City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening. I'd call this city council meeting to order. November 17, 2025. I'd like to inform the public about the location of the opens meeting act posted in the council chambers and accessible to members of the public. At this moment, like to have a moment of silence 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. Granquist, here. Arns here. Webb here. McCarthy here. Beckman here. Jensen here. Langy here. Hilderbrand here. Mayor I am here. Okay. On to the uh approval of the consent agenda. Moving item number 15 and placing it on the regular agenda. Mayor abstaining from the consent agenda. Okay. So moved as changed. Second.

We have a motion, a second. Please vote. Voting in the affirmative. McCarthy, Granquist, Arns, Jensen, Langy, Web, Beckman abstaining. Hildebrand. Motion carries. All right. Now, we need approval for the full agenda, including item number 15 now on the full agenda. So, move second. Second. Okay. We have a motion to second. Please vote. [snorts]

All council members voting in the affirmative. Motion carries.

Right. Moving on to public hearing and related action. At this time, I will ask Frank to come over and We're going to open up a public hearing at the request of Carnegie Library Lofts LLC to consider a zoning change from C3 to R3 on property addressed as 803 West Nor Avenue. Hi. Please state your name.

Yes. Uh so my name is Audrey Michelle Fischer. I'm the owner of Carnegie Library Lofts. We are passing out packets which I now forgot. Is there an extra? I forgot to hold one for myself. Sorry. So yes, we are cons um here wanting a zoning change from um commercial to residential. Um and so I have a short presentation kind of explaining where we are coming from beginning with a little bit about myself. I am a Northfor native. I graduated from Northfor High and went to the University of Nebraska um studying interior design. I live in Denver, Colorado now, but I've decided to purchase the old library, historic library on Northfor Avenue, um, which is the subject of our conversation here. So, the project goal on page three, our main goal here is to preserve a historic community landmark, which is um, listed in the comprehensive plan as someplace Northfor wants to preserve. Um, so our goal is to not only preserve the historic landmark, but attract visitors to downtown Northworks, supporting local businesses, and I believe being the anchor to the welcome to Riverpoint sign, which sounds like it's landing in the front yard of the library. Um, so the next page we've got I wanted to show a little bit about what our intention is for the inside. We want to keep the idea of it being a library. Um, so this idea of dark academia, we do want to have books everywhere. Um, and again help people feel like they're staying in a library, make making it feel like you are back in the 1900s when it was built. Um, staying in an old historic location. So um, my point here

is the pictures you see throughout the presentation are indicative of our plans for the design of the building. So our explanation of the zoning uh change on page five again we are looking to move from commercial to residential um and our our idea here is to have a flexible hotel like um facility that runs um as a short-term rental and extended stays for executives. So a short-term rental and midterm rental model is our plan. Um, again, preserving downtown Norfork's building, its his its history, its integrity, and with the goal of supporting businesses in downtown Norfor. Um, so transitioning the property from residential to commercial. Um, and we are looking at uh four units in the building. So, um, it'll be two bedrooms, two bathrooms, upstairs, two units, and then two more units in the basement, which I have on the following pages. Um, but the next question for for reasonzoning was um, Norfork's comprehensive plan. So, I wanted to point out that the Carnegie Library is in the comprehensive plan, specifically listed on page 77 where Nors preserve this historic building. Um and also um with Norfork's vision to provide a place people want to visit, experience and stay and also calls for continued development of vibrant entrepreneurial downtown that provides unique experiences and qualities bringing visitors into the city. And so our justification is uh you know this adaptive reuse project is um in one of our most significant landmarks and we our goal is to have bring guests into

downtown um have them patronize our nearby restaurant, shops and amenities um which we believe is part of the comprehensive plan and vision to encourage reinvestment in the downtown community. Um, so we're really excited to be a part of the neighborhood. So on page eight, um, it shows where the library is located on 8th and Northfor Avenue. Um, one of the biggest questions was, you know, does our plan, um, fit within the neighborhood. Um, so surrounding our building are, uh, small businesses, a restaurant, civic buildings, residential dwellings. Um so it's a very mixeduse area to begin with. Um so we we do occupy a very prominent gateway um to downtown and we want to make it be like the beginning of the downtown business district and bring people into downtown. So on page nine we have um uh where we're at right now with the plan. Just wanted to share that with everybody. Uh we we've got two well it'll be four fully functioning residential units. So two units upstairs, two units downstairs. Um the upstairs units are both two-bedroom, two bath. The downstairs we're still working through, but that's looking like threebedroom, three bath, and a one-bedroom, oneb. Um but very open to highlight. Um if you've ever been in the library, it's got like 14t ceilings. It's a beautiful building, very well preserved. Um, and we want to keep all of that. So, wanted to have a very [clears throat] open, luxurious plan that um, really makes you feel like you're staying in the old library. And then I included a couple of letters

that I've collected from um, for local support. both Brooke Anderson with the economic development coordinator and um Tracy Jeffrey with visit Norfor um have I've been chatting with them and are very supportive of the idea. So any questions I can answer? I give up. Sure. You said you said shortterm uh and midterm. What what's kind of your definition of midterm?

Sure. So short-term being anything under that 30-day stay. Um, so you know, renting it like an Airbnb where people can come in for the night, for the weekend, but also having flexibility to go over the 30-day stay into what we would call midterm rentals, um, for nurses, for executives, but all furnished rentals. So, it wouldn't be for long-term for somebody to live. So, the vision really isn't to have somebody come hunker it down, make that their home. The vision is really to have it be for shorter stints. Um, again bringing people into downtown Northfor.

So, so no midterm would require a contract. I mean, I would recly I would want a contract for somebody to stay there for like three months. Is that what you mean? Yeah. So, what's the maximum on a midterm? You know, I don't think there's a maximum necessarily. It would be like monthtomonth but with the intention that like this is this is not your home. This is you know again a travel nurse or like an executive for one of the bigger companies in town. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Sure.

Anybody else have a question? Thank you. Can you please sign in too? I did. Yes. Thank you.

Val, do you want to um offer any comments on the zoning? So, I'll just bring up the the zoning map for you to see. So, we're looking at this piece of property right here. This is the old library. So you can see that it's C3, C1, C3 on two sides and then I1 on the other. Um, so it would be similar to what we've done here recently that there would be an affidavit filed that they're the one making the zone change so that if something ever did happen, the the buffer yard would be on them. Um, it would then because this would be considered apartments, the residential parking requirements would kick in unlike a hotel that would have a a different parking requirement. So, we've gone over all of that with them. Um, we did kind of do this a little bit backwards. um that she went to the board of adjustment first because we do have that 10% or one maximum short-term rental for multif family units. And um so that was going to be a detriment to what they wanted to do that they would only be able to do one being a short-term rental with the other three being more of the midterm at that point in time 31 days or more. Um the board of adjustment did grant that variance. I had them do the board of adjustment first just so that they wouldn't be stuck with a an R3 residential just in case the board didn't deny or did deny the the variance um that they could go back and and do a hotel with short and long-term stays. So that's why we kind of did things a little bit backwards. Um,

any questions for me on kind of the process that we went through and and why we're kind of where we are right now? I I don't have any. I don't necessarily other than is do you see do you foresee any parking issues? I assume not. It appears that they had enough as long as they keep those in the back off of the alley. Sure. they would have enough for the the eight if they're only doing four. In pre-plangs, we were talking four to six or however many they could fit. So, if they've come to a a conclusion on four, then the eight would fit in that back space.

Well, it'll be nice seeing something go in there. That's for sure. Yeah, absolutely. I think that would be I mean, it's a beautiful plan that's there. I may have missed it, but how many bedrooms per unit? Was it two? Three and one. It varies a little bit. Uh, so we didn't want to make it exactly the same. So upstairs, we were planning on two two bedrooms. So four bedrooms upstairs and two separate units. And then downstairs, we're looking at again two separate units, but one being three bedrooms and one being one. So four upstairs, four downstairs. is configured a little bit different. [clears throat]

Council, have any more questions? I do. I guess it's just and this is just kind of a procedural one. Uh I guess it would be uh imperative for me to know why Shane excused himself from this body. It's well I I received the notice right before um the meeting and I believe that he's done some work already on the project. Um so that's my understanding. I appreciate that.

Anybody from the public like to give any input? This is a public hearing. Okay. And I think the one thing that's interesting too is that uh yeah, we got C3, C3, and C1. We also have it, it touches R3, so to the southwest there. So that yellow that you see is R3. So So it's it's not like we're an island either. So good good point. [clears throat and cough] I uh ask for dis um short title

commission report. So the Northfor Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 4th, 2025 to consider a zoning change from C3 Service Commercial Commercial District to R3 multiple family residential district on property addressed as 803 West Northfor Avenue. The planning commission recommends approval of the request with a six to zero vote. Okay, with that I'm going to close the public hearing and I'll ask for consideration of ordinance number 5955. I'll offer all for consideration ordinance number 5955. Second second.

