools.

We do something right now with uh Northwest, but this will expand us to go into other counties as well and do the work that is so needed because dental care is one of those things that a lot of people can't access.

The applications that are in progress for us right now is part B of that 1.4A, which was the physical fitness day, but part B is another 100,000 to work on this one specific to obesity prevention.

So we're designing that right now to submit it.

The big one that we're getting ready to submit has to be in by Friday, is a community health worker network.

For that, we have currently about eight community health workers.

Um community health workers are lay people who've been trained to be community health workers and certified to be community health workers.

They go out and meet with people in the community, identify what they need to be healthy, connect them with resources, maybe help them with applications and that kind of things.

There's a whole gamut of community health workers uh activity.

So we built that into uh our work plan and that would provide us with uh funding to maintain five of those community health workers, which otherwise we were going to have to let go.

So in total, this will allow us to maintain about 10 to 12 new employees, which is of course good for our economy.

We're pretty excited about that.

Um there's a chronic disease management part 4.4a.

We worked very closely with the hospitals to develop memoranda of understanding with them so that when they get a client, a patient on their end, who's been readmitted to the emergency room several times and they're not sure what's going on when they have a person, let's say with chronic lung disease or with congestive heart failure, who has many re-hospitalizations, they can refer it to us.

We'll have a nurse manager who will call that client, set up an appointment.

Our community health workers will go out and try to figure out with the patient's permission, of course, what can make their lives better, what can make them healthier, whether it's access to medications, to transportation, maybe food is an issue for them.

But working with them to come in on where they are, meet them where they are.

It's a little similar to the home health work I did a hundred years ago, but it's community health workers, so it's lay people who are doing the work.

Um the restrictions on these funds is a little bit critical that there's only a 7.5 admin that we can charge.

Our indirect cost rate currently is 37%.

So we're making some concessions to make this work, but we feel it's essential that those funds that are potentially available to us that we capitalize on those and bring them into the community.

We're not going to leave uh something out there when we can have it to help the population that we serve.

The other piece is that we cannot supplant current programming.

Um current positions can't be supplanted with these funds.

So we're looking at the programs where the funding is drying up, and then how can we take those folks who are in those programs and repurpose them into the community health worker model?

Um the other piece of this, which is going to be really interesting, is reporting to CMS on this, because they have a whole different plan for reporting, which may take uh a lot of time to do, but we're hopeful that some of those requirements will um be uh loosened over time because the reporting piece is quite something.

Um so that's all we have.

We know you have a busy agenda.

If there are any questions for Liza or me, we'll be happy to answer.

We do have some.

Mr.

Sheard.

Thank you.

Uh first of all, congratulations.

That's fantastic.

It's a nice feather in the cap for Grand Island and for Central Nebraska.

Uh as we look at some of those grants that you're trying to apply for or are applying for, how does the accreditation help with that process?

Does that give you a leg up?

So, what we know about the accreditation is that these grants aren't we aren't contingent on accreditation, but what we know after having experienced the accreditation process that this makes us much more capable and ready to take on these grants to deliver with quality product and quality outcomes.

So we really feel like our whole accreditation work.

And some of you who were on our board like a few years back will remember that we've been working on this for years and years, but we finally got LISA on board and we're able to proceed to the accreditation.

So and we'll have a process where we'll be re-accredited in five years, so the work doesn't stop for us, we'll keep moving forward.

But again, it it's it puts it in a good situation to to be able to handle this uh new opportunity.

I would imagine knowing how many grants you guys are always involved with, having the work done for this process is gonna help you not just get the grants, but you'll have that access to all that information to apply for these grants as you go.

Yeah.

Well it accreditation was really good for us and good for all of us then in turn.

Fantastic.

It brings more money to something important to our community.

So well done.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Hawsey.

Thank you, Mayor.

I wanted to thank Teresa uh for her dedication and leadership.

I can tell you from personal experience, because I have been on the health board for 12 years of the last 16, including the board president during COVID and the board president for the flood the year before COVID.

So the challenges of the health board are very are a lot, and Teresa has been dedicated for my whole time, you know, serving on the health board as a city council rep, and she just works tirelessly and all of her staff do.

So thank you very much for all your work for Hall Hamilton and Merritt Counties.

Thank you, Chuck.

Mr.

Stelk.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um I'm the council rep for your board, and I just want to say our saying kudos and thank you for all your work.

Uh I think what you're doing is so important.

With the lack of media in Grand Island, basically newspapers, word doesn't get out.

And so that's one reason we're using the venue of GI TV.

And it's kudos to you and your staff for all the good work you do.

I'm done.

I'm just really impressed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Nickerson.

I've had the privilege of working with Teresa too many years ago through the big move over to uh the current facility and all the things that went on with all of that.

And again, a great job all the way through, but building on some things that Mark was just saying, and even uh Chuck, you have given your notice that in a few months you're you plan to move on.

Teresa's planning to step down and they're looking for someone else.

Utilizing GI TV, talking with you earlier, you said you really hadn't found anybody yet to fill your shoes.

So here's another outlet for a shout out for anybody interested in the health department director.

We want to make sure they know that that position is coming open soon.

Thank you for that.

And anything else we need to add.

No, my my retirement date was May 30th.

Now it's moved to June 15th.

We're gonna we're getting holds fast at some point, but we need to get somebody in and get them oriented and make sure that they're on the right track.

Thank you again for all the good work you're doing.

Was this kind of like the thing you were hoping to get done before you stepped out?

It was like let's get this done.

Yeah.

Good.

That's a great accomplishment.

Thank you.

I want to thank council member Stelk for suggesting that you present this evening, and we can hear about all the exciting and valuable work that you do.

And only 13 to 14 percent of health departments are nationally accredited, and now you're one of them.

I think that calls for a standing ovation.

Oh gosh.

Thank you again for being here.

Thank you for the opportunity.

And we will we will not let you down.

We're gonna keep moving ahead with things.

Council members, uh, is there a motion to approve the consent agenda with the exceptions of 7B and 7i?

Mr.

Sheard.

Thank you.

I move that we approve the consent agenda items A through O with the exceptions of B and I.

Mr.

O'Neill.

I second the motion.

Any discussion please vote.

Motion adopted consent agenda item 7B, approving payment of claims for the period of March 25, 2026 through April 14, 2026, in the total amount of 11,478,338 and 78 cents.

And is there a motion, Council?

Mr.

Sheard.

Thank you.

I move that we approve item 7B.

And Mr.

O'Neill.

I second the motion.

Discussion, Mr.

Hawsey.

Thank you, Mayor.

On page 16 of the schedule of bills, uh, I would like to make a motion to amend and remove a 25,000 dollar claim to the Central Nebraska Humane Society.

And I'll explain why if we if the motion gets passed.

Is there a second to the motion?

Mr.

Brown.

Second that motion.

Discussion, Mr.

Hawsey.

At the last council meeting, we talked about the Humane Society contract and uh this one of this claims, one of the portions of the contract that we have is to pay them $300,000 a year for a priority placement in the Humane Society.

Um and in last two weeks ago in the claims register, we paid them $25,000 as well.

And so the contract under Article Roman numeral V five, uh section one says each monthly payment will be made in arrears within 15 days of the close of each month.

What is in tonight's schedule of bills is the April service, which is due by May 15th.

So the claim is being presented, it should be in the first meeting of every month.

The reason payments are generally due on the 15th is because our first meeting of every month is on the second Tuesday, which is either the 8th through the 14th.

So no matter when that meeting falls, we always have the payment by the 15th.

And so right now this claim is being presented 52 days prior to its due date, and it's a monthly recurring payment.

It's been presented too early.

Mr.

Nickerson Before I vote on this, definitely need to hear from our finance side to understand if what we heard is correct, because I'm right now I'm taking the word of a person without any verification.

I think it's important we verify.

So I need to the input of our finance directors.

So if it says April, this says April.

I I do not know if this is April and it's one of these bills that is recurring monthly, maybe it got in early.

I don't know.

Or is it a misprint?

Not a misprint.

Not a typo.

No.

Okay.

Well, I think again, without enough information, I don't think it's wise to just take out $25,000 in this meeting without knowing all the details.

It can be reassessed in a future meeting once we have more details, but I just don't see any sense in just taking it at random and say without all the research that we need that I need, I'm not going to support taking away $25,000.

We can make an adjustment once we know the details, but tonight I don't think we know the details.

Not all of us know the details anyway.

Mr.

Hawsey.

Well, the details are on page 16 of the claims register, which says April service.

Even if it says means for the April payment, it's still two weeks too early.

Umbody ever gets anything but the claims register or the schedule of bills.

That's what we have to look at.

Uh again, the contract, this is one of those unique contracts that specifically says we will pay in arrears, not in advance.

It exactly tells us when the due date is.

No comment was made.

I didn't make any comments on it last two weeks ago.

But at this point, that's the only thing we have to go by.

And either way, it's not due yet, and it would should not have been in this claims register.

All right, so this would be a vote on the amendment.

I'm sorry, Mr.

Sheard uh requested to speak.

Mr.

Shear?

No problem.

Um Pat, is this what is your recommendation here on this?

Is it is it wise to do this or do we pay it in advance?

Uh like if it's what's the harm in either direction or risk.

I well that I there's there's not a risk per se.

Um again, I don't know all the details.

I don't so what happens in our process is the contract got approved for 300,000, so we divide it by 12, and then at each resolution that comes through.

So maybe she got off a couple of weeks or a month.

I don't know.

So I really can't answer that.

So we're gonna end up.

I mean, I Chuck, I get it, we don't pay 50 days in advance, but we're gonna pay 300,000 over the course of this.

If we stop at 300,000 50 days in advance, then we stop at 300,000 50 days in advance.

Uh there's really no liability or risk here.

No, I mean we no, the PO is for 300,000.

We will not pay over 300,000.

That's that's a gear.

Gotcha.

Okay.

I guess I appreciate your due diligence, Chuck.

I don't know that it's bad to pay in advance, and if we're on a schedule uh to pay this amount over a certain amount of time.

I don't know what the harm is.

I Mrs.

Fisk.

Mayor and members of council.

Um I have pulled the schedule of bills that Councilmember Haasy referenced, and he is correct that it does state that this is an invoice for April 26th to prepay a contract that specifically has a provision requiring post payment would actually be an invalid payment of claims.

I don't know whether that April is valid or not, that it'd be a claim submitted by the police department.

I believe Chief Denny is in the hallway.

If there's questions about that claim, he would have been the one to submit that claim for payment, so he probably could give you insight as to whether that is an accurate date on the claim or not.

But if it is accurate, that payment would not be a valid payment because there would not have been contractual authority to make it.

So we shouldn't have to do that.

If that is factually correct in that notation on the invoice line that it is April 26th, it is correct, that should be moved until as Councilmember Hazi indicated until the May payment.

But I don't have any clue since I don't submit those claims whether that uh invoice annotation is correct or incorrect.

Um if that's what we have to go off of, then we shouldn't pay this.

Would you like me to get uh the chief?

He'd be the one that would have submitted the claim.

Each department head submits those claims.

Um but otherwise I'd if that is accurate, which is what's been presented to you, it should not be paid at this time.

Mr.

Brown.

So in this regard, the 25,000, the regular payment, Chief Denny does not submit those.

That is generated by finance.

Yeah, the 25,000 is uh just simply the monthly payment.

So we don't really have any control or say or oversight over that.

Thank you.

Mr.

Nickerson bottom line is as we've already stated the contracts for 300,000.

And because we don't know for sure who submitted that, we don't know for sure if it is a typo.

I don't want to affect $25,000.

It can be adjusted the next payment if we need to.

So we're we're splitting hairs here that I don't think are necessary.

Uh if this should not be paid, it won't it won't be paid.

So if it's according to what our attorney said, if it's not a valid payment, then it shouldn't be paid based on the face of the information that we have.

But again, we don't know that because we don't know what's behind who typed in that word April.

Um I just don't feel good about holding $25,000 right now tonight when it could be adjusted in two weeks or in four weeks to get it straight.

I just don't want to affect somebody's financial position with their operation because of a decision we're making tonight with a majority of sin here, not really knowing the details of that.

I just don't I would not want to risk that.

I would not want that risk for my business if I were receiving the funds.

Mr.

O'Neill.

This is a question probably mostly for Carrie.

So if assuming the date is correct on there, if it were approved, it wouldn't be a valid payment early.

Um what would happen if it were approved?

Would it just simply not be allowed to be paid until the date is correct, or how would that work?

We would probably instruct finance just to hold the payment and then not remit it until after it's resubmitted for ratification later.

So that's probably the worst case if it were approved, is it probably just really be delayed until the date.

And then um kind of a question for Pat too.

So I assume in the future we'd maybe try and just make sure they're closer to the the actual month of where they should be.

Um, or may just keep an eye on that.

Uh as long as they're uh paid the right amount for the whole year.

Um it'd just be nice to try and balance them so they're not you know back-to-back meetings going forward.

Mr.

Brown.

So there was a change in process in finance, and we have a new person doing it.

So look into Mr.

Hawsey.

You know, if first of all, the reason you don't pay it tonight is because under the terms of the contract, which is the the contract between them and us, it is not processed until the first council meeting in May.

That's the terms of the contract.

This is not like just a normal bill where you can pay it any time you want.

But if you go ahead and pay it, I don't care if you go ahead and release it.

You're gonna hold off right now.

You're 52 days, you're not gonna process another one for 92 days or 82 days.

You know, you're gonna they're gonna have to go a long period of time without this $25,000 payment.

The organization will need to figure out their cash flow on how they have to run their business.

I'm just trying to comply with the terms of the contract and do the right thing for the right reason.

That's all I'm doing.

Okay, so this is on the amendment.

Please vote.

It's a tie vote, so mayor, you can vote.

I'm going to vote to pay it with the understanding based upon Mrs.

Fisk's advice that if it is not appropriate to be paid, we'll just hold up the payment.

And are you okay with that, Mrs.

Fisk?

