City Council - Regular Meeting

good evening everyone welcome to the north platte city council meeting here on tuesday august 4th 2026 at 5 30 p.m of course we are here in the city council chambers calling the meeting officially to order an invocation by reverend marcia price from the new beginnings platte valley church please

Thank you very much. Everybody bow your head. Oh, Father God, we stand here tonight knowing your word says that where two or three are gathered in your name, there you are in the midst of us. So we acknowledge tonight that as we gather in your name, you are right here, and you are going to help guide us. This meeting tonight. Father we stand here. And we're not just in natural surroundings. In this city hall Lord. We stand here right now. And we recognize. And we declare that. You are the God of truth. And you are the God of justice. And you are the prince of peace. And love. In this place. So Lord. We thank you. That you have purposed. individual lives to come together like this for the betterment of the citizens of the people of North Platte we do not take this privilege lightly so Lord right now we seek your help and your divine guidance in this meeting right here tonight Proverbs 16 3 says that when we commit our work to you Lord your plans will be established We ask for your presence right now, Holy Spirit, and your wisdom to help us to make just and fair decisions your way and your plans that will affect the lives of those we represent. Father, we ask for clarity to see the needs, the true needs in our city and the courage to address them with an attitude of peace and an attitude of compassion. Help us to listen with respect and with open hearts, and with minds, and with voices, the voices of all of our citizens. Even when our opinions differ, help us remember that each person is valuable. Each life is valuable, even when we disagree. So Lord, help us to agree to disagree, and help us go on, and help us respect each other with your kind of love. Father, we do. We lift up North Platte, this hub of western Nebraska. We lift up North Platte today. Help us to build up the reputation of our city to reflect your kind of love and prosperity where everyone can live in harmony. And Lord, help us to be mindful of the trust that has been placed in us as council members, all of us, as mayors, as businessmen, as leaders, as teachers, as pastors, all leaders. Help us, Lord God, to take it seriously in real life. We represent you. Help our mission as the North Platte City Council and community to promote what our nation's government represents, and that is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So, Father, just as you taught us, we pray this prayer in the matchless, powerful, mighty name of Jesus. And we thank you for your presence here right now. In Jesus' name, we all pray. Amen.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, everyone.

Angie, the roll call, please.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here. Here.

Here.

Here.

Thank you. A current copy of the Open Meetings Act of the State of Nebraska is at the back of the council chambers. Meeting procedure. The public may address specific agenda items at the pleasure of the mayor. If recognized by the mayor, please identify yourself by stating your name and address. Please address the council through the mayor and limit your remarks. We respect our city employees. We request that any complaints or criticisms of employees not be aired in a public meeting. Concerns about employees should be brought to the attention of the city administrator or the mayor. Individuals in violation will be declared out of order. Consent agenda. All matters under the consent agenda are considered by the city council to be routine. It will be enacted by one motion. Any city council member may, however, remove an item from consent by request. 1A, approve the minutes of July 21, 2026. B, transfer... Excuse me. Place on file Treasurer's Report for June 2026. C. Adopt the resolution consenting to the sale and consumption of alcoholic liquor on August 22nd, 2026 from 12 p.m. to 1 a.m. on East 5th and North Dewey Street during Music on the Bricks and approve the applications by the Cedar Room, Ape Ship Brewing, and McCabe's for special designated licenses. D. Approve the application by the Fraternal Order of Eagles 2839 for a special designated license on September 11, 2026 from 1 p.m. to 1 a.m. at 620 North Chestnut Street for the Cody Cruisers Car Show. E. Approve the application by the First Angelical Lutheran Church for a special designated license on September 26, 2026 from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. in the Courtyard at 305 West 5th Street for their Oktoberfest Festival. f adopt the resolution for signing of the municipal annual certification of program compliance 2026 and authorize the mayor to sign the municipal annual certification of program compliance to nebraska board of public roads classifications and standards 2026. mr mayor i move that we approve the consent agenda as presented second motion by reeker second by voles calling the question on the consent agenda please So, agenda is passed item number 2, moving on to the regular agenda item number 2 authorized the parks and recreation department and the citizens health and wellness committee to establish guidelines and coordinate efforts to gain sponsorship naming rights for various recreation facilities and establish a maintenance fund and a scholarship fund with the proceeds. Mr.

I move to authorize the Parks and Recreation Department of the City of Kitson's Health and Wellness Committee to establish guidelines and coordinate efforts to gain sponsorship and naming rights for various recreational facilities and establish a maintenance funding scholarship fund with the proceeds.

Second. Motion by Reker, second by Volz.

um megan and leland i think are in the audience since you two are the local representatives of the uh citizens health and wellness committee would you please kind of uh tell us kind of what the parameters are and please keep close to the microphone when you're doing so all right oh is that on is the red light on the red line is thank you okay there we go leland poppy 1202 custer court executive director of the nebraska community foundation

I'm Megan McGowan. I live in Brady, but I am the chairperson for the Recreation Alliance and the registered advocacy.

The purpose when we first had the sales tax initiative was to set up a maintenance fund.

That fund has initially been set up through Mid-Nebraska Community Foundation. We currently have over $1.2 million in that, thanks to a contribution of $1 million from Great Plains Health. So that fund would continue to grow. This was approved with a sponsorship going into that long-term maintenance fund. The idea with the maintenance fund is it would stay there, principle not used for, the goal is 10, 15 years and let that build. So when we come around to making Improvements recreation center there would be funds to do that the the the funds could be utilized But it's written that the goal is to keep it there for 10 to 15 still at that button group Okay

You mentioned another fund as well.

There's also a scholarship fund that would be utilized for parameters of those that couldn't afford the facility fees that could be adjusted based on some criteria. And that could be access from the city to help support scholarships to make the memberships affordable for those that could not afford it. Okay. And those are both set up and ready to go if approved.

So what you're saying is you have the funds set up at MidNebraska Community Foundation, and if folks were so inclined, they could donate to either fund at their choice?

They certainly could. And we currently have about 20 funds that help support the city in different services. MidNebraska has paid out about $1.2 million in the last six years, just assisting donors and to help with various programs in the city. But we would have those two funds available. Okay.

Thank you.

So what you're looking at tonight is just kind of the structure of what we're putting, what we've proposed to provide some naming recognition for those that provide some dollars towards either one of these funds. We did lean on the help of CGID architecture and then also RDG, who looked at a couple of different like facilities across the state. We looked at one in Hastings and one in Kearney and looked at some of their sponsorship levels. And so that's kind of where we got the levels and the number of years, just try to look at best practices there. Questions about that?

Okay.

Thank you. Anyone have any questions? Brad?

So who manages these funds currently? You guys?

The funds are managed by the Nebraska Community Foundation.

Oh, the foundation.

Foundation, yes. And they're invested in a long-term investment with the building fund. The scholarship fund would likely be a shorter-term, more liquid fund, because those funds would come in and out annually, where the... Building fund would be hopefully a 10 year investment. So it's invested more in stocks and bonds.

And who, how is the structure of in Nebraska foundation set up? Uh, how was our board, uh, decided is, is it tied back to the city in any way, shape or form?

No, so that there's, um, volunteers on the board, um, 24 board members, um, that are elected on 3 year terms that rotates through every every year. And we also we have a, uh. City Council Chambers, Committee that looks at the investments that's reviewed quarterly and makes adjustments to that based on.

City Council Chambers, That's my criteria for policy so so my concern is is now, you have city funds, this is money that the city is generating. City Council Chambers, being managed by people that aren't tied back to any way anybody that's has an elected seat in any way, shape or form and I don't think that's probably the best way to handle that. I'm not saying anything bad about the foundation.

So that's how our board is set up. Under these funds, those will be determined by representatives from the city and also the recreation committee.

And it is written in the way that the fund is established. It is written in that way. So it does have that.

So who will the city raise funds? Who will manage those? Will it be your committee? Will it be another committee that we set up? How is that going to work?

How will that it's a committee set up with, uh, both city representatives and, uh. Private also, um, with great planes. Providing a 1Million dollars, they'd like to have a seat there, but basically, yeah, just review that upon the request of the city. Um, that would be reviewed by that committee and proceeds going back to the city. It's written in that it goes to the city.

Perfect. That was that was one of my concerns. What if you and I saw you had a structure set in here a million for this and half a million for that. What if you had multiple bids on the same naming structure? How are you guys going to manage that?

Really hope that that happens. I don't I mean, I don't anticipate that being the case, but Um, there are a lot of spaces and you've seen the building. It is a large building. We have, um, has gone through and. Made square foot recommendations in terms of the cost. So there potentially could be some other spaces that we would identify, which. We did leave a little bit of open territory for that. The other spaces might be identified. Um, in that, so I think that there is opportunity. They're not. Maybe some co-naming. I think that there's definitely opportunity for that. And again, I hope that happens. I hope we have several people that want to give a million dollars like that on the record.

And I 100% agree with you. I just, my concern is, and maybe not the million dollar one, but some of the smaller ones, there's only so many of those. And sometimes there's you know, complaints or accusations of favoritism. And I just want to, you know, have you guys thinking of how you're going to handle that, you know, whether it's, you know, 25,000, unless there's multiple, then it's a bidding war, you know, or something along those lines to make it fair to the public. So just something to think about.

Other questions.

I just wanted to ask some clarifying questions because I thought I understood, but now your, your questions made me wonder if I understood. So the money that we're talking about is all outside donation money, correct? But, Brad, your question ties back to the fact that it ties to the city's facility or our reputation and ultimate use of the money. We're not talking about money generated from the sales tax initiative or other taxing authorities, right? That's correct. It's donated. Okay. I just want to make sure I understood that. Thank you.

