City Council - Regular Meeting

I'd like to call this City Council meeting to order September 8, 2026, 5.30 p.m. I'd like to inform the public about the location of the Open Meetings Act posted in the Council Chamber and is accessible to members of the public. At this time, we'll have a moment of silence and followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Roll call, please.

Greenquist?

Here.

Arns?

Here.

Webb? McCarthy?

Here.

Beckman? Here. Jensen? Here. Lange? Here. Hildebrand?

Here.

Mayer?

Here. All right. At this time, we will now open public comment period. Each speaker will have up to five minutes to address the mayor and council. In accordance with the Nebraska Open Meetings Act, the council and city staff will listen carefully to your comments. However, we will not be able to respond to questions or engage in discussion during this portion of the meeting. We ask that all comments be directed to the mayor and city council and be presented with respectful manner. We appreciate your input. And your comments will be taken into consideration by city council as part of all decision making process. So it is a little frustrating when you come up here and speak. I'd ask you first to also when you come up, please state your name and sign in when you get up here. And then it is frustrating because we can't respond back to you because it's not on our agenda. Now we can ask questions for clarification. And if we do that in the middle of your five minutes, we'll extend your time to talk. So we won't interrupt you and then ask a question, we'll give you your time while you're up here. So keep that in mind, but I understand the frustration when you feel like you're talking to a blank face and they're not responding to you. We just can't. But it does provide good information for us in how we make our decisions moving forward. So it looks like David's ready to roll here. He's going to start us off. So you have the floor, sir.

Good late afternoon. David Jansma. First I want to talk about, and it's not the first time I've talked about it, is the stop sign at Clearfield and Dover. The chief did go up and monitor some things. When he chose to be there, it wasn't as crazy as it has. For the heck of it, I drove around yesterday, the town, and I counted 20 stop signs at intersections in areas that don't have much traffic in this town. One of them's a dead end street. I don't want anybody hurt. I don't want an accident. Just last week, I watched a gal crossing there at Dover, and a gal turned around her. She went around her in the car like that. I watched the delivery truck turn and not look and almost hit somebody. I'm sorry. I don't want to see anybody hurt. It's time to put a stop sign there, period. The next thing we're going to cover is flock cameras. I'm fine with it. I don't break the law. I don't behave. And if one of my family members, whether it be a wife, a daughter, a grandkid, was missing, I want everything possible to help find them. And I think that's how we should look at it. They're out there again. I just went to Scotts Bluff and from Bartlett on I counted nine all the way on the back way to Alliance and stuff. So I personally don't see it as an issue. I see a lot of people thinking it violates their constitutional rights and things. But I'll bet if one of their family members was missing, they'd want every asset used there as possible. I appreciate your time, everybody.

Thank you.

Hello, Sasha Bone for the record. Good evening, mayor, council, and community members. Earlier this year I introduced a concept NOVA, Norfolk's Opportunities for Vision and Action. I created NOVA because I wanted to bring something different to the council table. We hear a lot about what isn't working, problems, complaints, frustrations, things that need to be fixed. Those conversations are important. But if we only talk about what's wrong, eventually we forget to talk about what is going right. And there is a lot that is going right with Norfolk. For the past few months, I brought numbers to these meetings showing the positive things happening in our community. Next month, I'm gonna bring overall summer numbers and measurable impact, but tonight, rather than numbers, I wanna share a few stories with you, stories that remind us of what is happening right here in Norfolk. One of those stories is Don Wisniewski, also known as Wiz, and the incredible group of people behind Big Bang Boom, Freedom Fest, and the Freedom Point Memorial. At Big Bang Boom, I experienced something I don't think I'll ever forget. Families were together, people were laughing, celebrating, and then came the moment of silence. A quiet so deep you could hear the leaves swaying in the wind among thousands of people. As I stood there looking towards that flag, I felt something. At that moment, we weren't divided by our differences, we weren't focused on what was wrong or right. We were simply people standing together, remembering who served and those who sacrificed. We became one community. Wiz and his group didn't just create an event, they created a moment for Norfolk, a place where we could celebrate, remember, and come together. And now, each night when I see that flag, I think about that moment, think about the vision that created it, the people who took action to make it happen, and the reminder that vision and action don't end when an event is over. The flag is still standing, waving in the night sky beneath a magnificent light, a symbol that the vision is still here, and the action continues. Another example is artworks. Kara Weanda Gaster in the River Point Creative District. Arts work carries the same spirit of creativity and possibility. Someone looked downtown Norfolk and asked, what if we created a place where people could share what they make, what they love, and what they're capable of? That idea became a place where creativity as a home, where local talent can be discovered, where a child can imagine what they might create someday. That's vision. That's action. And the third and final story for tonight, our city and Norfolk departments and staff, I see vision. I see people asking, what will Norfolk families need? What will our children need? What will make people want to live here, stay here, and raise their families here? And that's when they took action. They bring together city staff. community leaders, donors, volunteers, collaborators, people willing to invest their time, resources, and hearts. Because of that, families have places to gather, children have places to play, people have places to connect, and that matters. Because when we talk about making Norfolk a great place to live, we're really talking about people. A child getting to run and play, a family making memories, parents feeling proud, seeing possibilities for future, that's what happens when a community chooses to invest in itself. And that's where I keep seeing in Norfolk, people with vision, people willing to collaborate and simply ask, how can I help? It's not one person, it's not one department, it's not one organization, it's all of us. And these are just three stories of many. There are so many people in Norfolk quietly doing extraordinary things. NOVA cannot tell all the stories in one night, but I hope it can start us looking for them. I want to keep asking, what if? What could we create, who can bring it together, What could Norfolk look like for the next generation? And then have the courage to say, let's make this happen. Tonight, I want to say thank you. To the visionaries, collaborators, donors, volunteers, city staff, and every single person who has ever looked at Norfolk and thought, we can make this better. Because that's how a community grows. One idea, one person, one conversation, one I'll help. Until eventually we look around and realize we've built something pretty special. That's the Norfolk I see, that's the Norfolk I believe in. And I want others to be part of these stories. My contact information is gonna be provided to the city council members, city staff. I give permission for it to be shared throughout our community. I want to be that advocate for the people doing great things in Norfolk and bring those stories forward to this council so they can be recognized and celebrated. Again, to finalize, one story can inspire another. One idea can create action. And together, we keep moving Norfolk forward. That's Nova. Thank you. I will, if it's okay, I don't know if it's possible, I do have just a copy of what I read with my contact information, if I could share that with you if anyone asks for it. Is that possible?

Yeah, go ahead and pass it on. Anybody standing, you can come on in now. We've got a little break in time. There's some seats up here, and it looks like there's plenty of seating out there. If you want to find a place, it's up to you. You can stand if you want to.

Mayor and city council, city employees, I'm Pastor Tai. It's good to follow up behind what was said in Nova. Over the last five years, now being involved in observing what's going on in city council, there's a couple of observations that I want to bring to our attention. I told my church recently that if I was to ask them to go outside and walk the sidewalk, that none of them would have a problem doing that. But if I was to take that same sidewalk and put it 40 feet in the air, everyone would freeze up. And the issue is that when we're worried about failure, it frees us, stops us from taking risks. I think a lot of what has happened, it's not just unique to Norfolk but throughout our country, is everyone has angst, everyone operates more from a lack of listening and bitterness rather than from how do we work together to make some great things happen like the last lady just talked about. And so I think it's good that we have people who are visionaries in our community And I think it's important that we take away from this is the importance for all of us to be better listeners. A friend of mine gave me a leadership proverb book when I was heading off to college. And in there, I can only remember one thing out of the entire book, and it was this. If communication is cited as the problem, it's that people are not listening, not that people are not talking. During the Citizens Committee, when we were giving advice on priorities and how to move forward as a city, Steve gave us a wonderful picture of the plans that they have for the roads, the information, and have a good data-driven approach. And some of us asked, why has this not been told before? And Steve kind of blushed, and he says, this was offered multiple times. It was in the paper. It was announced. It was put on gossip on Facebook and all such things. I think it's important for all of us that we become better listeners. I think it's also important for you guys as counsel and as mayor is to be effective leaders and to move forward. Every organization, town and community is going to have the delegation disgruntled and a lot of times they can put the sidewalk 40 feet in the air and paralyze you from making the decisions that you need to make. And it's not that we ignore things, it's not that we don't tackle hard problems and one of the things I appreciate about our community is that we do tackle hard problems. I think we need to be careful that we become better listeners I think it's important that we attack problems and not people. I'm really happy and proud to be in Norfolk. And there was a lot of negative talk when we were coming through with the proposal for the half cent tax increase to be able to better provide for our law enforcement and our police and also for our roads. And as a council, as a committee, the proposal that we put together, we were nervous because we knew how dire our streets are. But we can't know the future. So we take risks and I'm really happy when I was reading our new finance manager, his report and how things are going better than we all thought possible. We anticipated over 10 million for the city, the police station project. It's coming in under 10, which means the original amount of money that we wanted to raise for roads is going to be available and we'll have it all paid off in cash within four years rather than a seven year bond. And a lot of times we had people complaining and listening, and sometimes we just need to trust the process, to be cordial, to attack problems and not people. And if we do this, then we can become a community that attracts businesses. And everyone in this room I'm sure knows that the biggest need that we have for our community now is to bring in the businesses. And we have a place that's great to live to make that happen. So thank you for your service. Thank you for your hope. And I pray that as a community, we become better listeners. and we move forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Feel free to come forward.

All right. Before I start, I would like to note that I do have

If you don't mind, before you get going, state your name and sign in.

Oh, sorry, Greg Eckhart.

Thank you.

