City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the North Platte City Council meeting here on Tuesday, June 16th, 2026 at 5.30 p.m. Of course, we are here in the City Hall Council Chambers. Excuse me just a second. Happy Nebraska Land Days, everyone. The hostesses have been out ticketing people who aren't appropriately dressed during Nebraska Land Days, so I thought I better protect myself by getting my cowboy hat out. Anyway, what's that? Well, they're kind of vicious, so you never know.

Calling the meeting officially in order.

We have an invocation by Pastor Doug Lee. Pastor Lee, are you here in the back by chance? Oh, Mr. Reeker, would you grace us with a prayer, please?

Thank you, dear Lord, for you, your infinite love and mercy. Love and mercy, which we certainly don't deserve. But it's there for the tag for the asking. Thank you for the wonderful country. You've given us to live in. For the opportunity for us as council members. To guide our community, I ask that you give us. A certain sense of humility that we always seek you and your wisdom and our decisions. All that we do and think and say will bring you praise and glory and honor. Amen.

Amen.

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

Thank you, everyone. Angie, the roll call, please. Here here here here.

Here. Here.

Here.

Here.

Here. Thank you. A current copy of No Beings Act of the State of Nebraska is posted on the wall at the back of the council chambers. Meeting procedure, the public may address specific agenda items at the pleasure of the mayor. If recognized by the mayor, please identify yourself by stating your name and address. Please address the council through the mayor and limit your remarks. We respect our city employees and request that any complaints or criticisms of employees not be aired in a public meeting. Concerns about employees should be brought to the attention of the city administrator or the mayor. Individuals of violation will be declared out of order. Tonight we have a couple different awards and accolades events going on. The first one, we're going to have the wonderful opportunity to swear in three firefighters. Gentlemen, would you please approach? Up here, facing the crowd, please.

We have...

What I'm going to do here is read to the end of each paragraph and have you guys repeat. And please don't read the firefighter's full name. Say your name.

Okay.

Oath of office for a firefighter. I, state your name, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the duties and responsibilities of a firefighter for the city of North Platte, Nebraska to the best of my ability.

Execute the duties and responsibilities of a firefighter for the city of Nebraska to the best of my ability.

I pledge to serve the people of North Platte with honor, courage and integrity, placing the safety and well being of the community above all else. I'll perform my duties with dedication, respect and a steadfast commitment to uphold regulations of the excuse me governing the fire service.

to serve the people of North Platte with honor, courage, and integrity, replacing the safety and well-being of the community above all else. I will perform my duties with dedication, respect, and steadfast commitment to employing the laws and regulations governing the fire service.

I will respond to emergencies, both fire and medical, with a clear mind and a steady hand, working as part of a team to protect lives, property, and the environment. I will strive to continually improve my skills and knowledge and to act with compassion and professionalism in all circumstances.

I will respond to emergencies, both fire and medical, with a clear mind and a steady hand, working as part of a team to protect lives, to continually improve my skills and knowledge, and to act with compassion and professionalism in all circumstances.

I will be a guardian of the public trust, holding myself to the highest standards of ethical conduct and accountability, and I will honor the legacy of those who have served before me, passing on the values of service, sacrifice, and respect to those who come after, so help me God.

I will be the guardian of the public trust, holding myself to the highest standards legacy of those who have served before me, passing on the values of service, sacrifice, and respect to those who come after me. So help me God.

Thank you, everyone.

Any family members who want to take pictures, now is your opportunity. Okay, gentlemen, thank you. You place your lives between us and danger, and we appreciate that every day. Thank you. We'll pause just for a minute while everybody exits here. Now, if we could have the tree board members come in, please. Excuse me, the tree board members. Okay. Once again, we're able to celebrate Tree City USA, the National Arbor Day Foundation Award here in North Platte. Lyle tells me, unfortunately, Nebraska currently holds the unwanted distinction of ranking first in the nation of tree canopy loss. This is a distinction we would much rather change. And to that end, he and the tree board are working to plant as many trees in our areas as reasonably possible. Trees are a vital part of healthy, thriving communities. They provide shade. that helps reduce the impacts of extreme heat, manage storm runoff, improve air quality, support the physical and mental health of residents, and add beauty and character to our neighborhoods and public spaces. The City of North Flat recognizes the important role trees play in building a stronger, healthier community. Through the efforts of North Flat tree boards, city staff, community partners, and dedicated residents, North Flat continues to invest in the care, preservation, and expansion of its urban forest. north flats commitment to urban forestry is demonstrated through its continued participation in the tree city usa program being recognized as tree city usa community for the 43rd consecutive years as well as receiving the tree city usa growth award is this award these achievements reflect the community's ongoing dedication to responsible tree management education tree planting and maintaining a vibrant community forest protecting and expanding the urban forest is an investment in the future of north flat every tree planted maintained and preserved contributes to a healthier environment stronger neighborhoods and improve quality of life for generations to come And Mary Shimon is, I believe, the president of the tree board right now. She has a few words for us. Mary, if you'd come to the microphone, please.

Thank you, Brandon. Chairperson. I'm chairperson.

Okay.

