City Council - Regular Meeting

And they have different colors. Yeah.

good evening everyone welcome to north flat city council meeting here on tuesday june 7th 2026 at 5 30 p.m excuse me july not june july 7th sorry of course we're here in the city council chambers shows you how quickly the month of june went by for me okay calling the meeting officially in order we have a new vocation by mr price yes okay from new beginnings flat valley church yes

Heavenly Father, we thank you for this day. We thank you for our city of North Platte. And Father, we thank you for all those in authority throughout our city. And Father, Paul instructed us in your word that petitions, prayers, requests, giving of thanks be made for all people, for all that are in authority. for father it is with your help leaders rule and govern therefore father we lift up our mayor and city council members and all that are in authority here in north platte we ask that you watch over them protect them and their families father we thank you for the contributions and the sacrifices that they make for the people of north platte we thank you father that you guide and direct them you give them your wisdom understanding and discernment for them to to have clear minds and sound judgment, addressing the practical issues on today's agenda, that they listen to one another, make decisions that benefit all citizens, that they work together in unity and act with integrity to build a stronger, safer, and more vibrant community for everyone here in North Platte. And Father, we give you thanks for that. In Jesus' name, 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.

Thank you. A current copy of the Open Meetings Act of 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 at a public meeting. Concerns about employees should be brought to the attention of the city administrator or the mayor. Individuals in violation will be declared out of order. Consent agenda. All matters under the consent agenda are considered by the City Council to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. Any City Council member may, however, remove an item from consent by request. 1A. Approve the minutes of June 16, 2026. B. Place on file the Treasurer's Report for May 2026. C. Approve the application by McFarland Family Farms, DBA, Max Creek Winery and Brewery for a special designated license on July 31, 2026 from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. at Powell's Brewing Excuse me, company at 4520 South Buffalo Bill Avenue for a beverage tasting event. D, approve the application by Long Dogs Distilling for a special designated license on July 31st, 2026 from 2 p.m. to 1159 p.m. at Pals Brewing Company at 4520 South Buffalo Bill Avenue for a beverage tasting event. E. Approve application by Niagara Valley Vineyards LLC for a special designated license on July 31, 2026 from 2 p.m. to 11.59 p.m. at Powell's Brewing Company at 4520 South Buffalo Bill Avenue for a beverage tasting event. Hold on. There's one more.

Sorry.

All right. Thank you. Item F I'm going to ask Lane to talk about for just a second before I read it.

All right. Item F is we've looked at some different things as far as the people using the Cody rides and some ways to continue to make it more family friendly. And so we came up with an idea to have a daily ride pass of a bracelet, a tearaway bracelet that can only be used once for a $10 fee and ride as many rides as you want per person. And so it's something we'd like to Since it's part of the, it's not part of the existing fee schedule, this will be added to the fee schedule for this summer to go along with the tickets we already have. They can either still buy the single ride tickets or the package tickets, or do the $10 daily ride wristband to go on as many rides as they want for the $10. We would like to try it for the rest of the summer, and that's why it's on this agenda item to try.

Amend the 2025-2026 Cody Park rides and concessions fee schedule to include a daily $10 ride wristband for Cody Park rides for the 2026 season.

Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the consent agenda as presented.

Second.

Motion by Reker, second by Volz.

Mr. Mayor. Hi.

Can I ask a general question that hits a couple of the consent items in one shot? Why not? Yeah. So, we, we have 1 event that has a liquor license time. That's different for 1 vendor than 2 others. I'm just asking if that creates any. Logistical concerns for anybody I don't I don't have any issues with them or sounds like a great event, but. Just point out that we do have inconsistency and timing on them.

Angie was at the time on the application.

Okay. Yeah, I'd say we proceed to sort of hold anybody up, but it might be worth the contact to somebody to see if that needs to be adjusted just so there's no logistical issues at the event. No further questions. Thank you.

I just assumed that Max Grieg was planning on leaving a little early that night.

Well, that seems like a great answer to that. Okay.

Yeah.

But the start time is different. There's a start time differential too.

Yeah. Anything else? Calling the question on the consent agenda. Consent agenda is passed. Moving on to the regular agenda, I have number 2, first reading and action on ordinance number 4254 to issue combined utilities revenue bonds in one or more series in the amount not to exceed $10 million to pay the costs for, excuse me, the cost of certain improvements to the combined utilities of the City of North Platte. Laying the ordinance, please.

ordinance number forty two fifty four an ordinance authorizing the issuance of combined utilities revenue bonds of the city of north platte nebraska to be issued in one or more series in the aggregate principal amount of not to exceed ten million dollars for the purpose of paying the cost of certain improvements to the combined utilities of the city directing the application of the proceeds of said bonds, prescribing the form, terms, and details of said bonds, pledging and hypothecating the revenue and earnings of the combined water system, electric system, industrial wastewater system, and sewer system of said city for the payment of said bonds and the interest thereon, providing for the collection, segregation, and application of the revenues of said systems, providing for the sale of the bonds, appointing a paying agent, providing for the sale of the bonds and authorizing officers of the city to finalize terms of the bonds, authorizing the delivery of the bonds to the purchaser and ordering the ordinance published in pamphlet form. Thank you.

Mr. Mayor, I move to adopt ordinance number 4254, authorizing issuance by the City of North Platte, Nebraska of its combined utilities revenue bonds in one or more series as presented in the council materials on first reading.

Second.

Motion by Reker, second by McNew. Don, would you give us the short version of what we're doing and then I'll ask Austin to give us the bond rundown, please.

