City Council - Regular Meeting

Hey, good evening everyone. Welcome to North Flat City Council meeting here on Tuesday, May 5th, 2026 at 5:30 p.m. Of course, we're here in the council chambers calling the meeting officially to order. We have an invocation by Reverend Jonathan Sorenson from St. Patrick's Church. Please. Oh God, source of all wisdom and light, we humbly gather before you at the start of this our civic duty. We ask for the guiding grace of the Holy Spirit to rest upon the members of this city council, the staff, and all who participate in this meeting. Grant us the prudence to discern the needs of our community, the courage to make difficult decisions with integrity, and the charity to seek the common good above all private interests. Inspire our hearts to act with justice and compassion, remembering especially the poor, the vulnerable, and the marginalized within our city. May our deliberations and votes reflect a commitment to the lasting well-being and unity of all residents. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

Amen. I pledge alce to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible and justice for all.

Thank you everyone. Angie the roll call please. Here Lucas here. Eric here. Landers weaker here. McN here.

Thank you. Current copy of the Open Meetings Act of State Nebraska is posted on the wall 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. Request that any complaints or criticism of employees not be aired in the 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 and will be enacted by one motion. Any city council member may however remove an item from consent by request. Number one, A. Approve minutes of April 21, 2026. B place on file treasurer's report for March 2026. C. Approve the application by La Hasiendanda Market LLC for an addition to liquor license area located at 315 East 6th Street. D. Approve the application by Pal's Brewing for a special designated license on May 16th, 2026 from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. at the DNN Event Center, 501 East Walker Road for a happy hour fundraiser. E. He approved the application by DEAM LLC DBA Axes and Aces for a special designated license on May 9, 2026 from 4 p.m. to 11 p.m. at the Victory Village on Lake View Clubhouse, 107 Pioneer Drive for a going away party. F. Approve the application by Bodunks Brewing DBA Peg Leg Brewing for a special day license on May 30th, 2026 from 1 PM to 10 pm with an alternate date of May 31, 2026 at Pegle Brewery, 2519 Heligan Drive for a car show. G. The approved application by Bodunks Brewing DBA Peg Lake Brewing for a special designated license on June 6, 2026 from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. at Peg Lake Brewery, 2519 Heligan Drive for a muck march.

H approve I don't know what it is either, but it sounds fine. approved the purchase of an ABI laserg guided infield groomer from Turf Works for the Parks and Recreation Department of the amount of $46,6605. Mr. Mayor, I move we approve the consent agenda less item H. Second. Go ahead.

Motion by RER, second by Nisley to approve the agenda the consent agenda. Accepting item H. calling question consent agenda accepting item H is approved. Mr. Eker, thank you, Mr. Mayor. U question for Lyall, I guess, about this machine. What what what is this going to be doing and what's it for? give me some kind of an idea if you would please.

Well, good evening, Mayor Council. Um, we just spent $83,000 on uh renovating all the infields of all the baseball fields and softball fields. And what this will do will uh raise the standard what we've compared to what we've had in the past. Uh we'll be able to uh guarantee more games. will be able to uh provide safety. Uh when I say safety, a lot of times we have good old Nebraska winds blows dirt across them in fields and creates a lip. And this machine will uh help eliminate that on a regular basis. And so it's going to be it's going to be one of those things that we're going to keep our fields at a high standard of of uh grooming and uh as well as bring in more tournaments because the word will probably get around that we we have safe fields and then we'll also be able to be more playable even after a certain amount of rain.

Ly, is it the case that this will crown the fields as well? Yes, that's why the laser helps that tremendously that we can set that laser and and have an angle from say the the home plate and and pitchers mound line second base and slope it away and then and then go the other way towards the third base too. That way the rain will run off. We won't have the the dips and the holes and stuff like that where rain collects. So, okay. Thank you, Pete. Go ahead. Yeah, if I might add a little bit onto that, I spent about 10 years working on Billwood Field and like Lyall said, we just put in about $85,000 of of um dirt there and sod. And if we don't maintain it, it's really hard. They have about seven fields there if I'm not mistaken, Lyall,

where at down at Centennial. Uh they're down to we're down to five right now. Okay. But still six one one was T- ball and one was coach pitch. But you know if you're not maintaining them they just they just deteriorate. So we'd have to come back in in about two years and

and redo the dirt. So this system I've seen it and it works really well. Um fields percolate. They don't necessarily run off but in order to have that so you don't have holes especially around second bay shortstop and stuff like that. This machine we do not have a field turf guy for the city. So this doesn't replace the field turf guy, but it does help our people to work fields properly. So I think it's money well spent on this. Well, with that in mind, Lyle, how do you how do you regrade a field without disturbing the saw?

Well, there might be just a little bit of disturbing on it. U there's uh things that you can do. You can take that cut that lip off a little bit. you know, anywhere from 6 to 12 in off the sod and then uh go in there and and with a roller pack that down so it has a real nice surface between the the infield, the skin infield and the grass. And then eventually, obviously, if you got take that off far enough, you'll have to come back in with some sod, you know, after a couple years and and and bring it back in. So, you're more concerned about the perimeter of the field, it sounds like, than the field.

Well, a little bit of both. a little bit of both because, you know, obviously if you have an inch of rain, uh right now it'll it'll be nice because we have a nice uh dome fill. Before it was kind of hard to go in there with with their if you've seen them with their uh screeds, they did nothing but follow those holes and just created bigger holes, especially they were a little bit wet, they would get in there and they would pull that dirt out of there and create bigger holes in there and so it was not playable. How often do you have to regrade those people?

Well, we're hoping maybe twice a year with the laser guided part of it and then without the laser part of it, we can go in there and just kind of maintain uh once in a while just to go in there because you can have a you have a setting on them that you can just go in there and just barely take the top and move it around and fill holes with it. But I believe I understand Pete that you brought in a bunch of dirt that So did you regrade the whole field then? We graded all the fields. Yes. Um it's a conditioner. What it is it's a it's a conditioner. It's a fairly absorbent uh material that they bring in from Colorado that it'll handle, you know, anything from a half to one inch rain.

Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you. You're very welcome. Brad, you had a question. I did. Uh, was this budgeted this? Uh, we we were able to pull some money out uh what was left for the price of this because I we got a $10,000 grant and a $20,000 grant uh to to offset the price of this and so we were able to pull out of the budget on this. Okay. Thank you. All right. Wow. Real quickly, will this will this have use at the softball fields as well at Cody Park and in the girls um complex in addition to the baseball fields? Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. I think it'd be more of a a use for those fields than it would be for the the baseball fields.

And thanks for your efforts with the grant money. That makes a little easier when twothirds of it is get paid for through grant contributions. Other questions or comments? We just made a comment. I think it more than a cosmetic issue. It was a safety factor from the kids that lift and fall. Exactly. I did receive a complaint one time about that condition. So, I think this is a great thing and I think I'm a big Thank you. Other questions or comments? Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve letter H.

Second. Motion by RER, second by Volos to approve letter H. Calling the question. Letter H is approved. Moving on to the regular agenda. Item two, approve the cost sharing agreement with Rivers Edge Golf Club LLC and authorize the mayor to sign necessary documents. Mr. Mayor move cost sharing agreement with River Beach Golf Club LLC and authorize the mayor to sign necessary documents. Second.

Thank you. Motion by RER, second by BS. Lane, you want to tell us what's going on here?

All right. As um as many of you are well aware, running along the south side of Rodeo Road is a a large ditch that's a drainage ditch and then it cuts across and goes north um south of where Mulligan Meadows is into the golf course and to the river and that drains a lot of the street system in that area of town. Last couple years we've had some drainage issues where Adam Street is flooded in that area. Um mainly because of the ditch as it gets closer to the river as it goes through the golf course. um has gotten overgrown and congested. And being it's um both helps the golf course and the city, this is to get that back up to um widen it, dredge it out, and so it will drain better, not have those backup issues that we've had the last couple years into the streets. And so it's really to maintain our our storm drainage in that part of town. This would be where the city would um share in the cost with River's Edge um on that project. Go ahead, Red.

I saw you recently did Mulligan Meadows right right there. Um, did the city do that or who who did that part? We did that being where it's more open and it wasn't a matter of disturbing stuff. We don't really have the equipment to go in where we're in between greens and things like that. And so that's why we weren't wanting to go on private property. We went on city property to do that part of it. So is it because we're we're facilitating this that we're doing the cost sharing piece of it because or is it normal for us to do cost sharing in this kind of in this kind of a situation where it's actually helping city drainage as well in a long area. It makes some sense to do some cost sharing. It's been probably 15 to 20 years since that's been taken care of. So I'm not exactly sure how it was handled years ago.

Gotcha. Other questions or comments? How does this work in conjunction with wetlands laws and requirements? Good question. I might let Brent answer that question.

Good evening, Mayor Council. Um this what we'd be looking at with this is it's a drainage structure and so it'd be maintenance of a drainage facility that's it's either been part of the irrigation ditch or the drainage from the state city going through there. So this would be principally maintenance of the existing drainage facility that we have.

Can I ask a follow-up question? Um, since you're up here anyway, it's a little bit of a unusual contract situation for the city, the way that they're hiring it and just the way that it's being handled. Do you feel like we have enough um do we have sufficient control or input on the way this is being done? Do you feel comfortable that the way this is being contracted that the city, you know, you can make sure it's done to your to your satisfaction? Um, we've had some discussions on expectations of what we need to have done. I know Lane's communicated that with the golf course and I think we'll have probably some periodic spot checks through there. Um, we know roughly some grades, elevation improvements that we need to have it function better. So, I I think we have communicated the the needs and expectations in writing of what we're looking for.

Thank you. Other question. Go ahead, Nick. Did we get or did anybody get bids on this or where did the 29,000 come from? Just out of curiosity. Um, we received a bid in the C golf course went out for a bid to them. They had a different bid that had a little more work involved with it where they were going to haul away the dirt and and some of the other stuff where the bid we got was just cleaning out the ditch itself and leaving that for the golf course. But we did get we did get bids from multiple contractors on it. Okay. And just to clarify, this is going to help the drainage on Adams Street. Correct. Correct. Awesome. Thank you. Where we've had that lake appear the last couple years. Yes. It should help that tremendously.

Perfect. Other questions or comments, Ed. Will that have any impact on those dead cotton?

Where are you talking? Um, we're not touching those and that that's I mean that's golf course. Most of those are on the golf course side, I believe. There may be a couple that would get taken out, but that's not really the scope of this project. Thank you. Other questions or comments?

Seeing none, calling the question on item number two, please. Item number two is passed. Item number three, adopt resolution approving the removal of stop signs for eastbound and westbound traffic at the intersection of Taber Avenue and Francis Street and the placement of stop signs for northbound and southbound traffic at Taber Avenue and Francis Street. Northbound traffic at McCabe Avenue and Philip Avenue. southbound traffic at McCabe Avenue and Francis Street and southbound traffic at Wesleian Avenue and Francis Street. Mr. Mayor, I move to adopt the resolution approving the removal of stop signs for eastbound and westbound traffic at the intersection of Taber Avenue and Francis Street and the placement of stop signs for northbound and southbound traffic at Taber Avenue and Francis Street. Northbound traffic at McCabe Avenue and Phillip Avenue. Southbound traffic at McCabe Avenue and Francis Street and southbound traffic at Weston Avenue and Francis Street.

Second motion by BS, second by Ricker. Have any discussion on item number three. Based on the description, it's pretty obvious what we're doing. So, go ahead. Quickly, how does the transition plan work? In other words, this is a change of habits for some people who use it every day. How do we how do we try to keep things safe through through the habit forming process?

Um I think Brent has a plan for that, but we'll do it. We will do extra signage and some flagging possibly maybe even some lighting at that area because it is changing where you stop, especially on Taber um for sure because people are used to now just going barreling through on north north and southbound. Now it's going to change out the east and westbound. But there is some plans there for some extra sight for a period of time anyway until people get used to it. Thank you. Other questions or comments? Seeing none, calling the question item number three, please. Item number three is passed. Item number four, approve preliminary and final approval of Deep Waters Retreat subdivision located at 2211 North Buffalo Bill Avenue in a B-2 highway commercial district to include proposed changes and easement document. I move to adopt the recommendation by the city planning commission for preliminary and final approval approval of deep waters retreat subdivision to include proposed changes and easement document.

Second motion by McNe, second by RER. Discussion on item number four. I was just could I have an explanation of of why we're subdividing here uh by the is the applicant here? That's what I thought. Ma'am, if you wouldn't mind.

Good evening. I'm Faine Hudson. Um the the first reason why we started subdividing was um our clinic is on this small portion and the fees for the assessing the frontage to get septic and water. We're going to be assessed across the entire property. So that was the first reason why we had to divide that down. Plus the bank requires us to have no land attached to that. Um and then um whether good or bad, I was attempting to kill two birds with one stone. And while I had the surveyor out there, um I started planning for our future development, which is years out. Um but I it's very hard to get a surveyor and it it's was a very long process. We've been working at it since November. So um the first uh the lot to the north of our clinic is proposed future museum, which is a long ways in the future. Um and then the middle section is proposed um campground and it's cabins. It's a medical retreat idea where they will come and do u medical services. Uh so but also it's just campground. So that is that is why for the subdivision. Um also um I would like to bring up that um there was discussion about easements at the um planning commission if that's what it's called. Uh so it's been really hard. I'm not a developer. I'm in medicine 20 years. That's what I like to do. Um and that's what I'm trying to do here. But uh it's been really hard to understand like what was required versus um just suggestions on easements. And uh I actually it's really ugly, but I drew a proposed map. Would you guys like one of

that would be awesome. Yeah. Yeah. Just to have a planish type thing. Thanks. Thank you.

So, um so our plan all along was really to have cabins along that north line where the tree line is. That is why we were there um for the campsite. So, um and then also on the south side, we've already got access to the clinic, a driveway there already straight to our parking lot. So, um, and then as you can see, like with our plans, I actually really didn't potentially need easements at all, and they do interfere with my plans. And so, I would like to request that all easements be removed at this time. We do have utility already there, and it's um, and we have Oh, my road didn't show up very good. There's a road up here also that accesses the campground. So just above the museum will be a road to the campground. So there's access both ways.

Mr. Mayor, may I ask a couple of questions? No, go ahead. Yeah. First, beautiful building. Thank you for putting it up in our community. I don't to be here. Yeah. I don't understand why two and three of this are not one lot versus two if you don't want to have the public easements, right? because lot three would be fully landlocked legally then and so I'm trying to if you could walk us through why you want to do it that way.

