City Council - Regular Meeting

Welcome to our meeting. The date is September 8, 2026. The time is 7 p.m. This is an open meeting of the Grand Island City Council. The City of Grand Island abides by the Open Meetings Act in conducting business. A copy of the Open Meetings Act is displayed in this room as required by state law. The City Council may vote to go into closed session on any agenda item as allowed by state law. Now, please join us in the Pledge of Allegiance. The city clerk will now perform roll call.

Council Member Sheard.

Present.

Council Member Stelk.

Present.

Council Member Conley.

Present.

Council Member Nickerson.

Present.

Council Member Brown.

Present.

Council Member Hasse.

Present.

Council Member Mendoza. Present. Council President O'Neill.

Present.

Council Member Lanphier.

Present.

And Mayor Steele.

Present. Also present are Jill Grenier, the city clerk. Patrick Brown, the city administrator, Chelsea Steinke, the finance director, Carrie Fisk, the city attorney, and Keith Kurtz, the public works director. Individuals who have appropriate items for city council consideration should complete the request for future agenda items form located at the information booth. If the issue can be handled administratively without council action, notification will be provided. If the item is scheduled for a meeting or study session, notification of the date will be given. Councilmembers, do you wish to remove any of tonight's consent agenda items? Hearing none, we shall continue. A sign-up sheet was available in the lobby for individuals wishing to provide input on any of tonight's agenda items. If you did not sign up to speak on an agenda item, please come forward, state your name and the agenda topic on which you will be speaking.

Thank you, Mayor Steele. Definitely there was a sign-up sheet, but I arrived a little bit too late to sign up, so I acknowledge the opportunity to speak on items, by the way, Jay Vavracek, item 7A, and then, because I was not here under public hearings, if you would, the ability to speak on resolutions B and E, and no need to remark about item F, a few of my comments on resolutions B. So thank you, Mayor Steele. Thank you, Jill.

The first item on our agenda is 7A, approving the appointment of Barbara Pawlik to City Council Ward 4. Councilmembers, due to the death of Mike Pollack, one of the seats for Ward 4 needs to be filled. Pursuant to state statute, the mayor is to nominate a successor to fill the seat of Councilmember Pollack for the remainder of his term. That nomination requires the approval of the City Council. Once approved, the nominee will be sworn in and serve the remainder of Councilmember Pollack's term. Mike's wife, Barbara, better known as Barb, has graciously agreed to fill the remainder of Mike's term. Barb reached out to me asking if it would be possible for her to fill the remainder of Mike's term. That is not only possible, but is highly encouraged by me. Barb has been a resident of Grand Island for the past 60 years. She and Mike spent 56 of those years as husband and wife. Barb previously served the city of Grand Island for almost 13 years as an employee of the finance department doing ambulance billing. During Mike's tenure on this council, Barb was not only his wife, but his sounding board and confidant regarding council agendas and city business. She spent those years not only being educated on the council packets, but also being present at the meetings either in person or while watching them on GITV. Every meeting that Mike was at was a meeting where Barb was also present. Council may have lost Mike's physical presence, but by appointing Barb to fulfill his term, the city is maintaining that continuity of having a Pollock on the council. Appointing Barb is in the best interest of the city. She has spent the last 15 years being educated on the business of the city, the same as Mike was. She is willing and able to step forward tonight and not only accept this nomination, but to take her place on the council and move forward with the business of the city. Therefore, I am requesting that the council appoint, approve the nomination of Barbara Pawlik to serve the remainder of the term of former council member Mike Pawlik.

Jay, would you like to speak?

Thank you, Mayor Steele. I concur with the nomination and faith expressed by Mayor Steele in this nomination. And when I think about that, I can't ever really remember, and maybe you can correct me if I'm wrong, if any other council member ever passed away during their service. I remember Jackie Pilsig passed away, but I can't remember if she was still on board or not. But the only reason I bring that up, it is a precedent, and I think it's worth noting, that indeed, I think all of you will agree, any spouse truly understands uniquely what it is to represent. and to make a vote. And in many times in my experience, looking back over the years, that spouse has also been integral in many decisions that maybe are levied here. So I don't know Barbara at all, but I just acknowledge the fact that she stepped forward and said she would be willing to serve in Mr. Pollack's leadership. And there were times where, once again, maybe I was on the other side of the fence on things that maybe Mike stood for, and that's good. But I think with the mayor's recommendation, the nomination makes sense. I think it's a precedent, and I think it's a good standard worth supporting and noting. So thank you, Mayor Steele. Thank you. Mr. Brown?

I move to approve Barbara Pollack as to City Council Ward 4.

And Mr. Hossie?

I'm honored to second that motion.

Thank you. Any discussion?

Please vote. Motion adopted.

Mrs. Pollack, please come forward to the main podium area, and the city clerk, Jill Grenier, will give you the oath of office.

Oh, this is working. Oh, there it is. Okay. Do you, Barbara Pollack, solemnly swear that you will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Nebraska against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that you take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or for purpose of evasion, and that you will faithfully and impartially perform the duties of city council member according to the law and to the best of your ability? And do you further swear that you do not advocate nor are you a member of any political party that advocates the overthrow of the government of the United States or this state by force or violence, and that during such time as you are in this position, you will not advocate or become a member of any political party or organization that advocates the overthrow of the government of the United States or this state by force or violence? So help you God.

Congratulations, Mrs. Pollack. Please join the City Council. We will now take up Section 8 of our agenda, which requires us to leave the regular meeting and then sit as a board of equalization. Is there a motion to do so? Mr. Lanphier.

I move we go into a board of equalization.

Mr. O'Neill. I second that motion. Thank you. Any discussion?

Please vote. Motion adopted.

8A, consideration of determining benefits for Railside Business Improvement District. Ms. Steinke?

Thank you, Mayor. Before you tonight is the request to approve the list of assessment reductions for the Railside Business Improvement District. There are 11 property owners that are eligible for a 30% discount. That reduction amounts to $961.63 and would reduce the request down to $155,060.90.

Thank you. Is there a motion regarding 8A, council members? Mr. Brown?

Move we approve 2026, TAC, BE, TAC 2.

Mr. O'Neill? I second that motion. Any discussion?

Please vote. Motion adopted.

8B, consideration of determining benefits for 4th Street Business Improvement District. Mrs. Steinke?

The 4th Street Business Improvement District has four property owners who have filed the proper documentation for the 30% reduction. The total deductions is $318.66, reducing the request to $39,681.34. Thank you. A motion, Council? Mr. O'Neill?

I move we approve 2026BE-3.

Mr. Lanphier. I second. Any discussion?

Please vote. Motion adopted.

8C, consideration of determining benefits for Fauner Park Business Improvement District. Please proceed.

We are asking for council approval on doing special assessments in the Fauner Park Business District for a total of $55,450.

Thank you.

Mr. Brown?

I move we approve 2026 BE4.

Mr. O'Neill? I second that motion. Any discussion?

Please vote. Motion adopted.

8D, consideration of determining benefits for South Locust Business Improvement District. Please proceed.

We are asking for council approval on doing special assessments in the South Locust Business District for a total of $104,617. Mr. O'Neill.

I move we approve 2026BE-5. Mr. Brown.

I second that motion.

Any discussion?

Please vote. Motion adopted.

Is there a motion to leave the Board of Equalization and return to our regular meeting? Mr. Lanphier.

Turn to our regular meeting. Mr. O'Neill? I second that motion.

And Mr. Nickerson, discussion?

Yes, I failed to mention that on the very first one, Railside Business Improvement District, I needed to abstain on that. We went by so quickly, I wasn't even paying attention. So I need to abstain on 2026-BE-2. We'll note your abstention. Thank you.

Please vote. Motion adopted.

Is there a motion regarding the Consent Agenda Council? Mr. O'Neill?

I move that we approve the Consent Agenda.

And Mr. Lanphier?

I second.

Any discussion?

Please vote. Motion adopted.

Agenda item 10A, request by State Farm for Council to authorize partial settlement of a claim and to execute waivers for future claims. Mrs. Fisk?

Mayor, Jared Krejci, who's an attorney who represents State Farm, will be presenting on this item.

Thank you. Please proceed, Mr. Krejci.