The North Platte Tree Board consists of seven members. Two new members were appointed in April of 2025. They are... No, it's 2026. Sorry, they are Ron Meyer and James Connolly. The 2nd. Also. On the board, John, gucci writer, Charlotte, Willard, Matt, partner, friend, Anderson. Mary shimon, Elaine Mase, Bergen, Lena, Brittenham are consulting members. North Platte tree board celebrated Arbor day in 2025 by honoring Mary Hepburn, Frank Albertson and Wes Meyer with their own tree at Cody park. this was the 43rd tree city usa award when we planned these trees and celebrated arbor day the tree board also honors a tree of the season in winter spring summer and autumn we gave 292 tree third graders their ponderosa pine along with a bookmark with information about trees and if they take care of the bookmark it could last forever to help them learn about trees Uh, we had 18 free tree grants that were excuse me, 18 free trees through grants that were planted grant money hired a consulting service to update community tree inventory through Nebraska environmental trust. We received grant money. And the goal of the North Platte Tree Board is to learn about trees and prepare the information to be given to the city of North Platte. And the tree board also thanks Lyle Mitchell for being our mentor and guide and helping us fill out all the proper forms to get the awards. So thank you everybody.

Thank you. Thank you for holding the flag back there too. And we'll get these over to Lyle to add to our board back there in the back in the future. CONSENT AGENDA. ALL MATTERS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. ANY CITY COUNCIL MEMBER MAY, HOWEVER, REMOVE AN ITEM FROM CONSENT BY REQUEST. 1A, APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 2, 2026. B, APPROVE THE APPLICATION OF CITY DISCOUNT LIQUORS FOR A SPECIAL DESIGNATED LICENSE ON JULY 3, 2026 FROM 5 P.M. TO 11 P.M. IN THE PARKING LOT NEXT TO 821 NORTH JEFFER STREET FOR THEIR CUSTOMER APPRECIATION EVENT. C. Adopt the resolution consenting to the sale and consumption of alcoholic liquor on July 10th and 11th, 2026 from 5 p.m. to 1 a.m. in the city-owned parking lot at 201 East 6th Street during Canteen Cruise Fest and approve the application by the North Platte JCs for special designated licenses. D. Send the application to Wilkinson Development, Inc., DBA Fat Dogs Express for a Class D liquor license, beer, wine, spirits, off-sale only for their location at 3002 South Jeffers Street to the Nebraska Liquor Control Commission with no recommendation. E, approve the Mayor's appointment of Victoria Loving to the North Platte Housing Authority Board. F, approve the application by Powell's Brewing Company for a special designated license on July 31, 2026 from 2 p.m. to 11.59 p.m. at 4520 South Buffalo Avenue for a beverage tasting event.

Mr. Mayor? Yes, sir. I move to approve the consent agenda as presided, less item C.

Second. Motion by McNew, second by Nestle. Calling the question on items A, B, D, E, and F. Those items are passed. Mr. McNew, item C. I wish to abstain. Okay. Other discussion? make a motion we approve see second motion by die second by voles to approve item C from the consent agenda calling the question item C item C is approved thank you everyone moving on to the regular agenda Item number two, first reading and action on ordinance number 4252 to add section 7405 entitled pedestrian safety use of medians to chapter 74 pedestrians to title seven traffic code to the to the code of the city of North Platte. Would you like me to read the order? Yes, please do.

ordinance number forty two fifty two an ordinance of the city of north platte lincoln county nebraska to amend the code of the city of north platte by adding section seventy four point oh five entitled pedestrian safety use of medians to chapter seventy four pedestrians to title seven traffic code to provide that this ordinance shall be made a part of the Code of the City of North Platte, Nebraska, repealing all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith, and providing for the effective date and publication thereof.

Mayor?

Yes, sir.

I move that we adopt Ordinance No. 4252 to add Section 74.05, Compatible Pedestrians Saved to Use of Medians to Chapter 74 Pedestrians, Title 7 traffic code to the code of city of North final 1st reading 2nd.

Motion by reaker 2nd, by voles. Okay, this 1 got a little wild black couple weeks ago. So we met to try to. Clear up the intention of the ordinance and so I'm just going to point out a couple of things and we have to deal with the procedure matter when I get. Procedural matter when I get done pointing some things out. ordinance that is before you is the original version we had at the last council meeting with a couple modifications that are highlighted both in red and in yellow and but i just want to point out a couple things so this is pedestrian safety use of medians and uh says for any intersection and it did say listed herein although that's in red we're proposing to remove that where the speed limit on any traffic leg is higher than 25 miles per hour.

That 25 miles per hour is the source of the procedural matter we'll have to deal with in a minute.

Pedestrians are prohibited from standing, sitting, or staying on a median for any purpose other than lawfully crossing the street if either of the following conditions are met. And it goes, that's paragraph A. So we're dealing with pedestrians on a median, okay? Median being the appropriate word, the operative word here. Item number one, the width of the top surface of the median is six feet wide or less, excluding the curb. So you have to have a median that is less than six feet wide. By way of an example, there are medians down Burlington Avenue here in North Platte. They are greater than six feet wide, same as Lakeview. So this would not apply to those locations. Item number two, the pedestrian is located upon the median, within 100 feet of the intersection limit line or marked crosswalk regardless of the median's width we added upon the median and this is where things kind of went a little crazy not crazy but it got a little out of hand a couple weeks ago we were discussing this because as it was previously worded one would have might have assumed that we're talking about every intersection and being being in proximity to that intersection, but we're actually just talking about people who would be standing on a median. So this ordinance does not apply to an intersection that does not have a median. To that end, we had Brent create a picture. Brent, did you bring your picture? And the example that Brent has, and I'll turn the floor to him for it in a second, but is the intersection of Highway 83 and Halligan, which statistically is one of the more dangerous intersections we have in our community because of how the intersection is built. Maybe zoom a little if you can. There we go.