And that I do have a speech impediment, which I have noted to Kylie, so I would ask to be allowed to finish this, because basically this speech is like 600 words. So, you know, for someone who can speak normally, this would be five minutes. So, with that said... Good evening. My name is Greg Eckhart, and I live here in Norfolk, Nebraska. And I'm the founder of the Facebook group, D-Flock Norfolk, Nebraska. I'm here about the six flock safety cameras, which are operated by Norfolk PD. Although the chief has publicly announced he wants to install more on private businesses and schools. On January 5th, 6 minutes and 17 seconds, into the city council meeting, this council approved the flock cameras as part of a 13-item consent agenda with no separate vote or discussion, which I feel was a mistake. The reason that these Which the reason these are controversial is that they read more than just license plates. And they share data very differently from your phone or from your doorbell camera, which both need a warrant. In fact, in Sheboygan, Wisconsin, it recently came to light that Flock keeps data for That block keeps data for five years, because basically Flock offered to actually sell them back data that was five years old. So then they realized that, and then they actually shut their program down, because they were like, wow, that was not part of the agreement. So anyways... And so the flock camera itself is mostly not the issue. The actual network which it ties into is the issue. And who controls that network, which is, of course, flock safety. Now FLOC has made numerous changes to these cameras operations since they were installed. And this council didn't get to actually vote on those changes, which I see as being very problematic. Because we elected you to actually represent us. And you have had no voice in this. So. And it's my opinion that with Flock, it's actually structurally not possible to let you actually have the voice, which I think you should have. So the Flock Transparency Portal, hosted by Flock, lists that we are currently sharing network data with 267 agencies in 37 states. And now basically only 24 of those are based here in the state of Nebraska. In fact, actually Missouri has 25. So we're sharing more with Missouri than here in Nebraska. And basically of those 267, we have two which are basically risk centers, which stands for regional risk. which stands for Regional Information System Sharing. And there's six of these. And they're basically like structured throughout the whole country. And so these two, they basically share with, or they, or basically rather they have like 5,100 member agencies. And also they share with the whole risk system. which is basically six of them. And if you bring them all in, that's actually 11,200 of these member agencies in 50 states and in Canada and England and New Zealand. So now me going to get some coffee is being shared to New Zealand, which is pretty absurd, I think. And then also, we are sharing with the Missouri Information Center, which is a U.S. Department of Homeland Security fusion agency, which then shares with some other federal agencies, which is concerning. And then when you add those, and then... And then when you add those 267 to the total, if you just count those two out of six, which we share with, we currently reach 5,364 agencies, and basically Canada also. And if you were to count the actual whole risk system, which you should, because the system is built to basically be sharing with one another. So that would bring us to basically currently we are sharing with 11,467 agencies globally. which is pretty absurd. And there is this question, which I think that the council should definitely ask of this system. And that question is, does Norfolk have national lookup enabled? Because if it does, then that number goes even higher, even though it's totally absurd already. It actually goes higher. And then flock safety also publicly admits to using flock camera data for actual AI training, which I've read the actual Nebraska State Privacy Act in regard to the ALPRs, and there is actually no allowance in there whatsoever to be sharing data to be used to actually train the AI. So it would seem to me that's illegal. And... And then so when the flock transparency portal is telling us that we currently share with 267, that is actually the floor. It's not the ceiling. Basically, the ceiling is probably somewhere closer to 12,000 agencies. And then just to basically close, I would like to say that I'm making a voter information sheet, which will be shared to the Facebook page, D-Flock Norfolk, Nebraska, which I will let people know how basically the actual city council candidates feel about these flock cameras so that the voters will be basically able to make their own choice. And with that, thank you for your time and have a great night.

Thank you for your presentation.

We're going to get a room here. Nice.

You did a nice job.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Turn. Turn.

Just another reminder, just make sure to state your name before you get started.

Hi, my name is Brandon Pruden. I'm a newer resident in Norfolk. I used to live all the way in Ewing. I'm here, again, to talk to you about the cameras that have previously been spoken on. These cameras added to the police department's arsenal are called Flock cameras, an AI-powered license plate reader that reads and records every license plate that comes across in the past 30 days it was originally recorded. I was eventually informed by a meeting with Captain Mike Bauer, our ALPR administrator for Norfolk, that FLOC has decided to change that to only seven days. I ask what is then the purpose of keeping data for only seven days if by the time you go to use that data there in another state, a state we might not have access to. But I mean, clearly we have access to 12,000, so that might not be that much. However, the six cameras in this town has told by the transparency portal have recorded 112,966 license plates in the past 30 days. That is way more than we even have population in Norfolk. And there have only been 17 searches put in by Norfolk with 132 hot list hits. Hot list hits being hits that were put out by other states, other departments. So when we're taking in 112,000 license plates, yet we're only looking for 150 something, I feel like we're taking in more private information like license plates and asking ourselves where, and these plates are not just visible to PD. I might have counted wrong, but I counted before I came into this meeting. I counted 275 departments and agencies that we are sharing data with. And then if you add risk, it goes way up to the sky. But on the surface, we are sharing with 275 departments and agencies with my last count. But we are only receiving data from about 70 departments and agencies. So if someone that had a hit put out on them by another state comes to Norfolk, we only have the option for 75 departments to give us that information. Whereas if your camera is recorded in Norfolk, someone in Texas, Missouri, Canada, England can now see exactly where your license plate has been in Norfolk. Or even Antelope and Madison County who now have cameras as well. These cameras not only seem to be a violation of our Fourth Amendment due to them possibly being a violation a unreasonable search of following your license plate around. But again, these were not fully ran by city council. They were shoved into a budget bill because they were cheap enough, $20,700, which isn't a lot in the entire budget, but when I got the information from finance, I saw that below it, that was about half of our animal control budget. $20,700 could go to better things. These cameras... Communities like Ord have already showed that these cameras can be removed. Ord voted to have the county remove the cameras that were in their city borders, as well as even places like Los Angeles, which had hundreds of cameras, voted to suspend their contract and either rethink the contract or terminate it fully. I hope Norfolk can be yet another pioneer for opposing these cameras and the current decision to not let the people speak about the issue by moving the proposed ordinance to a closed session seems wrong, as well as at the moment, as far as I know, not letting the ordinance creators speak out for their ordinance and instead letting a flock safe security representative come and sell you on why you should keep the cameras. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Megan Bola. Good evening, mayor, city council members, and our fellow residents. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak tonight. I'm here to address a quiet but deeply concerning shift happening right under our noses on our public streets, the rapid expansion of flock safety automated license plate readers. While these little black cameras on metal poles are marketed to us as harmless tools for public safety, the reality is much more invasive. They represent a sweeping AI-powered system of warrantless mass surveillance that fundamentally alters the relationship between the government and everyday citizens. When we walk or drive through our communities, we should not have to accept the reality of being treated like constant suspects, yet that is exactly what these cameras do. They capture the rear of every single vehicle that passes, tracking where you go, when you go, and how often. This isn't just about capturing random string of numbers on a license plate. These systems use artificial intelligence to log identifying vehicle characteristics and build a supposedly temporary searchable database of our daily routines. This is an unprecedented overreach of local authority into the private lives of innocent people who have committed no crime Furthermore, the data collected on law-abiding citizens does not just stay with our local law enforcement. It is stored in a centralized database managed by a private for-profit corporation, and FLOC maintains access to these records and retains capability to share information widely. We have already seen documented abuses across the country. According to tracking data compiled in the ALCU Get the FLOC Out toolkit, These networks have been leveraged for unauthorized tracking without warrants, personal targeting of journalists, and flawed matches that result in wrongful police stops and false accusations against innocent people. Some examples. I missed. In Wisconsin in 2026, an officer was charged with misconduct after trying five times to search his ex-girlfriend's vehicle. So officer misuse in Colorado in 2025. A driver's Subaru blocked in a parking lot by county deputies. It was a database entry error. A number one was typed in instead of an I. In 2025, a 12-year-old was handcuffed and a 17-year-old honors student held at gunpoint a month later because a plate was misread. Once we open the door to this level of continuous monitoring, it becomes incredibly difficult to close. Surveillance technology doesn't shrink over time, it expands. What starts as a tool to look for stolen cars quickly scales into a network that logs, categorizes, and judges the movements of every single resident. Supporters argue that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. The secure community does not require its citizens to hand over their constitutional right to privacy to a third-party corporation just to drive on the roads. We can invest our tax dollars into proven community-oriented safety measures, local infrastructure, and transparent policing rather than funding an ever-expanding corporate surveillance state. This is not a partisan issue. Civil liberties groups, private advocates, and community members across the political spectrum are standing up to saying no. To date, over 153 cities across the United States have already listened to their residents and deactivated or canceled their flock contracts. Our communities should join them. We deserve a community that is safe, but true safety does not require us to surrender our fundamental right to privacy and freedom of movement. We should not let a private corporation profit off the tracking of our citizens. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Paul Muncy. I've been a resident here for about eight years. I'm also here to speak about Flock. There have been some things brought up about abuses of Flock in the past, abuses by police officers, abuses. You might be aware of some of the things where Flock employees have logged into girls' gyms and watched them a lot for some reason. I hope that one of the things is you're considering this. I hope that you're not just thinking about the legality, whether or not we have Fourth Amendment issues, privacy issues, because some of those might get fixed, right? Some of those issues we might be able, the reason why we know some cops have abused us is because they got arrested, right? The question is, what type of society do we want to live in? if Flock or any other company likes it, is successful and is able to fix the issues that it has, what we will end up with is living in a surveillance state. We are in that place. We often talk about a slippery slope. We're down the slope now. When citizens can be watched 24-7, when patterns of our life can be discerned through AI, This is not just something that our police department will have access to, our state, our federal government. We often talk about, and I think this is a good point, the point was raised, if I had a family member that got kidnapped, I want them to be found. Well, if we put a camera inside every home and put a tracker on every car, we could stop crime completely. I don't want to live in that society. I'd rather live in a society where there's some risk, but I still know that I have autonomy. There have been talks at the federal level about creating programs that can predict crime. If we partake in that, because we don't have control over the state, we don't have control over the federal government, we do have control about our community right here. We can make the decision to not partake in something that is, quite frankly, on the same level of what the Chinese government does. and other totalitarian regimes. I hope that as you make this decision, you think about what the future repercussions will be, and not because of the legality, not because there's gonna be a few bad apples, but a society that lives under constant surveillance is a society that is not free. It can't be free. I can't make decisions, and none of us can make decisions freely if we know we're always being watched. It changes behavior. I just hope you'll keep that in mind as you think about what the future of our city is going to look like. Thank you.

Okay, I'm a new resident, about a year and a half in. First meeting here, first thing that I've actually really had an opinion with. My name is Elgin Ferno. I am a Nebraska Army National Guard veteran, served from 98 to 2006. So yes, I did do my fair share on active duty. Me and my brother fought very hard. to keep this country safe from tyranny and overreach. It concerns me that we even got to this point. For the idea of safety, I'm going to make this very short and simple. Benjamin Franklin. Quotes, those who will give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety. That's our founding father speaking there. Wise men. They set up the Constitution, and they set it up for a reason. Do the right thing. Thank you.

Before you take off, can you state your name real quick?

Elgin Furnow.

Elgin?

Yep.

Nice to meet you and welcome to Norfolk and thanks for your service.