Any further discussion on that? Seeing that short title, an ordinance of the city of Norfor, Madison County, Nebraska, amending the zoning district map of the city of Norfor, Nebraska, providing when this ordinance shall be in full force and effect and providing for the publication of this ordinance in pamphlet form. Please vote. [clears throat] All council members present voting in the affirmative. Ordinance number 5955 carries on first reading.

I'll make a motion sus I'll make a motion that we suspend the rules and pass this ordinance on second and third. Second.

Okay. Motion is second. We will take a vote on that as well. All council members voting in the affirmative. Ordinance number 5955 carries on second and third. Thanks Audrey for coming back and investing in your community. [clears throat] All right, moving on to the regular agenda brings up item number 15. Motion to establish December 1st. Wait a second. Am I wrong? Yes. Motion to establish December 1st, 2025 for the board of equalizations to conduct a public hearing for the equalization of a special assignment for paving district number 521, water extension districts number 128, and sanitary sewer extension district number 255. All in the north, all in the Northfor 140 subdivision. Um, Steve, yeah, I need a motion for that, please. Yeah. Mayor and counsel.

Hold on. We need a motion. So move. [clears throat] Second. A motion. A second. Okay. Now you can go, Steve.

Mayor and council, prior to uh prior to uh holding the assessment hearing, we're required to set a date. And so this is simply setting the date for the assessment hearing uh which which is where the board of equalization would would uh hear the assessments uh and ultimately approve approve those. Um I understand that there was some question to there being no attachment. Um again the only the only thing this is doing is providing public notice that December 1st it will be the assessment hearing. Uh just for the record, could you state where uh Norfor subdivision is located? The

the [clears throat] Norfor subdivision is the um it's sort of a private um industrial park. It's where uh the Nebraska Machinery built the new Caterpillar dealership out there on the west side of of the town um east a little bit east of the old Stala home site. Yeah. So, if I don't know if that's being shown there, it's uh would be directly west of the Fountain Point uh medical center. There you go. There are three properties that'll be assessed uh at the hearing uh lot one, two, and three of that subdivision. Correct me if I'm wrong. Those properties are on egg deferment from the get-go, right? Initially, we're not assessed.

There has there has been no assessment. We've just completed the work. Oh, but I What about the street there that goes into the on the east side of there, right? Doesn't that have to be assessed yet or is that already happened? That's all that that's all that's all taken care of. It's all getting assessed once they went to commercial for mag. Yeah.

Gotcha. Okay. That was a very heated discussion back in the day. if anybody remembers that. Um, so, uh, that was brought forward from a request from Do you want Do you want a chance to make come on up and ask the reasoning mind that [clears throat] Jim McKenzie, I guess my question was the the staff memo says that there is an attached copy that's going to be sent to the property owners um of what the assessments are and [clears throat] are I guess are you approving as a council are you approving what you're sending to those property owners tonight?

We usually contact [clears throat] the property owners verbally in the case of a development where it's all one developer uh that's being assessed. We communicate that verbally for the most part. Um, we do send them a copy of what those assessments are going to be. Okay. I'm just just procedurally I'm just trying to understand as as an elected body, how much total dollars did we did the community invest in that? And how much of that is assessed? And as an elected body, are we making that decision tonight as to what we're going to send to the property owner to tell them what our potential assessment is going to be?

No, that is that is not on the that is not on the agenda for discussion. That would be discussed at the actual assessment hearing. Okay. So, you're not approving tonight what you're So, when you send that to them, you're sending it without council approval. You're sending what you want to send to them. That's correct. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. Any further discussion on item number 15? Seeing none, please vote.

All council members voting in the affirmative. Motion carries. Right. That moves us to item number 21, consideration approval of an amendment to the engineering services amend amendment dated November 21st, 2022 with HDR Engineering, Inc. for the levy certification phase 3B project for an additional amount of $649,588. I'll make a motion for consideration of approval. I'll second that.

All right, I have a motion and second. Leads for discussion. Steve, we take the lead on this. Yes. Uh council, this is the amendment uh to the HDR engineering contract for final design and permitting services uh related to the levy certification. Um we started this process now probably nine years ago. um and uh have been through a couple um modifications of of the of the contract with HDR in the in the in these last eight nine years. Um reertification of our levy is driven uh substantially by FEMA remapping uh the the waterway the the drainage system itself. And when they do that and update the what we refer to as the FEMA maps, the flood maps, the process of reertifying the levy goes along with that. Uh there has been some delay in in the reertification as a function of some of some of the water events that we've experienced over the last five or six years. Um and so the project itself has been delayed as a function of that. Um we are getting close uh as a function of the phase 3A. Um that was where we were had selected a few alternatives and we're going through alternatives analysis um as a function of going through the alternatives analysis. Um I would report that we believe uh at the end of the project that the pro the scope of the project will be reduced. Um uh that has to do with some areas that there was a concern for seepage uh along the south levy or the west

levy. Um some of those were um worked through during the phase 3A or the alternatives analysis portion. Um so the big picture there is we do think that the cost of that project is going south not north or down not up. Um, so again, phase 3B here is what's before you tonight, an amendment uh with HDR. Um, we're probably four to six months away from final design. Um, submitting the design to the core of engineers. That review, there's usually several meetings that will occur during that review process. Um, ultimately there'll be some modifications coming out of the plans. uh and then we would we think we'll be ready probably early to mid 2027 uh to be bidding out the project. So there is a representative here from HDR tonight if there are questions specific to HDR on the project.

Steve, were we anticipating this increase?

Yes, this is a budgeted budgeted increase. So throughout the project as we enter each phase, we modify the contract for that phase. This is about 125,000 under what we're budgeting for just in case there are future modifications. But yeah, we've got I think about 775 budgeted for this phase. Randy, I know this has been kind of an a topic we've been touching on for a few years now, just simply because of the price tag that's going to come along with it. Uh and for his overall budget, uh what what do you have anticipate? I mean, you're talking with CP just a little bit less than what you thought. You thought maybe this might be going down from typically we have budget right now. Can you touch on what we have budgeted right now? And then how this going to look like when we get to 2020 about $7 million, is that right? In the CIP and that flows through um our entire process and goes into the the debt service on that goes into debt service fund and gets factored into that long-term financial plan and what we are projecting for a property tax increase out the next 10 years. So, from what Steve's saying, that's probably heavy and we probably won't need all of the property tax that we've got in the long-term financial plan for this project.

Okay. I would say as a function of this phase be a little bit tight, but I'm sure as we go into the budgets uh next spring, um we'll be modifying uh our projected construction costs on that project. All right, Steve, is there a date this had to be reertified by? Did did they ever give us anything?

Um Paul can probably answer that better from HDR. Um there is a there's a I think there's a window there around the the um FEMA's process once they once they finalize their process. I don't know exactly what it is, but there's a window there around their process that we have to certify our our flood levy that it now meets those those new flows that potentially it's going to see in a flood event. So, we don't necessarily know what an exact date. It's just dependent on once information. I'll have Paul come up.

All right. Uh Paul Woodward with HDR Engineering. Um yeah, it's a typically a two-year window, but again, we don't know. Right now, FEMA's kind of FEMA and the state have kind of stopped updating the maps. They're waiting for more information. So, we don't know when that two-year window will start. We just know it's been delayed for now. But so, we're in still in good shape to get con get ready for construction, get it done, and move forward. Yep. Any other questions?

Any other questions for Paul? Yeah. Any questions from the public? Please come forward if you have anything. All right. We have a motion second. So, please vote.

All council members voting in the affirmative. Motion carries. Right. We're on to item number 22, consideration approval of ordinance number 5956, approving the updated fiscal year 2025-2026 classification and pay play pay plan with an effective date of January 1st, 2026. I'd make the motion. Second. Right, we have a motion to second. Jessica, will you lead this discussion, please?

Yes, I will. Um, good evening, mayor and council members. Um we've had this discussion over the summer and um we're here today to present some proposed key realignments from the compensation study that the city did last fall in winter. So we're we're already a year past that point, but I just wanted to provide a little bit of history. Um these recommendations were [clears throat] um these are some of the recommendations that were brought forward in September for the budget review process and ultimately were put on hold for further review. So there were no changes made at that time and the current pay ordinance from last year just stayed in place. So, what's before you in the agenda packet is an updated pay ordinance with not all of the compensation study adjustments. It only focuses on positions that have had uh job description and responsibility changes. Um there's been departmental realignments. There's level adjustments for employees and critical pay equity and risk factors that we're trying to address immediately um from some of these adjustments. And again, Zel um was our consultant last year. They are the ones that vetted these recommendations. Um but we would like to move forward um with this current pay ordinance. It has gone before subcommittee uh for policies and procedures and we would like the effective date to be January 1st. So we have time to make process changes through payroll. It takes time to even do that. So um I'd be happy to take any questions or comments about this. [cough]

I think you guys have done a great job with coming down to the core group that we need to address and I think it's it's time we get things moving. Thank you, Sue. In this study, Jessica, the study showed us that for the market, the dispatchers were the main positions that we were we were not in line with the market. Is that correct?

