Welcome to our meeting.

The date is July 14, 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 law.

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

Now I ask that we all rise and engage in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

And to the Republic for which it stands.

Under God.

Present.

Present.

Council Member Nickerson.

Present.

Councilmember Brown.

Present.

Councilmember Hossey.

Present.

Councilmember Mendoza present.

Councilmember O'Neill.

Present.

Councilmember Pollock will be absent.

Councilmember Lamfeer.

Present.

And Mayor Still.

Present.

Also present are Sonia Cisneros, the deputy city clerk.

Patrick Brown, the City Administrator.

Chelsea Steinkey, the Finance Director, 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.

As far as the consent agenda, Mr.

Nickerson, I understand you're polling six H and six P, is that correct?

Would council members like to remove any other consent agenda items?

Hearing none, we shall continue.

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

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

So we shall continue.

Is there a motion to approve it with the exception of six H and six P.

Mr.

O'Neill?

I move to approve the consent agenda with exceptions of six H and P.

Mr.

Brown.

Second that motion.

Any discussion.

Please vote.

Motion adopted.

Good evening, Mr.

Navity.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

If you will bear with me while I bring this up.

Pictures that we can talk about.

So Trinity Heights Fourth Subdivision is the north piece of the subdivision just north of Blessed Sacrament Church.

Council approved that subdivision about three, four years ago with a number of lots there.

The Mesners developed both sides of the street immediately to the west of Blessed Sacrament, and they are ready to move forward with developing 19th Street to the north of that.

This is the lots are exactly the same as they were originally platted.

They did come back in in the interim and replatt them into two single lots because they weren't ready to move forward with those.

So instead of having 29 lots there, they had two that they were paying property taxes on.

Now they'll go back to the 29.

So that's essentially what is going on here.

Cliff Mesner is here if there are any specific questions for him.

I think he did sign in on the sign-in sheet.

Planning commission did recommend approval of this, and this is the same as it was approved originally, just going back so that they're ready to do the next phase.

And Mr.

Messner, that is correct.

You'll speak if there's questions.

Yes.

Thank you, sir.

Mr.

Nickerson.

I make a motion we approve 2026-180.

Mr.

O'Neill.

I second that motion.

Discussion, Mr.

Nickerson.

Yeah, thank you, Chad, for presenting it tonight.

Mr.

Messner, thank you for being here.

First of all, I didn't know you'd be here, but now that you are, I just want to thank you for a beautiful development that you're doing out there.

Uh initially, that's not exactly what I thought was the best thing to fit there, but our good friend Ray O'Connor said that was probably a good way to you know develop that, and he was right.

It really is turned out to be a very nice development.

What I my question was is I as I looked at the next phase was I was under the impression that as we went around the corner, you were looking at single family homes, and I'm and it seems like has that changed, or was I always confused?

I thought part of was going to be duplexes, and it was gonna be single family.

Oh, they're all gonna be uh duplexes, but they're town homes for sale, so they'll be detached single.

Okay.

Um we have had very good success with that.

Actually, Ray and Chad and I went down to look at our project in uh in Hastings, and that's when we decided we were going to do the same thing here.

Um they're about 1450 square foot uh two-bedroom town homes, uh zero entry.

Um we may, and I guess I'd like your opinion on this.

We may actually um build part of them with basements.

We have not done that traditionally, but in Aurora we found that there were people who just simply wanted the basements in them.

So we may build basements on the west units and the others will be slab on grade, but they will be 1450 um square foot uh townhomes that are sold.

So they'll all be privately owned homes.

Basement would be sold undeveloped, I'm assuming.

Basement would be sold undeveloped, so that would keep the costs lower.

Yeah, but it still adds about $30,000.

And the people that are moving into these are seniors, and the zero entry is important, and to me, the basement is kind of contrary to that.

But boy, in aurora, you put a basement in if you want to sell it.

Um, and we haven't run into that other places, so does it make sense in your professional opinion to put basements on the west side and slab on grade on the east.

Well, for my real estate experience, people like their basements, especially in Nebraska with potential tornadoes.

And I also like what you've done on your others with a basically a tornado room there in the middle, which is super.

I'd never seen that before, although it's probably common, but I'd never seen that before.

We do that in most of those units.

In these units, what we've done is we've identified a place where we can put in a FEMA storm shelter.

But interestingly, everybody's everybody's excited to find out that's there, but we've never had anybody buy one.

So certainly Grand Island is aware that tornadoes do hit.

So but it's essentially the same project.

We had an unexpected death of a partner and a couple of people show up with cancer one day, and interest rates went from four percent to eight percent, and suddenly it just wasn't prudent to do it all at once.

So we just phased it in, but we've never changed what we intended to do.

Okay.

Well, the the town home thing, I guess, escaped me.

I I now vaguely remember that I think that's what there was going to be, but I was I for some reason I was envisioning single family homes, not the townhomes, but that would be consistent with the style that you have.

As I was looking at your plates there, it looks like on kind of the four corners of that big rectangular area.

You got some wider lots.

You've got the the ones on the end became just kind of uh on on the on the right side, we're just kind of what was left over.

On the left side, we intentionally left that longer because we thought the church might want to have an entrance to the parking lot from that side.

But Father Marty didn't seem excited about that.

In fact, he didn't think that was a good idea.

He wanted a walking track, but not a driving track in there.

So that's what we've left it with.

But that's why that extra bit of property is there.

We also we also were working to rearrange so that we didn't have garages across the street from each other.

As then the the streets worked out very better with uh people backing out.

And that was because the the city and the fire department asked us to do it that way.

Right.

Well, it's a beautiful project.

I I'm just enjoying how fast they build those is amazing.

I mean, it's just boom boom boom.

They're they're doing them all simultaneously and they're going up, and I'm sure that the people that are building those uh love the fact that they can be at that site for for weeks at a time, which is great.

My only final question there's such an elevation difference from the street on Trinity that drops down into that lower section.

How is that transition going to have to haul in a lot of dirt?

You're gonna go ahead and bring it up and that's that was part of the that's part of the problem and part of the ongoing cost is we're just gonna have to haul in a lot of dirt at this point, but it will all level out and slope down.

Okay, great project.

I was just confused on the town home part, and they're looking wonderful, and they're getting filled.

I think probably everyone's probably filled.

Yeah, the the two that are built are completely filled, and we have a waiting list of 80 people, so um those units have been very very well received in Grand Island.

Yeah, and can't beat having a grocery store right next to you either.

A pharmacy and banks and everything, banks and everything else.

No, you and Ray hit it right on the head there.

Great job, thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Uh Mr.

Lanfear wants to speak.

Maybe he has one.

All right, Chad, refresh my memory.

How much tip is he asking for?

Um, I do not remember, but that has already been approved for this.

So it was right at two million dollars.

It was less than two.

1.8 million.

Okay.

Please vote.

Hold on a second here.

Um is not working.

Yep, I got you.

Um, are you yes on that?

Motion adopted six P approving change order number two for rider park legion baseball field improvements.

Mr.

McCoy.

Thank you, Mayor.

So we have a current contract with Nemah Sports Construction of Lincoln, Nebraska to renovate the Ryder Park baseball field.

Um, mostly done.

Um, I I just wanted to give you a few images here.

Here's kind of a before and after of the entry gate.

Um this this tree was was uh kind of down limb at the time.

Here's the some of the white rock that went in before the turf.

So in the in the second picture there, you can see all the new turf.

Here's a close-up of the grandstand with the new bucket seats.

Of course, the uh press box has been painted.

Um new some new railings up top.

There's some new viewing areas on top of the uh grandstand there.

Um here's the the new view of the baseball field um of again full synthetic turf.

Um the this project was our this project currently is uh three million seven hundred and forty-six thousand one hundred twenty dollars and thirty-five cents it before you today is a change order.

Uh just kind of to finalize this project, honestly.

This is I think we're about at the end here.

Um this change order is for eighty-two thousand four hundred and fifty-five dollars.

Um approval tonight would uh increase the contract to three million eight hundred and twenty-three thousand five hundred and seventy-five dollars and thirty-five cents.

Um just miscellaneous.

There's I think there's 14 miscellaneous items, and I can kind of go through those if if council would like to one by one, or if they have specific questions, you have it in your packets.

Um otherwise, um, this was a private public partnership.

Um, there is a concession building, um concession building and bathroom uh still to be constructed, and that is all being done through the private funding.

And then also uh we as you may know, the uh the the fighting cranes baseball team, uh the Diamond League Baseball plays at the field now, and they would like to purchase a video board.

Um so hopefully that's still coming out at the end of the year.

So um anyway, it's kind of a finalized, it's a kind of a final item here to to get this uh project to the end.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

McCoy.

Mr.

Nickerson make a motion to approve 2026-188.

Mr.

O'Neill.

I second that motion, Mr.

Nickerson.

Thank you, Todd, for sharing with us.

I thought it was a good opportunity to share with the public exactly what's been going on out there.

I've been here, I hate to tell you this, 34 years and never been to Ryder Park until a couple of weeks ago.

And watched the five points baseball game.

They were playing Vemir, I think.

And it's just gorgeous.

I mean, that's a perfect picture from where I was sitting.

It looked exactly like that.

And it's it's a gorgeous park.

It was uh everything is new and pristine, and and you're talking about what we need to do to finish it up.

And the unique thing about this field that I've never even imagined is your dirt is fake.

Who ever heard of fake dirt before?

You've got fake dirt in that field.

And you know what?

Seems silly, but when it comes to consistent ball bounces, that's probably one of the best things that's out there is they can predict there's not many wild bounces from dirt or something that's got stirred up.

So watching the guys field the ball and everything, although that seems odd to me.

It's uh it's very effective, it appears.

So I think it's a great project.

Thought it was a good opportunity to share it with the public, and thank you.

Motion adopted 7a public hearing on request from Kem Kevin and Kimberlyn Peterson for a conditional use permit located at 2070 Engleman Road South to run an educational nonprofit as a private club, a private zoo.

Mr.

Nabity.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

If you could open the public hearing, um, Mr.

Peterson is here and would like to ask that the council continue the public hearing until the 28th, and we would just leave it open, but council would have to approve that continuation.

If that is his wish, he he can come forward and state it, but you just stated it for him.

But uh that's fine.

Hello, sir.

Hello.

Um, my name is Kevin Peterson, owner and operator at Pete Safari.

Um I was wanting to know if we could ask for a continuance um on uh permit.

Um I'm represented by Galen Stellick and he wasn't able to attend.

I think your request is very reasonable, and uh I think Mr.

Hossey probably has a motion in that regard.

Thank you, Mayor.

I move to approve the continuance to July 28th.

And Mr.

O'Neill.

I second that motion.

Any discussion?

Carrie real quick.

Um, Kerry, will that be a postponed is what I have an option to do?

Whatever you need to put in your computer will work fine.

This is about just making sure the public hearing gets moved without their need to re-provide public notice.

Okay, perfect.

Please vote.

Motion adopted.

Your matter has been continued, sir.

Thank you.

Mr.

Kurtz.

Good evening.

Um tonight, obviously, we're gonna talk about the one in six plan.

Um this will be part of the 2027 fiscal year budget.

Um we have to go through a couple different procedures with this um plan, but it's scheduled a little earlier than the rest of the uh budget items, so here we are.

So um 2026 projects as you can see in in your packet.

Uh these were the projects we had listed on this year's fiscal budget.

Um, most of them we've made progress on, a couple of them uh uh Platte Valley Industrial Park and the third street drainage improvements.

Um we didn't really make any progress on this year.

The third street drainage improvements uh proved to be a little bit more complicated than what we originally thought, and over our original budget.

Platte Valley Industrial Park is still being worked on uh with the NRD, but uh due to permitting with the the Corps of Engineers, that one's uh been delayed again.

So you'll see that project appear in the next year's budget as well, further on into the presentation.

Again, here's our forecast or our budget.

We're running a little under what we forecasted.

Um again, you can kind of go through uh the numbers.

Some of the projects weren't quite as far along as what we had anticipated, and but were we're making progress, and again, some of those will be carried into the next fiscal year.

This is uh 400 fund uh funded projects as well.

This is come way under as you'll know.

Um we haven't gotten as far on the wetland delineation again because of permitting and that'll be in fiscal 27 budget again.

Uh street facility.

We had left us as a placeholder in case some land uh proved to be uh advantageous for that project, uh, but we didn't we didn't find anything or we didn't see anything that would be suited for that project.

Um again the third street drainage, which I outlined before, and the Platte Valley Industrial Park, um, all of those uh are lagging from what we uh were projecting.

Um again, you can kind of see the breakdown, gas tax sales tax, and general fund.

So we'll go into the proposed projects for 2027.

Um annual curb ramp project.

This is something that we've been doing for years, and it will be uh going for years, but we pick out certain routes uh improve the curb ramps on intersections, uh proving to be ADA is accessible.

Again, this is probably a longer term thing.

You'll see it for years to come, but um we are we are slowly making progress on that.