Pete? And just a point of clarification, the naming and the sinking fund, basically, I understand. As far as like, and I'll use the term loosely, scholarships for the other monies, how will they be decided? Will that, like, who qualifies for that? Would that be your board, Leland, or the alliance group, or is that a city function group?

have you guys thought of that i understand it's more of a city function okay identifying what the criteria was our tentative plan is to roughly follow what the structure of the ymca uses gotcha okay because they have it published out on the web and you can go look at it and it seems to work for many other communities so okay it may be tweaked slightly but that's basically what we're thinking

I think that was always the plan. And just to clarify, I think one of the reasons way back when this was first discussed was to have it outside of the city bank accounts, if you will, in mid-Nebraska. So it was always just for these purposes, so it wouldn't be just sitting there. Some future board could decide to use it for a different purpose. We want it to be earmarked just for maintenance of the facility and the scholarship fund, if that makes sense. Good. Thank you, Nick.

Thank you. Um, my, I guess my question is, is as far as an administrative standpoint, who's going to keep track of the annual. Um, renewals, like, let's say in 5 years, the premier naming rights are coming due whose responsibility is it to send out notifications or. Because they're all kind of staggered 5 year 3 year. Um, so is that the city's responsibility or the foundation's responsibility responsibility? Okay. So the admin stuff is going to be taken care of by the city. Okay.

Rod? The $1.2 million that's been raised so far for maintenance, is that just for the rec center or is that for Cody Pool too?

That's just for the rec center. Mm-hmm. Okay.

Wasn't that kind of all grouped together with the bond issues?

Well, the donors can designate what they'd like to have it done for as part.

So I'm talking about this maintenance fund, $1.2 million. That's not going to be able to be used to do maintenance 20 years from now at the Cody Pool?

That particular million was designated for the rec center.

there may be somebody else that designates some amount for the Cody pool. And then that would be for the Cody pool.

Okay. Excuse me. Sorry. So it looks like most of this is for the pool or for the rec center, correct? None of it's really addressed for Cody pool.

So the reason that Cody pool is on the title is we may have somebody come and say, Hey, we'd like to do, XYZ with a pool, maybe add a splash pad or something like that. What we figured out in the course of trying to solicit donations is that a lot of entities do not like to donate to pools because of the danger associated in pools. They don't want their name on something that a little kid could get hurt on. It's that simple. So there may not be a lot of opportunity for donations to the pool, but if somebody comes to us and says, hey, I'd like to... have my company name on the locker room or something. We wanted to have a structure by which it could be done.

Hypothetically, down the road, we have a good problem, which is an influx of money and no issues at the rec center, but we have issues at Cody Pool and we can't take the money out of there to fix Cody Pool.

Is that correct or no?

No.

If somebody designates money for Cody Poole, then they could. Okay. Leland, do you have an adjustment? I don't know. I didn't read the language by which the fund was created.

Yeah, and we can always amend the fund to qualify for that or set up a separate one just for Cody Poole. But that fund can be amended. Okay.

is worth looking at another reason we are focusing on the rec center is from a visibility standpoint those sponsors it's much greater and it's year-round at the recreation center so we really thought those naming opportunities if you give a great deal of money to cody park you could still get on the wall of the rec center even if it didn't benefit the rec center so we thought just from a recognition standpoint visibility

Ed, go ahead. Thank you. The majority of these have a 10-year term, the way it looks. The digital wall is a one-year term. After 10 years, are there opportunities to resell, so to speak? Absolutely. Is that naming right? Okay. All right. And then I guess just you mentioned, Leland, about a bunch of other things that the Nebraska Community Foundation manages for the city. It would be kind of nice if we had a list of that stuff so we know what those other funds are used for. That's the city that's invested on the city's behalf.

They're not invested in the city's behalf. There are various funds that donors can donate to for things that are generally supported by the city. Like, well, leave them give me some examples. I don't care.

Yeah, the carousel at the bar, the example.

Yeah, it would be like the North flat skate park. It was set up funds were raised. It's on city land built for city recreation. uh north platts flash pad we have the cody park tennis and pickleball courts north platte trails network would be another example for building trails for the city funds are distributed to the city when needed so those would be some of the examples but it's not city money it's donated money for the purpose of the city right and then those requests come from the city and then are in this case you know reviewed and then proceeds sent to the city when the work is completed uh the most recent example would be the firefighters fund for the firefighters training so that was for that proceeds came in for the firefighters um and i guess the uh Milton Berger Memorial is one that just wrapped up small donation for the memorial city paid for the memorial and then got reimbursed through the donations from members of the community. So it's kind of the odds and ends that have taken place over the years for those purposes, but it goes to the city.

Yeah, so these are not funds set up by the city. These usually have been individual groups that have set these up, and then for city projects, and we request that, but it's not city funds that went into these or any taxpayer money. It's all been donations from individuals for the different funds.

Yeah, and when individuals are looking to donate, they donate to the foundation, and proceeds will go for that purpose.

I don't want to get off the agenda here, Mr. Mayor, but I'm just curious. It would be kind of nice to have that.

list published periodically so that maybe somebody would want to donate to some of these funds that doesn't even know that they exist and we have all our funds they're included in the funds with the foundation that's advertised but a lot of med are on the giving day you can find a lot of those kind of funds on the giving day when they have it thank you but yeah more people that are aware of the opportunities to get We're all for that. That's what I'm thinking.

Okay. Other questions or comments?

Just one thing I want to specify to kind of explain my line of questioning to begin with. the the funds you talked about just a minute ago they are all specific donations for city needs and city things this actually has a mechanism that the city is providing a service promotional service is the reason for the the donation so that's why it's structured a little bit in my opinion structure should be structured a little bit different with a little more city oversight so just just to clarify other questions or comments

Seeing none, calling the question on item number two. Item number two is passed. Thank you, guys. Item number three, adopt the resolution regarding publicly accessible code compliance tracking.

Mr. Mayor, I move to adopt the resolution regarding publicly accessible code compliance tracking.

And where are we going with it? There's a process and most of you know that the process is we go out check properties send letters Give property owners some time to take care of the issues And if they don't take care of the issues we try another route They may end up in court. They may end up where we actually go out and do the work for that individual and Um, but what we're trying to maybe cut down with here to come up with another option as to, um, bring more individuals into compliance, um, more quickly. Um, and maybe cut down on some of the, um, phone calls. So if we had this readily available, so an individual could look on the website and say, hey, I called in that address 2 weeks ago. I want to know where it's at. I can take a look at it and, um, you know. Forgo stopping by city hall or or calling, or, you know, taking a lot of time out of their day to figure out where they're at in the in the process. Of what's happening, so that's kind of where we're at with that.

So, I, to be fair, this is kind of my idea and I got convinced Judy to come up and talk about it. But the reason is that we really. Dave Kuntz, We do get a lot of phone calls and and people genuinely wondering what's the status of this property has it been turned in has it not been turned in where is it. Dave Kuntz, You get at the end of this and just one clarification Judy would you say. Dave Kuntz, i've heard you throw out a couple different percentages, but after we send the first letter, how many.

on average would you say people deal with whatever the issue is and it ends right there as a person i would say probably at least 60 to 70 percent um it's it's pretty high once they get you know people typically try to comply but then you have that anywhere from 30 to 40 percent that they're going to ignore every letter that we sent so yeah i mean we have a pretty good rate of return i guess

And then bill from your perspective, once they land on your desk.

Well, what do you usually do just so we're, we're informed here?

Um, so what I usually do is that I have 1 of 2 directions that I can take these cases when they've been referred to me. I can file in county court and request that the property owner pay a fine for violating city ordinance. And so that's usually the 1st route that we take, uh, so that we give people an opportunity to. Take care of the problem on their own and we feel like it's also the best use of city taxpayer dollars, so that we're not spending. significant amounts of money going into court to try to have the city clean it up themselves. So first round, we usually go in, we ask for a fine, talk to the people continuously about getting it cleaned up, and we try to encourage them to get that taken care of. If it continues to be a problem, they've paid a fine, then at that point, then I consider filing in district court where I can ask the court for an order that would authorize the city to go in and do the work themselves. And so... Those are generally the two routes that we go. And obviously, once we get into court, we can see delays, number one, from being able to get in front of the judge. Number two, the property owners can request continuances and ask for more time. And then we also just run into delays in getting the appropriate court orders. So it always takes time once we get there, too.

And just to kind of give you a rundown, I went back over the last four years to just kind of get an idea of how many letters we send. We average about 900 to 950 letters that are sent. Of those, we end up with about 125 of them that are repeat offenders, where we send multiple letters out multiple times. And on average, the city attorney in Southwest anywhere from 40 to about 65 in court or at least land on his desk they may not all end up in court but it does take a lot of staff time and right now this year we're actually at 862 as of today that i just saw and i'm not sure how many have been in court but um quite a few quite a few and i'm actually a little bit behind on filing some of them so there's going to be quite a few more filed here within the next week

I would just note as we're on this topic that city code, when it comes to, so we have two different types of issues that we deal with when it comes to property complaints. We generally divide them into weeds and then nuisances. And nuisances can be anything from like the junk vehicles or just junk trash on the property that needs cleaned up. The nuisance violation are also dealing with weeks but city code allows the city to send out a notice with the weeds and after the appropriate amount of time in the service of the appropriate notice the city can go in and mo so. One of the things that we determined a couple years ago was that with just the weed violations we were going into court and getting fines and nothing was happening and it just seemed like we were just kind of spinning our tires and not getting a lot done so. This year we've taken a little bit different approach and we're looking at potentially kind of polishing it up. So we likely will be coming back to city council after sometime later this fall to maybe propose some changes to that part of the city code. But what we're doing is. Our city code officers will go out they'll inspect a property they'll send an initial notice that hey you need to get these things taken care of the weeds cut the grass cut. they'll go back out and recheck after the amount of time that they give the folks to do that, and then this year if they aren't getting it done, they get a second notice. Uh, that is then personally to them. And if they don't get it taken care of within that amount of time, then the city's authorized by city code to go and have the mowing done themselves. So we've been trying to go about it this way. Uh, just to get properties cleaned up more quickly, um, to reduce some of the calls and complaints and things like that that the mayor's talking about. Um, so we've certainly already identified some ways that we can, um, we can make that process more efficient with some proposed changes that we, we plan to come to city council with shortly.