Thank you, Mayor. I'm here to ask... the council to direct staff to prepare a resolution accepting a reduced payment amount. A little bit of background. Some of this is in your packet. I wrote a letter to the city. And the problem is State Farm insured a driver who was driving in downtown Grand Island, and he was in an auto accident that damaged two automobiles as well as city-owned property that was a light pole. And State Farm insured the driver for property damage limits of $25,000. The total damage between the three different injured parties, you would say, exceeds $25,000 just a little bit. And when the city started reaching out to State Farm about paying for this light pole, the problem that State Farm had is that its property damage limits were only $25,000, and they couldn't make whole to all injured parties with that property damage limit. And so what State Farm was proposing to do was to basically pay those limits out pro rata, And has done so with the other insured, the private parties. And so based on that proposed resolution of this, it would take the total amount of the city bill for damages from $4,727.05 down to $4,425. $44.40, so a little bit less than $300 of what the city's actual damages are. And I would just ask the council to pass that resolution authorizing that compromise agreement since it is fairly close to whole compensation and it would allow this matter to just be settled in a fairly quick way.

Thank you. Council members, is there a motion?

We don't need a motion, right, Carrie? You just need direction.

We just ask that council discuss whether you'd like to have our office prepare a waiver of claims. In this particular case, since the claim is both for less than the full amount and includes a permanent waiver of the city's rights to recover against State Farm or the driver, we need direction from council as to whether or not we should prepare that. It would come back to you on a resolution authorizing the mayor to execute that waiver on behalf of the city.

Mr. Hossie.

Thank you, Mayor. I would move to direct the legal counsel to negotiate those terms as she spoke.

And Mr. Stell.

I second the motion, Mr. Mayor.

And Mr. Nickerson, discussion.

Yeah, Kerry, I understand them. restrictions that State Farm has as far as limits, but would we not? And I know it's a little bit, so it's just a question. Would we not have the rights to go after the person themselves for the difference, or is this just only an insurance matter?

So we would, if this gap was significantly larger, we would probably bring action against the driver. State Farm would then defend that driver and that action. Here, where that cost difference is small enough, you start to approach the cost of litigation really rapidly. So this is a bit different than some of the cases in which you wouldn't even see this. We would just pursue litigation. But where this one's close enough to make it not necessarily worth it for either party. We thought we'd come get your consent, but again, since it's the city's money that we would be waiving, we can't spend that money without your authority.

Okay, very good. Understood.

Well, I guess this is a showing of consent, so I'd ask you to vote your consent.

Please vote. Motion adopted.

Thank you, Mr. Crecce. Thank you, Mayor. For your presentation. Yes, sir. OK. Resolution 11A, setting date for Board of Equalization for parking district number 3, off street parking. Ms. Steinke.

All right. So this is for the downtown parking district. The square footage of the parking district is 1.6 million. The special assessment charge for the 25-26 year will be collected in 26-27 in the amount of $80,012, which is almost 5 cents per square foot. Property owners who have parking within their property that is open to public customers or users of the building can apply for a credit. That credit can be used to reduce the amount owed for that property or other properties owned by the same owner within 300 feet downtown to a minimum of zero. And using the same $15 credit that council approved prior... provided the prior year, the parking district would have an estimated credit amount of $10,012, leaving $70,000 of the special assessment amount collectible.

Thank you. Motion is in order, council.

Mr. O'Neill? I move we approve 2026-241. Mr. Lanphier?

I second.

Any discussion?

Please vote. Motion adopted.

11B, approving fiscal year 2026 to 2027, general property and community redevelopment authority tax request. Mr. Brown.

Thank you, Mayor. This is the property tax asked for the city of Grand Island and CRA. The current mill levy for the city is 0.241485. We're proposing to have the same tax ask as prior year, moving the proposed mill levy down to .227797. And for the CRA, our current mill levy is 0.015805. And asking for the same property tax ask for last year, moving that proposed mill levy down to 0.14908. The total mill levy for the city and CR combined this present year is 0.257290, and the proposed for fiscal year 27 is 0.242705. Thank you. Thank you. Jay, would you like to speak?

Maybe some of you were there at some point, but after a period of time, you start looking back and you keep bringing historical perspectives, thinking maybe it's worthwhile to say something. Other times you think, hey, just stay at home and no need coming forward. But I'm not exactly that way. But I would just say this on the general property tax number of things. First, it's commendable to Mayor Steele's administration to maintain the same policy going forward with this recommendation. And I kinda wondered how you would be able to justify having an increase or maybe even taking the valuation when the last three years you haven't. So I appreciate his leadership and the administration for this recommendation to literally maintain the same tax asking. And when I think about that, probably the last six mayor administrations, I think there's only been a couple bumps in the property tax asking. When citizens look at what their property tax bill is, if our city could go ahead and be an example for every other city in Nebraska, I think it would be a shining example of the fact that the city is very cognizant of of citizens concerned on property taxes. So even though there's added revenue, even though there's added expenses and salaries and all those different things, keeping the asking the same is super. Secondly, I also understand the property tax asking and the CRAs are combined. Sometimes as a combination then becomes a political determination, do I up one or do I lower one or the other? I would just remind that the CRA's budget is still a fraction of what is allowed by state law. I understand if there's not any really demand to use it, then why up it? But I would just say in the future, if you look at redevelopment, that is a separate tax asking and it may not always mirror the ultimate determination that Mr. Brown would make before you. The third point, I think for anyone that wants to serve as a future mayor, when you look back at the track history of maintaining tax askings, I think that's a benchmark that people are going to expect. that will continue to go ahead and be frugal but also be mindful of the fact that that indeed historically has been almost sacred ground to consider upping. So I realize it's the council's decision to be based on revenues that may come forward, be based on any mayor's prerogative along with city administrator, but I would just say commend the tax request as it's presented to you. I think it makes sense in more ways than one. Thank you for the opportunity. Thank you.

Mr. O'Neill? I move we approve 2026-242. Mr. Brown?

I second that motion.

Mr. Nickerson? Yeah, Patrick, can you tell us again what your total ask is for that this year, your total? 0.2427, does that include the CRA?

So the dollar amount for city and CRA combined tax is $13,007,000.

Right. And the total levy, mill levy? Mill levy would go down to 0.22, no, I'm sorry, 0.242705. Good. So just putting this in perspective with what Mr. Vavracek was sharing with us, and this has been something we can be very proud of. And I know this year we were thinking that we might want to bump it up for good reason, but due to some more diligence in the budget and what you've been able to do, the recommendation was ultimately let's keep it the same. But the perspective that I want to bring up is that I believe, and you'll have to tell me exactly, but I believe that we're roughly at about half of what we could be asking for total mill levy. It seems in my mind that we could ask up to 0.48 by law. It's not a number we've ever got close to. I think we've been in the 0.3s. But I always remember we have the ability to go up to 0.48 or somewhere pretty darn close to that. We're asking 0.24. a great accomplishment, I think, as well as we take a look at trying to hold those mill levies where they need to be. So there are some communities that can't do that, that aren't doing that. But I think, again, Grand Island can take pride in the fact that we're sitting at roughly 50% of what we could be asking by law.

Yes. Mr. Sheard. Thank you. Pat, I appreciate the fact that we've done this for so long where we've kept it flat. It's one thing to me, because I'm going to suggest that we don't do that this time, but I think it is the right thing to do when we're sitting on a lot of cash reserves. When we were sitting on $40 million or whatever it was in cash reserves, it's a little tough ask to say, and we're not going to lower our levy. But we've spent a lot of that down. And you showed the chart earlier that we're going to be getting closer and closer and closer down to the cash reserves being down to where we're just hovering the lowest we could be. Because we've paid cash, we didn't bond out on some projects. I've said it before, I think the conservative nature of this board, this city has been great. I loved that we didn't bond out all those things. The comment earlier that we were putting a lot of this on interest, we didn't, did we?

No.

We paid cash.

Yes, almost 21 million in the last two years.

Right, and that is a luxury that I am so thankful for previous councils that we could pay those projects. But I look at those projects and I think, Ryder Park, Stolle Park, Island Oasis, there's some, obviously there's some good public safety in there. And the directors of those programs came to us and said, those departments came and said, we've got some needs for people. Now I'm with everyone else on this council that we probably don't need to add every position that was asked of us this year. But what we said last meeting was, or when we talked about this last time, was let's hold off for a year. Pat, in your plan that you're showing right there, what changes in a year? Are we going to be able to add any of those positions next year?

But what this five-year projection, no, there's no additional FTEs.

So by saying let's hold off a year, we're really saying, nah, let's kick the can down on something because we're not going to do that. We're not going to have the ability to do that next year any more than we did this year.