Wow, it looks like we're using up more sheets than normal. That's a wonderful thing. My name is Angie Cornett. I live here in Norfolk. And I am also here to speak about flock. And as somebody who has worked on multiple petition drives across the state of Nebraska, I can tell you that very, very few things have such bipartisan agreement across the state. This is mass surveillance. Even the flock experts have been trained to pivot when mass surveillance is brought up because there is no denying that that's exactly what this is. They're also trained to get their flock experts before city councils, before any public comments or testimony can be made. There is a reason why these cameras were quietly erected without the knowledge of citizens. That too is part of their playbook. Get the flock in, then attempt to prove its value to the people later. I don't trust AI. We had a Ring camera at our house without realizing the company was partnered with Flock. When the camera started providing a transcription of what it saw, describing in detail objects, animals, people, and their behavior, it was creepy. The device had never done that before, or at least not within our line of sight. That is when we disconnected the Ring doorbell, much like many cities and municipalities have been canceling flock leases. We only know what Flock tells us about the capabilities of their technology. And we've already seen that they are willing to lie about the capabilities. And they have also shown that they have been keeping data for longer. Who else can tap into that information behind the scenes? Who are the administrators and the super users of this technology who have access far beyond and above what our local officers have access to. People with the most limited access to these systems will likely never know there are excess capabilities and features beyond what they can see at the level they've been approved at. AI on these flock cameras and similar devices is constantly searching without a warrant and putting pieces of information together, whether officers look it up or not. Slippery slope, again. That data can be searched by unscrupulous characters without our knowledge. Is this data something the federal government can demand access to, like they demanded access to voter data? It's not that I don't trust our local police department. I don't trust big tech oligarchs, and I don't trust our government, no matter who is in power. Think about our president and our future presidents, whether it is President Trump or maybe a future President Mondami. Do we trust every single future presidential administration not to abuse the power that lies within this technology? You cannot unring a bell, even with good intentions. If you accept mass surveillance for a proposed subscription to lower crime rates, what will you be asked to give up in order to make our communities safer from gun violence? I would encourage everybody on the council and community members, if you have not read the book, 1984, by George Orbow, you should, because it really feels like we are starting to descend into an Orwellian dystopian nightmare. Thank you.

Hello, I'm Tucker, and I've been a resident here for quite a few years. My, I guess the subject tonight that I'll be talking about would be the flock cameras and what they're about. I guess right off the bat, no is my answer to it to begin with. And I feel that the cameras will do more harm than good than what we think they are gonna do. And how I've come to my conclusion, And it will be presented in the facts that I have researched and gathered over the time. There have been many reports of officers using and abusing this software. Police officers from Kentucky using it to track his ex-girlfriend. A police officer in North Carolina just got arrested for tracking her boyfriend's ex-girlfriend. And then six police department employees in Savannah, Georgia have also been fired for abuse. uh... here recently as an artist twenty five a twenty twenty six there has been a class basket action lawsuit about law enforcement stalking harassing in surveilling in this instance for in the first reasons this would be short burst flock group incorporated over one hundred thousand cameras have been put up across the communities together they build a searchable map of your movements whether you have or have not done anything wrong at all uh... Here, LAPD audited the FOG system. One in every three alerts are misreads, and innocent families have been pulled over at gunpoint because of this. And right now, there is also currently another lawsuit testing the constitutionality of the FOG data and its shares, which would be Schmidt v. the City of Norfolk, Virginia. Not here. And now some, I mean everybody else that came up here earlier, they put some down on some good facts that I haven't come across yet. So thank you guys for that. Some more fun facts and a little bit more research as you go. Now Flock in 2025 had done a $250 million fundraiser. Among the investors that invested into that fundraiser a venture capital group named Founders Funds. One has invested into it. How much, we don't know. They haven't disclosed it at this point. And one of the persons that has started this Founders Funds is Peter Thiel. And if you don't know who that name is, I'll get to him here in a second. Now, Peter Thiel is a co-founder of Palantir Technologies, a major defense and intelligence contractor. An early investor in Facebook, and then to top on top of that, with Peter Thiel, he also has connections and emails between Jeffrey Epstein, the known sex trafficker. Let's take that into consideration. Facebook, investing into Flock, we can kind of point and connect dots here, I feel like, to a point. I mean, it just, we've got to protect our children. and what we've got to do. It's what we've got to do. With this, this is why I say no, because I see the system that I see at the beginning had good intentions, but after all the facts, I see a system now that can be weaponized and used against the people. Thank you, and have a good night.

I'm signed in right there. My name is Sam Moser, also United States Army veteran with two tours. And I feel very strongly about flock cameras, not only because it's not what I signed up for in this country. I believe in freedom. I believe in the Constitution. I swore an oath to that Constitution, and I believe very strongly. This is the first city council meeting I've ever been to, actually. in my entire short life because of how strongly I feel about this. And I speak on behalf of some people that couldn't be here, some co-workers of mine that also live in the town. And they all disagree with it. I think that they feel very strongly about it as well, that we don't live in a country where we want to be watched every second of every day. And a lot of people bring up the fact that our cell phones do the same thing, and they do. But I think the difference between these cameras and our cell phones are we actually have a choice to put away the cell phone. We have a choice to put it somewhere else. We have a choice to not take it. We have a choice not to even use one. But getting around is part of everybody's daily life. We all have to go places. We all have to move places. And being followed around, whether you're walking or driving or riding a bicycle or on a skateboard, I feel like is just un-American. And I think that this is really wrong. And I wish that there was, I previously thought, unfortunately I'm a very busy person and I was not able to do a whole lot of research, but I previously thought that six cameras were state run, but I learned that they're city run and that was upsetting to me, unfortunately, that we weren't allowed to have comment before that. And the other thing I think is just in general, AI and its use with this system and its power and how powerful it has become and why we're feeding it so much data about our own citizens is quite worrisome to me. I have pulled up here the Institute of Justice, Justice's website, and it has, just the other day I checked it because I've been reading on these, it had 214 incidents of not only law enforcement misusing FLOC, it also has stalking reports and just general errors. And there's 220 now. There was 214 the other day. So every day it seems like it's going up. And I believe that these are not needed because I believe in law enforcement. I believe that we can have the power and they have the resources and the funds in order to do their jobs without needing to follow every moves. I think that they are more than capable of doing that. I have many friends in law enforcement that I've previously served with, and I've talked to all of them about it and the power of it and what they think about it, and almost all of them unanimously say that they think that they're against it, that it's not what they signed up for when they signed up for the force, and it's not what they signed up for in the Army either to defend the country, that I agree wholeheartedly, everybody behind me, and their sentiments in that it's getting really scary. It's getting very, very tyrannical feeling. The fact that you can't go anywhere without them watching you, without them following you, without them listening into your conversations, reading your texts, reading your emails, and now you can't even drive down the street without your license plate being read. ran through a thousand databases and put on a storage server somewhere. And who knows if they're even deleting it. I mean, they say they are. I mean, I don't know. I don't have control of that. But it's worrisome. And it just feels like a total and utter invasion of my privacy and everybody around me. I speak for all the voices that couldn't make it, that are out there making a living, that they are also against it. They also feel like they don't need to be watched every second, every day in order to keep a safe community. And that should be everybody's job, keeping a safe community. And we can all work together. We can work with law enforcement with any things. And we don't need these cameras in order to watch us any further. So thank you for your time. And I hope that everybody, if another vote comes, would vote against it, and I hope that there's no more installed. And if it comes about that we can cancel the contract, I really hope we cancel this contract. And I think I speak for a lot of people in saying that we don't want them. Thank you.

Thank you. Thanks for your service, Sam. Thanks for your service, Sam.

Good evening, Council, Mayor, other public servants gathered here.

Don't mind stating your name.

Oh, sorry. My name's Kai. I'm also a public servant. I'm actually with the state agency. I'm part of NAEP Ask Me Local 61. I've got a lot of notes on ALPRs. Before I get to them, I do just want to state my main reason for coming here tonight was to oppose the proposed idea of a database center here in town. But Since ALPRs are the current topic of discussion, I want to focus on that. And I want to bring up some things that other people haven't brought up. You've gotten lots of statistics tonight. That's great. I encourage you to look at those. I'd like you to consider a broader aspect of that. With all of these issues of misuse, this is not just police. This is people within the flock or other agencies, people who just man the computers. These are people who do not have any oaths, that just have a temptation put in front of them. This is not someone who goes and seeks something out. This is someone who has the thought, I wonder what this person's doing, and now has the ability to look that up. I would also like to point out that flock and other companies like them have been notorious about putting up their facilities and their poles outside of code regulations. Most of them are embedded in concrete and they are steel poles within the safety buffers. Multiple flock cameras during car accidents have killed people because they are not crumpled pipes. They are not aluminum. Because they are trying to combat people trying to remove them for good reasons, they are putting something in place that is actively harming drivers. They are within the buffer zone and they are unable, these are immovable objects by design. I'd also like to point out that Flock as a singular company is not the biggest problem here. Axon, one of their partners, runs a much larger program which allows every camera within a city, whether it's private, whether it's a ring doorbell, or whether it's a company camera, to be used by law enforcement. This opens up all cameras in a city, even the one who's looking at me right now, to be able to analyze facial recognition, everything. That is the goal of predictive policing. And as someone who works with scientists and databases, I can look out at the council here and see a couple of faces that would probably unfortunately be flagged in the system that's currently set up. The goal of these companies is predictive policing. And CEOs like that of Palantir have said that they eventually think that government will be unnecessary. They don't want this council to be here. They want me to Instead, face a computer and make my case to a computer. They don't want Mike Bauer doing anything. They want a computer to send an email to the head of police to go out and arrest somebody. For the Republicans in the room, I would like to remind you of the Reagan administration. When Reagan was talking about community policing and community safety, one of the things that he talked about was that we should be a stronger community watching out for one another. Reagan was against the idea of making streets too big, especially in residential areas, because he disliked the idea of too much traffic and not having neighbors be able to keep an eye on each other. By implementing things like flock hammers, it's just creating more of a divide. Rather than having neighbors who look out for each other's safety, you have a company spying neighbors to make sure that you're not doing what they don't want you to. Thank you for the yellow card. I will leave off with two points. One is that this is the exact same technology that was used in China and survivors of the Xinyang prisons did talk about how they were picked up off the street by facial recognition just by being dissenters of the government. And then finally, if we really want cameras on the street and you want to make jobs, There are lots of companies out there that you can get some nice trail cameras, the same you'd use to look for deer. You can put those out and have people take down those cards and take a look at them. If you really want information, that'd be a way to do it and make some jobs. Again, thank you all very much and thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Andrew Schmitz. I'm a resident here of the city of Norfolk, and I'm also here to speak about the flock camera issue, and not just the flock camera issue, but all sort of AI-powered cameras similar to, say, flocks partners and such. You've heard a lot about the downsides and a lot of information and statistics about its abuses, how it's in reach of legality. such items like that and I encourage you to also consider along with one of my other fellow citizens here to consider the fact that this is in fact mass surveillance of everybody entering and leaving the city. I want to say I agree with one of the first speakers here that if one member of my family was in danger and I needed the police to help them if they're kidnapping, a murder, anything along those lines, I also would like them to use every tool at their disposal. The issue you have to consider is the tool itself. And many tools can be double-edged swords. Or they can just, even their intended use, can have a nefarious purpose behind it. You always still need to consider any sort of second-order effects off of that. And I don't mistake yourselves that this is, in fact, a mass surveillance system that is being put in place across the country, including in our community here in Norfolk. And I just want to speak to an argument that you constantly hear with any sort of issue on this kind of thing, which is if you have nothing to hide, then if you're not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to hide. What's the problem? The issue I always have with that is we all know what happens in the restroom, right? We all know we have a bit of privacy there. Maybe some people use that privacy for things they really shouldn't be doing. Does that mean we all should be using the restroom with the door wide open? And I ask you, instead of relying on a blunt mass surveillance tool to do effective policing, look to your community, use community policing. have a relationship with your community. I don't know if you noticed, I'm shaking a little bit here. I've noticed several of the speakers coming up here to speak to you are also visibly shaking because this sort of thing has a cooling effect on your relationship with your community. And a lot of us are speaking up here for the very first time, including myself, because we feel so strongly about this issue. And I ask you to consider that and lean to your community for providing us safety and not sacrificing our freedoms to come and go as we please. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

Good evening.