Just to clarify, Mayor, you're voting against the amendment, then I'm voting uh against the amendment with the understanding that if we determine the payment should be paid in May, we'll just have finance hold up the payment if that is the final determination.

Ms.

Greenier, just to note mayor can only vote if his vote for something breaks the tie.

So his vote against makes it a 5-5 tie, so the amendment fails even without his vote for purposes of the minutes.

Four-four.

Either way, in a tie, only mayor's affirmative vote counts to break a tie.

His negative vote doesn't count, so it fails.

So motion failed.

Now we'll go back and vote on the original claims.

Please vote.

Motion adopted.

7i approving horizon builders micro TIFF application.

Expedited plan for CRA Area 30 420 Ruby Avenue.

Mr.

Nabity.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

The item before you this evening, and some of you will have noticed that you already approved three of these with the consent agenda.

But I know that Councilmember Nickerson was hoping I would just give you a brief synopsis of what microTIF really is because we don't do very many of these, how we got here, what we're doing with these.

That's checked.

In this case, it's a vacant, platted property that's been in the city limits for at least 60 years.

In the case of these, they've been in the city limits for more than a hundred years.

So we check that box.

Then it can be used for three different activities.

A single family home with a proposed valuation or expected valuation of $350,000 or less.

That is the case in for these four, or a multifamily or commercial property at $1.5 million, or a historic property using historic tax credits at $10 million.

Or a multifamily or commercial property at $1.5 million, or a historic property using historic tax credits at $10 million.

So if it meets those criteria, it is approved and deemed to be approved.

It does have to go to council for you to still give your blessing and approve it.

Then it goes to the CRA for them to create the contract and issue the bond.

We charge a fee of $50 for this, and that is all we're allowed to charge by statute.

And then we process this, move it forward, and hopefully Josh can move forward and get four houses built in older vacant lots in Grand Island.

That's really the purpose of this.

To date, we have done three of these.

This is the these four would take that up to seven.

Mr.

Nickerson.

I make a motion that we approve seven eye.

I just noticed we have speakers on seven I don't we.

No, we don't.

Thank you, Mr.

Nickerson.

Mr.

Sheard.

Thanks.

I'll second that.

Any discussion.

Mr.

Nickerson.

Thank you, Chad, for giving us another uh synopsis of what this is all about.

So there not just is there a $50 fee, which is substantially less than if you had a gigantic TIFF project.

Right.

You and Rashad in this case really are the gatekeepers that re review everything to make sure it meets that criteria.

Correct.

And then just coming to us is just more of a formality in case in case what?

In case some we we questioned something that you approved, or what would you think?

Yes.

If you look at it and say, well, I looked and that plat was filed in 1993, and that lot has only been platted for 30 years.

It would be very appropriate for you to say, Chad, I think you missed something here.

Um so that's what you're looking at this for to make sure that we're not missing something.

I hope we never bring you anything where we missed something like that.

It's not to say it couldn't happen.

Alrighty, thanks, Chad.

Mr.

Shear.

Thanks.

Uh so this is working the way it's supposed to work.

Yes.

This is exactly why we talk so much about this that when we approved this process is that we would get something like this.

Uh seven out of twenty, and we have no vote.

Uh actually it's four out of twenty.

We'll be up to seven.

Total out of we did twenty a year, and this is our third year.

Oh, and this is seven ever.

Ever.

So we're not even getting close to that twenty a year that we were kind of somewhat worried about.

Uh okay.

Well, this is fantastic, and uh I'm ready for the vote yes that we have no other voice vote but yes, because it's the only thing we're allowed to vote, correct?

Yes, cool.

Unless there's something factually wrong in my analysis.

Motion adopted.

Public hearing eight a public hearing to consider a change of zoning for land located east of Shady Bend Road and north of Capitol Avenue from TA Transitional Agricultural to M1 Light Manufacturing Zone in the Grand Island Extraterritorial Jurisdiction.

Mr.

Nabity.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um a month ago, you passed the amended future land use map that declared the area around the airport as planned for manufacturing industrial development.

This is an application to rezone 22 acres immediately to the east of the golf course to a light manufacturing zone.

Um the owners of this property were very surprised when they purchased it back in December, and they were hoping to put duplexes and triplexes there, and discovered that it wasn't zoned appropriately for that, and I would not recommend approval of that if they made an application.

So they switched to what they were planning on doing, and they're looking at doing storage units on this property that fits within that M1 zoning district.

It's consistent with the future land use map as you approved it last month.

Planning commission has reviewed this, did hold a public hearing and did recommend approval of this zoning change.

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 we approve 10,065.

First, I'll need a motion to suspend the statutory rule since this is an ordinance.

Would you make that motion, Mr.

O'Neill?

Yes, I'll make that motion to suspend the rules.

Mr.

Brown.

I'll second that.

Any discussion.

Please vote.

Motion adopted.

And now a motion on the merits.

Mr.

O'Neill.

I move that we approve 10,065.

Mr.

Brown.

I second that motion.

Any discussion?

Please vote.

Motion adopted.

Public hearing AB.

Public hearing to consider a change of zoning for land located east of Gun Barrel Road and south of A Road from TA transitional agricultural to LR, large lot residential zone in Grand Island.

Extraterritorial jurisdiction, Merrick County, Nebraska.

Mr.

Nabity.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Again, this item is related to the changes that you approved last month with the future land use map.

They are looking at changing the zoning on this from TA transitional agriculture, which allows one house per 20 acres, basically, to large lot residential, which would allow for half acre lots.

That is the same zoning district that is across the road at the East Lakes.

We can talk a little bit more about how that works if they were to bring this in.

They've got about 37 acres.

The plan that they have described to me is to do four lots there, so nine acres apiece approximately, or maybe one smaller lot and three slightly larger lots.

The large lot residential zoning district does not have a maximum size.

The reason they would do four lots is because our subdivision regulations, if you wanted to do more than four lots on an existing road, require the installation of dry sewer and water lines.

So what they're what they would be limited to is four lots on this property, even though they could go down smaller, unless they want to put in the infrastructure that would be needed and be required for uh more dense residential development.

Planning commission did hold a public hearing on this and did recommend approval, finding that it's consistent with the comprehensive plan and future land use map as amended last month.

Thank you, Mr.

Nabity.

Is there a motion to suspend the statutory rules regarding it regarding ordinance number 10,066, Mr.

O'Neill?

I move to suspend the rules.

Mr.

Landfair.

Any discussion?

Please vote.

Motion adopted.

And 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.

Move we approve 10 10,066.

Mr.

Landfair.

Our secret.

Any discussion.

Please vote.

Motion adopted.

HC public hearing concerning a site-specific redevelopment plan for CRA area number 41 to allow for redevelopment of property located east of North Road and south of Capitol Avenue.

Mr.

Nabity.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

What you have before you this evening is a TIFF application for Area 41.

This area was approved last summer by council.

You knew that this would be coming forward at that point in time when this was approved.

The Sterling Apartments is out there.

This is the last phase of the Sterling Apartments.

They are proposing 120 units in four buildings as part of this.

They will have to bring in an amended redevelopment plan.

So we're anticipating that if this is approved, they'll bring in that amended redevelopment plan.

But we're talking in the area of 30 units an acre.

We would allow up to 42 units an acre at this location.

So not as high as it could be.

Zach Butz, would you like to speak?

Good evening.

Thank you, everybody.

And uh I'd also like to thank Chad for the introduction on the project tonight.

Uh as mentioned, this will overall cost just a bit over 20 million dollars, and we are asking for just over 4 million dollars in TIFF.

So certainly not uh the word micro can't be used for this one.

Um Bruce Schreiner's here tonight with us, and he's gonna go over the financials of the project in uh in a lot more detail than I am.

Um I'm gonna kind of just give an overview of things, talk about the client, talk about the vision a little bit here.

But suffice it to say, Bruce's analysis is going to show that the project absolutely meets the statutory but for requirements.

Uh as a matter of course, all the private funding is absolutely and strictly contingent and tied directly to an award of TIFF.

It does not have margins that there's wiggle room for anything else.

If the this project is proposed requires TIFF for the bank's participation with us, and so without TIF is a practical matter, just in order to meet the margins for the market for viability to put this project out at a level where there can be competitive rent and a rent that the people of Grand Island can afford, TIFF in the public private partnership that it provides is necessary.

And so, as mentioned, Bruce is going to zero in on some of those factors, and so I want to just kind of touch base on the overall community impact here.

Um my clients aren't residents of Grand Island, but they consider themselves to be part of the community.

They have since 2010 seen the vision that this body is seeing that people in this room have seen for what Grand Island can be and what Grand Island has become, and they invested in that early on and they took a risk in that early on, and it's paid off for them.

They're fortunate to be in a position where they are, I believe, as of last week on a conference call with these folks.

The existing sterling facility is approximately a 98% capacity.

Their managers are getting calls on a daily basis from folks in the community looking to move in.

The demand is there, and it's time that uh that we take the next step to sort of put the capstone on this development, finish out the neighborhood, finish out the community that we've built there, and that's a point of pride for my clients is how they have attempted to foster a community.

These folks are hands-on.

Every single meeting that we've had since the blight, somebody has been here for tonight.

Deborah Klein's here from Omaha, she's been to a lot of these.

We've had folks from DC, we've had folks come from Phoenix to these meetings.

They care.

They're not some faceless conglomerate coming in just looking to make money.

These are people that truly have done their best to integrate themselves into Grand Island.

Uh, there is you know, some rumblings of a perception that maybe the market, the need for housing is shifting in Grand Island a little bit, and uh I say this with sincerity, even though I'm here a lot talking about TIFF projects.

Unfortunately, we're not quite there yet.

Your own housing studies show we do need more units.

Uh it's it's my understanding that of the 23,000 of potential units in Grand Island, there's only about 500 that are currently available, and that doesn't really lend itself to uh it's a tight market still.

It's uh Chad could probably tell us what a healthy market is as far as those proportions, but we're we're on the side of it that still calls for more housing, and we see that too.

Our proprietary market research has shown that the product that we are proposing to put here has a demand, and so we're confident that if we can bring it to market with with the rental rates that are consistent in the community and consistent with what we've been able to offer, we're going to have success here.

So we're an open book on this project, and we look forward to any questions from the council from any of you tonight here.

We appreciate the consideration.

We don't take this lightly.

We know that TIFF and the money that you guys give out isn't a game and it isn't something we take for granted.

But we want to be good shepherds of that money and use it to put forth a quality development that we're gonna look back on as a community and be glad that it's there.

It's gonna finish off a neighborhood, it's gonna finish off their development, and I think it's gonna be a great addition to Grand Island.

And like I said, Bruce can touch base on some numbers, and if there's any questions I can answer for you, I look forward to it.

So thank you so much.

Bruce Schreiner, would you like to speak?

Thank you.

Appreciate the opportunity.

So as Zach said, um we believe this project clearly qualifies for the TIFF award that we're requesting.

Um it is a workforce development qualifying project.

Our costs per unit are about 171,000 each.

Workforce development requires a cost less than 250,000 dollars per unit.

So in our application, exhibit C identifies all those costs that we think qualify for a TIFF award.

Um overall is um both Chad and Zach said this is a cost of 20 million dollars.

Uh it's 20 million and a half, and the assessed value and draft form that we requested from the county assessor ended up being 15 million, roughly 500,000.

If you take that number of proposed assessed value and divide it by the 92% factor that theoretically takes assessed value to fair market value, it says we're spending 20 and a half million dollars for a fair market value project of 16 million eight hundred thousand.

So the client, the requester, the the applicant is taking a significant risk here.

Um we've had discussions about that.

The TIF request ends up being $4 million, which is the cash flow of the um real estate tax increment over the 15-year period.

The usable portion of that $4 million basically is how much we can secure today from that series of cash flows over 15 years.

So if theoretically we asked for a loan today that we could pay off with the revenues from the TIFF application process over 15 years, that number that we could secure today is a loan at 7% with a monthly payment is 2,400,000.

So that's the reality of the information, if you will, that the applicant is requesting in real terms, what it means.

Additionally we analyze the capitalization rate, rate of return concept with regard to the application, because we have to establish to you that this project won't happen but for the TIFF financing.

That has been analyzed by us.

We have had discussions with the client that has been analyzed by their lender.

That has been discussed with the client and us.

And so the end result is on our application form, we came up with a capitalization rate value, if you will, with TIFF of just under 7%, 6.8, and without TIFF, 5% plus.

Big difference.

Creating a fair market value currently based on the assessors evaluations of 16.8 million.

So without TIFF, it's a it's not a question.

With TIFF, it works, but it's still questionable and it has risk.

They're willing to entrepreneurially take that risk because they have been in this community for 10 years.

They have succeeded in this community in those 10 years.

They have a product that is clearly differentiated adequately for them to attract a 95% and higher consistent rate of people being in the in the facility.

So the end result of the request is that we think it qualifies, we think it is commonsensical for the request at that location.

As Zach says it finishes the neighborhood, the rest of the available land there that they own for this project, and the uh result should be a successful project that the community does need and can serve a uh a purpose for that quarter in Grand Island further than what they are.

Uh they want to do that on behalf of our community.

Um the principals are all hands-on, as Zach said, and um totally committed to this, uh, and I think our community should appreciate that.

Thank you.

And any questions, let me know.

Deborah Klein, would you like to speak on this item?

Deborah Klein.

Um, I don't really know what I can add to what our two professionals have just uh spoken about.

They did a really good job.

I will tell you, we're very happy with Grand Island.

We want to stay here, we want to add.

Um, we think it's treated us very nicely.

We've always had a great um occupancy.

Um our rents, our market rate.

The uh these apartments will be market rate, they'll be set by essentially what our rents are on the other existing apartments right now.

They might have a little premium because they're 10 years newer, but that's it.

Any questions, specific questions?

If they have any, we'll have some after the motion.

Thank you.

Um, somebody else signed up but didn't put their name.

Is there anyone else that wants to speak on this?

You can come on up.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh General Pools.

Uh, yeah, I forgot to put my name down.

Uh my big thing is simply that tax income and financing is usually public funds for uh to subsidize private profits.