What I'm saying is let's be a little bit more strategic or let's look at our processes. Okay. Let's be a little more focused on exactly why we want to reclass or hire or whatever it may be.

So you showed the chart about sales tax and how that revenue has leveled off. It's not moving up very fast. And that growth is something that we count on to be able to pay salaries, to pay for things. And we know that the salaries are going up at a higher rate than what we're bringing in here. So even not hiring anybody is pretty tight over those next five years.

Definitely.

Right. It's hard for me to say, and listen to us say, Boy, revenues are tight. But let's not keep our price the same. Let's lower our taxes. Let's lower it and try to keep up with the growth of our community. I know it's not a popular thing. But it's about a $605,000 this year. I think it'd probably be close to $2 million, not quite, but probably close to $2 million over the next two years combined that would be added to the general fund if we just kept that levy at the highest we could keep it, which is not keeping it flat, because we can only go growth plus 2%, correct?

Correct.

So that would put it, I don't know, you and I talked, that would put it at? 5.8. Yeah, 5, 8%, which would be like a 0.23 something levy. So even the maximum we could do is going to lower that levy. But that would give us another $2 million if we kept it the same for the next two years. Which would at least open the opportunity for those public safety positions that were presented to us. The library position that allows us to better execute the bookmobile that we've found funding for. And the parks that, we had a couple positions to help maintain our parks. I know streets department got up and talked about the growth in the number of street miles that we've had. since we've last asked for more property tax. And it was pretty impressive. And we've added parks, we've grown the size and the scope of our parks, and we're at less staffing on parks maintenance than we were the last time we lowered. So not even keeping the same amount, but lowering the amount of people to maintain more parks. You know, when I walk around my side of town and I, you know, I hear it from folks that we're not maintaining the things we have already. I know it was, Mitch asked it every time we've had a parks project come before us. Well, how are we going to maintain this? You know, what if the volunteers at Stolle Park don't continue to maintain that? And yet, when we have the opportunity to maintain a little bit of gap in this budget to where Over the course of time, we can actually hire some of the positions, not asking to raise the levy, actually just lowering the levy. We can still bring in enough money to have that flexibility to where next year when we open up the idea of making hires again, we're truly saying to these directors, yeah, there's actually going to be a chance. But as is right now, I feel like we said, wait a year and we'll come back and talk about this. It's like when I told my kids, we'll see. When I knew damn well we weren't going to see. And that's what it feels like here. And I don't think it's in our city's best interest to ignore the fact that we've grown and this property tax that we have as one of our revenue sources. We are not taking advantage of it while saying we've got a revenue problem. I know I'm the only one that's probably going to agree to this. It's fine. I'm not going to make a motion. I just would like to entertain the conversation. I've talked with a few of the council members about this, and I know they have an altering opinion. But just in your mind, what when we say that we're gonna budget tighter or we're gonna take a strategic look, is that a way, I don't wanna be rude here, but is that saying that we haven't done that in the past?

In my opinion, in the last probably two to three years, no.

I would share that opinion. We did it during COVID. We pinched pennies. And then we lost that discipline.

So that's weird because I've been on council for four of those years. And that message has never come to us. That we've been lazy about budgeting. That we have not been conservative with it. That we have not tried to... I understand the sentiment, but I just don't know why that hasn't come to us that we've been laxadaisical or cushioning it, padding our budget, when all I see is that we've been pretty conservative and we're the ones that have been in charge of this. So I don't think I've been frivolous. I don't think we've been wasteful in our spending. I thought we did a pretty good job of... building some things and buying some things that we needed that were long overdue. And again, that's on the backs of previous councils that have been conservative, but I feel like we're setting ourselves up to not be able to do any projects, any capital, for the next five years. I mean, there's no wiggle room in there, is there?

Oh, no. It's actually worse than what you think.

Fantastic.

Well, I mean, the figure in raises.

Mm-hmm.

So you're looking at another four or 500,000 next year. So are we gonna, if we're gonna add people, we just need to look at our organization as are we doing this, are we just adding people to add people to do the work or are we being strategic about it? Like is there something else that you looked at, okay? Back to I would say the last two to three years, It's been whatever directors had put forward as an FTE came to council. And there wasn't much internal discussion on, hey, is this the right thing to do? So hopefully, going forward, we have more of those conversations. I think it would be beneficial to all.

And again, my opinion is we should add the firefighter position back in that was going to pay for itself by eliminating overtime. I think in our negotiation talks and everything we've talked about with the firefighters, I think that's a wise decision. It's going to pay for itself. It's going to probably help morale. But that doesn't even, I mean, that's almost a revenue neutral, we've said, or a budget neutral?

It's an idea.

It's an idea, okay. But looking at capital, not even any other positions, I get that raises would cause it. I mean, I think you said the eight positions you looked at might have been 400,000 this year, but it's 4 million over five years, something like that? Like it's exponential? Absolutely. Absolutely. but if you scroll up just a little lower, sorry.

This way or the other way?

Where we can see the balance, there you go. There's just no wiggle room. We're building no wiggle room to adjust for that down line. Let's say a property came available we wanted to buy or there was a a big project that came along that we know there's some things that are going to happen, capital. There's capital expenses every year. We don't have any room for that. I would like to entertain the idea of holding that levy, dropping it a little bit, and building up a little bit more cushion so that we can face some challenges a little bit differently. I know it's not popular. It can be the only... only city council member to ever say, hey, let's not take advantage of every lowered tax we can get. And I respect everyone here's opinion. I just would like to have a conversation about it. Because we originally said we were going to do that. One of your suggestions was to hold steady. And then we just haven't had that conversation in public since. So that's all I'll say. I won't make a motion to change it. I just wanted to. Throw it out there. Mr. Hossein.