I'll zoom in a little bit further. Good evening, Mayor, Council. This is a picture of Halligan, Plata Oasis, depending on which way you're going, South River Road, and Jeffers. So Starbucks is to the left, if that helps with the landmark. And to the right, we have Dunkin' Donuts. So there's the two coffee places there to give you an idea. What we have shown in red... would be the areas that were places that pedestrians could occupy for longer periods of time that are within 100 feet of the crosswalks or the intersection. So those areas that are shown in red would be the areas that you couldn't occupy other than to try to get across the road. No standing, sitting, staying for a substantial period of time. There's been people in the medians with dogs on leashes, you know, standing there for hours that those types of activities would not be allowed to happen. And these would be the areas if that makes sense. Just give you an example of a medians in the intersection proximity.

So we created this picture in part at the request of Chief Reeves because if passed, this ordinance would have to be enforced by the police, and they wanted to have some sort of clarity on exactly where this would apply. So just to sum up, and then I'll turn to the procedural matter here, but these are the areas in red where someone could not stand if this ordinance is passed in the event that there is a median. as written today this ordinance does not apply to intersections that do not have medians we have a relatively small number of intersections in our community that have me that have a raised median in them so okay end of speech by the mayor we may call you back for further clarification brent but if you leave that up there for the moment that'd be good so okay the procedural matter that we need to deal with is this item was tabled at our previous meeting and tabled to this meeting, so that's why it's back on the agenda. And Councilman Volz had made a motion to change the language such that this ordinance would include streets that are 25 miles per hour and higher, rather than higher than 25 miles an hour, which in essence meant almost all the streets in the community applicable to this ordinance. However, they are not because most of the streets don't have medians in them. And I think what you were after was probably the intersection of Jeffers Street and 6th as you proceed north because there is a median right there. And technically, if you're proceeding north, you are in a 25-mile-an-hour zone. If you're coming over the bridge from the south, you're in a 30-mile-an-hour zone. But as you go north, you're in a 25-mile-an-hour zone. So I think you were trying to clear that up is what your goal was there, but that inadvertently led us to quite a different conversation. True. So one possible solution would be to include that intersection in our list of intersections down here further in the ordinance, if that was the primary issue you were seeking to address. So just for the second, I have the floor. So I think that that's something to think about for a minute. And then then we can proceed. So, anyway, Brad, you had a question.

Uh, well, that meeting referencing is less than 65. is it not it is so then it qualifies under. Item 1, so you're, you're still snagging that 1 if that's what you're worried about.

well true but you have a you have a logical conflict if we assume that because you have an area where it's 25 miles per hour but a smaller than six foot median so i'm just trying to clear up the logic so there's no discussion in the event that somebody ends up in court over this that's just trying to make it as clear as possible that's anyway so that's where it leaves us so if if we if the council wants to leave the the 25 miles an hour inclusive in there, I think that that may be fine because the majority of the streets in the community don't have medians in them. Therefore, it's it's not those streets are not applicable. The corner of B and Oak not applicable because there's not a median there. You know, most of the most of the so so maybe leaving it as motioned is probably maybe fine, but that's something that we need to consider. as a council. So go ahead, Mr. Bowles.

Question procedurally. Um, do we have to add the, we would have to add the verbiage upon the median also.

Yes. Correct. And subtract the listed here and above if, if the council is okay with that. Correct. That again is an effort to make this as clear as possible. Yep.

Yep.

Go ahead, Brian.

I'm trying to rack my brain on highway 83 and Leota street. Is there a median there? I don't recall there being one there. I didn't know.

I get what we're trying to do because that's kind of an issue there at that corner.

I think the reason that it was put in there is there is a substantial space between Jeffers and Dewey right there. Do you consider that a median or not? But either way, it's wider than 6 feet. So it's not applicable. So, to your point, we should probably remove it from this list.

Okay. So. So, if we do the, the 25 miles an hour, it will affect is that E Street and Bicentennial out there and there's a, there's a meeting that runs through it. I think it'd be the other.

I think that's the end of the park, isn't it?

Yeah, well, it's way out. There's a median out that way.

I think being that's, if I may, being more than six foot, then that takes that out of it because that's quite a bit wider.

Well, item two would still apply. It would be within 100 feet of the intersection are marked crosswalks.

So there's any marked crosswalks. That may be because we have or at the end of one. Yeah. Is that right, Bill?

It's an and or it's an or. Either or.

so to that point too considering if we're looking at that area on highway 83 at leota an area to the south of leota there as a median then the the language the or language in paragraph number two would technically apply uh where they you know someone couldn't be standing there with another beat at the crosswalk

I certainly agree with this ordinance. I don't have a problem. It seems to me like we're dealing with a limited number of intersections. Why don't we just specify those intersections? Then there's no ambiguity. Does B and Jeffers apply? Not B and Jeffers, but it was a fourth. I don't know which one we were talking about. if we specify then there's no nobody needs to worry about well does this intersection apply that's what i'm saying is there's four of them here um and then if we need to address different intersections do that i think just i would just say prohibits just take out that while not an exhaustive list and then it says it prohibits them on these intersections that's my thought okay

And then adding to it wouldn't be hard because, I mean, how often do we add radians?