Sure. So we will that is a really great discussion a thought. Um but we will put a road in through the north side of that museum to access the campground. That is the plan a personal private for the campground use road. So there will be access. So that will potentially we could create that at a later date when we've got it more refined. Okay. Okay. So the I just don't want people driving behind the cabins or or walking behind the cabins. That kind of ruins that aesthetic. Okay. So the concern with the public easements is that then people can walk

their dog on them or whatever where it's really your long-term plan is to have a driveway. Why why do those two need to be separate lots? Um, they probably don't at this time. It was more for because in the future they will for the museum idea. Um, and I was probably trying to save dollars because this is all one family. Um, anyways, for the future museum and that was it. And then, you know, you put um insurance on where people are and it wouldn't have to enter that front part because it won't be camping, you know. Okay. So, thank you. Yeah. Go ahead, R. So, if if we were perfect case,

sure. Remove all the easements that are currently proposed and then we what if we put an easement on the road that you're already thinking about doing so that there is something to get back because you don't want to landlock that back properly. Yeah. Which could cause problems. I totally agree with you. I would just like time to figure out where to place that road. So you couldn't you couldn't we couldn't put that easement in at this time for you. Um it's just uh just hard to know exactly where you want it, but I do know we have to have it and we want it. We're planning on it. There's no point to having a campground without your road. So for sure. Yeah.

Because you can see from a city perspective, let's say we we we divide this up. We don't put any easements on here. Then you've got that back third lot that's landlocked. somebody else purchases it and then they're knocking on our door complaining why they don't have access. Yeah, I do understand that. I do understand that. And so like if you thought about just doing an easement along here, but I could potentially make it prettier, you know, and make it wind and have trees on the other side. That's just my, you know, this is my multiple generation, you know, plan. So, but yeah, I hear you. And that would be the only, you know, you could do it there. It just could be prettier. I just don't know exactly yet. Okay. And I agree with with Ty. Beautiful building.

Thank you. Fantastic. Thank you. Lifetime dream. Yeah. Yeah. Rod. Go ahead, Jim. No. Are you asking us to make a motion to tonight to remove that easement and then pass this resolution? Yes, please. So, I may move on with moving into my building. We need to make an amendment to do that at your request. Yes, please. Hold on, Rod. Um, the the lot two at the museum and the campground, are you eventually going to need water for both those? So, the foot furnage on that part would be paid such at a later date when we develop at a later date. Is that the plan?

And then how would you get the water to the campground? Is there a water man or something that runs down there? Does it have to go across that property or does anybody know the answer to that? There's been chatter of discussion, but I do think we have options here and here both, but that's not my realm to answer. Okay, I'd love to hear from Judy on this subject before we entertain a motion to change the easements with what planning commission did if you don't mind. Thanks, Bene.

Judy Clark, development director, mayor, city council. Um, the proposal to eliminate all of the easements. Um, you would actually be breaking subdivision regulations. You cannot you would be breaking subdivision regulations

because you cannot landlock a lot. Lots have to have access to public water, sewer, and public improved roads. Now, can the access be private? Yes, that can be private. does muddy the waters a little bit, but it can be private. But to entertain the idea of eliminating all of the accesses and landlocking the lots, you're breaking subdivision regulations. Just wanted to tell you that, Mr. Mayor. Go ahead.

Go ahead, Rod. Well, if we had them put an easement along I think that'd be the north side behind that museum along that property line and the easement went up to that property, we wouldn't care if she made it winding or whatever. We just have the easement to go to that property. Is that right? Correct. And even if you pass something, the way that you pass it, it's it's always changing. I mean, you can come in and resubdivide. You can come in and take easements out. You can put new easements in. It's just when you're doing it, you do have to follow the subdivision regulations for the initial. So, does planning think that easement needs to go all the way up or just to the edge of that property?

Planning requested their their um recommendation was to put an easement all the way around every lot that is in the subdivision plus the remaining what is it 20 acres, 26 acres, whatever the remaining acreages to the east just to ensure that they're going to have access to city water, sewer, and streets. And if she had the easements put up, she could still control the access. It's not a public rightway walking. She has access. We would have to Sorry. Um, didn't mean to interrupt you. But yeah, we would have to change that on the plat because I believe the plat says public access would be dedicated as public. We would have to change that to private easements. Well, we could do that.

Okay. Mr. Mayor, thank you. Um, so I know in one other location, Judy, we we have a a similar circumstance where a business has a several motor homes that have uh sewer and water tied into the city. and they have one water tap where they take the water to the to the hold your home pads and then the sewer dumps are tied into two trunk lines that tie into the city sanitary sewer. So all of that infrastructure, the water lines, the sewer lines are on their property. So they don't have to have any city access because it's not city sewer, it's not city water. So having said that, why can't we do the same thing here?

Um my guess is if I know of which one that you're talking about, it's one singular lot. The problem with this one, your your front three your front two lots on this one that abut um Buffalo would work. It's that third lot getting access to that third lot for public access because once you once you put in a lot line, you now have landlocked that property to any access. Subdivision code says you have to have access to city water, sewer, and improved street.

So, I know the concern is if this property sells, how are they going to get sewer water in there to somebody else? uh that whole east side could be could have an easement along the east side of that property. Uh if if if I understand correctly the lay of the land here, the water runs to the east. So it would make sense if we were going to bring sewer line in and we would bring it in from the east and go west. And so why couldn't that easement be put in there at that time when it's needed or if it's needed? And the reason I asked that question, um, when I look at this whole site, these people don't have a real well-defined idea of what they want to do with it. And I understand landlock and I understand personal property rights, too. And if they if they put a building out there someplace that that lessens the value of the property when they sell it, then shame on them. Or or maybe where they put that mil building, the guy that looks at it says, "That's perfect. That's exactly where I wanted that building." We can't look into the future and see how this is going to play out. We can't. But these people have a plan and their plan doesn't call for that. And personally, I think we need to accommodate them to the best of our ability. I I don't there there's got to be a way around this, I think. And I don't know what it is. Uh may maybe we make lots one and two one lot and and that would probably take care of that problem. Um, I have a real problem taking the street all the way from east to west on that parcel when I've seen what they have planned for the future because that's

going to divide that whole property into into two halves basically the south and the north and I think the plan is from what I've seen on one of the proposals that I think the city had developed um was to tie that into u Red Fox Lane for one and 22nd Street for the other one. Um, but that kind of interferes totally from what I think they want to do with the development. I'm not sure why these eels have to be put in here now. And I think you said they can be put in later. Why? Why do we have to do this now when the property is going to be if the property is going to be sold and the guy that wants to buy it says, "Hey, I I need a sewer and water easement here." Then that's part of going to be part of the contingency of the sale. Why Why can't that be done at that time? And you probably could get away with removing some of those easements, but again, you have to go back to the subdivision regulations that say that all lots that are created have to have access to city water, sewer, and a road. So that's why in in putting those access easements in and those utility easements in gets us to the subdivision regulations. And I think it is um at least my job is to try and protect the city's interests and the land owners interests in future development. And that's what we try to do in planning is is foresee the future. And I understand we can't. But you've got to kind of look out as to what could possibly be there at some point. And Ed, I would just add in, and I don't discount anything you said, but we spend a fair amount of time, usually Lane, Bill, and I, fixing things that people didn't think through very well 30, 40, 50 years ago. I mean, we have have not too far from this location, we have an area where the city has a platted

street, but somebody built a fence across it. It's been there for years. I mean, doesn't hurt anything, but now the property has changed hands and people, the new owners are not not happy about that situation. I could probably, if I sat here and thought about it for a minute, I could probably name off five or six others that are that are situations like that. And and that's the planning department's effort is to try to keep us well, the people that are sitting here 20 years from now out of those situations. And

and I understand that very well. Yeah, I I just come back again to these people have a plan and how they'd like to develop the property and if we ch start chopping it up with easements, then their plan is destroyed. Um I don't like that idea. I don't like it at all. But but it's never really destroyed because they can go back and change it. So I would never say the plan's destroyed. Well, if we can go back and change it, then why can't we do the easements? Because again, you have to meet subdivision regulations, which you have to have access when you create something now. So, we maybe can't remove all of the easements in the future is what you're saying.

Depending on how the plans change, as long as when you create a new lot, you have access to water, sewer, and the road, then you can as long as all lots have access. Yes, you could change it. Judy, can I ask a follow-up question on that? Sure. I still don't understand this whole lot two and three and why they're not combined. So, wouldn't that solve everything? I mean, if if later they want lot three to be peeled out, would that be an administrative

replat? Yes. The easiest thing to do would be an administrative replat, which would section off the lot where um her current building is, that south lot. Do that lot, be done with it. The rest of the lots all have access because there's no other lots. There's just two lots at that point. Her lot and then the remaining parcel. It would have access. You've got access to water, sewer, street. Everything's perfect. You're done.

I mean, I my opinion is this is getting way over complicated. I mean, I completely understand why they wouldn't want to easement up this property, but the the issues that back lot this early stage of development, but I would hope I appreciate what she was saying about the surveyor too. You would hope then that could be useful in the future as a starting point for an easy subdivision to take that into because the the problems that that backside I mean I I get that they're I don't say tricking the system but they're lowering their connection costs by subdividing it. I don't have any problem with that. That's a big enough parcel to the north. It's a great project for the community. It everything seems fair. No issues with that. But this just to me seems so over complicated by adding that. Imagine, think of a mortgage lender, if this is platted, having that third lot and if they needed to foreclose on it, it's they're either not going to know it's bad collateral or it's going to be bad collateral as under the proposal because you if you were if you had to foreclose that lot to get your money back and I don't know if they intend to mortgage it, but if they did, how are you going to get to it? How are you going to sell it to anybody? And so it to to to tie back to Judy's point, you're really you have to you almost have to put so many easements on it that I I just don't understand what the reason is to do that versus keeping that all as as one lot.

I I think you're absolutely right, Ty. One and two could be one lot. Two and three. Yeah. Well, but correct me if I'm wrong. Um, lot three will have access to sewer and water on the far east boundary. There's another lot in between there. There's no street access. Yeah, there's a whole another lot to the east of that kind of a row up to the street lots. So So Ty, I I actually see two solutions. I I agree with you. If you combine two and three, that takes care of the problem. The other way would be to run an easement along the north side of lot two, just up to the lot three.

Exactly. either one of those would would solve the problem. I'd like to hear from Faine if if she wants to weigh in on this, which direction you'd rather. I I've debated Thanks, guys. I've debated both of those also, like just backing out of the whole thing and do an administrative. Um, but if I have a property line um and I can ensure where the campers will be, right, then I'm not responsible for people on here doing crazy things. So, um I guess I'd probably prefer Can I consult my husband? We're here all night. Two and three together. Do that. It sounds like two and three together sounds like the just get rid of the So, all we're doing is peeling out one.

Yep. Yeah. So, we would create lot one and then two would be the two combined. Yeah. Okay. That sounds good. Do we need time? Hold on. It would be more than the tube of mine because it'd have to include the the entire eastern part of the multi lot four, right?

Well, that's not listed on part of the subdivision. But what to Judy's point, we have what we're trying to do, what the planning commission was trying to do was ensure access to all lots, including the portion of Miss Hudson, right? Miss Hudson's property that's clear to the east. So like when you're when you're seeing this picture, her drawing here, there's still all of the property that she owns to the east. So what we're saying is just have lot one and then the rest of it is just the remainder of the property. Peel out. We create a lot one.

Should we table this and have planning redraw that up or do you think we can accomplish that in a motion? Judy. Yes. Thank you, Judy. Do you care if I stand by? Honestly, you could probably just pull it from the agenda because the way you're talking about doing it, it would be administrative, which means it wouldn't come back here to you guys anyway. Baileen, is that okay with you? That's fine. Okay. That would be the simplest. I think that would be the understand otherwise we're gonna we're gonna have to take some time to figure out how we can amend things tonight

and that would take some time for me to sit back and ask the mayor to give me a good 10, 15, even 20 minutes to be able to to come up with that. Sure. I guess my only question is say say we were trying to recoup some dollars and park people for Nebraska land days and on the campground before it's a campground and I was trying to ensure that because you probably should ensure that well now it's a whole lot I'm insuring for but I can section off. So, it's not probably a city council question, but that's what it's an insurance question and it's not gonna matter. It's going to be like a $100 for

for a liability policy for vacant ground. So, thank you for your time. I appreciate it. Ed, you had a question. Yes, Mr. Mayor. Um, if I understand this drawing that I have here, and I don't think the rest of you guys maybe have it, Is there sewer and water on Mills Avenue? That's the part he said the property, right?

Have to consult a map real quick. There is some sewer and water back in that pulsack like area and then there also is some that runs up Sheridan to the far east of that but it's in that street. Well, if that's the case, why wouldn't that property have sewer and water on the east end of which would satisfy the requirement of having it not be land street access? is a street.

There's only partial easement there where it comes into. So, it's not a full street easement if if I recall right on that area. That's why they would need the extra easement because it's only partial. And I think the difference is that based on this drawing, it's creating this lot three right here. And then there's a whole another lot out here. So it would still leave lot three landlocked even though there's something out here. But if we right but if we combine one and one and three it solves the problem. Go ahead.

All right. Item is pulled from the agenda will be handled administratively. Item number five, third reading, an action to adopt ordinance number 4248 to amend the city of north flat code of ordinances section 156.14, special design criteria for RM mobile home parks to add G4. laying the ordinance.

Ordinance number 4248, an ordinance of the mayor and council of the city of North Plat, Lincoln County, Nebraska, amending chapter 156, zoning section 156.14, special design criteria for RM Mobile Home Park, repealing all ordinances in conflict here with providing for the effective date and publication thereof.

Mr. May I move to adopt ordinance number 4248 to amend the city of North Black code of ordinances section 156.144 special design criteria for R-M mobile home parks to add letters G parenthesy 4 on final reading second motion by RER second by Dy the third reading on this item do we have any discussion Ed

Mr. there. Uh Judy sent me some information. Well, we talked about the helicage system. Um I'm I I guess I'm kind of curious how how was that helicil actually tied into the building structure to anchor the the home down?

Mr. Bowlington, are you familiar with that? Roger Bowlington, 3935 Westgate Road, Grand Island. Um, underneath the these manufactured homes, you have the steel beams and then the helical um um peers. you you drill them down in there and then they have a plate system that attaches them to the steel beams on on the build on the uh manufactured home. So, it's a plate system. So there's no strap or anything that goes over the

Yeah. Um in the in the other um where we're doing the con potentially can do the concrete ones. So it's essentially like a sono tube and and that then at that point there's some angles and structures and there's some like strapping that goes on on that solution. But I believe on the helical um um peers it's a it's a plate system. That's a bolted plate system. So, the concrete peers would have some kind of a strap that went over the whole building to No, not over the whole building. Just uh over the over the steel beams. Oh, yeah. All right.

And the same way with the with the um tide plates from the hill. Yep. Okay. Thank you. Yep. Other questions or comments, Nick? Just out of curiosity, so we already have an ordinance to on the proper way to tie mobile homes down. Does this take the place of that or is there going to be multiple ways that these are going to have to be tied down? Now, it's adding an additional option. So, there's going they're going to have to follow three, two, or three different ordinances on how they're tied down with this taking the place.

I'm watching the look on Judy's face. So, I believe the intent was to provide an alternative option. You could do it multiple ways.

