City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening everyone, welcome to our flat city council meeting here on Tuesday, September 1st, 2026, 530 PM. Of course, we're here in the council chambers, calling meeting officially in order. We have an invocation tonight by Deacon Michael Davis from the Holy Spirit. Davis, if you would make sure the mic is on and invocation.

Thank you. In gratitude for the rain, I thought I'd start with a very brief reading from Psalm 104. From your dwelling you water the hills. Earth drinks its fill of your gift. You make the grass grow for the cattle and the plants to serve man's needs. How many are your works, O Lord, in wisdom you have made them all. The earth is full of your riches. Almighty and merciful God, source of all wisdom and justice, We pause this evening to seek your blessing upon this City Council and all the citizens gathered here. Grant these leaders a spirit of discernment, courage, and genuine compassion as they deliberate on the needs of our community. Unite us across our diverse perspectives in a shared commitment to the common good, the protection of the vulnerable, and the flourishing of every neighbor. Bless our city, bless our actions, And let your peace almighty God dwell among us. Amen.

And to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

And do the roll call please here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here.

Respect our city employees' requests that any complaints or criticisms of employees not be aired at a public meeting. In terms of unemployment, we would like 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 August 18 and 24.26. B, place on file the prisoner's report for July 2026. See send the application for Christopher Berglund as liquor license manager will be Tuesday at 2023 27th Street to look for control commission with no recommendation. The authorized mayor deck junior local agreements Lincoln County and the city of Gothenburg for dispatch services. He authorized the mayor to execute the two interlocal agreements between the city of North Lincoln County for maintenance of roads. F, authorize the Mayor to execute the Annual 2026-2027 Agreement for Independent Contractor Services with Alexander Stroud to operate the Government Access Cable TV System. G, approve the Agreement for HUD Responsibility for Environmental Review with Mid-Plains Community College Area and authorize the Mayor to sign necessary documents. H, authorize the Mayor to sign

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

Motion by Lucas, second by Bowles. And Mr. Mayor, I'd like to remove letter G. Okay.

By the consent of that, excuse me, agenda letter G.

Sorry, and this path.

That's another key.

Yes, Mr. man, what what is the. Agreement for responsibility.

Oh, yeah.

That's what that's what I was going to say Judy Clark. Um. Mr steel from the in planes community college can probably give you a better idea of what it's about, but essentially a HUD grant requires, um. Oversight by a local government entity, which would need to be the city or the county. So the college reached out to us to do that. But. Do you want to know more information about the grant?

Yes, please.

Mr. steel would you like us a little bit?

Certainly.

Mike Steele, Mid Plains Community College, 1101 Halligan Drive. So we have our commercial driver's license training program, and we reached out to, initially it was Congressman Smith, and I think it was ultimately the senators that got us an allocation directly from the federal government. So we've got a $2 million grant allocated to us through HUD. It's a CPF grant. Our intent is to utilize that funding to construct a proper CDL training pad on the eastern side of our property on Halligan Drive. And we've got a design. We've got an engineer on board. but the HUD grant requires a responsible entity and we are not allowed to be a responsible entity because we don't control zoning. We don't control any of the stuff that the city has control over. So we have to have a responsible entity and we can utilize city or the county, or we can use the Nebraska department of economic development. Our hope is that we can, Uh, be blessed by the council that you guys would allow us to work with Judy, um, on that side of things and then we are allowed to. Through the grant to reimburse the city expense time, any of the costs associated with, um. Judy working on that grant on our behalf.

So, so what does this entail? I guess.

Essentially, somebody has to take ownership that the environmental review was done properly that it had proper oversight. We have hired consulting to handle that environmental review, but because we have 0 jurisdiction over zoning within the city, we can't be responsible for something. We don't have control over. And because we asked the question and had said, well, no, rather not, you need to either have the local. Folks do it or somebody from the state level.

So, let's make you guys legal it.

It would allow us to access the funding. If we, we have to have. Judy, or the city take on responsibility for the environmental piece and they do all the testing the whole thing. That's all part of this grant. And then once that piece is done, then. Um, We're good to go.

So, thank you other questions. Go ahead. Bill. Um, I was just going to say, from my perspective, because they're hiring an outside consultant to actually conduct the environmental review, it'll basically be Judy reviewing that study and making sure that everything checks out. So, our involvement should be relatively limited. Um, but, like, Mr steel said, any, any expenses that we would have are going to be reimbursed by the college through the grant. So thank you.