Thank you, Mayor. Grand Island is a regional economic hub for what's going on. And one of the things that when we talk about the property tax ask, and I do want to look back at, we'll just say for the last seven years, we have kept the property tax asking the same for the last seven years. And that's intentional. We're, since 1989, when we passed a sales tax, we've had that ability. The school can't pass a sales tax. They don't have one. They have to rely on the property tax much heavier, and that's what they've done. Hall County in Grand Island used to have similar tax levies prior to the sales tax coming in 1989, and since 1989, our percentage of the property tax has been dwindling, and the county's has been increasing, and so the difference between The property tax I asked for in Hall County and the city are very different now. And that's because we have a sales tax. We have a casino tax. That's come in probably since 24. We have a food and beverage tax. Schools don't have that. So when we look at a property tax, it's got to be all in. When we have to look at that stuff, we have to look at what's the sales tax doing? What's the casino tax doing? What's the food and beverage tax? In the last seven years, we have averaged $2.3 million a year in new money, brand new money, from one of the four of those sources, all of those four sources combined. If we can't figure out how to do what a city should look like, because I think Jack is correct in the fact that you need a balanced organization to do all of these things. And one of the tools that we used years ago We said the personnel cost being the single biggest driver of general fund, we need to limit it to about 70%. And so if you have a $1 general fund, you need to spend about 70 cents on people. And then the other 30 cents are used for tools and equipment and those kinds of things. That's how you have a balanced city. And I don't know what the percentage is today on personnel cost of the general fund, but I would say it's over 80%. That's the problem. That's where you don't have balance. You can't force it to balance when you're already at 80%. And when we were at 70%, Everybody stopped looking, and pretty soon it creeped up to 80%. Now we can't afford the electric bill. We can't afford to buy a new car. So we reduced the capital. We reduced the operating expenditures. But no, the problem is that if you want a balanced city organization, and you could look at any city in the United States, For what we do, not every city does exactly the same things, but for what we do, 70 cents on the dollar is about the right percentage for personnel costs, and we are way over that. And that's why we can't seem to balance things, because we are lopsided on personnel costs. Because every person you hire still needs to have tools. They need to have a truck to drive, and they need to have a shop to put it in. And so we need all of those things. That $2.3 million is new money every year for the last seven years. And we can't seem to fit what we need inside of that $2.3 million. And so that's where we have a spending problem. I don't want to ask taxpayers to come up with one penny more in property tax because I already have a property tax problem. Mine is, and mine's similar to many other stories that I've heard, I built a $127,000 house, best house I thought I'd ever, ever, ever live in. Well, guess what? It's now worth over 400,000 if you ask the county. They set the value of my house. My $127,000 house is now worth more than $400,000. So even if the levy did drop, it'd have to drop 70% in order for me to pay the same. I'm still paying more, even though the levy has dropped. So the Haase household in Grand Island is still paying more property tax, and it's going to all of them. political subdivisions, not just the city. So I'm already paying more. And that's the pinch that the people that talk to me and the people that I see on the street and the people that I see in the grocery store. And I had a guy hit me up in Walmart over it. I can't go anywhere without having this conversation in the community. They're pinched about how do I feed my family? How do I pay for my shopping cart in Walmart? I'm not gonna support anything. I think we have to figure out how to get it down to that 70%. We have to figure out how to have a balanced organization so that we have the right spending on the right priorities. But once you get to your off balance, until you get it rebalanced, it's tough. I think Mayor Vavracek had had to rebalance it once in his term. It was a tough decision. But right now, that's the part that needs to happen We have new money that's coming in, but right now it's being used up, as you see, 5% for union, 4% for non-union personnel costs. That doesn't even begin to count the pension and benefits and all the other side of, you know, employee benefits side and healthcare coverage of what personnel costs total up to be. But we are out of balance today, and that's the problem. And I think when I look at the future, I look at the opportunities that we have, whether it's with AI, whether it's with consolidation. I think I've talked a couple of times about maybe internal, the computer department, the IT department, maybe the shop garage, maybe there are opportunities here. And maybe AI is a bunch of opportunities that I don't even know what they are right now. All I can tell you is that I don't even know how to start that conversation, but I can tell you that conversation needs to happen somewhere. And I think that is going to be something that we have to rely on, is that kind of opportunity to get us back into balance. I think between the sales tax, the casino tax, the food and beverage and the property tax, I think we're just fine the way we are. I know that not everybody gets everything that they're asking for. But we need to find solutions, and I think they're out there, and the opportunities are there. But some of them are brand new. It's not like we've been ignorant and not trying to use them. I think like the AI one, and that's just one of those way above my pay scale. But I think it's going to be a game changer for a lot of industries, including local government. I think we can be bigger, better, and faster with using AI to not necessarily everything boils down to people cost. So I think there's lots of opportunities out there. I really want the staff to explore them. And I think what I have seen is I have seen the enterprise funds of this city. I think they have been competitive. They have the lowest rates in the state. I don't care if we listen to the solid waste or if we listen to electric or we listen to water. We have some of the most competitive rates in the state of Nebraska by all of our enterprise funds. So we don't have this problem with the enterprise section of our budget. It's only the general fund section. The general fund is the one that we're at an imbalance right now. And so I think there are opportunities for us to look at and try to figure out in the next year or two or three, or maybe it's forever ongoing. But right now, where we're at today is right where we need to be. And I could not support a property tax increase now or next year or the year after that. And I understand what we're giving up. But what I'm saying is we have told people we needed the sales tax to help the property tax. We needed to pass a casino tax to help property tax. And it's exactly done what we said it was going to do. And here's the leaving the levy tax asking the same. Here's how we have helped not raise the property tax because the sales tax growth, because the casino tax. And again, in the last five years, another million in the food and beverage tax. All of these things help us run and run efficiently. There are challenges and there are opportunities, but I'm looking forward to those as well.

Mr. Brown.

I agree 100% with Chuck. I'm not for raising the mill levy at all. If nothing, we need to keep on reducing it, work towards even reducing it farther, and we just need to stand tough on the employees this year, and we've got to stay tough, hang in there, reduce the mill levy.

Mr. O'Neill.

I agree with the comments of Chuck and Doug here as well. Just a couple of my own observations. So in town over the last year and a half, I've seen several employers reduce some of their headcount. We're at a time of economic uncertainty, affordability issues. We've had high inflation. I have a really hard time adding more public employees when I'm seeing the private sector struggle as well. This year, I think, is really, really tough to justify that. And in any organization I've ever been in, I've never measured success necessarily by the number of people that we add. but rather how effective and efficient we're able to operate and serve the public who we serve here. You know, there's a couple interesting things. I think, Chuck, you may have mentioned this on the casino tax. Pat, did we pull an extra $400,000 in the general fund year over year on that than last year?

This year, it's going to be $1.2 million.

No, I'm talking about more than the year prior. Yes. That has been increasing a bit as well. Yes. Um, it's not the only thing and the sales tax growth I know has been a little bit slower. I don't know what's going to happen the entire time, but I think you mentioned another important thing as well. So whenever I've hit times like this in business, or I've been forced to make cuts, I've worked through the great recession. I've worked through COVID. I've faced a lot of painful decisions in that. The first thing I've always had to look for is how do we find other efficiencies? Are there other contracts we need to look at negotiating? It's not necessarily all the wages. You're kind of tied into a lot of that. But are there other maintenance agreements? Do we have other utility bills that are too high at certain things? Are there silly things that we're doing that we could look at? And that's where I think I'd really like to see a deep dive done. I'd love to see finance get involved with that, too, just to look through are there other things we can think we can find some real savings at? Can we do better? The private sector, when you face these times, you have to make adjustments. I'd rather do those adjustments first. That might maybe help pay for a couple of those key positions over time, too. But I really think we need to do a really thorough due diligence in that to see what savings we can find out there. I mean, we should be doing that year after year anyways. So I really like the idea of that, and I'd like to see more of that done in the next year. Outside of that, I just think we, during this time, it's not a time that I want to raise taxes or add headcount. I think if we can get this budget in the black, I support that, and this is a year-to-year process, and we'll have to adjust accordingly.

Mr. Lanphier.

I think all of us talk about the tax levies nonsense.

The public aren't fools. You can tell them whatever you want about the tax levy, but what they see is their property taxes going up, no matter what the levy is. Right now, this would be about the worst time to raise it. Everybody that I run into is hurting, including me. So I think we need to just stay the course this year and see what next year brings.

Mr. Nickerson. I appreciate all the discussion tonight. I think it's important that we, as a city, challenge ourself. One of the things that I applaud our department directors for as often as I can is how they've been able to accomplish what they do with who they have. And I always want to praise them because they're working smarter, not harder. And again, when we're so often comparing ourselves to our peers, other cities similar to us that have more head count, That's not always a good thing. Finding the smart way, the more efficient way to do things is exactly what's made Grand Island as successful as it is and what will continue to. All that was asked this year was for us to take a pause. And I agree that we need to take a pause for one year. There was a lot of requests. I think like Jack, there's probably a couple of things I think we could add that wouldn't have a big impact on the budget whatsoever. But I'm willing to say, OK, let's just be consistent across the board. Let's just put everything on hold for this year. We've got next year. And we've got time to think about it. We've gone through. processes here, I can't even remember the name of it, that was such a huge process. There was an efficiency type thing where we were supposed to go through it. When Laura was here, I can't remember what the program was. But we had sheets that were this long and this tall, and it just laid out everything. I don't think that ever followed through. We never took that clear through to fruition to find out what all our efficiencies were. But there are efficiencies, and there will be efficiencies that are found. And one of the things that we have that challenges us, not only as a city, but as people, when our savings account is full and we've got a lot of money in it, we don't operate the same way as when our savings account starts to get smaller, it's non-existent. We've been blessed with a lot of cash over the last several years that's allowed us to do things that many communities would be envious of. But now we have to realize that that is going away. And we have to plan for that to go away, at least to minimize to a stable level so that we can plan accordingly. Now, I don't agree that there's nothing in the future here going forward that an FTE can't be added and reviewed. But what I like, and I think we're kind of ahead of our, maybe this is the appropriate time to be talking about this. I thought we'd be talking about this when we talked about the budget at the end. But it all ties in with the levy. So I think it's all appropriate here. But I just think it's important that we take a look to challenge ourselves in every way that we can. And moving forward, what I like, I really like the last proposal that I saw. Patrick and I, again, I don't know if this is a combination of you and Chelsea working together or who else, but this is the most refined budget that I've ever seen in 23 and three-quarter years here and the reasons more refined and the good things about this is that we looked at all positive variances and tried to true them up which makes your budget just about as accurate as it can be and Most people aren't going to do that. And even though while we looked at that, those positive variances and tried to true them up, you gave yourself a little bit of flexibility on some of that because you realize that this might be our five-year average. But we're not going to, in my old world, we call it budget back. We're not going to budget back everything. We're going to give ourselves a little bit of fluff there because we don't know what the next five years, next two years is going to be. So the things that you did in this latest proposal was the world that I lived in for 20 years. And I've never seen our city go to that degree of detail before. And that is looking at all those positive variances and trying to true them up to make it as accurate as possible. That is going to help us make good decisions in the future. And it's also going to see how good we're doing on our forecast. I mean, these things tell the tale as you go forward. How close were we on accuracy on this? It's the right approach. It's the best budget, the most refined budget I've ever seen. As an outgoing council member, I'm happy to hand this off to the next council, to the next mayor, and say, we handed it to you in good shape. Look at the five year projection. Going forward, take a look and see if there's FTEs that are required. You're going to have to account for them. Using the criteria that Patrick presented to us was this is what's going to determine future FTEs. Does it meet this? Does it meet this? Does it meet this? Does it meet this? Have you looked at this to see if there's a way to make it more efficient? That's the challenge we have to have going forward. Now, a little other caveat in there that, Patrick, I'm sure you haven't really touched on a lot, but this 2018 tax is a huge thing for us. And it's going away possibly in two years, unless some decision is made, to where the community will see the value that it's had in the last eight years. That tax, the support from our community, which has been tremendous the whole time I've been on this council, has helped us support for additional taxes that helped us invest in our community. And I believe when that first tax was passed by 69% of voters in this town, we thought we were going to receive around $5 million a year. I think it's now up to about $7 million. Is that roughly where we're at? So we took those dollars. We've invested them in projects that I heard Keith tell us before that if we didn't have that money, we would never have been able to have done this project. Those projects have made Grand Island a better community than it would have been. The roads are better. All these things, even the things we don't like with the construction on State Street. We don't like all the headaches when it went into Claude Road. But Claude Road is a wonderful thing right now. Claude Road is super. And we're using it right now a lot. Those are the type of foresight things that our community has supported. And I certainly hope as we start to look at that tax phase out, that the community, again, with the leadership of this council and other businesses, takes a look at the potential of extending that. Or I don't even know how that all works. But that has been vitally important to us. It's part of your budget process that helps us get a lot of things done. And that thing is sitting on its last leg as we move forward here in the next couple of years. We have to hold the line. I'm OK with what you proposed. I am very happy with the detail of the proposal. And I think if the future council and mayor goes forward using that criteria with the city administrator and finance director, good decisions are going to be made. And they're going to be made tough. Yeah, they're going to be tough decisions. But they're the decisions that have to be made. So I'm really happy with where we're at on the budget. Really pleased with the detail of this like I've never seen before.