Yes, the intent of this ordinance for this evening specifically would be to permanently finance three different water projects that have been completed. that we currently have outstanding warrants issued for. One of them is the 9th Street, the West 9th Street water main project. And the other, to also include an Adams Street piece that was done at the same time that project was. So that would encompass two of the specific districts. And then the third would be the Jeffers Street water project. Um, just the totals of those are just over 8Million, and so the intent would be to finance, um, probably approximately 7 million for those. And then the remaining amount to get to the 10 million would be for some potential additional districts that we have out there that may not be quite completed, that we will be addressing over the next couple of years as to whether we finance or use cash out of one of the utility funds, primarily would be water or sewer. On those, but this initial 1 that we want to get taken care of. Here later this fall would be for a water, um, water fund issue.

Thank you Austin. I think I'm sure that you'll address it, but being the bond expert. Please make sure you bring up, why are we considering this right now?

Good evening, Mayor and Council. Thanks for having me tonight. Austin Partridge with Northland. I'd be glad to give an overview of the ordinance that's on the agenda for tonight. Can walk through the reasoning while we're starting this process. Can also visit with you about the preliminary bond numbers that Don had referenced. And then outline our next steps and our timeline for this particular revenue bond. that we're contemplating. And so the ordinance on the agenda tonight will authorize the city to issue up to but not to exceed that $10 million parameter in combined utility revenue bonds. As Don had mentioned, Um, we don't anticipate utilizing that full authority for this 1st bond issue. But the ordinance is drafted in a way that it encompasses all of your existing warrants for your, your districts that you have outstanding, uh, to give you some of that flexibility in the future. To take those warrants out, just like past bond ordinances that we've done. Tonight is just a parameters ordinance for setting the constraints for a future financing. And so we'll set the parameters of the bond amounts. We'll set the amortization. Uh, the not to exceed interest rates on the bond, those types of parameters. That will put in place tonight for the protection of the city. Uh, to make sure that that financing is within those parameters. Uh, once that bond eventually gets issued. Um, so these as Don had referenced, uh. This 1st bond issue, uh, will primarily be repaid through water utility revenues. Um, just to provide a brief rundown of the numbers and so we're, we're anticipating this 1st issue to be about 7.2Million. amortized over 20 years. Interest rates in the bond market have been moving around a little bit. Most of that has been caused by the headlines driven by the conflict with Iran and how the market thinks that's going to impact energy prices and inflation. The good news is that things have really settled down quite a bit here recently. And so on a 20-year revenue bond, interest rates right now are around 4.3% to 4.4%. That size of bond amortized over 20 years would put your annual principal and interest payment on that bond right at around $550,000 per year. So that would be your average principal and interest payment On that bond, um, the reason that we start that we're starting this process now, um, a couple items. So, 1, these projects are are starting to be complete. And so we have the certificates of substantial completion available. Uh, and that allows us to start looking at putting in place the long term, permanent financing for, um. for these warrants that were previously issued to construct these improvements. So the warrants are really an interest only short term financing tool that the city utilizes to construct the improvements to construct these projects. And then once those projects are complete, then we're able to put in place the long-term bond funding to start to pay down principal on a lot of these projects. And the long-term tax exempt rate on your bonds is actually lower than the interest rates that you're paying on a lot of the warrants that you have outstanding. So we'll typically try to line it up. Timing is our first driver in terms of when you're completing your projects, but also trying to navigate and take out these warrants in a way that's the most efficient for the city. So that's why we're starting this process now. In terms of the process and our timeline, just at a really high level, we hope to have everything ready to schedule the bond sale here in September. That bond sale is what would lock in the interest rate on the long-term bond financing. And then that would put us in a position to close around October and pay off those warrants. And that's when you would start paying on the long-term bonds. So I hope that helps provide an overview, but always happy to answer any questions that you have, particularly on the ordinance or the warrants that you have outstanding in general.

Anyone have any questions? Go ahead, Ed.

Thanks for coming. If I understood Don correctly, three of these projects are completed, but we've got a couple more in the works that may not be completed for a year or two. Is that correct? Okay, so why are we tying ourselves down to an interest rate now for $3 million, which may actually be lower when we need to pay the warrants off?

Sure, yeah, good question. So we won't actually issue the long-term bonds for the projects that are being constructed or that are not complete yet. We'll only issue the roughly $7 million for the projects that are complete. That will still leave you about that $3 million of remaining authority in the future to issue revenue bonds under that bond ordinance. But we wouldn't issue the bonds. We wouldn't lock in the interest rates or or get in, you know, set the terms on that bond until we would be in a position to where. The projects would be would be complete and we'd be in a position to to put that additional amount in place.

So the interest rate that we'll be seeing for the 7Million dollars will. Only impact the 7Million correct?

Yes, correct. Yep.

Yep. Other questions. Thanks, Austin. We reserve the right to pick your brains.

Sure.

Okay. Anybody have any?

Go ahead, Ty. Yeah, I saw some notes in here about a request of the three reading waiver. Do we need to discuss that? In other words, to stay on the timeline? Is that something that's being requested from either Austin or Don? Yes? Okay. With that, I'd motion to waive the three reading requirement.

Second.

Motion by Lucas, second by Volz to waive the three readings on this particular bond issue. Any discussion on that item? Seeing none, calling the question on the amendment. Okay. If passed, this will be passed in one reading. Any further discussion or debate on this item number two as amended?

Real quick, thank you. Will other projects be added to this since we're only going to have 7 million in bonds but a limit of 10?