Here's a question. No, go ahead, Nick.

Thank you. This might not pertain to this exactly, but on the new CDL testing facility, will you guys work with the new DMV that's going to be in that area? Or is this strictly just for the college?

So it's for the college, but I believe DMV has reached out to our trainer, our program coordinator. And as long as there's no interference, I think there's things we can work out.

Thank you.

Certainly.

Other questions for Mr. Steele?

I just want to comment. This is a significant need. I know you guys have worked hard to grow this program. Significant need in our area. This is wonderful news to hear that you guys have obtained this grant. It doesn't seem like the city's role in this is too taxing on us for what they need to get this accomplished.

Thank you.

Other questions or comments? Thank you, Mr. Steele.

Mr. Mayor, do we approve under G of the consent agenda?

Second motion by recur second by this Lee. Calling the question on letter G from the consent agenda. Letter G is passed. Thank you everyone. Moving on to the regular agenda item to approve the resolution to adopt the 3rd amendment to the city of North Platte, Nebraska police officers pension plan.

I moved to approve the resolution to adopt the 3rd amendment. City of North Latin grass, the police option pension plan.

2nd, is that you Pete? Yes, sir motion by recur second by bold. Lane, you want to talk about what we have going on here, please?

What this is, it's an additional option, police officer's pension plan. It's necessary because of some changes in legislation that made this a mandatory part of their pension plan. So it's an annuity option that they would have at the time of retirement that they did not have before. So we just have to amend our plan to meet state law.

Questions, comments? Seeing none, calling the question. I have number two, please. And number 2 is passed. I have number 3, approve the resolution to adopt the 3rd amendment to the salary reduction thrift savings plan for employees of the city of North class.

Mr. mayor moved to approve the resolution to adopt the 3rd amendment. To the salary reduction thrift savings plan for employees of the city of North plan 2nd.

Motion by bulls 2nd, by die.

This would change our 401k plan right now. For any new employee upon starting employment, they're enrolled in our 401k plan at a 1% match. They can move that up to the full 6% that the city would match, or they can opt out of the plan, but they're automatically enrolled at 1%. In talking with many of our peer cities, a lot of them started either 3% or 5%, and so we decided to go to 3% for that, but they still have the option to either move it up or opt out. At any time, which is a change in our documents.

Questions comments. Yeah, go ahead.

So. Mr mayor, thank you. They choose to go up. To the 6%, that 6% comes out of their check. Do we match the 6?

We do we match up to the 6%. Thank you. So they do 1% we do a 1% match up to.

Yes, thank you.

Yeah, I just wanted to add that. I think there's a lot of this going on with 401k plans because this, you know, the school thought is make it easy for people if they're not paying attention to it. But there's also a kind of an argument if somebody thinks they're enrolled and isn't, and they miss out on some match money that you've kind of jumped ahead of that. And so I think this is a good, this is a good idea and a good addition to our plan. Other questions or comments?

Seeing none calling the question, I have number 3, please. Number 3 is passed. Thank you. Item number 4 action on ordinance number 4262, approving North flats, electric rates to be effective October 1, 2026. Laying the ordinance please ordinance number 4262.

an ordinance of the city of north platte lincoln county nebraska approving electric rates to be charged to the customers of the city of north platte electric department repealing all ordinances are parts of ordinances in conflict herewith providing for the effective date and publication thereof in pamphlet form as provided by law mr mayor i move to suspend the rules requiring three separate readings for proof ordinance number four two six two second

Motion by reaker 2nd, by roles. Lane, you want to explain quickly what we've got going.

What these are is the same as our presentation last council meeting from our consultant as far as electric increases. As you remember is talking about raising our wholesale costs. 6%. And so this mirrors what they're raising our rates.

Questions or comments.

What's the request the reason for the request to.

To suspend the multiple readings on this, we always try and have our rates take effect of October 1st of the upcoming year, because that's the start of our budget year. And so that would be the reason for that. We could just give us plenty of time to get everything enacted.

