Yes.

Good morning.

I am here today to discuss the status of the good life district negotiations and to clear up some misconceptions so we can ensure factually accurate information is available for the people of Grand Island.

Almost three years ago I received a phone call from Drew Snyder from Woodsonia.

Mr.

Snyder asked about the veterans property that is owned by the city.

So I repeated three times.

From time to time, Woodsonia would renew its request that the city gift it the land, or that the city give Woodson the money to buy the land.

That request was always refused for the reason I stated earlier.

Last fall, I asked for Woodsonia's best and final offer, which they delivered to the city council.

I wanted their best and final offer because negotiations were wasting time.

As recently as December, I thought we were making progress with negotiations, but we soon discovered that their best and final offer was neither their best or final.

After December, our attorneys handling the negotiations told us that the negotiations were going backward.

Woodsonia says we stopped negotiating with them in February.

In actuality, we were actively negotiating with Woodsonia in March.

Woodsonia's attorney admitted the impasse in negotiations, and he advised that his clients wished to cease negotiations, and they intended to give the city another written best and final proposal to consider.

We received that proposal on March 5.

In Woodsonia's March 5 offer for approximately one hundred fifty acres of land owned by the city.

Woodsonia offered one dollar as their final and best offer.

An offer of one dollar for the city's land is ridiculous.

And we did not have authority to accept their latest best and final offer.

So the city is moving forward to build the city infrastructure, including the dirt work, the sports complex, and the aquatic center.

To keep moving forward, the city requested request for proposals so that we can hire experts to assist us in the development of the sports complex and aquatic center and to enlist engineering services for key infrastructure, such as road design and mass grading.

During the March 25 meeting, we told Woodsonia that the request for proposals would be issued, and as a result, the ethics rules regarding public bidding applied, and the city would not take any action that would give an unfair advantage to any bidder.

The response deadline for the request for proposals is May 6.

After the March 25 meeting, Woodsonia replace their March 5 and final offer with yet another new proposal, which they asked to present directly to the City Council.

The new proposal is dated April 5.

Woodsonia's latest proposal offers ten thousand dollars per acre for the city's land.

I am happy to know that Woodsonia has made an offer for the land that is plausible.

I am convinced we got a serious offer because on March twenty-five, I told Woodsonia we were moving forward with the project.

But I must say for much of our negotiations, best and final offers have meant we move forward a while and then regress.

These tactics have prevented productive negotiations.

No sports complex, no aquatic center, and no money in the bank for development.

For instance, one provision gives Woodsonia the right to terminate all agreements with the city while still keeping all of the land and up to ten million dollars in cash payment before a single structure has risen from the dirt.

Another provision allows Woodsodia to cancel the agreement if they find any condition on the land which is unacceptable to them in their sole discretion.

In addition to Woodsonia insisting that it can terminate the agreement for any reason, Woodsonia has included provisions that specifically stops the city from forcing Woodsonia to build anything.

Again, this allows Woodsonia to terminate the project and leave the citizens with no remedy and no development.

That is not acceptable.

The City Council is scheduled to discuss Woodsonia's latest offers at its May 12th meeting, open meeting of the City Council.

I would encourage you to attend if you are interested.

It is important to note there are financial barriers in the collection of the good life revenue.

Since the state took over revenue collection from the city, the revenue has dropped significantly and become inconsistent, reducing the city's available bonding capacity for building the good life district.

We have been told by the State Department of Revenue that it may take a year to see how the revenue collections stabilize.

That's in their hands, not ours.

The drop-off in revenue collected by the state keeps the city from meeting some of Woodsonia's funding request.

We have encountered a lot of delay during our negotiations with Woodsonia.

But we must deliver progress to the citizens.

Consider the fact that Carney already has buildings in its Good Life District.

And Bellevue broke ground for its Good Life District over one year ago.

Our negotiations are making us lag behind with talking when we should be building.

The Good Life District is a once in a lifetime gift given to the city by the state to spur transformational growth.

The city remains committed to delivering that growth for its citizens by constructing the sports complex and aquatic center, among other things.

The city remains committed to that, I assure you.

We will continue to take whatever steps are necessary to make the Good Life District succeed for the people of Grand Island.

Mr.

Schubert, you have a microphone.

You can ask if there's questions.

I sure do.

If you do have a question at this time, please raise your hand.

We have on hand, obviously Mayor Steele.

We have attorneys Matt Boyle and Kerry Fisk, as well as Utilities Director Ryan Schmidt and Public Works Director Keith Kurtz.

RJ.