Go ahead.

Recently, we had a situation where there was a dead tree that was. Danger. I think the city went in and removed that if I'm not mistaken. We have any mechanism to recover our cost circumstance.

Um, it depends on it. So, yes, there are some mechanisms, but some of this, the city code is very specific about the types of notices that have to be sent out. And so my position has always been, if we don't get the right kind of notice before we get the work done, then we can't try to collect. I have to collect the costs after that. So. So, for things like that, it can sometimes be hard if it's an emergency situation and we need to act quickly. It can be hard to get those notices out.

In a situation like that, let's say that that tree would have fallen across the traffic when someone had been hit. Who's liable for that?

If you want to discuss it in a closed session or talk about it, I'll discuss it with you further. Okay. I'll catch you.

Other questions or comment, Ty? Yeah, just a quick comment. You know, this will really ruffle some feathers with some people whose names get put on the list. And that's probably, I mean, I understand reducing the call volumes and the contacts at City Hall, but let's talk about the real effect is probably if somebody doesn't like their name on the internet for being on the nuisance list, then the hope would be that they would, you know, maybe clean these things up faster. So I, that's probably the, the secondary benefit here. I would also hope that, that you would see maybe, you know, people who purchase real estate would use that list as a bench, almost knock on doors of properties that might offers to buy somebody's property and all that. This isn't, there's definitely going to be some complaints about this. I think we have to go into this. I support the idea. This is probably the biggest criticism I hear about our city is that people want to see more enforcement of this. But I think we all have to know that there's going to be some upset people with this. But in my opinion, it will probably move the needle too. And I think it's a good idea to try it.

Ty brings up a really good point. That's initially where I went to. That's kind of like the blacklist on the Internet. And then I recalled a good friend of mine, longtime resident of North Platte, said that Keith Blackledge, and some of you folks might remember this from your day, used to post this in the Telegraph. when he had the telegraph, and it was kind of like pointing out the people who weren't taking care of their properties. So I think it will have that effect, whether pro or con, I don't know. But I do think I get a lot of complaints about nuisance and weeds, so this might alleviate that skosh. So I'm in favor of this also. Go ahead, Ed.

Mr. Mayor, where would this be going?

Our plan is to dedicate a section of our website to it. So it would be off the North Platte NE.gov website, probably an area named property compliance or something along those lines. It would be a couple of clicks deep in the website. Brad, you had a question?

Yes. So unkept properties, is that the list that you guys go through that we've been purchasing when they get so distressed? Is that the same list?

No. Not necessarily. Some of them might be on there. You can publish that one, too, if you want to.

I do want to. And here's the reason why. And you alluded to it just a second ago. If they're struggling with these properties, it would increase availability of potential buyers. And I brought this up several times. I brought it up to the committee. I brought it up here in council. I think publishing that list is a good thing because it could get them some ways out to sell their property. It would make it harder for the city to buy all these properties, but in my opinion, that's a good thing for the private citizens to manage this. Here's my struggle. So I'll make it personal because I literally received one of these letters like yesterday or today in the mail. So I'm going on this list, which is fine. Like, I don't care. But when you read that letter, like that you guys send out, it is an absolute threat. Like it is not. There's no like, hey, we love you guys. You're awesome. No, it's do it or you're going to court. If you don't, if by threatening someone, they don't move, shaming them, I don't think is gonna move the needle that much. So I see this as a negative. I see this as bully tactics. I'll give you for instance, i own houses in in other towns and uh in between renters i actually one of my my weeds got out of control and they sent me a letter and i'll you know it was my fault but it was interesting because the letter wasn't a threat the letter was hey we know you're a good citizen We really appreciate what you're doing in our town. We just wanted to let you know your weeds have gotten a little out of control and would hope you would take care of us. Super nice, very polite light out. I took care of it immediately. I couldn't wait to do it because I wanted to get back in the good graces of what they thought. It's psychology and it's silly, but it works. And I just want to throw that out there.

Nick? Thank you. So you can email or you can file complaints through this website?

Our website right now does have a place where you can file a complaint. It is on the website. So yeah.

Really?

Yep. We get those quite a bit and it's for all kinds of things. They can report any type of issue.

Well that was going to lead into my next question is are you afraid of getting an abundance of Complaints that don't go against the ordinance.

I think we do get some of that already through the email. But we check out every complaint that's there. We'll go check it out and see. Some of them are actually non-compliant. Some of them are compliant and it's just somebody complaining about a property. But we do check those out. they come in and actually Kevin gets the majority of those and then he filters them to whichever department needs to look at them. But yeah, we do have that. We've gotten some through there already.

Well, I just want to add too that I think This is probably going to be a good thing for the community as well, because. So many times when I have people call me, they always feel like they're the only ones. That are getting these letters and I think for transparency reasons. To go in there and see that some of these, I'm not going to mention any names, but complaints about. Developers or whatever, if they have weeds, they can go in and see the complaints and letters have been filed and then. proper actions have been taken. So I think it's fair for the community to see that.

Rod? I don't know about if it's going to alleviate some phone calls. It might create more phone calls because I think the person that gets the threatening letter, like Brad said, as soon as they get that mode, they're going to be calling you saying, get me off the list now. You're going to get a lot of that. And i i think you're going to get a lot of people that'll look at the list drive around town and be calling you saying how come this guy's not on the list get over there and do it so i think it might work just the opposite of what you're wanting it might create more phone calls pointing out spots that we haven't pointed out well i i'm just afraid yeah i don't think we have a problem with people reporting more problem properties because

With two people and 250 miles of roads in the town, it takes a long time to get around. You can't get the whole town in the summer and do it appropriately.

But they have their routes they take, and they hit them people real hard. And there's a lot that I don't think they're getting. So it might make them have to work a little harder at finding them.

See, and psychologically, I actually go the opposite way. When you threaten me and you shame me, I want to fight now. Now I want to cause a problem to the city because the big bad city is coming after me. I literally was in the process of taking care of the weeds. My mower threw a belt, got that fixed. The battery quit on me, got that fixed. The starter went out. I got to get that fixed now. So I'm in the process of fixing it. But now I got this going on. I'm like... you know what? I've been in a fight for a couple days. Let's do that.

I would note that any of our notices that go out are crafted entirely based upon city code, so city council members are welcome to take a look at that if they don't like the way that the city code is drafted.

I appreciate that. I'll be taking a look at that. Thanks, Bill.

Other questions or comments? Mr. Mayor?

Yes, sir. Just to clarify, when I read the resolution that was proposed, it looked to me like It had to be at the violation stage to be published. So in other words, if somebody makes a complaint that doesn't go to the list, it gets investigated first. Am I right? That's the way I interpreted it? Correct. So I just want to make sure we have clarity on that. It doesn't appear to be an immediate. You're not on the list without somebody checking it out.

We make sure that when we get a complaint that we go out and check it out, make sure that it is actually in violation before a letter is ever sent.

And I would point out to you guys that, I mean, you are the legislative body of the city. I mean, this is just a resolution. If somebody wants to motion, for example, that we don't put them on the website until they get the second letter, for example, that would be a perfectly viable opportunity. I'm not saying we should or we shouldn't do it, but that might be a possibility.

And to that point, too, just for clarity purposes, For clarity's sake, the initial letters that go out are more of a courtesy notice. They're the notices, the initial letters are saying, hey, we've been by your property. This needs to be cleaned up. The second notice is one that I sign that goes out that says, you know, you are in violation. We're providing you this notice pursuant to the city code. And if it's not remedied within this amount of time, then we're authorized to go in and do the work ourselves and assess it against the property. So

that that second letter uh would be more of the official notice the first letter is more of a courtesy i'll be honest i received the first letter it did not feel like a courtesy it said you have five days to remedy this or you'll be talking to the city attorney that that sounds like a threat now if that's something we need to clean up in you know legislatively like i'm going to look into that but and i

Those are just the standard letters that have gone out for years, I think.

Overcrafted by city attorneys long ago. That's what it's been used for ever.

And that's what I was going to say. Actually, before me, I think they tried the nice letter, and they just weren't getting any traction. And so that's why they went with the standard. And it isn't a nice letter. I will agree.

I have a gentleman in the back who wants to make a comment. So, Judy, would you? Good. Yep. Come up to the microphone, please. Tell us who you are and where you live, please.

My name is Gary Wario. I basically live across the street, but not to want to get any of your letters or anything, but I have trees that are in between the sidewalk and the street that are going up into the power lines. Who's responsible for that?

The power company takes care of that.

like i said i just didn't know who who gets what responsibility but so i would have to call them or the city would call i i think we'll probably take care of it tomorrow so i tried to keep the bottom part trim before you keep going driving underneath it but street sweeper it's not high enough for them because i'm not going to climb up on the ladder trying to get 16 feet up in the air but you know i keep my City Council Chambers, Sidewalk and curve pretty clean but it's tall enough for I can walk underneath it on my yard don't hit my head but. City Council Chambers, You know I don't know what the city ordinance are for except sidewalks or the streets align along willow they said, everybody has to be 16 feet up in here, I can see that semi trucks but.