Other questions or comments. Seeing none calling the question on item number 4, please. Number 4 is passed. I have number 5 action on ordinance number 4, 2, 6, 3, approving the North class water rates to be effective October 1, 2026. Let me read the ordinance. Go ahead, yes.

Ordinance number 4263, an ordinance of the City of North Platte, Lincoln County, Nebraska, approving water rates to be charged to the customers of the City of North Platte Water Department. Repealing all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith, providing for the effective date and publication thereof in pamphlet form as provided by law.

Mr. Mayor, I move to suspend the rules requiring three separate reading and to approve ordinance number 4263. Second.

Motion by recur second by going to give that 1 to rod. Okay.

Uh, lane, uh, much the same. I'm. We had our consultant look at our ongoing operating costs and our needs for cash reserve in the water department, and they suggested this rate increase. It equates on the average household bill that uses 5,000 gallons a month, about a nickel a day increase in their water rates.

Questions or comments? Oh, sorry, Ed.

Thank you, uh, laying that 5,000 gallons is. That's a minimum.

No, we don't have a minimum. It's actually what your actual usage is. That's an average household use about 5,000 gallons. Some more some less.

Then how much you water your tomatoes.

Other questions or comments. I have had a number of contacts about utilities in general. So I just wanted to share some of those contacts with this with this group, especially since it looks like we're maybe going to pass all this on on 1 reading. You know, to me, the three-reading waiver doesn't bother me too much because our media has covered this very well, and we had a very extensive work session about it, so I feel like the public's been properly notified. One of the questions and concerns that I've had was back, I think, in 2019 or 2020, when the utility fund transferred money into the general fund to help with the Iron Eagle deficits, how does that impact these rates? And I think it's good that we talked about that. I had a conversation with Lane about that. And if you go back to that time period, because I was on the council at that time, my recollection is, as was Mr. Rieker, and my recollection was that the city had covered some shortfalls at Iron Eagle for a period of time, and it had never really been tagged officially to a fund, and so we were getting audit dings on it. So the money had been spent, the golf course had been supported, but it hadn't really been cleaned up in the accounting in terms of exactly where it was coming from. At that point, the general fund budget was very tight. They were trying to keep the tax levy. And so it was determined to make that transfer. Now, since that time, I think it's kind of. Settled itself out over time if that's a fair way to say, you can comment, but I think the key is, is that these increases are really due to current operational costs and the wholesale cost of power. And I don't think they have a thing to do with that particular event. I think it's just important that the public public knows that. Um, I did quite a bit of research nationally over the last 5 years. A lot of places have their utility rates have gone up 25 and 30%. So, I, I feel like our city's still working very hard to provide these services at the lowest cost. They can, but more than anything, I just felt like that should be officially addressed in the lane. I don't know if you have anything else to say on that topic.

Um, just that we monitor our rates and other rates, but it's, you know, it's really driven by what it costs to run the system, but we also are cognizant of our peers. And with our peer cities, a lot of cities smaller, even larger than us, we are actually at the lower end of what our rates are for water and sewer, like, on the way low end on sewer and about average on water. So, you know, we do try and be very cognizant of that. And our, our prices are. In the spectrum around the low end other questions or comments.

Seeing none, calling the question, I have number five, please.

Number five is passed.

I have number six, action on ordinance number 4264, approving North Platts wastewater rates to be effective October 1, 2026. Laying the ordinance, please.

Ordinance number 4264, an ordinance of the City of North Platte, Leakey County, Nebraska, approving wastewater rates to be charged to the customers of the City of North Platte Sewer Department, repealing all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith, providing for the effective date and publication thereof in pamphlet form as provided by law.

Mr. Mayor, I move to suspend a rule requiring three separate readings of group ordinance number 4264.

2nd motion by recur second by Lucas. Back to you.

Water water and actually our wastewater rates are much lower than our peers. We combined water and wastewater when we compare our wastewater is on the very low side and actually lower than most of our peers. Even with this increase, we're still going to be lower than all of our peers. So.

Questions or comments? Oh, Ed, go ahead.

Thank you. So, Lane, having said that, with the growth in our population and the prospect that maybe we aren't bumping up to the limit of our wastewater treatment facilities, I don't know if we are, do we have enough reserves in for us to go ahead and add on to that system?