Mr.

Mayor, have you appointed a special committee to work on this Good Life District?

And if so, who is on that committee?

The committee will be under discussion of the City Council.

That takes City Council action.

My preference is that any further negotiations occur at open meetings of the City Council so that we don't have any misconceptions about what the terms are.

That's my preference.

I'll discuss my preference with the city council.

But I think that would be healthy.

With the Good Life District on you guys had with Woodsonia.

You guys mentioned that you wanted to have building completed or getting started in 2026 right now with this new proposal.

Are you guys still aiming to have that 2026 start?

I don't think that's feasible.

I think we have lost many months when we should have been building.

But we are we are where we are today, and I want to go forward with great speed.

I would ask anybody who's interested in the Good Life District to insist we get something done, because that's where I'm at.

And by done, I mean we build.

We build.

That's what the Good Life District is about.

Sometimes the most elementary words need to be defined.

What is a good life district?

I'll give you an example.

When President Lincoln was fighting the Civil War, he thought some of his generals were really good at talking and not fighting.

And he had to remind them, he had to define the term war for them.

War is about fighting.

Talking doesn't count.

President Lincoln had one general who didn't say much.

He didn't talk much at all, but he fought.

The word got back to President Lincoln, and people said, General Grant drinks too much whiskey.

President Lincoln replied, find out what he's drinking so I can send barrels to my other generals.

Lincoln knew he had to define for some of his generals what war meant.

It didn't mean talking.

We need to define what the Good Life District means.

It means building.

It means moving dirt and constructing.

That's what the Good Life District means.

We in Grand Island need to look to Kearney and Bellevue to see how they've defined it because they move dirt and build.

That's what we need to start doing.

That's what the Good Life District means.

We build.

Pardon?

If you knew how much the cost of construction for the these developments would cost.

I don't know because we need to we need to issue requests for proposals to get things like cost estimates.

I would just be speculating, and I don't want to do that.

But uh as a city, we rely upon experts in their field to tell us the anticipated cost of building anything.

And I'm not one of those experts.

Yes.

Yes.

Thank you.

Brad Mellama Grand Island Tourism.

There's been a little bit of activity out there, some tree removal, maybe some prep work, that kind of thing.

Has the city used its funds to pay for those prep work, or is that coming from uh deposited good life funds, those types of I'm just curious about work.

Drove by us the other day and noticed some dirt dirt moving as far as tree removal.

And the microphone to Mr.

Kurtz.

My knowledge uh the funds came from Good Life District proceeds to remove the trees.

Mayor, the legislature introduced the Good Life District piece of legislation in what, 23.

And there have been changes to that original legislation every session.

How comfortable are you that they have it tweaked to the point where our Good Life District, which has yet to be started, is not going to be negatively affected by any future legislation or by the state's commitment to pull back or claw back on funds that had not been expended in other areas.

I'm not comfortable with the idea that the state will do clawbacks because the state has been doing clawbacks.

I don't think, of course, the Department of Revenue is collecting the taxes paid for the Good Life District.

I know they've the collections have dropped off.

I have no information that that's due to clawbacks.

I don't think so.

I don't think the Nebraska legislature wants to reconsider the Good Life District legislation.

I will tell you, and this is hearsay from what I've been told the governor really doesn't like Good Life Districts.

Now, if that gets back to the governor, that's hearsay.

That's what I've been told.

I can't verify it.

But there's but there's always a concern that when the state is strapped for cash, they may say, why are we giving away a portion of our sales tax to give it to the city of Grand Island?

But you also raise the point, my point that I want to leave you with, that's why we need to start building.

If they would give us a second look and ask the question, should we let Grand Island go forward?

I want to be able to say, we are building things right now.

You can't, you can't claw back, you can't pull the plug on us now.

That's why it's imperative we move forward.

Because what you mentioned is always a real risk.

However, if we've invested in building our good life district, that would make him that would make it awfully hard for state senators to look at us and say, well, you're not doing anything, so it really doesn't hurt you.

Mayor Steele, uh, the private citizen, uh first, thank you for your leadership.

Uh appreciate the update, and I'm glad to see that there's still some possibility where maybe the different entities can come together and move forward in progress.

So, with that, just for clarification, it's my understanding that the Good Life District that the state resources fund back to the applicant, not the city.

So that's the first thing that I think needs to be addressed.

Secondly, I've just seen it kind of reminds me when we had the state fair relocate here.

There were a lot of sticky things that needed to go through there.

But when there was a willingness to get it done, all the entities came together, but some of those things occurred right inside the fishbowl moments before they came to the council.