Go ahead as far as the power lines, we will take a look at that. We evaluate that.

They need to take a question about.

Yeah, appreciate that. Thank you for letting us know again. Hard hard to look at the whole town and all the power lines and so thanks for letting us know when it grows back in a couple of years. Call us again.

If you.

Can I just make a comment on that? Go ahead, Nick. Yeah, I think if you just reach out to a municipal light and water, anytime that happens, they send somebody over from the electric company. So, yeah, just easy phone call.

And just for clarification now, power lines are different, but just for clarification, it's the responsibility of the property owner from the center of the street to the center of the alley. So, the sidewalks are the responsibility of the property owner, but power lines are.

Yeah, mostly because we don't want people trimming next to power lines. So, okay. Other questions or comments go ahead.

I would move that we, uh. Don't publish. the notice until the second letter has been mailed. Second.

Okay, so we have a motion and a second that we do not add Make sure I say this correctly, Ed, that we don't add people to the website until a second letter is sent.

Is that correct? Okay. Any discussion on that motion? Mr. Mayor? Go ahead, Ty.

What would the normal time frame be between first letter and second letter? Is this normally one or two weeks, or is it a 30- or 60-day differential? I just want to understand the normal flow.

so typically um they go out inspect the property if it's found to be in violation they will send a notice and they will give the property owner anywhere from seven to ten days sometimes the property owner will contact Um, the compliance officers, um, if they do that, and there's a legitimate reason, like, they're on vacation for the next 2 weeks, you know, something like that. They do work with property owners, so that time can extend a little bit just kind of based on individual situations, but typically 7 to 10 days. They recheck the property and then at that point, the 2nd letter is hand delivered and they have 5 days from the date of that letter to rectify the situation.

Okay. Mayor Keller, I'm looking at the resolution. So if the change you're looking at, Ed, I mean, I'm looking at that.

One, two, three, fourth, whereas.

And the last paragraph, or last part of the sentence is, you want that change to have received or will be receiving a second notice of such violation? If we change it that way, Judy, does that fit with you guys? Make an easy change, assert the word second.

Okay, that would that would be an easy way to handle that change. So we could do it that way. Did you have some building?

I was just going to say, we'll have to. We would include it in the portion that councilman initially mentioned, but then also in section 1 of the resolution. So, okay, we can certainly do that.

Other Ed, Mr. Mayor. I'm thinking particularly of silence. Is that covered under this? Or we have sidewalks that are buckled so badly. For whatever reason, that's certainly a nuisance if you land on your nose.

Could be worse.

How is that addressed? We don't have, I mean, if you've got 7 to 10 days to fix it before notice, it's going to be tough.

Our code officers aren't really inspecting sidewalks.

They're looking more for weeds and sidewalks is a different part of this code that is actually falls under the city engineer. And I'll be honest. That's something we have not as a city tackled probably for a couple of decades.

I know on our side, you know, there's a lot of older properties and probably older folks in those older properties that may not have the wherewithal to go in and rip out a sidewalk and replace it. I'm not making that as an excuse.

Like I said, it's something that has not been addressed for quite some time and we. That needs to be a further discussion at some point, because there are a lot of sidewalks are breaking up and tripping hazards and, you know. It's also that's a lot larger expense for our property owners and trimming a tree or cutting some grass. So it's something we need to address at some point.

Other questions or comments. Okay, so we're going to vote on the amendment to change the resolution such that addresses and names would not be added to the website until a second notice is delivered to the offending property. Is that correct, Ed? That's what you were going to get at? Okay, by changing two places in the order. So calling the question on that motion. Okay. We're back to the original ordinance as amended by the notify on the second letter motion. Any other further discussion?

One last thought. I think it would be a great thing to add to this eventually in the future resources of groups or organizations that can go help take care of these properties that people can't take care of themselves.

It's a really good idea.

Just something to think about.

Or, um, at least for the, like, the, the nuisance properties that I was talking about, I just so everyone knows, I don't mean to throw council members under the bus at all. But if I have people that are in court on some of these issues, um, a lot of times I'll say, you know, you might think about reaching out to your city council person, because they may be aware of some. So I know you're one of those individuals. So I, some of those calls you get maybe because of me but I'm, I'm telling people I think your council members have some resources that are available to them. And I just don't have the time to talk to him about all that in court. So I am directing some people to say like you. Sorry.

So if we have a list of resources, because there are some available, there are church groups there, et cetera.

Let's add them to this website. And then it's right there. So folks can reference it as they need it.

It's a good idea.

Okay. Other questions or comments?

Question number three, as amended. Number three, as amended, passes. Thank you, everyone. Number four, adopt the recommendation by the City Planning Commission to vacate a 10-foot-wide utility easement located at 302 West 3rd Street on property described as Lot 1 Garrison Subdivision, North Platte, Lincoln County, Nebraska.

Mayor, I move to adopt the recommendation of the City Planning Commission to vacate a 10-foot-wide utility easement located at 302 West 3rd Street on property described as Lot 1, Garrison Subdivision, Mark Platt, Lincoln County, Nebraska.

Second. Motion by Reker, second by McNew. Any discussion on item number... Well, Judy, tell us what's going on, I guess.

Um, so this is a property that was subdivided several years ago to allow, um, kind of a smaller. Home sites to smaller home sites, um, with that original subdivision, we required that they put in a. Utility easement for the purpose of getting water from the street and sewer from the alley. Um, just recently the property, 1 of the properties that has been sold and, um, the new owner would like to build a garage. Um, in order to do that, he would be building the garage over top of the easement or within the easement. And so, which is not allowed. So, I, they asked me what they could do and I said, you could request to vacate that easement as long as you showed that the easement was not used for utilities. And so that's what you have is a map showing the location of the utilities, which obviously shows that that utility. So. We have no problem with vacating it if you don't.

Questions or comments? Seeing none, calling the question on item number four, please.

Item number four is passed.

I, number five, accept the certificate of completion for paving district number 837, which is West 9th Street from 300 feet west of Sherman Avenue to Buffalo Bill Avenue, North Carr Avenue from 9th Street to Rodeo Road, and North Mills Avenue from 9th Street to Rodeo Road, and accept said improvements.

Mr. Mayor, I move to accept the certificate of completion for paving district number 837, West 9th Street from 300 feet west of second motion by reeker second by die brent this might be the last time we talk about 9th street for a while

Um, good evening mayor council. Um, what's before you is just the final sign off that we have all the elements. Of the project completed and just presenting the final costs and then for your information, the expenses on how they're being addressed. Okay, give me questions on was a multi year project that I believe started in 21. With decades of discussion before that. questions or comments mr mayor ed um where are we at with the storm sewer we um the particular area that we're looking at we have a we're at the city crews looking at that but that's not particular to the certificate of completion though as far as this is just a certificate on the cost of the project being done if there's warranty issues that would be a secondary item okay to look at but they're being looked at

And it was brought to my attention that part of the easement on the back side of the sidewalk has not been reseated. So I presume that would be part of the contract that would need to be completed.

That would be a warranty issue.

It would be a warranty, even though it was never seeded.

I mean, they had ceded a big portion. We can talk about it later if you want.

As long as it gets taken care of.

Let me know where it's at, and if there's a specific house or property, we'll make sure it's addressed. If you'd let me know, I'll definitely take care of whichever one it is.

Thank you.

Questions or comments?

Seeing none, calling the question on item number five. Thanks, Brent.

And number five is passed.

I've never six is a public hearing. And so we'll open a public hearing on a discussion to approve a bid in the amount of three hundred nineteen nine hundred and sixteen thousand seven. Excuse me. Three hundred nineteen thousand nine hundred sixteen dollars and seventy cents. and authorize the mayor to negotiate and sign contract documents with Paulson Inc. of Cozad for South Park Trail project.

So I'm opening up the public hearing, but first I'm going to ask Brent to kind of describe what we have going on here. So from the construction perspective.

What I'm doing is presenting more of the information on what we're looking at doing as far as the details on The specifics of the project. Kevin's going to help with some of the financial part. And what we're looking at is on South Buffalo bill around the front three months slew the project. You can kind of see the big picture overall. The black. Heavy line is where we're proposing. A bike trail. Over on the east side, we'll have a bridge crossing the slough. And then south to the bottom here, we're showing a trailhead parking area with a connection off of Buffalo. So there'd be parking in an area to get over here into this trail section. And then this is just kind of a blown up. It's the same thing, but zoomed in. So there would be a connection over on the existing South Buffalo Trail. that functions in a loop with the bridge crossing across the slough and then a trail looping back in over on Buffalo again and then a connection to a area that has some paved parking but some area for extra overflow. So that's the big picture of what we're looking at with this item as far as the bid that we had with Paulson's was for the concrete trail and the concrete for the parking lot, dirt work for the parking lot, and crushed concrete for the remainder that's not paved.

Brent, do you have another picture that kind of shows what we would outline as a park area that's kind of relevant?

This third one shows the parcel that's being proposed to be carved out. that inside of those black boundaries here up at the top, which would be the northeast, which is the right. Sorry, this keeps popping up, trying to be helpful. And then the bottom, and then over here on Buffalo. So that rectangle is that portion of the property that's being proposed as the park.