Yeah. Could we eliminate that A1 and 2? If you just say these intersections, we just eliminate them. We have to worry about the speed limit. We don't have to worry about the width. We don't have to just say, okay, these intersections, you can't do it. That's just my suggestion. Make it simple, and it's something we can always add on to later. But I think it does need to be done. I think you mentioned... I know that one at Halligan Drive. There's a guy sitting there with a log. And that is, you know, it's distracting to people who are driving by. You know, I think there's a reason we need to do this.

If I may... We had a pretty bad accident just a few weeks ago at Buffalo and Rodeo Road, and there's medians on both sides of that intersection, east and west. It's not on this list right now, so we may consider that as well.

I would say just add that on. Good point. If there was a bad accident there, let's add that on.

Mayor?

Yes, sir.

I guess I'm trying to figure out, what's our motivation? What are we trying to do? Are we trying to accomplish the safety of the people on the median or the driving public or both?

Well, I think it's both, and it's motivated by safety. I mean, we've had that incident Lane just spoke of just a couple, two or three weeks ago. If someone had been standing on the median, they would have almost assuredly been killed. We've had rollover incidents on this intersection we're looking at, I think. Where's the chief? What, maybe three years ago was the one where they took out the signs when the car rolled through it? I can't remember exactly. And it has happened, and unfortunately, it will happen again. That's a rather difficult intersection. So what we're trying to do is prevent people from standing in the medians for their own safety. And as Mr. Nestle mentioned, from time to time, there's somebody standing out there with a dog or more than one dog, and the dog is kind of doing this, and the traffic has to weave around them. And that generally creates an unsafe traffic environment.

I guess there's also a gentleman that seems to be sitting at the intersection of Dewey and Phillips. And there's no media. And I've seen where people have stopped at a light and they'll get out of the car and they'll run over, put money in a can, and they'll get back in. And that's definitely a traffic hazard. And I guess I'm wondering if there may be a different way to approach this. I had some discussions with other guys, and I'm not trying to steal anybody's thunder here. But what would happen if we wrote an ordinance that says no loitering or no panhandling? Do we have anything on the books that addresses that?

If I may, there's been ordinances such as those around the country, and most of them have not stood up for the court, so that's why we didn't think that was the right way to go. We were looking at the safety of individuals, both the driving public and your line of sight when you're turning corners, and also those public that would be in the medians, and so that's why we went with this route.

Is there something we can address in these other locations where people want to take advantage of the motor room public and

Well, I think Bill, you've kind of been thinking about that. You want to comment?

Yeah. I think what we're looking at tonight is is something that is specifically targeted towards safety for the reasons that have already been specified. So. what you're mentioning councilman reeker i think is something that certainly would require additional research into areas such as how would it affect freedom of speech right to assembly all of those different constitutionally protected rights and so i'm not prepared at this point to be able to to recommend to the council to move forward with anything like that That sounds pretty significant for the research, because as Lane stated, a lot of those types of laws face pretty serious scrutiny from the courts and from advocacy groups on the off chance that they do affect some of those constitutionally protected rights. So as a city, we have to be very careful and make sure that any type of ordinance like that would be very narrowly tailored That's why this one is very narrowly tailored and very specific about what it seeks to address from a safety issue for pedestrian use of those medians.

We can't be the only community in the state that's dealing with this. How have some of the other cities dealt with this type of scenario?

Are you speaking of the median use?

Well, where you've got pedestrians at the intersections, whether there's a median or not, that are causing either a distraction or a hazard to themselves possibly.

Well, I would say that's not something I'm prepared to speak about tonight, but it's also not something that we have on the agenda. So I think we have to be careful about, you know, what areas we stray into here tonight. But, you know, if it's something that we want to look further into, like I said, it's going to require some pretty serious, significant research.

I understand the safety issue, and I guess I kind of am of the opinion that We would be better off to take that extra time, make sure we get it right and have to come back and modify what we just passed.

And I appreciate your thought, but this one is pedestrian safety use of medians. And what you're contemplating adding is not specific to medians. So I think we'd be happy to start doing the research on that, but it's probably a separate ordinance in addition to this one, if that's the direction that we want to look at. who knows once we do the research we may go well we can't really do this legally and that's where it will end but we're happy to come back in a couple months with something else that might be applicable but we're going to have to see what the attorneys say

I would like to see that, I guess. Okay, let's do that.

Okay. We will see what some other communities have done and perhaps somebody has a mechanism.

Clear killer if I may. Yes, we. Okay, do we have a motion on this on that? Are we just going to this was table? So we brought the old motion back. Now, do we have to withdraw that motion? And they have, it has to be replaced with this.

Well, right now, we're just having discussion on what might work. And it seems like your idea of listing out the appropriate intersections is kind of the winning thought process. But no motions have been made at this point.

Well, here's my suggestion. I'm just making a suggestion. And I think we need to get this done, and then we can work on your issue. And I believe that. But sometimes you just got to get things done when you can. Is that the motion that we had tabled, that should be withdrawn, in my opinion. Maybe I'm wrong. Then we make a motion to submit this as amended. We can vote on it. That's what I'm trying to say.

Well, we've already got a motion on the floor because Ed made one just earlier in the meeting. Is that bringing back?

That's the table, the motion.

So Mr. Rieker motions basically the original because it was tabled. So at this point, to modify it into all from the original, we would have to make Motions with the exception of the fact that Mr voles had motion to include the 25 mile an hour speed rate. That that is currently on the table because we brought this from the table.

So we need to amend it to remove that language or. Put back the original language. listed herein, that language upon the median, was that there before?

No, we added that for clarity.

And then, in my opinion, strike out while not an exhaustive list, strike that language out, and then add the three intersections plus Buffalo Bill and what was that accident at?