So I can appreciate being open to have those discussions.

But first, clarify the money is my understanding would flow to the applicant not be eligible for the city.

Can you clarify that?

Mrs.

Fisk.

Both the state statute and the city's adopted good life revenue create a restricted fund with the city for all good life district revenue.

There are some limitations on revenue generated on property owned by the applicant.

Um in this case here, the good life district applicant to the state does own portions of property near Conestoga Mall.

There are restrictions on the revenue generated there, but the Good Life District applicant does not control all of the revenue generated within the Good Life District.

Um just kind of logically that would mean then that they would control revenue generated from Walmart or Menards or other buildings there.

So there is some control, but not it is not their fund, for example.

And and Mayor, to the point there are always sticky points that need to be ironed out.

Uh I believe we can do that.

And I believe this discussion today will help us resolve the sticky points.

I believe further negotiations before the city council during open meetings will help us resolve any sticking points.

You mentioned that sticking points can be resolved back in the fishbowl.

I prefer now they just be done in the public.

That way nobody wonders what anybody is up to.

That's my preference.

The council may say, well, we'd like to appoint a committee.

I'm I'm willing to listen to that idea.

But my preference is we have these negotiations during open meetings of the city council.

Or yes, open meetings of the city council.

Any other questions?

Yes.

Um, if the sports complex in the aquatic center are built by someone else other than Woodsonia, would the money to fund those constructions still come from the Good Life District funds?

Yes, we have the funds, but I I don't want to leave you with the impression that we have slammed the door on Woodsonia.

That is not the case.

And all we've done right now is ask for design work.

Before you can build anything, you have to have a design for the sports complex, a design for the aquatic center.

And of course, we always need design for things like uh mass grading of the site and things like road work.

So the the design work is always just preliminary.

Yes.

What was uh the reasoning for sending out two RFPs, one for the building project and then one for the managing of the project.

I didn't hear the first part of your question.

Um, what was the uh with you sending out two RFPs, one for the building project and one for managing the project?

I was just wondering what that was for.

Yes.

When I said I'm referring I'm referring there to the sports complex.

And that's going to be a building owned by the city, by the way.

So we're obviously very interested in how it's done.

But we're looking to have kind of a two-step process.

We want to hire somebody who is skilled in managing sports complexes to advise us on design features that should be included in a sports complex.

We don't know.

I don't know as a mayor how a sports complex should be laid out.

I may I might say we need this many ball courts, and an expert in managing sports complexes may say no, you need to do it this way.

So it's two-step process, hire find somebody who's skilled in managing a facility, and then they can help us determine what a design should be.

Advise us.

Mayor Steele, I was just curious what plans you have to work with Woodsonia in the future, and what advice you might have for other cities and other city leaders who might plan to also work with Witsonia in the future.

Yes.

Well, our plan right now is to take up Woodsonia's latest proposal at the May 12 meeting.

So that's our plan right now is to proceed in that fashion.

As for other mayors, I don't uh I don't purport to give advice to other mayors.

Uh other mayors have their own particular problems, and I have mine.

And I probably wouldn't listen to them, and I don't think they should listen to me.

So I'll let other mayors handle their own business.

Uh I know Mayor Rusty Heich from Bellevue, and I don't I know the mayor of Carney, they're both wonderful men, but I'm not going to give them advice.

That would be presumptuous, and they wouldn't listen to it anyway.

Yes.

Have you guys received any uh RFP bids for the new projects that you guys have put out yet?

No, the the RFP, the request for proposals are due May 6th.

And uh I think Mrs.

Fist, they usually come in kind of at the last moment, don't they?

Yes, yes, they're gonna come in on the data.

Okay.

Yes.

Oh, yeah, he'll have to get you the microphone.

Mayor Steele, I appreciate you being willing to hold this press conference and and provide some kind of update to us.

Um I'd be remiss to tell you I'm not disappointed by your comments.

I I don't think they are accurate.

Uh but I guess my question to you in charge from here is you've urged transparent communication.

That's that's a piece that we have also encouraged consistently for these last two and a half years.

We feel like it has not been a transparent process.

And and rather debate, you know, between you know what is accurate or what's not, what sort of firm commitments are you willing to make today in terms of this process moving forward?

Can you commit to no more private executive sessions with City Council?

Can you commit to community involvement?

Can you commit to getting certain council members or community members on a committee to transparently see these issues so that it's no longer a for lack of a better term, he said, she said, what kind of commitment are you willing to make today to make sure that happens?