So just to refresh everyone's memories, and it's, could you kind of circle your cursor around the well house there? So thank you. If you're driving down Buffalo and you look out in this area a little bit before you get to Powell's Brewing, you'll see that well house out there today that's kind of an identifying landmark right now. And so all of this would occur slightly north of that well house. But what this entire area from really just south of where the new Quick Stop was built to down to just north of where Ottinger's Boat Shop was built, is currently designated a giant park and i think many of you remember we were on the council a few years ago we we discussed the possibility of putting housing in this area and that set off a whole chain of events and i got to be in a lot of meetings with the state of nebraska and all that sort of thing but anyway um to make very very long story shorter um I don't think and I think the council generally agreed with at that time, which has been a couple of years ago, but that it was a good idea to retain part of this region as a park and then seek to eventually convert the rest of it, particularly to the north, although there's a little bit to the south. of this um into a property that the city owned so that it could sell it someday for whatever purpose with more more than likely housing but for whatever purpose the city deemed useful at that time i don't think it's something that we need to worry about selling off anytime in the near future we've got plenty of housing going in our community right now but i do kind of want to get this issue resolved with the state because it is a it goes clear the federal government it's a long and complex process and the the park that we have designated and gotten partially set up over near madison middle school is a component to this process you'll recall that we have to purchase property and roughly the value of this whole property and then there's kind of a trade so it's a park for park but it's done by dollar value not by space and there'll be another park out on the east southeast portion of town where the housing and apartments are going in in that vicinity that will also become part of this trade as we move forward hopefully in getting that done and designated here this fall or early next year and then we can complete the process with the state and the federal government and get all the shuffling done which will probably take they tell me a good share of a year so best case scenario this hopefully is in somewhere around the end of 27 and this is all done this piece right here we have to we um agreed i think everyone did that it's a good idea to leave a park in this location and we have this uh the money that we have from the the grant we've been using to to tear down dilapidated homes we haven't been able to spend it all and the termination of that grant is coming up here in the end of september and you'll recall that when we submitted that grant we had a 250 000 provision to use for green spaces and so we can designate that money and then we've talked with the state and they're willing to approve the monies needed to make all this happen from that grant i'm looking at kevin because he's been the one communicating with him and he's nodding at me here in order to make this park happen so we'll be able to do all this wonderful paving the parking lot etc with no additional cost to the community. The trick is it has to be all done by September 30th. And we received bids. What day? Where'd Brent go? There he is. What day did we receive bids? Last Tuesday. And the contractors, in this case, Paulson, who was the low bidder, is quite aware that they have to be done prior to this. And they would like to start on Monday. They've let us know. So we need to either approve or deny this tonight, one or the other, and go forward accordingly. Mr. Reicher.

Not to throw a wrench in the gears here, but on the east end of that property, is there any reason that that doesn't go all the way over to, isn't there a bike trail on, is that Willow?

Buffalo.

Yeah, we'll call him. Okay.

There is a bike trail all the way over at willow, but you have echo drive in there and then you have a long stretch of property. Behind the college and stuff before you'd ever get there that the city is not. Oh, this is basically at the edge of the city property.

And I do think that's probably a tremendous goal for the community, maybe over the next 20 or 30 years. So they were acquiring little bits of that property and get that bike trail all the way over there. It'd be really nice. We're hoping to do a couple turnouts on this so people could stand or sit and fish in the slough at some point in the future. But it'll depend on how all the money comes together and if there's enough water in the slough.

I spent a lot of time on this trail, even though I don't look like it. I do spend a lot of time on this trail. And it's a wonderful area. It's a heavily used area. You know, we've never... This is a great opportunity to use the Fremont Slough, which is a beautiful water area. I think that this area would have tremendous public use on it. The area, there's a floodway, as I recall, isn't there, Brent, that goes down? So the property is really not buildable for anything else. I mean, what a home run for the community to be able to use part of the grant funds. I just think it's a tremendous enhancement to that area. I did make a contact to Quick Stop and just talk to them a little bit about this right before we were talking about it tonight because I was thinking about, well, how much restroom usage and some things like that. They said there's, I don't mean to speak for them, but they said they have absolutely no objection to this and see it as a tremendous enhancement to the area. And I'm sure others do as well. But I think this is a fantastic opportunity to get improvement done in our community that will be very meaningful to this area. Other questions or comments?

Brad?

Are we still in a public hearing? Oh, sorry.

I'm sorry.

Okay. I apologize. Well, hold on. Hang on.

Hold on. Go ahead. Come on up.

Come on up.

You got to come on up.

Microphone. Microphone.

PJ Hamilton, Northwest 818 Reed Avenue, North Platte. How many times is the Fremont, that part right there, flooded? Or does anybody know?

Brent, do you know? Well, first of all, you have to define flood, meaning the 100-year flood or the water just came up. Just the water. Because there's water that has come up through there, but I don't know if we had any shots in elevations. When we've had a big three-inch rain, it's come up. But I don't own that specific.

Besides the 100-year flood, I mean, is there any chance this nice concrete would be flooded?

It's outside of the 100-year flood elevation. So, I mean, there's a chance. I mean, if we get a big enough rain, five-inch rain, probably. I've never seen it flood.

I've been out there for 40 years. Well, you're old.

All right, before this gets any worse, do we have anyone else who'd like to make a public comment?

i'll just make a comment leland poppy 1202 custer court i've got my trails hat on now so i'm on the trails committee you know we worked for years trying to get funds to establish trails where this can happen quickly and add to our trail system i appreciate appreciate what the city's done and making this happen getting innovative and it'll be a nice addition to the trail network thank you um brent a quick point of clarification

I'm pretty sure you told me that that's pretty much exactly a half mile on that loop. Is that correct?

It's a little bit longer because we had to jog it out, but it's around 2,700 feet. Okay.

So if you're shooting for a specific number of miles to walk, Ty, you can just go around here. Yeah.

I would note also that where there's a parking area, there's communities where they have basically a place where people drive and then they walk on a trail and come back to their car. And this is going to be kind of a new, we have a lot of trails where you can get to from different places. But as far as that actual parking area to get onto a trail system, this is kind of unique for us. And it's going to really, I think, adds to the trail system.

Okay.

Okay, Mr. Garrick.

Are we done with public hearing? Anybody else want to talk?

move to close public hearing second motion by garrick second by voles closed public hearing i'm gonna have to have a little yeah we're at three sessions with this tv here calling the question on closing the public hearing please oops angie can now we have nothing

Let's say everyone vote, please. Okay, public hearing is now closed.

Council will now discuss approve the bid in the amount of $319,916.70 and authorize the mayor to negotiate and sign contract documents with Paulson, Inc. of Cozad for South Park Trail Project.

Mr. Mayor, I move to approve the bid in the amount of $319,916.70 and authorize the mayor to negotiate and sign contract documents with Paulson, Inc. of Cozad for the South Park Trail Project.

Second. Motion by voles 2nd, by die any discussion on this item.

Go ahead. You bring up Madison, the part just south of that. Where are we at with that?

You know, project and how's that come along part of the process of getting the state and federal approval for the change requires a environmental review of the places that we're going to convert. And since there is an expense to that, I'd like to have all the places that we would convert to other parks identified so the review can be done all at once rather than having to pay for multiple reviews. So when we get the piece that's going to be out there off East Francis done, which should be sometime this fall, early winter. then we'll move forward with getting all the reviews done at the same time and so hopefully next spring we can be in there doing stuff on that one in madison or near madison we have a preliminary design of the amenities and what it's going to cost for those things um put together so it's just waiting on these pieces as america mentioned i tried to get them to let us go forward with doing some stuff and they said you can plant grass on it but okay yes

Initially, I looked at the parking lot and I'm like, parking lot. But then I thought about it and I'm out there a lot, too. A lot of people park in the cutouts. And I think there will be more. The cutouts will hopefully eventually be gone once housing goes in there and that. And how many spots, Brent, do you have an idea of roughly of that size of that parking lot? Because I think a lot more people will come out here and use it, too.

Um, the total number of spots. Is 1 item the number that we're going to have paved is another what we're going to have is crushed concrete for. A majority of it, but there's going to be a row of parking. All the way at the north end, and there's about. I'd say around 1215 spots, we're going to have a designated. Accessible spot there as well. And then the connection to the trail from that. So there'll be room. The other thing is with the crushed concrete, some of our thought is sometimes you can get some oversized vehicles or people show up with bikes on a trailer that there's a little bit more flexibility that you can park. If you bring a van with eight bikes or whatever, you can park there and still have room to do your thing, get out, have a trailhead that has flexibility for those types of things.

Perfect. Thank you.

Rod, was there any solar kind of lighting or anything that was going to be on that trail or at night? It's just going to be flat dark.

We don't have any lighting on what we're doing right now.

That might be the next project.

Okay.

Just asking.

Other comments or questions?

Seeing none. Excuse me. Seeing none. Calling the question on item number six, please. Item number six is passed. Item number seven. We have another starting with under public hearing. First reading and action to adopt ordinance number 4255 annexing lot one deep waters. Retreat Administrative Subdivision, Lincoln County, Nebraska, consisting of approximately 2.326 acres into the corporate limits of the City of North Platte. Lane, the ordinance, please.

Ordinance number 4255. An ordinance of the Mayor and Council of the City of North Platte, Lincoln County, Nebraska, to include within the corporate limits of the City of North Platte Certain lands described as Lot 1, Deep Waters Retreat Administrative Subdivision, Lincoln County, Nebraska, repealing all ordinances in conflict herewith, provided for the effective date and publication thereof.

Thank you. Public hearing is open on this item. If anyone would like to make a comment about item number 7, please approach the microphone, tell us who you are, and make your comment.

Mr. Mayor, I move we close public hearing.

Second.

Motion by Bowles, second by Reker to close public hearing. Calling the question on closing the public hearing. Public hearing is closed. Council will now consider first reading in action on to adopt ordinance number 4255 annexing lot one deepwaters retreat administrative subdivision Lincoln County, Nebraska consisting of approximately 2.326 acres into the corporate limits of the city of North Platte.