Buffalo Bill and Rodeo Road.

That would be my security. I'm willing to make that motion, but I.

Would that also include the, is it.

Jeffers and 5th or 666 included too. I think I'm suggesting we get it to get it done and.

We should, there is a median. Well, that's it. 20, that's greater than 25 hours an hour. So, but if we're listing, then we would need to include Jeffers and 7th as well. The other side of that. Go ahead, Ty.

Yeah, Mr. Mayor, before we get to motion on this, I just want to ask maybe a little bit of philosophical or legal type question on this. I appreciate Mr. Nistley's idea of bringing clarity. Clarity is always good. But is there an opportunity to send the wrong message to people by picking all these particular intersections versus having a criteria? I still worry about this being construed as us wanting to prevent protesting or you know political advocacy in the places that are of the highest traffic that concerns me that we could send that's certainly not our intent this is about safety and and protecting people's people's lives and we we spend a lot of time with the traffic study and whatnot but i guess maybe it's a question for our city attorney do you feel it's better to have the clarity in the actual intersections or do you feel it's better to have the clarity and the criteria of how those intersections or medians are applicable? Or should we do both?

Um, I, I can see arguments kind of on both sides. So that's why I'm maybe struggling a little bit with it.

Immediate answer, but if I may, I'm just thinking about my experience as an attorney, what you're suggesting by you present this to court, then you're going to present it to the judge. That the evidence that the intersection that beats this criteria, that could be part of the evidence. Uh, you know, the width of this is so long, or that that. It's within 100 feet, you'd have to present that evidence to lay the foundation. As part of the charge, if you have it specified, then essentially all you do is cite the ordinance where did it take place? What's in the ordinance? And that's what I'm saying. It simplifies. The prosecution of these type of cases, I respect what you're saying. But I think from a prosecutor standpoint, you want to just specify the intersections. And if it's a problem someplace else, we can't solve all the problems, but we'll deal with that in the future. But I think it's important enough that we get this done because those intersections that are here are dangerous. That's just my feeling.

To Councilman Nestle's point, that's true. I mean, if you were to pursue a prosecution of a violation of this ordinance were to be passed, then you would have to have the officer testify as to the width of the median. You'd have to produce evidence about how wide the median actually was. So it could simplify those types of prosecutions to simply list the intersections where that's prohibited.

Oh, that answers my question. Thank you.

just to make sure and i am more than willing to withdraw my motion but we did we had a motion we had a second and we voted on it can i still withdraw the motion i do not know the answer to that well you can't withdraw it you'd have to motion it back the other way okay so i would have to motion to utilize this verbiage plus with what mr nisley is talking about correct or but um

As we're discussing that, and some of these, like, the specifically the intersection of 6 and Jeffers. Where that's kind of a conundrum, because it's 30 miles an hour coming down. The overpass, and it's 25 going up. And so it may actually be simpler to leave the ordinance as. Councilman bowls had amended it to incorporate anything to be 25 miles an hour or more. You have to put a miles per hour and. We wouldn't have to, no.

But that's another evidence issue the prosecutor has to put in. Okay, what was the speed limit? Is there one speed limit there? No, there's one going 30. You know, you have to do that in every case. Good defense attorneys will have a good heyday with this. I just think if you specify the intersections, people know where you can't do it. And that's just my opinion, guys. I just think it makes it simpler.

Is there any hurry on this where we need to do this now as opposed to in two weeks? Maybe it's something we clean up the language, we really write it out how we're discussing it, list out, take some time to think about all the intersections we want to include in this and then bring it back in two weeks.

Brad, I appreciate that. You know, my thought process, this has been already tabled once. You have to read it three times to make it enforceable. So, I mean, I think it's, I don't know. I think it would help law enforcement to get this done. I don't know. I really do. I'm just telling you right now, we have a problem that exists. I drive to come into town and see that intersection. The guy's there. He's going to be there until we pass his ordinance.

And if I may, when it was basically covering all medians, didn't write specify every single one but i can think of a number of medians that are not on this list right now if we're going to go back that's the problem when we just make it specific instead of all medians because you know we have first and dewey kind of that weird median there and in that area then we have south of the interstate we have medians there also that aren't specific for this so as staff we were just thinking when it was covering all medians it was easier and so we didn't list everything out. We're going to list each one out. We'd have to go back and really look at all through town. And even though we don't have a lot of them, we have things that aren't on this list right now. So that's my concern there.

I would say we should do that. I mean, that's what you're saying.

And this has been a problem for 20, the entire time I've lived here. So another two weeks is not going to change. Hopefully it doesn't change. So I would move to table then.

Ty, you had a, oh, sorry, no, move the table. Do we have a second?

Second.

Okay, motion to table by Garrick, second by Reker, calling the question on table. I just want to let everybody know that the Nebraska Land Days meeting is supposed to be quick. I'm gonna, I'm gonna... Do you want me to check?

I don't know if a motion to table falls within the area where...

But it's a tie.

Let me let me just check this. I want to make I want to make sure that it's something in here.

This is why I came back.

I know. There are

Yeah, this would be something you could break the title.

Okay. I believe that we need some time to clear this up, so I'm going to vote in favor of the table, item as table.

Okay.

Item number three. First reading in action on ordinance number 4253 to authorize the conveyance of a vacated alley located between lot 32 Hastings addition to North Platte and lot one Jergensen subdivision North Platte Lincoln County Nebraska by the city of North Platte to Dennis and Shirley Ogborn. Lay in the ordinance please.