It's one of several positions, but that one is significantly low. Um and that's part of this group where we're trying to develop levels of growth for dispatchers. Um so that if they become trainers for dispatchers, they're in a higher level. So to incentivize them for doing extra work, it's um more responsibility and it is very stressful to train the level one dispatchers that are coming in and we've experienced turnover unfortunately and we're trying to uh build back that team. But I think this is one effort to move forward with to try to retain the staff and dispatch.

I don't remember any other position being market driven other than those positions. The rest I remember being internal inequities. Um, no, there are there were others that are were below market, but that is a significant one. You're correct. How are we Randy? What's the total cost of this?

The first year cost is, I believe, uh, that's in the agenda packet. I think it's like $58,000. That's three4s of the fiscal year. And then that cost increases to um let me call that up here. Yeah, that cost increases to just under $100,000 the next fiscal year. And that's for the positions that Jessica has recommended that we implement. And then those costs go up oh somewhat more quickly for the first uh seven years because we've got um to get people out there to that H step before it starts going into just the normal cost of living type adjustments. But that according and this is according to the assumptions in the long-term financial plan 10 years out fiscal year 3435 that would have a cost of about 176,000 and that's assuming a 3% cola to match a 3% inflation rate we have in long-term financial plan. So when we raised the property tax levy 2 point was it 2.7%. In this budget year, didn't we increase the levy by 2.7%. Generating what was it 240,000?

Yes, we matched the uh inflation rate basically. We lowered our uh levy rate but increased our property tax asking. What was the revenue generated off 2.7% increase? Oh, [sighs] so it was 240,000. I can't remember that exactly now, but that sounds about right.

And I guess I'd like to add to that any positions that are on hold as a result of last year's study, we're we're still evaluating that as well as all the other positions at the city. We do that every year. We just want to try to remedy some things that changed last year that we do believe need to be corrected. So, just wanted to add that point as well. All right. Thank you for your time. Any any additional comments? Any questions from the public? Please do so now. Jim McKenzie, I just I just noticed I don't have a huge issue with I just noticed a couple positions that seem to differ from the pay ordinance from what the Zelli study showed, unless I'm seeing it wrong. the resource and recovery superintendent looked like on the ZLE study went from a 26 to a 27 which is a one grade increase but on the pay ordinance it looks like it went from a 26 to a 29 you know which is about a on the top end of the pay scales a $17,000 pay increase um and then I think the wastewater supervisor on the Zelli study was a 21 to a 22 and it appears it went from a 21 to a 24 on the ordinance. So, just seemed like those were in discrepancy from the study. I don't know if that changed or something along the way.

Right. We can address that for you, Jim. All right. Thanks.

Um, that is a great point, Jim. Um, we Steve, you may need to provide some insight on this. Um, this position was part of a realignment that was generated likely after those those data points. And so there was a separate analysis done on these two positions that he mentioned. And so Steve, do you want me to describe the changes of that and then you can add to it? Um so this position was originally the waste uh water pollution control superintendent and now that that position has taken responsibility and oversight of the transfer transfer station solid waste coalition and that is what caused um a higher responsibility change and just the compliance factors that have gone into that role and how critical it is to try to replace that position as well as um the water director. Those are two very critical roles. But because they took on extra responsibility um we felt that this was important. We did ask Cell to verify that change which also resulted in that supervisor to increase along with it to match the solid waste supervisor because they're going to match kind of that level of authority under that that new realigned position. So I'll let Steve add to that. So historic historically at the wastewater between the wastewater plant and the solid waste system, the more senior employee has sort of been the overall supervisor out there. And that's bounced around between whether or not the senior senior employee was with solid waste or the senior employee was

at at wastewater. And um that certainly worked for us for for quite a while. Um, as our systems are becoming more complex, as we're looking uh to add pre-treatment systems out there for for our industries, um, we're spending a lot more time working with industrial permitting, industrial pre-treatment permits. Um and so that the time requirement for for the wastewater uh supervisor has or superintendent has substantially increased over the last I'd say 25 years. Um also we're seeing that between the the solid waste system and and the wastewater plant those really coexist in the world of what's called resource recovery. And we're also there's a lot of community conversation about recycle and and trying to move move recycle forward or move Norfork forward in the recycling uh world. And so working with Jessica over the last year and a half or so restructuring. So we've got a uh we're moving our the individual that is currently our wastewater superintendent. uh that person's will be would be shifted to um the resource recovery director and fully fully sit uh over both of those positions or supervise the wastewater plant and um our solid waste uh recovery system. So that's that's those are the kind of the conversations that are going on there as as our wastewater superintendent um you know really takes that position above those two operations. Um there was a a a a movement from um the operator there at the at the wastewater plant. Um and that individual would become we

adjusted them up to become equivalent to the solid waste uh supervisor. Um so that's that's the movement that's going on in in there. So it'll no longer be the you know the senior employee out there that's overseeing both systems. It'll be an actual position uh with superi super very direct supervisory services over those two positions or two operations. Both of those exist as they're part of our enterprise fund. So solid waste is a business [snorts] entity that's operated by the city. We receive fees through solid waste. Those fees operate the system. Same with wastewater. We receive our sewer fees. Those sewer fees operate the wastewater system. So there's we have an individual out there that's that's that's running two business entities at the city. Any questions for Steve? Steve, I also comment that this new resource recovery director position also has a coalition to do with the landfill as well. That's another added responsibility. Correct.

That is correct. We uh we we the city of Northfor are the administration arm of the solid waste coalition. And so that our solid waste supervisor um spends about half their time out at the landfill and about half their time on site here at our transfer station. [clears throat] And I would just say that the anybody who works in the wastewater, you would understand that if we don't do things correctly, the fines that are assessed and also the health concerns that we shove downstream are very critical and costly if we do not have the right person in place.

That's correct, Councilman. There's a lot of chemistry that takes place out there and there's a lot of new regulations that are coming at us and so there's a lot of time spent just staying up to date on EPA requirements, federal requirements, um maintaining our permit with the state and staying ahead of that. Um Norfork historically has been a a shining star in our state and we want to continue to be a shining star here. um staying ahead of those regulations, anticipating those um and um you know it's it's staff like the staff we have. They do a great job and uh we want to we want to keep them here doing a great job.

And I think it should be noted that our water superintendent and his staff is what keeps our community healthy and safe. It's the fastest way to to damage a community and make it sick is have have bad water. I have a question maybe for Jessica. Um, [clears throat] so there's several different um divisions that are bundled into this comp study. Is there a reason why they're just not compensated within their own um department? I'm not sure I'm understanding your question as far as like in terms of budget or or what are you

well like waste um wastewater like why can't that if if that is funded with enterprise funds why can't that just be um budgeted within their own budget?

Yeah. And I think this year or this last budget year was a little complex in trying to bring forward a lot of changes in one package and some we um could have done as separate items, but we wanted to make sure we were evaluating all employees fairly. And so I think in future for future purposes, that's a great point. It's a different type of budget that we have more freedom to [snorts] work with compared to the general fund if that's what you're saying. I think that that is an opportunity.

Yeah. So those those positions are not funded out of the general fund. if that's part part of the answer to that. You know, we're but all employees fall into those those grades and steps whether you you know and so we're just this is just showing you the grades that those employees are in or being being adjusted to

the dollars to pay for this this these changes come come out of our enterprise funds if they're if they're a water or sewer employee, you know, solid waste employee. those changes that $58,000 and I and I can't necessarily speak current. I don't know if the $58,000 was the total sum of the changes in here general fund. So Steve, why haven't you made those changes? If you funded through the enterprise fund, why haven't you given those raises to those employees? We still rely on council to be the approving body for those increases

and it was still technically part of the compensation analysis of reviewing job descriptions. So it was it was part of that project. Um but it would have been nice if we could have just created a few changes, but we wanted to make sure we we brought everything forward as part of the project. Um, but we can do things a little differently next year. Any other questions? Any additional questions from the public? Jessica, I got a memo today from Randy Gates speaking to the changes that you wanted to make. How come that memo wasn't in the enclosure to go step by step to show the council?