The Broadwell UP grade separation over here, um just right down the street.

Again, we've made a lot of good progress on this.

This is uh a partnership with the state as well as uh uh UP Railroad.

Um so we are working on design at this point.

Um funding has progressed.

Uh again, this is our share of the funding projected for next year.

Uh this is an 80-20 project in which the city would pay 20%.

Um so it's a good deal as far as uh getting that infrastructure for the city cost.

As you guys know, it's under construction now.

We're not quite as far along as we would have hoped at this point.

But we are projecting this to go into next year.

The goal is to have the roadway completely opened before winter for the driving surface.

And there will still be some restoration, sidewalks, seating, all those kind of things that would happen next spring.

But the 2.5 that you see here would complete that project in the next fiscal year.

And here's kind of a map of that, which again everybody's pretty familiar with that.

State street improvements.

Again, we're making good progress on this.

Is coming along, should see some paving here within the next weeks.

Again, here's kind of an overview of the project.

I think most of you are aware of the situation out there and what we're working on.

Stalley Park Road again, good progress is being made.

We split it at the fauna entrance.

This portion that you see here in the 2027 budget will be the west or the east side of the project, excuse me, which will proceed after the state fair, which, as you guys know, is towards the end of the budget year, so we need to carry that into next year.

But we've we've made uh great progress.

Uh there's there's paving on the ground, we've got sewer pipe in the in the ground, and and uh and things are looking good on that.

Um75,000 for uh this is for a rate rail study that we uh went after federal funds on.

Uh it's to evaluate the safety of 17 uh crossings with the Burlington line uh through town and in the county, and as well as this will be the first steps in environmental studies for potential funding grant opportunities for the grade separation at Broadwell and uh BN.

And that study would be similar to the one that we completed at UP and Broadwell, allowing us to get federal funds.

So we're starting that slow process, but this is a piece to that, as well as again.

We've we've secured some funding to help with that process, so it's a it's a lot more um advantageous for the city uh in that regard as well.

Uh 13th Street improvements.

Um this is for a bulk of the the construction.

Um our goal is to have this out to bid this fall, yet design is pretty much done.

We need to acquire right away, uh, but things are moving good on that.

Um again, it's a similar project as what we've done up on State Street.

Uh, and there is not shown on here, but there is some improvements on the east side of the highway as well to extend some turn lane uh storage bays and different things like that to improve uh performance and add some turn lanes.

Um highway 281 intersection improvements again.

This was a safety project that we applied for uh with the state of Nebraska.

Um 80-20 split again uh on the consent agenda tonight was the first steps in that process for design and environmental issues that we need to look at, but this will improve intersections at state 13th, Fadley, Old Pot Ash, and the Highway 30 ramps.

Uh adding turn lanes and offsetting the left turn lanes on the highway so you can see past the opposing cars.

So that will be a very very good project.

Again, here's some kind of pictures.

Um3 uh signal.

Uh, this was mostly uh anticipated to be in this fiscal year 2026.

Uh it's taken a little longer than anticipated for design.

The signals themselves have a very long lead time, um probably 30 36 months at least, or 30 36 weeks at least.

So that is a good share of a year.

Um with this project and the 13th Street project that I talked about earlier, being in so close of proximity to each other.

Uh we feel we'll will gain efficiencies if we bid them out together, and having the same contractor doing the work.

Uh, we don't have overlapping construction zones and different things like that.

We can control it all a little bit better, help the contractor uh control that process as well.

So we're anticipating bidding these two as one project.

Uh that's why a bulk of this money is moving to the fiscal 2027 budget year.

So it's been designed.

We we know what we need to do.

These signals are um in need of replacement, they're structurally not the best.

So again, we're we're planning on bidding them together.

Sickmore street from 10th to Capitol, again, as you guys know, driving along this stretch of the road, pretty rough, poor condition in the pavement.

Uh we're anticipating bidding this out shortly after uh the budget is approved, hopefully awarded in October.

Um we have a couple different options that we're looking at, but ultimately the curb and gutter will stay, the driving surfaces will be improved, whether it be concrete or asphalt, and uh should be a lot better roadway.

Um, but again, this was this was anticipated to be in 2027 construction.

Um Fadley Avenue, again, this will be the next step of all of those deers and uh cross street intersection improvements, uh similar to 13th and state.

This is the design and or right-of-way acquisition for this project.

So we'll start working on that as well.

Uh we're also looking at designing.

I don't know if we'll build it all, but I would like to build it all.

But design of a five-lane section between 281 and Webb Road.

As all of you know, that is very congested in there.

Um backs up all the time.

We just we're needing more uh capacity, so I at least want to design it.

And again, whether we build it all at once or we phase it in.

We'll we'll we'll determine that in the 28th budget.

Um, but again, uh it's uh it's a project that is definitely uh one that's been uh needed for some time.

State street uh between Custer and Broadwell.

Again, part of this is reconstruction.

The stretch by the high school is very rough.

Uh we have some drainage issues that I'd like to improve.

Um pavement condition is not great, and then the the chunk from there uh to five points.

I'd like to widen out to three-lane section and prove that drainage and make that uh similar to the rest of the state street.

This is shown in the long range plan.

Again, something to keep in mind with all these projects were guided by our NPA long-range plan.

Um so a lot of thought and progression goes into all of these things.

Um this is uh a project that will look at designing for 2027 and then probably build in 2028.

Uh highway 281 resurfacing project.

This is a uh state project in which we are obligated to pay uh portion of the funds for this resurfacing work.

Again, it's uh in the the planning, it's in the MPO documents.

Um so uh we're we're looking to fund that east bypass.

Um this one.

I'm not sure on the timing of it.

I've heard that the state wants to proceed with it.

Uh with that being said, I I put it in the budget.

It is uh it is noted in the the state's uh build Nebraska Act.

Um so they have anticipation of doing this.

Um it's noted in our long-range transportation plan as well for the east side of town, whether it be grade separations or different projects.

We know we have capacity issues on the east side of town, um, and this would be our share of that project.

So again, the state would guide it, hire consultants, work through all those type of things, were just a partner in that, in which we would help fund that.

Again, this is kind of a little bit of a I don't want to call it a guess, but um, I'm anticipating that our share should be at this or less than this number.

So without all the details, I didn't want to not include it, but I did want to uh include a portion for it.

As noted, this is uh it's been talked about for some time, and so the majority of this project would focus on where it would go and what it would look like.

So it's not really that they're going to fund the construction at this time, it's more of a a study, a corridor uh observation.

Where do we put it at?

How does it fit?

What pieces do we need to build?

Whether it gets built all at once or in chunks, TBD, but um it's a good step.

I I think you know the county's excited about this, the city is excited about this.

I think the railroad uh has some good things to gain by this, both railroads.

Um, so it's a good good planning project.

Um, the wetland bank again.

We've gone through the core permitting.

Uh things are looking good on this.

Uh, I hope to bid it out soon.

There's uh multiple benefits to the city for this.

There's some detention properties, obviously, wetland groundwater recharge properties.

Uh, there's some potential revenue with this if we should choose to sell some of the wetland uh credits.

Uh so there's a lot of good things about this, but it's been a very long process to get to where we are.

Um, I've never been through that before, but uh we've been making good progress on that.

So I would anticipate hopefully a bid award coming this fall on this project.

Um, but again, a bulk of this project construction would be in fiscal 27.

Uh you guys have kind of seen it before, obviously, as well, because it's been a while.

Uh, cost share program for the sidewalks.

Again, this is an annual program that that we would uh continue, obviously.

Um it's mostly for residential areas that have sidewalk deficiencies.

People can apply for it, we'll pay for half of their project.

Um it's work good.

Um typically we don't get through all of these funds, even though they're available to anybody with a residential property.

Um, but good program uh and people have been using it for sure.

Stormwater modeling.

I again, this is kind of a placeholder.

We had it in last year's budget and the year before.

It's as needed.

It's something that if if we we see a problem that we want to investigate and potentially build into a project in the future, this helps us evaluate uh hydraulics of the system to see if there's anything that we can do.

Again, uh we've looked at different areas uh in town.

You can kind of see here uh some of the areas that we've modeled, and I'm just putting that in there to hold the place.

Uh this year we didn't use near the 75,000 we had budgeted, but some year we might.

I like having that little bit of a fluff on that uh just in case.

Uh Platt Valley Industrial Park, I think this will get bid this year.

Uh again, this is a project that we've been working with Hall County, the the NRD and the uh EDC on.

Uh this is gonna provide a drainage outlet to the the Platte Valley area uh again, a really good project, uh just a little more timely dealing with the the core of engineers on permitting on that street and fleet facility.

Um I think many of you were involved.

We did a study a couple years back, uh kind of showing uh the state of affairs on our street and fleet uh operation uh and their current yard.

Uh in a perfect world, you know, eventually we'd like to plan for the future, look at potential expansion or uh you know improvements of those facilities.

We're just showing this in the budget in case some land would come available.

Um I don't have any leads or anything like that at this time.

It's it's more of a placeholder of anything, should something come up.

Um capital outfill, uh drainage replacements.

We have very large culverts on portions of the uh outfall east of town, northeast of town.

Um, as you can see in this picture, it's not greatest, but you can kind of start to uh see at the bottom here all the rusting out of culverts, they're old metal pipes that are in need of replacement.

Uh we did work on this uh this year, in which we evaluated a lot of the culverts.

We went and looked at them, uh measured them, evaluated the conditions, prioritize, uh so I anticipate bidding out a couple of those replacements year after year just to um solidify that that operation.

It's very similar to what we do on wastewater in terms of sewer or manhole rehab.

Um the West Connector Trail.

Uh so this budget would allow for a I'm gonna call it a corridor study of sorts for the trail that would connect the West Connector Trail, which is to be built this coming year, which is the trail that goes from roughly old pot ash and north road out to the water tower, and connect that to the proposed trail system down at legacy 34.

And so with that, you can kind of see on this area map, somewhere in this red area-ish.

There needs to be a connector from this trail system up here down to the proposed trail system over here.

And as things develop and property gets more scarce, um, that becomes more difficult.

So my goal in this project would be to evaluate a route, get a good cost estimate for that route, and those items can be used to potentially look at grant applications for funding.

Um we we did receive grant funds for the for the West Connector Trail out to the water tower.

I believe this segment connecting these two systems, there will be a very large benefit to those.

Um I think that it's a pretty easy sell to say that you know there's transportation benefits, there's recreation benefits, uh, there's a lot of good things that we can look at for funding if we have a corridor and cost estimate.

So we need to go through that process, and that would be the goal of this of this project.

Um, just to kind of get ahead of it.

Um, I'm not saying it's gonna happen overnight.

I I don't know how the construction itself could be funded, but until we have a solution for the problem, it's pretty hard to apply for those kind of things.

So I think the need is there.

I think I think uh the public uh wants to see this happen.

I think that there's a lot of benefits, so we we just have to start somewhere.

So that's what we're anticipating with that.

Umores Creek Drain Extension again.

This is a little portion of the tributary off of Moores Creek here with the new highway system, and this kind of lines up with that project that I just talked about.

That trail would probably run along this tributary.

There is a undercrossing that was put in under the highway here for the bike trail.

Uh, that it also adds as a it acts as a uh drainage overflow as well.

So there's culverts under the highway here for this drainway as well.

This will help drain the south side of the new highway, provide drainage over here, and the trail system.

It'll kind of fits together.

So that would be the anticipation for this project.

Uh so that would include some right-away and some construction cost for that.

Um last item, South Ocus Trail.

Again, uh, and talking with admin, uh we decided to put this in our budget.

Um at this point, I'm gonna call it more uh somewhat of a placeholder.

I think it's dependent upon whether uh the land sale goes through to the state for the state park, and or with all of your approval, uh, you know, then this project could go forward.

But we wanted to include the authority should those things fall into place.

This project is 95% designed, uh, so it's ready to go.

Uh we have to acquire the right-of-way, and it's pretty much ready to bid.

Um, so we can move pretty fast on this should it be needed.

Um, but again, we wanted to include it in our in our project list uh so that we could uh proceed should it should it be required.

So again, here's kind of an overview of all the projects I've talked about for the 20 uh 27 budget year, uh roughly 16 million dollars.

Um we're proposing uh a 9.5 million dollars in general fund, 400 uh expenditures again.

Some of these are such as the trail, which is a big one, and the stream fleet facility uh land are somewhat of a placeholder.

Um those are pending a lot of different uh triggers uh to to make those things happen.

Again, here's kind of the the uh summary of the of those uh items.

The the Kerbrand project is uh a federally mandated project again, which we we have a plan for, it's a long-term plan, uh some of its federal funds, uh DOT safety projects, and uh again uh we have the partnership with the NRD as well.

So you can kind of see overall uh this is where uh the funding comes from for the different sources for the 210.

Um cash balance is similar to what we ended 2020 or projected to end 2026 with.

Here's kind of an outline of the projects that would be committed with this budget that we're looking at.

Um carry over projects to see these through, and then a 2028 to 32 outlook.