So future projects are going to be added to this, correct? Yeah, there are some that are in process. And so as those complete within that 3 million range, they would be added. And just like Austin said, at that point,

bonds would be sold and that sort of thing to cover them are those ones listed out here so the only bonds that are going to be in that 10 million are the ones that are listed out in the materials right yes donna's nodding her head yes so yeah perfect other questions okay calling the question i'm number two as amended

Number two is passed as amended in one reading. Thank you, Austin. We appreciate you coming out. Item number 3 except the certificate of completion for sanitary sewer connection district number 22 located on echo drive approximately 1300 feet south of Walker Rd thence North to Walker Rd thence West along Walker Rd to Buffalo bill Avenue and set the excuse me and set the board of equalization for July 2120 26.

Mayor, I move to accept the certificate of completion and schedule of benefits for sanitary sewer connection district number 22, located on Echo Drive, approximately 1,300 feet south of Walker Road, then snort to Walker Road, then west along Walker Road to Buffalo Bill Avenue, and set the board of equalization for July 21st, 2026.

Motion by Reker, second by Nestle. I have a small request of the council. Would anyone mind motioning a change to change that date from July 21st to August 7th? Or excuse me, August 4th, which is the first council meeting in August.

Mr. Mayor, I so move. Second.

Motion by Reker, second by Nestle to change the Board of Equalization date to August 4th. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, calling the question on the motion to change to August 4th. Thank you, everyone. That motion is passed. Board of Equalization date will be on 8-4, which is the first council meeting in August. Okay. Back to the original question. Any discussion? Brent, you wanted to give us a quick version of what we're doing here?

Good evening, Mayor, Council. This project started a couple years ago. The Council approved in the three readings we started in January of 24. And in February 25, we awarded to Bancurk, and they finished it summer, fall of last year. And this project was what we'd call the larger infrastructure, core infrastructure for the city. This is an 18-inch sewer that went from about Echo and Fremont slough north on Echo and went all the way over to Buffalo. and it's an 18 inch pipe so long term the plan is as the city grows that this would be an infrastructure part the other piece is it connected a request that we had which was quick stops request for sewer which was in the city limits and a lot of this goes by property that is not in city limits so that was the reason for the connection district was one the larger infrastructure for city growth the other part going by the county and then allows the people to connect that could connect to it there's other development that needs to occur in that area there's some really large lots and things like that that will over time there will be some more planning on how that would happen so that's a big picture of what we're looking at with this project

And Brent just I know we had discussion on connection districts at the last meeting, but it was 3 weeks ago. So, would you update us briefly on the difference between the 2 types of districts?

We typically say, please there's an extension district, which gets immediately assessed or assigned a cost. To all of the adjacent properties, and then there's a connection district, which has the same process of assigning a cost. But the cost is only incurred as a connection fee at the time of connection. So the adjoining property owners, including property that's ag ground, that's not accessible, they could be charged a connection fee in the future because we have some property that's not developed or could be considered ag property right now. So this is a connection that would be only a fee to the user upon the time of connection or request for connection.

And I believe when we were discussing this the day, you mentioned that I think there's a church there that They were already connected, so they were reconnected at no cost. Is that correct?

Correct. There were, I believe, three connections. They were already connected to a sewer on Echo, very shallow, and they were reconnected at no cost.

Okay. Thank you. Questions or comments for Brent? Ed, go ahead.

Mayor, Brent, I don't know if you recall, there's a couple of depressions in the asphalt on Echo Drive that need to be repaired. I don't know what the plan is to get that done, but I just want to make sure that they don't get lost if we pay these folks.

They've already been paid. It's under warranty, so we'll get back with them all. Okay.

other questions i've been continuing to think about connection districts and do cities have when they equalize these do we ever have the ability to to have parameters that say something like this is your connection cost for five years but if you hit your five To maybe year 10, the cost goes up by 10% or 15% or 20%. Do cities have that type of flexibility to creating kind of time benefit to connecting? Or is it just all have to be equalized to the exact cost, you know? Yeah.

Um, just from my experience, um, I haven't seen equalization to time. That might be something we might have to look at ask, maybe defer to bill for a little bit of research on because state statute is. The primary part for most of this is derived from. For the generation of costs, but there's also a lot of court cases. that have further refined the application of this. So sorry Bill, defer to his plate. I could look into it.

Yeah, it doesn't affect my vote here tonight. It was just a big picture question for when we have time to look at it. Thank you.

Other questions or comments? Brad?

So this is a million dollar project roughly. Where does that money come from? Do we bond that out or do we pay back? How is that financed?

We look at both options, depending on our cash situation. And then, yes, we get paid back as they connect, goes back into the sewer fund. So I can't tell you on this one exactly how we've decided to pay for it yet, but we do look at either bonding or partial bond and partial cash or all cash, depending on our situation at the time.

Gotcha. To Ty's point, if we bond it out, we're incurring interest over time. So there is inflating costs associated. For sure.

That's something we've talked about in the department as far as we have connection districts where someone 20 or 30 years later is connecting or gets developed quite a bit later. So the money is coming in, but it's way after the fact sometimes. So very good point. Ed?

I really appreciate your comment because I think if we could do that, if we could offer an increased fee schedule later on in the project, that would allow us as a city to pre-construct some of this infrastructure and have it ready for construction and slot development and take some of the burden off of the developers. I think that would be a good option.

go ahead yeah the only thing and i probably argue on the other side of what i brought out is you know i you always remember i brought this up many times the wedding gift philosophy that you know when somebody bought my dinner set for my wedding it was 29 back in the 90s and today if i was buying it for wedding gift it was 110 and you know we're not charging a different rate for people using old infrastructure versus new so i mean there is a fair theory that

about cost fairness with all that.

And so I, you know, you, it, there's a lot of different ways of looking at, at that stuff. And so I just was curious whether, you know, you have that flexibility or not.

Well, let's find out before we have that debate. Yeah. Rod, did you have something?