You know, because it's personnel. I think that was that was meant for a conversation for subcommittee, but if you want me to walk through that tonight, I I sure can. If you No, not necessarily walk through it, but why didn't the council get that memo so they can better understand what they're voting on? And I I do believe it was emailed out to the entire council from that subcommittee. Am I wrong in saying that, Kylie? Yeah, it would have been with the minutes. Yeah. So, I didn't I I I had I didn't have it. So, okay. I can reail it. I I have it now from Randy, but I did not have it. I was talking to Randy and I did not have it. So,

Okay. Well, we apologize for that. It I the intent was it for to go out to everybody. So if you have any questions related to the changes, I'm happy to answer. [clears throat] Any other questions? Right. Seeing none, please vote. Oh, I'm sorry. I got to start over here. Discussion or short title. Short title, please.

An ordinance of the city of Northfor, Nebraska. Nebraska classifying the employees of the city, fixing the ranges of compensation of such employees, providing a pay range, repealing ordinance number 5945, providing for publication in pamphlet form, and when this ordinance shall take effect. All right. Now you can vote. Voting in the affirmative, McCarthy, Granquist, Arn Jensen, Langy, Hildebrand, Beckman. Voting in opposition. Web ordinance number 5956 carries on first reading. I'd like to make a motion to suspend the rules and pass this on second and third. Second.

All right. Any discussion? All right. Seeing none, please vote. Voting in the affirmative. McCarthy, Granquist, Arns, Jensen, Langy, Hildebrand, Beckman. Voting in opposition, Web. Ordinance number 5956 carries on second and third. All right. On to item number 23, consideration of approval to authorize the hiring of three additional firefighters for the North Fork Fire Division. Need a motion. I would make the motion. Second. Right.

A motion and a second. Um chief's going to come up and lead us in discussion.

All right. Thank you, mayor. Good evening, mayor and councel. Uh Tim Rocky, fire chief. I appreciate you hearing me out this evening. It's been kind of a roller coaster the last five months. Uh as you can expect with any grant, especially when you're working with federal government and some of the things that have happened. Um just to recap, we uh have been discussing adding staffing for the past three to five years. Uh in 2019, right before the pandemic, we were able to add three, which is one per shift, getting us to 10 per shift. And then in 2022, we asked to add a plus one with the the thought being if somebody is down to prolonged injury um illness, heaven forbid, we've dealt with military deployments, we can float that person to the other shift and keep them whole at at 10. uh which has proven to be very very helpful for us. Uh we had a couple shoulder shoulder surgeries we had to work around last year and we were able to float that person over. Um at that time when we added plus one we discussed with uh the subcommittee of adding more and it just didn't work at that time with some different lid limits that were in place that we just couldn't make it happen. So we did one which I'm very grateful for. Fast forward, uh, the call numbers soared and we hit that last year of 3,512 calls, which was a couple hundred higher than we had seen before. And, uh, just continued to, uh, shout out that we needed extra help. And that's where, uh, we came back to the council last January, started talking again about adding staffing, uh, looking at alternative funding, and applied for a staffing adequate response grant, safer grant for the fire service. That application was in the end of June and we were supposed to find out by September 30th if we were awarded the grant. Government went into shutdown right at September 30th or shortly thereafter and uh we had had multiple sources say that all awards were given out by that date if you had not heard um you were unsuccessful. So we there was still some uncertainty

there because government wanted to shut down October 1st. And even though those that had gotten the awards were notified, those that were unsuccessful were supposed to hear by mid-occtober, but the government was in shutdown that entire time. So, uh, patiently followed all the votes to reopen the government, which, as you know, took north to 40 days until recently when they did reopen and got the federal workers back into their offices. And we started explaining um to subcommittee that we don't think we got this grant, but we still need these positions. Can we figure out a way? And that is when we started talking to public safety subcommittee about what's the plan? How can we fund these positions? What does it mean financially? Uh so the memo that I submitted for public safety subcommittee uh this last subcommittee meeting and then today's memo got to you. I apologize for the delay on that but should be in your hands tonight. Uh we had to as recently as last Thursday and then Friday morning we pulled this item off the agenda because we didn't think we were going to hear back from anybody from the federal government offices because they just got back Thursday morning. And then Friday at 4:00, I got an email saying um you were uh if you did not receive notice by September 30th, you were in fact unsuccessful, but turn down notices still could take a few weeks. So we uh got this back on the agenda uh to discuss tonight. The from a financial standpoint, and Randy can correct me, uh 326,000 and some change is basically what it costs to add three positions. We had 25% of that accounted for in our budget, which is a little over 80,000 because that was the 25% match that we would have been responsible for, leaving roughly 244,000 that the grant would have covered and what we needed to come up with to try to find a way to fund these positions this year and get those folks hired for the last 10 11 months of the year.

Um, that is if we had them for an entire year. So that 244,000 shrinks down to a little over 200,000 if we're to get them on board by the middle of December, early January. So the things that we looked at from a funding mechanism, uh how do we do that? There's some ground emergency medical transport legislation that is new. Basically, that provides additional reimbursement for qualifying Medicaid patients. instead of getting $387 for a qualifying Medicaid patient, you get closer to what you bill, which an ALS call is north of $1,000. So, it closes the gap drastically on that. Um the numbers that that we are seeing based on the last couple years of calls is that could be um an additional revenue of somewhere around 160,000 a year annually. uh those funds wouldn't start until next year, but that'll be a sustainable fund as those types of calls will ultimately continue to come in. Uh the other thing we looked at is the funds that were set aside for fire division employees in the comp study. Uh the fire division employees were not part of the comp study adjustments that you just approved. Um that number was around 109,000 uh 106,000, I'm sorry, 106 282. And uh what we'd be asking for is the council to consider using those funds to help offset this initial year, which leaves around 90,000 that we would be asking for out of council priority dollars to finish what it would cost to get these folks on board for the last 10 10 and a half months of this year. Um again, the calls have continued to come. Um, you know, I know that there were two departments in Nebraska that were successful that I've heard from and three of us that were not. Uh, there's 300 there's over $300 million that are given out in safer grants and they give right around 300 awards across the country. So, it doesn't take fairly very long u about a million dollars a crack for departments that receive those

across the country and some of the bigger departments that consume a lot more of that that money. So from a callback perspective, uh we would and the staffing we would be taking our minimum staffing from 8 to 9. Uh which doesn't seem like a lot, but it's a big deal. Um and it can mean the difference in the back of an engine of having a partner to go interior to a fire or not when we're responding to a fire call. Um, we've had north of 250 call backs, meaning our stations are either one or both stations are empty and our offduty staff have done a phenomenal job of kind of been covering those, but we've had 28 of those so far that went unanswered where we didn't have people backfilling calls in the stations and had to call out to mutual aid. Again, going from 8 to 9 doesn't seem like a lot. Uh, but in the in our firehouses, it's it's actually a big difference. So, I've talked enough and I I would entertain any questions you might have.

Yeah. Uh Chief, just um kind of going through your funding process here. You know, you started with 326, you had 80K budgeted. Uh then you were talking about the 360 you were billing out now I believe now could move up to a,000 with the Medicaid or Medicaid billing. Yeah. From the Medicare Medic from the Medicaid, not Medicare, the Medicaid [clears throat] patients. Um Medicaid's only going to pay out so much per per call. So, if we build 1100 right now, I think we collect around $387. So, what that legislation is is uh h will do for us is it'll get us much closer to what we're actually billing for services. So, you about a year's time another additional 160,000 into your budget.

Yes. So that puts you at 84,000 as of and then 84,000 was coming from the we talked about using the comp study dollars the 106,000 106 from the comp. Yep. The thing with 160 that that doesn't start until next year, right? So I thought at one time we were throwing around some council priority funds. Is that

Yes. Yes. This year we'd be able if we use the comp study that would take that 200,000 or 244,000 down. Um, if we used 106,000, I think there was roughly 200,000 if we only had 10 months instead of 12 months that it would cost to hire these positions. And if we used 106,000 of of uh the comp study dollars, that would come down to less than 100,000 and that would be the amount we'd be looking at for council priority dollars. In the years to come, as far as sustainability, those new revenues that kick in uh will help this be more sustainable and then we can adjust our budget for the difference next year, [clears throat] but this year we wouldn't have that available. So,

correct. Right. But I mean if I'm Yeah, I kind of was reading this off like what you're anticipating future wise. So there's a potential we could future going in like next we might be pulling from council property dollars until we see revenues sh change within the city's budget you know might look like that long term.