This is something that I haven't really shown in the past, but these funds aren't committed with this 2027 budget, but kind of showing you where where we're going in in the future.

Um just kind of an outlook for the next five years beyond.

Um pavement condition survey, we have to do that every three years.

Uh that's federally mandated.

We'll have to do that in 28.

Um corridor study, uh, once all the projects along 281 and uh that whole corridor out there.

Uh right now we're kind of looking at potentially studying that whole corridor, retiming all the signals again, improving traffic flow.

That could be projected in 30.

We'll see how things go and how the projects fall in line.

Um in 2028, we would look to start design on Capital Avenue from Broadwell to St.

Paul Road.

Uh, this would be a widening uh project again.

This telling us that that's a high priority project.

We're looking at a Broadwell connector from Broadwell and Anna down to Fawner Park Road.

Um so that's been talked about.

That's a critical project once the grade separation uh over Broadwell is done on uh the UP line.

Uh highway 30 in town, that's kind of a longer term project with the state.

Uh Capital Avenue St.

Paul to Sky Park Road, that's the next phase of the Capital Avenue project they talked about above.

Um potentially looking at Manchester Manfield area uh by Englishman School, widening that road to a concrete section, and uh Claude Road uh from Old Pot Ash to uh Highway 30, widening that uh Westgate Road as well, just because of the way the highway was modified with the state project.

Uh the traffic patterns have changed or will change a little bit, and uh to improve some of those asphalt roads that don't really drain very well.

Uh it says some concrete curb and gutter with turn lanes uh that's anticipated uh in the future as well.

So again, this is just kind of a preview.

Things are definitely always changing a little bit, but these are things that you guys can kind of say, hey, you know, this is kind of what we're looking at in the future.

Uh again, these would be proposed in future years.

I just wanted to show that uh just to let you know that you know there is there is some planning and obviously a roadmap to this as well.

So that concludes that.

Very good, Mr.

Kurtz.

Thank you.

Is there anyone who'd like to speak on this item?

If not, public hearing public hearing is now closed.

Do you have a motion?

Ryan first.

I I move we approve 2026-190.

I second the motion.

Mr.

Nickerson.

Ryan, that is a lot of inform.

I mean, Ryan.

Keith, that is a lot of information.

So I'm impressed with how you and your staff manage all of this.

I don't, I mean, I can't even imagine what it's like to stay on top of it, but you do and you do it well.

One of the projects you talked about was the Sycamore 10th to Capital, and you talked that it that you weren't sure whether we're going to look at asphalt or concrete.

I'm I drive that a lot, at least up to 18th Street.

So I'm kind of curious what what do you go through to determine which do you think is better for that long term.

So ultimately, we are going to bid three different options.

Again, the plans for this are pretty much done.

We're just waiting for budget approval uh before we bid it out.

Umriosity, some of it is we haven't tried it before, all combined into whatever.

Uh I wanted to try three different options.

So one of them is concrete.

Uh one of them would be an asphalt surface uh in which we can mill and fill easily with a concrete sub-base.

And uh third option is a kind of a variable of that, which would replace the uh subgrade of the parking lane with asphalt versus concrete.

I don't know where the bids are gonna fall.

We'll see.

Um the thing I like about the asphalt option is we can mill and fill it.

We have a nice smooth driving surface every 10 years.

Concrete might last longer, it's gonna cost more up.

Well, they're probably all gonna cost about the same up front, but it'll be rougher as time goes on.

And then once it's done, we'll either patch some of it or we'll rip it out and we'll replace it like we are now.

So we're experimenting with the cost and the benefit, so to speak, on that.

So we're looking at options.

We'll bid three three different alternatives.

Okay, so it'd be a lot like wheeler is now because wheeler's getting a lot of asphalt on it.

Wheeler or even sycamore from here, 10th street back into town is asphalt.

And so again, it would be consistent all the way.

It's just a matter of where the where the numbers come in, and we'll need to run some cost benefit on it to decide whether it's worth it to to do it every 10 years and get that fresh surface, or whether we go with concrete and it lasts longer, but our maintenance options are a little limited on that, if that makes sense.

Yep.

That sounds like well, you know, it gets a lot of traffic, so it'd be a good test to see how the option is.

That's why I wanted to do it this way, is just to test and see where the numbers come in at.

That'll be interesting.

Then I saw that you had a state custard to Broadwell, kind of a big project because uh drainage was one of the things you had listed on there well as well.

And we in our last big rains that we've had where it was, I don't know if it was an inch, and then we had a gap of an hour or two before the next wave.

That area was just flooded across from the the tennis courts, and I remember I don't know if I sent you an email or picture, but for that short period of time, and I don't know if it's lack of gutter drain management where you know they get plugged up and everything gets backed up, or if it's just something there's just not quite right.

But it I drive that road quite often too, and it seems like after rains, they don't have to be that significant.

The water that's going across toward that tennis court is just deeper than what you'd think it should be.

Yeah, so there's a couple things probably that we need to look at.

Obviously, in a high intensity event, those those inlets can only handle so much water.

So the short term, you're gonna have a localized flooding.

It just is what it is.

Anything over probably a 20-year event, you're gonna see that.

Um I think on this section, there's probably some improvements that can be made, but again, we're only able to do what we can do without looking too far downstream.

So I know I have capacity in the in the Broadwell section, there's a big pipe in there, actually, a big huge arch brick structure.

I think we have a little capacity in the custer system.

Um, so it's just a matter of where that goes.

And so our intent would be to improve the driving surface as well as why we have all that tore up if we need to look at some pipes, either one or both directions to help that, or maybe some extra inlets.

Um those things would be evaluated when we design it.

So again, I I know where you're speaking of right, pretty much where we have this picture at.

Pretty close.

It's a low area by nature, I think, too, so that's probably not helping us.

So we'll look at all that when we get into the design.

Okay.

And then there's one other question that has nothing to do with this, except maybe it's something you can put in when you're talking about traffic signals.

Some of these that have the pedestrian, you know, the white pedestrian says that you can start crossing and all this stuff.

What would it take to have some of those with countdowns to where you know when the light is about to change?

Is that an expensive upgrade to put?

Honestly, I don't know.

Um, I will say that there's probably some benefits to that.

There's probably some other negatives to that too, because I think some people will see those countdown signals, like they see the signals uh that flash when they are driving down the highway, and they say uh when flashing stop or be prepared to stop.

And oftentimes I think we see people actually speed up when they see those flashing uh advanced warning signals.

So it's something that we've kind of talked about a little internally, but we haven't really decided to go full in on yet.

I know some communities do, some don't.

Um, so I I don't know.

Uh the other thing that would come into play is whether our signal controllers can operate that.

So you have to change the heads themselves, but then I also need the ability in the computer to control all that.

And some of the newer ones I'm pretty sure probably are able to do that.

Some of our older ones, I can't speak to that.

They probably won't.

Some of our older ones won't even do the flashing yellow, which we're doing on a lot of the newer signals as well for the left turn.

So again, it's a technology thing that we would have to evaluate.

Well, there are some intersections in town, I think it could be beneficial.

One of those would be crossing 281 there at state.

I spend way too much time at Wendy's there, and I watch people sometimes when I try to cross, and you really don't know when the light's going to change.

You're you're in progress there, and it seems to me like that would be a great place to experiment with it.

And you know, you got you don't have that many seconds to start with, but people still cross the street.

I see them do it.

I've done it myself several times.

And uh just be nice to know there's something, at least you got an idea of okay, when is this thing?

When's this traffic gonna start flowing?

Because you you're at the mercy of the drivers to wait on you, which they do, but you're gonna get the one that doesn't.

Yeah.

So just one of those other things toss out there for you to think about one of these tools.

We'll we'll take that into consideration.

Very good.

Thank you, sir.

Mr.

Hawsey.

Thank you, Mayor.

Keith, thank you for your presentation.

That's a lot of stuff to cover, and I appreciate your breadth of knowledge of everything that we were talking about.

So that always helps me be able to explain different things as well.

I'm glad to see the South Locust Trail in for our 20 FY27 budget discussions.

Uh, I think it's gonna become the trail to everywhere eventually.

You know, so I'm glad to see the discussions coming, you know, on that one.

Uh on your stormwater modeling, um, there's an area on the 3,000 block of Orleans.

Again, it's the same thing on the stormwater when it comes, it not only fills the street, goes over the curb and goes halfway up to the houses, and it's been going on for a decade, but it 24 hours later it'll be gone.

But it's a it's an immediate challenge for people that live on Orleans, and so in your modeling, if you could look at that neighborhood.

But other than that, I appreciate your presentation, Keith.

Mr.

O'Neill.

Thanks, Keith.

Uh so good planning should always reduce surprises, not really create them.

And uh it sounds like you do a lot to kind of optimize your sequencing of some of the jobs that you're doing.

Uh so anytime you have something, you're you're always trying to do work in the right order to help save costs, basically.

It looks like you have a lot of examples here of that again.

Um I always appreciate seeing that whenever you can do it.

Um I just want to add on what Chuck had too.

You mentioned Camp Augustine, which overall I think would be nice to do too.

I think logically, uh, it might make a little more sense to wait until it's officially sold to the state until we try and tackle that one, but I think it's good to have it on the radar as well.

But I think you have a lot of good projects out there, and the point is I think you're just trying hard to address what makes the most critical needs now and get us uh plan well out in the future for a few more years, too.

So it takes several years to get some of these things done, and uh the funding can take several years to really correct.

So thank you.

Mr.

Stelk.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um I I too am impressed with your report.

Uh I can tell you've done a lot of planning and taken a lot of thought into it.

I have two suggestions.

One is on the north uh bypass.

I'd I'd like to have you look at Columbus has a north radio bypass where the new hospital is located, and it's a kind of a four-way highway to the north part of town.

It's just a way to move traffic from east highway 30 up to 81 that goes up north to Norfolk, and it's a real good project.

Uh, and traffic moves really smoothly there.

I'd also like to have you look at South Webb Road.

There's a lot of traffic diverting off of 281 to take the Webb Road because 281 is so busy.

I'd like to see the Webb Road widen to a four-lane between maybe Stalley Park or 281 up to highway 30.

Uh consider that there's kind of a bottleneck now where there's a lot of people coming off.

You have a couple plants south of town, you got New Holland plant, people are going north, and so with all the busy traffic on 281, they're kind of just going up Webb Road is what I experienced.

So I uh that's just my thought.

Uh just throwing those out as suggestions for you.

So to that point, we have I did have uh that intersection counted, and we're evaluating whether we should improve the the signal phasing at Webb and Stolly uh to give a protected left.

Uh we're looking at that now.

I I don't have the results from that, uh, but that could potentially help the operation of that that intersection.

So we are looking at that right now.

Which again, if if we see that we need to improve that, uh obviously I'll come back next year and say, hey, we need to do this, but we have to start by figuring out what the problem is.

So we are looking at that a little bit, yes.

And one thing now that some people aren't hesitant or are aren't considered thinking thinking about a lot of our uh medical field is going down to the southwest part of town, and so now we have traffic trying to go that way, and I do.

I have appointments there at the hospital, and how do I get from downtown easily without having a 15-minute drive south just to go five miles?

And so that's something that maybe we need to consider for the future is I think our traffic patterns are gonna change with the big medical center building down there.

We'll get locusts done, and then you can go down locust and then go on highway 34 and you'll be right there.

That's the way I go now.

Well, yeah, but it's a mess right now.

I'll admit that because it's all tore up.

But yeah, we'll we'll definitely look at those things.

Right now, you just zigzag around, yeah.

Thank you.

Please vote.

Approving fiscal year 2026 to 2027.

Annual budget for rail side business improvement district and setting date for board of equalization.

Ms.

Steinkey.

Mayor.

On August 14th, 2018, the City Council adopted ordinance number 9700, creating the railside business improvement district.

The creating ordinance requires that a proposed budget for the district be approved by the BID board and forwarded to the City Council for consideration.

On June 10th, 2026, the railside BID board met and approved the 2627 budget that provides for a total special assessment of 156,022 and 53 cents.

This is an increase of 3%.

Owners will be billed for the assessment after the approval by the city council sitting as the board of equalization of September 8th, 2026.

Notices will be published in the Grand Island Independent on July 30th, August 6th, and August 13th.

Copies of the notice will also be mailed to property owners after the first publication via the method required by state law.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Steinkey.

Mr.

O'Neill.

I move we approve 2026-191.

Discussion.

Please vote.

Motion adopted.

Resolution 8B.

Approving fiscal year 2026 to 2027 annual budget for South Locust Business Improvement District and setting date for Board of Equalization.

Ms.

Steinkey.

Thank you.

On February 14th, 2017, the City Council adopted ordinance number 9623, creating the South Locust Business Improvement District.

The created ordinance requires that a proposed budget for the district be approved by the BID board and forwarded to the City Council for consideration.

Assessments are paid by property owners based on the front footage of the property.

Owners are billed for the assessment after the approval by City Council sitting as the board of equalization on September 8th, 2026.