Ordinance number 4253, an ordinance of the Mayor and City Council of the City of North Platte, Lincoln County, Nebraska, directing and authorizing the conveyance of a certain described tract of land to it. The vacated alley located between Lot 32, Hastings Addition, North Platte, and Lot 1, Jergensen Subdivision, North Platte, Lincoln County, Nebraska, for and in consideration as specified and providing for the manner of said conveyance, repealing all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith, providing for the effective date and publication thereof. Thank you.

Mr. Mayor, I move to adopt ordinance number 4253 to authorize conveyance of the vacated alley located between Lot 32, Hastings Addition to North Platte, Number one, Jurgensen subdivision, North Platte, Lincoln County, Nebraska, by the City of North Platte, but Dennis and Shirley are on board on first reading.

Second. Motion by Reeker, second by Lucas. Judy, we've been doing this for quite a while. Do you want to tell us what we've got going on here?

Mayor, Council, Judy Clark. So this was a request by the property owner. Oh, gosh, probably 2 years ago or so. It's an alley and it's and I can't even really call it an alley. It's about a half an alley with wise and. Distance wise, and he's been asking to vacate that alley. It's between his property and then a housing authority property. It's not used for. Utilities, there's no utilities in there. And so, um, several months ago, we did, or several weeks ago, we did an ordinance to vacate the property. So this is just the ordinance to actually, um, sell the property. And then, um, if that does occur, Mr. Is of the obligation to consolidate that piece with his existing property.

Okay, and you said the housing authority is the abutting property owner, right?

housing authority is the abutting property owner typically when you do alleys they go half and half half to each abutting property owner with this one being that it was the housing authority we did contact the executive director of the housing authority asking about her interest in having her portion of the property due to grant funding they didn't have any interest in having any ownership of the that four and a half foot or six foot, whatever that is that they would end up with. Okay.

Thank you. Yep. Reserve the right to call you back. Council, any questions, comments? Seeing none, calling the question on item number three, please. Item number three is passed. Item number four. Approve the resolution providing for the designation of FNBO as a warrant lender, authorizing the execution and delivery of a warrant purchase agreement with such designated warrant lender and referring to and incorporating the terms and conditions of ordinance number 3874 relating to warrant financing.

Mr. Mayor, I move to approve the resolution providing for the designation of FNBO as a warrant lender, authorizing the execution and delivery of a warrant purchase agreement with such designated warrant lender and referring to the incorporating the terms and conditions of ordinance number 3874 relating to warrant financing.

Second.

Is that you, Ed? Yes. Okay. Motion by Flanders, second by Reker. Any discussion on item number four? Brad.

Don, can you just tell us what's going on here?

yes as the city has previously used warrant financing as our interim financing when we do infrastructure projects we actually have one payment to a contractor in this meeting's warrants and then we have four warrants that are currently maturing at one of the another bank and so we're not quite ready to issue permanent financing for those four warrants so we're requesting the extension of those and then the placement of the one warrant to level llc for their work on paving districts 840 and 841. the bond market just being tough on us We, it's just a process we are actually in the middle and we're currently communicating with our financial advisor. Um, we'll be coming back to you later this fall with a couple of different bond issues. Once we decide exactly how we are going to finance everything. Those items that have been completed that we have on the books.

Perfect. Thank you.

other questions comments yeah go ahead i may just add a couple comments because we've um in in the preparatory committee meeting stage of talking about um interim financing we asked the financial advisors questions about this term financing because it came up in the audit presentation And they commented that we could use bond anticipation notes. They thought the interest rates may be lower, but would have a much more higher administrative burden and much larger upfront cost. So it was a little different message than we heard from the auditor. So they're going to do some more work on that. and come back to us. We also talked about some ways of trying to market the warrants a little heavier for lower pricing, too, because what I think we're dealing with is there's a little bit less demand for tax-free securities out there in some different environments because of the lower corporate tax rate, and so we talked about some strategies just to try to keep getting the best deal we can. The idea is to come up with a have your cake and eat it too strategy where the city is getting bond anticipation level rates without the expense of doing them up front. So anyway, they're working on some advice on that. Did I articulate that in a fair way, Dawn? I don't mean to step on your toes.

Yes, no, actually very fair. Just puts a little color. Ty has been part of our internal group, and we've spent a lot of time going through all the financings that the city is currently doing. in in the middle of and continuing to work on so there will be additional communications about different issues here in the next few months as we bring those to the table thanks don other questions or comments seeing none calling the question i am number four please

Item number four is passed. Item number five, adopt the resolution approving claims and authorizing issuance of one warrant to level LLC in the amount of $264,865.21 and four warrants to First Interstate Bank totaling $375,780.84 to pay approval claims and referring to and incorporating the terms and conditions of ordinance number 3874 relating to warrant financing.

Mr. Mayor, I move to approve the resolution authorizing the issuance of five warrants as presented in the materials.

Second. Motion by Reker, second by McNew. Any discussion on item number five? Dawn, you kind of touched on what we're doing here in the last item, so thank you. Seeing no discussion, calling the question on item number five. Item number five is passed. Item number six, approve the claims.

Mr. Mayor, I move you to pay the bills.

Second. Motion by Reker, second by Volz to approve the claims. Any discussion? I have a little discussion.

I know I brought this up more than once, but we spent $2,224 this month with Amazon. I know they have a building in town and they pay taxes, but I still think we need to support our local businesses that support our local baseball teams, our local. I think we just need to work a little harder at trying to shop North Platte, stay local.