Yeah I mean speak to that Randy my understanding was we would modify our budget to help with the offset. Yeah, this will be this first year we're recommending council priority dollars as you uh said going forward it'll be massaged into our entire budget process and um [cough] depending on how sales tax comes in which is a big driver of our budget. we will have a much better idea as we go through that budget process if we will need council priority dollars going forward or not. Um [clears throat] the uh $160,000 that Tim talks about is an estimate but that's and that's for our Medicaid uh supplemental reimbursement. We won't know for sure what that is until we get farther into the process and start collecting those dollars. The way I understand it, it's a statewide average of costs for Medicare, Medicaid transports that our reimbursement is based on. And those cost reports aren't even due into um the state until December 19th, I believe. So all of these numbers we're talking about are estimates and as we get into next fiscal year that'll be thrown into that whole big budget process which will become much clearer as we go through it. But yes, council priority dollars may be a possible funding source going forward. Chief, I have a question for you. The safer grant, is that one that you can

apply for every year? So, it is designed for new hires in fire service or retaining hires or taking hires from volunteer to full-time. So, I haven't gotten a good answer on I don't think it can be used for sustainability in full-time firefighter positions. So if we if we hired these positions right now and then reapplied next year, it would be for staffing above and beyond what what we currently had or if you were doing it for retention from changing a volunteer to a full-time firefighter, then you could take these same staff that you have and then now start paying them. But you can apply for this safer grant every year.

Yeah, you could apply for every year if you wanted to. Absolutely. And is it calendar year? it. We applied in June this year and I don't recall what the deadline was. Sometime in July, I think. So, I think they're already gearing up for some of the grants that are coming the next go around. But

the question I asked is is this a is this a priority to add three immediately or is this one where you could stagger it and you could apply for that safer grant next year for the possibility of a second or a third hire? To me, it's a 100% priority to hire them all together. Um, we have three solid candidates ready and waiting. Um, two of whom are already credentialed to the max of what we would ask. Um, and another who's in the process. Um, taking a candidate crew through with multiple at a time as opposed to one makes the probationary academy much more effective. Um, it's and it's u the numbers that were driven by safer. Um, and the reason we asked for three, when we initially started these discussions, we talked about two, but the numbers that were driven by Safer, our consultant said three loud and clear, um, that you should add three and and that'll get you where you need to be right now for staffing. So, I I am um, fully committed to try to get three positions at once. And I there's really no other way for me to say that. Um, that's in my mind the best and safest way to move forward. So,

I appreciate your response. Y one comment I'd like to make is that we were always going to have to find room in our general fund budget to pay for these. Safer was just a three-year program, right? [clears throat] So, it's to help ease us into funding these positions ourself. So, if we would have gotten the safer grant, we'd still be looking at general funding for these three positions several years down the road. this just moved it up when we have to get that general funding and provide for these positions ourself.

That's exactly what I was I was thinking also and especially when we were talking about council priority dollars and we we did talk about the immediate need and possibly using council priority dollars. But I I believe there is subcommittee conversations about that not being something that it's going to be relied on for payroll and not going down that road. Right. Yeah. And that's what they're for. They're council private dollars for short-term issues and get things fixed. It's like there's a possibility of it's right [clears throat] not necessarily short-term and that's not what

well it's basically going to be up to the council moving forward long term because uh there was a time when council prior dollars were used to fund payroll and then there was a council that came on board and they said they didn't want that so they took it out. We're in a situation now where we probably [clears throat] have we have to use council priors in this situation because it's a safety issue for the community, but then you're going to have a council where turnover whatnot. will come forward again and say these aren't appropriate to be using for payroll and you need to get them out of there because it was a self-imposed property tax increase in 200 what one two somebody my

that's where Ry's conversation is the the [snorts] grant is three years to get us to a point and we have to think about it or what we're doing yeah you make a valid you make a valid point though I mean you're making a valid point yeah the grant would have been 25% match for the city in years one and two and it goes up to 65 in year three. So by year three we would have been approaching almost three4s of our cost. So

So Randy to take us possibly to the next next budget cycle to forecast what we'll be dealing with next budget cycle. Say sales tax stays as projected flat say council prior dollars have a different use. How do we fund this? That'll be something that the city council has to decide as we go through the budgetary process and and set our priorities. Um what's the funding mechanism you do you believe that would pay for it?

Bottom line is we can the default funding mechanism when you can't come up with something else seems to be property tax. We got flexibility in property tax. Sales tax, we don't have flexibility on really. It's a set rate. We can't raise that up and down easily. Property tax is something we can raise up and down easily, but we're a long ways from knowing what our budget's going to look like as we start putting it together for next fiscal year. Um, that's my concern with all this is that when when we're talking to citizens, we say, "Well, 80% of the budget is payroll. We don't really have much say in that payroll." Well, tonight proves that we do. So, when next year comes around and property taxes have to be increased to fund what we're doing here today, we have to stand behind to say your property taxes are increasing because of the votes that we made on personnel. And so we have to decide is it important to do this and will the citizens agree with us that their property taxes will go up and they find this as a value to do that.

Well, I think when you're talking about fire, you're talking about safety and the citizens are the ones we're protecting by doing this. So I So I am completely behind this. He's got three great candidates. I think now's the time. They're almost two are certified completely. Am I right, Chief?

Yes, there be uh so we have different different certifications. Um the medical certifications are they take time. Uh right now we have five students in the paramedic program. Um so hiring people, you know, that that aren't paramedics or EMTs, you know, if they're good people, it's great. We've been really fortunate to have some great hires. They just didn't have those credentials yet and they're going through class and they're amazing. Um finding hires that already have some of those credentials, whether it be medical or fire, is is pretty pretty challenging right now on the fire service as a whole. This particular group that came through was a great group from from top to bottom as far as our candidates. So, we had some paramedics, we had some EMTs, we had some with fire experience. Um, our top three that are sitting there right now will not require um some of the same EMS training that that others are going through right now to get to get where we're going. So, so fire ready, so to speak. Right. Right. Chief, my question would be um by hiring these three people, where does that set us for the future though? I mean, are we going to are we going to see another three in two years, three years, five years? I mean, I know you can't predict the future at all, but but I mean, based just based on what you've seen over the last few years, where do you think when's our next hire of three going to come? Is that going to be in 3 years, 5 years? When's that?

Based on the current numbers, it it puts us right where we need to be. And I I don't believe I mean I think we're going to continue to stay where we're at from a call volume standpoint. We ran 3,500 calls last year. We're under that right now this year. Um if we hover right around there, this is the ideal amount of people to have. I unless something drastic changes from a call volume perspective, I wouldn't see us looking back at this for a while or potentially when we start talking more about a third station that would be housed with police and fire both. So, um, I think this puts us in a really good place and I can't imagine with the same call volume, what we know now, having to come back and ask for more. That's me on record saying

unless the city just kind of blossoms all of a sudden. We have

Yeah, I mean, growth growth drives call volume. Uh, and and there's so many things that can change your call volume from 100 calls. It's it's and that's what we're seeing right now. We've had, you know, a couple different situations that may may on their own create 40 calls a year and then if you don't have those situations anymore, that call fluctuates a little bit. So I going to nine for us for Northfor Fire for this organization is um is a big deal. Not every department is is the same as far as what their minimum staffing has for ideal numbers, but nine is for us. And basically the safer grant and the consultant we hired agreed that was the sweet spot for us. So

chief, you said that this extra person will allow backup going into a situation right now. What do we do in that situation with the reserves or how do you fill that hole right now?

Yeah, we have we [clears throat] have people that are coming in off duty. So, an example is and when I talked about that specific situation, um a large percentage of the time we have an ambulance out, at least one ambulance out. So, as soon as you do that, it takes two to three people out of your station to respond. So, if a fire comes in, which we've had very recently, um and there's any sort of life safety, your officer, you have your driver that's running the pump, it's always going to run the pump. More often than not, those initial responses, the officer that you want to keep outside to watch conditions is having to go in on that first hose line with the one person that's in the back until an ambulance can get there to support them. So, you're sacrificing your officer that's supposed to be keeping things safe on the outside and you don't have a backup team established on the outside for those first people that are going into effective rescue. So, um this nine per shift, the way our two stations are set up, we'd have four on an engine way more often. And that's statistically more of what drove the safer grant than our EMS call volume. They took into consideration how many times our ambulance is out of the service. And then how many times we respond to a fire with a driver, an officer and only one person in back. So the ninth on a minimum staffing and there'll be shifts where we could have 10 or 11 on shift if we don't have people off sick or on vac or in class. Sorry.

Randy, can you can you tell us how much we have in council priority and what did we last used it on? We've got about $900,000 in council priority money. We get $400,000 in a year. We've got some of that committed for [clears throat] um the debt service, I believe, and I'd have to look at that council priority spreadsheet, but you've got several hundred,000 of council priority dollars that are available every year.