Notices will be published in the Grand Island Independent on July 30th, August 6th, and August 13th.

Copies of the notice will also be mailed to property owners after the first publication via the method required by state law.

And the bid the BID pays the city a fee of 1,800 for accounting services.

Thank you.

Thank you.

A motion is an order, Council.

Mr.

O'Neill.

I move we approve 2026-192.

Mr.

Brown.

I second that motion.

Any discussion.

Please vote.

Motion adopted.

HC.

Approving fiscal year 2026 to 2027.

Annual budget for 4th Street Business Improvement District and setting date for Board of Equalization.

Ms.

Steinke.

On September 12th, 2023, the City Council adopted ordinance number 9941, creating the Fourth Street Business Improvement District.

The created ordinance requires that a proposed budget for the district be approved by the BID board and forwarded to the City Council for consideration.

The 2627 budget provides for a total special assessment of 40,000.

Assessments are paid by property owners based on the county assessor's valuation of the property.

Owners will be billed for the assessment after approval by City Council sitting as the board of equalization on September 8th, 2026.

Notices will be published in the Grand Island Independent on July 30th, August 6th, and August 13th.

Copies of the notice will also be mailed by two property owners after the first publication via the uh method required by state law, and the BID pays the city a fee of 2,200 for accounting services.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Steinkey.

Mr.

O'Neill.

I move we approve 2026-193.

And Mr.

Brown.

Second that motion.

Any dismr.

Nickerson has discussion.

Rashad, I'm assuming you're here representing the BID, or you just here for fun.

You're not going to get away back there, buddy.

I saw you.

Had a few questions for you.

I know this is is this year three or four already?

This will be going on in year four.

Can't imagine.

I mean, it's just hard to believe it's already run our fourth year, but forty thousand dollars again, and we've seen improvements there with a lot of things that have been going on.

What's on the menu for this fiscal year?

Any projects they've identified so far that you remember that stand out?

Um I know that the board has talked about the possibility of having banners, whether that's branding for the district or something that deals with um the historical nature of the district.

Um I do know that at some point um the board and the CRA will sit down together and have a discussion about a piece of property that's that's available on Fourth Street to possibly develop for a community space.

Sounds like an exciting thing.

We'll see some good things continue at uh fourth street.

I'm trying to think if I had any other questions for you.

That was that was one of the main things, but appreciate the work you're doing.

Oh, the other question is what do you how are you feeling about the sense of what do I want to call it here of success so far that you're seeing from people, the BID members, the uh the meetings that you're attending.

Are you are you sensing that things are still on a positive note there?

I know that the board the board members are still positive about it.

Um they have had some some good reactions um about I guess you know the newspaper article about the property um of the possibility of the community space.

Um I have I haven't personally have any any negative um comments stated to me, um, but I cannot speak for for the board members.

Right, right.

Okay.

Well, thank you for your input on that.

I'm always curious how things are progressing and keep up the good work.

Thank you.

Take care.

Sorry, please vote.

Motion adopted 9A, other items.

Presentation by Kent Seacrest on behalf of Woodsonia Real Estate Inc.

of Woodsonia's response and feedback to the Good Life District Agreement as authorized by resolution 2026-177.

Mr.

Seacrest.

Thank you, Mayor.

Good evening, council members.

It's nice to be back to bring you up to speed on all the things that have happened since our June 2nd gathering.

Uh for those that care, the National League is uh losing zero to three against the American League in the All-Star game in the third inning.

So I know you guys miss a lot of sports when you have these council meetings as well as other things with your family.

So we do appreciate that time away.

Uh Drew Snyder and Mitch Holan are also here with this Wusonia team to have answer any questions you might have later after I make some opening comments and remarks, and also be sure that I don't uh keeps me out of trouble along the way.

Uh we're excited to be here and look forward to trying to take what the good meeting we had on June 2nd and keep building on that momentum.

Uh I think to say it simply uh you didn't see me much before June 2nd, and I gotta thank the Wisonia team for their creativity to try to restart.

It was a restart moment, and you can talk to me and others about the past, but uh you're gonna either see me not understand it or not maybe even care because we want to build off of a simpler framework, which we shared with you on June 2nd.

Brief interruption, Mr.

Seacrest.

Would you stand a little more toward the middle of the podium so the microphones pick you up better?

Okay, be glad to do that.

I just hope I can see my notes when I do that, Mayor.

We have been busy.

Your staff has been busy, and we have been busy since the June 2nd meeting.

Our team has put together an updated draft of the redevelopment agreement and submitted that on June 29th.

We have submitted to the staff three different timelines on three different parts of the project, the Aquatic Center and the sports complex and the grading and infrastructure, and we gave a fiscal timeline as well to the city staff.

We reviewed your resolution that you passed and the mayor signed.

We did not feel it was complete, so we did not accept it in time that we were asked to accept it by, but we don't see that as a critical problem because we think we can improve it, and we want to specifically talk to you tonight about that resolution and try to get that uh in final form the best we can to go forward.

We did send red lines, detailed red lines on the resolution.

We also did the same on the Good Life District draft that your staff sent us.

We sent a complete set of suggested red lines to try to bring the agreement more in balance and more specifically to be sure it was consistent with the June 2nd memorandum we shared with you along the way.

We also have drafted a ground lease, because if you remember, we talked about on June 2nd.

There's the developer prop developer property that was stayed developer, but there's some city property that you're leasing to us in a very short-term lease, so we can do the work of the aquatic center and the sports complex.

And so we went ahead and drafted that for your team to take a look at and review accordingly.

Your team sent to us, we redlined and sent back, and we thought those would be in your council's packet tonight, but apparently they were not.

And maybe what I would just simply say is this whole process of negotiating is novel and new and non-traditional.

And as a result of that process, uh we're learning.

I've not in 45 years had this type of process, and I'm sure your staff can say the same thing.

They've not had this type of process.

And so we probably experienced a couple bumps in the road during the last couple weeks uh to go forward.

For example, we responded fully with the red lines, and apparently you're not seeing those yet, uh, but I know you will.

Uh and then the thought was by the mayor and others that we should be able to come and give you a written outline of the differences between your first draft and our second draft.

And we were told the deadline to get that in your packet was in 24 hours, and I was at as I had warned you was on vacation, and so we didn't get that done in 24 hours.

Uh, we do have that cheater sheet or summary, as I'll call it, of those differences, but I don't think the city attorney wants me to hand them out because we're not following maybe the proper process to do that.

So we had that little bump in the road, and then we were hoping before tonight that we interpreted on June 2nd that you wanted Mike Rogers and I to kind of go off in the room and work on the documents and be able to come back and say this is where we're agreeing, and this is where we're disagreeing, and that would then give you the council the opportunity to give feedback on how to resolve any differences along the way.

Uh anyway, during the last period of time, in fact, Mike just came back from a long trip last night at whatever 7.30.

So he and I did not do our initial pre-review process that we were hoping to do uh along the way.

So the process of this has we're committed to do as best we can, but it's non-traditional, and please take a little patience with us as we learn how to do it, because it's not something we do on a daily uh basis along the way.

Um basically um we are committed to this public-private partnership, but you have to understand that when we do that, it's a big project, and even though we simplified it, it still has many, many component parts and complexities uh because of its size, and because it's a public-private partnership, it involves risk on both sides.

I wish I could give you a non-risky deal.

I would like my class not to have a non-risky deal.

But when we're talking of magnitude of this size with the economy, we don't neither side controls that there's just some risk that we have to manage together, but we're excited to figure that out.

Um so we do have a list.

I can sit here and read it to you.

Uh we have 30 copies, I think, so we have I think enough for everybody in the room.

If but I don't know again if I should hand it out or read it to you.

I think that's the council's decision, but maybe the city attorney might want to comment.

If you don't want me, if I shouldn't hand it out, then I gotta read it to you in order to fulfill the mayor's wishes that I would come in with uh a summary list uh tonight.

I think for informational purposes, it needs to be said that uh you and Carrie Fisk, Matthew Boyle, and Mike Rogers did not meet until just a couple hours before this meeting.

So you have not had much of a time much time to get feedback, and they haven't had much time to get feedback from you.

I I uh I don't, you know, it's up to you, it's up to your client.

I don't want to put you and your client in a bad position by having to address the council uh without having spent much time with our administrative team at all.

If if you'd like to proceed, you are certainly welcome, but if you think it's best that this be uh postponed, you're welcome to do that.

But I thought it's important to mention that you didn't have a chance to meet with our administrative team until late this afternoon.

And mayor, I we we appreciate that offer very much.

Uh and that's part of the interesting confusion and opportunities on a new process because we really didn't think we were supposed to meet.

You know, you were taking the responsibility of for the negotiation.

I'd like to clarify your your client, your client a while back asked to negotiate directly with the city council.

I never interpreted that to mean that you could not talk to Mike Rogers or Kerry Fisk.

Yeah, it was they had asked that they be allowed to address to directly address the council.

But I I did I did not interpret that to mean that for instance you and Carrie Fisk or Mike Rogers can't talk to each other.

Well, uh thank you.

I we will take that uh we like your interpretation, let's put it that way, and we will do that.

But as you pointed out, two hours before tonight was the first time we had that opportunity, and but I still think um we could go forward with the list if you want to yeah, I'm thanks Kent.

Um yeah, we we talked a little bit before the meeting.

Um good to see everyone again about I agree with Kent.

This is a very unconventional process, so um it's hard to know exactly what to move forward on.

One of the things we talked to Kent a little bit about tonight, and it's not overly extensive.

We could address the purchase contract.

I think that would be a really great step.

That would be a great first step.

Um there's you know, in our little cheat sheet that Kent mentioned, there's four there's about six or seven things to talk about.

So I mean, and if the council agrees, I think we should just talk about it.

We're here.

That would be a great document to try to make sure we're aligned on, get direction.

Um, if we can get direction tonight, that'd be great.

Then the attorneys can go back, they can work on drafting, get this thing in final form and knock that out.

So I mean, I think this thing, somebody said at one of the previous council meetings, you take down an elephant, you know, one bite at a time.

Maybe that was you, Chuck.

So I think that's a great analogy.

So if everybody's okay with that, I I'm happy to turn it over to Kent, and we can talk through these purchase contract items.

Um staff may or may not want to respond to these.

I don't know.

Um I don't want to certainly put anybody on the spot.

Um, but I think there's a lot of logic.

We want to provide some background and description on why we made some of the changes that we did to the purchase contract.

So I'm gonna interrupt you interrupt you briefly because uh Mrs.

Fisk put her light on.

Mayor and Mayor and Council, all that is noticed on the agenda is addressing resolution 2026-177, the real estate purchase offer, which expired about a week ago, has not been noticed under the open meetings act and would have to be placed on a future agenda for consideration uh to avoid uh violation of that act.

Okay.

Well I I don't mean to frustrate you tonight.

I just don't know since we we can't talk about the purchase contract because we didn't we didn't notice it as an agenda item.

Uh I so again I'll I'll leave it to you if if there's other things you want to discuss, you're absolutely welcome.

If there if you think it's best that you regroup with the administrative team, you're welcome to do that.

To me, then I we we should talk about process of how how do you how do you want to move the ball forward here?

I think that's where I think the best way to move the ball forward is we uh we were a little frustrated on our side that after we got your proposed changes, I believe that was June 29, I think, that then we didn't have any face-to-face with Mr.

Seacrest until late this afternoon.

So I think it would be better, and it's just my opinion.

I'm not gonna force my opinion on you.

I think it'd be better if the if Mr.

Seacrest could get together with the administrative team.

Uh rather than just having the very brief meeting they had late this afternoon, because you can bring up things, but obviously our team would have to go back and analyze those.

And it might be easier if Mr.

Seacrest was talking to them at the time rather than just putting out ideas, and then we have to go analyze them.

But again, this this is your time to present.

I'm just I'm just trying to think through the complexity of we didn't hear from Mr.

Seacrest, and I'm not blaming him.

We just didn't hear from him until late this afternoon.

And that just probably puts us and Mr.

Seacrest in kind of a difficult position.

We just to fill in some of the blanks, Mary, you've mentioned, and your summary is a good one.

Uh we sent one draft back on July, I think, 2nd.

Uh, and then the other draft back on July 6th and the timelines on July 2nd.

So we've we've sent them at different times.

And in that Mike, when he got his version of the first draft, I think said, let's have the attorneys meet and make a long story short, given people's schedules that this afternoon was the first window we actually could get uh the the the group together.

So it wasn't nobody's fault.

Uh just we needed the key people and we couldn't get them until this afternoon.

Uh I think given Mayor, your new proposal, my clients might you know we really think the resolution, the purchase resolution is is really the logical first step.

And we could go over those points at least so you know them.

The staff has to respond tonight.

If you know you've been very careful about being sure we're transparent with everything.

But I I need to clarify though, the the city attorney is saying in our agenda, we did not notice a discussion of the real estate purchase agreement.

So I you allowed us to give and again, if if that's the opinion, we're gonna stick with that opinion.