And and I have this article that was from uh July 28th, 2016.

Sarah Kirkley, the NTV anchor was responsible for this, and it just raised a couple of questions.

Uh one is uh quote from you, Mr.

Halsey.

I think it's time from a taxpayer standpoint.

We need to step back and just kind of look at where what we're doing and how we're accomplishing it and what we're trying to get done.

Now, I know we need housing, but uh boy, you know, we're getting up there.

We don't limit ourselves on this tax income and financing.

And anybody that thinks tax increment financing is free money really is not looking at it the way they should.

I believe this project uh mentions that they're they are going accounting for uh 62 students theoretically would be attending the public school system.

Grand Island pays 5800 bucks approximately per student, and the state subsidizes the rest.

We have a state now with a 400 million dollar deficit.

Are they gonna start pulling student funding?

You know, so it's just something that you gotta start looking at because tax increment financing is not the cat's meow.

I have uh in this article again, uh Mr.

Mayor, when you were councilman, you talked about stricter rules on the length of tax increment financing, and you quote is everybody who has requested tax income and financing have received the most generous tax holiday you can possibly get under Nebraska law, which is 15 years.

That tells me that as a city we are not very good at negotiating.

And okay, you also shared a concern about school funding, Mr.

Mayor.

We do not get real input from the other taxing entities who depend upon property taxes as to what impact our decisions will have on them.

So I agree it's past time that we should re-evaluate tax income and finances, and that has not been done, and this is from 2016.

So I I just want to bring that up, and that as tonight hearing from a council that has decided to there's no big deal.

We can go ahead and bend the rules a little bit because it's not a big deal, which you with the uh 25,000 payment.

That's bending the rules.

It really is, and I cannot help but think where other rules have been bent in this by this council.

So I'm just to sum it up.

Tax increment financing, you need to get a city council that has I'll say the backbone to say enough is enough.

We've got Woodsonia coming up with sixty million dollars worth of tax increment finance.

We have we have a transfer station, twelve million dollar expenditure.

We have the island oasis, which is requested its first change order for about a half a million dollars, so that that 13 million that sounded so great after the 15 million dollar proposal is now inching up slowly, but it'll get there, I'm sure it will.

That you know, we got a we got three million bucks for a train, we got a park, the rider park now.

We're gonna end up buying a what is it sixty-four thousand dollar TV screen later this year for the score, and on top of that, you're you're you're not looking at tax increment financing the way you should.

We should have a report now.

Mr.

Hausy, a few months ago you asked the Kyle from uh venue works about doing reports more than more frequently than annually, and I really think this council needs to get on board with a tax increment page every month, every other month or something that says this is how much tax increment financing we have out there.

This is how many students we per we we believe are gonna come through in this program.

This is what we're gonna pay.

If we can't pay this much per student, somebody's got to pay that five thousand some hundred dollars to subsidize that student because the state isn't gonna pay at all.

Now, who's paying that?

It's the property owners, and if you can't understand that, then I really think you're in the wrong business.

Okay, that's all I got.

Thank you.

Good night.

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

If not, public hearing is now closed.

Is there a motion council?

Mr.

Hawsey.

I'll move to suspend the rules.

Oh, this isn't this is a resolution.

Do you have a motion on the merits, Mr.

Hossey?

I would move to approve resolution 2026-72.

Thank you, Mr.

O'Neill.

I second the motion.

Thank you.

A discussion.

Mr.

Hawsey.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh I was at the regional planning when they talked about this, and I talked to Bruce afterwards because I'm I always got number questions.

You know, and so uh Bruce very graciously answered my questions for me, and I appreciate his diligence as well.

You know, and so um this housing development is is I'll say we'll say more on the upscale, and it's still workforce housing, you know.

And so in my terms, those are like contradictory terms, and so it's like I was glad that Bruce explained it to me, and then I was able to understand it.

I I think they provide quality housing up there, and I support the motion.

So Mr.

Nickerson again.

When we look at these, Jerry, I don't disagree with some of what you're saying.

I think we're going to reach a tipping point.

I don't disagree with that.

I personally don't think we're there yet, but I think personally, from what I see, and I raise questions in CRA meetings uh just like you do.

Uh and we talk about that.

We talk about exactly the thing that you you've talked about.

So, Chad, go ahead and reiterate a little bit about healthy vacancy rate versus where we're at, and again, that number is just grab from somebody says that they think we have 500 vacancies.

But but what realistically makes sense uh based on market trends around the country, and I don't know if we can compare ourselves always to everybody else, but the general rule, and if you look at the housing study, it's reflected in the housing study is that for a city the size of Grand Island, a healthy vacancy rate is somewhere between five and eight percent.

Uh we have not been anywhere above four percent in my entire career here.

Uh to put this into perspective.

We have about and what is the reason of that vacancy rate?

What's what's a good upside of having a vacancy rate?

The upside to having a vacancy, the downside is that you can't rent everything.

The upside to having a vacancy rate is that there's choice in the market.

So new people coming into the community can find a place to live and they have a choice of varieties of rents or prices.

The other advantage for the for people who own rentals is vacancy for a month, while it may be a little bit painful for that month, also means you have time, and you know this, Mitch, to go in and paint and clean and make sure that you're maintaining your properties accordingly, that if you're turning them over from one person to the next, you never get that chance.

So you need to have a little bit of vacancy just so that you can provide maintenance on rental units.

So those are really a couple of the major things, and then in the in the owner-occupied market, it's choice for people who are looking at purchasing.

Three years ago, we were down to what 16 units on the market in the Grand Island MLS.

We have almost 14,000 single-family dwellings in Grand Island, and we had 16 for sale.

That that's that's an unhealthy market.

Um so really there are some very good reasons to have some vacancy, and the other thing that a little bit higher vacancy rate does is it gives people at the bottom end the opportunity to move up into something that is not just barely livable.

Uh and we have some places in Grand Island that are just barely livable.

That gives those up those people the opportunity to either sell that to somebody who will take it as an investment and make an investment into it, potentially using micro TIFF to tear it down and rebuild another house there.

So we're providing some other tools to do that if there's enough flexibility in the market for that to work.

Also, just remind us one of you that's representing the group here.

What is the mix of this 120?

It's not all the same thing.

It's it's a mix of two, three, one bedroom.

What's what's that mix?

Just for does anybody have that right at their fingertips just to share?

I think that's important to know as well.

No, I don't recall the percentages, but it's studios, one, twos, and grades.

Okay, so we're studios are just basically a more than a room.

Yeah, they're probably gonna ask you to come up to the mic when you when you respond.

But yeah, come on up for for a second.

So yeah, just educate us again on what we're looking at as the mix of apartments here.

Um I don't have the exact mix on me.

Oh, did you grab it?

Okay.

And then you follow up.

Um project includes four units, three-story buildings, each containing 30 apartments and 15 interior garages.

Buildings will be substantially similar to the buildings currently located on the development, and the platin photos are included in the application.

But really, not telling us the breakdown of each of those.

It's just similar to what you have now, whatever that is.

So you're so coming back up.

So we're we're talking studios, which are just very basic place to live.

I'm sorry, could you repeat that?

A studio.

Explain what a studio is.

A studio is is um every bit as nice as our one bedroom.

It's just a little bit smaller and a little bit more affordable.

It is not in any means a lower class or lower type of unit.

They're all, you know, very nice.

It is one of our, well, you know, it kind of wanes in the season, but it is one of our most popular um floor plans because it's smaller and it's a little less, but it's still just as nice as everything else.

Okay, so a studio doesn't mean like it's one room, it just means it's smaller square footage, is that's really what we're defining.

Yeah, well, if you look at it this way, it has a bedroom, but it doesn't have a door.

So it's really more of a one-wall divider that's kind of open for you.

So it's a it's a cross between a one room and a one bedroom.

Okay.

And with the Sterling apartments that we have here that has a mix of exactly what you're saying.

Is there a one that's more popular than the others, or are they all entered?

Their demand across the board.

What are you finding?

It's it's cyclical.

It's cyclical.

So we'll have the studios and the ones be really high for quite a while, and then it kind of changes with your economy.

Then maybe you're gonna have more of your twos because you've got some students moving in if they want to do that.

You get some divorced people, you get some families, excuse me, some families in there.

Um, our threes have not traditionally been super popular, but again, it kind of depends on the economy right now.

We did lease a lot of them out.

Um there was a uh meat packing plant, I think, that closed around here recently.

And we ended up getting a lot of uh people from there, and they just kind of grouped up and you got three people in a three-bedroom.

Very good.

All right, well, thank you for sharing.

I think what else do you have, Bruce?

In the current buildings, there are 63 studios, 98 one-bedrooms, 52 two bedrooms, and nine three bedrooms.

I didn't do calculations of percentages, but in the new building buildings, there will be 12 studios, 56 one bedrooms, 52 two bedrooms, and no three bedrooms for the whole 120 units.

That would that would just justify what she was saying that there hasn't been a big demand for threes, so why build them?

So good.

Very good.

Well, going back to Jerry's concerns here about TIFF and what we're doing.

There's another thing that I look at, and I I keep a running tally in my my desk drawer here of everybody who's been approved for TIFF.

And the thing is, when you're approved for TIFF, doesn't mean you're gonna build your building.

I've got I got a list of probably five or six groups that have been approved, and they're not built because the conditions aren't allowing them to do so.

But we've got a group here at Sterling that says that we're ready, we're ready to build.

So that's again why I'm supporting a project that's ready to go, because that's what we need.

We can have a lot of people want to do something.

Uh hundreds, hundreds and hundreds sitting in here of people that want to do that.

They have been approved with TIFF, but they've done nothing with it.

I appreciate the people that said we're we're ready to do that.

So I would I would support that in that respect.

Real quickly, I will tell you my first comment to Chad was when can we start grading?

Can we start grading before we get the final site plan approval?

Or so yeah, we're ready.

We're stomping at the bit.

Okay.

All right, very good.

Well, thank you very much.

Mr.

O'Neal.

Uh just a couple of questions for Chad.

Um, I I don't have the housing study in front of me, but I think um off the top of my head, it was around 22,500 units we had available in town.

Is that about the right that's really close?

We're pretty close.

And then I think it was mentioned tonight there might be about 500 vacant units.

Is I don't think we have the exact number of that's that's a number that's floating around that I do not have any basis for, yeah.

Do we know we feel very comfortable if we're anywhere near that or uh I even if we are that still puts us at two and a half percent.

Yeah, I did a mat about two and a quarter on mine, so that'd still be very low.

Right.

So then even if you had um if it were a thousand, you'd still be under the five percent, which is what you're saying is kind of what a normal one would typically look like.

That would be yes, an ideal functioning market.

Okay, that's all I had, but thank you.

Please vote.

Motion adopted 8D public hearing on request from Industrial Tower West for conditional use permit for a replacement of a telecommunications tower site located in Stir Museum's northwest northwest corner, east of highway 281 and south of highway 34.

Mr.

Nabity.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

The item before you this evening is a replacement for the tower that is located at Stour Museum.

They're placing it in the same general location.

We'll extend the wall a little bit more to enclose a backup generator there.

Chris Riha is here with Industrial West and can answer any specific questions.

But the tower site, it's my understanding because this tower site predates me.

The tower site was really pretty controversial when it came forward 30 years ago, give or take, but it does pay Stour Museum does get revenue from leasing the tower site, and they really pushed it to the farthest corner of their property so that it would have the least impact on their mission, but still provide one cell service and two provide income for them that's coming from somewhere other than taxpayers or memberships.

So the this would be a continuation of that, and just replacing the existing tower because this one does have to come down, they have to get a new conditional use permit.

They are talking the same size tower.

It will be built a little bit differently so that it can handle more antennas so that they could allow more co-location with other carriers and so on.

Um we've you have a resolution before you.

Sorry to confuse you with resolutions and ordinances, but the things I do demand different approvals.

The this one would be by resolution, the conditions are there, they are similar to conditions we put on other conditional use permits.

Public hearing is now open.

Chris, would you like to speak?

Chris Rihas, Site Acquisition Industrial Tower West for the Vera Wireless Network.

Well put, Chad.

Um I don't have much more to add to that, but the infrastructure is needed right there, as you know.

We've got big time development, highway 34, 281, uh, mostly uh commercial business, a little bit of residential, high residential, etc.

We need the infrastructure for not only the Vero Wireless Network, but also anybody else who wants to co-locate on that.

And yes, it is an old structure.

So we're gonna put up something uh very much similar to it, keep it at a hundred foot, and um I'm working close with the board and also stream museum employees to make sure that uh it's not going to be detrimental to their aesthetic values, etc.

And um I live right out there by uh to the to the west of that intersection, drive past it two to six times a day.

I want to keep and looking nice.

So be willing to address any questions or concerns they may have questions after their motion.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else that wants to speak on this item?

If not, public hearing is now closed.

Mr.

Sheared.

Thank you.

I move that we approve item 2026-73.

Mr.

Connolly.

I'll second that motion.

In discussion, Mr.

Hawsey.

Thank you, Mayor.

So Chris, I have a question.

Is the poll on site, is it called a monopole now?

That is correct.

Is it still going to be a monopole tomorrow?

Yes, it'll be a monopole.

Okay.

Thank you.

Mr.

Nickerson.

So, Chris, I've just got this is uh this is a wild idea.

This is more like a Jack Sheared idea, but I just thought for it to meet it's to meet something perfect out there.

If you guys really want to get wild, you make it look like a big giant windmill.

Wouldn't that be perfect?

There you go.

Just throwing that out there just for fun.

No, don't do that.

That's that's just like a that's just I thought Jack might think of that.

Anytime you have aesthetic improvements, uh people are gawking at it more.

Possibly some accidents.

There you go.

Okay, shot that one down.

All right, very good.

Thanks.

Mr.

Still.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um I'm just throwing out a suggestion.

Um my wife and I, the last couple years been in California does some really good football games with Nebraska.

And our son moved to San Francisco, so we've traveled the state out there.

But the one thing I've noticed in California with their cell towers, they're disguised like trees.