So, is this going to be the only way that it's going to be tied down or is it going to be tied down by the other ordinance as well? So, um it's HUD standards. They have a 1996 HUD standard that um talks about how how you tie them down. And I'm out of my realm of expertise because I'm not the building inspector, but the building inspector currently uses that HUD um 1996 manufactured home tie down standards, anchoring standards. Um what we're doing here is allowing a another option that would still fit under that 1996 code. It's just they're more updated. You know, as years go by, they have different types of that still meet the same standard. So, no, they're not going to have to meet three or four different standards. They choose one. All the standards will meet the 1996 guidelines.

Is the language going to reflect that or I mean, is it going to be confusing for building inspectors to go in and say you have to abide by all three of these ordinances on how you tie down? No. Um, I believe Dave was at the last meeting. He has absolutely no issue with it. Okay. Just curious. Yeah. Thank you. Real quick on on that. So, the reason we're getting rid of the storm shelters is because you have an option to do this helix, you know, tie down moving forward if in the future if there's another mobile home park. Will they have to have storm shelters if they don't do the helix tie down? That's is that how that's going to work?

That's the way that this reads. Um we're not actually taking that um shelter out of there. were saying if you don't want to do this shelter then you have the option of doing this. That was my understanding but other questions or comments?

Seeing none calling the question on item number five. Item number five is passed. Item number six begins a long string of public hearings. So in a moment we'll open the public hearing to consider action on a resolution regarding the city of Northplat Newberry village redevelopment plan persuade to redevelopment law on property described as lots one and two Newberry village subdivision northclatt Lincoln County Nebraska officially opening the public hearing on this item and I would ask Mr. Bullington to come up and kind of talk through the project please or Lauren you can come as well if you'd like. Sorry, Lauren. I would have used your last name, but you're recently married and I couldn't remember your new last name. So,

yeah. Joining me tonight is um Lauren I use an um new married name, Lauren Maddie. So, I wanted to introduce her. She's part of our development and construction team. Um, so what we're trying to do here is um create a neighborhood of low that that range of housing that's on the in the in the lower price. And so, uh, gosh, it's been probably 18 months ago when we got approached by, um, a few community leaders and and city people to try and, um, put a, u development together to hit that uh, market sector. And so, this is kind of what we've come up with in finding that piece of property. and since you know completing the engineering which is now just uh we're waiting on permits to come back what it is 247 houses um that are called manufacturer houses they're essentially single wide modular homes it's pretty similar to the mulligan meadows which but that those are double wides and these are uh meant to be or could be moved and so these aren't Um, it it it's it's not under the the property taxes like a a fixed house is, so to speak. It's called um um that it'll be a tax on real property. It's like a personal tax on real property. And so essentially what we've got is is a couple fa three phases here where we're putting in all the the roads and infrastructure. And the roads will be private, the infrastructure will be public. And so we've got almost 12 to$13

million worth of just infrastructure. the it says $7 million in there, but it didn't that didn't include the the private streets because those weren't tiff eligible. We've got so much tiff eligible expenses that it really didn't matter anyway because of the fact we're not creating a big imple uh increment. And so really the um um that tiff that we're asking for not a lot of it's from that whole lot one cuz it's just land and then and the improvements on it. There's there's really not not going to be any structures on it. We'll have like a maintenance shed and then like a rental um u leasing or property management uh structure. those were were were pretty small and uh we'd like to get started on that uh this year. In fact, we hopefully once we get the design drawings back and get the state permits back this week, you know, we'll put it out um for proposals uh primarily um local subcontractors to complete the dirt work and complete the infrastructure and to do the the paving. What one thing that's um we don't want a lot of maintenance and and that sort so all these uh private streets will be concrete and so we have u a concrete road down the middle and then we've got parking perpendicular to that and every house uh will have um three to four parking spots available for that house. So, we won't have we're not going to allow anything off the paved structure as far as storage of, you know, junk vehicles or anything like that. The other thing that we'll have is um we'll

have some covenants um restrictive covenants so that we can keep the property up in in a a fashion that will reflect the investment that we're putting into this development. One thing which if we'd sell all 247 houses, um the average house sale will be about 150,000. So that would be equal to about $37 million worth of housing sales. And uh so if you really add that to our uh cost the cost of our land and our infrastructure privately or or publicly this is over a $50 million investment that would be if there was completely all all built out. So it's it is substantial. It's to a um sector that from what we're told is really needed in this community. And so we're just asking for support for this um tiff so that we can create the the whole neighborhood with the amenities. We'll have dog park um kids playground and um you know there's sidewalks and that sort through the whole campus.

Thanks Roger. I appreciate it. We may invite you back for questions at some point. So Mr. Bacon, since this is a TIFF application, would you give us the high points on the application, please?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh Mike Bacon, council for the redevelopment authority. Uh this proposed plan has been uh in front of planning and zoning. They recommended approval. Uh back to the redevelopment authority and they recommended approval. Um the redeveloper is Praria Ventures uh Northplat LLC, wholly owned by Chief Industries. Um it is a tiff project that is uh basically has two components and several phases. Um component one is creating the uh I'll use vernacular terms trailer park or modular park. Uh all of the homes will be uh individually owned but not owned by uh chief industries. So, it'll be homeowners. There will not be separate lots that are deed off to people. They'll just be rented. Uh, and this was uh information that uh wasn't apparent in the U application. The uh they're asking for tax increment financing. Um they don't get much of a bump on what is essentially bare lots with nice infrastructure in place. So they're asking that in lot two they be able to build some commercial structures, a sea store and perhaps a small strip mall. And the tiff for that uh as well as the tip for building the site be used to pay down uh some of the costs here. this application they're used to in uh Grand Island where also represent they have a 0% tiff bond. In other words, they don't get any interest on their tiff. It's just a number. The net

present value of that because of interest is significantly smaller. So in the way we work here, the tiff bond value would be my guess is somewhere in 600,000, maybe more, maybe less depending on how fast they develop the property. So this is a small tiff project but a large possible investment. Um the uh issue on that is taxation. Taxation is only under the statute 182147 is only on the real property value. They're not going to develop all three phases right out of the gate. They're just going to put in the infrastructure and the roads for phase one to start with. Uh and they would like to get the tiff off of that to start. And then when they put phase two, which is another lower cost investment for the second street, have that as a separate tax lot. And then on the third phase, separate tax lot to do that. In order to do that, they're going to uh ask that uh as part of the re contract that they have what's called real estate condominium because each one of these lots just like in the last discussion need to have uh a way of separating the taxes and separating the services that go there. So to do that they're they're going to ask that we create those three divisions on

the park itself. Um, they could do a subdivision, but each one would have to have a driveway to the street and all of those things. So, that's one way around that. Um, there was a question on taxation. These trailer homes should be subject to sales tax uh from the manufacturer and subject to individ they'll get a title to the home like your boat. Um the we intend if this is approved by the council to have a redevelopment contract that addresses a number of things. Uh some uh of these parks can deteriorate rather rapidly. This is going to be owned on a long-term basis by chief. Nevertheless, we're going to require uh restrictive covenants that can be enforced by the redevelopment authority andor the city council to make sure that it's held to highest standards. Number two, because there's concern uh in in the Facebook world that somehow personal property tax uh is going to be captured from those homes and and to pay the tip. That is not the case. The statute specifically says that only the real property taxes can be used to pay the tiff b. So the the taxes on the personal property go to the normal taxing entities to support the city school in the community college and so forth. Um, in terms of uh the impact on the school system, uh it's very difficult to figure out what the student load would be based on the current statistics from your community. Uh and the census you have

about.3 people o above a standard uh family in the home. So this could maybe generate 50 students. It could maybe generate more if you think it's all going to be uh used by new employees to sustainable beef. I would tell you based on my experience in over 70 communities, you may be surprised and see some Cadillacs and some old folks sitting there and it's a nice retirement facility. So you can't predict the impact of the uh on the school system. Um they are thinking about $84,000 in tiff generation once it is fully developed. It's not going to be fully developed right out of the gate and it may never get there because you know if they if they don't sell. Uh the other piece is um 247 modular homes might scare some folks all in one spot. Uh may think that's too much for your community. Uh did some checking and online in Lexington, which is less than half your size, there were like 260 mobile homes and and trailers. So it does meet that requirement. Other than that, um, be glad to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Bacon. We'll call you back during the council discussion since this is a public hearing. Thank you. Okay. If anyone else would like to make a comment on this issue, please folks microphone, tell us who you are, where you live. Council members, um, Gary Pearson, president of the North Plat Area Chamber Development Corporation. um chambers located at 502 South Dwey. I live at 2708 Miris Lane. Um I was one of the people that uh twisted um the arms of the Chief Industry folks. As we all know, anybody that's familiar with Chief Industries, they do multi-million dollar projects all over the country and this probably this type of development wasn't on their bucket list. But um I deal with our industry leaders um almost every day uh in different capacities. Certainly, we've enjoyed the uh the fruits of your labor and what you've done to to make things happen in this community with the great economic growth that we've had. Uh we have well over a thousand people commuting and and the actual number may scare some people. How many people are actually commuting here for jobs? And I'd argue that probably that number has doubled in the last 18 months. we've been able to absorb a lot of people from that were looking for jobs or had lost their jobs. And so it's a it's a wonderful thing for our North Plat employers who uh are some of them finally getting up to the workforce capacity that they'd long hoped to uh to uh get there. Um we reached out to Chief because of their association with Bonavville Homes. They've been a wonderful partner for us up at Mulligan Meadows. It's a chamberowned subdivision up there and then the chamberowned uh Twin Rivers Business Park where they um put some speculative uh commercial buildings in that are almost all of them full now uh with other uh businesses that were able to come here as a result

of what they've done. Um, I I would also uh tell you that um as uh great a job as we've done on on housing as a community whole, everybody working together, a lot of that is rental housing, multifamily and so forth, um to get people actually um to put down roots and um and we can uh u hopefully keep them here long term. Uh there's nothing like single family home ownership. Uh this opens a door for a lot of people who have lost that opportunity just because of the price of construction, price of homes today and it opens that door wide open and it really would be a great first home for a lot of people, maybe a retirement home for people retiring. We know the developer um they put their name on something that's going to be first class and it's going to be done right. Um the economic impact of people living here as opposed to people commuting here for jobs is probably three or four times greater economic impact on the community. Um and and their own individual incomes will go up. National average is 20%. If you live in the same community where you have your job as opposed to commuting to that job, your your personal discretionary income will rise by about uh 20%. um can't uh underemphasize enough that uh these homes um will go immediately onto the tax roles and benefit the local government subdivisions. Uh certainly if that piece of property sits out there for the next 30 years, you know, basically just being what it is today, uh you're not going to have that additional u tax benefit for the government entities here. And um as you've already heard, the tiff request is is pretty unan uh pretty minimal. And then also just like to um reiterate that

we haven't built a um um mobile home park in over 50 years in North Plat. Uh we're long overdue and uh this project did get unanimous votes out of the planning commission and the community redevelopment authority. And thank you and thank you for everything you do. Thanks, Gary. Anyone else like to make a comment? If so, please approach the microphone. Hi, Donna. How are you?

Donna Tryan, 820 South Brian. I just have a few comments to make. Um, it's my understanding that the people that are traveling or being busted here to work in the plant from Lexington, they're unable to sell their homes there. their families are involved in in the town of Lexington and that I don't know how many actually want to move to North Plat. I'm concerned about overbuilding here. I'm also con a little bit concerned about um families, children in our school district, even though this will be like personal property tax. I get that. But the horseshoe division over there is a tip project. There's going to be children there going to our school in that development. The property tax won't be going to the schools. And let's see, there's got to be one more thing I'm concerned about. If this development um doesn't complete, is there an ending? I mean, what are they what's going to happen if they can't complete the development as they propose? What will happen to that land? I guess. And then the other thing I hope that you consider is what kind of commercial um plan do they have along Phillip? I'm assuming that's where it would go. And also the traffic that it will entail on on Phillip. Phillip's a pretty busy street already. And so I just want you all to think about that. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else like to make a comment? If so, please approach microphone. Uh, my name is David Briggs from 109 South Dwey and I also have pleasure of serving as CEO of Sustainable Be and I did also approach DJ probably a year and a half ago on this topic and thankful they're willing to come to this community and put in this this level of housing at this price point. We currently employ about 40% of our thousand employees who are coming from out of out of town to to come to work here. The governor has helped us with a couple buses to help us for a short time out of time. That's going to go through the end of the year. Um and then that will reevaluate that. We think at the time that that ends that those employees that are now driving basically taking two hours of their day to commute the outreach each way will seriously consider relocating here. And we really as as a sustainable beef would prefer they live in North Plat snowtorms just just much better employee engagement if you live here in our community. So we strongly support this project. Think the price point is is good for our employees and think just applaud Chief Industries for wanting to do this.

Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else like to make a comment? Sophia Klein, 103 East 4th Street. I would agree with probably everybody in Northclad that we do need affordable housing here. I'm not necessarily against this project, but I did watch the planning commission meeting and I did watch the CRA meeting on this and I did do a Facebook video about that meeting and I did encourage people to watch both of those meetings and I did a little research myself and I will tell you that I can not reply to every message that I have currently on my phone because there is so many of them and there are people that have had completed plans and financing completely together that have been denied for grants and funding. because it wasn't something that our city was looking for and never even got the opportunity to be at a planning commission meeting having their plan completed. So, part of the reason that I am running forward one is for small businesses and making sure that everybody has a voice and that if you do get grant funding and be considered for TIP that everybody is treated the same. Um, so I'm asking you to make sure this plan is complete and that they are ready to do this and deserve this funding at this point because I think a lot of eyes are watching tonight. Thank you.

Anyone else like to make a comment? I move we close public hearing. Second motion by B, second by McNe to close public hearing following the question on closing the public hearing. Public hearing is now closed. Council will now consider item number six, which is action on a resolution regarding the city of North Flat, Newberry Village redevelopment persuade to the redevelopment law on property described as lots one and two, Newberry Village subdivision, Northclatt, Lincoln County, Nebraska.

Mr. Mayor, I move to adopt the resolution as presented the council materials and approval of the city of North Platin, Newberry Village redevelopment plan and approval of related actions. Second

motion by Luca, second by Vols. Before we get started, since there's been quite a bit of discussion in the public about what exactly sorts of taxes might appear in this um neighborhood development by chief, we reached several people actually reached out to our our assessor um Julie Stinger and she very kindly sent us Lane and I an email this afternoon and it's It's rather long, so I'm not going to read the whole thing to you, but I'm I'm just going to read the parts that are sort of relevant to this discussion because it's a good example of why context is so important. Um, because we use these terms like real property, real personal property, personal property, and in certain contexts they some of those mean the same thing. In other contexts, they have slightly different meanings. And as we as we get into these discussions, it's kind of important. And so from the assessor's perspective, she says that um so the owner of the land will not own the homes being brought in. So that means that in this case, Perry Ventures will own the property. Mr. Bullington confirmed that. So did Mr. Bacon a moment ago. Therefore, these homes would be considered an improvement on leased land. And many of you are probably familiar with how the land at surrounding Lake Maloney works. By and large, that land is owned by NPPD and the folks that own homes on that have a a lease in essence on that land and then they own the home that is the property. So, this would be a highly similar scenario. They would each have their own parcel ID number and separate real property assessment for that home only, not any land value. And when she says they there, she's referring to the owner of one of these homes.