Thank you. And if this did all fall through to property tax, um, and we get the $160,000 that we're hoping to net from the, uh, supplemental Medicaid reimbursement, that would be somewhere in that 80 to $90,000 range. It would have to come up with from something else. And if that's something else was property tax, it would be about like that first year funding of the comp study. That's that spreadsheet that's in your agenda packet. And that shows it' be about $3.40 per $100,000 of assessed valuation. But as I mentioned earlier, we're way early. Well, we really haven't even started the budget process for next year. We're just getting started in the budget for this year. So that could look better, it could look worse. We could decide we're going to defer some other expenditure somewhere else to pay for firefighters. There's a lot of things that could happen, but if it did fall through property tax, that's the kind of impact we're looking at.

Chief, I just wanted to thank you for giving your presentation. Um, and I guess you know the public safety part of it is if that's something that you're just you're adamant these are the three that we need and they should be brought on. I mean I'm not I wouldn't disagree with that at all. And as far as funding in the future, I think we'll we'll find a we'll find a way to do that. Um, but I think we got to keep public safety at the at the number one priority right now. And I just appreciate your presentation. Thank you,

Tim. I just struggle with this budget cycle. I don't question the need. I don't question what you're saying to us. I just question in this budget cycle that we just came out of, can we afford to do it? It's the timing of it I struggle with. I'm all for public safety. I just I know no matter what situation you have that you're going to operate at a high level and the community is safe with whatever we throw at you. So, but my biggest concern is this next budget cycle. How do we afford it? We don't have a funding mechanism. We're leaning on dollars that wasn't allocated for this. We didn't get the grant. So, that's what I struggle with. But, I do appreciate you and I know this is it's hard for you to come up and ask for this when you know the budget is the way it is. So,

yeah, I don't take that lightly at all. I appreciate the comments. I just looked at the council priority dollars spreadsheet. That $400,000 that comes in, about half of that is available um for something other than the $200,000 that's committed to transfers to the CHAF fund. Um that was $200,000 that we had originally thought was going to be debt service on chaff bonds but decided not to issue. So you've got about half of your council priority dollars every year that's available. Thank you.

Randy, what's our overall fire budget? What do we spend on fire every year? Oh, I'd have to look. Probably have a better idea than I do, Tim. I can look that up in just a minute. Yeah. Five five and a half million. Yeah. It's like 5. I'd have to look at my 5.5 5.4. Yeah. [clears throat] All right. Any additional questions for Chief Rocky while we got them up here. Any questions from the public?

Come forward now. All right. Any other any other thoughts? Okay. We have a motion, a second. Um we've had our presentation, so please vote. So with with the late addition to the agenda, this was not added to the voting software. So this will be a verbal vote. Granquist, yes. Arns, yes. Webb, yes. McCarthy, yes. Beckman, yes. Jensen, yes. Hildebrand, yes. Langy, yes.

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

All right. Um Justin, do appreciate your comments because you've had three things on this budget tonight on this on this in this meeting tonight [clears throat] that have been anticipation of future revenue. And so it's really tough to make decisions when you can't see the future. And and so um fortunately we have with those council priority funds, that's what they're there for. There's 200,000 going to Chaff right now, which potentially may we could potentially stop if we had to um for but if if the uh if we do real well on this police police um remodel and things work out better on that cost and some of those funds then can be allocated toward streets, then come back and and be there for that and then you and you've still got $200,000 sitting there. So that that that to me is kind of what's saving our bacon a little bit with these decisions tonight. So, but do appreciate those those concerns. Those are really serious concerns. Okay, moving on. Item number um 24, consideration approval of an amendment or addendum. I'm sorry, I got to get some glasses here. Number one to the engineering design of services contract with McCclary Engineering for the 25th Street reconstruction uh Bijon Avenue to Eisenor Avenue project for an amount of $25,000. I'm asking for a motion.

I'll make a motion for consideration of approval. Second. I have a motion. Second. We'll go into discussion. Steve's going to leave us in discussion on this.

Mayor and council, earlier or earlier this fall, late summer, uh engineering staff held meetings with land owners adjacent to the uh 25th Street uh reconstruction project. And one of the outcomes of that project was a desire to um look at the intersection at Dover and 25th and identify uh where that intersection sits related to warrants for four-way stop andor traffic signal system. Um I think that makes sense to to evaluate the intersection for that um and make some decisions around that. So we asked that was not included as a function of the original design. Uh so we've asked we asked them to uh prepare an amendment to the contract. That's what's in front of you. As a again as a function of this what they would do is they would look at the MUTCD warrants. Um, and that's going to if it comes back that a traffic signal is I mean that's desirable, but if it comes back that it doesn't meet the warrants, one thing it would tell us is roughly based on um how fast uh traffic is increasing on 25th. It would tell us when to anticipate a traffic signal. Um, and I think that's good. uh if it you know if it doesn't if we don't meet it now at least we'll be able to budget for that in the future and kind of have an idea of when in the future that might hit us. Um the other thing it does based on the warrants uh the warrant information that comes out of the study is they will develop uh three alternative designs for that intersection um to make that a a safe intersection based on modern modern engineering um alternatives that we could plug in there. Um so again based on uh you know

the feedback we received during those adjacent landowner meetings um I certainly would support moving moving this forward based on the schedule. Then we would anticipate being through this and have some answers out of this late uh early I'd say midFebruary, late February. Um and then we'd be able to take those to a larger public uh conversation on that project sometime in in March or early April. Any questions? Steve, I'm How did we get to this point? I guess is the intersection unsafe right now? And

well, as we I have another question. Some of it I think there's um some of it was a concern about just um I'm not going to say the speed of traffic in there, but as as the traffic volume increases, there was some concern just today, but as we see the Blackberry subdivision develop out, as we see um the the uh Windham Hills sub, you know, subdivisions continue to grow out. is that at what point will that growth require a signal at that intersection? Um, so depending on the answer to that, if it's today, I don't think it is, but if it's today, obviously we would want to get that in, but even if it's in the future, what do we need to do to plan for that from an infrastructure standpoint in that intersection and and how do we lay that out? So

So when when did that roundabout go in? You know, roundabout 2010ish. Was it earlier than 2010? Yeah, I think so. I think it was earlier in 2010. Not not necessarily very old is all I'm This is all I'm saying there. But part of the things that we've been doing in this town is what's that? Right after fire station. All right. Thank you, 2000. Fire station 2002. So about 20056.

I said 2005. 20 years. All right. But but part of our conversations lately were the cost of signals, getting rid of signals, changing our intersections, putting in roundabouts to slow down traffic because they can handle the traffic and now we're looking at doing an engineering study to change it again. It just seems This is This is 25th in Dover. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I think I'd argue that the the roundabout at Benjamin Avenue there on 25th was was not right when it went in the first time. It hasn't handled traffic very well coming in and out of there very good even though we're not talking about that intersection. Sorry, that roundabout, but you bring it up. I do. As we move forward with these designs for 20 Well, I guess what I'm just going to jump in here.

So, we're talking about 25th Street. I think and that's a huge project. Um, but I it would be nice to know exactly where everybody's at on this project, too, as far as moving this one forward. I know we've had some discussion about this and I know this will be coming forward when we get our strategic plan meeting put together too. Yep. So, we're in design right now. We anticipate [clears throat] having that 30% design ready for a public open house presentation conversation here in March and gathering more public input on that corridor.

I know you've had a couple maybe a couple public meetings. We had we've met with um we had had a conversation with sub infrastructure subcommittee and then from there we met with um we'd set up group meetings for uh the homeowners that that live adjacent to uh 25th Street. Um they're the ones that are going to be most impacted by the by that project. We wanted to visit with them, get some input from them, get to the 30% design, and then take it out for a larger neighborhood and public meeting.

And Steve, isn't this also kind of related to the trail system and the fact that if if we do need to uh cross that road, 25th is the identified trail crossing. Yes.

Yeah. And so part of what'll come out of here is looking at that crossing. If it's signalized, it's pretty it's a it's a it's a much simpler crossing. Um if it's an unsignalized intersection, does that become a midblock crossing or you know what what what type of an alternative do we want to put in there from a design perspective? And there are there's multiple solutions to that could be plugged in. And so being able to present those to the public in March, say here's, you know, where's the where's the most support uh in terms of that that trail crossing.

So So my bad there, Steve, on looking up here, Benjamin 25th, but um what are the [snorts] what are your thoughts for that possible or probable intersection? Are you think are you honestly thinking that street lights are the solution to I I know it's a guessing game and that's why you want to spend 25 grand. We have a better idea.