I'll sign after it when I'm done. My name is Julie Thompson, and I'll make this short. I am definitely opposed to the flock cameras, and I hope that the ones that are up now will come down and no more be put up. I would rather see this fine town use those funds that have already purchased or whatever you released, whatever you did to put them up to take the money that you would spend installing more. to go to the police department. Add more officers if that's what it takes to make our community safer. Let's rely on each other and not big tech, AI, and the government to do what a community should come together to do. Thank you.

Thanks, Julie.

Jim McKenzie, first of all, I want to say I'm extremely excited and proud to see so many citizens here exercising their right to address their elected representatives. I love it when citizens turn out and express their views and concerns. Regarding flock, I believe the city has an obligation to examine the legitimate needs of law enforcement while also prioritizing the constitutional rights and privacy expectations of our citizens. The usefulness of flock technology contrasts with the building of a searchable historical database of private citizens' movements, including dates, times, and photos across not only communities but the nation. That raises an important question. How much information should the government be permitted to collect and search about innocent people who are not suspected of committing a crime? In that end, I believe there should be an open public work session involving elected officials, legal experts, law enforcement, and most importantly the public regarding the use of flock systems to determine the future of flock in our community. But I really want to talk to you about something else in addition to this which really kind of dovetails very closely to this discussion. The salvation of the state is watchfulness in the citizen. This famous quote is the inscription carved above the main entrance of the State Capitol, Nebraska State Capitol. This quote is also the footer on most correspondence from the Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission. So what does the salvation of the state is watchfulness in the citizen mean? The core message is that a free and healthy government relies on active, attentive, and informed citizens who hold their elected officials accountable. It serves as a permanent reminder that the ultimate responsibility for preserving liberty rests with people rather than with government. And yet unfortunately, our city recently blocked the ability of our citizens to exercise this right as it relates to city subcommittee meetings. On June 26, 2025, a little over one year ago, the city council ended a 45-year-old policy of recording subcommittee meetings. thereby removing the ability of citizens to know what their elected representatives were saying behind closed doors as they debated public policy and the spending of public money. From our city's own research that the city partook of four other Nebraska cities, Norfolk is the only city to hold regular subcommittee meetings behind closed doors and not accessible to the public and now not recorded. In contrast, the City of Columbus' subcommittee meetings are open to the public and are recorded. There was no valid reason to discontinue the 45-year-old policy of recording these meetings. You are doing the public's business with the public's money. The very nature of these meetings demands openness. Nebraska's public records laws were enacted to ensure transparency, accountability, and public trust in government. Similarly, the Open Meetings Act requires that governmental bodies conduct their deliberations and decisions in public so that citizens can observe the process and participate in democratic governance. Together, these laws recognize that government belongs to the people. They were created to ensure public access to and participation in governance. The salvation of the state is watchfulness in the citizen, is a historical reminder that our forefathers felt it imperative for our citizens to remain active, attentive, and informed about government and to hold our elected officials accountable for decisions made. I urge you to honor the wisdom of our forefathers and immediately open our city council subcommittee meetings to the public and record them. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Caden Swanson. I'm sure by now you can probably guess what I'm here to talk about. I also just recently moved here to town, so it was kind of a shock. I come from a town that had less than 1,000 people. Coming here has been kind of a crazy difference, but the thing that has shocked me the most is the flock cameras. Now, I'm not here to say that I think the Norfolk Police Department is going to abuse these cameras. That's not my worries. My worries are in who has the information. We live in an age of data, where the most valuable thing you own is not your house or your car, it is your data. And having our data widely accessible to a corporation who would sell it in a heartbeat is not something that I want to do. As I've heard before, it's blatantly un-American. The concern that I have is that once we create a system capable of tracking license plates and vehicle movements, We can't control every way that that information gets used. These flock cameras don't just identify a vehicle involved in a crime, they create records of where you go. Once they create these records, they can use that information to become incredibly powerful, measuring everything that everybody in this town and surrounding communities are doing. And even if Norfolk PD follows these strict policies, what happens when the other police departments or agencies we've talked about access our databases? We may trust our local departments, but we cannot automatically extend that trust to other agencies. Those are not our elected officials. Today, the purpose might be finding a stolen car or solving serious crimes. But our technology has a way of expanding far beyond its original purpose. We know that from cell phones and computers. Policies can change. Leadership can change. Laws can change. And databases that were created for one purpose will change. We should be very careful about accepting any argument that we need to sacrifice some of our liberty in exchange for greater protection. Safety is important, but a free society depends on people being able to live their ordinary lives without being constantly tracked and monitored by governments and corporations. Once we become comfortable giving up privacy and freedom because a system might make us safer, it becomes much easier to justify giving up a little more next time. It's been said multiple times, the term slippery slope. We should not have to surrender the privacy and freedom of innocent people simply because surveillance can sometimes be useful. It's why this isn't simply a question of whether flock cameras can help police catch criminals. It's a question of whether the benefits outweigh the risk. The strongest safeguard is super simple. Cut the contract. If we don't have flock cameras, we don't have a database of innocent people's movements that can be accessed, expanded, shared, or abused. If we want to make sure this technology cannot be misused against our community, the most reliable solution is to get rid of it. What's most disappointing to me today, though, is that I have heard two different veterans stand up here and talk against flock. We're talking people who have taken an oath to defend the Constitution from threats foreign and domestic. It's disappointing that we've gotten to a point where they've had to sit here and defend the Constitution against domestic threats. I'll give my time.

Good evening. My name is Reverend Ricky Wilson, and I'm the associate pastor of Refuge Church, and I just want to offer some maybe different perspective on these cameras. Let me say that I appreciate everything that's been said by these veterans, and veterans, I commend you for your service. I've been here four years. And one of the reasons that I moved to your city was because of the safety of your city. And here's my perspective. Before I moved here, I worked for 10 years for FEMA security. I worked at the Department of Homeland Security. Basically, I was security for the headquarters for FEMA in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. And part of my job was to monitor 42 cameras that monitored all of our building. And I was thankful for those cameras. Within that 10 years that I was there, there was at least 10 murders within a two-block area of my building. But I was able to take my cameras when an incident happened Show my video to the police. I think that could be done here My opponent is I don't think that there's enough crime in this area besides the privacy issue There's not enough crime in this city to warrant these cameras. That's my perspective

Hiya, howdy, my name is Kyla Briscoe. I've lived here 10 years, and like many people, y'all haven't seen me here before, because quite frankly, I like when my politics are boring. I trust you to do your job up until now, up until I saw those cameras go up, and that is such a shame. We have a great community. Look at all these people here to talk to you, because we have faith that you will do the right thing. I want to talk about a couple things that were brought up, but I want to expand upon it, first being the initial $20,000. $20,000 is a lot of money. I know in the grand scope of things for you guys, maybe it's not, but that would be enough to feed 19 Norfolk kids breakfast and lunch for the entire school year. That is the salary for six months of our police officers. Excuse me for shaking here. That is a 911 operator's salary for five months and a firefighter's salary for approximately four months by the documentation I was able to find online. Don't you think that that money could be used to pay the people who actually serve our communities. This flock sales rep, that's what they are, is gonna come in here and they're gonna lie to you. They're gonna tell you, we audit, we are a way to hold yourself to account. Did you know in, excuse me, Just over the course of the summer, over 19 police and sheriff officials in five states have been fired, arrested, put on admin lead, or investigated by any means. And those people were not caught by FLOC or their internal audits. Those were caught by journalism, by people like me doing their civic duty. FLOC has no oversight. We can't talk to them. They'll come here, they'll talk to you, and I will never see them again. They will never be here within our community with all of these people. They have every incentive to tell you, to sell you this camera, to sell you our safety. But the crime rates are down. They are the lowest they have been in a very, very long time. We have a safe community here where people want to walk out and be around with each other. It is truly such a shame that we have to be here today. And we can't just let you work. I know there are so many other things on that docket that you wanted to get a hold of. But we're all here to tell you our opinions about this huge federal overreach. There's a back door. They don't need a warrant. And that's not just their admins. It's the ICE. It is your drug administration. It's anyone who wants access to it. Give them a reason. Yeah, sure. Go ahead. If you want to tap my phone, my ring camera, you need a warrant. That is, by our Constitution, what it's supposed to be. In the last month alone, over 55 cities have had their contracts canceled or refused by... Sorry. 55 contracts through FLOC have been canceled in August alone. I am urging Norfolk to be one of the people that joined them. Because at the end of the day, the ultimate danger we face here, the ultimate issue, is not a single villain, not a single administration. It is the permanent and quiet infrastructure that outlives everyone who built it. I'd also remind you that the more time that these are up, the more time we have to organize. And quite a few of you are up for reelection. And how you vote reflects your values. And maybe you don't respect the community you serve. So please respect us and all the people you've heard behind me. Thank you.

Anyone else?

Good evening, Mayor, Council. My name's Brad Brooks, and I'm just amazed at how much this flock camera issue has stirred up things. Comments been made by a lot of people that this is their first time ever coming up and talking and I can appreciate that but I also feel that there are a number of issues out there, a big number of issues out there, and it's not generating any level of content as to what this issue with flock cameras are. And I would encourage everybody to learn as much as they can about these issues. The one thing that I see that's driving a lot of this pro and con is big tech, AI, and everything associated with it. And I've got to believe that some of these things have occupied folks that could be better served to pay attention, to be informed as to what's going on. And I look forward to seeing, hopefully, some improvement and a better informed citizenry. Thank you.

How are we doing? Adam Geiger. All right, so data privacy is huge, guys. I do an AI tech thing. Data privacy is huge, and we don't know where the flock cameras are going with those things. We really need to be concerned of what databases hold our data. Leaks... Things like that are just a huge issue and we don't know where they're going to be going. That puts us at massive risk that we have flock cameras holding up our data on somebody's servers and we don't have control of that. We have got to watch out for that. Lawsuits will come. I mean, we have other communities in Nebraska that are getting rid of them for that reason. We have other communities across the country that are doing the same thing. I'd like to say that I do believe our police chief is doing a great job. He has done wonders for our city. He is huge in favor of these things. But we had people very recently who we had in charge of watching for our city that we had to pay out because of things, the mistakes they'd made. And just because that the people that we currently watch or have our data doesn't mean that they won't make mistakes too or couldn't make mistakes. We've got to be very careful with what we do with these flock cameras, guys. And I also want to say that this council has told me in the past that if people don't complain about something, then we're in favor of it as a community. And I would hope tonight the people here are showing you we're not in favor. Thank you.