Please vote. Motion adopted.

11C, approving downtown improvement district number two.

Pardon me, which one are we on?

11C. 11C, approving downtown improvement district number two, the ramp, property tax request. Mr. Brown?

Thank you, Mayor. The 2026 valuation for the downtown improvement district ramp increased from the 25 valuation by 5.5 million or 5.9%. The mill levy would be decreasing from 0.009711 to 0.009710. We are asking for a property tax ask of $9,090. Thank you.

Brown.

I move we approve 2026, tax 243.

Mr. O'Neill. I second that motion. Any discussion?

Please vote. Are you still up? What do you vote? I'll come look at it. Motion adopted.

11D, approving fiscal year 2026 to 2027 fee schedule. Mr. Brown?

Thank you, Mayor. The only changes that we have to the fee schedule since the study session that was presented to you is moving the baby land under the cemetery back to 300 from 350. And then utilities was install and remove street banner sign for $900.

Mr. Sheard. Thank you. I move that we approve the fee schedule. Mr. Lanphier.

I second.

Discussion?

Please vote. Didn't come up again? Okay. What do you vote? Motion adopted.

11E, approval of a Good Life District agreement with Woodsonia GI GLD LLC. And as an information item, counsel, Mike Rogers, attorney for Gilmore and Bell, is here tonight to answer any questions that you may have about the agreement. Please present, Mr. Brown.

Thank you, Mayor, Council. Good news is we've had several in-person meetings with Sonia, Mitch, and Drew, and Kent. Very fruitful. And it looks like we have come to an agreement. So part of that agreement, there are some operative events. That includes the land sale contract. That'll be before you. I would like for it to be the 22nd, but we'll see. Occupation tax ordinance, which has already been passed. Redevelopment to TIF financing agreement, that's in process. Availability of cash on hand. Currently at the end of August, we're almost at 14 million. So have some money there. And approvals of zoning and preliminary plat. At a later date, we will address the community improvement district, the CID. In your agenda packet, there was a wrong number. It's 150 per $100 valuation, not $1,000 valuation. So I apologize for that. The project, they're looking to have the 142 million in net proceeds. And a total fiscal impact is really unknown at this time, but it should be in excess of $250 million. So that is the end of my presentation.

Gerald Pools, would you like to speak?

And thank you again, Mayor, Council. This project, and I'm not going to defeat it or anything like that. I'm still opposed to it. There are several issues. I don't know if the city paid cash on those projects, Jack, because you couldn't find a lender you could afford or what. But regardless, even with the low mill levy, If you look at property tax, people pay $8,000 a year for a property tax. That's simply rent, and that's why the levy should be kept as low as absolutely possible. And the reason it's not kept low is because of the spending thing. The project with Woodsonia, okay, today gas is up 30 cents a gallon. That's going to have an impact, perhaps, on sales. got to be looking at that uh and this woodsonian project okay when we first passed sales tax what 1989 half of it i think so that would be a quarter of a percent was supposed to go for property tax relief and we passed another one in i think half a cent sales tax and half of that was supposed to go, it was sold on the premise of property tax relief. Okay, so now we have 2018 passed another increase and that one is mostly for capital development and expenditures. But this Good Life District now says it's going to take the property tax and it can only be used, or the sales tax that it collects will go for development. To me, you're taking That half that quarter that was approved for sales tax reduction in 1989 and the quarter percent sales tax city sales tax that was approved in, in, uh, 2004, I guess it was 2004. So now that money then is, is disappear. As far as far as being applied for property tax relief. Is that correct?

No, the sales tax that funds the Good Life District is sales tax given up by the state.

So there is still going to be property sales tax will go for property tax relief that is collected in the Good Life District?

This is state sales tax that goes to the Good Life District, not city sales tax.

Okay, all right, thank you. I just... One other thing is that the Good Life District, this company that in the March of the year that the Good Life District is in existence, there's supposed to be a report, a financial report or a sales report that states how many out of state visitors came to the to the event to the Good Life District? Do we have that report? And then that 20% or there was a percentage and I've left that paper on my desk. There's a percentage of money that is taken in retail sales that are supposed to be coming from out of state. And that's I think is supposed to be in the report. Do we have those reports? Because that Good Life District has been there for a while. I just want to keep it on the up and up as far as the reporting goes.

There were studies done that projected the things you talk about, but I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about.

It's early on in the Good Life District and I left that page at home. The cities of the first class are supposed to have this many visitors from out of state and that is not supposed to include. out-of-state students and then there's a percentage of their sales have to be from out-of-state. I just wondered, I've emailed the State Department of Economic Development. I haven't heard anything back from them. I don't know if it's supposed to be a report to the state or if it's supposed to be a report to the city, but I sure would like to see that information. And one other thing, we've got so much money out there in tax increment financing. How about every month that you pay the bills that you also publish how much outstanding tax increment financing is out there because that's property tax that's being deferred that really should, that homeowners aren't getting that benefit, businesses are. I really would like to see that continuing process just to keep it in the mind's eye Uh, how much tip is out there? Maybe, maybe how much property came off with TIFF and then also how much the city is paying on debt service each month. So just a couple of suggestions for moving forward. Thank you.

Jay, would you like to speak?