And and I would like to just throw that thought out, especially at that location where you have a lot of commercial buildings on that corner that would maybe like to have something hiding that ugly tower.

So I would like to have the council consider that.

I don't like a lot of government regulations, but at the same time, um, it's a way to beautify the scenery from those uh ugly towers.

Mr.

Nickerson, Boo Boo.

Mr.

Hossee.

Uh I would agree with Mark.

You know, I uh I have a daughter that lives in North Carolina and Charlotte, and they're dressed like trees.

You know, they're they're tall and they have what it looks like green shrubbery around them.

I don't know how it affects their effectiveness, but I see it all the time up and down 85 in Charlotte.

So I think I do see it around as well.

And I and I think I don't know that we're gawking at it anymore.

When the first time the first time I saw it, I did look at it and notice it.

The second time I didn't pay any attention to it.

It just it is what it is.

So please vote.

Motion adopted resolutions 9A, approving rider baseball field renovations change order number one.

Mr.

McCoy.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Okay, so I have a change order here request for the rider baseball field project.

Um I just want to let council know that the the uh project is on schedule uh to be completed the end of May.

So um when the project is over, we should be able to get Legion baseball field playing uh or Legion baseball teams playing.

Um I just wanted to show a quick slide here.

Um you can see the LED lights are now up.

Um you'll see the of course the white rock is where um will be underneath the turf.

The turf will be here in about two weeks, so it's gonna make a big impact when it does arrive.

You can see the um dugouts there, the block dugouts.

You you can see uh the the grandstand does not have bleachers yet, but those are on their way, and some bucket seats are coming.

Um what you cannot see there is the new bullpins and the new batting cages.

So that's all going to be included in this project.

Um I just want to remind council this is a public-private partnership.

Um we've the city has already received 208,000 dollars of private dollars towards this project.

Um the uh the the private uh um, I guess the work is going to actually um build a 900,000 dollar concession stand and restroom facility.

That's going to happen.

That's probably gonna start in May as well, part towards the end of May.

Um but anyways, that's the updates.

But the change order today in front of you is for 520.35 cents.

Uh probably the biggest item on there is we removed a scoreboard.

Uh the scoreboard that we have now today.

We think we can keep using it.

The um the fighting cranes baseball team who's going to play at this facility this summer has um has mentioned to us that they would like to support the support the facility and and purchase a new video board, so that'll be a privately um funded video board that may come later on yet this year or next year.

So we thought in the short term, let's just keep the uh scoreboard that we have, and let's so we don't have to tear out uh a scoreboard for a new video board.

Um there was 16 other items um on this change order, uh, credits, um, some credits, some expenses, grading, electrical work, pavement, fencing.

I wasn't gonna go through them all, but the um we we recommend approving the new contract of three million seven hundred forty-six thousand one hundred and twenty dollars and thirty-five cents.

Thank you.

Mr.

Shear.

I move that we approve resolution two zero two six-7 four.

And Mr.

O'Neill.

I second the motion.

Any discussion.

Please vote.

Motion adopted 9B, approving Island Oasis Improvements.

Change order number one.

Mr.

McCoy.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um, so we have a change order for Island Oasis.

This first slide I just wanted to show is uh just a um overview of the project that we have going on.

The project has started.

The first phase is includes a putt putt golf area, mini golf, um, a dry play area there to the south of the uh um of the existing buildings.

You'll see a splash pad area to the south of the existing buildings.

Um, and that is all the first phase that we plan to have done this summer yet.

Um probably in the in July is what is what the contractors are telling us.

The second phase will be after the season is over.

Uh you'll see where the wave pool is stands alone by itself where it does not today, and the and the leisure pool.

Um here is a just a view of that dry play area and the splash pad.

You can see the concession building in the background.

That small building to the left top left is a um restroom facility and storage facility.

That that'll be new as well this summer.

So this is the um putt putt golf area.

Um you'll see lots of boulders, bridges, um water features, of course.

It's an 18-hole um mini golf course.

So the change order in front of you has basically three items that are what I would call necessary items, things that we we really need to do.

Um, just some site changes of 249,808 dollars.

Um, some changes to the light pools and infrastructure with the lighting is 81,764.

Um, and then the speed slide drain pump uh pits for 7,372.

Um optional items.

So we have a 900 or I'm sorry, a ninety thousand dollar credit that we are recommending.

Um we we've um the the color of the of the concrete um die um comes from Australia.

Uh for some weird reason it was a ninety thousand dollar fee, and we thought that was too much, and so we will we thought we could come up with another color for that.

So we we'd like to to uh recommend a ninety thousand dollar credit.

Um and then also the supplier.

When we talked to the supplier, um they had uh gave us some recommendations or some options for some some upgrades of the mini golf um facility.

And when we talked we spoke to city council, I think when when we awarded this contract or when we did the budgeting, we heard a lot of um comments of support for this for the mini golf, and we heard that uh we wanted it to be something that was memorable or something that people wanted to come back, you know, come back for so uh we asked the design team to come up with some potential upgrades, and this cave feature is probably the number one thing that they said they uh suggested.

Um so here's another view uh from the outside of the cave feature.

Um it's just something that's would be very memorable, it'd be a centerpiece of the um mini golf course.

Um what they said was that's the that's the selfie moment.

That's where you're you're probably gonna take photographs and you're gonna you're gonna create a memory and want to come back.

Um then the last item is um just doing uh an edging around the um each golf course hole that's more of a custom concrete edging.

Uh the kind of the standard is the brick there, they they glue the bricks down, there's little gaps in them.

We we just feel like there's gonna you know you know trash will get in caught up in there, and you know, if people you know kick those hard enough, it's gonna be kind of a maintenance issue.

So we've we are recommending upgrading to the uh um to the cast concrete and the addition of the golf course amenities is one hundred and ninety-one thousand eight hundred and thirty-four dollars.

So the total change order that we are recommending is four hundred and forty thousand seven hundred and seventy-eight dollars, um, and the new contract amount would be thirteen million six hundred and thirty-seven thousand five hundred and ninety-eight dollars.

Thank you.

I've said my peace, Mr.

O'Neil.

I move we approve uh 2026-75.

Mr.

Shear.

Thank you.

I'll second it.

Discussion.

Mr.

Nickerson.

I have a major question.

I I've got a couple of questions that I'm not sure the answer even how to ask them, but I'll do my best.

But first of all, let's start out with 100 and let's dissect the 191 that you talked about, 191,000, which was the curbing and the cave slash tunnel, whatever we want to call it.

You told me today that that tunnels system is about 165,000 of that.

I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around adding another 165,000 to a project of this magnitude just for some memories.

That I don't think that's what we were building it for.

I don't think we're building it for memories or or a wow factor of Disneyland or anything else, but we want 18 holes where people can go and have a lot of fun.

And I I think that taking 165,000 dollars in addition to build something like this is not a good use of money when we've talked about this.

And what I found it's always easier for somebody else to spend other people's money when they make recommendations like this.

But I I think we have to guard the dollars that have been approved, and the 13 million plus was already kind of a heavy lift that some people didn't really appreciate and think that we needed, but we were able to get support for that.

And I think in at the end of the day, it's going to be a super addition, and I'm glad that you made that phase one.

I think that's important for us to get that.

Now, is that look like it's on track yet to be ready this year, or do you know?

Yes, in middle of July is their hope.

Okay, good.

So I uh my opinion, and I haven't I'm not making an amendment yet to pull that 165 because I'd like to hear some other thoughts if any other council members want to weigh in on that, but I just think that 165,000 in addition is a lot of money for something like that.

The other question I had that I asked you via email, I'm not sure I have the answer to that.

I may have to ask Patrick, I may have to ask Keith, may have to ask you.

But when we're doing all of these contracts, we always have a contingency.

I I always hear about contingencies.

And I know that when people bid, they bid with contingencies in there.

What is a contingency on the contingency on a $13 million project is within the person that's building that, correct?

That's part of their $13 million bid.

Would they have a contingency in there to where you pull those funds?

Or how's that contingency dollars?

How are those factored into a project?

There's probably a couple different ways to do it on this particular project.

What we did is we had uh an engineer's estimate that had a 10% contingency, uh, which was end up being like $1.4 million.

Um so when we came to council and requested a budget number, which we had a $15.9 million dollars that council approved for this project, and the actual uh bid came in at $13 million, um, then we still if that's the contingency is we have that budget authority still that's in the budget if we had to come to you for uh you know a uh change order request.

So in this particular contract, there was not um 10 percent just given to the contractor for contingency.

No, they have to request that we have you know there has to be a process of change orders.

But yes, from the beginning, the budgeting process there was a 10 percent contingency.

Okay, so Patrick on this is Todd telling me that what's what's the 13 number?

13.13.

13.2 roughly.

Okay, say 13.2.

So are we in essence saying that we have the difference between the 13.2 and I wouldn't say we go up to 15.9, but are we saying that we have a contingency to work with above and beyond that 13.2 to a to a point of a million dollars or so for things like this that need to be changed, or how do we justify changing something like this?

Is everything's got to be through change order?

And I this for Patrick whoever deals with these all the time.

Uh honestly, I think uh the contingency is built into when they give the contra or when the contract comes up.

I know Keith deals with that more often than not when he has his bigger contracts.

At least I think there's always a contingency.

There's not.

Okay.

Um I don't know.

Uh on this one.

I know that we did not budget out another 10% contingency.

We just bid the contract.

13.2 is really the dollars that we we've allocated basically for this, although we had a estimate of 15.9.

Well like Todd mentioned, when it came to the budget time, usually we do have some room in there in case the bids come in high if the market is different than what we think.

So if I was going to build a million dollar road, for example, I would probably budget some contingency built into that, whether it be 10% or or whatever the project may be, might change that number.

There's other costs involved in in delivering a project like this too, though, that would come out of that budget as well.

Again, I don't know this particular project, it's not under my purview, but you know, you would budget for engineering consultants, um, construction observation and testing, those kind of things would go also go into that budget.

So when we award the project, we award what they bid.

Now, whether the budget per the budget books showed a higher number, or whether that's been used in other places, I don't know.

But usually on this kind of project, they wouldn't build in a contingency.

I'm not saying that it's never been done, but um typically on a lot of our projects that wouldn't be just part of it uh to to cover things like this.

Okay, so we're basically asking for any of these changes that come is above and beyond the 13.2.

So it's gonna be 13.2 plus whatever your number was today that you were looking at with a credit of 90,000.

I'm glad at least we're looking at that.

I guess I'd be interested in any other feedback on a 165,000 dollars additional cost from the council.

I'm not sure I'm there yet.

I'm not sure it's worth that.

Because who knows what else is gonna be out there that we may need to look at because I understand all the rest of the substrate and and all that stuff is very important because we're talking about long-term quality on this thing, and I understand those changes, but to add another 165 grand to it, I just don't have kind of gives me uh some heartburn here at this point.

So I'm interested in any other feedback.

Mr.

O'Neill.

Um couple of questions I have.

So I know you still have a few months of uh building to do on here, and in any project I've done like this, there's always a change order that comes up somewhere.

Um do you have any idea what probability you think there might be other change orders coming beyond this for either the water park or the golf course?

Um we and I asked, and I have Kyle McAuley here, he's our our our uh engineer on this project.

Um and I might have invite him up because I I asked him that exact same question.

Yeah, if he could help answer that, I I think all of us would like to know if what probability think there might be other change orders as well.

Uh good evening.

Um please state your name.

Kyle McAuley with Water's Edge Aquatic Design.

Um we're the lead consultant for this project.

Um so I think uh what I would say to that is typically once we get kind of out of the ground and we s we've dug dug the hole, that that unknown is where we we can see potential for change orders or a change from the original bid documents.

So the this phase with the mini golf and the splash pad, that's we encountered unsuitable soils and those kind of things.

The part of construction that will happen after this swim season are new really new construction.

So a wave pool uh will be brand new, um, the leisure pool will be brand new.

So there's less uncertainty in that kind of construction from our experience when we're doing new and and we're we're building and so I would say that the probability is is relatively low.

Um, but you know, there could be something that we encounter that we want to address um right now because it makes more sense or because it just needs to happen in order to move the project forward.

Do you know about what um date it would be when you think you get to that point?

Uh as you get to a certain point of construction, you'd uh probably clear the hurdle of where you think you have any problems or not.

Yeah, it tends to really the probability goes way down the further along you are in the project, right?

You you have less unknown.

So um I think we're gonna get um once we get through this phase of this subgrade preparation for the mini golf, which we believe will happen in April and May, it's gonna slow down.

Construction will slow down while the facility is operated for the public.

And then after the season it'll go up.

So I think maybe we would know a little bit more after that season, and we start to demolish the existing pool structures and work on that.

Um the new portions of the pool next year or for next season.

Okay.

Yeah, and I get it.

I I read in there there's some soil, like too much organic soil, they said it wasn't stable enough or whatever.

Yeah, there's a lot of organics in that material, and the concern was just as you can pack this, that um there could be movement down in the future, which would you know cause cause some damage could cause damage.

And my other uh I have just a quick question for Pat as well.

So i if the cost increase in this, Pat, I guess, where is your comfort level at a max on this thing?

Uh that's a great question.

So I'm gonna kind of go around your question.

So at least I'm forward with this.

So in the perfect scenario, okay, because when we do our budget, we're doing budgets in June.

Okay, we don't know the true cost of the project.

Okay, so this is why we have I just looked at the budget of 15.9 budgeted for this project.

Now, if the bid comes in at 13.2, great.

That doesn't mean we really want to spend the other, you know, 2.7 million.

However, what should be done is the 10% built into that contract contingency.

So if the bid, you know, again, this is you know, part of this procedure, and not knowing the cost at the time.

So in and to answer your question, yes, we do have the money.

Do I like spending it?

No.

So if I could also say that the the bid documents did not call for the contractor to carry a contingency amount in this particular project.

I think that kind of came up.

So they're not carrying a contingence allowance or something like that to say, hey, this is a change that we encountered that we didn't know about this on this condition when we were bidding this document, so we'll go to that.