If it meets the warrants for signal, you know, let's say it meets the warrants for signal. We're looking at putting this in the ground in 2028. Yeah, 2028. Um, so I would say if a signal is warranted based on forecasted growth somewhere anywhere within the first I want to say 5 years of 2028. So 2028 to say 2032ish probably merits putting some hard thought into installing the signals or at least maybe maybe we get the footings in. We get right we get the box or the the signal cabinet in place. we can wait down the road to actually install the signals. Um I mean those are the kind of questions that thought processes that we would want to go through a little bit is that if it doesn't require it um the signal maybe something else comes out of those warrants. I don't think it's going to be a four-way stop. I'm pretty confident of that. But

I I think that's where I was going with that is do we really need to spend 25 grand to tell us that why don't we just prepare it for that anyway for a signal and if you use it you use it because it's more than likely going to be a future rather than a four-way stop or it's going to be a roundabout. [laughter] I'd say it's going to be a very interest Yeah, it' be somewhere at 18th and 18th and Benjamin where we have a signalized intersection right there or Prospect in and 25th Street. Again, why spend the money and not just put it as part of the plan and just be prepared just in case I think we just saved you 25 grand. [gasps]

I'm not opposed to that. I'm I you know I mean essentially you're going to spend 25 grand being prepared instead of doing a study and then the signal more than anything the 25,000 might save us 50% of the cost of that infrastructure if it's not needed for a while. Um but um I I would say if there's a desire just based on that corridor to install to install it um I'm I'm not opposed to that. uh just having infrastructure in the ground ready for it if we need it. Yeah, at the minimum we design it and get the infrastructure in the ground. Uh conduits, signal box. Um

but if that's the direction, I think I would take that back to the design team then and we'll we'll have some we'll we'll consume just what the best approach is to that. Um I didn't think 25,000 was too bad. you know, a signal system is going to cost us 250 300,000 probably and and rather than invest that if it's not needed for five years or more, um I thought 25,000 was worth getting the answer to that. But if we if you want to just make that decision here, I'll be [snorts] I'll be happy to move the design forward with with the signal.

As much as a signal is as much as having the infrastructure in there for a signal, okay, is what is my thought like it's it's there. Next thing you know, you're putting up lights if you need them or running wire in the conduit that's there if you need it. Um, okay. I have That's just my two cents. I'm not I'm not opposed to that. Not opposed to that. Sure as hell not an engineer, Steve. So, I have no idea.

It's uh Yeah, you know, it's it still comes back. There's some pieces in here. Um, but I I can I can have some conversation with the design team on that. if if we're not going to signalize it now, if it doesn't deserve actually putting the signals heads up and activating the signal system and we need to do something different in terms of the the pedestrian crossing for the trail system. Um what is that? But I think we can consume that a little bit differently uh and and still be able to present some options there for to the to the citizens in March. So I'm okay taking that direction. council should table it.

Yeah, you you can either table it or you can just vote it down completely. Yeah, I'm fine voting it down. Yeah, if you're going to take it off just Yeah. Okay. I think every understands that, right? Any other Thank you for the conversation, council.

Other comments? Anybody here like to come up? David Jansmma. I live up there. Did we get the results from the study of the roundabout traffic flow that was proposed earlier this year? You you'd said that they were going to do a study of the traffic flow at the roundabout on 25th and Benjamin.

So current currently, right, the roundabout is is currently not budgeted as part of the project. That's not what I asked. I know. I'm going to answer what you asked.

Answer what I asked. So when we had those public when we had those meetings with the with the land owners up there that was a question we asked was you know the opinions on those and we presented a couple options some some redesign uh redesign would be have a substantial impact up there. We also presented some technology that's currently being implemented in a couple states uh where they are metering traffic into the roundabout with some reasonable success uh during those peak periods. And so rather than have to sit there and wait, you can meter that in. Um visiting with those homeowners adjacent to the 20 25th Street corridor. Um the overall consensus was that you know yes traffic does pick up during peaks but they did not feel it was something that really needed to be addressed. U so based on those conversations uh we're thinking about uh doing a study and putting in a a system to meter meter traffic.

Well I live up there. You didn't ask my opinion. Uh, the traffic there is horrendous at, like I said, 9, noon, 3 and 5, and people don't know how to drive roundabouts. Um, if you put a stoplight there, you're going to slow the traffic down where you probably won't need a traffic light at Dover and 25th. I've lived up there for 40ome years and it's pretty tough. and they come down do and like I've said there needs to be a stop sign at Dover and Clearfield cuz they go right through it. Um like I said the last meeting they did slow them down when they put the sign that or the speed sign that registers them. That was great but I don't know if this is a solution. The solution is 25th and Benjamin, not Dover and 25th. and like I said, I've lived up there forever and watched the development happen. So, just do the right thing and understand the people that live up there. Check with all the people that live up there and ask opinions, not a select few. Thanks for your time.

All right. Yeah. And we will be gathering again in March at 30% design. Uh we'll be gathering um more public input from the larger community in that area. My name is Tim Ernst and I've lived on Dober Street for probably 30 years and I have never had any problems getting on 25th Street. Occasionally might have to wait for three or four cars coming from the uh north, but nothing serious. But you get down to that crazy roundabout [clears throat] at 10 minutes to eight and grant I'm not in a hurry. I don't care. I'm just heading to coffee. But it's uh the cars from the north are backed up probably two blocks and the cars from Elorado are backed up clear down to the bottom of the hill. And it's uh either people don't know how to negotiate that roundabout or it needs to go away cuz it's uh you know some people are cutting through by the bank there to get going. But it's uh it's very very busy time of the day. You go there about4 to 8 and 10 to 8 and you just go up there and sit in the middle of that roundabout and see what a mess it is.

I think uh signal lights probably that uh they don't have to operate 24/7, but just couple times, you know, the busier times of the day and you keep traffic moving a little lot better and you'd have a lot happier people. Thanks, Tim. It is, you know, I live in that area, too. It's it is a rough intersection to get in front of. Oh. Um, anybody else? Anything? All right. So, we're on to voting. So, let's uh let's vote. [clears throat]

Is everybody stand the Okay. Looks like all council members present voting in opposition. Motion fails. All right, we are on to item number 25, consideration of ordinance number 5957 amending section 8-9 of the official city code to exclude river areas from the prohibitions contained in that section related to water recreation and to make it an offense to jump from the Johnson Park pedestrian bridge. The ordinance includes language specifically stating that individuals who choose to enter the water in river areas do so at their own risk.

I'll offer consideration ordinance number 5957. Second. All right. We have a motion second. Uh Nate's going to be leading discussion for clarification. Is this 5957 or 5956? 5967. It's just wrong in the packet.

It's just wrong on the Thank you. Good evening, mayor and council. Um, again, tonight we're talking about the the water recreation ordinance um along with [clears throat] the the improvements to um improve um river use, the safety and also look at state law regarding our rights in the in the river as well. Um just some some background. Um and our current ordinance outlines the rules for swimming, waiting, boating, and other um recre water recreation activities. Um but this is specific to the river. Um I some background on this. On Mother's Day weekend, it was a very nice day and uh it was our first day of the year and and we got real busy and um I got a I had a lot of calls when I came in. Um on on that Monday morning um we had a lot of people jumping off the bridge um people jumping off rocks and just rumors of people getting hurt. I don't know if that was actual um I couldn't confirm that but um that was what came up. So we had to look at our our ordinance and what we could enforce, what we couldn't enforce, and we had to fall back on the swimming ordinance that we have that's designed for or that's written for lake for lakes and reservoirs um throughout the state. Um so um this will um this swimming ordinance will um will clarify that the the um the prohibition for swimming is doesn't apply to rivers. Currently it's permitted in park waters unless designated areas. Um we do designate no swimming at Sky View. Um and so that's what our current um regulations are. Um, rivers would be the exception. Individuals may enter the water at their own risk. State and local agencies do not assess or certify ris river conditions because water levels, the

quality of the water, the depth and hazards, they all change daily. Um, so they don't they don't regulate those at a state level. Um, they kind of let you decide for yourself. Um, we also added no no jumping from the bridge because that is something that we do want to enforce and we did put some meat to that and um the violation would be up to a $500 fine. Um, our public rights uh um the public has a right to float, paddle, tube, swim, or enter the water column and and float along the river as as they see fit. Um, it's not something we can regulate. touching or standing may may be considered trespassing um unless you're briefly portaging around a structure. Um so those are the state rules. So our city role is to respect and maintain those those river access rights but also communicate our risks clearly enforce unsafe behaviors including jumping from the bridge. Um we want to be able to enforce that and we also want to update our signage. Um we have um currently we have our life jacket requirement yield to upcoming uh u watercraft from upstream. Um swift we want to make sure we're we're um mentioning that there's swift water strong currents. The the depths change suddenly there's there's no water quality testing done. Um and so we want to make sure that's all added and also that you're entering at your own risk. So, we're we're not recommending swimming or waiting in a river. Rivers are very dangerous. Um, you need to know what your limits are. Um, but if you're out there um um um just wanting to, you know, go kaying or or surfing at the surf wave or if you fall off, you want to be able to swim to shore, that's okay to do that. Um, so,