I will tell you that we continue to look for those items when we can. We did do an analysis of our purchases, and less than, I believe, 1% of our purchases are Amazon purchases. So 50 or 70-some percent are local. So there's some things we can't get in town. I'll just tell you that.

Where did we buy it before Amazon? Good question. Exactly. But we need to support our local businesses. Surely we can find it in town or with some supplier. So that's all I got to say about that.

Other questions or comments? Seeing none, calling the question on item number six. Item number six is passed. NUMBER SEVEN, DISCUSSION ON SELLING VARIOUS PARCELS OF CITY PROPERTY. NO ACTION TO BE TAKEN. IT'S JUST A DISCUSSION. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION BY MR. REEKER AND A SECOND BY MR. GERRICK. CALLING THE QUESTION AN EXECUTIVE SESSION. Rod, it didn't take your vote.

Oh, sorry.

Council is now in executive session. Thank you, everyone.

Donna, you're welcome to hang around and talk. Donna, you're welcome to hang around.

Donna, you're welcome to hang around and talk. Donna, you're welcome to hang around.

We're starting with 12 and we're down to two.

Let me see if Alexa has this out.

I'll pick it up for you. All right, everyone. While Lane looks for the

Mr. Berkland. Let the record show that the council left executive session at 7.04, 7.03 on a motion from Bowles and a second by Dye and a unanimous vote. The purpose of the executive session was to discuss real estate and we entered the executive session to protect the interest of the public and that was the only item that was discussed. Okay.

Are we good there?

Let's see if we get Brent here in a second. It's not that large of a building. Here we go. Okay, we're back in session. Council will now convene as the board of equalization and item number eight.

Yes, sir. Connection. district number 23 east of Huckleberry Avenue, starting north of Spring Road, then south along the West Alley and Valley Drive, State Farm Road, approximately 1,575 feet.

Second. Motion by Reker, second by McNew. Brent, you want to explain the process here, please?

Did we lose Angie? I had 1 more.

Oh, it's it's on. Oh, you can see it. Yeah, we can see it.

Up there at the top. There we go. Okay. Oh, great. I just thought I'd show the picture for what was. Verbally described, um. At the bottom is state farm road. And then there's Valley Drive to the right and Buffalo to the left. And if you follow up now at the top of the screen, the sewer that's going Left to right at the top and green, that's the sewer on the city park side, just north of pals to give you an idea. So the sewer that's on the left. In green that's on pal side of the road going South. So the area we're showing is in the red. Pinkish hatched and it's about in the middle. So the sewer is running. I think I can show my cursor on right here. That's right there's the location of the sewer that we're talking about. Right now, so there's it's running in the alley. Just West of valley, and this is this empty. Field if you want to call it that, and the boat shop is right here. It's marine is right here on this corner just to help you guys get located. So the sewer that we're talking about goes from here. Extends down and comes down to here. So. That's help hopefully help. We showed it. I think when we created the district, but. And a lot of time since we've talked about it, north is on the bottom north is up. I'm sorry. State farm is sorry. Down here is the state farm at the bottom. Sorry, I can't get too close and it pops up. So, state the state is state farm on the bottom to the left is Buffalo and up.

Rick, can you. Kind of enlighten us on what a connection district means compared to what the other 1 is that we have.

Sure, um, when we've presented this to the council, there's a couple options that we can look at as extension district and a connection district. And extension a lot of times works best in town and people hook hook up right away. This is at the edge. Where it's going to the right is in the county where valley drive is that's not annexed. In the city to the left is annexed in the city and what happens in this particular area if the developer was to put in the sewer and then give it to the city, then the people to the East can hook up to the public infrastructure for free. And that kind of violates that everybody pays their own water and sewer. So if the developer put in the sewer and then the neighbors can hook up for free, no one likes that. I mean, it kills development because no one likes to pay for everybody else's. So the purpose of the connection district, especially in this type of area, is kind of on the fringe, if you want to say that, on the fringe of the city limits. And another issue you can run into is you cannot assess like ag property. Agricultural property, even though in the future, it could be commercial or residential. If you can assess it, you miss that timeframe and then they can hook up to it for free again and. Or at least to reduce charge, so the connection district is they pay at the time of connection. It's a connection fee, not an assessment. Per se, there isn't a. Um, a cost to the property or a clouding of the property if they go to sell it or buy it. It's just if they want to utilize the infrastructure, they have to pay at that time and they pay based on a front footage basis. Well, that's why most of our districts are done is on a front footage basis. So, if you have a short lot, it's less if you have a wide lot, it's more. That's just the same that principle anyway.

And Brent, we designed that sewer kind of in that location a, because that's logical place for an alley, but also so it's on the backside of those houses along Valley drive. So they, if they chose to in the future, they could choose to connect to the sewer rather than redoing whatever mechanism they're using for sewage right now.

And a great point. And when we looked at that. From what we saw all of the wells were on Valley view drive. And the septics were all out back, so it'd be a natural. They don't have to again. It's a connection district. They don't have to. So, but it lines up so that it would in the future. And the way that this was a better. Location as far as groundwater and things like that when you look at the total assessment. For the value, the key, it's not, it's not an assessment per se. It's a connection fee. It ended up being about 43 dollars a foot. To give you an idea on, let's say, a 100 foot lot in town, that'd be about 4,000 dollars. Um, some of these lots are a little bit bigger, so they're around 6000 dollars for the residential lot again. It's perfect. You have a really big lot. Um, it gets higher, but from the side, if you just, I always like to do a practical comparison. Um, septic systems are probably 8 to 12,000 dollars, depending on. How big, you know, 3 bedroom, 5 bedroom, things like that. So a service, this connection for you will be less than redoing a, a septic system in my opinion. So, it's just a data point for you all when I was looking at the.