So when the property is sold, does that assessment have to be paid before they can sell it, or they can be transferred to the next owner?

These aren't assessed. They pay when they connect onto it.

They pay in cash at that time.

Okay. There's no assessment against adjacent properties.

Okay.

Other questions or comments? Thank you, Brent. Seeing none, calling the question on item number three as amended. Item number three is passed as amended, with amended being the date of equalization being August 4th, 2026. Number four, adopt the recommendation by the City Planning Commission for preliminary and final approval of Legend's second subdivision located at 4714 West State Farm Road in an R-L suburban residential district.

Mr. Mayor, I move to adopt the recommendation by the City Planning Commission for preliminary and final approval of Legend's second subdivision.

Second.

Motion by Lucas, second by Dye. Judy? Give us the short version, please.

Mayor, Council, this is essentially the second half of what was started several years ago with the subdivision out on West State Farm Road, and we're just doing essentially the second half, adding an additional 14 lots, which was planned originally, but they're just now subdividing that parcel. Do you have any questions? I'm happy to help.

I assume Legend's first subdivision is doing quite well since they're moving on to the second part.

I know that they do have a building permit pulled for one of the buildings. I think there's maybe a couple individuals that have bought lots out there. So I just wanted to move forward.

Other questions?

Ty? Is it still entirely private drive in that subdivision versus any county road? Is that correct?

Yes, it is still entirely a private drive.

Just a comment that, you know, the two-acre lot size is a really great lot size close to town. If you haven't been out there, the road is very primitive at this point. I know their plans are, or I've heard the owners indicate that their plans are eventually, as there's more houses out there, to continue to look at improving that road. So it's just something we want to keep our eye on, I think.

There's enough right-of-way that if they did eventually want to improve it, that could happen.

Okay. Thanks. Other questions or comments? Seeing none, calling the question on item number four, please. Thank you. Item number four is passed. Item number five, adopt the recommendation by the City Planning Commission for preliminary and final approval on Platteview Fifth Replat located at 1903 and 1905 East 6th Street in an I-1 light industrial district.

Mr. Mayor, I move to adopt the recommendation by the City Planning Commission for preliminary and final approval of flat view number five, Reef Flat.

Second. Motion by Reeker, second by Volz. Judy, I don't know why you walked all the way back over there.

I don't know why I did either.

Okay, please give us the short version.

So on this one, just to kind of give you a little interesting update, what he is doing is making what I would consider a panhandle lot. Originally when he had first subdivided this then sold that piece to the neighbor It was just a little piece accessed by an easement. So he's actually making this a little bit better Nothing's really the same owner is going to own this panhandle lot as he did the original small lot that was accessed by an easement This actually makes it a little bit better because his direct access is through his property now at this point Other questions or comments

Thanks, Judy. Other questions or comments? Seeing none, calling the question, item number five, please. Item number five is passed. Item number six, authorized advertising and release of a request for proposal RFP for architectural and design services for replacement of OF THE CURRENT POLICE PORTION OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING.

MR. MAYOR, I MOVE TO AUTHORIZE THE ADVERTISING AND RELEASE OF AN RFP FOR ARCHITECTURAL AND DESIGN SERVICES FOR REPLACEMENT POLICE STATION.

SECOND.

NOT SURE WHO WON THAT ONE, BUT I'M GIVING IT TO ED. SO, OKAY, MOTION BY VOLZ, SECOND BY REEKER. Lane, you want to give us the short version of what we're going to, well, this one may take more than a short version.

Tell us what we're doing. All right. First of all, thanks to Brent for working with me, putting this together, this proposal. So this is basically the very first step in moving towards a new public safety building police station. It would be going out for architectural and design services, picking a firm to do an actual plan of the police station so we can I guess, hone in on what the cost of that is going to be. The next step then will be going for a bid for deciding if that cost is within what we can reasonably afford. And then the next step will be going to bid to actually find a contractor to build it. So this is like the first step in step three or four. I don't know if that's quick and easy or...

And in our discussions about this, the architects have indicated that by developing a set of plans that constitutes a 50% set of plans, which means it's halfway developed, basically, they're able to or contractors would then be able to bid accurately enough to give us a probably within 10% of a real cost. From my perspective, the challenge that we're facing right now in this discussion is we don't have very many real numbers. And so I think most people would reasonably conclude if you visited the police station that we definitely need to do something about the current quarters of the police. But what we do requires some planning, and this is the first step in the planning. The other thing I like about this plan is if we receive these drawings and estimates and buy actual contractors on what it would take to build, and it's more money than we want to spend right now, this plan will still be good in four or five years. Somebody else could consider it in the future. Okay. Brent, did we leave anything important out?

I don't know if you left anything out, but just as a piece to add for further information, there's typically 4 parts of an architectural process. That you go from preliminary to conceptual to design documents to the bid documents. This is what's being mentioned would probably be to the 3rd part. That you could get some cost estimating from that. It's not just a rectangle on a page square feet with floor plan that take us a little bit further to get a better idea on dollar amount.

Thank you questions or comments.

What is the estimated costs for this?

Um, just roughly somewhere between 150 and 250,000. I mean, that's just going off of some different things I've seen in the market.

I read somewhere, somewhere I got in my head, it was for a building, hopefully in the ballpark of $10 to $13 million. But I'm looking here, we've got a $48 million project. Help me balance what these numbers are meaning.

So the $10 to $13 million is going off of when we did the little study for police a couple years ago. Even though that was a complete building with police and fire, where you take the police part out, somewhere between a 31 and a 34,000 square foot building. It's kind of what we're looking at, and that around 500 dollars a square foot is kind of what a lot of. Civic governmental abilities to be going forward. So that's where we came up with that 10 to 13Million dollar. Estimate number, but that's that's really just a ballpark going off of kind of what markets have been showing.