Well, thank you. I appreciate the previous speaker's remarks, but just once again, I think back when the 2004 sales tax was passed, it was a tax shift, but it reduced the city's property tax asking by 70%. So, and I think that's kind of the message that the state is telling us. It gave five communities the opportunity to promote growth. it would give up its revenue that it would be entitled to go ahead and spur more growth. And that's what the Woodsonia proposal does. Secondly, congratulations to each one of you. This is kind of like a Beatles song, a long and winding road. Probably the most things that have ever gone into a redevelopment agreement ever and maybe ever again. So I know it takes steadfast leadership from city expertise to make it happen. I know you've all heard from comments around the community, when is this going to get done? We had a ballot issue, where is it going to go? Also, I would just acknowledge with Sonia, I would one part say, don't ever assume city government will make a decision without being here. But they have been here long and hard for the last couple of years. So I just acknowledge their initiative to come forward with a proposal that maybe others could have made. And also, I think back of this long and winding road. Well, it's much like maybe I saw Mitch or Mr. Haase and say, sometimes Grand Island government, it's not pretty, but we'll get the job done. And maybe this is a good description of that. But I think the beauty of this going forward is something that, well, indeed, I bet Mike is smiling right now. because indeed you all have really paid the toll on this, but also with Sonia, now is at the point where we can move forward. And I think maybe a difference maker was in this whole thing, maybe, was the public discussions that were held and say, how do you negotiate something that's typically public and yet how do you negotiate something that's contrary to the way the city normally does business? where you go this step, this step, this step, this step to make a decision, and this was all compromised because the final decision was all predicated on all those different things. The thing I would point out is the budget, the ballot referendum on aquatics I think was a big driving factor in this. And when Sonia made the decision, in my perspective, to go ahead and come up with a revised agreement that went ahead and brought in another developer of Chief Industries to go ahead and partner with this in cooperation with other outside I think was the difference because I think people really want aquatics. They've seen what Kearney can do with their outstanding facility and they want to have something happen here. But in light of the discussions about budgets, One factor in that is you have to have growth. You have to have growth in extra revenue and sources outside of property tax, and that's what the Wissoni Agreement will offer us with your positive decision. I'm confident that, once again, congratulations on the job well done to bring forward Mayor Steele. And also, we just thank you so much for your leadership in bringing this forward. Thank you. Thank you.

Council President O'Neill, the motion is yours.

I move that we approve 11E, approval of a Good Life District agreement with Woodsonia. Mr. Hossie.

Thank you, Mayor. I am proud to second that motion.

Mr. Nickerson, discussion? Discussion? Sure, and Patrick, I missed your opening. I don't know what you said about the overall execution. Would you mind kind of just summarizing that again for me?

Basically, I just kind of went over the operative events. That's kind of what the contract is based on. It's based on land sale, which will be coming to council very soon. It's also on the occupation tax ordinance, which we've already passed, council already passed. It's based on the community improvement district, which will come to council later on at a later date. It's on zoning and replatting of the land. And there's one other item. Oh, cash on hand. So at the end of August, we're almost at $14 million.

And TIF would be included in that? And TIF, yes. OK. So that was it? That was your presentation?

Yeah, we're looking at $142 million in net proceeds, depending on how we finance this and with cash on hand. I think we'll get there. But overall, the total fiscal impact is probably in excess of $250 million. So yeah, it's complicated, but we made a lot of headway.

Well, I'm going to repeat a statement that you made here a few weeks ago. And it was a positive statement. And I had some comments about the agreement I can't disagree with what they've done. I just have some questions about it. But one of your more recent meetings you said as you were, I don't know if you're leaving the meeting or where you were, you said, we've made more progress today than we've made in many, many months. And it was a very positive. experience from those particular negotiations and the smoothness that they were going. And I think, I mean, I remembered that and I thought that's a pretty powerful statement because you're excited about what was happening. I was here for an animal advisory meeting coming in a little before noon. I saw Mitch and Drew and Kent were leaving. I don't know if they're going to lunch or if they're coming back later. but they were happy that they were here at 11 in the morning instead of 11 at night, and here he is again at 8.13 tonight. So again, I would just echo what Mr. Vavacek said about the support that we've had, them trucking up and down I-80 many times through a month, but it's Hopefully it's paid off in the long run. I hope that's the case.

I think so. I think Mitch would agree. Okay.

That's good. So I just have some questions, and these are going to be for Mitch, I think, right now. And this is something that caught my eye. I'm only asking your opinion here, that's all, because this is a pretty powerful statement I saw. I'm not going to tell you I read every word in that agreement. But the words that caught my eye was this statement right here. And I just want you to listen to it and tell me and make sure that you're OK with this. Because I know you guys have agreed somewhere down the road. But this is pretty powerful to me. Should the developer not provide written notices set forth in section 2.1 to the city clerk by no later than 4.30 on January 28, 2027, demonstrating developer satisfaction with the operative events, This agreement shall never become operative and shall be fully rescinded with no further action by any party. And the developer's application for Good Life District funding, as contemplated in this agreement, shall be designated as administratively closed. That's a pretty powerful statement there. I'm just kind of interested in your thoughts on that.

Well, I'll be brief. I will say, before I answer your question, Mitch, Pat did a good job of kind of laying out the operative events that need to take place between now and January. And I think getting those operative events really detailed in terms of what has to happen was the heavy lift that took place over the last six weeks. And I think Pat's memo was good that it laid those out. But what he probably did a poor job of explaining was the lift that staff put through, Ryan put through, the mayor put through, and Mike Rogers put through, specifically over the last four weeks. Those guys went above and beyond. So did staff, Carrie, Matt. in terms of the amount of time they spent on coming up with solutions to get to this point. I don't know how many hours it was, but it was probably 60 hours over the last three weeks that these folks met with us and were really willing to engage in terms of things that we needed. The solution we have now is more so, hey, the big lift is this document tonight. It is. I mean, this is a huge document. It's a complicated document. It's got 100 moving parts. But I do think it really consolidated, hey, let's get the big piece done. And now there's four or five other things that still need to take place. Those are more rudimentary development tasks that have to happen. It's zoning and plotting. It's a TIF agreement.

It's the land ordinance. It's just verifying the cash on hand.

All those things, I think, will take place in the normal course of the city process. All those things do need to take place, though, before this agreement becomes operative. Now, this agreement's done a really good job of capturing what all has to happen between now and then. I mean, to your point right there, that is a real statement that, hey, if these things don't happen by January 29th, the agreement is null, right? Now, do we expect those things not to happen? I don't think so. I think we've all laid the groundwork and the foundation to get there. There still is work to be done. But this agreement was really, I think, a creative way of tying it all together as best we can.

That's just a very powerful statement that basically says if it's not by that deadline, it's... done. No wiggle room. I mean, this is the statement. It's not just in there once. It's in there more than once. I just want to publicly discuss that with you, OK? Now, having said that and understanding where we're coming from, the onus now falls on the city. So now I'm going to switch places and have Patrick come up and take your spot. I was hoping Chad Abadie would be here tonight, because I was going to ask him. So we know what needs to be done. And we know that we have a limited number of meetings, typically once a month on a lot of these committees. What is our game plan to make sure that this all comes together in a timely fashion to meet that deadline that we were just talked about? And there's another caveat to that. Let me throw this in real quick. Because the faces that you see around here tonight are going to be different in December. So in my mind, We know what the majority, I think I know the majority of the support that this group has. I don't know the support of the incoming faces that will come in here in December. Those folks will be voting in December. Those folks will be voting in January. Our group will be voting through November on this. Do we, and I don't want to discount not knowing what the other group may be, but you don't know. You just don't know. And here's another caveat. Jack, you're going to have to tell me if I'm right. Do you have to abstain on anything that's related to good life?

Tonight, yes.

Tonight, but not always? Maybe? OK. All right. So here's the other caveat here. We've got 10 members. We have one that can't vote tonight anyway. That gives us nine. On any given night that something comes before us, depending on how many council members may or may not be here, we could be down to seven voting members. We need six votes to pass. So what I'm trying to say as I look strategically through my brain at anything like this It's probably in our best interest to see if we can pull all this together by the end of November rather than trying to drag it into December and January just because of the unknowns. And I don't know that. My question tonight is, do you think with the timeline that we have with the CRA planning commission, seven probably scheduled meetings with this group before we're all done, do you think that sounds like a doable thing? Or do you think it may have to fall into December and January?

It's going to have to go to December, January. Staff is well aware of timelines here, especially Chad. So we conferred with Chad prior to this date. I know Mitch and Drew have been in contact with Public Works, Chad, on the zoning and replatting and all that. So it's actually moving fairly fast. But if special meetings need to be done by CRA, I'm sure Chad will do that.

I know he's done that before. I'm just throwing out the scenarios because that's kind of the way I think. Not that they're going to be bad, but the reality is there are times we only have seven members here. So if there's any dissension at all, There are things that can, depending on the topic, they can affect those votes. So that's just kind of the way my brain runs. And I'm looking at seven meetings with probably majority of good support. After that, I don't know what it is. I have no idea. None of us know. Okay, so I'm just tossing that out because I personally want this to move just as rapidly as possible because this date is a big date, January 27th or 8th, whatever I read off there. That's a pretty powerful date there. OK, so that's that topic. Next topic is the CID. I need to understand a little more about what the CID is, what's being proposed for the assessment, and the thoughts of how you think that may be a detriment or something that will help the overall success of that. Because I'm just trying to noodle through a lot of this stuff. The assessment that I'm seeing is $1.50 per $100 valuation. And that can add up to a lot of dollars for people. So how's that all fitting in your picture of the future of the Veterans Village?