That this agreement with that was put out for the bid was not structured that way.

So I think that might answer that question.

Anything else, Mr.

O'Neill?

Mr.

Sheard.

Thanks.

Um I think I was one of the people, Mitch, that you spoke of that maybe was a little hesitant on this project uh at the beginning.

However, uh I'll throw a curve at you.

Uh I believe everybody here said we wanted to do something that was a wow factor was a word that I heard, and we agreed to do this.

I guess we think this is gonna last a long time, and if we think it's going to be something really nice, and a tunnel uh is a way to get there.

It's a wow factor.

I thought the picture looked nice.

You got me with the picture.

I would support doing this and keeping it in.

You know, I I wouldn't support it at two and a half million, but I would support it at what we have here.

Uh I think it looks nice.

Uh so to answer your question, Mitch, as one of the naysayers, I'm pro today.

Mr.

Nickerson.

Okay, so Patrick, I'm just gonna come back and let you re-educate me again, make sure I understood this.

So, based on the fact that this had no contingency request for the for the bidding.

In essence, we're we're feeling relatively comfortable, and Keith, I'm gonna guess ask you, you can nod your head yes or no, but 10% seems to be a rule of thumb for things like this over X number of million dollars, or where's that comfort zone that we would have?

I guess that's I can answer for Keith.

It depends.

It depends.

Okay.

And I don't know if that's uh a good number, bad number.

Especially 13 million versus 50 million.

In my opinion, on something that we're very comfortable with, I think that's a pretty solid number.

Um a roadway, I have a pretty good idea.

I build lots of roadways.

This is a little different because it's kind of a one-off thing.

Um, so I can't again speak to this exact thing, but 10 to 15 percent would probably be reasonable.

Okay, thank you for your opinion, because I appreciate that.

And then Patrick, back to you.

So because this didn't have a contingency bid in to it, we we basically need to plan for that in some respect.

So a 10 percent, in your opinion, may be reasonable at this point.

Yes.

Yes, we have obviously we've budgeted way over.

Okay, so that's where I was really trying to figure out in my mind where does this money come from?

Because if it would come out of the contingency and an agreed upon amount that we think is reasonable, I can support that.

But if we're just adding dollars to it, you know, just because this is cool, and I was trying to envision what this cave looked like.

It's called a tunnel cave, whatever it is.

I was expecting all kinds of electronic gadgets that are gonna have to be replaced and all that, but it looks like it's just a very basic, very basic, but you have the waterfall that goes over the top of it.

Parts that would need to be replaced over time, probably gonna be a pump, and I don't know what else.

So I'm I'm trying to look at what things might need to be replaced on something like this down the road because what we build we have to maintain, and we have to replace any idea what that would be, adding something like this.

Yeah, there's the there's some water features there.

Um the good thing is you know, at the at the water park, we are pretty good with pumps and and maintaining water, so um, we have a pretty good comfort level there, but there is some maintenance there.

I it it won't be to the level of the wave pool or any of other the swimming um areas.

So yeah, we we we feel like this will something that we can maintain going forward.

And I I just will add that uh yeah, this is kind of this is a unique um change order request, but it was a direct honestly, it was a direct results of the feedback I got from city council and said we want something that's a wow factor.

I wanted to give this give you guys this option.

Okay, and again, what's the total number that you're looking for for an amount now adjustment wise?

So the total amount that we are asking for this change order is 440,778 dollars.

We're well within that one point two or three that we might be throwing out.

There's a potential contingency range.

Correct.

Okay, all right.

I'm sold.

Thank you.

Please vote.

Motion adopted Resolution 9 C approving purchase and designation of single source provider for Trojan UV system at the wastewater treatment plant.

Mr.

Kurtz.

Good evening.

Um I'll admit this isn't as exciting or flashy as a tunnel at a golf course, but uh what you have before you is the uh request uh to purchase a uh new UV system for the wastewater treatment plant.

Uh UV system is used primarily in the warm weather months to treat effluent from from the plant uh mainly for E.

coli.

Um the current system uh was put in in 2006.

We are at or nearing the uh useful life of the existing system.

Um the new system uh obviously will be uh more user-friendly, um fewer bulbs, less power requirements, um, easier to maintain.

Uh the existing system we're having a hard time sourcing parts for, and uh as it ages, that becomes more and more critical.

Uh this this piece of equipment is very crucial to the treatment process.

So we went out for RFP.

Uh we had a series of requirements that the manufacturers all had to meet in that in that request.

Uh so we are asking for award to Trojan technologies uh for 1.1 and uh a little bit more to purchase the system.

Uh we are also requesting to designate UV or Trojan as a single source for future parts and maintenance on the system.

Um it's essentially one shop one stop shop to uh to source these these uh pieces of uh equipment for this particular thing.

So we are asking to uh approve that at this time.

Uh something to keep in mind the lead time on this equipment is very long, so that's why we're looking to purchase the equipment now.

Um there will be another contract.

We are currently working on the design to install the system because we we have to modify the plant structure to fit the new system in.

Um so that project for the modifications and install of this equipment will come back to you guys at a later date.

Uh this this uh was budgeted this year.

We had 1.5 million dollars in the budget, which will cover this piece of equipment plus the engineering needed to uh modify the the structure to fit this new equipment in.

Thank you, Mr.

Kurtz.

Mr.

Brown.

Move we approve resolution 2026, tax 76.

Mr.

O'Neill.

I second the motion.

Any discussion.

Please vote.

Motion adopted.

9D approving the Central Nebraska Humane Society January shelter building billing.

Mr.

Denny, Chief Denny.

Thank you, Mayor, Council.

Um, we've looked over the bill in uh January, as we have looked at previous bills since we took over animal control uh duties in August, and the numbers that are associated with the January bill all match up to us, either police officers or code enforcement or animal control officers contacting at the Humane Society drop-offs.

Drop offs are under the contract acceptable surrenders are a different matter, which are not accepted.

And for the most part, in January, and you'll see in February's bill uh lowering as well.

Uh we're getting more and more of a handle on it.

We've just hired our last uh part-time code enforcement and part-time animal control officer.

And so there's been a delay since we've taken it over in August.

Um, the police officers for the most part, first few months have uh we're going out to animal control or trying to chase down cats and dogs.

Um, and we've been working in collaboration with communications, the vets in the in the community legal and the humane society over the last several months.

So I think what you'll see in January and February's bill is uh getting that under control.

Uh the rep the report numbers reflect that.

Um we've sized them all up in January.

We had one discrepancy, I think, where um somebody brought an animal that they had um taken into their custody outside of the city limits and brought it to Humane Society.

Um we were not we reconciled that, we were not on the hook for that.

So that's where we are with uh the January billing.

Thank you, Chief Denny.

Mr.

Hawsey.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

I make a motion to approve the Central Nebraska Humane Society January shelter billing for six thousand and fifty-eight dollars and twenty-eight cents, not including public drop-offs.

Mr.

So would that be a motion an amendment instead of approving I just made a motion to approve six thousand and fifty-eight dollars and twenty-eight cents for the January billing.

But it's a different amount than what's in there.

So, Kerry, does it need to be an amendment or if it's a different amount that's in the proposed resolution, it would need to be an amendment.

You wish to um do you wish to uh move on the amount in the resolution and then you can make an amendment or how do you wish to proceed, Mr.

Hossee?

Okay.

Uh any but somebody else should motion and I'll make the amendment.

Mr.

Sheard.

Thank you.

I move to approve item 2026.

And Mr.

O'Neill.

I'll second that motion.

In discussion, Mr.

Hawsey.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh I make a motion to amend the amount to six thousand and fifty-eight dollars and twenty-eight cents, which is not does not include public drop-offs in the January shelter billing.

Mr.

Stell.

I second the motion.

Discussion, Mr.

Hossey.

Thank you, Mayor.

The heart of the question, and it came up two weeks ago in the council meeting on March 10th, is whether the city has a contractual obligation under the terms of the contract to pay for domestic animals dropped off by the public and for taxpayer fairness.

If there was no city contract, there would still be public drop-offs at the Humane Society.

Tonight I gave to all of the council members and the mayor and then city administrator uh an email from the city attorney's office from the assistant city attorney.

And in the third paragraph, it says by the letter of the contract, the city should only be paying for animals that are actually placed there by the city.

So this assistant city attorney agrees with my reading of the contract as I read it two weeks ago and again tonight.

The contract states in multiple locations for animals placed by the city.

And the resolution 2025-287 for animals seized by the Grand Island Police Department and the Grand Island Animal Police Department Animal Control Officers.

This is not about Jack, the Yorkshire Terrier.

It's about whether the taxpayer should be responsible for paying approximately $100,000 per year additional to the Humane Society for public drop-offs.

The taxpayers have already paid $40,860 for the in the five months of August through December for $325 public drop-offs and $989 billing at $45 tonight, which trends to over $98,000 per year.

I have stated the city administration my desire to be at the table when we discussed my March 10th concerns.

And over the last two weeks, until an email yesterday came to Councilmember Sheard and myself inviting where the police chief invited us to the animal control meeting on April 30th, which simply redirects and avoids the need for the discussion.

While the police chief tells others that Chuck Hossey thinks he knows it all, actually I don't know it all, but I do study it all and I research.

And it's my job as a city council member to strive for taxpayer fairness.

Nebraska statute 16206 refers to the city's ability to license animals, and so far to date, we've received $3,646 in license revenue for the first four months.

The animal control statutes and the city code, which is spelled out in uh state statutes 16235 and City Code 5-34, says that all animals running at large are a violation to be declared a public nuisance and may be impounded at the discretion of the animal control officer or other city law enforcement officer.

This is in the police statutes, and really it's up to the ACO or the police to determine.

And it's costing the taxpayers.

This is the reason that an ACO must determine if an animal is to be impounded and not just some random unnamed citizen.

The reason it's in the police authority statutes is because the primary reason to impound is to protect the safety of the citizens.

Paying a reclamation fee is also required under city code and the state statutes when an owner reclaims their animal.

None of which happened in these January incidents where the taxpayers are now being billed.

As a representative for the taxpayer, I'm concerned that this was a no-bid contract and no RFP was ever done, despite the fact that our procurement policy requires it.

If I told you that we would pay you $300,000 a year, plus up to $135 per animal for a three-night stay, and if we hit over $2200 animals in a year, we'll pay up to $285 per animal for a three-night stay.

We have in the past received interest from other parties, and I would expect the same if we followed our own procure procurement procedures.

Hall Count Howell County contractor for these same services for $18,350 for a year.

That's all about just a little over $1,500 a month.

They were actually taken from a garage, as the notes say.

Picked up by the owner, Alicia, on January 29th at 1 o'clock.

Alicia paid nothing, and the city was charged $180 for two days' lodging for two cats.

A stray cat, 55C was dropped off on January 9th at 451, and then was there for 15 hours and 47 minutes and died.

The city was charged $90 for two days' lodging.

Jack, a Yorkshire Terrier on Wainwright Street was dropped off January 5th at 8 48 a.m.

11 minutes later at 859.

Nancy picked it up.

The city was charged 45.

Dolly, a red healer, was a public drop-off on January 22nd at 235 p.m.

on Shady Bend Road in 59 minutes was picked up by Amy, the owner.

The owner paid nothing and the city is paying 45.

Cash, a French bulldog, was a public drop-off on January 4th at 354 p.m.

on Hetty Street and picked up at 440, just 59 minutes, one day and 46 minutes later, and the city was charged $90, and the owner paid nothing.

Kira and Sebastian were two dochens that were picked up on 4th Street on January 20th at 824 a.m.

Three minutes later, they were released to their owner.

Although there was no owner listed in the city did not pay.

I don't know the difference between the 11 minute one and the three minute one, and when you know, so these were all picked up in city limits.

These are the ones that we're talking about that the city is paying a lot of money for.

So that only leaves, if we stay at 300,000, that only leaves $75,000 for the next six months.

The other solution includes doing an RFP for sheltering and care.

This contract, this the Humane Society is the one that decided not to do animal control, which is what began this whole brand new contract.

It wasn't any request of the city.

And so Chief Denny had to go out and acquire at taxpayer cost all the new equipment.

I have no idea.

Do you have any idea how much money you spent in animal control equipment and vehicles and people?

Nothing in vehicles so far, but uh because we reclaimed one from the Humane Society that was a city vehicle, but uh I would say a few thousand dollars in catch polls and pig sorting and gloves and a lot of things for the other the current vehicles we have.

Plus, we had to hire people, you know, and so that that's a cost as well.

Um I think there's a solution, but I think the first solution is we need to just sit down at the table.

I asked this two weeks ago, and I no one's asked me to sit down at the table yet.

Uh I I still want to sit down at the table.

Uh I think there's solution, but there are alternatives.

But the contract, and that's all I'm doing.

I'm reading the contract, the same as the Lloyd, this assistant city attorney reads the contract.

It's not authorized as a payment under the contract.

That's what it says.

It just is common sense.

I'm not trying to stop the humane society.

I think they're a much needed thing in our community.

Uh Joyce and I used to volunteer out there, our time and our money, and we've been to the furballs, and when they had the light show on at Staley Park, we were I was the one taking pictures of kids with Santa Claus for the Humane Society.

So I think they're an important part of what the community has and needs.

But I don't want to get into the humane society part of it with the city taxpayers' dollars.

The city has a responsibility for animal control, and we want to make sure it's fairly done.

I didn't write the contract.

Maybe the contract needs to be amended.

Probably does.

It's already been amended once in October, but I'm like, it doesn't require the taxpayers to pay these drop-offs right now.

And that's what I'm trying to do.

We need to figure out the short air amount.

We need to figure out the $40,000 and $860 that we've already paid for public drop-offs, and we need to figure out the processes that we're working through so that the contract matches up with what's actually happening, rather than having two inconsistent documents.

So that's where I'm at.

The contract doesn't require it.

Taxpayers don't owe it at this point in time based on the terms of the contract, and that's why I'm making the motion.

Mr.

Neckerson.

Just just for a second.

I believe it was August 19th council meeting.

We verbally talked about surrenders versus drop-offs.