Mr. Mayor, I move to adopt ordinance number 4255, annexing lot 1, deepwaters retreat administrative subdivision, Lincoln County, New Mexico, consisting of approximately 2.326 acres in the corporate limits of the city of North Platte on first reading.

Second. Motion by Reker, second by McNew. Judy, would you describe what we've got going on here, please?

Mayor, council, this property is in front of you because it was just recently subdivided. The 2.36 acre lot was subdivided off of a larger parcel. Our subdivision regulations read that if a property is abutting or adjacent to the city limits at the time that they subdivide, then the property owner that is doing the subdivision has to request annexation. So that's why we're here.

And Judy remind me, is this the property that we spent quite a bit of time debating?

That's exactly the property several months ago that we spent a lot of time debating how to subdivide because it's like 35 acres total. And so there was some discussion on. Subdividing it, putting in some easements. Um, the property owner didn't really want to do that. So the whole intent was to get the new construction building on a separate parcel. And so that's why we came back with just a single lot subdivision.

So, positionally, this is the really nice building that's out there on North Buffalo. Correct. Okay. Thank you.

Questions for Judy.

So, on the when you subdivide a small piece, and the bigger 1 is still a budding city limit. That 1 doesn't have to come in automatically just the 1 that you're.

Right. Because subdivision, you're not required to complete an actual subdivision if the property remaining is over 10 acres. So the property remaining is over that 10 acre mark. So that's technically not part of the subdivision. The subdivision is just the small acreage. So that's why the request for annexation is just simply the small acreage that was subdivided.

That makes sense. The 10 acres is what wasn't clicking for me at first because I was thinking about over on Eugene, where both of those had to come in, but when they subdivided.

Correct. Because they were smaller than 10 acres. They were both part of that subdivision. So they were both up for annexation.

Okay. That's where my confusion was. Thank you.

Yep.

Fred?

Help me refresh my memory on this one. Initially, we were going to subdivide this into three properties, and we were having easement issues with the backside of it, and then we just went ahead and subdivided this chunk, and that's where we landed, correct? That is correct. All right, thank you.

Other questions or comments?

Thank you, Judy. Seeing none, calling the question on item number seven, please. Item number seven is passed. I have number eight. Another public hearing. First reading on the subject of first reading in action to adopt ordinance number 4256 to rezone certain land from an R3 dwelling district to a B-2 highway commercial district on property located at 2420 West 13th Street. Lane, the ordinance, please.

Ordinance number 4256, an ordinance of the City of North Platte, Lincoln County, Nebraska, rezoning certain lands described as Lot 1, Robert Subdivision, North Platte, Lincoln County, Nebraska, from an R3 dwelling district to a B2 highway district, repealing all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith, providing for the effective date and publication thereof.

Public hearing is now open on item number eight. If you'd like to make a comment, please press the microphone, tell us who you are and where you live, and make your comment.

It appears the crowd is relatively silent tonight.

Mayor, I move we close public hearing.

I'm going to give that one to Ed and Bowles second. You guys should sing together or something. All right. Calling the question on closing public hearing, please. Public hearing is now closed on item number eight. Council will consider first reading an action to adopt ordinance number 4256 to rezone certain land from an R-3 dwelling district to a B-2 highway commercial district on property located 2420 West 13th Street.

I move to adopt ordinance number 4256 to rezone certain land from an R-3 dwelling district to a B-2 highway commercial district located at 2420 West 13th Street.

second motion by mcnews second by lucas questions or comments that's first reading yeah judy you want to give us a blurb here i don't know why you go clear back over there and sit down

Mayor, Council, this one you probably recognize a little bit from a couple of months ago also. This property was just purchased and subdivided. One of the owners is Roberts and Sons Plumbing. The other owner of the second lot, which is right beside this, is Hausman. what is happening here is this was um if you've been by there recently property that was just north of the caseys on buffalo and and rodeo and it was really kind of in need of cleaning up and getting rid of some things. So these two gentlemen purchased the property, subdivided it, and now Mr. Roberts is looking at putting his plumbing business in one of the buildings that is there. In order to do that, since it's zoned residential, he would have to rezone it to commercial.

Okay. Brad? This one's on the corner of Buffalo and 13th right there, north of the, yeah.

Yeah, just south of the state.

Department building, I was looking at that really cool property. Honestly, you needed some real TLC. So I'm glad to see somebody doing doing right by it. So that's cool.

Other questions or comments. Seeing none calling the question on item number eight, please.

Thank you, Judy. You might as well just stay there.

number eight is passed i'm number nine begins with another public hearing first reading in action to adopt ordinance number 4257 to rezone certain lands from a b2 highway commercial district to an r3 dwelling district on property located at 606 and 608 east 5th street lane the ordinance please

Ordinance number 4257, an ordinance of the city of North Platte, Lincoln County, Nebraska, rezoning certain lands described as the east 44 feet of Lot 3, Block 137, and the west 22 feet of Lot 3, and the east 22 feet of Lot 4, Block 137, original town subdivision, North Platte, Lincoln County, Nebraska, from a B2 highway district, to an r3 dwelling district repealing all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith providing for the effective date and publication thereof thank you opening the public hearing on this subject at this time anybody would like to make a comment please approach the microphone let us know who you are where you live and we'll be happy to hear your comment you're not generating a lot of interest in these here judy

Let's see. May we close the public hearing?

Second.

Motion by Reker, second by Volz to close the public hearing, calling the question on closing the public hearing. Public hearing is closed. Thank you. Council will now consider item number nine, which is first reading and action to adopt ordinance number 4257 to rezone certain lands from a B2 highway commercial district to an R3 dwelling district on property located at 606 and 608 East 5th Street.

Mr. Mayor, I move to adopt ordinance number 4257 to rezone certain lands from B2 highway commercial district to an R3 dwelling district at...

606 and 608 east fifth street on first reading second motion by reeker second by die right okay on live number nine discussion judy

Mayor, council, um, these are 2, uh, properties that were purchased through the housing grant. Um, they were vacated, uh, houses that just weren't livable any longer. And thanks to the grant and and your direction, we. Purchase those properties, um, demolish the structures and now in order to comply with the grant, um. The properties will need to have be available to have, um, affordable housing built back on them. The only way to do that is to rezone the property to residential.

Questions or comments on item number 9.

The city still owns these properties currently. Yes. This is creating a giant donut hole that doesn't have any other residential anywhere near around it.

residential to the north there is residential to the west if you skip one lot but that lot is currently used as residential so there is residential in the area yes it's not the greatest location but

Other questions or comments rod so in a B2, would they be able to build like a. Business down below with apartments above it and we'd still comply with the. With the, uh, grant, that is a very good question.

It would be very tricky to do that. Um, in a commercial, can you do residential through a conditional use permit? You could do a lower floor as commercial. Um, upper floor as residential in order to comply with the grant, that would be something I would really have to dig into. Um, I know they, we had asked about another property and the state was really keen on doing that.

So I was just asking the question.

Would be a better use of the space to your to your point rod.

You know, the only problem with doing that is if you do it with 2 separate properties, so these properties are only 44 foot wide and so for a commercial structure and then residential upstairs, it would be very, very small. Could be very difficult. Could we combine these lots before the. Yes, sale process combining lots could be done.

I remember making this decision back when we were looking to purchase these properties. I justified it with having the R3 across the street. And the purchaser of the property can dictate what he wants to do there. So he can rezone this. if he wanted to do that lower level business i'm just saying it gives him more opportunity as long as he puts affordable housing in there at some portion then we can cross that bridge when we get to it down there but as far as selling it and for flexibility this would have to go r3 and i think that's the right call on that with the properties across the street comments not sure how you're going to get around affordable housing if you have something

It's a commercial project.

I'm just saying it kicks the can down the road a little bit. It kicks the can down the road a little bit. And we could look at it at that point. We can't talk here and figure out every subject.

There's some stipulations with the grant when we sell these that have to be on there. So it might be a little bit difficult. Exactly.

Exactly. I'm just saying R3 right now is a good call. Mr. Mayor, go ahead.

You know, if we weren't to pass this, we'd probably have to pay the state back for this. And so we did spend a lot of time talking about this in the public forum. Therefore, I'd motion that we waive the requirement of three readings on this. Second.

Motion to waive the three readings on this item by Lucas, second by McNew. Any discussion on waiving the three readings?

Seeing none, calling the question and waiving the three readings. Three readings are waived. Let's see. So now we're back to the original consideration as amended.

Further discussion?

Nick? Just one final comment. I think when you drive down that street, you don't really realize that the majority of that is B2. It feels more Like, housing than it does until you get over to 4th street where it feels more like business. But. When we were talking about this originally, I still stick with the idea of. Apartments or duplexes or something like that would be a great fit for this area here because there's a lot of things in walking distance. So. That's why I stand on that situation.

Comments or questions seeing done calling the question on item. Number 9 is amended. I have number 9 is passed. I have number 10 approve the claims.

Mr. Mayor. I move that we pay the claims.

2nd, motion by recur second by voles to pay the claims any discussion Ed.

Under the library section, you have an expenditure to the Nebraska library commission. I do not offhand.

It might be some of our interlibrary loans, but I'm not positive on that, Ed. I can find out for you.

I would like to know. Under the electric one, this shows up on several of them. Amazon Capital Services, $6,953. Is that for credit card processing?

I don't know. I will find out. Don, do you know on that one?

Yes. Mr. Reker counseled that Amazon would just be our Amazon account that the city has. As far as the electric, it's generally it's tools or their flame resistant clothing that they tend to purchase via Amazon.

Those are not available.

No, they're not. The claim is it's in closing. No one in town carries it. We've been able to find.