48Million dollar number in here that might have been.

That was what we were looking at, I believe the 2, 2 buildings together.

Other questions or comments?

I'd like to understand a little bit more the design bill versus the construction manager risk process. And so as I was reading this, it looked to me like either could make a proposal. And so I'm trying to I'm just trying to understand how that would work. In my experiences, a lot of times the design builders are going towards the cost. It may be a lower percentage. of the plan i i'm not an expert on this i'm asking for brenner yet or you guys to walk us through this but i'm trying to understand how this is going to work if we see things coming from both directions and then also and then the follow-up question on that is if if somebody wanted to make a proposal to provide a like a lease to own structure would that be con is that something that would be considered as part of this rfp or not

A good question on what we'd put in the proposal was a design bid build or the construction manager risk. And what we wanted was information from when we go through the RFP process. That's something that we can bring out, see what their experiences are with those. We could go right now. It's set up that we could go either direction. And I've visited with contractors and architects on the process. And from what I understand right now with where we're at, we have time to decide which direction we'd like to go. So as we're going along on the cost, it's when we get to the design documents, the four stages I mentioned that we're probably going to end up at the third, it's by the fourth we need to have that decided which way we go, because that's when you can have a, if you go to the construction manager at risk, you can bring them on board, help do some cost, Value engineering, some picking different, go this direction, you can save money, get a similar product, things like that. There's some input from the contractor if you do the construction manager risk, or you can continue with its full design. If you stop right there at stage three, you can either go construction manager or you can continue on, get the full design, and then do a hard bid. So that's a fork in the road. But we put that in so we'd have flexibility as a city to pick which direction we'd like to go.

Okay. Thank you. Other questions or comments?

Laney, you talked about the study we did before. Kind of walk us through why we went away from that. What's the historical logic behind it?

That study was for continuing with the combined fire police. And after getting that study and, you know, knowing that the size of that building and the scope, just something that's probably out of reach as far as costs. And then talking with both Chief Reeves and Chief Thompson, um, It was decided that the existing fire station one that's a part of that building, that's a newer portion of that building, is still in pretty good shape, that we could save basically floor one and then the fire side of that and make that still usable for the fire station. That was a better location in their mind for their station. And so we would split the two where the police would be separate than the fire going forward. And so the fire station one would stay where it's at with... and tearing down the existing old hospital where the police is stationed at. And so having the police at a different location.

Gotcha. Thank you.

So I'm assuming the $150,000 to $200,000 for this study would come out of contingency or something along those lines to pay for it.

Cash reserve or something like that, yeah.

If we move forward with the, you know, 10 to 13Million dollar. We bonded what are your how do we pay for this?

So, I've run a number of different scenarios with the partial bond, partial cash reserve, looking at some different things. Minimal impact on on tax living, et cetera. And so until we have a. Really a nailed down price. You know, they can go a lot of different directions, but there's a number of different ways that we can look at that. And, you know, some cities have used the food and beverage tax to pay for something like this. I'm not saying that's a good option, but that's another option. And there's some different bonding scenarios or some different combination scenarios that I think would work without stretching the city budget.

I'm glad you brought up some alternatives because I'm not, you guys probably know this, I'm not a fan of property taxes. So just increasing our levy two to three cents to pay for this is just, in my opinion, not a good, it's not very good governance. So I would encourage you to look at some of these other options. Food and beverage, you mentioned that. I don't know the details, so I don't know the political potholes I'm stepping in. But there are other communities near to us who have essentially half the property tax liabilities we do, and they're thriving and getting a lot done.

There's one that I can think of that's half, but anyway.

exists yes so i i appreciate the the being smart with this and trying to diversify our revenue sources because i think there's there's ways to do this and there's no argument for me that we need to do this like it absolutely needs to happen but how do we pay for it and for me to spend a quarter of a million dollars we might as well just figure out how to do the whole thing you know To get her done, because I don't want to throw a quarter million dollars away and we sit on it for 5 or 10 years and don't there's there's a number of things until we have a better.

Price, I hate to just throw out numbers, but there's, there's a number of different ways we could go.

Well, I like the creativity, so I appreciate that.

Go ahead, I guess 1 point of clarification. Brad, if we get a set of plans that are up to the third level, as Brent was talking about, those plans can go on the shelf and be used. So it's not like we're spending that money is not usable in the construction of the project. So we're just paying to the head, and hopefully then when we decide to build it, we'll pull those off the shelf and complete the plans and begin the construction.

And I agree, but things change. I mean, we have a study that we paid for that we aren't using because of different reasons. So things can happen, you know.

We are using that study, though, to know what size a police station is. I mean, that was basically a real basic study to know what just kind of square footage and how you would, what are the needs. It wasn't really, it wasn't a building. They had some consensual drawings, but it wasn't really an architectural plan or anything like that.

A quarter million dollars is a substantial investment to get started.

Another question, Lane. Are you including in this, uh, the, uh, removal of the hospital and. And correcting or refacing the north end of the. Fire station to make sure that we did not do that at this step.

We've. We've had our building team look at that, and I think it's doable to remove the old hospital and then just build the wall and keep the existing fire. Obviously, we'd have to get a little more detail than that, but I think it's a doable project. But that's not included in this.

And then I have a question for Brent, I guess. I've not been involved with these construction managers at risk. Can you walk me through that process a little bit and what kind of fees these folks get and what responsibilities they carry?