But uh the fact of the matter is that when somebody finds an animal in the city and brings it to the Humane Society, the Humane Society can refuse them.

And then that animal's in the city somewhere, and when we had to spend resources to go get the animal again and bring it to the Humane Society.

So it was a little bit of a uh problematic thing as far as surrenders.

Um as far as drop-offs go.

The surrenders, uh, they have a list, and I'll let them speak to it if they'd like to about uh owners, pet owners that want to surrender their animal at the Humane Society, and we don't pay for that.

We're not on the hook for surrenders.

Um and it operationally is problematic.

Uh there are some people that can come in and say they just found this this animal and there it's a drop-off, but it could be their pet.

Uh that may happen a few times.

But uh for the most part, uh operationally the way it it was we understood it to be working and tried to make it work uh at the time, given the context of the situation.

Um we decided to uh say surrenders were part of the city because otherwise they might be turned loose.

It might be somebody driving down the road, grab a dog out of a ditch, take it to humane society, and if they wouldn't take it, then the dog or cat may be turned loose.

So I want to go back just I think you said surrenders would be part of the city.

You meant drop-offs?

Yeah, drop-offs and surrenders are two different things.

Right.

Well, you just just now you made the statement that you thought surrenders would be I think you said surrenders, you meant drop-off.

So you're in your mind, the drop-offs and the uh placed by the city fall under the same category in your mind as of this point, is what you're saying.

Right.

So when somebody finds an animal that's not theirs, that's a drop-off.

And um, they'll take it to humane society, for example.

At the time, the first few months of this contract, we didn't have people, we had police officers that were going to crime, crime calls and other calls.

So we would try to get out there and um in time to get the person that was dropping the animal off to get a number to write it make a report number and stuff.

More and more now over the last few months.

We have the ACO that can do it, code enforcement officers that are uh in their job description that can do it, and police officers.

So if somebody's there or whether somebody's not, but it's a drop-off, we're doing a report number on that animal that was dropped off.

Now, if it's surrendered, that's a different thing, and we we're not on the hook for that.

If it's a pet that somebody is on their list to surrender their own pet, that's not what the city is on the hook for.

Right, right.

Okay.

Uh city attorney, I've got a question for you.

We we each were given the document here.

Can we reference this document?

Are you aware of this document from this assistant city attorney?

Um Council Member Pazy, is that a printout of the email that Miss Nonhoff sent you earlier this week?

Yes.

I am familiar with that.

I mean, our work are we allowed to reference it in our meeting tonight?

I would make sure for the purposes of the record you read whatever portion you'd like to reference since it's not been offered as part of the public materials, um, just so that way members of the public are aware of what you're reading.

So run that by me again, do what?

Just read whatever you're referencing because members of the public don't know what it is you're looking at because it was not provided in the materials in the council package.

Okay, good enough.

I just want to make sure that we're okay with it.

And because this is because what I'm reading, what I'm getting tonight, what we've all got to the best of my knowledge is Stacy's response to Chuck.

But I don't have Chuck's email.

I'm just looking at a response.

So I'm that's what I'm going to reference is this.

And in her response, she's saying that the other problem is that the contract states multiple times placed by the city.

That term is not actually defined in the contract.

So there, so there's there's an area right there that's not defined.

So that's why we're getting drop-offs placed by the city.

Apparently, are looking at them as one and the same.

Some folks are, and as we know, reporting accuracy is very important.

So what we need to do is find out is there going to be a difference between the two for calculating purposes, that's one thing for as far as reporting and documenting, but for payment, is there going to be anything different?

I don't know that we're there yet.

Chuck's asking for about an $1,845 reduction in the request because of the classification of the animal and how it was dropped off.

That's dropped off either by a person or dropped off by an ACO or a police officer.

That's where it's all muddy right now.

And it's an $1,845 question at this point.

And I haven't heard from any representatives from the other group.

I cannot ask for them, but other I mean, they can.

I'm to the best of my knowledge come up when they if they've not re has anybody asked from that group to speak, Jill.

Okay.

Well, I can't ask them to speak, but I think they can if they want, to the best of my knowledge.

Yes.

Yeah, and just yeah, and I'll let you work that through the city clerk.

So I'm I'm thinking that what we've got to do is figure out this terminology is really what it's falling down to.

And and by the letter of the law and letter of the contract, Chuck is exactly right.

But through the taking over of a process that was not the police department's responsibility prior to this, there are some things that still have to be smoothed out, apparently.

And I would say that we want to be careful.

I think we want we want to be careful.

If we say that everything that the city's going to pay for has to come through an ACO or a police officer, because if somebody wants to drop off a pet, they they should go find a police officer to do that.

So how are we gonna do those people that are gonna bring them in and they're gonna bring them in?

And I don't know that we want to split the hair on that.

I'm not sure.

That's what we really need to get to, because we want to make sure those animals are being taken care of properly, and we might just be getting into too much minutia here to try to look for definitions.

But the problem is we have a contract that says what it says, and so Stacy's point is that it's not defined in the contract.

So step one is we need to really define what that what that definition will be.

We simply need to go back to the table or whatever.

We know what the problems are, and we'll hear hopefully from the other side today where there may or may not be any confusion.

But I think that drop-off classification really has to be smoothed out to cover what it's supposed to cover.

I don't want a police officer or an ACO to have to get every animal so that they're paid for properly.

We still need to make sure that the animals are cared for within the city of Grand Island.

But we have a contract that's written that's referred to, and we've got to go through that terminology, all that verbiage to see what's the right way to go.

So I'm interested in any other opinions from other groups that are involved in this as well.

If you would like to speak, you can come up to the mic and state your name.

I'm the Central Nebraska Humane Society President.

And what you're talking about right now, there is a procedure in place when an animal is brought to us that uh uh a citizen is brought in and said they found it somewhere.

Uh we've set up a procedure up with the city police department is that animal comes in, if the person says, I found this animal somewhere.

What we do is we call animal control, we call the police department.

They come out, they question that person and ask them, you know, where'd you find it?

What's your name?

All that stuff they they put in the report, then they decide if that is truly uh not something that they found.

If it is, it's given a number, an L number, I believe it's called, and that's then it's approved by this right that's police department.

If they come in and say, you know, I have this dog, I can't take care of it anymore.

I need to drop it off.

We take care of that animal, we don't charge the city anything for that.

Um, as far as the contract, we've been we've been working on this contract for from about April of 2025, and barely got and we actually missed the date because of the the contract negotiations.

Mayor Steele, you you were involved with some of that that was going on.

We did Mrs.

Fisk, we asked her specifically to have that in there on the drop-offs in that contract, and she would not do it.

And and here we are today fighting over this.

It's I feel like we're the bad guy, you guys just beat us up all the time over this stuff.

The reason we don't do animal control anymore is because we never were paid enough.

That's why.

I feel like the only one really on our side is the police department.

Everybody else is we have fought tooth and nail to get where we're at, and and here we are again.

I appreciate you, and you had a wonderful furball event.

Very well attended, and a lot of enthusiastic supporters who really appreciate the central Nebraska Humane Society, and I'm one of those supporters, and I'm proud to say that.

But that's so the contract, I feel it falls squarely on our city attorney.

We asked her over and over.

We wanted that in the contract, so we didn't, because we felt this would be a problem, and then sure enough it is.

Um the night that you guys uh talked about it and approved the contract, that's when we finally agreed.

And the only reason we agreed, because we were still holding out, we wanted that in the contract.

But she's like, well, it's already late, you're you're gonna be so far behind on payments, and and then it's gonna have to go through all this process.

And so we agreed to her verbal, verbally saying that that would be included, but I don't I don't hear her saying anything that that's that's that I I know there are other people that were there for that conversation.

And that's all I have to say.

Uh Mr.

Mayor, I think I think that was uh August 19th or thereabout where we had that conversation and it was the approval of the contract.

There were some amendments that we last minute uh said verbally, I said verbally we were gonna put in one of those was um uh any time of a day counted as a day because we just didn't have the ability to calculate otherwise, and the other ones were surrenders and drop-offs that were uh were gonna be added or agreed to be added, the difference between those two.

And so that's what we've been carrying out on the police department side.

I brought uh Sergeant Wood here as well.

Uh he's responsible and his team for doing a great job over the last seven months to continually whittle away and um work that number down.

Uh right now, tentatively the number for uh for February is 4100, and so we're working more and more.

There's also the factor of the weather that plays into that too.

So um what you had in August and September and the end of last year uh was coming out of the summer months.

It was busier time for uh drop-offs, probably surrenders as well.

And what we're seeing now is a combination of uh probably weather that's reducing the number, but also us getting uh collaborative hold on the numbers themselves.

And I think what you'll see going into the rest of this year are uh the L numbers associated with each uh drop off or each animal that the police department, ACO, CSO puts into the Humane Society.

Uh it's just taken six, seven months for all of us to figure out where we're at, what we need to do, policy.

We did get approved in this fiscal year for um 2.5 uh ACOs.

Um that was October 1st, and like I said, we've finally just hired the the last part-time ACO.

Um, the CSOs in the meantime that we've replaced older CSOs with, we've hired them under a new job description that includes handling animals, and so uh ultimately we're in a better place because our code enforcement officers, our code enforcement section run by Sergeant Wood, um for the most part, a lot of them now can do animal duties too.

We have 2.5 people that are dedicated to animal control specifically, but the code enforcement officers can also fill the gap when needed as well because of their job description change.

So it's been a it's been a learning process uh all the way through, but I think the uh August 19th three-year contract that we approved and then verbally talked about the day meaning a day and the um the drop-offs versus surrenders.

I think that's part of the confusion we're talking about here.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Nickerson.

Well, I was gonna let other people talk, but since I somehow didn't get taken off, I'm gonna go ahead and touch on this.

Uh chief part of the cost savings that I understand that some of the officers are offering now that may keep us from housing animals at the Humane Society is the ability to scan the chips and contact the owners directly.

Is that happening to the best of your knowledge?

Are we able to do that?

It is.

We're just on the beginning of that.

Um, but I'll let Sergeant Wood talk a little bit about what that looks like.

But that is a that is going to be cost savings in the in the coming months because we'll have the scanners and we'll be able to hopefully along with holding owners accountable for for filling out the right information on the chips.

Um we'll be able to re-home the animals or take the animals to the owner.

If we need to write a citation, we'll write a citation without taking them to the humane society and checking them in.

But do you want to say a couple words about that?

Uh Sergeant Jason Wood, uh the scanners, the ACOs have scanners in their cars, so we scan as many animals as we can, whether it's found alive or dead to try to get them back to the owners.

So any dogs or cats we can find to get back to the owner, that's what we try to do.

So yes.

Seems to be working okay.

It does.

A lot of them aren't chipped just because of the price.

Right.

Uh some of the ones that are chipped, they don't register the chip because of the price.

Some services are free, some they charge.

Some owners just won't pay the extra money.

But any ones we find, we try to get back to the owner.

That keeps them from going to the shelter itself.

So that's we can bypass that expense and hassle.

Yes.

What's what's been the response of owners have you seen when we're able to give them directly to them, other than if they get cited?

They're excited to get their animal back.

And it depends.

Uh if it's a first-time offense that the dog's running at large, usually we give a warning.

If it's second offense, we start writing tickets.

Some people aren't happy to receive the ticket, but it's part of doing business.

Very good, and thank you for the work that you're doing with that.

I know it's a learning process as you're going.

You've inherited a lot.

Okay, thanks.

One more thing I would add here, and this this comes from our animal advisory board when we go over some, and actually Sergeant Wood is part of that as well.

Uh when we have controversial issues come up where we're we're looking at city code and we're looking at things that are happening, and we talk about we talk about the letter of the law, and we talk about the spirit of the law.

And there are times where you can live by the letter of the law, but it doesn't always make sense because of the circumstances.

And so in this case, I think we're again we're I don't want to be hooked to the letter of the contract, because there seems to be some massive confusion there right now that needs to be ironed out.

Where that ends up, I don't know.

But to hold a group hostage for $1,845 by the letter of the contract, when it's clearly uh evident that we have people that are confused by it and and we still need to cover those costs.

I think we have to look at the spirit of it, and that's to make sure that those animals are cared for and that those costs are covered.

And I think that's my responsibility tonight until we can work out the rest of the stuff.

I don't see any reason to hold $1,845 until we know exactly what the agreed upon process is going to be in the future.

If I could add one thing, uh reference to RFP and looking at it, we did look uh at options um before we did do the contract with Humane Society.

They're the only game in town.

Um, unfortunately, even though it is pricey, um, taking that in-house fully with regard to facilities and other staffing would have been uh cost prohibitive.

And um I called Hastings, I looked at Carney, uh Aurora, and uh they were they were not an option, uh, neither were vet uh clinics within the city to take the number of animals uh that we might have to drop off.

It's good you reminded me of that because I remember you did check to see if there were alternatives.

Thank you.

Mr.

Shear.

Thank you.

Uh I've got a series of questions.

I just want to clear up.

Chief, you enlightened me a little bit uh the other day about the surrender versus found animal versus the drop-off.

So I just want to walk through a process because Chuck mentioned a lot of pets.

One of them was named Jack, got my attention.

I kept thinking he was talking about me.

Uh a little concerned because I didn't remember that.

Um do people know when their pet has been dropped off at the Humane Society by a non-officer.

That's a good question.

Uh probably uh Ashley, would you mind answering that one specifically?

Yes.

Get you a better answer for with Ashley here.

If you can state your name too, please.

Ashley Meister, I'm the executive director of the Humane Society.

So your question is how do they know whether it was an officer or a member of the public?

How let's say my dog Marco, he likes to get out.

Okay.

Marco gets picked up by uh somebody who doesn't know me, and they take him to you.

How do you tell how do you know to contact me?

So for us, if a member of the public brings it in, the process right now, if an animal is found in the city of GI, a member of the public brings it in, we call PD out, they come in, they ask all the questions, do a little bit of investigating to make sure, yep, this was a stray animal found in city limits.