So, if I decided I wanted to move out there and I purchased one of these homes, I asked Miss Stinger, "What would happen? Would I would I get a bill? Would I get a property tax bill every year? What would happen?" She said, "Yes, it works exactly like any other home. You get a property tax bill." And in this particular case, the plan is that those property taxes collected from the value of those homes would not be used to pay the tiff bond. they would go directly into the system just as any other property tax does today. The only taxes that would be used to pay the tiff bond in this scenario would be the increment created from the property itself. That's what Mr. Bullington described when he said they're going to add roads, infrastructure, that sort of thing. Whatever the value of the land that increases from that effort, that increment could be used against the tiff bond. But the value of the homes in this scenario, the taxes generated, the property taxes, it's actually the property tax assessed on real property in this case. That's the exact legal term would then go directly to the county, the schools, the city, etc., etc. So, that's been talked about quite a bit on social media, highly misunderstood. I thought it was probably good to clear it up right now so that any discussion, we don't have any debate. Um she goes on to say these taxes are separate taxes from the land and would not be part of the tiff project's taxes. So even though coming to city council tonight you probably were not expecting a clarification or learning session on different types of of property but uh the primary difference is that real property does not depreciate like homes. You know, generally speaking, are unless some unless our homes something terrible happens to them, they appreciate in

value. Personal property as directly defined by the IRX tax code depreciates in five to seven years. And most of us who own businesses or run businesses would think of personal property as computers, farm equipment, fencing, you know, different things like that that you would use to run a business. On this particular development, those homes will be real property. The property taxes generated by the taxes on those real property will go directly to the city, the county, the schools, etc. just as any normal piece of property would occur anywhere else in the community. Okay, end of speech for the moment. Thank you. What questions or comments do we have on this item? Brad,

when this initially came through, we talked about adding to the plat uh the fact that they can only have a a mobile home that's a year or two years older. Did that get accomplished? Is that in place?

Right. But is is that being handled through a covenant or is it through the plat?

Roger, would you come up to the microphone, please? The folks at home can't hear you when you're standing back there. We're still working on the covenants and that, but I'm sure it'll be included in there because that with our vertical integration, how this works from a financial standpoint, the development wouldn't work without us hitting the different profit pools with sister divisions. And so, um, that's why we're going to maintain that they all got to be Bonavville homes manufactured and they're new. So, we will include that in in the covenants. So, then that way if it transpires down to f further things that it'll it'll stay in the covenants on that property.

So, and and I I trust what you're saying there. While you're the owner of this, the covenant will be in place and and I I don't have a problem with that. But here's the issue. If it doesn't actually get on the plat, it doesn't transfer to the next owner. or if the covenant transfers to the next owner that that owner could change the covenant and so then it just becomes any other you know mobile park home essentially. So we had a long discussion about this and I I thought it was decided that we were going to put it on the plat. I I am not aware of that.

Mr. Bacon, you had discussed some options for addressing this issue. the uh having covenants generally can be enforced by other property owners that are join you. And since there's going to be no other property owners that are join them, the term covenants probably is not uh um a useful term. What we did on um the development all was to put covenants in or or restriction on the redevelopment contract that says you're going to maintain it at the highest standards. We've done that on several uh malls that I've worked on. And so, uh we're going to look at doing the same thing as part of the redevelopment contract that if they do sell it off, those provisions are going to be reported in a notice of redevelopment contract saying you have to um maintain it at the highest standards. My intent or recommendation to the redevelopment authority is going to be that uh those end up being enforcable by the redevelopment authority andor the city very much like we did with sustainable beef on the smell standards and those sorts of things so that they they follow the real estate and not follow the owner. Uh so

the problem with that solution though is the redevelopment contract only lasts 15 years. We can have provisions that extend past the 15-year tiff period. That would be my intent is that those things uh stick to the dirt and there's a way to do that. So yeah, when will we see that language? Well, we'll work on it if the council approves it uh within a few uh few weeks and it'll come back to this council. No, it'll be at the redevelopment authority level. So, we won't even see it.

Well, you you certainly be able to get a copy of it and and weigh in on it. Yeah. Our job is to protect you all. So so we can as a council we can recommend any provisions that would need to be in that contract and then if they're not there. Yeah, we can you can make your approval subject to whatever conditions you wish. But I but I thought we already done that. We went and during our zoning conversation, we were going to put it on the plat. That was what was discussed here and you can go back and watch it. That was what we talked about. So, I I thought we'd already covered that and then to come find out it's it's changed. So,

well, what specific language were we going to put on the platinum? Uh something along the lines that no u no mobile home older than a year old or two years old could be placed on on this. So, at you know, moving forward into the future, then there would always be new homes being placed on there and it wouldn't be revert just to a regular, you know, mobile home park was the concern. So there isn't any reason why we couldn't do that in addition. Is that correct?

We can uh you know that provision can be put in a restriction in the form of an easement granted to the public which is gives you teeth. So okay Roger you wouldn't have any issue with that would you? I don't believe so. That's our intent. Okay. Okay. And my concern isn't with you. It's not, you know, but you sell it 10 years down the road, then we got a new owner that does some new things. So, good point. Okay. Thank you.

We need to do ahead now. No, tonight is just approval of the redevelopment plan and and the resolution that's pres been presented because um in this stage of the process, the council's responsibility is to make certain findings that are laid out in that resolution. And so um I think it's good to to have the discussion and everything, but we can't we can't put that into the contract yet because the contract is something like Mr. Bacon said will come forward later. I actually thought it had been done. So, I was just clarifying when I question. I I'm I was trying to recall and I I don't want to speak out of turn either, but I I couldn't remember where things stood with a with a platform.

So, we um I we definitely did discuss that in the last time, but I think the exact form of this was a little bit amorphous at that point what the project was going to look like. Anyway, not to invalidate city attorney's point, but if there's anything that they would like to see in the contract, tonight would be a good night to bring it up. That way, Mr. Bacon can include it in the first version and we're not, you know, extending this this process any longer than necessary. So,

if I may, mayor, that's a good suggestion and uh that'll be incorporated any anything that the uh redevelopment authority considers. So uh and the terms of that contract are going to be negotiated between the redevelopment authority who essentially represents the city and the developer so that it's not so ownorous that it doesn't work for them but it protects the interest so that it it doesn't deteriorate and the new manufacturer is a good a good standard to use. I think that's fairly understandable. So that's what's been stated anyway. So the intent.

All right, Mr. Eker. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I, as I recall, we also had another stipulation that we was going to require as that there would be no rentals. These homes would be owned by the people that lived in. I that may be the case. I don't recall that one, but I'm not saying you're wrong. I just don't recall it.

So, I guess part of the rationale I think that we went through was, you know, if somebody owns a home, they're more likely to take care of it than the yard and the maintenance and everything as opposed to having a tenant in there. They don't intend to rent. They intend to sell so that that it it is owned. So, this is not going to be a rental setting at all. So, is that going to be a document, Mr. Bacon, or or what? How?

We'll we'll we'll take all all suggestions. Again, it's got to be something that they'll agree to, and they may they may need to rent some to get primed pump for a limited period of time, but those those types of covenants are certainly understandable. They're looking at spending $17 million to build this up over time. So, it has to work for them. Anything else? Good suggestions. All

go ahead, Mr. Mayor. I have a a couple things on in terms of suggestions. You know, just to rehash, I mean, I recall our conversations about the plat and all that, and my recollection was they were agreeable to that at the time. I will tell you if that was a requirement, I would have voted against it because I think it's too intrusive a property rights long over eternity. I would hope that in their covenants and the redevelopment agreement, we'd have that. But I think of situations like, well, what if a 5-year-old unit burns down and the proceeds from insurance only allow somebody to replace it with a three-year-old unit? Now all of a sudden, we got a problem with this being on the plat. Things like that. Or if if if Pete purchased a a unit and wanted to rent it to their son or daughter, well, is that non-owner occupied? Is it renter? you know, and so it it's funny how we we're talking about easements and all these other things and we're talking about property rights and then when we have the ability to negotiate a tiff contract, we all of a sudden we we lose our thoughts on property rights a little bit.

But at the same time, if you're going to get but if you're going to get a million dollars from the city and tiff reimbursements, there's benefits of the community to go with that. And so I think we just got to keep a level level head with that. And and I'm excited about this project. Some things that that I've communicated to the CRA and one to Mr. Bacon that I that are important to me is I think we need to watch the time frame on the tunching of the tiff bond. You know, five or six year period to where this thing has to be active so it's not strung out for 25 or 30 years I think deserves consideration. I think requiring that the destination of the mobile home is the park for sales tax purposes. So city sales tax is collected. I I wouldn't imagine this is chief's intent, but I don't really want a dealership set up in the county and all of a sudden they happen to figure out a way to get around the city sales tax. I again I'm not saying that's their intent, but I think we should be protective of that in our redevelopment agreement. And then making sure that the development department feels good about our easements and whatnot on bsentennial because I don't think there's any question that at some point, you know, bicesentennial is going to be important improvement in the in the community. So, I mean, I'm I'm all for owner occupied and and I'm all for new units, absolutely, cuz I think that's what's going to make this a great a great project. But you do have to think about things that can pop up. You put something on a plat that's going to be there 50 and 60 years from now.

Mr. McNe,

thank you. I I think the main concern is what what is this park going to look like 30 or 40, 50 years from now? because we already see the aftermath of how things can go if they're not wellkept. So, I don't think the concern is now. I think the concern is down the road. And, you know, like you said, Ty, when they are looking at uh TIFF funds, I think it is our job to, you know, kind of help guide that on on what that's going to look like and what we want that to look like as well. Um, I I think Philip is a concern. I think that we need to look at Philip Street and then Bsentennial because when they get the four lane on Newberry, you're not going to be able to turn north onto Newberry, you're going to only be able to go south. So that's going to divert traffic back to the west and then either down by Centennial over to Four Street or wherever. Um so I think we need to be diligent about that. What um I guess I have two two questions. So are who's paying for Philip when we go and widen that and when when will that be taken care of and then is there any plans with bsentennial?

We've looked at Philillip and that would go to the adjacent property owners and be an assessment assessment district on widening Phillip. As far as bsentennial, we haven't done a lot of plans as far as from Philip North at this point. Um, just due to current traffic, but um, Brent and Judy may have more to add to that as well. Okay. You keep drawing the short straw, Judy.

I keep trying to get Brent to do it, but yeah. Um so when we did the subdivision for this property um we spoke with chief in length multiple times and we requested that they dedicate additional rightaway for Philip and for bicesentennial. So we've got enough width from their side that they did dedicate to us that we will be able to widen Phillip and widen bsentennial. Um, and verbally they said they're not going to fight it if they were assessed their cost of the street. So, I don't have that in writing, but they said that they would not contest it if they did have to pay for that.

So, is the widening of bsentennial just along their property, not all the way down to fourth? That I don't know.

I'm stepping out of that one. Mayor, council, the what we've talked about was a couple different segments. One was from Fourth Street down to Phillip and then be Phillip further down those two segments of bsentennial. There's a segment of bsentennial that doesn't exist but is probably going to be looked at in the future. So it would be the whole street would be reit rebuilt to a city section. Right now it's about a 24 foot asphalt section similar to West 9th Street. What we would envision is something along bsentennial would be similar to what we did the improvements on ninth street in that type of fashion anyway

and that's what the extra wire rightway was acquired for is to make that road section fit in there is there there's a drainage ditch on bsentennial right so is there revert that or is that just because there's no curb and gutters. Correct. That's right. Okay. Yes. And there's drainage infrastructure to go either to the Burlington ditch or at the south end it goes um down by Centennial and goes to the river. There's a inlet down at Phillip. So it go two different directions. So if I had curbon gutter, the drainage ditch is irrelevant. Yes, that's right. Thank you.

If I may ask, are you talking about extending that from fourth down to Philip? Uh have to get consent of land owners adjacent to that on both sides. Um there depending on the road section that we end up with. Um I don't know if I guess your question would be consent meaning getting additional property. Well yeah you have to have approval with a certain percentage of the property owners if we do a paving district. That's correct. You have to have more than greater than 50% approve along a paving district. Okay. Is there another alternative then other than the baby district? Um grant money always works. Yeah. Okay. No, I mean that that's another option.

A lot of those properties owners on the west side uh you know would say I mean it's a modest area of town. Uh that could be a burden on a lot of those people. Correct. On the west side that's my concern about expanding. I think it's a good idea but now we got to pay for it and I don't know that's really not you know it's not like the people there are retired or I mean that that is a modest area town to be fair. That's my that's the only question I have. I So just to be clear, expanding bsentennial is not a portion of the project we're considering tonight. Correct.

I I think it's a good point though because they're going to have two entrances to that trailer park on Bsentennial. So I think it does play with all due respect a little bit. I didn't say it wasn't relevant. Okay. Said it's not what I consider. So okayentennial needs to happen for sure. Um does anybody know uh how much money we've spent in TIFF on housing and how many units are in process and coming up? Is the city tracking all that? We have it. I don't have those numbers in front of me. Brad, will you we track Tiff, but I don't have that in front of me.

Well, I took a crack at it, and my my numbers may not be as good as yours, but I I'll get us close. Uh, best I can tell, we we've spent a boatload of money on on tiff towards uh this. Matter of fact, we uh if you look at the state per capita, we are number one in how much tiff we used. Uh 10% 9.68% of our taxable value is is uh on tiff. That equates to over $10,000 per person is what we've done. I mean, we've we've done a an absolute slew of TIFF. Um, but looking at just the the real estate pieces, and I think I got everything except for the mall. This these numbers don't include the mall. Uh, we've got $51 million going towards TIP just in real estate. And that's $1,216 doors or units that are are should be coming up. Now these might not be exact and and developments you know change and things of that nature but that is a massive amount of units coming into our our our uh area in the next two three years. I'm I'm a little concerned that we you know because you don't want to oversaturate the the market and and cause problems there. Uh, another thing I had a a long talk with my wife. Um, she has some concerns. She'd be here, but she's with with the kiddos. So, apparently it was her night to stay home. Um, while the district the school system has plenty of room uh in they got they got lots of room, the issue is the location of where we're developing all this all these uh houses. Jefferson is the only uh school system that sits kind of in that area. Um, the nearest would be Lake or Lincoln on the north side or Washington. And Jefferson is is packed. I mean, they have one grade that has 61 students in it for two teachers. I mean, they're they're they're just so what they're going to have to do. It's

going to be a redistricting nightmare to try and get the kiddos to a school that's even in semblance where they're going to make it make sense. And we've tiffed all of this real estate that that's coming up. So the majority of that property tax usually goes to the school system. So we we reduce quite a bit of the money that that would be going to them. So they they've got some problems moving forward that that are going to have to be addressed. So I just have I have some concerns with this project. Um whether we need it at this point or not. Um I don't know. I I I think I'm a no vote on the tip piece of it. I I I hope um the best of luck in getting this done, but I I think that money, that $1.2 million could go towards our school systems and some of our other projects.