And then, uh, thank you, Don. Uh, under the same electric. Bill Larry's last for about 65,000 dollars.

That was the remodel in the, um, municipal light and water. Those sliding doors at the front.

By the way, that's a nice addition. Thank you. And, um. Under the assessments, we have Newman traffic signs, embarrassed tape consulting. I presume together. You know what those are kind of thought we made our own.

We do make our own signs, but we have to buy the blanks and some of the materials and that's where Newman's science comes from.

Yeah. Then under the public service. Um, we show actually distributing of 7,188 dollars.

Public service right now that encompasses parks and rec and we get for our concession stand are a lot of our food from cash way.

So, there's some overlap there between that and it's the.

So, before we split parks and recs, separate parks and recs combined parks fell under public service and in our accounting system, that's still how it shows. Even though it comes out of the park department, it still shows under public service as a whole. It's just how it's coded. If you will.

Let me also show that under recreation for cash. We're distributing it.

4,286, so I presume that that's for the rec center itself for their concessions there.

Okay. All right. Thank you.

And if you wouldn't mind, if you have a whole list of questions on claims, would you send it to us earlier in the day? Because that way we can read you what exactly they are. So we'd be happy to do that. But sometimes we don't memorize what I'll tell you.

Sorry, I didn't mean to put you on the spot.

No, it's no problem.

It just would be more informative if we could answer it all. Okay.

Mr. Mayor, I'd like to abstain from voting on the claims.

The records show that Mr. Dye is abstained. Other questions or comments on the claims? Calling the question on the claims, please. Claims are passed.

Okay.

council will now convene as the board of equalization for item number 11 approve the benefit schedule for sanitary sewer collection district number 22 echo drive approximately 1300 feet south of walker road fence north to walker road fence west along walker road to buffalo bill avenue we would need a motion

Mr. Mayor, I move to sit as a Board of Equalization to approve the benefits schedule for Sanitary Sewer Connection District No. 22, located on Echo Drive, approximately 1,300 feet south of Walker Road, thence north to Walker Road, thence west along Walker Road to Buffalo Bill Avenue.

Second.

Motion by Vols, second by Nestle. Brent, would you describe what we have going on here, please?

Um, good evening mayor council again. Um, this is the connection district number 22 just as a quick back story on that. This was going on echo connecting to the main sewer line. It's running East and West, just north of the Fremont slew ran up. North on echo and then West on Walker. It was done as a connection district because we were paralleling and going adjacent to agriculture property, which you cannot charge an assessment for as an extension. In addition, most of this is along county property, property that's not in the city limits. So those are some of the considerations with doing a connection district. This is an 18-inch sewer trunk main. That was another element that we've talked about. But the connection versus extension is it's a large pipe and it goes to Buffalo. And Walker terminates right around the quick stop area. So that's the scope of the big project what we have. So this is set up to service the whole area long term. And so what you have before you is the assessment of values, the cost, based on a front footage basis, if any of the property owners were to connect. Property owners that were already connected near the intersection of Echo and Walker, the Ann Seton Church, And they're building to the south. Those were already on city service. Those were just reconnected. There was a couple of residential lots to the west of echo. There were already they were just reconnected. There's no charge to them. So there's in that particular area. There's more work that needs to be done. if there are some connections that want to be made along Walker because they're very large lots, some of them are really large, and then there's very long distances to the property. If you go look at Google Earth, it can be 500, 600 feet from Walker. So to do stuff, and again, it's in the county, so that's another complication is within the county. and then trying to master plan the sewer. But this is just for getting the sewer along Walker. And then there's a cost for each property. I think it's around $57. A linear foot would be their cost if they want to connect to it. And that's for whatever parcel, if it's subdivided smaller or whatever, whatever size that they connect to. It's based on a frontage foot basis.

Thank you. Questions for Brent?

Go ahead, Ty. Was all of the dewatering expense kind of put in the city portion before the district was equalized? And if so, was that because it tied more to the backbone infrastructure?

Correct. There's some philosophy that comes into it. The general philosophy is that if this was done for a smaller entity, they would have probably asked for an 8-inch pipe and it would have been shallower.

Okay.

And so the larger size pipe the city paid the difference between the eight inch and the 18 which allows the future development in the whole area and also was put down deeper to allow for future development in that area as well. It's set up so that we can go underneath the interstate in this particular location. If we want to develop that's long future plan. But if there's something on the north side of the interstate, how do we get sewer over there?

Okay.

that would be an answer potentially we could do here or we could do further east at Willow. So not that we are going north, but it's set up that it could, and it could extend further west as well.

Hope that makes sense. Thank you. Other questions? Ed?

Mr. Mayor. Brad. Excuse me. So the dewatering's not figured into the assessment. How is that paid?

That's the way that it's set is that the city will pay for the watering portion in this blind water.

It was that a bid amount.

Correct.

I don't think they made any money.

I think they struggled with their water.

Questions or comments.

So the 271,000 that is going to be assessed the property owners.

And they already agreed to pay that they already connected so they have to know it's based on a request basis if they want to connect to it in some of it again it's in the county most of this. yeah I'd say almost all of it, the only area that's not in the county is the city park ground and quick stop the rest. is in other than the side where the church, the churches in the city, the rest is in the county. So they'd have to request service from municipal light and water and then coordinate making a connection. And then they'd have to pay their connection fee at the time that the sewer tab is made.

So the 271,000 that is assessed, they're already connected or they're going to be connected?

they would have to make the connection at their own timing. I mean, if they never connect, they'll never get charged the fee.

Okay, so it's not going to be assessed to the property owner until they connect.

Yeah, it's a connection fee for the property.

So as of right now, nobody's connected to this.

Correct. No one outside of the ones that I had already mentioned, like Ann Seton Church is connected. I should explain that just real briefly. There was a sewer line that went... From the east on Walker very, very shallow and then it turned and went south. We replaced portion of that name with this new name deeper. Um, so those people that were already, or those entities are already connected. We reconnected. There's no charge to them. Has already paid for the sewer that we replaced, but the deeper, bigger sewer.

Are there anybody who are currently connected that are in the county and not in city limits?

one or two on the west side at Echo.

Are we going to follow the same line of thought that we did along 6th Street, where if they're in the county but they're connected to city services, that we're going to annex them? Is that something we're looking at?

It'd have to be part of our annexation plan, which I know that Judy has an annexation plan, so we can check on that. but we can't even consider it unless it's part of that plan. Okay.

Get back to me on the annexation plan, please. And second, do we have a process where people in the county who want to connect to city services, they first have to be annexed into? Because we got into a problem over on 6th Street because we were connecting people who were outside of city limits and it caused a problem. So how do we facilitate it through policy or what have you to where that's part of the process?

That might be a GD question or a bill. Well, and I was going to say, too, currently we're convened as the Board of Equalization, too.

Okay.

So certainly some of these things are things we can check into, Councilman Gehrig. Okay.

Get back to me on that one, too.

Other questions or comments? Can I take a question? Okay. Come on up, sir.

Okay.

Thank you. My name is John Lee. I live at 2129 West Walker Road. This directly affects us because it's approximately $17,000 would be my portion of the tax fee. But that dewatering, it's paid so much for. I guess we all have to do that again to get to that sewer. So that's my question is, you've assessed us all these monies, and we don't have to pay it unless we go to hook onto it, which we'll agree to do. But then now the concerning question is, to get to that sewer, I've had estimates anywhere from $25,000 to $100,000 to dewater to get down there to hook onto it. So I guess that's my concerning thing. Say 10 years down the road, I'm retired. My septic goes bad. I need to hook on to your sewer. It's right across the street. Very easy to do. But now I'm going to have to pay out a mortgage on my house in order to be able to do it. To me, that really doesn't, I don't understand. And my other question to Brent is, or to you guys, there are two other people that hooked on to it as that was coming through. Ron Weisorg. Mr. Phelps. Don't have any problem with that at all. did they pay the dewatering fee on top of their assessment as it was going through, or did they just pay the assessment? Because if it was offered to me as it was going through, I quite possibly would have said, yes, please, go ahead and put me a riser there so that if I ever do want to, at a later date, I can do so for only $16,800. for my three-bedroom, two-bathroom house. And my last thing is, it's all based on the footage. I agree to that. I have a neighbor who lives behind me at the driveway. It's only like, let's say, 100 feet. So he gets assessed that. But he has a five-bedroom house behind me, or five-bathroom house. So he's naturally going to use more sewer than I am with mine. So, I don't think it's quite all was. Equal that I don't know to your point was the. Water in my 16,008 was that was it point a to point B and then you divided it by the lineal foot. Now I get this much. What's that with the water in your question? I sit there and listen to that. I thought that was pertinent. So, I mean, I'm not, I'm just asking these questions because it directly affects me. I live right there. I was there through the whole process of the dewatering. I listened to the guys. They parked in my driveway for a week and complained about how long it was taking and all this, but they didn't care because they were getting paid for it. So I get it. It costs what it costs. But when you're talking about assessing this end of the city limits, which I probably don't have a problem with, I get all the advantages and I get to vote. on things, then I don't have a problem with that. But to get told that $16,800 if I want to hook on to the sewer the later day without even knowing what it might be to dewater to get down to that, and I understand why you guys did it that way, but it directly affected everybody else that's on that road. And there's two people that got hooked up to it along the way, and I definitely would like to know if they paid the assessment or if they paid to dewater. That was just a lot of them or if it was open to everybody. Thank you for your time. Take that all into consideration.

Just for the record, sir, we would, anybody who would have walked up and said we'd like to be connected, we would have entertained it.

Absolutely. We didn't know it was optional, Mr. Mayor. We did not know it was an option at the time. Okay.