Now, if that animal has identification of some sort, so a tag with contact information, um, which could either be you know a rabies tag with a vet clinic, then we can call the clinic, get owner info, or the city license, or just a straight up, you know, ID tag or a microchip.

We call the owner and say, Hey, your dog was brought into the shelter.

We don't ever disclose who brought it in necessarily, but we say your dog was picked up, you need to come pick it up from the shelter.

Um, I do know the animal control officers also try to make contact because sometimes people are a little bit more willing to respond to animal control versus just somebody at the shelter calling them.

Um but that's the process.

We always try to look for identification on intake immediately and contact the owner as soon as possible.

So you guys find a way to determine if it was somebody's pet, Marco or Jack or Fluffy or whatever.

And once you do, they can come and pick it up.

So you know the difference at that point.

This is somebody's pet versus this is a stray, we don't know where it's at.

Uh we need we need to do something different.

And we'll get to that question.

But when I'm called to come pick up Marco and I come in, do you charge me?

We do charge reclaim fees.

Um we do sometimes have to waive or discount those if we're at capacity and we need the kennel and they're saying, Oh, I don't have the fee or whatever.

Sometimes we need that kennel space open because of the number of animals coming in.

We do try to get a fee as often as we can, and then those are reduced out of the invoice that is charged to the city.

But you're invoicing us $90 45, 90.

What is it?

45 a ninth.

So you call me, I come after work, I'm there four hours later.

And I'm ready to pay because I want Marco back.

How much do I owe you?

Our first offense reclaim fee is 75.

So I pay you 75.

Do you charge the city 45 at that point?

45 for the day, yeah.

For the three hours or whatever.

Yeah, exactly.

Right.

Do you reimburse us for that from the 75?

Well, it's never happened, but it could be discussed, yeah.

It's never happened that way.

So you're getting paid twice from that, right?

I pay you 75, and then we pay you 45 for that same situation.

But we would reduce that out of your total invoice.

So you do reduce that we do, yeah.

We take all reclaim fees out of the invoice.

So you do pay us.

Yeah, we take those out.

All right, right.

So that 45 then gets wiped out.

Right.

So if we know the difference between a pet that has an owner, is there a difference to you between an animal that's let's say a dangerous animal that's not a pet, it's a stray cat.

Gets picked up, right?

I see this cat, it keeps doing things in my yard.

It pesters Marco, so I say, hey, go to my summer field neighborhood group and say, is anybody is this anybody's cat?

Nobody answers.

As much as I don't like picking up cats, I pick up the cat, I throw them in a kennel, I drive them to you, and I drop them off, right?

You don't know who this cat belongs to.

Uh it could be dangerous.

What's so right now there's no difference for me doing that or calling Sergeant Wood?

Yes.

That's your sergeant.

I want to get it right.

Okay.

I call Sergeant Wood, he comes and picks it up, or I take it.

There's no difference right now.

Correct.

Okay.

But there's really no difference between someone picking up a pet and someone picking up a stray.

So in our world, a stray just means an animal that's been loose.

So we don't always know if they're owned.

Sometimes they have an owner and have no identification.

The way we try and find an owner is we post them all on Facebook and ask, you know, hey, is a stray was brought in today?

Does anyone recognize it?

Do you know the owners?

Whatever.

Um, so as far as our classification, there's not really a difference.

The difference comes later down the line if nobody reclaims it, what we do moving forward, whether it goes up for adoption or you know, so that's kind of the difference for us, but we consider them all strays on intake.

It was an animal running at large, it's considered a stray.

And if they were say a dangerous animal, let's say it was a mean dog, and I don't want to pick up that dog.

I call Sergeant Wood.

He comes and gets it.

Thank you.

That's the same as me dropping off that cat or somebody dropping off Marco.

That's the same price no matter what.

Correct.

Okay.

Now, if I dropped off Marco, I will not drop off Marco.

I love my dog.

But if I did, that doesn't count.

That's the surrender.

Correct.

If you bring it to us and say, I'm relinquishing ownership of my dog to you guys, which we have the ability to say yes or no to, depending on if we have kennel space to accept it at that time.

That's not something billable to the city.

That's considered a surrender.

Okay.

So what percentage of the non-surrenders, the drop-offs, the police brought in.

What percentage of those do you find an owner for within the three days?

Ballpark.

Gosh, maybe 30%.

It's not a lot.

A lot of people don't come reclaim their animals, to be honest.

And what percent of that 30% do you charge for?

It depends month to month, to be honest.

Um months, if we have space, I can charge everybody with a reclaim fee.

If it's they come in and well, I don't have the money, da-da-da-da-da.

And I'm at capacity and I need to make room for the other strays that they're bringing in, then I don't charge a fee or I charge a reduced fee.

It's hard for me to stick a number on it without, you know, it's just very, you know, as a dog owner, pet owner, pet lover, supporter of the Humane Society, by the way, always have been.

Um I do have an issue that it's a judgment call on whether or not we charge them.

Or you charge them, and then we that kept comes off our list.

Uh I wish there was something more defined there.

You know, your ability to collect on that or not, then gets passed on to us.

Sure.

And your ability to just make that determination.

Well, we're short on space, right?

Or this person wants to pay 20 bucks, okay.

I'll do it.

Got a heart too, you're an animal person, I know you have a heart, and you want to, you know, get people back their pets.

But I don't know that's on us on that at that point, as much as it is uh a decision you're making on the spot that impacts how much we end up paying you.

But the dangerous ones, the ones that are there three up to the three days.

I think we're I'm okay if the police says, hey, that saves us going out there, we still have to track it, we still have to do all the work on it.

I'm okay with that.

Uh I'm with Chuck though.

I think we need to define this stuff.

And you know, I I I if you're frustrated that it wasn't in there, I apologize that we didn't we didn't get it through the first time.

Um I will be honest and tell you sometimes I don't I don't know if this is gonna give me unelected or not.

I don't always understand what we're talking about in the moment, but it takes a situation later for us to sit and go, okay, now I get it.

Mitch asks a lot of questions, and sometimes I'm like, oh now I get it.

Uh sometimes we don't ask enough questions.

So I apologize if we're bringing this up now and we should have brought it up April 19th or April or August 19th or April of 2025, or we should have had a better negotiating.

Uh so I apologize.

I'll I'll own that as my role, but I do want to see us keep adjusting this as legal as possible to find it to where it's it's right.

Uh you're getting compensated for having the the animals there.

Uh we're living up to our our end of the bargain, but we take away some of that judgment call.

Uh because if it was up to me and I was in your shoes, I'd give everybody their pet back for free no matter what.

They walk in the door here, you take Marco back.

Uh that's how I would act.

Uh but that would be wrong.

So I you know, I appreciate you answering some of the questions.

Um this is all about an amendment, and I guess I should bring it back to that.

Uh I don't know if we're gonna get to a solution to be able to pick and choose which of those we pay tonight.

Uh so Chuck, I appreciate your work on this.

As of right now, I'm gonna ask that we uh that we pay the full amount tonight.

I'm gonna vote no on the admitment, but I do want to continue the conversation.

Uh I appreciate that, you know, Chief Denny, you told me you continue to adjust and get better and better and better at this.

Um if that means we come and and have another conversation to fine-tune some of this.

Um I'd feel better if it was written down and agreed to rather than add it on at a meeting vocally, uh, verbally.

I wanted this stuff written down.

Um as we learn more, we should do better, if that's legal.

So thank you for answering the questions.

Yes, of course.

Mr.

Hawsey.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh, I do want to respond a couple things, like to Greg.

I want I thank you for your comments because I wasn't aware of anything regarding the negotiations earlier, and I think that does help a little bit.

I do want to talk to Mitch and then in his comment about this is an eighteen hundred and forty-five dollar deal.

No, this is a 42,705 deal.

In August through December, it was we've paid 40,000 eight sixty.

In January, it's eighteen forty-five.

So the question today is we have paid for already 40,000 eight sixty, and tonight, one thousand eight hundred and forty-five is the difference.

Contractually, we don't the taxpayers don't owe it.

So that's the the issue isn't an eighteen hundred dollar issue, but I agree that we all need to get down at the table and figure this out, because we need everybody to be successful moving forward.

But I agree that we all need to get down at the table and figure this out because we need everybody to be successful moving forward.

But we had an August 19th contract approval.

Now I know Greg, you were you probably almost was October 1 before you even signed it.

And so I recognized the delay in signing it, so there was something that I didn't know about.

You know, so that's where I recognize that.

But on October 14th, we came with an amendment about date and time and the 24-hour rolling clock.

We did an amendment already on October 14th.

So it's not like it's unamendable.

So we have done that.

But here's where's where my issue is for taxpayers.

Humane societies are an important part of every community.

Here is what I think their three roles are in the community.

They number one, animal rescue and care.

They take in strays, they take in abandoned pets, or ones from bad situations, they feed them, they spay and neuter them, and they get them healthy.

That's the first thing that a humane society does.

The second thing, adoption.

That's a big part of it.

They match animals with people, do home checks, make sure it's a good fit.

The third part is education and outreach.

They teach folks about responsible pet ownership, cruelty prevention, low cost spay and neutering, or how to report abuse.

I don't know.

They probably do.

And yeah, they deal with lost pets, microchipping, they could do wildlife rehab.

There's all kinds of things that they can do.

That is the humane society's primary function in every community.

Number one, animal rescue and care, taking in strays and abandoned pets.

Now, the city's responsibility under animal control, under the state statutes and the city code.

This goes to Jack's point about the mean dog, the dangerous dog.

That absolutely requires Sergeant Wood to go out there and engage.

This is where the ACO or any police officer has that decision point under state statutes and city code, they are the ones that have the decision to impound or not impound.

That's a police function, it's in their budget, so statutorily, and because we deal with Dylan's rule, we can only do what we're authorized to do.

We're not authorized to be the humane society.

We can't.

Children at risk.

My daughter got bit by a German shepherd, and she's got stitches under her eye.

There's animals out there that need to be controlled.

That's what the city should be responsible for the safety of all of our people.

But for the humane society's primary function of taking in strays, abandoned pets, that's not a taxpayer liability.

It's a humane society function, and I hope they do great things when they have the fur balls.

I hope they get a lot of volunteers.

I hope they get lots of donations to do their primary mission, but it's not a taxpayer mission.

And it can't be because it's not authorized by state law.

So I want to help them, I want to help them be part, you know, be part of that, be successful, but our responsibility is animal control, not the humane society.

And it's illegal for us to get engage in their business.

So I want to try to make it, it's hard to separate these kind of you know nuances between animal control and the humane society's primary function.

And a public dropping off a dog or a cat is night, and I named six of them, including Jack the Yorkshire Terrier.

Uh they're just people in half of them got returned to their owners.

But not one of them in the $1,845 that we're getting billed, not one of them paid a reclamation fee.

Not one.

Now, we did get on the January bill $1,775 back in reclamation fees.

It was a $9,000 bill to start with.

We did get $1,000, but it wasn't for these.

Half of them, their owners picked them up and didn't pay none of them paid anything.

None of them.

So that's what I'm talking about is there's a separation between the authority of the police department in keeping us safe and the responsibility of a humane society just doing their primary function and doing it well.

And they do do it well.

So that's where I think the differences are Mr.

Connolly.

I don't really know who to direct this question to, but do we know what some of these other connecting cities or the shelters do, like in Hastings and Carney?

Do they how do they charge?

So if a city police officer brings in an animal they picked up and they take it into the shelter, does the does the city get billed or something from the public brings in a stray?

Do they still build the city?

Do we know I do I guess my question is do we know what some of these other connecting cities do with some of this stuff?

The two cities that I'm familiar with the provisions of their contract are Carney and then the cities within Sarpee County.

In Carney, there's a flat monthly fee similar to our base fee, an annualized payment that's reduced to a monthly payment in SARP County for those assorted cities Bellevue Papilion, um, Greater Sharpie County, they pay a per taxpayer fee.

Um so rather than a per animal fee, it's per taxpayer fee.

Those are the two I'm familiar with.

Um there may be other structures used by different cities by statute we're authorized to pay the fees and expenses of impounding and keeping the same.

So the law doesn't really give us guidance on what type of payment structure, just that it has to be the fees and expenses related.

So that's for if a city police officer brings in a pet into the shelter.

Correct.

There are there are, I think, as council member Hazi pointed out, really only two statutes that govern the keeping of and the statutes still use the phrase pound.

These statutes have been on the books since 1901 and have shockingly for Nebraska law not really been messed with since that time.

And they allow cities of the first class to uh to impound um animals that are running at large and to provide for the fees and expenses of impounding and keeping the same and provide us the legal authority to either provide for the building and construction of a city owned animal pound or to appoint and compensate the keepers of an animal pound like the Humane Society or any other animal shelter and establish those rules thereof so we can either do it ourselves or we can contract with another entity, those are the two statutes that regulate, but they are only for animals we have the authority to impound, which is how we got into this placed by the city language as to what is and isn't placed by the city.

Um words are typically given their um plain meaning unless they are so ambiguous as to not be definable.

So that's why we don't define every single word in a contract, though I do like over defining words and contracts, it adds up pages.

Um the reality is if we have as the city placed an animal, we have an obligation to pay for it operationally.

If that decision has been made by the folks with the authority to make that call, which would be the police department, um, in this case, the city is bound to honor the police department's decisions and authorities there.

Um so the should we consider those animals placed or placed retroactively as a policy or operational call, not necessarily a legal call there, um, that decision to ratify the placement after the fact is an operational decision that they make there.

I guess I was just gonna answer your question.

When I've looked into comparable municipalities or organizations, typically they do a flat rate monthly fee that's just paid, you know, they set a contract fee, pay it out per month.

Um I actually haven't come across anyone who does the per animal fee.

Um, and a lot of the ones that I looked into do consider public drop-offs strays for their purposes or ones impounded by the city.

Um, and I think that's why in the wording with the contract, when we say place by city, that's why we put in place that we have to have someone from PD come out and determine whether yes or no, that's going to be placed by the city.