Well, I need to know if that's the is that the presentation and if we make a presentation on we've talked already quite a bit, but if we talk about the real estate resolution differences, we think that's the key first step because we gotta get the tax increment financing going and under the city's rules, uh, we're not the applicant because we don't have a real estate interest.

So getting that real estate thing done gives us the real estate interest to then apply to the CRA.

And that that's gonna be the longest uh process.

Mrs.

Fisk, do we run a foul of the open meetings act by discussing the real estate purchase when we did not notice that?

Yes, Mayor, the uh text of the open meetings act notes specifically that all subjects known at the time of publicized notice or statement on the agenda have to be kept continuously current and have to be sufficiently descriptive to give the public reasonable notice of the matters to be considered at each at the meeting.

The only item that was noticed was resolution 2026-177, resolution 2026-176 was not noticed uh in any capacity for today's meeting.

And I think that I think this points to the problem, and I'm not blaming anybody, but you and our team didn't get together until late this afternoon, well past our timeline to notice anything.

Mr.

Nickerson.

First of all, everybody deserves a vacation.

So, Mr.

Seacrest, I'm glad you got one.

Everybody deserves to go on a long tris trip.

So, Mr.

Rogers, I hope you had a good trip.

And that's part of the problem with what we're trying to do here and the muddiness of this.

But what we what we have to get clear, it's very important, and Carrie has to be part of this, and then you guys have to be part of this.

What what we have is timelines that are very strict.

That's not your doing, it's the law.

So we talk about the law and what has to be done.

So I need Carrie tonight to be specifically clear of what's required when things need to be turned in, and then the the onus come becomes on you.

Unfortunately, you're the one that has to respond to meet those timelines.

And if you miss that by a day, you miss it.

You don't get to go back and have doovers.

So Kerry needs to make sure that we clearly understand what those rules are.

And what's happened so many times is we haven't followed the rules because you may not know the rules, you may not understand the rules until after the timeline's passed.

That ain't gonna work, and it's not working.

And it's it's just a matter of it's not it's not one of these things that we say, okay.

You tell me I need to have my information by the 21st.

I'll give it to you when I give it to you.

If that doesn't work.

So in order for her and us and whatever rules there are to operate this way, and again, you wanted to talk directly to the council, we have to follow those rules.

And in order for things to be published for the public to know, those deadlines are moved up, which means you guys have crunch time trying to get all that sorted out before you can give the information to whoever has to have the information.

So what I'm gonna ask Carrie is what are those timelines for publications for meetings like this, that if we were to have one again in two weeks, no matter if we go ahead and talk about things tonight that we can, when do they have to have things in so that our city clerk or whoever has to do what they have to do gets things published, and so they know exactly what has to be done because it's like shooting in the dark, and and sometimes they may not know that.

But you gotta know the rules because the rules aren't changing.

So for this type of thing, we just need to know what those rules are.

I don't even know what they are.

So tonight it'll be educational for me as well.

I I think I mean, I think where this was, you know, when we showed up, there was a resolution for a purchase contract just given to us, but no opportunity to review it.

And that's that's clearly understood.

I mean, that's all behind us now.

Right.

But but what I need to know is going forward for whatever comes if we decide to talk in two weeks.

I need whether it's tonight, I'd like to know tonight.

What are those timelines?

Because there's certain dates that things have to be done.

That puts a burden on Kent, that puts a burden on you guys, but maybe you only got five days after tonight.

Maybe you only got three days.

I don't know what that timeline is.

But that is what keeps this process moving in this situation.

Now, meetings side you know separately, that's different.

But you want to talk about it publicly, there are rules have to be followed that we can do that.

So I'm I'm gonna I'm just gonna ask Carrie if she's got something loaded up for us tonight.

Just kind of give us an idea of what those timelines are so that I know that you know that everybody here knows, just so you know what may be happening moving forward if we continue in this format.

That's all I want to know.

Mr.

Nickerson, these uh the rules all go through with you, have been in place, it appears since well, given my gray hairs all out long before I was born.

Um the Nebraska Open Meetings Act requires that all the notices that I relayed to you before uh be placed and permanently affixed on the agenda no later than 24 hours before the meeting, um, and they cannot the agenda cannot be amended within that 24 hour window for anything but an emergency.

Uh our process backs that up a little bit further.

Our city code requires that all materials that are in your packet be per all materials that will be given to you be provided in our packet.

So the packet deadline really becomes the operative deadline to include materials, any materials that come in after that.

Um what I've relayed a couple of times now to Mr.

Seacrest and the Woodsonia team is that if the materials don't make the packet deadline, they have to be verbally relayed.

They cannot be given to you by uh by by city code.

Internally, the clerk's office has established deadlines to make sure they have time to prepare the packet.

Uh typically agenda items, depending on on their nature, are presented to city administrative staff or any technical staff, such as my office or the finance team that need to review it at least 10 days prior to the city council meeting.

All agenda items are placed on our council agenda management software by department directors or mayor sponsoring council members no later than the Tuesday night before council, so about a week ahead of council, so that the clerk can do administrative agenda review the Wednesday before council.

Um the packet is then finalized.

Um I believe the city clerk's goal is to have that packet out to you on Thursday evenings.

So our internal deadlines are to submit all of our final administrative approvals by the end of Thursday.

Um as soon as those are all done and she prepares all of her assorted formatting and electronic materials for you.

That packet goes out then on Friday, which by code has to include all of your materials.

Um legally speaking, you can amend that packet up to 24 hours ahead of your meeting, though procedurally that's a bit of a nightmare for the clerk.

So she uh typically reserves that right for true emergencies, and then you can amend um to include emergency items less than 24 hours with a bunch of notice hoops.

Those timelines have uh been in place both in state law and in city code um since at least before 1980, and it and I'm not sure how long the internal agenda management software deadlines have been in, but at least five years that I'm aware of.

Um, those have been the same deadlines, and and there is no confusion, those were specifically advised of Woodsonia here, the packet deadlines.

In fact, we actually offered in this case to hold the packet open uh through Friday morning for the inclusion of materials to account for that time, um, but they declined that opportunity.

Okay, so based on what you said, which was a lot um ten days prior is what you basically said, which means if we're gonna meet in two weeks, they've got Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, to Saturdays count.

Do you get to count Monday?

You know, is it a business day?

Um so in essence, they've got till Friday, more than likely, to get everything they need for us to see a week two weeks from today.

That's what you're saying tonight.

And if that's the same.

Let's see what she says.

That 10 days accounts for administrative review of technical materials.

So, for example, every department director who needs a contract review sends them in then to give us time to review the dozen or so contracts you see before you every agenda.

We can and regularly have been flexible with that whole last week.

So, for example, this week we left it all the way open to half of one business day uh to kick that out.

So though we like them ten days in advance, we can actually go as far as uh that Wednesday before, about seven days before council with um some moderate inconvenience and can push it to the clerk's last deadline on Friday.

But I think out of respect for the for the clerk's office and all of the other department directors that have to do that, we ask for it earlier than that um so we can get all the rest of your business uh still done.

But but we have pretty regularly worked all night on Thursdays, on Fridays and on the weekends to help get you this stuff as fast as possible.

I understand that.

And then just so you guys know, you don't you don't know because you haven't probably seen our packet, 570 pages this week.

So, you know, you're part of that, but 570 pages.

So overall, I'm hearing tonight that if we continue with this format, we come with specific items to talk about.

You basically will have up to a week, it sounds like we've got a little grace period where we got probably till a week from tomorrow, if it's all bundled.

Now the stuff I'm I'm talking only with her saying shut up if I'm wrong.

But what I'm understanding is that you basically got a week for anything you want to present two weeks from now that has to be bundled and sorted through and all of that based on the rules that we have now.

I'm just I'm just wanting us to understand what the grant ground rule rules are because you're at a disadvantage through this on the speed that you have to pull things together.

We got all the time in the world to sort through it and compile it, and well, not all the time in the world, but a lot more time than that.

So that's what we're working with, and that's why we're having some of the problems that we're having.

And I just wanted us to all clearly understand that tonight so that you can deliver what you want to deliver legally.

And it's it's no fault of your own.

I mean, no fault of yours, no fault of ours.

We will, of course, honor your process.

That's that's the law.

Well, it sounds like it's the law, not a process.

Some of it's law, some of it is the process you have adopted as a council, which is then the law too.

I would just simply say it's not realistic to expect us to have some meetings and then have time to draft and have people review it and get it back in four days.

I'll just because it's not just the the real estate.

We think that's the first key piece to fall, but the development agreement is even three times fatter in mid-way of pages, and we still need to be sure we're on the same page on our timeline drafts we've sent.

We still need to be sure we're on the same page in our redevelopment plan draft, and we still need to get the occupation tax language drafted.

It's not nobody's drafted that even.

We still have a ground lease to review, and the staff needs to get the real estate ordinance done.

And I'm just flat out telling you don't ask us both sides to do that in four four weeks, four days or even six days.

So here's the doing correctly.

Right.

So here's the deal.

Because of what we've just talked about.

You may have to go back to a hybrid, get together, you can talk, you got all the days you need to get that done, then maybe it comes down to the council for those things that need to be hammered out.

But this format is not conducive for what you're wanting to do and the complexity that you need to do in order to give us the feedback because of the format we have.

That's what the law says.

And and Carrie's job is to protect us from getting in trouble.

And I don't know.

She probably doesn't look good in stripes, and I don't think I look good in stripes.

So we don't want to get in trouble, and we don't want to follow the rules.

So this may not be the format.

I mean, it the idea sounds great, but there's just a lot of rules that have to be followed and a lot of deep discussions that have to be had before it comes to the council like this.

We we can't, based on the format in my opinion, sort through some.

There are some things we can, but there are different depths that have to be discussed privately with a smaller group.

This is my opinion.

This is this is the frustration that I have.

I don't know what the other seven people here think.

But I think for us to move forward, we've got to probably look at a hybrid approach more than trying to just do it in city council meetings because you're restricted.

But at the same time, staff's not making any recommendations.

They're not doing what?

My understanding is staff is not making any recommendations.

That's what was communicated at the last council meeting.

Yeah, and it was it surprised me that there was no real recommendation.

Don't know.

It's that's a difficult task to take agreements.

And I mean, that would be the normal process.

But if we're not following that process, and staff is not making any recommendations.

I mean, this is the approval body.

So that's what I guess we're trying to, we're trying to understand how we're moving forward.

I'm not saying staff can never make recommendations.

They couldn't on this packet because they hadn't even had any conversation with Mr.

Seacrest on what we got tonight.

So staff believes that some of the things, and you can hash this out, uh that's being proposed are probably unlawful.

You can you can talk to them about that, but they can't make a recommendation if they think something cannot be legally done.

That's a matter for you to take up with them, but with only seeing Mr.

Seacrest late this afternoon, city staff's not in a position to try to analyze to interpret, to have a sense that there's an accord on certain things.

So I I go back to the fact that that uh we haven't had a chance really to talk about things.

And I'm again I'm not blaming anybody.

It's just that we get this, and then uh because probably because of people's schedules, uh the first opportunity we hear from Mr.

Seacrest is late this afternoon.

Well, that's the first oral opportunity.

We I did send red lines on the second and uh the other date I mentioned.

Uh it sounds to me that you are indicating we should go work with staff.

My I'll just say my favorite flavor is that we do what we talked about on June 2nd, and you put Mike Rogers and I in the first room and have Carrie be your representative when as the client, just like I have clients, and what we can do as that group is to come back to you, sounds like in a month.

Uh and show you where we've agreed and be sure you agree with that list, and show you where we're having differences, and that gets you the opportunity to weigh in because you're the elected officials.

Yeah, your proposal sounds fine to me.

Uh I would expect you would to get get together with uh Mike Rogers and Kerry Fisk.

Anything else we could address tonight?

Mr.

O'Neill uh asked to speak.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I I think I speak for better one here.

We we all want to have a productive conversation, and obviously I know you need time to prepare to do that.

The more prepared you are, probably the better conversation we can have.

Um I don't know, I I don't know the whole meeting schedule off the top of my head.

You know, if four days is enough time, maybe we need to look at scheduling a special meeting again, potentially two.

I can't remember what all dates we have open, but this is such a big project, and you know, we're we're getting pretty far down that runway.

I just want to make sure if if you guys get to the point where we're ready that we could accommodate you, make sure you have enough time.

Let's do this.

Uh let's internally have our group, and let's us talk about what we feel given the volume of paper.

Uh where we think we can project, and if we can do it faster than a month, we ask the uh the mayor or whoever, can we have a special meeting?

And if you're willing to do that, then that gives us another flexible tool.

And I just might have a little other uh words I want to say here too.

I just want to make sure uh you know a public-private partnership, no one wants it to be a trip to the casino here.

You know, we're not lawyers like uh you can carry.

Uh but we the council needs to make sure that you know things are legal, that there's some protections in there.

We understand this is a a very big deal.

I don't think anyone's out to try and get anybody here, but we also need to make sure that if auditor reviews it, it still makes sense too.