Other questions or comments? Pete,

I'm going to take a little bit different spin at that. Um and I'm just going to touch on one thing, then I want to talk about the development itself. Um, you talk about all the tiff money, but without the potential tiff money or tax increment financing, which it's a financing tool, we would have zero property tax dollars because in lie um it wouldn't have gotten completed if we did not tiff the project. So that and and we could still be sitting here like we were five, six, seven years ago, you know, with no projects at all and we could sit here and and and twiddle our thumbs. What I want to talk about though is when I see a tiff project, a lot of times I kind of grumble a little bit. You you can never pick the developer. Okay? As a city council, we get what is presented to us. And the reason I say this is because in this developer, we have a world-class developer coming and entertaining, building homes in North Plat that I still feel we desperately need. There is a price point here. We've we've captured the $450,000 market. We've captured the $350,000 market. Gary's tried to capture the $280,000 market. We haven't captured $150,000 market and down. So, yeah, there's infill in the in in town, you know, for rentals and things like that, but you're just not going to build a house for under $150,000. It's going to be extremely difficult. So, I want to thank Chief for coming to the community, and I look to have a long relationship with them. spent the good part of two days on the phone with numerous entities of our city government

and our and our volunteers for lack of better terms with the CRA with planning commission uh with our city staff and I did not talk to Mr. Bacon but I know that he is looking out for us. He is our attorney. He's on our side. He's going to not put us in jeopardy. CRA talk at length with Greg Wilkkey today. Um, Greg Wilkkey is working for us. He's he's done more to save the city money than than I I wasn't aware of it, but I appreciate what CRA and Greg Wilkkey are doing. Roger Burlington was so nice to entertain me for for a little bit this afternoon because I had a lot of questions for him and I think everyone did a really nice job of explaining everything that I have concerned. Keep in mind this is the first part of the TIFF last first part of the TIFF process. You know, we're approving this now. CRA still has a bunch of work to do with the redevelopment contract working for us. Mr. Bacon's working for us, the developer, those two, all those entities have to negotiate to put a good project in. So, I just wanted to thank everyone's attention on this and uh I appreciate what's everyone's doing. One last point. You can bog yourself down with Bookface and it can drive you in a hole. What you're seeing on social media is not always what it appears. So that's my point there. Don't get bogged down in that stuff. Talk to people, have communications, have open dialect, and we will continue to progress through the community. Thank you.

Go ahead, Brad. So, a couple points to refute there. One, I I agree with you. Seven years ago, TIP was a great idea. We need to get stuff going. But at what point, $50 million, I mean, think total, we're at like $233 million in TIP. At what point do you go, "All right, we've used this tool, a lot. Do you ease back on it and you use other tools or you do other things?" I don't disagree.

That's that's my only question. Okay. Point taken. And we don't want to oversaturate the market either, correct? I mean, that would be a bad thing. I feel like we're approaching that. Anyway, um the other point, uh affordability, you take so $150,000, but you forget about the $500 lot fee. Uh I called some of the the local, uh mobile home parks in town, and they run from 475 to 725 is kind of what I got back. So, let's say I'll call it $500 just to make the math simple. 500 times 247 is I put it down $1.48 million annually. That's a lot of overhead on top of the $150,000 you do. So if you take $150,000 plus the $6,000 a year over 30 years, which is what people kind of look at average things, it turns into a $330,000 singlewide. So when you talk about affordability, I don't know if the argument is as strong as what you know you're making it out to be.

Mayor, go ahead, Tim. I ask the city attorney, what does this take a five vote or a four? What type of vote did this take to on this issue? It's a it's a resol resolution and so it would take um I forget the exact terminology off the top of my head, but it would take a a vote of five five in favor to pass. Rod,

I think the one thing we want to keep in mind here is we're thinking it's all people that are workingass people that are working. I can see a lot of snowbirds retirees coming up here spending 150,000 paying cash for it and where are they going to live any cheaper that they have, you know, they'll take care of everything for them. And so I don't know that it's going to be I think you'll see a lot of retirees that go south in the winter come back and be buying these. That's just my opinion. Is that your plan? Huh? Is that your plan? Yeah.

No, but if you go to Arizona, you see these everywhere, these kind of places, and and this is the first for North Plat, and I think we need to support it.

Mr. Mayor, if I may, just real quick, and this is just numbers quickly sitting here, taking into account that these homes, as we talked about, are not tiffed, so they'll get right under the tax roles. if they would be sales taxable on the sale, that's somewhere in the $700,000 range. If all lots were sold right there, so we're talking a million dollars tiff, there's $700,000 sales tax for the city. They would generate just off today's, you know, basic math off the current levies of the city, county, school, it generate about 370,000 annually for the school and property taxes, about 120,000 annually for the city, and about 100,000 annually for for the county. That's not tiffable. So that's just just some numbers. Just I did some quick math here. You know, if that all all happens,

Ed,

Mr. Mayor, thank you. I I I think this project is much needed. I really do. Uh and I know the chief can do a good job. Um and I'm not obviously to nobody's surprise. I'm not going to vote for the tip, but I I think this is going to be a great addition to our community. I really do. I'm looking forward to it. And I'm really kind of hoping honestly that there's a different attitude in our town than there was five or six years ago. People are more upbeat. People are more encouraged about what's going on. And I guess I'm kind of hoping that as we as we continue to improve our community from the outside, other people in town are maybe going to take the initiative maybe clean up their sites a little bit maybe. And we're already seeing it some of it up on Rodeo Road. One of the motel up there recited the whole thing and it changed the whole complexion of the building. And I think those things are going to continue to happen. So, I'm encouraged by this. Um, I don't know who's going to live out there. Maybe it will be the very people you're talking about, but um I I think they're going to be filled. I do I I have some concern, as Brad mentioned, about it's pretty hard to look in my crystal ball anyway, and see how many homes we're going to need because I don't think anybody knows that. Um, but I do agree with you, Ty, and thanks for the comment about first.

It wasn't it wasn't intended just for you, Council Facing that way.

Very appropriate. I appreciate it. Um, but I do think and you mentioned this in addition to the property tax, the property, personal property about the the the time limit on on on the tanches of the of the of the tip. Um, I I think we ne definitely need to have some restrictions there that this thing can't drag out for 15, 20 years. Um, I don't know how to do that. That's Mr. Bacon's job. That's why he gets paid for that. I don't and and he's got the smarts to do it. So, um, I've said enough. I think this is a good job, a good project. And and I I do have one other question, though. Um, we were talking about Broadening Phillip will will the broadening end at bicesentennial or will it go on to the west?

It'd be three lanes like it starts at bsentennial now is what we go from there east to Newberry. So continue the same section as Philip is basically from the oneways east all the way to bsentennial. All right. Thank you Mr. Mayor. One correct.

Yeah. One last thing. I know a lot of people are watching this decision because it's an important one and people are very interested in it. So, I just I know we've talked about this. When you talk about tiff money, we can't forget that there's really no such thing. They walk out of city hall with a bond and the only money they're getting back is the taxes they create in that development. And you can't believe how long that takes. I hope Gary doesn't mind me mentioning a number here, but the chamber Devco project up at Milikin Meadows was intended to be something that we could all understand, look at, use as an example, learn from. And that that project started in 2022. And today there's a number of homes just eyeballing it, it's somewhere around a quarter done. Is that pretty close, Derek? Well, last year their tiff receipts, their tiff money which came from that project was $15,58. This year we've got it projected at somewhere between 31 and $36,000 of tiff revenue. Well, they've got I think over a million dollars invested today in infrastructure up there. So for anybody who thinks that a developer comes here and walks out of city hall with a big check to go put infrastructure in doesn't understand how the mechanics of it work. I mean we're four years after the approval of that project. And this year I think they're hoping they have somewhere in the 30,000s of let's call it tiff money because that's the increment that's coming off those. And so it takes years and years and years to eventually get that that tiff money. And and I think that's back to your point, Ed, and the point that we had testimony on earlier. The design of these bonds being smart with their maturities and all that and thoughtful is is key to doing this in a responsible manner. But we can't imagine for a minute that the developers are walking out of city hall with big check because that's just not how it works.

That is a common misconception. I mean, I hear it from people even though we've been talking about it for a long time. That's why I did the presentation back in November where I walked through in the ideal scenario, you might make money in two years. You might receive some money. Yeah. Well, it's one of the most complicated public finance tools that's out there and just takes a lot of practice to make sense of them. Mayor, oh, go ahead, Jim. I I just suggest we're short council. We got seven people and I think this is a contentious issue. I mean, I I really do. I I uh um I move we table this. Okay. Do we have a second?

Because Brian, I think we need to have eight members here. Uh in my opinion, we have a second. I'll second it.

Motion by Nisley, second by D to table. Calling the question on the table. I believe the item is tabled. Yeah, that's an action. So, yeah. Okay, this item is tabled to the next meeting. Okay. Oh, boards.

I know. Yeah. Oh, okay. We're on a budget, Tracy.

All right, let's see. That was item number six. Now we have a public hearing to consider as public hearing to consider action on application by Ted and Steven Brewer for an amendment to the city of North Plat comprehensive plan 2011 land use map to amend certain land from agricultural vacant to commercial and residential medium density and multifamily on property located at the intersection of East Francis Street and South Brian Avenue and on South Taber Avenue. opening the public hearing on this matter. If anyone would like to make a comment, please approach and make your tell us who you are, where you live, and make your comment.

Hello, Taylor Sutton, 921 Tomahawk Road. Good evening, Mayor and Council. We initially submitted a resoning request for B2 on lots one, two, and three of Brewer subdivision. I'm currently under contract and have a purchase agreement on Brian and Francis lots one and two. Those are the ones with the front edge of Francis and Brian. My purchase agreement is contingent upon resoning from A1 to B2. Without B2 zoning, I would not be able to move forward under the current terms of that agreement. After attending the planning commission meeting last Tuesday, they made some great points, but there's a couple points that were not talked about that I want to mention to re um to support my request for B2. Since going under contract on this property, some major infrastructure changes have occurred. Brian has been extended to the end of my prospective property line and Francis Street has been extended to Devco with a future extension planned to Newberry. NDOT has identified Newberry as a future four-lane highway, and as that occurs, only a few roads will provide direct connectivity through North Plat to Newberry. Of those, Francis is uniquely positioned to carry traffic to access Newberry with both left and right turns onto Newberry. Philip will only have the option of turning rights. And because of that, it is my understanding that Francis is anticipated to handle a higher volume of traffic count, including truck traffic. The second thing that I would like to point out is to compare the lots on Philip in front of the new apartments being built. These lots on Philip Road frontage are being advertised as commercial lots and these lots are currently PR3 residential zoning and not reszoned to commercial yet. This would lead me to believe that there is some kind of plan unit devel planned unit development with that land owner and the city. Um if the city agrees with letting

that land owner reszone to commercial, then I would say that these lots are also a good candidate um or a good comparable and candidate for B2 as they are also in close proximity to already existing B2 zoning. Um and there is a lot of land to be developed between Brian and Newberry. So if there's a trajectory of B2 reszoning on Philip, I would ask that these lots are treated with that in mind. Lastly, I appreciate the planning commission's support for commercial zoning and I understand their reasoning for recommending B1 on these lots. I heard and understood their points, but there was no mention of this information, and I feel that the entirety of fact should be considered when making this decision. That being said, after reflecting on the planning commission's recommendation, I'd like to make um an another recommendation to consider to council and recommend a phased zoning approach on lots one and two. So, what I'm asking is that the 3.4 4 acre lot um on the south side of Francis um is reszoned to B2 as stated in the original application. Um we would have ample room for setbacks and landscaping as a buffer zone and undeveloped a behind that lot currently. As for the twoacre lot on the north side of Francis that will be adjacent to the Lutheran Family Services Health Clinic, I am willing to take the planning commission's recommendation and move forward with B1, hence recommending a split zoning approach. Um, I see both sides and I think B2 still aligns with the infrastructure, anticipated traffic patterns and long-term growth of this corridor. However, I understand the less intensity zoning on the B1 recommendation as well. So to be clear, I'm willing to negotiate the terms of our purchase agreement with the

applicant, Ted and Steve Brewer, if we can move forward with B1 zoning on the north lots and B2 zoning on the south lots. Okay, this is a public hearing, so thank you very much. We'll invite you back for questions. So, anyone else like to make a comment on this item? I'll just make a quick comment. Council, Mr. Mayor, Jordan Mossson, 11145 North Weaver Hills, Northplot, Nebraska. We've been working on this project for a long time and worked with a lot of people in the area on how we should decide how to split some of this up on the redevelopment of what's happening in that area. It's been agg for a long time. Much like everybody talked about the Fritz property to the east is kind of that donut of North Plat. Um this is a part of that. So one of the lots sits south of on Taber south of three residential homes currently. We had initially applied to go into a commercial resoning. It's now been recommended to go to R3. There are two very nice 40 by60 roughly buildings, metal buildings on that property currently used as storage. um if it goes to R3, my concern would be that those are no longer conforming. So, we'd have to find other avenues to try to make those conforming, which is going to be a little tricky. Um especially as we move forward. So, I don't know what the right answer is, but I know that if we could get to something that made sense for those buildings so they could be continued to use as storage as they are, that's what I would like to see from the council. So, that's all I got. Thanks, Other questions or comments?

I move to close public hearing. Second.

Motion by VS, second by McNe to close public hearing. Calling the question on closing the public hearing. Public hearing is now closed. Moving on to item number seven. Consider action. The council will now consider action on application by Ted and Steven Brewer for an amendment to the city of North comprehensive plan 2011 land use map to amend certain land from agricultural vacant to commercial and residential medium density and multifamily on property located at the intersection of East Francis Street and South Bryan Avenue and on South Taber Avenue. Mr. Mayor, I move to amend the city of North Black comprehensive plan 2011 future land use map amending certain land from agricultural vacant to commercial and residential medium density and multifamily on property located at the intersection of East Francis Street and South Bryan Avenue and on South Taber Avenue.

Second motion by McNe, second by Vols. This on first reading. This is the first time we've considered this. So this this one it would be passed on one vote because this is just the amendment to the the um future land use map. Correct. Yep. So So this would just be one vote on this one because it's the land use map first and then the next items we get to the actual res. So, if I may real quick, if we were looking at doing the one on Taber uh commercial, we would amend my motion to do both are all all three lots commercial. Is that correct?