Um, because they have the option if PD comes out and says, you know what, that's their dog, or you know what, that's not from our jurisdiction, or we don't think it falls into what should classify as placed by the city, they can deny it.

And then we do have the option if we want to accept it on our own, we can.

Um, and then that just wouldn't be billable to you guys.

So I think that's kind of why it's worked out the way that it has, where with public drop-offs, yeah, we still have to have approval of somebody with PD or an ACO or a CSO to say we do believe this was a stray picked up by a good Samaritan and brought to the shelter, which does save them a little bit of time and effort to not have to go chase it down themselves, and does increase community safety to have less animals running loose in the community.

So I think that's an important point because there was a trend in the conversation I thought that indicated you unilaterally determined what was placed by the city.

The police department determines what is placed by the city.

Correct.

They have to come out and receive it, is how we determine.

I don't know if that's what you guys say, but we say they have to come receive it and approve or deny it as an animal placed by the city in order for it to be billable, which then is when the L numbers come into play.

They provide us with an L number confirming, yep, we came out determined that we do think that classifies as an animal that should be placed by the city because it was astray or involved in a bike case or whatever.

So thank you.

Did you have something to say, Chief Denny?

Yes, sir.

Uh I just add to that that we're moving from a model where we would pay the humane society a lump sum uh previously for however many years before.

Uh and we didn't have control on the say about animals or oversight.

Uh we are moving now to a model over the last seven months where we have a say on what we're putting in there, and we're getting more and more with the chip readers with the citations to nuisance pet owners.

Um the police department now is in control of the spigot to a large degree, and that spigot is getting more and more tight because of the oversight that we have on the animal control function.

And so uh, but we're still in transition.

We're in that uh kind of murky middle uh ground, but we are working toward uh more oversight, which I think is a better place to be, rather than just giving the humane society a lump sum of money.

Thank you, Mr.

O'Neill.

I know it's been a long night, so I'll keep my statement brief, and I I appreciate so many of you hanging in there so long tonight as well.

Um I don't think there's a person in this room that isn't supportive of the Humane Society.

Um it's been an interesting conversation.

Um there's been some frustrations on both sides.

We're not going to be able to solve all in the meeting tonight, but I just hope there's some continued dialogue where everyone can come up with an amicable solution.

But uh good good discussion tonight, and I hope we can just kind of move forward and we can work through this in the near future as well.

So thank you guys.

This is the vote on Mr.

Hawsey's amendment.

Please vote.

Motion failed.

Now we'll go back to the original motion for the original packet.

Please vote.

Motion adopted 9E funding request from railside business improvement district for speaker system.

Who's presenting?

Mr.

Brown.

Yes, thank you, Mayor.

This is the action item from the council retreat.

Uh that was on February 21st.

Uh a presentation by rail side folks.

Uh just a couple of items here.

Um submitted a uh request to the city to aid in the funding of a new speaker system that would replace three or four speakers along uh blocks between Elm and Sycamore.

Uh they've already secured 25,000 funding from uh CVB and 50,000 from CRA.

Full cost of the project is 135,000.

Uh the rest 10,000 or so, it will be raised by rail side.

Uh again, fiscal impact 50,000.

Uh it would be from keynote.

And that is it.

Thank you, Mr.

Brown.

Mr.

O'Neill.

I move that we approve 2026-78.

Mr.

Hawsey.

I'll second that motion.

Any discussion?

Mr.

Nickerson.

First thing that showed up on your narrative there was uh failing five-year-old system.

And I don't remember in our discussion during the retreat.

Was there a estimated life of these new speakers, or is this a five-year thing?

Are they telling us it's going to be good for one year or your money back or what?

Have some of the folks here to come up with the case.

Okay, yeah.

Just kind of curious.

It was the first thing that showed up with five years old, we're having to replace them already.

What's the prognosis of a new if we know?

Jim Perney Grenalon.

Um from my recollection, it's been a little bit since we've looked at it, but uh, I believe there is a 10-year warranty on these speakers.

Uh we also in our bidding process when we did the RFPs, we also did a process where they would come out to inspect the speakers to prevent catch any potential failures or prevent future failures as well.

So that would be part that's part of the contract or where they do a preventive maintenance type function.

Okay.

Okay, and that's good.

And what I want to also say, I know the public doesn't know what we discussed in the retreat, but you're looking for funds from different entities, and I appreciate you not asking one person or one entity to do it all, but you're saying that we wanted some money from this group and this group and this group if you'd all participate.

And I think that's what I appreciate about this as well because you've got a CVB, you've got the city you're asking of the CRA, and then you yourself said we're gonna go out and we're gonna get some money ourselves.

So I think that speaks highly of the project.

They're not just saying give me, but we want this, and uh hopefully the quality of these speakers are going to pay good dividends, and you know, I hope it in five years not saying I don't know why we got into this, but yeah, we did a lot of research on that and got Ryan Schmidt's involved through this whole process to verify that it works with our structure we have and also the quality is there.

Super, all right.

Well, thank you very much.

Mr.

Sheard.

Thanks.

Uh Pat.

This is being requested out of keynophs.

Just for clarification.

Is that a legal use of this money?

Absolutely.

Community community betterment.

Okay, and is the money there?

Yes.

Okay.

Well, I think this is awesome.

I talked to some people downtown uh the last couple days, uh, asked if that what they thought, and they uh they thought it sounded great.

I think from the retreat, uh what you guys presented, you're correct.

I did look, it is a 10-year warranty on there.

Uh I was impressed with uh the plan when you presented it.

I think it's good for uh I believe one of the things you said, and I mentioned it to somebody this today uh when we were talking, it creates a vibe downtown and maybe keeps people there longer and maybe gets them to shop, mingle, but gives it life.

Um if you get people to stick around a little bit more, provides a little life.

I think that's a positive thing.

And if this is a legal use of this money and the money's there, I think it's a great use of it.

So I appreciate you guys putting this plan together and sticking around until 10 o'clock for us uh to talk about it.

So thanks for your patience.

Mr.

Hawsey.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh, as much as I wasn't at the retreat, I did see it at the Grow Grand Island meeting when they made a presentation.

Uh Mark and I were probably both there and we're able to see that.

Yeah, I mean I support the the motion.

Um Keno actually has in on the last report is the January 31 report online, has 848,931 dollars in cash, so it clearly can handle the 50,000 dollars for community betterment, and so I support the motion.

Mr.

Stell.

Yeah, thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

I too support this motion.

I think it just separates and adds some oblivion to downtown Grand Island.

Just another uh flashy moment for us.

The other thing I like about it is the safety factor.

In Nebraska, we have storms in the evenings during the summer.

They just come in within an hour or two, and we'll be able to put out a storm alert, especially for the big crowds that are there, so that they'll know what the weather's doing.

But I I support it.

I think it's a good move for downtown.

Mr.

O'Neill.

I I'm the city liaison to the railside BID.

I've been a little familiar with this too.

Plus, I also work downtown, spent a lot of time there.

Um I can just say um I'm very supportive of it as well.

I know a lot of business owners are downtown.

I've I've talked to several of them.

I've heard nothing but positive feedback about it as well, and I'm glad to support this.

So thanks for hanging in there tonight, guys.

Please vote.

Motion adopted Resolution 9F approving purchase of bookmobile for library.

This is Swan.

Um, I just have a picture on there if you can you open it up for the question.

Where's that?

Um that's okay.

I can go with that.

Sorry.

That's okay.

Okay.

Um good evening, Mayor and Council members.

No, it's been a long night.

Um, so I got to present to you guys at the council retreat, the importance of a bookmobile.

And since then I've done a little more research.

I visited Lincoln and got to see their two new bookmobiles.

And I think we have a chance right now.

This is the time to strike to get these bookmo get a bookmobile for our city for Grand Island to reach people that don't have transportation, that don't make it to the library.

Grand Island's grown.

And I think we have uh a good time right now where we could um take advantage of getting grants through the Greater Grand Island Found Community Foundation, they um came and approached me about getting a discretionary grant written up, and so in order to go after that grant, I need to have approval from you guys to go forward.

It takes about seven or eight months to get a bookmobile built, so we're looking at like December of 2026.

And also um we also have um the entire amount of the bookmobile covered between if we get that grant and we also get uh we will get a hundred thousand from the library foundation, and if we could move our 70,000 for our kiosk over to the bookmobile, that would be just awesome.

Um you guys all know that right now reading scores are really important.

We have a chance to reach out and we would we would be able to make such a huge dent in our literacy needs and reach thousands of people every year with the bookmobile.

All those people that can't make it to us, we can go to them and we can do internet stops.

We can do uh we would be a mobile library, we would be a branch of the library, and we can go out and really make a difference in our community.

So I'm just asking for your support to move forward, and I think the library is at a good place right now, and our community supports the library, the ground public schools, Matt Fisher supports the library, and I've been approached by many citizens and teachers and retired principals about what a difference a bookmobile can make.

Um we had a great bookmobile bookmobile until uh 2009, and we lost our bookmobile, and it was one of the worst things that I think happened for the city of Grand Island.

So I guess vote bookmobile.

Thank you.

Yep, Mr.

Shear.

Thank you.

I move that we approve 2026 79.

Mr.

Lanfear.

I second.

Discussion, Mr.

Shear.

Thank you.

Uh you know, I had a lot of questions about this, and I'm on the library, I'm the council member on the library board.

So I asked a lot of questions at our meeting, and uh I appreciate first I'll I'll steal Mitch's thunder.

You found funding outside of the city to get the thing paid for.

And we have money for books too.

We have a hundred and sixty-five thousand dollars to buy new books for that bookmobile.

That's fantastic.

Um that makes it a lot easier, I think, for me to say yes to this.

Um, even though I'm excited about it.

I did have a lot of people asking me, why are we spending money on this instead of XYZ?

And it's a lot easier to say uh I support it when we're not spending that money uh instead of something else.

The instead of something else we're doing is the kiosk, which we already approved.

Now I'll put you on the spot like I've done before.

You like this better than a kiosk.

This is better than the kiosk because it reaches more people, and we can even take the internet out to people.

There's just, you know, people say, what do you do?

Just get on the bookmobile and check out items.

Yes, you do that, but there's also uh opportunities to be an internet hotspot where people that don't have internet can get online.

We can show them the library services that we have if they're using e-books, audiobooks, um, they need help for their kids, ideas for literacy.

Um early literacy is a really big thing right now.

And you know that schools are talking about how the kids by third grade need to uh reach certain levels, and so it starts with early literacy, and by the library going out, taking out crates of books and providing story times at daycares.

We had over 20 stops in 2009, and now in today's world, there's so many more stops and so many more daycares in apartments and and places that we can stop.

And I think it's it's even bigger than the kids.

It's it's the mobile.

Uh it's nursing homes and other areas where we might not have access to our great library.

So it's you like it better than a kiosk because it gets there and it's still not a destination.

It takes it to you.

Um and it's quite a bit cheaper, as we talked about, than another branch, a side library.

20 million dollars cheaper.

So it's it's a little less than that.

Um so I appreciate that.

I appreciate the work you've done to get funding for it.

Uh I know the mayor uh surprised us all when he said, Hey, I want to get a bookmobile before the end of the year.

And I thought, what are you talking about, homie?

Uh but we got it.

I go you got the money for it.

So I'm I'm for it.

I appreciate the work gone into it, and uh I'm excited to vote yes on this.

Mr.

Lanfear.

I sometimes go out in the internet and request people, you know, let me know what you think of something.

Most people don't, they'll look at my post, maybe a couple respond.

I've had easily almost two dozen yes on this.

Everybody out there, and I'm kind every, you know, we're talking several generations, not the kids in school, you know, or even the kids in school to a certain extent, think this is a great idea.

So I'm I'm for it.

Go.

Mr.

Stelk.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

I too support this.

Um I come from a family of educators.

My wife still is a retired teacher, but she still uh tutors kids.

And we've always supported reading, and earlier in the meeting, I said Grand Island's a great community to live in.

We got so many things going for us, and this is another example of how great a city we have.

And I'm just glad you took the ball and carried it.

And the foundation's stepped forward too, because Grand Allen is a giving community.

Thank you.

Please vote.

Motion adopted.

You have your bookmobile.

Congratulations.

Ordinance 10, a consideration of approving amendment to City Code Section 12-19.

Civil Service Rules Adoption.

Mr.

Schmidt.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Council.

Uh, this is just a small amendment to City Code.

Uh we were doing some review of our uh documentation and discovered a uh minor adjustment we want to propose.

So section 1219 of City Code establishes the framework for civil service procedures applicable to classified employees, classified employees or police and fire.

Uh the current language references Nebraska Civil Service Act, but it doesn't explicitly incorporate the civil service rules uh accepted by the Civil Service Commission, and the Nebraska law requires that civil service rules be formally adopted by ordinance.

Um so while they have the commission has adopted the rules and regulations governing their processes, um it's not currently referenced within the city code.

So by adding a half a sentence to Section 1219, um it would state that civil service procedures are governed by both the Nebraska Civil Service Act and the civil service rules and regulations as adopted by the Civil Service Commission for the City of Grand Island.

Then it just tightens up our legal compliance and clarifies the authority in that role.

Um no changes to existing practices, just again clarifies and codifies.

Thank you.

Mr.

Landfear, a motion to suspend the statutory rules.

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

Mr.

O'Neill.

I second the motion.

Any discussion?

Please vote.

Motion adopted Mr.

Shear.

Thanks.

I move we approve uh 10,006.

10a, 10,067.

Mr.

Lanfear.

I second.

Any discussion.

Please vote.

Motion adopted.

11A executive session to discuss strategy regarding purchase, sale, and contract negotiations for real estate.

Mr.

Sheard.

Thank you.

I move we go into executive session.

Mr.

Lanfear.

I second.

Any discussion?

Please vote.

Motion adopted.

Going into executive session at 1013.

And the last one is is kitchen fires, which is a is a specialty as well.

This is actually a really common cause of fires.

Unattended cooking where someone's cooking and forgets that the stove is on or accidentally bumps a burner.

It happens quite often.

And in fact, it's one of the leading causes of home fires across the country.