We did do that with the wastewater plant, the industrial wastewater plant. We have a construction manager at risk. on that's what we hired to help build the plant the way that it functions is again typically it's you go and get proposals and in the proposal you list the scope of what you'd like and then you also have a fee percentage typically it's a fee percentage as well as general conditions if you're familiar with the general conditions on the general contractor those are things like bond insurance a job trailer things like that if they have those pieces with it but frequently it's a percent of the costs and the way that it works the way that we did the industrial plant is they did a bid letting through the city for all of the sub components whether it was equipment concrete all of those things and then they bring all the costs from that bid letting And then we can go through and identify. And one flexibility on the construction manager is you pick the best bid, which may be the low bid, and it may not be depending on your criteria for it could be timing, it could be quality, it could be and include cost. I mean, cost is always important. But sometimes the cost isn't the initial cost that gets you. It's a long-term cost. So you might have a different cost. But that's all part of this seem our project. And usually with that there's a dovetail of the design and the construction manager, helping identify costs on the construction site. So that's all part of the CMR project. Because usually the construction manager, they should have a better pulse on what's available in our area and how the prices are working. You might pick X type of flooring versus Y that they know that both of them function the same, but this is more readily available or there's problems one way or the other. But that's a piece of it on the front end. Does that address some of your questions?

I guess from my perspective, it seems like kind of a redundant type of system. I mean, the way we typically work our projects is the engineer and or the architect assumes a responsibility of being that eyes on the ground to make sure that the customer gets what he paid for. And of course, it requires a lot of due diligence on the architect and or the engineer to make sure that he's got the customer's best interest at heart. And so I'm not sure what the rationale there is. I guess if you have a reputable engineer and a reputable architect, then he's probably going to do that. That's going to be built into his feed, certainly. But I'm not sure. I'm not sure what the construction manager at risk, what his risk is. What is his risk? He's getting paid, but does he have any money in the game?

What do you mean, like money?

Well, he makes decisions... throughout the project, and certainly I would hope anyway with the agreement of the engineer and the architect and the contractor, I would think that he would just make changes in some of the design based on cost or availability or what other criteria might be in place, but does he have any liability in Maybe overlooking something that wasn't done correctly, or maybe some materials that were substandard and he didn't catch it. What responsibility does he bear in a construction manager at risk system?

The contract is still with the construction manager as far as executing the subcontracts and things like that. It is a different delivery method. And my personal opinion, there's pros and cons with design build. we need design bid and build it that's more traditional the construction manager at risk has been growing schools use it probably the most of anybody it's not allowed by state statute you can't use it for public works projects like water main streets that's not even an option to do it's specifically not allowed in state statute So from a bigger picture, there's it's I would say it's done more on the private side and there's pros and cons. And I'd be happy to. It's a longer discussion and I'd be happy to visit with you a little bit. I have some of my own concerns. I don't think there's a perfect model. Each scenario, there's downfalls, in my opinion. I think it does reduce some of the risk for the construction manager because they're just floating over the top of whatever their subs are. And so there is a piece that's just from my opinion, from my viewpoint of seeing that.

So if we were to go with construction manager at risk, does that have any impact on the responsibilities of the architect? In other words...

No, I would say no. The thing that the positive that I've seen and what I've been told and because I have not had lots of experiences with it, it's more collaborative that you have the architect and the contractor working together on the front end sometimes as you know if you have the architect and you can have a little bit more of a side that they're on this side and they're on this side and and so in that respect you can have a little bit more front-end discussion and it does allow you to pick the best bid versus the low bid because sometimes a little bit it's a little bit slope and there's good and bad with it

I guess we've kind of approached our business, so we work for the owner, and the burden's on us to make sure that he's protected. Correct. Certainly, that puts more work on us as an engineering and architectural firm. Of course, we need to be compensated for that. But I just was curious. I hear this term bantered around, and... It seems to be relegated more to projects that are paid with public dollars.

The construction manager?

Yes.

i've seen quite a few private that are done that way i've seen hotels done that i've seen hotel projects done that method some of the larger arena events or construction manager or not the heartbeat that some of the things that cmar allows is if there's more complications it allows more dialogue and discussion i think if you have a very cut and clear project then the design bid fits really well in my opinion i think if things start getting really muddy there are some advantages with cmar but again i i see pros and cons with both and this as it's presented in the proposal it just allows us the flexibility to go to their direction it's not setting in stone which direction we'd be it's just soliciting input from the proposers so that they can share that they've had experiences with both or so that it allows us to get all the information make the best decision and we can decide which direction is the policy makers you all can decide

other time yeah on the same topic how does this work with different methods of construction so in other words does this welcome proposals from somebody who say an expert in precast concrete or steel traditional steel package structure or more traditional block construction or whatnot in other words can i would have to assume that there's people that their design has specialty in different types of construction, maybe. I don't know, or maybe they all know about all of them. But how does construction method roll into all this, and when does that surface in those steps?

Typically, that's between the third and the fourth. Okay. There will be some definitely in the third step on the design development stage. and that's where the expertise of them knowing that it's a public safety specifically a police side there's nuances with that that their credentials should identify that gets into the type of material like the walls we don't want two by six walls on this right and if we have a proposal that comes with that i think that'll be a quick I don't know if I should pass maybe I shouldn't say this publicly because now we gave an answer I mean there's other things in than that that that when we're looking at we're going to try to winnow out what are some of your expertise in the process to your point that hopefully they start saying we're good at this and these are some of the things from police centers that we've worked on you need this this and this to you know to meet the safety criteria the protection of the public protection of the employees etc you know things like that that there is definitely some scope items that are going to be identified by the type of project it is okay thank you other questions or comments seeing none calling the question and i have number six

Item number six is passed. Item number seven, second reading in action on ordinance number 4253 to authorize the conveyance of the vacated alley located between Lot 32, Hastings Edition to North Platte and Lot 1, Jurgensen Subdivision, North Platte, Lincoln County, Nebraska by the City of North Platte to Dennis and Shirley Ogborn. Laying 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 wit the vacated alley located between Lot 32, Hastings Edition, 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 a conveyance of the vacated alley between lot 32... Hastings Addition to North Platte and Lot 1, Juergen Subdivision, North Platte, Lincoln County, Nebraska, by the City of North Platte to Dennis and Shirley Ogborn on second reading.