Thank you. Brent?

I believe when we sent out the courtesy letters from the district was created and sent to all property owners. I thought we had a note in there that, you know, contact the city if there was an interest in being connected. Um, but maybe that's something we need to make more clear if that's not the case, but in that particular area, the groundwater is very high. Um, there's most of the area they have septic mounds put in, which are very expensive. 3 bedroom mound what I've been hearing is going around 25 to 30,000 dollars. So, if you have to redo a septic system. And use a mound, you're probably going to be 30,000 dollars between 20 and 30,000 for sure. But that's what I've been seeing. So, it's unfortunate things are just getting so expensive. Just some of the properties are very far away. You have to get below the pitch. You're going to be watering just to put in a sewer lateral. From a house to get to walk the road. So, if you go 2 to 3 people a house. With your sewer service, you're only a foot above the groundwater. You go to 2% slow. Go 200 feet, you're going to be 4 feet lower. We're going to be 6 to 7 feet below your house. We're going to be in 3 to 4 feet of groundwater, just watering the sewer service to get to Walker. So that particular area is. Pretty tough, I mean, period to deal with and I mean, I understand exactly what. Mr Lee is talking about. It's. It's not a great spot and I think if that area is being looked at or annexation or other things, I think there'd be more master planning on the sewer that. We should have lines going to the north. There were some property owners that had talked about something on the north, but they couldn't really agree. on how they wanted to do it. So nothing was done. Um so and not being in the city kind of creates an additional layer of complications that if we were to put like a sewer lateral to the north would make sense that then people multiple entities could connect. Some of the houses are 600 feet away from Walker. If you go to 2%, that's 12 feet of drop. And I mean, those lots from Walker North are 1300 feet. They were created as 330 feet by 1300 feet. And some of them are about in the middle, buildings are in the middle. So, I mean, as you go by case by case by case, it gets kind of tough. But he's saying it's not wrong that it's expensive and it's difficult to deal with and it'd have to be looked at on a case by case basis. Try to make something that fits the whole area to develop in a way that makes sense, that isn't cost prohibitive for people to try to do something. I mean, they could use an example, they could use a force main, a one inch pipe, and try to connect to a common entity or something like that.

Go ahead, Brad.

To Mr. Lee's question, the owner of the property would be responsible for the dewatering through the connection process, correct?

I mean, that would be the way it is everywhere in town. You have to pay the connection tap fee. And uni would probably create a connection point. And if we're looking at something like that, that's where it makes sense to look at. Multiple properties, not just 1 lot and you're looking at lots that are 300 foot long. Where do you put it on a 300 foot long property?

So, if the community, let's say, 10 of them were to get together and say, we're going to do at the same time, that would greatly reduce the dewatering.

Absolutely. It'd be smart to do that. And. The other thing is, we don't want to cross Walker, you know. Because we haven't even talked about crossing the road, like, let's say, if you wanted to put in a sewer service. Across the road, it doesn't matter how deep it is. Cutting across the road is not cheap. So, anyway, I'm just saying that to develop that area will require more. But because we don't want a foreign service cutting across every. Up 100 feet and tearing the road up. So, anyway, that's so what he's saying is 100% right. And that would be things that we'd have to. Look at for the next piece, try to get everybody. serviced.

So if we were to cut across the road, then we would go through the dewatering process again, I assume, to get underneath Walker. If we were to do that, we were to go that route, What I think we do is you start a hard kind of campaign and you let everybody know if you have interest in connecting now do it because the city is about to D water and it's your chance and give them a real opportunity to do this and save some money if we get down the road to that level.

That makes sense. I agree.

Okay. I don't know if this question applies to board of adjustment, but when the letters go out to notify people, are they certified mail like other rezoning or any other major important issues or is it just regular mail?

Um, usually I think it's sent out as certified, but sometimes when you send it certified, people won't take it.

Yeah, in fact, that happens to somewhere around 25% of the mail certified mail we send is never picked up.

So it comes from the city and it's certified based on what's bad news.

All right other questions just a couple of things from Mr Lee's comments that I want to understand is so is what happened there that while the city had it. Some people took advantage of that hired. their own contractor, however they did it, and ran? Or what actually happened with those sites that he's referring to?

I think there was two in there on the south side, and there was just a vertical pipe put in, just a T in a vertical pipe. That was all that was put in.

Okay. And so did they did they request for the city to install that as part of the project? Okay. Correct.

They did while before the project and somewhere in between when we convinced it. I mean, they saw the work going on. One of them, I believe they saw the work going wrong and asked, and one of them asked before we got started.

Okay. So they said they called, they contacted the city and said, we want to, we want to connect. Can we make this easier by doing it now? Correct. Okay. And then to his question about, And that's one of the things I'd been thinking about before the meeting. This is a unique area. Of course, it's not in the city that has these long driveway parcels and then the big frontage parcels. And so and I know one of our responsibilities in equalization is to think about all those things. How has the city dealt with that situation in the past? I mean, that is a fair concern.

Well, it gets heavy into philosophy. The thing you look at, let's say you have one big parcel. I mean, you can have a five-bedroom house on a small lot. We have 40-foot lots over here on 4 2nd Street that have big houses on it. Or you can have a small house on a big lot. And so what has been gone through the court systems a lot of times is front footage kind of holds true on many things. On what we have is we have 150 foot set distance. That's in the state statute. I believe it says half a block. So that if you get outside of that half a block, there's some variability on what do you do with that. There's some gray area that has some decision-making that has to happen. Example, like with Menards, 150 foot back, they have a 10 acre lot for their facility. If you get a really big facility, the 150 foot doesn't really fit because it's one big Walmart. They're way more than 150 foot. You can't, it's 150 foot to the mill. Sure, in the front door, and it's under one building. So, I mean, the 150 foot is in. But it requires a little bit of discernment on how to apply it. So if you have a really big lot like that. And you wanted to add the whole point is. that everybody pays for their own water sewer pay. That's the big overarching principle. So that if you start subdividing it, the thought would be is if you wanted to subdivide it, you're going to have to pay for the sewer to get back there. Right. And the other part is, if you have it available at the front, it's your cost to get it from your front lot line to wherever it's at. If your house is 10 feet away, you can't get mad and 25 feet setback. If you're 25 foot away, you're paying for 25 feet. If you choose to put your house 100 feet, you're paying for 100 feet, the sewer service. If you put it 500 feet, you're paying for 500 feet. So there's a little bit, it's property owner's choice. It's different if you start subdividing it and putting more, that would be a difference. But if it's used for one residence, the owner is paying for those costs. And for those ones that are that far back, what I've looked at is they're probably going to put a force mean that now they can go shallower and they don't have to deal with as much of the dewatering on their own side. But there's quite a few complications in that area because of the high groundwater.

I know that answers my questions. Thank you.

Ed? Correct me if I'm wrong here. These two people that have a connection tap into the sewer line right now, but they are not connected to the city sewer. Is that correct?

The two new ones?

Yeah.

Correct.

So at such time that they want to connect their house to that tap, they're going to have to pay to dewater that to get to the tap.

And there's a lot of variabilities with that. I mean, where is the sewer coming out of their house? Are they this far down? Are they three feet down? I mean, they might not have to dewater, or they might have a lot of dewater. How far is the house from the main? How deep is the service coming out of the house? But you're correct. I mean, for them to get to the main, you're 100% right. They'd have to deal with the dewatering probably just to get there.

of interesting we have to deal with this much dewatering and in a year we've hardly had any moisture at all yeah other questions go ahead one last question so when you get past if you got a really long narrow lot once you get past that 150 foot is there a penalty by or not a penalty a surcharge by the city or anything like that technically

That would probably be a discussion we might have with the attorney on that 150 foot. If it's a one residence type of discussion, that might be a different thing. But behind the 150 foot, typically what they have is in lieu of assessment cost, that there can be an additional front footage fee behind that 150 foot. Okay.

I was just thinking if you have a neighbor that's got a really long frontage, but another one's got short frontage, long lock, how is that going to equal out, I guess, you know?

Yeah, that gets really tough. I mean, you have square footage and front footage, and I mean, we're even running into that with this subdivision we had here with taking out the two acres was to keep the footage for what they wanted to use for that property. Usually, I mean, what you're running with is the front footage, because you get that on a cul-de-sac, too, that you can have a narrow front footage, but it's a pie shape. that there's a lot of variations, corner lots, and anyway.

Well, and I get the owner's expense running clear to the back of that lot, but to have another surcharge on top of that after paying the frontage.

There's some discernment on that, like Menards. Yeah, exactly. They're more than 150 foot back. I mean, to go from the street in front of Menards to their building is probably 300 feet. So there's some discernment when you're looking at it to see, is it a subdivision? Because if they go through a subdividing, you want to put multiple houses, you have to put more infrastructure in. If it's just one connection for one lot, and I think most people would assume that makes sense, they pay for one connection for one house and not pay multiple times for one house. So if that's where you're concerned, then not paying twice or three times. Right, exactly. Correct.

Other questions or comments? Okay, calling the question item number 11, please. Item number 11 is passed. Council will now reconvene as the City Council. Public agenda requests. We request our city employees, or excuse me, we respect our city employees and request that any complaints or criticisms of employees not be aired in a public meeting. Concerns about the employee should be brought to the attention of the city administrator or the mayor. Individual violation will be declared out of order. Anyone has an agenda request item, please approach the microphone and tell us who you are, where you live, and what the request is, please.

Mr. Eager?

Mr. Mayor, I move that we adjourn. Second.

Motion by recur second by initially to adjourn, calling the question on adjournment. Meeting is adjourned. See you all on August 18th.