Anyone else? All right. Well, that was informative. Thank you for coming forward this evening and sharing your message with us. I believe we had 20 citizens come up to speak tonight. That's good citizen involvement in these proceedings, so I appreciate that. With that, we will move on if there's no one else who wants to come forward. Again, we appreciate your information. I know it's frustrating we can't make comment on it, but we take it all in, so appreciate that. We will move on to our approval of consent agenda, and that would be removing 14 and 29 and adding those to the regular agenda. And before we vote on this, we're going at our regular meeting. If you want to stick around, you're welcome. They're pretty fun to sit through. But if not, you can get up and go now. It's up to you. So.

I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda.

Second. Motion to second with 14 and 29. 29 removed. All right.

And add it to the regular.

What's that?

And add it to the regular. Yeah.

And add that to the regular.

Removed and added to the regular agenda.

Just add it.

And add 14 and 29 to the regular agenda. Thank you.

And who was the second there? Andrew.

Andrew.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. Please vote.

One, two, three.

All council members present voting in the affirmative. Motion carries.

All right. With that, we'll move on to the approval of the full agenda with 14 and 29 added to it.

So moved.

Second. Motion to second, please vote.

All council members present voting the affirmative. Motion carries.

All right. Okay, at this time we'd like to open the public hearing to consider the South Norfolk Redevelopment Area Blight and Substandard Study. And we'll open discussion at this time and Val will lead us in that discussion.

So I have put up the map here. This is the regular blight and substandard study.

So I know the microphones aren't working. We have been in contact with our provider who does the microphones. They've done a system check. They have not identified any issues. We are working through the kinks. I apologize because it doesn't seem to be kinks at the beginning of the meeting, but it seems like randomly throughout the middle of the meeting we're starting this echo. We are actively working on it. I apologize to everybody.

Okay, it seems to be coming from maybe outside mics, those two mics. Do we just want to have people come forward to this mic and speak up here?

We certainly can.

Then we're not, I don't know.

Okay, good to know. Love technology. Good to see all of you again. My name is Keith Carl. I'm a community planner with Hannah Keelan Associates, a planning research firm out of Lincoln, Nebraska. We've had the good fortune of working in your community before on a number of different planning and development projects, and this one includes a blight and substandard determination study for what is considered the South Norfolk Redevelopment Area, which is what is highlighted on the maps on the screens. Back in mid-2025, we conducted field surveys, on-site research in terms of finding information regarding condition of structures, age of structures, condition of parcels within the designated redevelopment area, the existence of blight and substandard conditions as it relates to the criteria within the Nebraska Community Development Law. The research we had found 218 parcels exist within this designated redevelopment area. That includes 181 primary structures. Our analysis found out we have 55 structures in minor deterioration or worse. 83 was the average age of structures, which the The blight substandard criteria through the community development law says a blighting factor for age of structure 40 years of age or older is considered a significant blighting factor. So your median age of structures, average age rather, average age of structures is 83 years of age. There were 149 structures within this area that exceeded the age criteria of 40 years. And about 75 parcels or site conditions were rated in fair or poor condition, which can mean anything from poor air, light ventilation, poor sanitation, the existence of minor and major debris and things of that nature. So there were a number of blight and substandard criteria that were identified as having a reasonable or a strong presence of factor within the redevelopment area. So, you know, it does meet the criteria. set forth by the Nebraska Community Development Law to have a blight substandard designation and this is also you know approving this area tonight is also the first step in utilizing extreme blight which I know is later on the agenda we can talk about that when that comes up but you know this would be the first step on having this study approved to be able to consider that designation so those are just some of the findings out of our out of our study if you have any questions or comments I can take those at this time

You said the average age of structures was 83 years old in that area?

Okay. And that's looking at primary structures, so that would be like the primary house or the primary building on the property.

Gotcha. So if the structures on this list, sewer mains and water mains, are fairly, really old in that neighborhood then too?

Yes, we did also... contact city staff to get an analysis on public infrastructure, the water and the sewer within the areas, streets, sidewalks, things of that nature.

All right.

Any other questions? All right. Any other public input on this?

Thank you.

Thank you. If not, I'm going to close the hearing and move on to item number 32. Consideration resolution 2020 26-37 approving the South Norfolk redevelopment area blight substandard study I Would move for consideration of resolution number 20 26-37 second Your honor I'll be abstaining from this vote. All right. Thank you with that. We have a motion second. We'll open it up for discussion again Any questions at this particular time I'll put open for public again. All right, seeing none, please vote.

Voting in the affirmative, McCarthy, Granquist, Jensen, Lange, Hildebrand, Beckman, abstaining, Ahrens. Resolution 2026-37 is adopted.

All right, with that being said, we will open up a hearing, public hearing to consider the extreme blight determination analysis for a site generally located South of Homo Avenue, east and west of South First Street. And Val, would you like to be careful with your mic?

I'm just going to play it safe, and I need to stand up anyway. So I brought up the extreme blight to the presentation board here. And this, like he said before, The regular blight and substandard is the first step before you can have extreme. You have to have that underlying regular blight before you can put the extreme on top of it. And so on this map, you'll see that that kind of, I'm going to say light green, leaf green, the word Jackson Avenue, you kind of see that. That is what you just passed. And then the pinkish is the East Omaha Avenue redevelopment plan. That was adopted probably 10 years ago, something like that. So where the extreme blight overlaps with the census block, that's kind of the mint green, is your hatched area. So the hatched area is what we are talking about with the extreme blight. And so before Hannah Keelan comes up, they can explain kind of the extreme blight, but I'm I can't remember if I went over this when it was forwarded to Planning Commission or not, the percentages of blight and extreme blight. So LB 1114 became effective kind of mid-July. And so whereas previously our 35% maximum for the city was city limits, now it's city limits and ETJ. So we have a lot more acreage of that 35% now. Because you adopted the South Norfolk blight study, we would be at 7.44% of our 35% maximum. If you adopt the extreme blight, that then comes out. That does not count towards your 35%. So if you adopt the extreme blight, you would take out about 364 acres, and that would take you down to 6.66% if that gets adopted. And then, like I said, Hannah Keelan is here to kind of explain the criteria of the extreme right, and if you have any questions for them.

Thank you, Val.

Okay, so as we have discussed, the South Norfolk Redevelopment Area does have a portion that lies within Block group two of census tract 9611, that is the analysis area for extreme blight. So what we did was the two criteria that pertain to extreme blight status would be poverty rate greater than, it used to be 20%. Thanks to LB 1135, it's now down to 15%. So you went from 20% to 15%. The poverty rate within that area, the hatched area, is 21.6% as per the 2024 American Community Survey estimate, which by the extreme blight standard criteria, you have to use the latest and greatest of the American Community Survey data to find out this information. So again, the required poverty rate must be greater than 15%. It is now 21.6%. The other requirement being unemployment greater than 200% of the state rate. Well, I'm sorry, 200% of the state rate is what it used to be. And again, with 1135, LB 1135, that's now down to 150%. So state unemployment sits at 3.4%, again, as per the community survey estimate. The area that we're looking at has an unemployment rate of 16.7%. So the unemployment in the area is 391.2% higher compared to the state. So those are the two major criteria, actually the two only criteria that are required for extreme blight designation, which as per the 2024 American Community Survey data, this area is It meets both of those standards. It meets both of those criteria.

It would have met it before LB 1135 then?

Yes. Yeah, with the 20% of poverty rate and the 200% unemployment rate greater than 200% of the state, even without the changes from LB 1135, it still would have met that criteria.

I think that's important to know. Thank you.

So some of the... Benefits of extreme blight designation is state income tax credit for home buyers. Individuals who buy a home to live in as their primary residence within an extremely blighted area can qualify for a state income tax credit of up to $5,000. It does not apply to rental properties or existing owners already in the home. There's also extended tax increment financing. Most TIF redevelopment projects in Nebraska are limited to a 15-year term. Extreme blight designation would give you a 20-year term. And then finally, housing trust fund priority. Developers building affordable housing projects in the extreme blighted area can receive priority and positive funding consideration when applying for dollars from Nebraska Affordable Housing Trust Fund. So there are benefits to the redevelopment of this area, especially as it relates to affordable housing and for people that are desiring to move to the area or find a home in that area that they can have some financial assistance to be able to cover that.

Is there something that could be used within this for people who own their own homes, have lived there for a long time, they're deteriorating, they need help, is there something within this that can help them?

Well, the blight designation itself can potentially do that because you have the increment that can be used on public infrastructure. It can also be used on housing rehabilitation based upon the funds that are set up by the city and then what's set up through the CRA or the CDA, whatever the organization may be. Any other questions, other comments?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone from the public have any questions for us or have questions about this area? All right. Seeing none, I will close the hearing and ask for a motion to consider Resolution 2026-38, approving the extremely blighted determination analysis for the site generally located south of Omaha Avenue and east and west of South First Street.

Governor, I move consideration of Resolution 2026-38. Second.

You're out. I'll be abstaining from this vote.

All right, we have a motion and a second. Please vote.

Voting in the affirmative, McCarthy, Granquist, Jensen, Lange, Hildebrand, Beckman, abstaining, Ahrens, Resolution 2026-38 is adopted.

All right, moving on to the regular agenda, item number 35, consideration of ordinance number 5993, amendment section 2-5 of the city code to update fire permit fees, garbage and trash fees, water meter fees, and library fees.

I'll offer consideration. Second.

All right, we have a motion and a second. We'll go into discussion here. We've got a lot of people involved in this one. Are they all here? I don't know who wants to come forward. I guess we'll start with the fire permit fees. Chief, do you want to come first?

Good evening, Mayor and Council. Our Fire Marshal, Sean, was hoping to be here tonight, but he had a family commitment, so I'm going to speak on his behalf and our behalf as far as these fees. Basically, what you'll see or would have seen in your packet is a couple different changes. One is raising our minimum fee up to $36.25 for our fire permit fee, and that's to get in line with what Val's doing for basic building permit fees. They had a formula that they used to get to that point. We hadn't adjusted that number since 2018, so used this as an opportunity to catch that specific number up. pertains to fire alarm systems and fire suppression systems. So those minimum fees in the fire suppression system is run by the heads, the amount of fire sprinkler heads in the structure. So once you exceed, I think we figured, 19, you get above the threshold and have to start to fall in line with the $2.50 per head. So you'll see a couple different changes where we raised our minimums from $1.50 a head to two dollars per head and again that doesn't go into effect unless you have nineteen heads or more in your specific building uh... the other again was the fire alarm systems uh... that we went from two dollars per activating device that senses uh... that you have issues in your building uh... to two dollars and fifty cents again a fifty cents increase and the minimum cost for buildings is thirty six dollars twenty five cents to match what we did with the heads. And in that system, once you exceed 14 heads or detection heads, then you engage that $2.50 per head. A couple of recent examples, had Sean pull a couple examples for some recent, I won't go into whose facilities these were, but for example, we had a fee paid recently that was $273 for a new fire sprinkler system. That fee would have been, that particular fee, based on the amount of heads they had would have been $366. Another example was $190 as it stands today with the fee increase or the 50 cent per head. That particular project would have been $253. On some fire alarm systems, again, I have two examples here. The fee in today's structure would have been $136. Their new charge would have been 170, and the other one would have gone from $60 to $75, and that's just project dependent. So those are our only changes that we have.