Yes. If if you wanted to change the one that was on taper. Okay. Can I amend my motion to do all three lots commercial? You say you want a You could Well, you could just you could just you could just make the motion. Okay. Yeah. So, redo the whole thing. Withdraw. Withdraw your motion. Withdraw my motion. All right. So, Pete, do you withdraw your second? I withdraw.

Okay. So, I move to amend the Northplat uh city of Northplat comprehensive plan 2011 future land use map amending certain land from agricultural vacant to commercial located at the intersections of East Francis Street and South Bryant Avenue and on South Taber Avenue. Is that you, Ed? Yeah. Motion by McNe, second by RER. Okay. Any just further discussion on this item, Brad? So, per your change in what you're what you're saying that what was recommended to be R3 is now going to be commercial. Yes.

Which creates a commercial pocket weirdly behind a bunch of residential, not anywhere any other near any other commercial. You create a pocket of commercial. I yes, I understand that. Um, we do have the new is it the new Lincoln connection that's going over there and then we there's a big field to the west of that that we don't know what it's going to be either. I think there's just a lot of unknowns that um I think it's going to be a rather various mixed use of commercial and and some residential over there. But I I think there's a lot of unknowns on what is going to be in a lot of these vacant properties.

And I agree with you that that's the problem. It's hard to it's hard to zone this, especially because when looking at it right now, you're creating a pocket. Now, if this big, you know, a land to the south goes all commercial, then it's you look like a hero and you had a crystal ball, you know what you're talking about. But if somehow this gets all zoned residential, it's going to have this weird commercial sitting right smack dab in the middle of it. So, I I disagree with the with the change of the R3 back to commercial. Um, I I I think it's going to create a pocket potentially, especially with all this housing that's being developed over in this area.

Ed, go ahead. You have an idea maybe what could be built on that commercial property? Let's ask the requester. Are you talking about lot three um off of Taber or the Brian of Francis Road furniture? Taber. Taber. Uh Jordan would have more more information on that. There's a bunch of pointing going on back there. Judy, hold on. Sorry, Taylor. I thought you had the whole story. I apologize.

Real real quick. Can we Can you define which is lot one, two, and three because that would help us. Yes. If you look at the next item, the zoning item, you can see it a little bit better. Um, lot one is the lot that's on the north side of Francis. Lot two is on the south side of Francis and lot three is on the tab. Helps a lot. Yeah.

As far as what can be built on the commercial, it's going to depend on what you end up doing. This this right now that we're talking about is just the amendment to the land use. So it's just commercial if that's the way you go or it's residential whichever way you go there. So with commercial you've got different options on your next item. You've got a B1 B2 B3 or I guess even well couldn't really do industrial but B1 B2 B3. So then at that point in the next item you're going to have to choose do you want it as B2 B1 B3? Different things can happen in each of them. Your B1 is kind of is your neighborhood commercial. So, it's a lower intensity mostly office buildings. Um, you can do a gas station, but it has to be intertwined with like a Westfield type scenario if you're doing a a B1. B2 you're looking at a little bit more intensive. um you can do or B2, excuse me, you can do um service stations, you know, a little bit more traffic intensive type things, car dealerships, those types of things. Um B3 is tailored to downtown, so I would caution against B3. Um but those are kind of your commercial options. Um I know what um Jordan was concerned with is that lot to the south already has two large um buildings on there that were agricultural buildings. And now, you know, life's changing a little bit. So, you're going to have two buildings that you're going to put on a lot. So, are you going to put them on a residential lot or are you going to put them on a commercial lot? He's a little bit concerned with if it's on a residential lot, you've got two buildings that are currently being used for storage, which was fine in an egg district, but now it's in a residential district, which would flip them into a legal non-conforming use at the present moment. Um, and I may have to defer to the city attorney at this point, but legal non-conforming use you can continue to use no matter what the

zoning is as long as you have that use there. But if it's just storage at this point, I'm not sure where it's going to run into. Can I rent it out? Can I not rent it out? That sort of thing when it comes to illegal non-conforming use. Does that answer your questions? Okay, go ahead. Hold on, Judy. Whose choice was it to try and I watched planning commission they did a great job with this and they chose R3. Do we can this stay a that and I'm talking lot three.

No. So the only way it can stay a is if it's over 10 acres. And so that's the reason why this reszoning is in front of you is because in order to do the subdivision and to split the lot the property is all currently egg. So if it does anything less than 10 acres, it has to be reszoned to something. So your choices, industrial, commercial, residential, anything but egg. Followup question. Go ahead, Judy. On that same line, don't you have to be to B2 to be storage? Um, or is that allowed in B1?

I would have to pull out the code and look. I You can't do warehousing, anything like that. They could probably put an office space with some storage. They could change the building into an office space. Um, but yeah, strictly storage. You would probably need to be a B2. See, that's where the that's where that lot's just so awkward. I watched the planning commission talked to some of the commissioners, too, about it. I think they were trying to figure out what to do with it, knowing that I don't think anybody after them to change what they're doing today,

right? But what do you it what do you what do you what do you do? So it's yeah is there any route through any conditional use or variance or anything is there any route that that can be moved to R3 or B1 and they can continue their use

again they could continue their use as a legal non-conforming use right now as storage. Um, again, it does get into the legal ramifications of they're storing it for personal property right at the present moment. I don't know what happens if you can still use it as storage and rent it out or lease it or whatever. I I don't know that answer. That would be a city attorney question. Um, but yes, there's possibilities of you could do something in an R3. You could make it some sort of a business. I mean, we just did a conditional use for that health clinic in the R3 district. So, there are some different R3 things that you could do with the building. Strictly storage, probably not so much. Um, B1, there's a lot of different options, but again, strictly storage probably not.

Ask a procedural question. Um, it we may have some issues here coming up. We've got an absent council member and we have um some issues that may be divided on the vote. Can Bill or Brandon, can you walk us through I think there's certain votes the mayor has the privilege of voting the empty council seat. Could you at least walk through that so we all have a good understanding what that looks like? Uh yes, I'll happily try. Okay.

Um the statute that I'm looking at specifically deals with ordinance ordinances, resolutions, or orders for the uh the payment of money. So, um, this particular item is not an ordinance or a resolution. It's just an amendment to the future land use map. So, it it doesn't require the higher number of votes that say an ordinance or a resolution would require. Um, so it would be somewhat more questionable. It would have to depend on the number of votes. There are still circumstances on those lower required number of votes where the mayor can still issue a vote in order to get to that um we'll just say majority. Um so that can happen. Um depends on the number of votes. It may be that um if if we well I don't want to speculate on on those. So, okay. Um, so it it is possible under under the right circumstances for something like the amendment to the land use map for the mayor to vote. It's uh much more common where we're trying to get to that fifth vote where the mayor could vote for an ordinance or a resolution.

Okay. Thank you. I I don't know if I explained that well, but hopefully hopefully it made sense. Well, that law changed what a few years ago and so I just was looking for a refresher on it. So, thank you. Judy, can I ask you a quick question?

Have the applicants on this one indicated they're in a hurry? Well, we've been doing this for quite some time. Okay. I'm sure I'm sure they're getting to the point where they would really like to have it done, but if it's going to be difficult, I think they would probably rather have a good decision than than one that's Because the the even if the council chose to pass this when we move on to item number eight, that's an ordinance that would typically be read at least twice may you know probably three times. Yeah, maybe only twice. Depends on the how it goes, but sure.

So, our purchase agreement on lots one and two, uh we have some other contingencies on there as well. Um, I would be okay waiting if we need to extend the decision as long as Jordan would be okay with that. Four years. Yeah, we are waiting on a couple other contingencies as well. So, we do have time. To be fair, Jordan, we can't promise anything, but it's probably won't be four years. Does that answer your question, Ty? Yeah, I guess I just wanted to make sure that there was awareness that there are situations where the mayor can vote the MTC.

Um, I mean, I thought the planning commission did a pretty thorough job on this one. I mean, I realize we're one step ahead of the zoning, but it all ties together. I what what I heard them saying or my interpretation of the planning commission's recommendation was that they were comfortable with B1, which would be your Westfield style zoning, but B2, which is intended to be along a highway, they weren't as comfortable with because it's not along a highway. And so that's where their recommendation came in for for B1. that that third lot's kind of the strange one that may deserve in my opinion more analysis to figure out what to do with it. But

other questions or comments? Nick,

I guess just one last point. I mean, not trying to get ahead, but I mean it does have where there are some B2 and I'm not saying these need to be B2, right? I'm just uh pointing out like commercial. I guess there are B2 around this area and then with some empty fields. Um there's one residential lot that probably I don't know if it has much on there could probably be commercial if somebody wanted to reszone that. But um I I think the third lot is kind of the wild card in this whole thing. And so trying to figure out what to do with that is is tricky. It I could see it going either way. Um, I just wanted to throw commercial out there and see what other people's thoughts were on that. So,

Brad, so as it stands, I I'm not in favor of that lot three going commercial. I think it should be a residential just because of how it could be developed around there. It is easier to switch from res or uh residential to commercial than it is from commercial back to residential. Um because if if all this gets developed commercial, you're going to have an argument right there to to switch it over. It'll be an easy argument. Uh but if this goes all residential, that person that owns that commercial lot's not giving up that for not you got a weird spot in there. So uh as I'm thinking through this, I I'm going to make a motion. Um we got a motion on the floor, don't we? No, he uh So we have the original motion. You're going to make an amendment.

I'm make an amendment. Okay. Uh, and here's my logic. I'm going to make an amendment to to put that back to uh residential. We can vote on it and that way it can still continue on. If if we vote against it, then it dies on the bine and then it kills our project and I don't want to do that. So, I'll make I'll make an amendment to change lot three back to uh residential. Is there a second? Second. We have any discussion on the proposed amendment?

As as a clarifying question, Mr. Mayor, would that just mean that lot three would be removed from the original motion or do you see it differently than that, Brad? It would go back to what the original intent of the planning commission would be, where the third one, that Taber lot, would be residential and lots one and two would be Okay. I I understand because it's a today. I see. I see what you're saying. Correct. So, so I know how I'm voting here. We're voting to to make the lots one and two commercial lot three residential. Then when we go to the zoning, we can change it if that's what that what we're

you can you can specify the type of commercial once we get to um item number eight. Are we voting on the amendment first? Hold on. clarification. I'm out. We are We are voting We're discussing the proposed amendment by Councilman Garrick and seconded by Tit and by Councilman Lucas, which is to adjust lot three to residential. That's what we're talking about and what we will most likely vote on here in the near future. And then if regardless of that status, then we'll go, however that lands, we'll go back to the original item, perhaps amended, perhaps not amended. Okay. Did you follow my logic?

Yeah, I Okay. And Taylor's was wanting it that way or was she wanting it all? No, we're talking about this isn't helping her. Yeah, she doesn't she doesn't have a preference on the this lot that's along Taber. She's I think from what she said on the other Yeah. From what she said, she doesn't have an agreement to purchase that. Okay, I'm following now. Okay. Sorry. It's all right. Mr. Mayor, can I add one comment, Mr. Mayor? Yeah.

Well, I just want to add I'm going to vote in favor of this to keep this moving along on one and two, but I would hope if if if the council does follow Councilman Garrick's path here that we still come back and try to figure out a good solution on three um maybe outside of this. Any other further comment on the proposed amendment? Okay. To be clear, if you vote in favor of this item, you will be changing lot three to residential. You vote against it, you would not be. Everybody understand? Calling the question on this amendment. Okay, amendment passes. So now we go back to the original item as amended. And the original item at this point, if I've been tracking correctly, would be that the uh lots one and two would be commercial and lot three would be residential. That everyone's understanding. We have any further Pete. Pete, sorry.

Jordan, do you mind? Come on up real quick. Thank you. Okay. There's two buildings there right now. They're used for storage. Correct. They will continue to be used as storage or does the prospect have a desire to do something different with that or is he just using it as he's currently using it today? They're their plan to use it as they are today. Okay.

And it's current. So in that case, this would be a non- legal non-conforming use and if we kept it residential and no one's really going to do anything. If they choose to change the use, let's say they want to rent these out and have someone else store, I want to store my boat in there or something, then they could have potential problems. Am I accurate with that, Judy? She said possibly. So okay. All right. Right. I just wanted to get clarification of what the intended, you know, future use of this.

And this probably makes more sense in the next part, actually part two of the next part. Um, but part of the reason was this got split up. Um, the rest of it's vacant a land. This had some improvement on it. It didn't necessarily make sense to carry buildings with value to them on a land that was likely going to sell to and it's a the rest of the property is for sale for reference here.

Okay. I represent Brewers on as a real estate agent on this transaction um and all of this, but some of that was split up. And the reason that we went to five parcels, we split both lots on north and south of um Francis and east of Brian, which allowed for Francis to continue through and to the point of where Brian was going to end based upon the um connections site there because they were going to extend the road down to the end of Brian to the end of their lot, which they sold those previous two lots two and a half years ago now. Um so that was that was part of the reason why it got split up the way it did. The balance of that agricultural lot to the south and east of Taber is um we worked with the city on putting um corridor protection ements through it. So it got split up into smaller pieces. So we're trying to find ways that if we ended up selling those as separate lots or a developer decided to buy them as separate lots and we had to abide by that corridor protection easement going through the middle, we were trying to keep at least both of them above 10 and we didn't want to include those buildings because they would deter like devalue those buildings dramatically if they were to sell. But

that's important getting it into commercial versus resial. But thank you for clarifying that. I appreciate it.

Okay, we're back to the original item as amended. Anyone else have any comments or questions? Okay, I'm going to call the question in a second here, but if you vote in favor, what you're doing is saying that lot one would be commercial, lot two would be commercial, and lot three would be residential. If you vote against, then you would be saying you want them all three to be commercial. Okay. No, no, the other way. It would all stay all I looked at the wrong note. I apologize. Sorry. A lot of scribbling on here just to be fair. Just Okay.

Just as further clarification too, like Judy said, um because these are being reszoned for a they need to be reszoned to something. Yep. So, and this is just the l the future land use map. All right. Calling the question. Read read the motion again if you don't mind. I know this is to go ahead. Thank you.

Okay. So, um, the amended motion would be, uh, to amend the city of Northplat comprehensive plan 2011 land use map to amend certain land from agricultural vacant to commercial and residential on property located at the intersection of East Francis Street and South Bryant Avenue and on South Taber Avenue. That's correct. So, the functional portion of it is lot one would be commercial. If you vote in favor, lot one would be commercial, lot two would be commercial, lot three would be residential. If you vote in favor, you vote in favor. Okay. Okay. I already voted. So

Oh, sorry. Okay. Calling the question.

Well, after much deliberation, that item is passed as amended. We are going to take about a seven minute break and we'll return reconvene at 8 o'clock.

We're going to get back at it here. Oh, no. You're good. Bark at me. I'll bark back. Despite popular rumor, I have not ordered pizza. So, just keep that in mind. Tacos. Tacos. Excuse. Well, it'd be taco pizza.