Schedule of fees, that's kind of contingent too, isn't it brand if they can use a leach field or if they have to use it. Operation.

Correct. I was assuming the more inexpensive version like a leach field. Correct.

So, 134,000 is assessing the property owners is. Marina the only property owner that it's going to be assessed to initially.

They're the only ones that are connecting to it right away. So they're, they're going to pick up that whole 134,000. they're picking up the portion that is the. Both job, which would be the 16,000.

Was anybody else connecting to it?

Not yet.

Open your voice. I appreciate it.

No, I'm sure they will. We've had multiple people interested, but the other part is. From what I've heard from some people is they're not they don't want to know until this is. Done, um, because it's all up in the air officially until the. Assignment of fees are signed and dotted.

97,000, the city picks up regardless of. Anybody connects or not?

Um, correct.

And then 134 is split out based on your lot size if they connect.

Yes.

So who picks that up if they don't connect? I'm assuming us.

Um, that's done via the bonding portion and we have several around town and that's why. This particular tool, I think, you know, visiting with lane and the mayor, it's used carefully. In areas, especially around more on the fringes that. Instead of having ag ground, like going further south, that's technically ag ground. I think it's been zone changed. But if you have certain areas like that, you're better off having a connection that you can get a feedback later than nothing the other pieces when you're looking at oversizing there's some flexibility for things for the benefits the city as a whole for long-term planning so that's one thing that we did on walker and echo we picked a bigger size sewer that the city paid for the oversize for for future proofing that if the sewer were to go further west We don't need a 18-inch line pipe going down Walker. We'll need it for master planning, that type of thing, but not on this particular scenario.

So that $134,000, we only make our money back on it if they connect. If they don't connect, the city eats that cost and we do it. If they, let's say they wait 20 years and then they connect, do we just charge them these prices or is it adjusted for inflation?

No, it's fixed.

It's fixed cost. And what, but where does this come out of in the budget?

It's in the, it's in the sewer. It's in this sewer budget.

Gotcha. So we budgeted for this.

We budget for these and then, you know, as you mentioned, sometimes 20, 30 years down the road is when we actually get that money back in. It goes back into the sewer fund, kind of back and forth, if you will. It's not a. I would say it's not a perfect. Solution, but it's at the Brent's point. It's, um, the connection districts. Probably a more efficient way to get things done than an assessment district. So. They each have their place, depending on how things are being developed.

I'm assuming the connection district district, we don't need 51% approval. Correct? Yeah.

And I believe there's that $16,000 portion on page one, Otts Marine, and then on the back there's Otter Investments, that $8,700 portion they're also paying for right up front. So $24,000 or so. 20% of that total is being paid for right now by Connections.

So, Grant, you guys do Your firm does engineering and many communities across the state. Right correct and is our connection districts a common use in the last 25 years.

Yes, I'd say so. Um, I would again say it would be similar to North flat. I would say it's proportionally used. I wouldn't say it's the primary. But it is a tool that's used frequently. Yes.

Okay. So we're not doing anything. It's out of the ordinary. No. Okay.

And I think that's where, when we bring a connection district, it's with caution because of to the point you're mentioning the city has to pay for hold it. And then get it back, but on these areas where you're dealing with county city boundaries. To keep the element moving, it's pro development. It helps it also locks in prices on things like this and. Allows for expansion because we could have stopped at like marine. With the sewer and not extended it further down, but. We would have the same problem. We just kicked the can down the road and it would have been more expensive. So.

So, the 97,000 that we are paying for, regardless of let's say everybody connects, we still are going to pick up. We're just subsidizing that too.

The 97,000 was crossing, going across the city park and going underneath the ditch. And then once we got to. The property, I mean, if you want to say arts property going South, that's where the assessment so that 97,000 was to get from city property to. And we would have paid that no matter which method we would have picked. But from that point on, in theory, it's all going to be paid whenever. It'll be in theory paid when people connect. It will be paid, but the theory is when.

And I would tell you, Brad, that normally in these situations when we have them, we try to pay for them with cash and not a bond, so we're not having interest build up on that. So the cost is the cost, if you will.

And we're not going to bond these out.

No, that's not the plan. We're planning to use cash.

Okay, other questions or comments? Go ahead, Mr. Lucas.

Yeah, I just asked to remove myself from discussion or voting due to the potential of a conflict of interest.

Other questions or comments? Seeing none, calling the question item number eight. if you're in favor of item number eight please raise your right hand thank you seven and one attention any opposed say it to comply with Robert rules order okay council will now adjourn from the board of equalization and we are back to being the City Council Public agenda request. We respect our city employees' request that any complaints or criticisms of employees not be aired in a public meeting. Concerns about employees should be brought to the attention of the city administrator or the mayor. Individual violation will be declared out of order. If anyone has a public agenda request item, please approach the microphone and let us hear your thoughts. Mr. Reker, it would appear that no one's there.

I move that we adjourn.

A motion by Reker, second by Bowles to adjourn. Raise your right hand if you'd like to adjourn. Council unanimously votes to adjourn. Have a nice Nebraska land days, everybody. We'll see you the 6th or 7th of July.