Well, I've told you my preference is that all future negotiations occur during open city council meetings when all city council meeting members can be present.

I prefer that over a committee now.

Council members may prefer a committee.

I'm not ruling that out.

Uh I have no problem and and am I open to community members being involved?

That's why I am suggesting we do this at open meetings.

Anybody who has a a concern or a question can appear and offer their advice.

So absolutely.

Now you've asked about will I commit to no more closed sessions.

I can't do that, and I'll tell you why.

Sometimes we take up issues that it's in the best interest of the public not to know.

For instance, I'll just give you a for instance.

If we're going to buy as a city a piece of property, we may go into executive session to discuss a potential price.

If we just announce at an open meeting we're going to do that, well then the price of real estate is going to go way up in that area.

That's a for instance.

We're protecting the public's interest.

But my preference is if you think anything I have said is inaccurate, we'll take that up, preferably at an open meeting.

Preferably.

My second question is we've submitted a number of documents to the city, including a preliminary plat or rezone or redevelopment plan, a redevelopment contract with requests for this to be on council so that it can be public.

And today we received no feedback on that.

Can you advise on when those can be placed on council so that the public can provide input?

The council can provide input, and there could be transparency in what's being requested versus maybe what's the question.

I you know, as I said, we'll take it up on May 12.

I think you put in a request for tax increment financing too, right?

So the redevelopment plan, redevelopment contract, preliminary plat, rezone, those can all be placed on the city council meeting for the 12th to be considered.

I don't think the tax increment financing request will be because the council, the city council hasn't resolved the ownership of the land yet.

You need to be an owner before you apply.

So I I don't I don't think we can stage it that way.

I'm not saying that to delay things.

I'm just saying there's a natural order.

I want to take up with Sonia's proposal to develop the good life district.

And keep in mind everybody here.

So the request we do, we jam this all into one meeting and we just decide everything in one night.

I don't think it's feasible.

I don't think that's wise.

This is a project that will last for 30 years.

We need to take the steps incrementally to make sure we're getting it right.

But be ready to go on May 12th.

Yes.

Spencer, thank you.

I think the elephant in the room was something that Kerry had mentioned, and what is in the paper is who where does the funding go to?

If Kerry mentioned that the city will get some of it, some of it will go to the Watsonia.

But if you had in the paper, the state senators mentioned that it follows the applicant.

And I don't know if the community is willing to risk if we can't get these two parties together, what happens then?

And I'm afraid what's going to happen then is just exactly what the state senators and governors say as hearsay is they're gonna kill our project.

So why are we risking this?

What why are we going forward with the RFP when we should rescind that?

Sit down, get the community uh uh committee together, figure this thing out, and then let's move forward.

But uh, like I said, the elephant in the room is where that funding is going, because there's a huge disconnect between where the state senators and their intent and their legal interpretation versus ours.

And I think that would be the first thing that needs to happen and like tomorrow, and we send the RFPs because that just seems to kind of divide where the negotiations are going right now.

Well, the money, I mean, the money right now is going to the city in accordance with state law.

I can't comment, and that's correct, Mrs.

Fisk.

I can't comment on things state senators say.

We have to follow the language in the statutes they passed.

And as Mrs.

Fisk said, if you are an owner of property in a good life district, then some of the money can, I guess, flowed to the owner.

But otherwise, the money comes to the city and Mrs.

Fisk, I probably just gave legal advice and I shouldn't go there, but I'd like you to clarify for us, please.

Some of the difficulty for us is I don't know exactly what information Senator Von Gillern had when he was exactly what question he was answering.

Um the implication, at least from the news stories, was that there was a claim the city was trying to take Woodsonia's status as the applicant, which is just not legally possible, nor anything the city has ever attempted to do or could do.

The only uh individuals who can transfer applicant status are the applicants themselves.

So to the extent he was answering a question about whether the city can steal the applicant status, he would be very correct.

That is not something we can do, nor would ever uh would ever do.

As to the rest of the opinion about the revenue, uh, my guess is there is probably just a difference in facts or questions there that I can't speculate as to why he answered the way he answered.

Um the statutes are relatively clear about where the revenue goes, who controls what components of the revenue, and the city will remain committed to following the requirements of the law throughout this whole uh distribution of this program.

It is a relatively restricted fund by statute and by city code, and we'll continue to make sure we spend it in accordance to the loss that we don't jeopardize that uh revenue stream going forward.

Yeah, we are we are responsible for making sure the money is spent according to law, the city is anything else.

I thank you for your time.

Have a wonderful day.