So totally agree.

Yeah.

What I always like to tell my clients is it's like a football field.

The legality is that when you're playing at the edge, and sometimes you have to play at the edge for creativity, but there's a lot of field in between, and that's where we need to be able to play the whole field and be sure we keep you out of trouble.

We don't want trouble.

That doesn't do any good if you have trouble.

So we're in the same boat of doing it right.

I hope you guys can find some time uh to get together and we'll go from there.

But thank you.

Mr.

Nickerson, I have to ask you if I can ask this question.

Can we talk about a broad topic like risk since it was brought up, just the topic of risk?

As long as it's related to the good life district agreement, it's contained in resolution 2026-177.

Mr.

Secrest can uh present on any of those issues.

Oh, and I just have some comments about risk.

Maybe it's a question for you as well.

It's a question for all of us, maybe.

I know we talked about risks.

It was presented there's risk in a job in a project like this, and we know there are risks.

In our packet, we saw a list of risks.

When we're looking at something like this, do you plan for the absolute worst outcome?

Or do we look for what's a likely negative outcome when we're trying to decide?

We know there are risk, but are we we planning on failure?

What's the worst thing?

What's that medium ground we're looking for that's reasonable?

Because I know there are risks everywhere.

And we can play the worst-case scenario.

And then but where do you find that balance when you're talking about risk?

What is reasonable?

So, like you pointed out, every every contract you do has some level of risk.

There's not a single thing you do that doesn't involve some degree of financial or legal or political risk.

Um, it's our job to advise you of those risks and make sure you take them understanding what they are.

Um so in the end, we attempt at least to sort into the things that are just risks we have to tell you about.

Every single time you purchase something, there's a risk, it might not show up, there's a risk we might not cut the check in time to the more likely risks, and it ends up being a spectrum to the things that are just factual legal barriers where it is factually impossible and/or a violation of the law.

So everything exists on that huge spectrum.

Um do you pay lawyers to see risk and everything?

Sure, absolutely.

Um, but it's our job just to advise you so that you know um what those what those risks are and what risks you can take and what risks you legally would be exceeding your authority to take, um, and then which ones are just unadvisable.

So at least in this time we've attempted to do that.

What are factual and legal just barriers?

There they're risks that become impossibilities that that functionally make a contract either illegal or void.

The risks that are just not advisable.

So, for example, in this particular agreement, you got advisements about the fact that no matter how much the agreement is, a dollar to a billion dollars, there's a risk of city credit.

So we have to just tell you that is one of the things you're risking.

Whether that risk is worth it or not, we have to provide you enough facts to understand the scope of that risk, and then after that, that's kind of your call to take.

So it all ends up being that big spectrum.

To be honest, there are there are some risks that are in everything that you probably never hear expressly called out, but they're in your materials.

Should you go to look for them, but uh we'll always try to tell you what risks you can and can't take and what risks you uh and then to contextualize those risks.

Um we'll never quite thread it perfectly, but um it's my job I always tell you to tell you what you need to know, not what you want to know.

So we'll continue to do that as long as we want.

I think on on this particular issue, one thing that it might be helpful, at least for my staff to have clarity on, is kind of just the timelines.

I think Mr.

Secrest were probably aligned in wanting this clarity as to what our assignments going forward are and aren't in December 2025.

Uh you authorized proceeding with negotiations.

Um those negotiations proceeded for a few months and were unsuccessful.

Um would Sonia then came to the media and requested to negotiate directly with you.

Um mayor held a press conference.

You voted as a body to functionally move on from lawyer to lawyer negotiation and do direct negotiations straight with counsel.

In fact, I think you had motions um and votes on whether that should be the full ten of you or just a committee of the three of you.

So our direction um back on June 2nd was to uh our I believe the meeting even prior was to put everybody in the position for them to talk straight to you so that you could negotiate the agreement on June 2nd.

Our instructions were to reduce the June 2nd presentation to the simplest legally palatable agreement we could do, and that was done.

Our directions from uh mayor at the time were that we had the authority to make you know housekeeping changes, clerical changes, legal ease changes, maybe change bond language, change insurance language, but that anything material was to be directly negotiated with you.

So I think that's been some of the process confusion for both the Woodsonian team and for us is what exactly you want us to be handling like we were charged in December with negotiations versus what you want to be deciding directly.

And so our um course that got presented to you through res through through the resolutions at the last meeting.

Um we reviewed, we received uh the red line version of resolution 2026-177 on July 7th.

Ummediating say asking for that sort of summary doc so that we would know what it was they were going to directly negotiate with you and and did not receive that, did that review, and it's clear that it exceeded the authority we were given by you and that it was more than clerical and uh and legal ease changes that it was they were material changes and policy changes that were to come back to you.

So as you proceed forward, I think all of us would just like some guidance as to whether or not um we have the authority, uh, Mr.

Seacrest and myself to directly negotiate those sort of material terms, or if uh you would like to keep our authority limited as you have previously to just more ministerial functions and would to have those material things negotiated directly with you, which would include some of those risks that are outlined.

Um, do we have the authority to to tell him what risks we are we would and wouldn't advise, or would you like to continue to do that direct negotiation?

Uh because the process has gotten kind of muddy, and I don't think any of us really know whether you would like us negotiating the contract or if you would like to continue to direct negotiate per your last authority.

Well, you're exact you're exactly right.

It's the muddiness of it that's making it tough.

And you feel like you're stuck between what am I supposed to do?

But we need to unmuddy it tonight.

We need to unmuddy it.

I don't know how we unmuddy it, but it sounds like there's a path forward.

Maybe Drew has a way to unmuddy it.

I don't know.

This is an idea.

Let's just talk to Kent.

But I think everybody wants to know timelines, right?

Everyone's got deal fatigue and this has been going on for a long time.

So if this is the approach, um, and I don't disagree with anything that's been said.

What if Kent and Mike Rogers and Kerry and staff get together until August 4th?

Okay.

We'll set some deadlines here.

Uh I mean the the agreements are redlined.

So there's really at this point the documents are with staff.

So we can those parties can work together until August 4th.

Whatever is unresolved, why don't we put that in a summary document that's given to staff that's published in the council packet, and that's presented.

I think there's a council meeting on August 11th, right?

I just want to make sure I'm speaking correctly here on dates.

But August 4th is a uh city council budget session, and 11th is a city council meeting.

But I'm saying uh we wouldn't present anything.

I'm just saying we would the parties, Pat would negotiate until August 4th.

And then we at that point it was it's just whatever is unresolved is unresolved.

We put that in a summary and we come back before the council.

That's kind of this hybrid.

But your summary will have to be presented a week before August 11th.

So you'd have to have it ready by August 4th, submitted or a little before.

To make it on the August 11th council meeting.

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

Yes.

Well, I guess Carrie was asking, you know, she's been told do this, don't do this.

She asked for clarification.

Who's who gives her that clarification tonight?

Well, I the council gave clarification that the council wanted to negotiate directly.

And but I never understood that to mean that Woodsonia's legal team could not meet with our legal team.

I never understood it to be that.

Restrictive.

I I had understood the council wanted to be involved on material decisions, which the council should, but there'd still be discussions between Mr.

Seacrest and City staff to the extent city staff was confused about that.

I'm sorry about that, but I just assumed it was understood that city staff could continue to deal with uh Mr.

Seacrest.

But in in this instance tonight, I don't think it was a refusal to meet with Mr.

Seacrest.

It was just the fact that the first time our people could get together with him was late this afternoon.

And then they were able to sit down, but not for long.

I don't even know if we could even vote on it tonight.

Does it just can be general consensus based on discussion tonight that staff and legal can meet with the Woodsonia group?

Is there any opposition to that?

Mrs.

Fis?

There is an action item noticed for you at the conclusion of this presentation, which is when you'd need to make whatever forward direction you want to do.

So we set we set set them as two separate items so that way there was no confusion about when one of you made a motion when they would have to stop talking.

So we did presentation for them and then the next item for you is an action item.

But do we need an action on just what I mean?

If you're just continuing the presentation, then no.

You met with Mr.

Secrest this afternoon.

That didn't require action of the city council.

No, if if what you're wanting to do is just continue their presentation to the next to that August meeting, that could be done by a motion to continue.

If you're wanting to do an action item to somehow change the authorizations previously, that would be in the next agenda item.

Are you asking then that we continue tonight's presentation until the August 11 meeting?

Well, I guess I want to be I want Kent to weigh in here.

I mean, I want to be specific.

I mean, what I want to do is I want to come back to you on August 11th and say Kent and Kerry and Mike, Matt, and here's the here's the eight things that the parties aren't agreeing to.

Here's our perspective, here's staff's perspective, here's Mike's perspective.

Council, please weigh in.

Please vote on these.

So we can actually move things forward, make progress.

That's what I would like to do.

So whatever the motion needs to be tonight to make sure that happens on August 11th, that's what I would like to see happen.

And I'm just saying if we have a week before the council date, and the council date is August 11th, these the parties need to get together until August 4th to try to resolve as much as they possibly can.

So we're coming to this council with the short of the list as possible.

No, I think it's a reasonable request.

I just want to make sure that it's legally okay to do it based on pastions.

That's all uh to me it makes sense, it's common sense, but I don't know that.

I feel like we get hung up on wording on you know, like presentation.

I don't want that to be confused.

I want to come on August 11th and I want to talk about what the open issues are.

And I don't want to call it a presentation, and then suddenly we can't talk about what we want to talk about.

That seems very counterproductive.

I don't want to do that.

So whatever, however, it needs to be written, however, the motion needs to be suggested, approved.

That's the intent.

And I would suspect council would agree with me here.

Mr.

O'Neill.

I'm sorry, Mr.

Nickerson.

Were you done?

No, we'll just we have to see where this is going to go to finalize it so that we can help accommodate the question.

Nope, nope, nope, nope.

We're fine.

Mr.

O'Neill.

I just want to add on a little bit too.

So I know it was uh mentioned by the mayor earlier tonight, too, that it's okay for Kent to talk to the the uh legal staff here and Mr.

Rogers.

Um I know there's so many complicated things, and obviously anything that comes to council, I think would still have to have the review of the the legal team the administration here as well.

You know, if we need a I think it makes sense for you guys, you obviously need to talk.

You know, like I said, we are not lawyers, you know, um we need that review still done.

Um Carrie, you're still saying that we would need a a motion to allow you guys to have discussions until the August 4th, or you have the ability to do that in a limited capacity now.

Uh obviously council would have to approve any substantial changes, but you could at least discuss with them.

I I think our request would be just for some level of clarity because this is this is the exact discussion we had about two months ago, which was what items do you want to do directly negotiate versus what you want to hand to us.

And the instructions were fairly unambiguous that Woodsonia had requested the chance to directly negotiate the material terms with council.

Council had accepted that.

Um, and now this would be a material change basically back to December of 2025 to just letting the lawyers negotiate it, which if that is what you want to do, that is fine.

We just need some clean clarity so that way when that happens, if we hit another impasse, council knows exactly what we're doing and not doing what you're still controlling and not and and not controlling what's going to come back to you and not come back to you because we've been operating under the the unambiguous instructions that you wanted to direct negotiate this with Woodsonia and Woodsonia wanted to directly negotiate with you and to basically not have the lawyers there.

As far as the legalese, we can we can fine-tune the the legal boundaries that I mean there's in any contract there are things we can change that are there.

Um if it's identifying these material policy barriers, the ones that stalled negotiations out about six months ago, those have not changed and still require council to to make those uh policy recommendations.

And in fact, they probably have regressed again in the newer versions.

Um I I can tell you ahead of time that that what we presented back through and that you voted and approved two weeks ago represents the bare minimum legal commitments and bare minimal legal obligations of Woodsonia that are compatible with law.

There's there's some of the requests that have been presented to us that are just flat factually impossible.

So I'm not particularly optimistic about our ability to negotiate a hundred percent document back to you.

Um so if you could just make it clear what it is you expect us to negotiate and not, that will help us avoid not just being back in the same exact place on August 11th and having you frustrated that you're not getting to make these material decisions that keep getting put back in front of you, then keep getting moved back to direct negotiations when direct negotiations stall, they keep getting put back in front of you, and we've been stuck in this feedback loop for almost nine months now.

Um and to be honest, I just we just want clear expectations from council as to when this feedback loop uh needs to come back to you to make decisions and when it's up to us to continue to negotiate in circles.

But I think there is clarity that that um city staff and Mr.

Seacrest will negotiate those points that you believe us advisable to agree upon, and then any points that uh city staff or Mr.

Seacrest believes are uh ill-advised for either side, or you know, they come back to council then.

Then then if if there's things where there's a conflict uh of opinion between Wood Sony and city staff, then that just comes to council on August 11 for a public policy decision on how to proceed.

Yes, one one thing to add is could the focus be around, and I agree it's not an it was a summary, but could the focus be that the terms are consistent with the June 2nd MOU?

That way there's some there's some directive that staff has and Kent has to base some of these changes in the documents off of.