Any questions? When was the last time you raised these fees?

We actually couldn't find the last time that we raised the fee per head. We do know just prior to 2018, we that minimum number that we adjusted to 3,625, but we're assuming prior to 2010 on the other change.

Okay. On the 19 heads, how many square feet roughly is that? Do you have any idea? Are we all different for the most part, like Supreme Court systems?

Yeah, depending upon the structure, the coverage is going to be a little bit different. And depending upon the type of head, some heads cover different areas. So the fire marshal is part of the planning phase when they hold permits or planning permit phase. Sean is part of those. We don't charge a fee for our involvement in that because it's built into the planning or the permit fee that you have. All right. Thank you.

All right, instead of asking for discussion after each other, I'm just going to ask for the next staff to come up for the next set of fees, which would be garbage and trash fees. Rob?

Rob? Taylor?

Taylor, sorry. I might look like him. My long hair is on the top, it's on the bottom.

Sorry, Taylor. I won't forget again after that. What? Last time no, I didn't really all right.

Well, I'll forget again count on So there are a lot of changes on this The main one is from $81 and 56 cents per ton. We jumped that up 4% to 84 But we are keeping the minimum fee of $15, which was around 360 pounds or less, to now it's going to be $50 for 340 pounds or less, right? Other changes was mainly for our labor and using our equipment. Right now it was $15, which does not cover fuel or the hourly fee for our workers. So we jumped that up to $50 for 15 minutes, which will cover our fuel costs and also the employees. Big thing for that too is we have to sometimes get inside the trailer or dig out dangerous equipment or something like batteries, freon units, anything that may came in the trash. So we want to get that out of there because it is not allowed in the landfills. Other changes was a lot of deleting. We no longer are using our crematorium, as you guys already know. So got that scratched off. Changed the wording on tires because there's so many different sizes and changes to fit per ton that they charge for us to dispose of it, which is around $517 per ton. And that could only be like 100, 150 tires. So that's why we changed that. It's also jumped up $150 in the last two years just to dispose of tires. So that's why we made that change. Got rid of the yard waste because of course it's free. Same thing with brush, got rid of that. And then the last thing was computer materials shredding and disposing That be your hard drives and different materials like that from your computer.

We just jump that up a dollar from two dollars to three Did I miss did you do did you say were you guys doing anything different with the concrete disposable right? Do I add that in?

Oh, yeah. Sorry. I did miss that. We did jump it up from $5 disposal to $15. Okay. And that's to cover the grinding cost to grind it down so that we can reuse it on streets and different departments that want to use it.

We weren't grinding before, though? We are still grinding. We are.

We still grind. Yes. And we stockpile it, and then we use it on our streets. Okay. And also around anywhere we need it. Which... That's usually about a $90,000 hit every time. And $5 does not cover it. So we jumped that out.

And then did we change appliances too? Appliances and appliance fees. Did you mention that already?

That one we did jump up. It was $35. Per unit, we jump that up to 60.

That's with Freon?

That's with Freon.

Okay.

Yes. And then the appliances itself, we only jump that up $5. It's $15. We jump that up to $20. And this is for us to haul it and get it properly removal of Freon and then take it to Alters. But Alters does have a free drop-off. So we try to push that a little bit.

Yep, yep. Right. Any other questions for Taylor? Thank you. All right, I guess we'll move to Chad.

Well, mine's pretty short and sweet. You'll just see that we've added two new meter sizes to the schedule, an 8-inch meter and a 10-inch meter. And this is for new industries, commercial properties that are requiring the larger meters.

All right, library fees, Jessica.

All right, our library fees are pretty easy, too. All we did was add a $1 fee to our interlibrary loan service, which is a basic service of the library, and that's where if somebody comes in and they want to borrow a book or a resource and we don't own it, we'll get it from another library, have that library send it to us, and then we loan it to the citizen. We've done that since the 90s at no charge. Before that, we did charge for that. We decided to take away the fee but postal costs keep going up, and so the $1 fee certainly doesn't cover postage, but it's just a little bit of incentive, a little bit of help, and also making sure that then the people really want the item, that they don't request it kind of on a whim. They've got at least a little bit of investment in this request, so we're getting things that people want, and they're just helping a little bit offset that cost. This was in the library policies update that you guys approved last month that we brought forward. It went through our citizens' library advisory board and they voted in favor of it as well.

Thank you. John, this question for you, I mean this is probably a tough question, but do you, have you anticipated any estimate for annual revenue with these fees increases or is that too little to tell?

That's a good question. I had not even forethought of that question so I can try to work on that with the department heads and see if we can come up with that. It's probably very minimal. Yeah.

Just something to put out there. Not material to the budget, but. All right. Am I on? Yep. Okay. Any other questions from citizens out there? Okay. That being said, short title, please.

ordinance of the City of Norfolk Nebraska to amend section 2-5 of the official City Code to update fire permit fees garbage and trash fees water meter fees and library fees to provide when this ordinance shall be in full force in effect and to provide for the publication of this ordinance in pamphlet form Please vote All council members present voting in the affirmative ordinance number 5993 carries on first reading

Seeing no opposition, I'll make a motion that we suspend the rules and pass on second and third. Second.

Jeez. Seeing I made such a big deal about these fees all being lumped together, I guess that didn't matter. I did make a big deal about that, but I guess it's not a big deal. Anyway, with that being said, any other discussion? Anybody out there have anything to say? No? All right, with that being said, please vote.

All council members present voting in the affirmative. Ordinance number 5993 carries on second and third.

All right. We are on to administrative reports. What? Oh, gosh. I know. I know. She's told me twice. Let's go back to 14, please. I jumped the gun. This is where we pulled off consent. Item number 14, consideration approval of purchase and the installation of the office furniture from one office solutions in the amount of $167,202.19 for the police division addition and renovation construction project.

I'll offer for consideration the approval of the purchase and installation of the office furniture. Second.

All right, we have a motion, a second. And Chief, are you coming forward for this one?

Good evening, Mayor, Council. We put quite a bit of work into this, especially Captain Bauer, as far as making sure we compared apples to apples on these three bids for furniture. And in the end, one office solution came in at $167,202.19, which was about $20,000 lower than anybody else's bid.

I think the initial question from what I heard was just not knowing what the other bids were. Okay. Am I taking them to my right and why that was? Okay, that was the reason, I think, behind the removal.

EECS locally here, they were at $190,162. And Open Line Studio out of Omaha, I believe, they're $205,554.70. We're very comfortable. We checked out the equipment. I think we're going to be very happy with the bid and the products. Okay.

Any other further discussion on item 14? Either from the council, members of the public? All right. Seeing no further discussion, please vote. Council members present voting the affirmative motion carries Right that brings us to the item number 29 consideration of resolution 20 26-36 approving an interlocal agreement with Stanton Rural Fire District and the city of Stanton to provide emergency medical services I'll offer for consideration resolution 20 26-36 I

Second. Motion second. Chief Rogge, please come forward.

Good evening again, Mayor and Council. This is something that you've had come before you before. If you recall, last May, May 2025, we actually started an agreement with Staunton at that time due to an increased need for service for us to come down and mutual aid their ambulance calls. We do have a Elkhorn Valley mutual aid group that includes us, Staunton, and several other departments that predominantly was created way back to cover fire response. We added in the last 10-15 years, probably 10, we added EMS as a component of that so that we had coverage for one another when we were coming and going to help each other. The services being provided to Stanton going into last year, into last May, exceeded the intent of that. Particular agreement so we had to go to the drawing board and figure out How we could still try to help them out in a time where they were struggling to make calls specifically weekdays eight to five nine to five Because their EMTs were working and unable to leave work. So what we did is basically we reached out to some of our counterparts. Columbus Fire at the time was doing something similar with Duncan Rural, and they shared a draft of an agreement with us that actually fit pretty well for what we needed to do with Stanton. So we met with their governing bodies, which would be their Rural Fire Protection Board, and their elected officials, also met with our subcommittee, And at that time, we came to an agreement based on the average amount of calls that we were responding to in Stanton, which was five. We were going to charge them $5,000 a month, $1,000 a run, regardless of the amount of calls, whether it's two or five, to pay City of Norfolk for our services should we have to run calls down there. the initial agreement was good for six months with up to six one-month extensions. And at the conclusion of that six months, the initial agreement, they elected to extend by six months in one-month increments right away because there just didn't appear to be any light at the end of the tunnel as far as improved situations for their response. By the end of that second six months, we ran, I believe it was one to zero in each consecutive month leading up to those last three months. That was all we had to go down there. So we felt really good about where that was at. By comparison, the next community that we help as much as Stanton would be two to three calls a month max. And there's only one other community that we do that for. So we felt pretty good about not doing another agreement at that time. So that was going into June of 2026. June we ran three calls, but then in July we ran seven, and in August we ran eight. So it came time for us to have some discussion with them to try to figure out what was going on, if there was a spike in calls, some specific outliers that were creating these issues. And it kind of fell back to, yes, there was some call volume increase, but just continued challenges of daytime calls. So we asked Mel's office to revise the agreement. We took a three-month average. It was six calls a month and created a new agreement to go into effect October 1st at $6,000 a month for six months with the potential to go in one-month increments for six more months after that. The question, is this long term, short term? I want this to be short term. The difference between now and the last time we were going into this agreement is Stanton has five students in the EMT program right now at Northeast. So they have five new EMTs that a year from now should be functioning, should they all get through a pretty rigorous program. I actually had a rescue captain from Stanton here tonight with me at the beginning of the meeting, but she had to leave to go cover a call there. So basically they had an EMT there. It sounds like that could cover, and she was on standby for the next. Otherwise we'd have been making that trip. So I guess if there's question or concern about how we got to $1,000 per call, that is above and beyond what we're able to bill for that call for that patient. These charges are not passed on to the patient. These are split up between their rural fire board and the city of Stanton. They will pay. approved at their city council meeting in a real fire board meeting they'll pay three thousand and three thousand a month to the city of Norfolk for at least six months. If at any time either party is not content with the agreement there's a 30-day termination clause. For example if those if that goes up to 12 calls a month and we know that that's not covering what we need it to there's a termination clause in there we can renegotiate. So the thousand dollars comes from The three persons that we always send on a run to Stanton here in town, you may see a two-person ambulance followed by an engine and maybe a command vehicle. When we leave town, similar to if we go in the country in our district, we'll take at minimum three on the ambulance so we can have a driver and two in the back with patient care if something goes south on us. So we cover the straight pay in that $1,000, the straight pay of our responders going down there and The overtime rate, if we have to call three persons in to backfill here at the fire station. So we're recovering funds for those six persons. We also are using the FEMA rates for an ambulance, which is right around $40 an hour, and we're using all that on a two-hour basis for turnaround at minimum in order to cover those calls. So again, we don't want this to be long-term. Stanton doesn't want this to be long-term. We work very well with them. Fortunately, there's only one community that's having it. issues like this right now. We're hopeful in a year things look a lot different for them and their community. So, entertain any questions you might have.