It's a key funding mechanism for the whole project, Mitch. So the way that CID works, just to keep it simple, it's just an added mill levy over a district that can be used to then fund eligible project expenses, which are predominantly public infrastructure.

Isn't that what TIF is helping you cover, though?

Partially, partially. I mean, you think back, you know, one of the big challenges we had were how do we fund all the various pieces that the city wants to see, we want to see within the context of this project. That got really tricky last year when we got a significant haircut from the state on the good life dollars, right? Fortunately, the CID legislation was passed this past June. It didn't totally fill the gap that the Good Life District haircut caused, but it is gonna help. So that 15, we're assuming it's about into the project is probably 15 to $20 million. And that'll be paid over the course of the CID. And that will be funded via the mill levy within the properties within the Veterans Village project area. It ultimately flows up into the TIF, right? It's part of the TIF in terms of the overall tax rate. The challenge that we ran into this summer is only the property owner can form the CID. Right now, the city is the property owner. If the city were to form it, the city would then need to appoint the board of trustees for that CID. Well, that's not exactly the intent of the project, because we'd ultimately want to control the CID, since we're going to put all the infrastructure in. So the solution that we came up with is a CID formation is no longer an operative event. There just wasn't a clean way to do it. So we are going to be coming back to you, Mitch. We wanted that to be really clear. We are coming back to council for the formation of a CID. That is a key, key piece of this project. However, we won't be doing that until we've closed on the property.

So when I think about the CID, and I've tried to read up on it, I've never in all the time I've been here, I don't think I've ever been involved in a CID. So I'm just trying to understand to the person that has to pay for it. Is this an annual fee that's like property taxes?

Exactly paid with property taxes.

Okay, so let's walk through a scenario here. $300,000 house. I'm going to say taxes, regular taxes on that house at maybe 1.5%, whatever they've kind of fallen down to is, what did I just say, $300,000. So $4,500 for just property taxes. But now you're saying that with the CID at 1.5, we need to add another 4,500 on top of that. So that 4,500 becomes $9,000 to this property owner. Is that what happens on a CID? That's what I'm trying to understand.

Well, the CID levy, so the 1.5% is the maximum amount that you could levy on it. That levy will be set annually by the CID board. And we're not setting that amount at the onset. That'll largely depend on what the valuations actually come in at across the board. But it could be up to 1.5%. So if it was a $300,000 home assessed value, that'd be

to your point, 4,500 bucks on top of $4,500 taxes. So now, so I have a, and I, the reason I'm asking you this aside from what you need to do to make that project successful, do you see that as being, somebody wants to pay for the privilege of living at veterans village, an extra bonus of $4,500 a year. I pay almost 400 extra dollars for the privilege of living here. I think our agreement says that it will be $1.50 per 100. I don't think it says up to. I'm just going by memory here. So it looks to me like it was just the same. It will be $1.50 per 100 value. And that's just a blank statement. That's what it is.

Yeah. I mean, Mitch, there's 100 different variables that go into it, though. I mean, they could have decreased competitive lot pricing, right, and save money on what they're going to pay for their lot versus some other area in Grand Island. They're also going to have all the amenities up there gonna be partially funded with the CID levy. So it's not just, hey, come up here, you're gonna pay more, right? One, they're gonna go into it knowing what their taxes will be. It will be their decision if they wanna buy a home up there. And ultimately for us, if we wanna market and sell the lots and bring homes up there, which we have to do if we're gonna create any tax increment, there's gonna need to be a compelling reason to live in that area and get folks to be subject to that tax levy. But that's just part of the overall structure of the project.

Ultimately need to create an environment that people are willing to spend a little extra for to enjoy Yeah, I mean if they're not they're not gonna live up there, right? They're gonna live somewhere where their property taxes are potentially $3,000 less a year And I don't know As far as disclosures go again even in the real estate world that I've been in which hasn't been you know 100% deep for years and years like some people. I don't know what has to be disclosed or if that's just part of a... Oh, it's a recorded document, so it's... It's just going to be disclosed at the time of closing when they're... That pulls title.

We'll see it on their title. It will be a title exemption.

Just a regular assessment or anything like that? Exactly. Okay. I'm just trying to talk through the concept to see if you see that being... detrimental to you at that level, you're saying now it may or may not be that much. But even so, somebody has to be willing to pay a premium. And as I read through community improvement districts, I think whatever CID stands for, one of the things is that you create an environment, like you were saying, that they are willing to do that. It just seems like a big price to pay for somebody Which is not my problem. It's not my problem. It's just a discussion item that I was curious about.

I don't know. We also look at it through the context of utilizing an SID, which is a common tool that we do now, right? I mean, by example, in Omaha, we probably have 3,000 single-family lots that we've developed or are developing in SIDs. There's plenty of neighborhoods that you can buy in Omaha that don't have an SID, where you don't pay an additional 90 mils at that time. But there's a benefit to living in a new neighborhood, right? And a lot of folks are willing to pay for that. And they don't have to, right? They can build a house in a different neighborhood. They can buy an existing home. But that's just a decision that the homeowner will need to make on that.

So do you assess the CID fee before the amenities are developed or after they're developed for them to have a reason to want to be there?

Well, you'll form the CID to fund a lot of the infrastructure at the onset. So that mill, it's not a fee that's passed on. It's just a property tax levy that's there. So ultimately, it'll likely be formed, will be formed before any homeowner buys a lot. And they'll just be subject to whatever the mill levy is at that time. But all the amenities will be in. I should have mentioned that too. All the amenities happen to be all the critical components of the project that we have to complete. Those are in the document that you have before you as critical project components. So yes, those will all be done before we can tap into any funding for the single family residential. So yes, those will be in.

OK. Well, again, congratulations on all the work that's been done. The CID will be your baby to deal with in the future with council approval, it sounds like. I just didn't know how that would be, if it would be beneficial or if you'd see it as a detriment. It sounds like it's an important component of the overall success. And you may have to just take a look and fine tune that after you take a look at what all the cost estimates are. Maybe it's not $1.50. Maybe it's $1.00. Maybe it's $0.75. But you've got to get that number established. to decide what your CID number would be best for you. Correct. So that makes sense. It just seems to me like a big price to pay. But again, people pay what they want to live where they want. And as you look at the overview of the overall Veterans Village, it's a pretty impressive layout. And I hope people will flock there and just fill it up as fast as they can. All right. Thank you. Mr. Stelk.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would like to commend Pat and the City Council for the tremendous work they've done in getting this passed. This is a life-changing event for Grand Island. It's equivalent to Interstate 80 coming to Grand Island, the wagon trains coming to Grand Island, all the things on our history for the last 150 years. This is a changing moment. Every person I talk to in the last six months, they always want to know, well, when are you going to get this passed? When are we going to have an aquatic center? When are we going to have the sports center? This is a changing event for Grand Island. And we're in a process of creating history for the future of our kids. This history will have an impact for the next 50 years. And this is what the young people want. They want a reason to stay in Grand Island. We want a reason to say, why do you need to stop in Grand Island? Why do you need to live in Grand Island? Because this is a beautiful city. we put our money where our wants are and where our people want it invested and we want to invest in the future and that's in our kids so i ask all of you to vote for this project and i thank the city for and patrick and the mayor for taking the lead to get this put together and passed Because this is a life-changing event, and I'm very proud to be part of it. And I want to thank all of you for it. Thank you.

Mr. Hossie.