But what you approved on June 2nd, how does the objective of these two parties to reach a document that memorializes that?

So staff knows the the target and Kent knows the target they're working towards.

Well, I think that's our I think the intent is to hew to the terms of the June 2nd.

Critical component list.

I think that's what you called it.

That's what we put in the pardon?

We put it in the 23rd.

On the 23rd, that's what we sent to you.

We formalized it and sent it to you.

So I think the intent is we hew to that unless uh in the and we stay as close as possible to that, unless there's a new left field idea that makes that impossible or unworkable.

But obviously, when you presented on June 2 with your list of critical components, we put those in agreements and sent them back to you on June 23rd.

And that was by vote of the council.

Right.

And so I think we've we've responded to those with additional comments and clarification.

And I think Kent can chime in.

I think that's still consistent with the June 2nd terms.

But there are certain things that weren't addressed and that need to get addressed.

And so the that's where the attorneys can talk.

And if they agree, great, then the language stays.

If they disagree, then I think it gets called out and it gets brought to the August 11th council meeting.

Okay.

Does that clarify it?

Mayor, that uh the resolution 2026 177 was the legal version of writing down what all the terms and conditions they m are.

In fact, I literally just copied and pasted some sections of it.

Um it's so mirroring those prior agreements.

So that is what was approved by council, was the written agreement there.

Um so that's already been accomplished.

They sent their red lines in, um, and as your as your mem as your packet indicates, there are we've already done that work to identify where definitely not an exhaustive list if you can believe that's possible after five pages, but uh where the factual barriers are, the legal risk barriers, the policy calls are.

So we've already given an agreement consistent with that, uh, those MOU terms to the maximum legal extent.

Um I g I'm just not sure necessarily what what we wouldn't have already accomplished as far as getting this back to you to make those sorts of calls to identify those risks and barriers, you have that in in front of you now.

You have that in in front of you now.

I'm not sure what else we would um what else we would accomplish, but if you'd like us to give it a shot to see if we can find a few things.

Um I think it's worth a shot.

I mean, you there was no discussion with Mr.

Seacrest until shortly before this meeting.

There there have I mean the this agreement was presented to you to you all two weeks ago to the public to Mr.

Seacrest at the time.

Um Mr.

Snyder came, I think appeared and um told you that they'd been through it a bit.

Um I I think his uh description was that they'd ran it through chat GPT and it was acceptable, but needed Mr.

Secrest to have more time to look at it.

Mr.

Secrest sent us back a red line version that materially changes what was there on June 2nd in some aspects, add some detail that our instruction from you was to remove our instruction was to simplify the agreement.

There are complexities added back into it, and there are just some uh you know we we can negotiate style, but we can't negotiate facts.

Um and so those those calls are back up in front of you now.

Um we can continue to negotiate the the the portions of it that are that are legalese and that are technical in nature, but there are policy calls that council will have to make before this can be um this can be turned into an actionable agreement, and there are some factual and legal barriers um that no level of negotiation will change, cash balances in hand, the requirements of law, audits, schedules, um so there are there are just some barriers we've hit now that are just not factually possible, no matter how many um hours of negotiation we spend.

And so I just want to make sure that the expectation is clear to council that we are back where we were seven months ago, and um as we've saw previously, those uh two weeks of extra negotiations maybe they'll make progress, but um we don't want anybody to be surprised if on August 11th we're back with functionally the same list that's in your packet today for your consideration uh for your consideration.

I understand there's no guarantees, but as long as those expectations are clear, that's fine with us.

I think the expectation is some public policy questions.

And I'm not sure we've ever either side has articulated clearly those public policy and we could spend time working on that, as well as okay.

Here's the public policy question.

Here's our view as to good public policy, and here's the city's best view, staff's best view, and then you bring that to you.

Uh of course we've got to be legal.

That's it's not what we're talking about.

It's that middle of the football field that I mentioned earlier.

There's a lot of public policy, and you know, you've not done a good life district project.

We've not done a good life district policy.

Within that dog itself, there's plenty of public policy, just like there is within the tax increment, the occupation tax, the redevelopment plan.

So that's what I think we're striving for on August 4th is a description of the differences, but we'd make it clear.

Here's a public policy question.

Here's two positions.

Council, we need your wisdom.

Mr.

O'Neill.

I I agree.

I think there's two different types of issues.

There's uh legal issues, and you know, the city obviously can't do something uh get put into a legal contract, and that's something that we need our legal team to advise us on.

Then there's the public policy decisions that are more substantial that uh you know maybe it's just more of a risk call of what's the risk tolerance for council or whatever.

Um but I think you guys still both need to keep talking, and we we have to have a really productive meeting.

You know, we're getting to August here, and um we really really got to get out of going in circles here.

So anything we can do to move it forward, but I hope you guys continue talking, work through a lot of those, and council probably like to hear the very big policy type of things, in my opinion.

But Mr.

Nickerson.

Mr.

Brown.

Thank you, Mayor.

So in the pack, and I think what would help going forward is council having a discussion on the policy decisions required that was in the packet.

Um some of these we just don't know where council what kind of direction to go.

Um so I don't know if we can pull that up some way or not.

But I think those are the important questions to be answered, hopefully, this evening, because I I honestly honestly believe we come back August 11th, we will be in the exact same spot we are in today, unless we have some of these questions answered.

Thanks.

Mr.

Mr.

Nickerson.

I'm definitely open to discussing what we can discuss tonight, as long as it's in the parameters of what we're allowed to discuss.

But my question to Kerry is over 50 bullet points were in our packet today of risks and all the stuff that you've and whoever helps you presented.

Has would Sonya seen all 50 plus of those and had a chance to respond, or is that what they met you met about tonight?

Those have been in the packet agenda since its publication.

So they've been they've been there.

Um my understanding from meeting with Mr.

Secrets before is he had not read or reviewed the packet, but they have been there and on the city's website and available to the council in public since the packet was published.

I emailed the packet to them on at I believe 238 on Thursday.

So they they have had it and and we have made that request that they provide the list of um for you.

I mean, based on our understanding that you wanted to do this direct negotiation, um we requested that they provide the list of what is specifically being rejected, accepted, added, modified, so that way in your direct negotiations you had an outline.

Um they declined to do so.

So we instead tried our best to outline for you where the factual legal barriers are, where the exception kind of exceptional and extreme risks are, and where the policy decisions are.

So in your packet, we've outlined those those some of those areas in their proposals where for us to be able to negotiate, we need you to make those sort of policy calls so we know what our parameters are.

Um those are essentially uh a request that that uh would stone need to be permitted to earn seven percent interest on an accrued any accrued balances in uh in the good like districts aborted obligation bond, um, whether or not you would like to disregard the advice of the financial advisors about bond timing, um, whether or not you would like to uh provide us direction or whether you could provide us direction on whether or not uh the if proposals would remove the guarantee the aquatic center could or couldn't be funded, whether that is something that you would like to remove from your list of non-negotiables and give us the authority to um reduce the promises for aquatic center funding, um, whether or not you would like us to turn over all the rest of the veterans village property, including the city's existing soccer and softball fields, uh, to Woodsonia during construction or stay with an access agreement, and uh whether or not you are okay with with removing the requirement that some portions of the land be turned over to Grand Island Public Schools, those are very, very clear policy calls that we do not have the authority to make on your behalf, um, so we could use guidance on all of the areas of extreme risk.

Um, those are ones that very particularly I we cannot take on your behalf.

Uh you have to act to take as that body.

Um there are some risks in here that are very extreme and that you need the time to be able to digest and look at, and that it would be legal malpractice for me to recommend you take without advising you pretty pretty heavily.

So those policy calls as to you know the things that are purely policy and as to your risk tolerance, we need guidance on I can I can tell you in negotiations I would not take those risks behind your back without you making those calls to take them.

So this list will be the same now or in in two weeks.

Um so if you need more time to digest all those policy calls and risks, um that's fine.

Just know that those pretty big issues we won't be able to make negotiation progress on until you give us some level of of policy guidance.

I don't think it would be prudent for the city council to go over a list that we have not reviewed because some of the statements aren't perfectly worded that she just said.

And secondly, the idea is to get the issues agreed that they're issues.

Right.

So let us, you know, we're two ships passing the middle of the night.

I didn't see her 50 list, and similarly, we asked to put our red lines in your packet, and that didn't get done.

So again, let us know your point is well taken.

You haven't had a chance to review those, so I don't think you probably feel comfortable discussing them tonight.

No, and I don't think you should feel comfortable that there's a consensus even on what the issues are.

You gotta first identify a problem jointly before the two teams can Mr.

Nickerson.

Yeah, I would I would just say one of the things Kerry just said is you need the time to digest.

And we need some of these things you mentioned some pretty deep stuff.

I don't know how a council of eight is going to come to grips with some of those things tonight.

So those are things that are deeper discussions, and even when internally, those are some pretty deep things that we have to talk about.

And that takes time.

So I agree.

Let's whittle down what are the points of dissension, what are the ones that we really need to focus on.

It sounds like you've got permission through the administration and any confusion that might have been there to meet with the people we didn't need to meet with, because you can't meet with all of us, and you shouldn't meet with all of us to see what we can get.

So I think we can get some progress, and I'm not sure what our motion needs to be, but I may need we may need Carrie's help to make sure we have the right motion going forward to allow this all to take place and make sure that whether it's a presentation or recommendations or finalization or whatever those keywords are that can be discussed on August 11th.

We need to make sure that that terminology is correct.

So there's no hiccups that night as well.

Can it be a motion to address any and all unresolved issues between developer and staff relating to anything pertaining to Good Life District?

I'd leave that as well.

I don't want to get caught on well, we can't talk about some document.

Or we can't let this need to be an open discussion.

We need to make progress here.

We need to be able to talk about whatever we need to be able to talk about.

So please make sure this motion is broad enough that we can talk about what we need to talk about.

Right, and things that are policies from this group really have to be almost discussed separately from your stuff because I mean, whatever that is, because we got to know we need to know some of those things, which way do we want to go on some of that?

I assume at times staff brings you agenda items and how it's worded.

You don't always vote ahead of time on how you're going to word something on an agenda.

I think part of the August 4th deadline would be to word the agenda item for you as a lot as well as the issue list, as well as each party's position under each of those type of issues.

So we should be able to work as a team to get the resolution so it's it's broad like you need, but yet it allows you to be sure you're staying within your bounds.

I couldn't agree more.

And I would just again caution you all, follow the law timing.

I mean, it's it's new rules.

You said you haven't done this before, you're right.

And and this is this open meetings thing is uh is its own animal, and we have to abide by that.

So please hit those deadlines so that we don't have any of this tonight.

Appreciate that Mr.

Hawsey.

Thank you, Mayor.

You know, watch watching government in action and making sausage is just a hard thing to do in in the government sector.

You know, communication is so challenged.

You know, this the process, the process of communication about simple things is just so challenging in this environment.

I I supported before uh a committee of three council members, but however, only because they're more nimble and then they can get to the bottom of stuff, and then we could bring to the whole council and go through all of these hurdles through in front of everybody, not to stop for anybody from seeing anything, but to be more nimble in our discussion so that we can actually communicate better and more effectively.

So I I've been a supporter of that.

I would still be, no matter what the format is, I still would be supportive of a couple of council members being in these meetings, whether it's with staff or whoever, just to help facilitate from a common sense elected person's position, understanding there's there's there's legal people, there's other people in the room.

I still think it's important that several council members, whoever they are, I be in that room when these discussions are going on so that we can help get through all of the challenges of communication.

And and they are numerous, and this sausage making process is difficult in a public setting.

You know, so I think that's just hoping to get to the result for all of the people of Grand Island in a much more efficient manner.

Um I just think it'd be helpful to have a couple council members in all of these communications.

Mr.

O'Neill.

I just want to clarify one other thing.

So the packets usually come out uh what Thursday afternoon, sometimes Friday afternoons.

So the agenda can be amended up through Monday afternoon, correct, Kerry.

Is that that's the latest time I think you said it's at 24 hours?

That the open meetings act says 24 hours before the start of the meeting, so technically up to 6.59 p.m.

on on Monday is when it's legally possible.

Now remember, you don't have clerk's office staff here a lot of those days.

Um just something to really keep an eye out when those are our publishers, not a lot of time to to make any tweaks to that, but it's not completely impossible.

Thank you.

I think we have a consensus.

This was a presentation tonight.

Is a is a motion necessary on the next item you have in front of you, which is which is which is a potential action.

Yeah.

So if if you if the goal is to kind of go forward to pursue other amendments to the good life district agreement, right now you have resolution 2026-177, which has been voted approved and authorized.

Um if I'm understanding council's kind of desires directly, which is to go forth and have some more private negotiations.

Um I'd recommend in the proposed motions, one of the uh noticed motions would be to temporarily rescind uh you mayor's authority to execute the documents authorized in resolution 2026-177 until such time as further amendments to the agreement can be made and authorized by council.