In the last, my question would be in the last 12, or since we put the agreement into place, how many times have we exceeded six? Just the two months that you talked about?

During the actual agreement itself, we never did exceed six. The year that we had the agreement, had we had it in place, we would have exceeded it in July and August. So we're basically using the numbers that we were seeing from the last. And like any small community, a lot of the calls you're going to see are going to be from assisted living, nursing home type facilities. And it's a major challenge. I volunteer in Battle Creek. We see the same thing. Great people trying to do what they can for their community. There's just limitations. And Stanton, in my opinion, is taking steps to get there by promoting their department. And I think the proof's in the pudding by getting five people committed to go to EMT class. And hopefully it works out for them.

Thanks, Chief. You bet. I guess... Councilman that's not with us Webb is was asked to remove this from the consent agenda and move it on to the regular agenda and I won't speak for him, but my understanding is that He would like a breakdown of what this is physically Costing us as you said, we're in a unique situation and budget wise in Norfolk. We're in a unique situation How are how is this not compensation but how is the Is the gross revenue that's coming in covering what the net revenue is going out? Is I think is his question. I mean are recovering our expenses because we're in a unique situation Budgetarily, so I guess that's why he In a nutshell is why he had asked him to remove this off that consent and into here One other thing that he had asked and I guess I'd asked for if anybody wanted to make motion is is because he's Wanting to ask more questions, is there anybody objecting to tabling this for one meeting to the following and this contract would still be good October 1 of 2026?

I can comment on the recovery of funds if that would help. For the group. I think that helped consider sure I believe I believe it is I believe it is a is fair compensation for the service. We're providing We are assuming we know that each time we send somebody down the road. We're sending three people in an ambulance We know that at the very least for a routine rescue call We don't always have to make that call back for three persons in overtime though, so we're not we're not having to make that every single time. We also, based on a year's worth of track records, that average, if we go all the way back, is going to be less than six. And as an example, I used the March, April, May of 2026 where we ran 120. We collected 5,000 a month those three months for 120 calls because it was basically like having us on a retainer. Now, I've had members of this body and members of those bodies say, you know, I can't believe you're doing it for that. I feel like you could get more because they're backed into a corner where they don't really have a choice. And I don't mean that to be rude or disrespectful, but that's just the facts. Geographically, where they're located and the options they have by surrounding departments, it's going to take us 20 minutes to get there. And it's going to take others considerably more than that if they have the staff to get to them, which is different from some other departments and how close they have communities around them. So this is trying to find a fair compromise that's fair to the taxpayer and covers our basis. If at any point in time I feel like that gets lopsided, that will change because ultimately my primary responsibility is to the taxpayers of this city and this elected body without making it too much of a dagger of them, for lack of better words, trying to be a good partner, which is ultimately what we're all about. So hopefully that helps. I do have the numbers broken down here as far as what we used to figure out those amounts. The two different groups of personnel that we bundled together would be sending an EMT, which would be our lowest paid firefighter position, and two paramedics down there and recovering with overtime. If we were to do that, we're looking at about $796 based on a two-hour response. If we take worst-case scenario or closer to the top of our pay scale, for example, if we used a captain, lieutenant, and paramedic, which would be fairly unlikely unless there was something more serious to go on down there, and call back similar personnel on the backside, then we'd be around 950. So that's at a worst-case scenario, which is highly unlikely. So an average is going to be around 873. based on those two formulas. And that is not just paying for the hours. That is paying for total compensation package. So what it costs us to have them employed here at the City of Norfolk, not just what we pay them hourly. So that's the numbers we use. So I feel pretty good about what this agreement does for us. But I you won't hurt my feelings if you table it, or if there's more questions to be had, it's my job to explain that, so.

I think the question poised to me was, is this particular agreement causing you to add staff?

It is not. When we talked about our call volume rise, and that's why, honestly, I pushed so hard to get those three positions, because we saw our calls without stands take a significant rise. When we went from 33.88 to 35.12, that was a pretty large increase in calls. Now, at that time, some of it was Stanton. But the reality is we went back down a little last year and I think we're around 58 calls or 57 calls behind last year's pace at this time right now. Historically, when you hit July, August, we catch back up with the year previous. But that was not the basis for why we wanted to add staff or keep the amount of people we have at all. I mean, it just so happened that it was timed Exactly with when I was asking for staff, but I would have been doing that with or without the stand issue.

I Guess the other question that was asked of me is the numbers that you just gave what it would cost for an EMT and And the staff that go to EMT and then if it was more experienced help it with with a captain and and so on and You gave us those numbers as far as what the labor is. Do we take any consideration of what the depreciation on that ambulance is going round trip 25 miles? Is that taken in consideration as well? It is.

So that's the FEMA rate. So FEMA has a rate structure that they follow for apparatus. And within that is depreciation, fuel, tire, all the expendable type things that go with the rig, the apparatus itself, not the personnel. And that number for an ambulance is just a hair under $40 an hour. So it's around, in their mind, the FEMA rate to send an ambulance and occupy it for two hours to wear and tear is around $80. Fire trucks are usually far higher when you look at that FEMA rate schedule. I mean, they have everything from a backhoe for... We use it a lot in hazmat. When we supply hazmat services from our regional hazmat team, we can recover... It's different than we do fire EMS. So we'll build insurance companies based on that FEMA fee structure and recover funds, anything we had to do for hazmat. Overturn tanker fuel truck dumps a bunch of fuel. We use booms, have to do a bunch of labor that's recoverable from insurance company at the party of fault. So we work with that. The other thing that you may have seen in the news is the state's Rural Health Transformation Act. that is happening right now. It's geared towards regionalizing EMS and volunteers. And there's tens of millions of dollars allocated to helping these small communities and trying to figure out how to do that. But there's a lot of money and not a lot of concepts right now. I just got an email that there was $12 million more allocated to EMS regionalization. And I think what they're trying to do is have an area that's kind of a hub have an EMT or paramedic on site that can leave and go to those small communities and guarantee there's an EMT coming. And then those small communities use what they have available to buffer that response. If somebody's available in the community, then those two people return back to their hub. That's kind of what I'm seeing as far as those models, but we're a ways away from figuring that out. Any other questions for me?

I think that addresses all the concerns, I think, brought to my attention. Yeah, okay. Thank you, Chief.

Thank you for the opportunity.

Okay, that was item number 20. Any other discussion from public? Any discussion up here? All right, seeing none, please vote.

All council members present voting the affirmative resolution 2026-36 is adopted.

All right, now we're on to administrative reports. We'll start with item number 36, Police Department renovation and expansion project and sales tax update.

Thank you, Mayor and Council. This first topic will kind of be three parts. Is the microphone working, or is it? Yeah. Okay. It'll be kind of three parts. There's two pages in your packet, which I got the screen up here now, or somebody does. I'm not sure. Is it mine? Okay. All right, so this has kind of been one of the hottest topics that I've heard in my first two months is just periodic questions about where we are with this project and the sales tax collection and things like that. So it seemed like a good time one year into the collection process to kind of bring this up and highlight where we are. Right off the bat on the top, you can see we've brought in over 15 months of collections, about $5.1 million. We've got about 33 months of collections to go. There's two main priorities for these funds, as most of us all are aware of. The first priority was the police station expansion and renovation, and the second priority will be streets once the police station is completed. I've got a brief breakdown in the middle of the page, kind of where we are with the project of the police station specifically. I'm not sure when the project was bid and probably last week.

John, there's just a little bit of confusion here. That's the next agenda item, the package you have in front of you. So continue.

Sorry. Oh, sorry. Yes, this is in your packet, in the packet from last week. So the project at the police station is right at about $9.2 million as it was designed and approved. To go forward in the projects and then there's two funding sources that I found and one was that Apparently back in 2023 fiscal year the council decided to use some priority dollars for the design phase of this project So about three hundred and seventy thousand dollars was funded from general fund priority dollars leaving about eight point eight million of the project to covered from the sales tax collections and you can see that so far to project to date, we've spent just over $4 million, including those $367,000. So the amount charged to the sales tax funding has been about three and three quarter million. And it leaves about $5 million remaining to pay out as long as the police station project goes to its planned 9.2 million. Generally speaking and this is you know, of course after I get past today and look forward to the future I'm you know projecting where we might be but based on collection rates and Without anything drastically changing in sales tax collections We should have enough money collected midsummer, but not quite a year from today for the police station project. I And then at the bottom of the first page, you can see, again, projecting the sales tax collections through the 48 months should bring somewhere between $16.5 and $17.2 million. That's based on the first full-year collections, but that's also looking back five years and looking at trend growth and things like that. So kind of looking at it in a window of no growth, 1.5% and then maybe 3% growth, just kind of giving a buffer of growth period. And then also during the collection and spending process, the money that's being held in our accounts are interest bearing just like everything else in the general fund. So the funds have already accumulated about $60,000 of interest in the first year as they've been waiting to be spent on the police station. So with that, police chief is going to give an update on the project itself.

Mayor and council, I just wanted to give you a quick update on the police division renovation and expansion project. And John, thank you for those numbers. And this is what it's looking like on the ground. We are continuing to make real and very visible progress. If you've been by the building lately, it is finally starting to look like what we've been talking about and wanting to see much more than just a construction site. Most of the replacement windows are now in upstairs in the original building. Drywall has been hung, conduit and wiring are in, cabinets are being installed, first layer of paint's on. The addition is also progressing nicely. The contractor September report shows roofing and block work are complete, structural steel nearly complete, and most of the major mechanical, electrical, plumbing, communications, security rough-in work are all well underway. Our next major milestone is the second floor. We're hopeful that sometime in December, police administration, city attorney's office, we're all gonna be moving in there into the addition to our permanent spots. Our staff has been very adaptable through it all. Between the noise, the dust, the moving their workstations, and the occasional diesel fumes coming through the ventilation system, our staff has gotten pretty good at knowing what phase of construction we're in just by the smell. By January, demolition may also begin on the lower level of the original building, which means we will be without locker rooms for a period of time. That will create some inconvenience for our officers, but everyone understands that it is part of getting us to the finished facility. Most importantly, I want to thank the council and the community for the support you have shown in this project. This is a significant investment in public safety, in our employees, and in the long-term needs of Norfolk. We know these are taxpayer dollars, and we do not take that trust lightly. This facility is going to serve our officers, dispatchers, staff, and most importantly, this community for decades to come. We are very appreciative of everyone who has helped make this project possible, and we are looking forward to the day when we can welcome all of you into the finished facility. Thank you.