If we're going to have tacos, we have to have margaritas. And this meeting won't get over until midnight. Let's get on with it. Item number eight, public hearing, action to adopt ordinance number 4249 to reszone certain land from an A1 transitional agricultural district to a B1 neighborhood commercial district and an R3 dwelling district located at the intersection of East Francis Street and Brian Avenue and on South Taber Avenue. Laying the ordinance, please. Ordinance number 4249, an ordinance of the city of North Plat, Lincoln County, Nebraska, reszoning certain lands described as blocks four and five, opportunity subdivision and part of the south half of section 3, township 13 north, range 30 west of the 6 p.m. and then north half of section 10, township 13 north, range 30 west of the 6 p.m. North Platling County, Nebraska proposed lots 1, 2, and three Brewer subdivision from an A1 transitional agricultural district to a B1 neighborhood commercial district into an R3 dwelling district. Repealing all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict here with providing for the effective date and publication thereof. Thank you. Opening the public hearing on this matter. Obviously, it's the matter we just spent quite a bit of time discussing. So, anyone has a comment on it, please approach microphone. Let us know your thoughts.

Mson 11145 North Weaver Hills. Um, Mr. Mayor, council, real quick thought that we had on that. I don't know where it stands in an R3 to utilize existing structures the way they are. if somebody wanted to add an additional storage unit to that and use them as that like in a grandfathered in situation for the life of what it is now um if they wanted to rent them out or something like that. Is that a possibility in this? Um just something we were thinking about. Don't know if that's something that could could happen. And if somebody decided to change and build something else there, is that something that then that grandfather would go away? Then they'd have to go back at that time and reszone it. They could potentially say five years down the road sell that property to an investor that wanted to build another 40 by60 building to store boats in for instance and be able to capitalize on that as long as they didn't change what the existing use of those buildings was. That's my comment.

Thank you. Anyone else like to make a comment?

Mr. May I move we close the public hearing. Second motion by RER, second by Volt. Close public hearing. Council will now consider action to adopt ordinance number 4249.

Oh, sorry. Calling the question on closing the public hearing. So everybody knows I have not eaten dinner and hardly had lunch. So I think that's my problem here. Okay, public hearing is now closed. All right, if I go on. Okay, sounds good. Action to adopt ordinance number 4249 to reszone certain land from an A1 transitional agricultural district to a B1 neighborhood commercial district in an R3 dwelling district located at the intersection of East Francis Street and on Brian Avenue and on South Taber Avenue.

Mr. Mayor, I move to adopt ordinance number 4249 to reszone certain land from an A1 transitional agriculture district to a B1 neighborhood commercial district in an R3 dwelling district located at the intersection of East Princess Street and Brian Avenue and on South Taber Avenue on First Region. Second motion by RER, second by Vols, Judy. Based on the previously approved amended item, do we need to adjust anything at the beginning of this conversation? And if so, what is it? Planning's hard.

Yes.

Um, yes. So with the R3, if if you want to go with the residential, so what you've done now is you've um amended the land use plan. So that opens up the lots one and two to some type of commercial B1, B2, B3. That opens up your um residential to it's supposed to be multif family. You could go R2, R3 basically. So you've got some options there when you're reszoning. um to talk about the existing buildings on the lot. That's possibly going to be either an R2 or an R3. Legal non-conforming use is you can continue to use the property as it is until such time as you vacate that use for 12 months. Now, you cannot expand on that use. So, if it's now a storage building, it can continue to be a storage building. It cannot be a storage building with an addition or a storage building with another building. It can be as it is today. Period. Okay. So, if you're going to leave it as that non-conforming now, they could build a house. Now, you got a house in a garage in a residential. Um, you could take the current structure that they have right now, make it a barnaminium. So, now you got living quarters in there. It's residential. So there are options. Um

so we don't need to actually change make the zoning motion different or anything based on large current situation. Not necessarily. So what what it is the way that you read it is B1 and then your R3. Now if you decide to go something other than a B1 or an R3, then yes, you'll have to change it. Okay. Go ahead, Brad. So on the R3, the exist existing structures, they can use it as storage at Nauseium, no problems. But if they want to rent it out as storage to somebody else, they're going to run into problems. I'm going to defer that question to the attorney.

That's generally not the type of thing that I want to comment on here because I' I'd like to be able to reserve the possibility. I'd rather have Judy comment because I would be the one that actually would be enforcing it. I I don't want to issue a legal opinion about it here because I don't want to tie my hands as to anything because it could depend on a number of factors as to what what might happen from an enforcement perspective Jordan. Right. That's the potential future use you're looking at. Correct. Potential

from a zoning standpoint. Um if the if the property is being used as it is, I don't ask somebody, do you own it? Let me see the copy of your sales agreement. Let me see your rental agreement. If they're using it as storage, it's it's storage. Okay. There's nothing that for bids that's coming back. So, let's say that 6 months or a year from now, they wanted to build that extra building. At that point, there's been further evolution of the area. The council could certainly entertain and planning commission another application to look back to a commercial at that point. Right. Correct. Very few things are ever written in stone.

Yeah. So, I see this R3 as a holding place on this lot, frankly, because, you know, if they want to do something different on it, I mean, it doesn't disturb what they're doing today and if they want to do something different on it, they can tell us about it and seek that zoning change in the future. So, this is there's no good solution on that. This one is there. But it it's tough. But but there is there's not a time period or anything that forbids them reapplying for it. Is there a significant cost factor? $525. That is significant. Yeah. Yeah. Other questions or comments?

So now we need to address Taylor's B1 B212. Can you come back up please now that we have numbers on our Jordan? Come on up. Oh, no. This is Taylor. Oh, sure.

My question, I guess, I don't know if I've fully got it answered. If they were to keep that property and hold it, can they lease it out to somebody and for monetary gain? Or could they sell it to somebody in an R3 state with it the way it's existing now and make money off of it if that were the case? Am I understanding that correctly? That's what I want to know. Yes.

All right, Taylor. Yeah, I apologize, Taylor. When you made your long explanation, I didn't have one, two, and three. So, I've been confused on which lots you're talking. I apologize. I apologize. You're fine. Bad maps. Um, so lot one is the north one and lot two is the south one. Correct? Yes, I believe so. Lot lot two would be the uh 3.39 acre lot and lot one would be the uh 2.01 acre lot. Yeah. So, so lot one is north of Francis and lot two is south of Francis. Yes. Correct.

U which do you want B1 and which do you want B2? I I missed that part. Well, uh, on the initial application, I requested B2 on both both lots. Um, planning commission made some really good recommendations. Um, still like to see B2 on that 3.39 acre lot, the one on the south side. um open to suggestions or possibly working um towards a a phased zoning approach uh with B1 on the north side and B2 on the south side. What's your plan if you don't mind me asking?

Well, um overall, we started this acquisition when it was still a field. Um, so we put the contingencies on there with um the paving and infrastructure being built out and we've been, you know, it's been a while just to get to this point. Um, we I think that the highest and best use of that property will be evolving as that entire corridor is evolving. Um, right now Francis stops at Devco. I know Brent was just telling me about the next phase um going going on there, but as that continues to go to Newberry um and that traffic count increases, that could change uh the highest and best use of that property from a from an investment perspective.

That was a very good non-answer. I appreciate that. It's impressive. Well, so and I agree with you. the the Francis corridor making that commercial makes perfect sense. I mean, there's going to be a lot of traffic going through there. I got no arguments with that. I think that's a great idea. We just um you know, looking at it from an investment standpoint as well when Newberry turns into the four lanes and how that traffic goes by that uh corner, those corner lots. I just don't want to tie myself into uh you know saying something and that could change with traffic count down the road.

Other questions or comments? Go ahead.

I just want to add this is a tough one. I mean the planning commission looked at it carefully but this is going to be a major thoroughfare. This it to me this is one of the more challenging decisions we've had in planning in quite some time because you can sure from my view you can sure understand that I mean I don't know that somebody wants to put a hotel there or somebody wants to put a like a smaller car dealership something you know mini warehouses becomes one of big differentials between B1 and B2 a lot a lot of people believe that they're not the best use of good property in some ways they can be a fabulous buffer to res residential. So, part of me likes some of those aspects. B2, but the property is not on the highway and B2 is the highway zoning.

So, they've got a they've got a tough one in front of us on I'm completely in support of commercial. It's just difficult to decide where the right answer is there for my view. If I may, Ty. Go ahead.

I I struggle a little bit with it's maybe it's outdated terminology a little bit with B2 calling it highway commercial, but maybe it should be more, you know, hightraic commercial because we have a number of places that really aren't highway where that fits because of the traffic counts more than anything. But I understand your point on the warehouses because you you know my feeling on that. I wish they weren't along any of those nice commercial avenues and maybe that's change as we do the comp plan. But just my thoughts on that that maybe calling it highway commercial isn't the best name for it in today's world.

Just a clarification on that point to to Councilman Lucas's point about many warehouses. Um I've got I've got the code up and so in a B2 district a mini warehouse would require a conditional use. Is it allowed in a B1? No. B1's more restrictive. So, it would not be allowed in.

Thank you. I I feel Francis is probably going to be a major business corridor as well. Um I I feel like it's going to be a lot of businesses on that frontage and then houses behind it. Um the good thing is that we're we're building a big enough road on Francis, I believe. Um it's 80 foot wide is if that's what I'm reading correctly. So, it's going to be it's a three-lane road. Yeah. So, it's going to be a fairly good sized road. Um, I that I Yeah, I I almost feel like B2 would probably fit here, but I think B1's just as acceptable. But

I I don't know how I'm going to vote on this, but I think it deserves a vote. And so, I'm going to motion an amendment on the two B1's to be two. Second. Both of them. Yeah, both of them. Say that again. Ty.

I'm gonna I'm motion an amendment. Oh, sorry. I'm motioning an amendment to the current motion that the two B1's would flip to B2 with the intention that that can deserves a vote. Do we have a second? Second. Okay, we have a motion to change the zoning from current the current B1's to be changed to a B2. Is that correctly stated? Yeah. And I just want to clarify if that would fail, we'd still have a B1 motion. Correct. Correct. Procedurally. Okay. Thank you.

Any comments on that item, Ed? Yeah, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. So, um, down the road as this begins to develop, we can come back and change that zoning again, can we not? The zoning could be changed. Yes. But generally, um, the city can't just unilaterally ch Well, we generally don't unilaterally change it. We would generally look to the property owner to come in and ask for a zoning change. Well, okay. I guess that's exactly what I'm going

if the property if if the highway if the street rather somebody sees an opportunity there that would really really work nicely and we need to change the zoning we come through the city the option is still there that we could reszone it to accommodate what he wants to put on

certainly depending on the city council at that time and I guess whether they agreed with the plan. So that that could happen. Thank you. Other questions or comments on the proposed amendment. Okay, we're voting on the amendment. If you vote in favor, you're voting to Many of you are already voting. Thank you. Change from B1 to B2 zoning. Calling the question. Okay. The item passes. So, we're now looking at B2 zoning. Back to the original item as amended, meaning these two lots would be B2 rather than B1. Any other questions or comments on this item as amended? Calling the question on the item as amended. Item passes as amended. Okay, moving on to item number nine. Approve preliminary and final approval for Brewer subdivision located at the intersection of South Bryant Avenue and East Francis Street in the A1 Agricultural District. Move to adopt the recommendation of the city planning commission for preliminary final approval subdivision.

Second motion by RER, second by D. Discussion on item number nine. So just so I'm clear, this is then taking that R3 we just made and then dividing it up. Correct. Yep. So these are the actual lots that we've been talking about. Anything else? But to clarify, zoning will still go through further readings. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. So, this is the subdivision, but the zoning will come back. Okay. Make sure understandable to go through at least one more and then if council chooses, they can shorten.

Other questions or comments? Seeing none, calling the question. I have number nine, please. Item number nine is passed. Item number 10 starts with the public hearing to uh consider amending the city of North Comprehensive Plan 2011 future land use map amending certain land from commercial to residential lowdensity single family on property located at 206 West Fremont Drive. Someone will have to make a motion for us to continue.

I move to close the public hearing. Motion by McNe, second by RER to close the public hearing. Following the question on closing the public hearing. Public hearing is now closed. Council will now consider amend the city of Northpl comprehensive plan 2011 future land use map amending certain land from commercial to residential lowdensity single family on property located 206 west Fremont Drive.

Mayor, I move to amend the city of North Comprehensive Plan 2011 future land use map amending certain land from commercial to residential low density single family on property located at 206 West Fremont Drive. Second. Motion by RER, second by Nisley. Judy, what are we doing? You should have chosen a closer seat. Really? We're just getting your steps in.

So, this one again, we're doing an amendment and a resoning. Um, this is down south um 83 Fremont, kind of by the college area. Um this does look like um when you're looking at it, it does kind of look like it would be property that would be more conducive to commercial, but when you really get to looking at what's there, there's existing residential and the properties in question don't have access to um highway 83 and there's no frontage. You can't get the access to highway 83 because of the controlled access from the state. So access is off of Fremont and so that makes it a little bit more difficult for commercial. So the property owner requested to do um a residential zoning and again that's why you have to do the amendment first and then go for the reszoning and um reason being I believe he wants to build an out building and can't do that in a commercial district since he he already has a residential structure there. So, if you have any questions, I'm happy to help. And the applicant is in the audience also if you want to talk to him.

Thank you. Any questions? Real quick, still gravel road, right? I Okay, that's I thought Yeah, this makes a lot of sense. Is the flood plane issue improved in that area from where it used to be, or is there still a lot of flood plane issues there to deal with? I don't know if you know off the top of your head. Um, it's improved since 2006, but it still can be an issue in that area. It's still around there, but it's better than there's been some improvements in that area. So, take it the applicant's aware of flood plane in the area. It looks like well aware from the shaking heads. Okay. Thank you. Yep. Sounds like a great project. Thank you, Nick.

I just have a comment on this is all. Um, I I don't mind what's happening. um reszoning it to um residential. It like Judy said, it does look like good commercial property. I we have a lot of resonings come before us easements, everything like that. And I think this is one that maybe could have been planned a little bit better beforehand because along Tractor Supply and and Murphy Tractor, when you go north of the Fremont Drive, there's a nice frontage road there. the same could have happened on the south side, but instead that frontage road is a private drive to the the vet clinic. So, I think, you know, I I thank everybody here for, you know, taking a lot of consideration into planning because this is one where it could have been prime commercial property had this not this vet clinic not had taken up the frontage road. So, I think that's kind of where we ran into a pickle. Um, we're just kind of fixing things as we go along and and pivoting from there. But, uh, those are the only comments that I had.

Other questions or comments? Seeing none, calling the question on item number 10? Item number 10 has passed. Item number 11, we have another public hearing. Action to adopt ordinance number 4250 to reszone certain lands from B2 highway commercial district to an RL suburban dwelling district on property located 206 West Fremont Drive. Lane the ordinance please. Ordinance number 4250, an ordinance of the city of North Plat, Lincoln County, Nebraska, reszoning certain lands described as lots 2367 and part of lot 5, block two, Schwarzlander subdivision, North Plat Lean County, Nebraska from a B2 highway district to an RL dwelling district, repealing all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict here with providing for the effective date and publication thereof.