So that would functionally serve to continue it and pull back that previously authorized resolution.

Um if you don't do that second action item right now, the old agreement is operative and has been adopted by uh by council.

So a motion to rescind resolution 2026-177.

So 99, correct?

Yeah.

Right.

It if you there's a list of different proposed motions, whether it's to totally rescind the money.

No, but I'm reciting what you just said.

You said you recommended a motion to rescind resolution 2026-177.

To rescind your authority to execute it, yes.

Okay.

Did you get that uh is that the purchase agreement or which one's 177?

Because I it was my understanding in our last meeting, the resolution.

Mitch and I talked about this was intent.

We talked about this extensively.

It was intent, and that's what was explained to me.

That was at our last public meeting.

And the council said you will get an opportunity to provide feedback.

So it doesn't seem like that's what's consistent with what our last council meeting was.

I think what the point is is because there's going to be additional discussions, we're rescinding that resolution because there's going to be additional discussions.

Isn't that the point?

Yes, that would that would that would need to occur, otherwise, we have an outstanding agreement that would be operative.

So we need to rescind that.

I want to go your authority to sign that and kind of restart negotiations.

We want this to amend.

That would be consistent with our last discussion, which is this is the this is intent.

You've had no opportunity for feedback.

Let's give you opportunity for feedback.

So the motion would be to amend, I believe, what was approved previously.

Legal is going to have to weigh in.

I mean, I don't know.

I didn't think we needed a motion at all because this is a presentation tonight.

But we just clicked on that.

Correct.

This this item, whatever this presentation is done, there is no motion necessary.

The next item, if you want to rescind the prior authorized agreement and go forward with negotiations, that would be the next council item.

Um to move on from this one, we just need to know when Mr.

Secrist is done presenting.

I think we're done, presenting.

I think you're done listening.

So I think there's I agree with the mayor.

There's consensus on our next steps.

Now, whether or not you have to put that into motion, but I you're just directing your staff and we're agreeing with your direction, Mayor, to your staff.

So I don't think it needs a resolution, but that's your call.

And then as far as the uh real estate resolutions concerned, you are authorized to sign it.

We're probably gonna make a few little changes.

So I don't even know if you have to withdraw it.

We'll just probably come back with uh an amended version.

Uh and that's what you will be worrying about voting on.

I I want to add one thing.

I do think Chuck brought up a really good point.

I do think it would be helpful to have a couple council members in these meetings.

I don't know if that needs to be part of your motion, so you can make sure that happens, but I do think that would be really helpful.

I'm I'm a I'm opposed to that until I talk to my legal team because during negotiations there's a lot of what I consider confidential legal analysis that gets discussed.

And I want to make sure that we protect the city.

Because I'm assuming if we were amending, would you say there'd be specific things we'd be amending tonight?

Or is amendment an open ended statement that means there could be some changes in the future.

Resion and to Drew's point, uh although the not all though, the intent of resolution 2026-177 was the purchase prices and all of that.

That that's all that was that is the intent that was a proposal.

So is that my nope, that's not the case.

So how do we get this right?

At your at your last meeting, you voted on two separate resolutions.

One was resolution 2026 176, which is a resolution to make a offer to sell the land at Veterans Village.

Resolution 2026 177, which is what is noticed today, was the offer or what was the your authorization to have the mayor execute the good life district agreement is presented by the city.

So you had the it is the just like every other contractual item that you have on your agenda, you voted to authorize the mayor to execute a good life district agreement.

Um so I I I do think that there to Mr.

Snyder's credit, there was some confusion by some comments of council as to whether there was an just a spirit of intent on the good life district agreement or a firm offer, but unambiguously what resolution 2026-177 did was authorize the mayor to execute a contract.

So as of right now, Woodsonia could sign on the line and the city would be bound by what got passed two weeks ago.

If that is not what you want, if what you want to do is kind of take back that authorized agreement and have us go back and negotiate, that's what you need to do with your action item is to rescind the mayor's authority to have executed that agreement, and then would ask that there be the direction that that be rescinded until such time as we can negotiate whatever an amendment or different agreement, whatever that may be, but first steps first, you've already voted to authorize the the city to enter into a good life district agreement.

If what you want to do is take that authorization back, that's that motion needs to be.

So in that last item are a variety of options for you to stick with it and add a deadline, to rescind it and move on, to risk temporarily rescind the mayor's authority while we sort things out.

All of those options are there, but to amend it to what you're amending now is just his authority to sign that document as presented, not the actual core of the agreement.

Frankly, noticing changes to a contract at that level of nuance is very difficult under the open meetings act, which is why typically these negotiations procedurally it's different to have them proposed in front of all ten folks is because open meetings act notices for the public are very very difficult there.

Um if but if what you want is us to go back and negotiate for a few more weeks in your packet for this last agenda item, the act proposed action items, the last of the proposed motions would accomplish taking back the mayor's authority and sending us off to negotiate for a few more weeks.

Um rescinding would would be the proper term.

I believe the clerk's office has that exact language um that we can read back to you if uh it would say um potential action related to amend resolution 2026 177 to temporarily rescind the mayor's authority to execute the good life district agreement authorized by the resolution until such time as further amendments to the good life district agreement can be made and authorized by council.

So she just used the word amendment.

Potential action related to amend resolution 2026-177.

Do you want amend out?

You you would be amending that old resolution to rem right now that resolution says mayor may execute the document.

You'd be amending it to remove his authority to execute the document.

That is what you'd be accomplishing.

The rest of it would simply be giving us that purpose statement to say until such time as we can bring you back a different document.

Um it it meets the criteria, it sounds like it does.

Okay.

Is there a motion to make a motion to approve what she just read?

All right, and is there a second?

I'll second any discussion.

Well, wait.

Wait.

This has gone on so long.

We have two people.

We have two people who want to speak.

And so need to take that up.

Drill pools.

Thank you, Mayor Council, and everyone.

And I may be out of line, maybe I'm too late or something.

So before you see blue and red lights flashing and the stripe thing comes up, stop me.

I had uh one of the things that I don't know is it's been discussed is the state is becoming saturated with sports complexes.

Do we have a business plan of where we're going to uh get these people that are going to be the source of this revenue because we it this project has to be revenue driven for the sports complex.

So has that been addressed as far as the it's done by the Department of Economic Development because they approved it.

Yeah, uh that's kind of scary because there's not too many some of that stuff.

Uh let's see.

Oh, and this is kind of the negotiating, evidently uh there's still maybe some negotiation about the price, I'm not sure.

But uh the paper the other day we had uh Chad Navity talking about buying this three acres of property downtown for uh what 460, like 150,000 an acre, and I just silly silly me.

I I added that if the Woodsonia property is 225 acres at that price.

This would be uh this would be a done deal.

So I would suggest maybe hiring the real estate agent that's as good as the one that sold that property to Chad because she struck a hell of a deal, and that kind of goes in hand with the fauna park uh the state fair when they bought the 20 acres of of the veterinary property there for 4.15 million dollars, which is over 200,000 for a single acre.

So you know, again, it's this negotiation thing.

It's like you get that kind of money, this is a done deal.

This this would all be under the back against the it'd be yesterday's news.

I also wanted to ask a question, and I think Chuck, you're the poncho or the on the financing.

Now, when the city passed the sales tax in 1989, the one percent sales tax, half of that ballot language said it's supposed to go for property tax reduction, and then when we did the sales tax half a cent, half a percent in 2004, half of that was supposed to go for property tax reduction.

And I'm wondering now, is with this uh good life district, is the city still collecting that three-quarters of a percent, I guess, on sales that would go for property tax reduction and putting that into a restricted fund that would be used specifically for property tax reduction, or is the entire sales tax that is being going to be collected that is being collected from the good life district?

Is all of that going into the development of more good life district?

Because I think that if it is, then the people that voted for the good life district probably weren't aware that this money the sales tax money that they're spending at the mall or wherever that part of that was going for property tax reduction.

It it it didn't the good life district didn't say anything about that.

So I just wondered if is that are we still getting the three-quarters of a percentage of the sales in the good life district now?

The is that still going into a restricted fund specifically for property tax reduction like an answer part of it.

So in the first part in the 1989, we actually I think it was a third, I don't remember it being a half, but I'm just going from that.

There is a direct reduction in the property tax asking at that point, and so at that point the property tax asking went down a number, and I don't remember the number.

Uh in the second point is yes, the half of the half of the sales tax collected in the second half cent sales tax.

Now that one, but here's where the definition is challenging is that when it says for property tax reduction, it didn't go into a special fund, it just stopped the the property taxes from going up in the future.

It kept them down for a while.

And as you notice, just in the last seven or eight years, our tax asking has been the same dollar asking for the last seven or eight years.

And so what the sales tax is continuing to do today is to not raise the property tax dollar request or even capture the growth.

And so it's in effect today and working today by by those standards, Jerry.

Okay, I won't I try not to keep too much later, but uh in both 1989, well, in 1980 it was defeated, but in 1989, the officials had promoted the one percent sales tax as a way to lower property taxes.

It didn't say to relieve or whatever.

The people believed that the sales tax passed because people believed it was going to write provide them with property tax relief, and that was related to their property tax bills, not just to giving the city another funding, another way to fund these programs.

And I I just really think that that uh I think that one of the ways you can look at it, Jerry, is that at the time, if you looked at the county's tax asking and the city's tax asking, we were very much the same.

And if you look at the same statistic today, the counties tax asking is much more as a percentage of the total tax than the cities.

And so if you what just follow the cities and the counties tax asking over the course of those 35, 36 years, you'll see that the counties tax asking is growing and the in the cities is is dropping as a percentage of the total tax asking.

It's just if you compare the two side by side, you will actually see the difference that the sales tax has caused has helped the city keep its tax ask property tax asking down.

Because I remember the discussion at the time of sales tax was that are we going to call it property tax relief or property tax reduction, which right, and that's gonna be a subtle but significant difference.

I didn't write the words, so I just I just followed the numbers.

But anyway, I looked up uh calculator group LLC, they kind of keep track of sports things going up in Nebraska.

There's like two dozen that are going up in Nebraska.

That's gonna really dilute the uh amount of people that you and you've got to do something really special, and I don't know what you're gonna do.

Okay, so I got one more thing is that when Carney's put in their sports plex, the estimated cost was 29 to 34 million, and the actual the estimated cost was 29 to 34 million, and the actual cost is about 45 million.

So what is the contingency for going over budget?

What is it has that been looked at?

So there's a couple things here that I really think should be part of this negotiating process.

Again, the land sales, sorry guys, but it's three million bucks for compared to what the city is paying.

That's ridiculous.

You know, the property tax reduction.

If this money is all going to develop the good life district, then the people that have been expecting property tax reduction, people living outside of the good life district are going to be disappointed.

I I just think it was that was crammed through so fast that there was not this discussion held, and I really think you need to do something about it now.

Thank you.

Mr.

Brown.

So the sales tax that goes to the good life district is state sales tax.

It's it so the sales tax that's going to the good life district, it's state sales tax, it's not local.

So the state sales tax rate is five and a half.

They're given 2.75% back to the good life district.

So it's it's not really property tax relief, it's state sales tax.

So it's not local tax.

I was concerned about the the sales city sales tax that was going to be used for property tax reduction.

Right.

That's what that has nothing to do with the good life district.

Still going into the reduction fund.

Yes, it's still being used that way.

Thank you.

Um, in light of the fact you have a motion on the floor, I would just uh wonder based on the comments that I've heard tonight, if uh there wouldn't be any merit to potentially amend the motion to have the negotiating uh posture as Mr.

Hossey suggested.

Or the city council president, maybe Mr.

Hawsey, Mr.

Brown, and Mr.

Snyder meet at the earliest convenience to go ahead and uh hash out the agreements that go ahead and be brought forward.

So I realize you have a motion on the floor.

I won't digress beyond that, but I just wonder if uh an amendment of that uh maybe uh have some merit.

Thank you.

Please vote.

Motion adopted C closed session to receive update on pending litigation and to authorize the execution of a proposed settlement of a regulatory matter.

Is there a motion to go into closed session?

Mr.

Lanfear.

I move to go under executive closed executive session.

And Mr.

Brown.

Second that motion.

Any discussion.

Please vote.

Motion adopted.

But didn't know it's what the legislature, I think Karen was talking about in the last meeting, what the legislature didn't make it tougher to deny something anymore in the condition of use.

Um that was a different bill, but yes.

That's LB 663.

Yes.

Um, that puts in some very specific things that you need findings of fact if you are going to deny, and before you were supposed to have findings of fact.

The reality is that if it's Joe from down the street and his neighbors all don't want him to do it, or Joe from Columbus that wants to do something in Hall County and the neighbors show up, it was relatively easy for you to say no, we're not gonna, we're not gonna do that.

Joe probably doesn't have a billion dollars in his pocket to sue you if you didn't make findings of fact.

Google does.

I to be blunt.

And if you don't make findings of fact and specifically in the way that L Bill LB 663 very clearly clarifies that you need to you are there are potential issues.