um, the parks and recreation board did vote 8 to1 to deny a request to to keep the no swimming signage up. So, that's why we're here today. Um, they said the existing signage was sufficient. You know, we we need to enforce the current rules, especially the jumping from the bridge. Um, it's a high priority for them. Um, public um, river rights need to be honored. Individuals need to be able to enter at their own risk. Um, that's all I have. Um, I'm happy to take any questions though. I don't have any questions. Just a comment that thanks for kind of cleaning this up a little bit, getting the right signage out there. Okay. Any other comment from anybody else? Thanks for doing that. I'd probably be one of those kids who would be jumping off that bridge when I was younger. So [cough] [clears throat] anyway, um um is that it for discussion? Short title, please. an ordinance of the city of Northfor, Nebraska to amend section 18-9 of the official city code to exclude river areas from the prohibitions contained in section 18-9A to make it an offense to jump from the Johnson Park pedestrian bridge to provide when this ordinance shall be in full force in effect and to provide for the publication of this ordinance in pamphlet form.

Right. Please vote. All council members present voting in affirmative. Ordinance number 5957 carries on first reading. I'll make a motion to suspend the rules and wave the second and third readings. Second. Any other discussion? Right. Seeing none, please vote.

All council members present voting in the affirmative. Ordinance number 5957 carries on second and third. Okay. Um, we're going on to administration reports. Uh, Will's going to come up and talk about the 2025 snow and ice plan. Good evening, Mayor and Council. We'll go through the PowerPoint here. Uh, not a lot has changed from last year. We have another addition of a snowplow truck which will help speed up our process hopefully depending on the winter. But um, we don't have a whole lot for change in lane miles. We're uh running right at 526 lane miles, 60 plus culdeacs and 20 m of alleys. Um the alleys kind of dependent on how much actually it snows and when it freezes up, but uh usually it's more like 3 4 in before we go through those. And then the emergency snow routes consists of approximately 80 miles of streets. The exist existing snow operation streets will be cleaned when weather permits with timing of the storm. The snow rule will consist 23 street and fleet personnel. Equipment consists of 15 plow trucks, four loaders with pushers, one loader with snow blower if we need that, two pickups with plows for the alleys. 10 of the trucks have salters and five of the trucks are set up with brine units. At the yard, we have uh when we start out before the storm starts, we have the capacity to hold 30,000 gallon of brine on site, 10,000 gallon of brine salt mixture. Uh you see right now we're

using beet heat that's blended at a 7030 blend and we have 5,000 gallons of brine loaded on the trucks ahead of the storm. Snow operation and priorities emergency snow routes in the downtown business district. Um so the emergency snow routes and the downtown business districts are normally hit about the same time. They are the first streets that are the staff plows when they leave the building and they're designed that the traveling public should only have to go about six blocks to hit a road that's been plowed if we haven't got into residential And then the next page is the combined emergency snow routes throughout the city, the mains that we hit. There might be a few miss in there where they're just too close to narrow them in on here, but that were added last year. But these are the main roads that are hit when we first leave the yard. The downtown business district, um the plowing operation normally starts around 2:00 in the morning. Uh let traffic get out from downtown businesses if they're out there earlier and it snows over. Sometimes we start earlier than that, but maybe start over on Madison or something like that and brush and then work our way to North Fork Avenue as the time allows for that. um that consists of the four loaders with the pushers downtown. They uh pile that in various piles and then that's hauled that night uh or the following day or depending on when we get done we might haul some of the piles off that aren't in the busy areas at that time. The snow emergency declaration that's declared by city officials. Normally talking with um Scott and Steve will decide that. Chief Tai um we'll come up with that just depending on the storm. Um [clears throat] then the necessary necessary for public safety makes snow removal timely and cost effect efficient for the streets department. And then we ask that park on even sides of street

during the emergency or any snowstorm. Just speeds up the process for what we're doing. We're starting to run into as our equipment's gotten bigger with wings on it. It's just probably a matter of time before we park on even sides of the street all the time. But we'll see how each year goes. But it's just getting tougher to get through town with these bigger pieces equipment. And then um so it's parking on even size streets for that large equipment. Then no parking on snow emergency routes during the snow emergency. Like even Yep. [laughter]

No, that one was in there. It's been in there forever years. So works good though. uh the snow emergency notification. Um we notified dispatch and then we noticed I had city crews. We work with Nick to get that sent out for the emergency text alerts, Twitter, Facebook, local media, the electronic signs, get that put on it. And then um you can sign up for the snow alerts or any emergency alerts. Um with uh go to the city of Northfor's website and then up in the top right corner you can push on get alerts and the number there you text and then you can start getting all the alerts when they happen for snow emergencies and any other emergency that the city has going on. And then there's a way to get off of that. Also, the deicing operations, um, we work closely with the police division, uh, anything from the snow emergency to let them know so they don't start getting the cars that are parked in the wrong place or if they're seeing something iced up and we're not out, um, they they let us know through dispatch. Um, the priority is the emergency snow routes and the bridges first, like before when we leave the yard. And then we have a couple no salt streets this year, not as many in the past. um North 27th Street, West Benjamin Avenue to the dead end. And then Parkway, North 27th to the dead end. Uh the city crew did a lot of work in there this year. We'll try to just hit that with Brian or Blend um for this first year up there. A lot of the other ones uh where Elorn Paving's been, they're split up kind of all over the city. We don't have nothing that's really solid paving. It's more patching and we'll just do our best. They're just it's kind of all over town so it's hard to get across all those with no salt sometimes. The enhanced snowplow operations um first shift 2:00 a.m. to 3:30 and these move around. It could be 10:00 at night. It really depends on that's just it's in

there. If it's a perfect world, it would be 2 in the morning till whenever we get them cleaned up or we get a second shift in there. Normally that second shift isn't called in unless something's going to snow through the night or we got a really bad wind to keep something open like a couple years ago when we ran out of the clock for three four days. But normally with uh the equipment we have and just the way things are going normally we can get through there 8 n 10 hours it's sped up quite a little. So some of the droughts when we go out on some emergency we don't use all the trucks now with wings. We have um some trucks that go right into residentials which has really sped up getting through that part of the of it for us. So if we had to call in the extras, it'd be somewhere from three to five guys with the wing trucks. We can run three trucks and pretty much get through the emergency routes once or twice through the night when there's no traffic. And then if it was really bad, we'd call in a couple loaders to help push out downtown. But normally don't have that problem, but you never know. And the goal is to keep the primary snow primary and snow emergency routes open during that time. That is the presentation. And also in your booklet, then you have the snow plan as well. It kind of spells out more of the stuff if you want to read through that. But I take any questions you have.

Well, thanks Will for putting this together and all the hard work you guys put in during the snow season. Thank you. And it's really made a difference on I would say the amount of calls we receive or people receive on the council. You know, you guys have done a tremendous job last few years. So, appreciate that. [snorts] And you got your new snow plow in. Yep. That was delivered the first week of October. Should be ready to roll hopefully. I think as well um I think Dan's here from Wasau and maybe you guys want to have a word with what happened there. What up Dan? Hello. Got to sit through the whole meeting.

Yeah. [laughter] Uh Dan Wahberg, Wasaw. Um, we recently got the opportunity to purchase a new plow truck from you guys, the city of Norfork. Um, it was well within our budget, something we could afford. Uh, we didn't have to go, I think the last truck we got, maybe come out of Wisconsin or somewhere. Um, so being local is great. Uh, we replaced uh 76 Chevy with the what year was it? 07 maybe.

Yeah. 2007. So, yeah, [laughter] quite the upgrade for us. Um but the village of Wasa very much appreciates um Northfor stepping up and and just giving us the opportunity for equipment that uh wasn't any use for you guys anymore but is a great asset for us. So and we thank you all very much. So hopefully knock on wood here because uh just the season hasn't started yet but yeah. [laughter] So hopefully we have it like last year. Right. Right. Thank you for sharing that, Dan. Yes. So appreciate it. Thank you. Thanks a lot, Dan.

Are we done? Okay. One quick note. I'm not going to complain or nothing, but uh whoever is in charge of the downtown, it is the most fest festive I've ever seen it. And it's uh when you drive through downtown that Johnny Carson Park looks amazing and all the trees at Johnson Park and those funky little colored lights really look nice. Thanks, Tim. Well, I believe that's everyone. That being said, we're ajourned.