Second.

Motion by Bowles, second by Dye. Discussion on item number seven. Seeing none, calling the question item number seven, please. Item number seven is passed. Item number eight, first reading and action on ordinance number 4252 to add section 74.05 entitled pedestrian safety use of medians to chapter 74, pedestrians to title seven traffic code to the code of the city of North Platte. Lay in the ordinance, please.

Ordinance number 4252, an ordinance of the city of North Platte, Lake County, Nebraska, to amend the code of the city of North Platte by adding section 74.05 entitled pedestrian safety use of medians to chapter 74 pedestrians to title 7 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. Thank you.

Mr. Mayor, I move to adopt ordinance number 4252 to add section 54.05 entitled pedestrian safety use of medians to chapter 74 pedestrians to title 7 traffic code to the code of the city of North Platte on first reading. Second.

Motion by Flanders, second by Reker. Okay, everybody, council, you have before you basically two documents here. One has a lot of red and a little bit of yellow on it. And this is the marked up version. You have the clean document, which is the document without the markups. They match each other. You just see what's removed in the red lines here. In short, in trying to make this as simple as possible, we simply listed the highway intersections by highway. So the language is, say, for any intersection, this is item A, for any intersection listed herein, pedestrians are prohibited from standing, sitting, or staying on a median for any purpose other than lawfully crossing the street. And the areas would be all Highway 83 intersections located within city limits, all Highway 30 intersections located within city limits, and all Newberry access intersections located within city limits. And then the ordinance continues, and there's a discussion about not standing on roundabouts. And it's the same as it has been all along after that. We thought that covered where the medians are in our city that that could potentially be an issue here with this, this current safety. Concern so.

Okay, Nick, I hate to be that guy, but on, uh. The one on Eugene, why did we take that one off? As you turn off of 83 onto Eugene and it splits over by Fat Dogs? There's a small median there.

It's still there. It's Highway 83.

That's considered part of Highway 83. That is? I guess in our opinion, that's why we consider that still part of the Highway 83 thing.

we're talking the entire intersection that's that's my interpretation are you talking a little piece by fat dogs where that one yes yes yes yes yes okay just

That little teardrop piece after you go around the corner towards Fat Dogs is what you're talking about. Yeah, that's the one I was talking about.

Yeah, not on the highway. That one dips down. Okay, that probably would not be included. Okay. That works.

Probably wouldn't be considered a roundabout.

Kind of odd. I very seldom see anybody stand up there hitchhiking. They're usually up on the road.

Yeah. I was just trying to cross all the T's. I was just curious about that one.

Or the mailboxes. Oh, you mean the one down there by the fat, where the mailbox is?

Yeah. But I appreciate the fact of thinking ahead on the roundabouts, though.

I don't think that's as much of an issue as it is on the highway.

Good point. Just curious.

If it becomes a problem, we can always add it later on. Or we could talk about it for another six months.

No.

This looks good. To be fair, the traffic is not moving nearly as fast in that area generally. Okay. Yes, Ed.

I mentioned this to Bill earlier, and I'm going to propose that we change this a little bit. As we're seeing some pretty substantial changes in how our traffic flow is going to take place, especially going east, there's a real good possibility we're going to have some turning lanes and possibly some convenience in between some of the streets. I think that all of the medians that I'm aware of anyway are pretty much in the main traffic areas. There's not very many residential areas, so I'm not too worried about them. So I would propose that we strike all locations and word it such that or staying on any median within the city limits for any purpose other than lawfully crossing the street or the exceptions outlined in letter C below. That way we have everything covered so that the little triangle or diamond shaped piece down there by Fat Dog is probably not a big deal, but I can't imagine why anybody would need to stand on the median. I mean, if they're standing on the median, to go across the street, that's already outlined in here and covered as an exception. Where are we talking, Ed? I'm a little confused.

Well, where does it say want change?

Well, if you look in our proposed document, I think, Jim, it talks about under letter C. Oh, what I proposed to change? Yeah, well, what do you propose? What are you talking about? Letter A. We've got three bullet points there. all Highway 83, all Highway 30, all Newberry Access. I'm proposing that we remove all three of those locations and just change the language to say that any median within the city is covered by this document. So that as we continue to change our traffic and the streets change going east in particular, we have ourselves covered.

It's I think it's a good point, but I think you're in a residential area, so just don't have safety concerns.

Intersections located in the highway.

I think we're right. I'm not taking your position. My more big government. Why further regulation when you want to regulate just the highways?

Well, there's not going to be any medians in the family district.

But do we need to have a regulation on that in a rural area? You're on B Street. Burlington might be an example. As you go east, there's a median there that goes down the middle. But I don't think that that's a safety concern.

You know what I'm saying is, I'm not arguing with you.

I'm just saying I don't think, I think the better thing we do is approach it where the issue comes up. Really the problem is on the highways. We've got to address that and get that done. And then keep it what? We want to do it, but we don't want to make it bigger than it should be. That's what I'm trying to suggest. If that's okay with you.

Well, that's fine. To me, it just made sense that we're not going to have any medians in residential areas, with the exception maybe of Burlington.

Lakeview.

And possibly Lakeview.