Thanks for the update.

On the second page, we get to discussing the street program and potential there. Again, once the construction is funded and paid for, we'll shift focus to that. That period will come at the end of the construction season next summer, so I'm sure Steve will be highly busy over the next 12 to 15 months planning on street repairs that will come, and I'm sure he already has. But I generally modeled this back page off of the CIP plans that we've got in place that we reviewed, I believe, at the end of July when we reviewed that plan. So I kind of modeled the... generalized expenditures by a year off of that CIP plan to kind of come up with how the funding will come in and be spent during that street phase. So you can just generalize. I wanted to make sure, obviously, that we were gonna have cash supplied to pay for any street repairs, It looks like we certainly will, but I also wanted to just kind of show where we're anticipating those funds to be spent. It's not committing that they will be spent in those manners. Those are just estimations, so I want to be very clear about that. Again, I just kind of modeled the potential collection over the last three years in a window of either flat growth, 1.75% growth, or 3.5% growth. and just kind of give you a glimpse of what could be between those three levels. And let's see, anything else? I think, again, oh, sorry, I missed that. I'm anticipating, again, I'm also factoring in that given the fact that we'll have cash reserves during the construction phases of both the police station and the street phases, that interest bearing generation should probably clear between 250 to 320,000 I think I have on that sheet, probably on the front side. So those will continue to accumulate as well and help buffer any spending that we do. So that's all I've got on this item.

I like the format that you used. It's easy to follow, easy to read.

Thanks.

Thanks for the information on that, John. Is there any questions? Additional questions? All right. So that would be the end of the update on that, correct?

Yeah.

Then we move on to item number 37. Okay.

me flip to my PowerPoint and then for the council members and I brought copies earlier I surely didn't bring enough for all the public that's here I've got a couple here if we want I can certainly make more copies later if desired but you all should have three memos on your in front of you and I've got a PowerPoint to run through a few just real quick this is correlated on two things that happened recently. One was, you'll recall last month, we approved an ordinance to issue revenue, sorry, general obligation bonds to fund some assessment district projects that had gone on. So we, you authorized that, I think the first one began in August. We went through and had a review with Rating agency Moody's to evaluate the city's finances and project a rating on the sale for the public consumption in discerning their investment in this process. And let me just jump through. We issued $3.6 million of bond par, and the interest rate that was settled to at the end of the day was 3 point, let's call it 8%. And you can see there that Moody's rated our debt and the city's debt, not only this debt issuance, but the city's balance sheet at AA3, which is high investment grade. That actually reaffirms a rating that you guys got, I think, last year when you did a $16 million project for the water and other things. So that was good to see. And I'll go over that a little bit more about that later. There was 38 bids, there was five investment banks that were involved in the auction, and that took place on August 27th, so last week. or I guess a week and a half ago, but there was five investment banks during the auction window. We got 38 bids, which Scott Keene with our investment broker was very pleased with the activity. It's an interesting process. The auction window is actually invisible, so the bidders can't see who else is bidding and what they're bidding. They can only see that they're winning or not. So that's an interesting tidbit. But you can see that the spread on the bidders was actually very tight. So all these investment houses viewed our debt very favorably at the same amount. So that was good to see. In June, when this was being considered, we discussed kind of estimating what this would look like. And we asked Scott to run some scenarios with us, whether we would do a negotiated sale or a competitive bid, as we did the competitive bid. And that was driven by the fact that we decided to go through the rating process. I don't know if you've ever been involved in a ratings agency call, but essentially they scrub through your financials, your audits, and your budget information. They bring about a list of questions that they want us to answer to, and we responded to that. Sheila did most of that work right before I started in July, so I was very thankful for her involvement in that. Then in... Middle of August, we participated in a phone call with Moody's rating agency and went over all of the aspects of our responses and confirmed and affirmed some follow-up questions that they had. So that was good, and then a week later, we got our reaffirm, reaffirmation, which is the third attached, the third sheet is in your packet, the Moody's press release related to this process, so. Going through a rating process is not a requirement of going to sale for something like this. But it does cost a little bit of fee. But the hope and the plan is that you've got a balance sheet and an outlook solid enough that going through that excursion and the fee is well worth it. And we experienced that on this issuance as well. The fee was about $15,000 and you can see that we easily cleared nine times coverage on that with the reduction in the interest cost that we will incur over the life of this issue. So that was good to see as well. Moody's, in their PR and then also in our discussion with them, looking at our balance sheet and our financial position, there's very little that they saw that would be a deterrent from us ever being potentially downgraded. The two factors that they held over us as something that would be constraints from ever being upgraded to AA2 were economic factors that are somewhat out of the city's hands specifically, but something that we obviously want to be involved in helping to wrangle, and that is resident income per capita, we're trailing behind the national median. So when you think about that, we're going up against cities that are in the East Coast and West Coast that are national median income ranges that we're just not gonna easily compete with, but we have the opportunity there. And then also our valuation per capita, which actually relatively in the state is very good, but again, when you look at national comparisons. that's going to be a difficult one. But they did project optimism that we have an opportunity to convince them in the future for that. So just a little bit about Moody's grading scale. High investment grade is in the A's, and then kind of that lower investment grade is in the B's. There's a lot of grades below that. Obviously, you don't want to be in those areas. A lot of investment houses won't even look at you when you get below that. The point here is that we did not have to get rated, but we chose to, and that was because we knew that having a solid balance sheet and a good outlook would present us with a good opportunity to have some cost savings on the interest rate. So when you think about it, AA3, as it's been related to me and I've found, is that's about the median of rated municipalities. That means that we're in the middle of the rated pool. There's a lot of towns and municipalities that don't get rated. So we're already in the upper echelon of cities that would actually go through the rating process. So that was good to see. Distance to a downgrade potential. These were the two that they kind of mentioned that we need to monitor on our balance sheet. We're well surviving these two hurdles. Our available fund balance ratio. is 73%. They would definitely be watching us if we fell below 35%. We're not at risk of doing that anytime soon, I hope. And then long-term liabilities ratio, we're at about 100%, and they would be looking at us very discerningly if we were at 350. So we're way below that as well. So let me see here, the page I'm on. Just kind of looking at us overall on the general obligation side, again, this is one segment of our debt. We have about $35 million outstanding of par value. And it's about a 1.25 coverage when you look at that value of debt divided into our taxable valuation basis, which is very favorable. And if you include our taxable municipal debt structure, which includes primarily the school system, they have, I'm not sure on the exact number, I think it's around $4 million in bonded debt. If you include those dollars as well, it's about 1.37, which is still very favorable. And then how we compare, I compared us just to the, I consider our peer group in the state of Class A cities that are above 20,000 population. I do not have Kearney here. Unfortunately, Kearney's audit for 2025 is not out yet, so that's interesting but not available. You can see where we lie here. The orange bar happens to be general obligation and the gray bar is total. And so you can see Norfolk at fourth in total. So we're basically right at the median. On the right side, the upper tan box is our 2.09 against a 2.12 peer median. So it's interesting to look at this and just kind of dig, I want to dig in a little bit and kind of compare ourselves to how the other cities are using debt when they're majoritively looking at revenue bonds versus general obligation, but that's just an interesting tidbit that I found. Again, this is kind of something that you've seen before, but comparing our overall general levy of the city, we're in that We're in the lower quartile of the first-class total population. And then just folding in the entire city again, the school district doesn't have a bond levy rate. 22 of the 30 first-class cities' school districts have a bonded levy rate totaling about $348 million currently. So that's something that the City of Norfolk taxpayer is not currently incurring, so that's good. Now, total debt outstanding is before, this is off of the fiscal year that ended last year. So this does not include that recent debt that we just are adding. So as of the audit of last summer, our overall debt was 59 million. And 46% of that, 46% of our overall debt comes from our utility revenue bonds that we have out. So just, you know, about half and half. of our city's debt. And then where our debt gets paid back from, about 20 million, or I should say this, about 60% of our overall is highway allocation bonds that we have out. And then 22% are various purpose bonds. And then you can see there, about 18% is actually backed by property tax. Just really quickly, this is how the debt is structured in payments over the time, over the next 20 years. You can see that through the bonding processes that you guys, that the city, not you guys, but the city has gone through over the many years. We've structured our debt bonds ladders fairly evenly over the periods. We haven't back-ended anything. front-ended bonds and had higher or lower periods over time so that's that's good to see you're not burdening a future council with a spike in debt in some certain decade or another year down the road and then another ratio coverage that we want to monitor on the the enterprise side is our utility debt those revenue bonds that are covered by usage fees and The bond covenants for those revenue bonds require 1.25 times coverage. So the revenue that you bring in each year has to cover the debt service of that year by 1.25 times. And you've been averaging generally over five times coverage. Certainly in the year that we just audited, you were over that 5.5 times coverage. I put that little shaded box in there just to show you what this... what this debt would, or this, sorry, where we're gonna be because that $16 million bond that you just issued last year will fully hit the 2026 balance sheet this year. It kinda crossed over two fiscal years. But that's hampered by the fact that I'm using the 2025 revenue, so when the 2026 revenue hits, that number will go above, it'll probably be closer to four, I imagine, once we get through this audit period for 2026 fiscal year. And then just to recap, again, the market, those five institutions priced us very competitively. 3.8% is very, very good compared to what we're making on CDs on the other side, a little bit over three, so the cost of borrowing is very minimal. The rating that we went through definitely improved our position on this. specific instance, this August issue, saving us some interest costs over the time. Our debt is typical and well within the median of our state peer groups. And again, that AA3 is basically median of rated municipalities nationally, so that's good to see. that basically covers what you have in my two memos. The first one was about the specific 2026 issue that we just did, and the second one covers some of that more total debt of the city. I wrote those hopefully to be less financially, you know, high-level financial information. I hope I wrote it at a level that's comprehensible by the general public, and I would certainly be happy to expand on anything if there's a specific ratio or discussion item in any of the memo. I'm happy to expand on those as well, just to make sure that they're as comprehensible as possible. So with that, Mayor, that's what I have. If I have any questions, I'm happy to answer.

Any questions for John?

I guess try to wrap my mind around this, but if I compare like Fremont and Norfolk, Fremont's taken their streets and assessment districts with revenue benefits. And we're using general obligation ones. What's the thought process there, do you think?

Yeah, I want to dig into that. That was an interesting tidbit that I found as I was fleshing this out last week. That was definitely one, even when you look at Columbus, a similar idea in scale of debt issuance, how they're using their mix. I definitely want to look into that, Frank, or Councilman. I do want to look into that more and understand what opportunities or not that they're utilizing in their debt structures. Yeah, I appreciate that. I do want to look into that my own self, so.

Any other questions for John? Members of the public here tonight, any questions for John? Nice presentation, John. You did a nice job on that. Thank you. Very informative. And with that being said, anybody else? We are adjourned. 804.