Thank you, Mayor. I think Mark said it very well. I am also an appreciative of all of the mayor and the council and the staff working together to try to get this thing because this is a generational project that we're actually seeing to fruition at this point. And so I'm just very grateful that we're at this point where we're at today and for all the effort that everybody put in to get us to this point. I also wanted to comment a little bit on Mr. Paul's question about the TIF. And I wanted the public to understand is that when he said it, first thing he said about wanting like monthly reports or those things. There is an annual report, I think it's on May 1, that Chad Navity puts out on TIF. But the way a TIF dollar works, and just in real simple terms, at least in my simple terms, if a developer or a residential person gets approved for a TIF, they have a private lender, a private bank, whoever's lending the money. And that's the money that gets lent. The city's not involved in it. So you have a private lender who lends the amount of the TIF. What the city is doing is we're providing the property tax that when the developer or whoever owns the property pays the tax in the future, that part of the TIF part of that property tax gets paid to the county assessor and then gets routed to the private lender. Your tax dollar, my tax dollar, they're not involved in any of the TIF. there's no, none of my tax dollars are going anywhere. It's whoever has that property or the developer, when they pay their property tax, that property tax gets rerouted back to the private vendor. The city isn't coming up with any money. We're not giving out any money. It is all coming from a private lender through the developer, and then when they pay the property tax on that, and if it gets paid off earlier than the 15 years or whatever term we approved, Then the lender, once the lender is paid up, then the rest of it comes to the city from here to forever. And that's the cash flow side. And so there isn't any city dollars going out on it. This is always that private money going in. And so it comes back. And so as much as I wish that there was a formula, and this council did actually go through probably a six-month study of how do we have a formula of what to approve and what not to approve, Every project is different. And what I concluded at the end of that is that there isn't a one answer fits all. And it is what it is and I think we do have a dependency on it. I think several council members agree with me we have too much of a dependency on it. But it is what it is. But I think right now it's the thing that's creating the growth. And we need the growth. You saw the challenge that we have in passing a budget when we have a wonderful economic growth pattern going on. Just imagine if we, when we hit COVID, all the challenges that the staff and the mayor and everybody had to go through when we have a downturn in the economy. everybody has to start pinching pennies. But I think in a good economy, this is what we need, is we need this continued growth because I have seen things in the last decade in the Grand Island that I have never seen in a decade before. And so I think the community is getting better and better and all of these things are just wonderful opportunities for my grandkids, not so much my kids or even me anymore. I'll probably never swim in the aquatic center that's gonna get built, but my grandkids might. So that's what I'm looking forward to is the future generations and what kind of a community are we providing them.

Mr. O'Neill.

For some time, I've said that this project has been sitting on the world's longest runway. And tonight, I feel like we're finally beginning to take off. This agreement creates a path for potentially more than $100 million in state sales tax revenue to come back to Grand Island and be invested here, It includes a major athletic complex, an aquatic center, and it creates an opportunity for a new YMCA building. The Good Life District program was created to attract visitors, generate new economic activity, and strengthen our local communities. This project fits that purpose. It can attract tournaments, visitors, and outside spending while providing outstanding athletic and recreational resources for our local residents. A good investment should strengthen the local economy and improve the quality of life, and this one can do both. We all know this process has not been easy. It's taken a lot of hard work, patience, persistence, and commitment to keep moving forward. I appreciate the work of the city and Winsonia have done to bring this agreement forward. Tonight, we're taking a very important step. There's still work ahead, but this is a really defining step for this project in Grand Island. And I'm proud of the work we've done to move it forward and to support this.

Please vote. Motion adopted.

I think it needs to be noted that in the history of Grand Island, no mayor city council or city staff have negotiated and completed a development agreement of this size this is truly a monumental undertaking for the city and i think wonderful things will flow from this agreement i thank everyone including the city council for being patient and working through all the details that led to the approval of the Good Life District Agreement. Ordinance 12A, consideration of approving assessments for Railside Business Improvement District. Is there a motion to suspend the statutory rules? Mr. Hasse.

Thank you, Mayor. I move to suspend the rules.

Mr. O'Neill. I second that motion. Any discussion?

Please vote. Motion adopted.

Ms. Steinke?

This is the action item for the earlier agenda item for the Railside Business Improvement District. This is to establish the special assessment at $155,060.90. Mr. O'Neill? I move we approve 10,087. Mr. Brown? I second that motion.

Discussion? Please vote.

Motion adopted.

12B, consideration of approving assessments for 4th Street Business Improvement District. Is there a motion to suspend the rules, Mr. O'Neill?

I move to suspend the statutory rules for ordinances.

Mr. Lanphier?

I second. Discussion?

Please vote. Motion adopted.

Council?

Mr. Sheard? Thank you. I move that we approve the assessments for 4th Street Business Improvement District. Is that the one? I thought we just did that one.

No. You're right. You're right, Mr. Sheard. Mr. O'Neill?

I second that motion.

Any discussion?

Please vote. Motion adopted.

Next, consideration of approving assessments for Fauner Park Business Improvement District. Motion to suspend?

Mr. O'Neill? I move to suspend the rules for the ordinances.

Mr. Lanphier?

I second. Discussion?

Please vote. Motion adopted.

Ms. Steinke?

The action item for the earlier agenda item also for the Fauner Park Business Improvement District, this is to establish the special assessments at $55,450. Thank you. Mr. O'Neill? I move to approve $10,089.

Mr. Stilt? I second the motion. Please vote.

Motion adopted.

12D, consideration of approving assessments for South Locust Business Improvement District. Mr. Lanphier.

I move we suspend the rules considering ordinances. Mr. Steltz. I second the motion.

Discussion?

Please vote. Motion adopted.

On the merits, Mr. O'Neill. I move to approve 10,090. Mr. Lanphier. I second. Discussion?

Please vote. Motion adopted.

12E, consideration of approving salary ordinance. Mr. Lanphier.

I move we suspend state statutes concerning ordinances. Mr. O'Neill.

I second that motion. Discussion?

Please vote. Motion adopted.

Mr. Schmidt.

Thank you, Mayor, Council. This is the salary ordinance for the fiscal 27 budget. It includes the wage adjustments for the unions and the non-union. Those are based off of CPI number minus any market adjustments. And then it also includes some cleanup adjustments. There's some positions listed there. That's not creating anything new. It's just we did some reconciling between departments and with Paycom. So just making those adjustments and then some lettering and numbering for reference. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Schmidt.

Mr. Sheard? Thank you. I move that we pass 1091. Mr. Stilt?

I second the motion.

Any discussion?

Please vote. Motion adopted.

12F, consideration of fiscal year 2026 to 2027, annual single city budget and annual appropriations bill. Motion to suspend, Mr. O'Neill.

I move to suspend the rules for ordinances.

And Mr. Lanphier. I second. Any discussion?

Please vote. Motion adopted.

Please proceed, Mr. Brown.

Thank you, Mayor. I'll be brief since we've talked budget most of this evening. The proposed 27 budget disbursements or transfers are 1% or 3.4 million higher than adopted fiscal year 26 budget. Difference is mainly due to inflationary pressures and decrease in revenues. All funds revenue projections for 27 decrease 5.94% or 18 million over the 26 budget. 2026 valuations, we discussed that.

Increased 304 million over 25 valuation.

City has already passed the same tax ask. Total sales tax revenue is forecasted at 30,200,000 for 2027. It is a 1.6% or 479,704 increase over the 26 budget. The increase is in line with the recent trend in sales tax for Grand Island, but slightly lower than forecasted inflationary data. All other revenue sources in general fund account for 23 million, a decrease of $472,982. Decrease in transfers by 10.4 million. That is due to the excess cash that we moved over to different funds to pay for projects. No additional FTEs or reclassifications. Total capital improvement plan for the fiscal 27 is roughly $70 million. And the rest we have gone over earlier this evening. Thank you.

Chair Greg Musil. Thank you, Mr. Brown.

Mr. Sheard. Thank you. I move that we approve the 2026-2027 annual single city budget and annual appropriations bill. Mr. Stelk.

I second the motion, Mr. Mayor.

Any discussion?

Mr. Nickerson. Patrick, I ask you a question, or I made a statement earlier tonight. I'm going to just ask you here. You've been involved in the budget for how many years now?

Eight. Actually, seven.

Seven years? I made a statement that this was the most refined, detailed budget that's ever been before this council, at least since I've been around here. Would you agree that that's exactly what this one is?

Absolutely. Got to hand it to our finance team, especially Chelsea, Alicia, our payroll department. We just went through and started analyzing, especially in personnel costs and how we're estimating forecasting insurances, health insurance. There's a lot more to do. And we'll get it done this coming year. But with that staff, it's actually a pleasure working with them. They're very interested. They're engaged. And some of the ideas they come up with are some pretty good ideas.

Very good. Well, thank you. And for all of you that helped him on this budget, I'm sure he's looking forward to next year's already.

Please vote. Motion adopted.

Excellent meeting. We are adjourned.