Definitely a median in Lakeview. Definitely a median in Lakeview.

I buy it every morning.

At least part of it.

I used to hang out at all the time.

The middle of cul-de-sacs could become an issue. Some cul-de-sacs, some of the older ones still have some grounds in the middle.

But once again, I still come back to the argument. What's your reason for camping out there? I mean... If you're going across the street, you're going across the street. If you're throwing rocks at cars, you're going by. Well, that's a whole different situation. I don't know. Just a thought.

In front of my house, I have an island, and that's where they light fireworks off. So I would hate to kick the kids off being a city councilman. I think the way you wrote it up was really good. If, and like you say, if we need to tweak it, we can always tweak it down the road. Let's see what this ordinance does and then adjust as, as needed.

Yeah. All right.

One additional item.

This is the third or fourth time we've talked about this. So I'm going to motion for waiver of three. READINGS ON THIS SO THIS COUNCIL CAN CONSIDER PASSING IT.

I'LL SECOND THAT.

I DON'T WANT ANYBODY TO RETHINK IT.

OKAY. BEFORE THIS GETS ANY WORSE, WE HAVE A MOTION BY LUCA, SECOND BY DAI TO WAVE THE THREE READINGS ON THIS ITEM AS PRESENTED. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? CALLING THE QUESTION

on the motion wait wait a second i'm sorry can we wave it on an ordinance we can't okay sorry i didn't mean to i'm my bad no worries good question that's a good question okay bless the lord this will only be passed hopefully in one reading okay

Okay, okay, that's a good point City attorney has just recommended that since the version and sitting in front of you is Slightly different than what's actually in the council items So would you like me to read the amendment or what what manner should we clarify this I?

I feel like it might be best addressed just to have someone offer an amendment and just read the, the. Version of section a that that we are proposing that that. At least I understand this is what what is being discussed. So I think it would be best to have an amendment to. Pass the ordinance with section a, as we presented with what we put around the council table, just to make it clear that that's. That's what version it is that we're voting on side. I need to have any confusion as to whether you're voting on the version that's in the council packet or the version that we've kind of presented here since the council packet came out.

would make an amendment to the motion that item a read for any intersection listed herein pedestrians are prohibited from standing sitting or staying on a median for any purpose other than lawfully crossing the street with sub bullet points or all Highway 83 intersections located within the city limits. Second bullet point, all Highway 30 intersections located within the city limits. And third bullet point, all Newberry Access intersections located within the city limits.

Second. Motion by Vols, second by Dye for the amendment as read. Everyone understand the amendment as read? Do we need to read it again? Nope. Okay, calling the question on the amendment, please. Amendment is passed. Okay, back to the original question that is now amended twice. Do we have any further discussion on item number eight as amended? Calling the question on item number eight as amended. I have number eight is passed as amended. I have number nine, approve the claims.

Mr. Mayor, I move that we pay bills. Second.

Motion by Reker, second by Nestle. I have a question on paying the claims. Okay, go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Under the grant section, We show a $6,000 payment to North Platte Monument. What is that?

That was for that monument, I believe, for the Milton Berger Monument. That was actually a grant that came from the Nebraska Foundation. It's coming through the city, so that's why it shows in our bills.

And the other one I have, question I have, well, there's a couple more, but under the TIF one, the Nebraska Land Bank for 36,000, is that, didn't realize that was a TIF project. Is that a TIF project? No. What is that number?

I'll have Don explain that, how TIF, those TIF payments work. Thank you. You would, Don?

Yes, Councilman Rieker, Nebraska Land Bank participates with the developer, is the financer for the developer who actually holds the TIF bonds. So typically with a TIF project, the developer pledges the bond to a bank for financing purposes. And oftentimes they're assigned directly, the payments on those bonds are assigned directly to that bank.

Thank you. That explains that. And then another question that I had was on the recreation. Community Action Partners. What is that?

I do not know what that one is for, Ed, to be honest with you. I can look it into it for you.

Well, I looked online, and it looks like it's some kind of a regional.

That may be for a senior center partnership, but I'm not that ready. It's for the senior center partnership that runs the meals on wheels in that portion of the senior center. It's been Nebraska community action partners, I believe.

Well, this is our portion of that payment.

There's a partnership there.

I think the final one. Okay, now that takes care of it. I had some questions about that Community Action Partnership. That's quite an organization. They've got a $15 million budget, which is quite a lot of money. It seems like there may be some redundancy here. This goes back several years, way back to the 1960s.

Ed, not on the agenda.

Sorry. Thank you.

Yep. Mr. Mayor. Any other questions? Yep.

Ed, since you brought up Nebraska Land, I just wanted to mention, since I have a known conflict with Nebraska Land Bank that we've seen many times in my early year or two on the council visit with our city attorney about that, and I'm trying to remember if we also visited with NADC, but in these cases, the owner of the TIF bond is just simply directing the city to take their TIF check to the bank for them basically as part of that arrangement. So that's why I haven't abstained from those particular, but we did look at that in my first year on the council. So thank you.

Other questions or comments? Okay. Calling a question on item number nine, please.

Okay.

Number nine is passed. Items are paid.

Public agenda request.

We respect our city employees' request that any complaints or criticism of employees not be aired at a public meeting. Concerns about employees should be brought to the attention of the city administrator or the mayor. Individuals in violation will be declared out of order. If anyone has a public agenda request, please approach the microphone. Let us know what your request is. Tell us who you are and where you live. Mr. Eaker?

Mr. Mayor, I move that we adjourn.

Second. Motion by Reker, second by Bowles to adjourn, calling the question unadjourned. Meeting adjourned. See you all in two weeks. Thank you, everyone.