Thank you. Public hearing is open. Anyone like to make a comment? Please approach and tell us what your thoughts are. Would appear that no one has a comment. Mayor, I move to close the public hearing.

Motion by RER, second by McNe. Calling the question on closing the public hearing, please. Public hearing is now closed. This council will now consider action to adopt ordinance number 4250 to reszone certain lands from a B2 highway commercial district to an RL suburban dwelling district on property located 206 west excuse me West Fremont Drive. Mayor I move to adopt ordinance number 4250. Reszone certain land in the B2 highway commercial district to an RL suburban dwelling district located 6 West Fremont Drive on First. Second

motion by RER, second by Lucas. We have any discussion on item number 11. Mr. Mayor, Mr. Lucas, where the current applicant owns the property and it's kind of a downzoning. I'll uh mo motion and amendment to wave the three required readings. Second.

Motion by Lucas, second by Nissley to wave the three readings. Any discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, calling the question on the amendment to wave the three readings. Motion passes. Back to the original item would be voted on once based on the amendment. Any further discussion on the amended item number 11? Seeing none, calling the question on number 11 as amended. Number 11 is passed in a single reading. Moving on to number 12, we have a public hearing. Consider action on an application by White Lotus Group purchaser and Alda Holding LLC owner for an amendment to the City of North Plat comprehensive plan 2011 land use map to amend certain land from residential highdensity multifamily to commercial on property located at 21105 East 2nd Street. I've opened the public hearing. Anyone like to make a comment on this item? Mr. Mayor, uh council, um I'm Robert Stefka, 2016 William Avenue. Uh I'm here to represent uh the White Lotus Group, which uh as as they are buyer broker, we are looking to take essentially a piece of ground that has been inactive for decades. uh quite frankly. And then what we're looking to do and what the request was for the reszoning is if you look obviously at the area around it, it was essentially swallowed up by V2 type zoning, which is what we are requesting for this um on behalf of working with a

state governmental agency uh to essentially secure um an RFP, a bid to build uh what will be um an 8,300 square foot uh DMV building on behalf of the state. And I know that we kind of have the two public hearings here, you know, one for the amended land use and then the other one for the reasonzoning, but uh essentially just wanted to give you that, uh background as to what the client is working to do. Thank you.

Anyone else like to make a comment on this item? Mr. Mayor, I move that we close the public hearing. Second. Motion by RER, second by Vols to close public hearing. Calling the question on closing the public hearing, please. Mr. Nisley, would you vote, please? Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry.

Thank you. Public hearing is now closed. Council will now consider action on application by White Lotus Group purchaser and Alda Holding owner or excuse me LLC owner for an amendment to the city of North comprehensive plan 2011 land use map to amend certain land from residential highdensity multif family to commercial on property located at 21105 East 2nd Street. Mr. Mayor, I move to amend the city of North Plat's comprehensive plan 2011 future land use map amending certain land from residential high density multif family to commercial on property located at 22105 East Second Street. Second

motion by V, second by Raker. Discussion on item number 12. Mr. Mayor, uh, I have a question for Mr. Robbie, please. Sure. Um what all kinds of driver testing is going to be conducted here?

Um I believe we and when I say we um I I want to be clear that the RFP that went out to this developer essentially um I I have not looked through everything but to my understanding uh Mr. It will be uh motorcycle driving and I believe the CDL. So potentially we could have sector trailers being uh driven there so that they to my understanding they would Yeah. And I apologize. I didn't mean to talk over you. No, please go ahead and finish the question. I apologize.

Well, so potentially we could have a somebody that wants to get a CDL. I think you mentioned CDL. um could be driving a a semi-tractor trailer in that area to prove his driving capabilities to the to the officer. Admittedly, I would suspect what they would do is they would drive to that location and then yes, that I mean the testing would take place offsite. Sure. But yes, they they would have to bring their required uh vehicle to to this site.

Has there has there been any work done to determine like turning radius and stuff? I I've not had a CDL, so I don't know exactly what's in entail what that entails. I presume there's Maybe some maneuvering that has to be done to prove to the officer that I'm driving off site. Yes. I don't know. Does it have to be offside or on site?

As I'm to understand this and I should be careful because again I have not read the actual RFP is that they would bring their, you know, motorcycle, car, drug and then from there just like I I would assume like any other driver's test, you know, you leave the site and then you go through and and you and the testing takes place. I mean, I guess I'm admittedly envisioning, fortunately, it's been, you know, too many years since my testing. Uh, but, you know, you you show up and and and you take a written test and then obviously leave leave the premises for for the actual driving test, per se.

Guess I'm thinking about that particular site. If you're going to go east on second, then you're going to get into by Centennial, you're going to have to make a left or a right there. And depending on how much traffic we end up putting on that road with a semi, that could be a challenge to get out of it. Get on get onto that road. Seems to me that's the test. And I apologize. Guess I shouldn't fly on it, but

unless they've changed the rules. Right now to get a CDL, you can't go to the DMV here. You have to like go to the college or you have to take a schooling. So, the last I knew, you couldn't get a CDL through the DMV here. You had to go to mid plans to take the class or trucking companies put on classes and teach them. So, it'd probably be just motorcycle, cars, written portion. So, I actually I've been looking into getting my CDL lately. So, you you can just go take the test. Like you can go take the test, but they don't test you to drive. You have to go to school. No, you you can just take the test, the driving test. Yeah. I don't know if it changed recently then. I'm not sure.

I We have trucks all all the time right here on this street testing. I don't know exactly what all they do, but Well, they've changed it. Yeah. On vine over here. If you don't have a CDL, you have to go to school. At one point you did. I think they changed it. I think you can just take the test. I'm wrong.

My my problem with this is one, the road right there is is not built for that kind of traffic that you're gonna the load you're going to put on it. And two, I understand the backside is all B2 commercial. So it looks when you're looking at a map or you're a bird, it looks like it's it's contiguous, but when you're really over there, it's not. It's it's a pocket thing. So it's it's it's way closer to like an Enzo uh situation or across the street where Gonzalez is where we we

you know, declined them. So I'm going to be a no on this just to to stay stay the course. I'm gonna do it the first time this time, not Thanks, Robbie. Other questions or comments?

Nick, just some comments on my aspect. Um, that road I'm kind of familiar with and I just ironically was on it the other day and two trucks, regulariz pickup trucks were passing each other in opposite directions. Hardly enough room to do so. The the road is I I think we need to be careful because if we start reszoning all that stuff commercial, we're going to have a problem with the road and that's going to fall on the city, you know, and I think we have enough roads that need attention right now. I know that these lots are sitting vacant and something eventually needs to happen with them. We just don't have that crystal ball, but I hate to see more stress put on the road, especially with other things that might be coming up. I don't know. That's all I got. Other questions or comments?

Yeah, mayor.

Well, I've looked at this one hard, too. You know, the tough thing is if you go over to West Fifth and you go up and down West Fifth, there's patches of gravel road. There's patches of thin roads. And so, then I think to myself, well, what's what's the big deal with this project? I mean, this area is touches commercial. It's big. The road's clearly the problem. I mean, in an ideal world, you'd maybe have a redevelopment plan here and you'd be addressing the road and you'd be kind of looking at it, but that's not what's um what's before us. But we do have a lot of commercial property in the community that doesn't have an ideal road situation, and people just have to adapt to it if that's where they want to locate locate their businesses. I do think it's we've got a real awkward request here with de declining the one across across the street, too. But I I don't think we can imagine that we don't have a lot of commercial property in the community that has skinny roads in front of it.

Go ahead, Jim. The only thing I can relate to is Eugene and I know that they have barred truck traffic. Well, the sign says that they still go down, you know, and and I I really believe in development. I'd like to see this development, but you know, I was concerned with just small trucks. You bring semis down that I that's really a small street. I

Other questions or comments? Seeing none, calling the question on item number are we on 12? Item number 12. Item number 12 fails. Making item number 13 relevant. So, moving on. So, we'll remove item number 13 from the agenda. Item number 14 starts with a public hearing. Approve the bids for the Iron Horse Park Trail project and authorize the mayor to negotiate and sign contract documents for schedule one with TL Sun Contractors Inc. of Lexington, Nebraska in the amount of $150,62.30 and schedule two with Pollson Inc. of Koad Nebraska in the amount of $13,000 $813. So, we're opening a public hearing on this item. Brent, would you do us a little bit of information on what's going on here?

Good evening again. Um, this is on the if you're familiar with Iron Horse Park, it's over with Kaboo where we used to have the visitor center. The north part is asphalt that has been deteriorating and we received a as part of this with the public hearing as we received um a game parks grant money which is an 8020 grant to redo that part of the trail. But the two parts in front of you are is the north part redoing the asphalt into concrete and then extending it on the east part of the lake south and it's going to tie back into that first dock is first coming from the east. So that's the two segments we bid it looking at trying to at the time make sure the budget worked. So we have the two sections and we have two biders and initially we're looking at um the game and parks grant being just one portion but the bids came in so well we can do both portions with the grant money. So the the public hearing part was just to allow public any input or comments on redoing the rail around the lake with these two sections.

Thank you Brent. So, if anyone would like to make a comment um about the trails or the process, feel free to come up and go ahead and make that comment. To close the public hearing second.

A motion by Garrick, second by RER to close public hearing. Following the question on closing public hearing. Public hearing is closed. Council will now consider item 14. Approve the bids for Iron Horse Park project. Authorize mayor negotiate signed contract documents for schedule one with TLS con constructors inc. of Lexington, Nebraska in the amount of $151,62.30 and schedule two with Pollson Inc. of Kad Nebraska in the amount of $13,813.

Mr. Mayor, I move to approve the bids for the Iron Horse Trail Park Trail project and authorize the mayor to negotiate and sign contract documents for schedule one with TL Sun Construction Inc. of Lex Lexington, Nebraska in the amount of 151,62.30 schedule two with Paul Inc. of Kak Nebraska in the amount of $13,813 no second. Motion by RER, second by Volos. We have any discussion on item number 14? Go ahead, Brad. Um, so this is existing trails that we're going going to be redoing. Is that what you said?

Um, the schedule one is existing trail that we're redoing. Schedule two is an addition on the east side of the lake and it ties back into the dock. So, schedule two is an extension of what's there. Gotcha. when we have a master plan to get all the way around the lake. We do. Yes. Okay. Because because my concern is and I like this project a lot. Anytime we can do our trails, I do them. Um but if I'd rather have old beat up trails and then extend it than to redo it or is it that bad? It's pretty bad, but with what we're looking at looks like there's a good opportunity we can get around the rest of the lake maybe at this year. Okay. for

working with game and parks and some other pieces. And then what we'd like to do is get all the way around this year if we can. So leave it to the experts. I I would say also for the funding, this is coming from a number of different pieces, the trails group, the grants, etc. And so um very little actual city money is going towards this. It's all we put a lot of pieces together to get this. And then with these, um these bids, like Brent said, we're hoping to be able to get around the whole thing. Excellent. Okay.

I've had more calls than I can believe about benches on our trails. And first, I think our trails are one of the best assets. It's a fabulous asset in our community. I'm wondering if I completely support this, but I'm wondering if we can start to set a a formal target for bench distance between benches. I've had many requests of that from especially some of our elderly residents who really like the trail system, but want a place to take a little bit of a break. They in particular mentioned the area from the rec center west to Buffalo as a area that doesn't have one and there's not down there currently. And so what I'm wondering is if either in our parks department, wherever it's appropriate, if we can set up a target distance with a goal of getting those infilled with any new projects and any existing and then put some type of um either advertising or coordination maybe with uh some of the um mortuary services or whatnot and try to generate the donation and memorial activity that we need to get those benches set. It's pretty neat way to memorialize somebody, too. And so it just seems like we've got a few gaps in there. You smiling at me? You're working on it?

We are working on that. We're also working on trying to maybe um standardize what type of benches so it's a little more uniform along there. And so both those I don't have a good answer as far as what the distances should be, but it's something we're we're working on. And especially the piece you mentioned basically on Leo or behind Leota there from the edge of Centennial Park to Buffalo, you know, having some benches maybe strategically placed where if you take if you're sitting on it maybe for sunrise sunset kind of thing and also maybe some river view. So it's some we're starting to work on that process. We're in in the infancy stages of it. But I do like that thinking and it's something for all the trails and also around this we when we walk the south portion which would be not these two portions but to continue on around where would where are some existing benches and should they be replaced and also where would we put some other benches as part of what we looked at in that piece which is being designed right now as as we speak. So great project.

Sounds like you're getting the same calls that I'm getting in. Yeah. Thank you. Just um just a note on that topic. Uh there are some covenants between the city and the neighboring property owners along that stretch uh that say that it's supposed to be wilderness park and so we need to be careful about what we might develop along there. So just a note that we'll want to look at that before we get too deep into tree stubs carved as benches. Are you talking about the area between Centennial and Buffalo or which Okay. Yeah, because it there are areas where it does tighten up to the housing. Yeah. Yeah. Good to know. Thank you, Bill. Yeah. Do we have a breakdown of what the city's portion is going to be at all

or what we got for the grant? What did we get for the grant? The grant was 250,000. It's 8020. Okay. So, it' be 300,000 and we were looking at some of the private funds to do the match portion. Okay. On the grant part. the trails committee, some other pieces like that. How often does this particular grant come available? They have it avail. But they what I've seen just my casual observances, they kind of move it around like they usually don't have the same community get it year after year. So, okay. But it's available every year to apply for.

Do you know when the last time we had got one of these grants? Um, it's been a long time. I don't know if I would call it the city per se, but the one there was one on State Farm that the bag trail committee was able to acquire. That was the one that goes from Buffalo to about Echo on State Farm. That was Game Parks bike trail, right? Okay. So, it was probably 23 22 maybe 22. So, and and this grant's dedicated for bike trails. Is that right? Yes. Awesome. Thank you. Other questions or comments?

Seeing none, calling the question on item number 14. Item number 14 is passed. They just voted on. You didn't. Okay. It still passed. That's okay. Fat finger. Jim hates the trails. No, you don't be a recreation coming up campaign. Facebook tomorrow. It happens to everyone. You just don't want the bench. Okay, we're all getting silly because it's almost 9:00. Approve the claims. Mayor, I move that we pay bills.

Second. Motion by RER, second by BS. Any discussion on item number 15? Seeing none, calling the question on item number 15. Item number 15 is passed. Public agenda requests respect our city employees request that any complaints or criticism 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. Anyone has a public agenda request item, please approach the microphone. Let us know what your thoughts are. Mr. Raker, Mr. Mayor, I move that we adjourn. Second.

Motion by RER, second by BS to adjourn. Calling the question and adjournment. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you everyone. We'll see you in about two weeks.