We probably don't have enough reserves for a major addition right now. We'd have to look at long term bond or something for it to pay it all off. We wouldn't just have cash sitting there for that. Our capacity has room for growth right now, and we're also doing some things. To, um, we just did a major project on he's Philip street. We're going to continue to do some things as far as replacing or. Doing refurbishing of our sewer pipes to stop infiltration of groundwater and rain water, which may give us an extra 10 or 20% capacity. So, I think capacity wise, what do we do? These things is going to help us keep that plant more than adequate to service us and even with some growth.

That's a huge.

It makes a big difference. Thank you.

Other questions or comments? Seeing none, calling the question item number six, please. number six is passed i number seven a sec excuse me accept the certificate of completion for paving district number eight three nine francis street from the intersection of tabor avenue fence east to brian avenue and at the intersection of brian avenue and francis street heading north approximately 165 feet to existing concrete

Mr mayor, I moved to accept the certificate of completion for paving district number 839 Francis street from the intersection of table Avenue.

Then East to Brian Avenue, and at the intersection of Brian Avenue and Francis street, heading north. Approximately 165 feet to existing concrete.

Okay, motion by planters 2nd, by. Brent, you want to give us a quick description of what we have going on here? So.

Um, good evening mayor council what's before you is the western most part of the. Francis project there we had broken up into 4 sections. On the East West portion, so this is going from existing table. East as was described to Brian in the North. So this is a certificate of completion and it's being funded by the city. For this section questions or comments.

Thank you, Brent. Any other comments? Okay, calling the question, I have number seven, please. I have number seven is passed. I have number eight, accept the certificate of completion and assessment schedule for paving district number 843 Bryan Avenue from the intersection of Francis Street fence heading south on Bryan Avenue, approximately 267 feet and set the board of equalization for September 15th, 2026.

Mr. mayor moved to accept the certificate of completion assessment schedule for paving district number 843, Brian Avenue from the intersection of Francis street, then setting South on Brian Avenue, approximately 267 feet set the board of equalization for September 15, 2026.

Motion by recur second by bowls. Grant, you're back.

This particular project is just east of thrive it's Brian on the east side of thrive going from Francis that 267 feet and thrive is paying for this whole section of pavement here. Okay.

Questions or comments? Ty? I had somebody ask me about parking along the street on Francis for the whole new area. How's that going to work? Are people going to be, will that be prohibited on Francis?

There'll be no parking on all of Francis and that's the way it's set up right now. That's the ordinance. Now we've had contractors and maybe others, maybe I shouldn't blame them. There's vehicles that have been parking on Francis over there. I can speculate if I am. so along there the whole stretch from newberry to the one ways it's going to be no parking that'll say i wasn't suggesting we ticket the contractors i just had somebody ask me about it thank you we'll leave the ticketing up to the police department other questions or comments i was on all these roads today numerous times and they're really nice so you did a great job thank you anyone else

On the question, I have number 8, please rate is path. Number 9, 2nd, reading and action on ordinance number 4258 to amend chapter 75 bicycles of the code of the city of North.

Playing the ordinance, please ordinance number 4258, an ordinance of the city of North platinum county, Nebraska. to amend the Code of the City of North Platte by revising Chapter 75, Bicycles, 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.

I move to adopt Ordinance No. 4258 on second reading to amend Chapter 75, Bicycles, of the Code of the City of North Platte.

As presented in council materials motion by make news 2nd, by. Mr. attorney, would you talk about this for a 2nd, please?

Yes. Um, so 1st to counseling news, uh. Motion, um, I might, uh, propose that, uh, someone offer an amendment on that because, um. My apologies, but the information that was presented in the Council materials for whatever reason, what I provided to Angie and what got into the Council materials, there's some sort of a So, I apologize for that, but I did hand around what I had drafted that I had intended for the council to consider tonight. And it contains, if you look, it would be on, I think it appears on the 3rd page. 75.25. So, that what I did there was, I tried to incorporate the council's. Amendment from the last meeting as part of what appears as section a there in 75.25. so. In that I took out the language about the extra territorial jurisdiction, and I also took out the reference to e, bikes. Um, and then to, in order to incorporate council, make new councilman Mcnews, uh, request that, uh, multiple writers be prohibited. I added section B into 75.25 because I was trying to make it. Easy for us to consider and so I kind of wanted to keep it all together. Uh, but if you, if you look at what section B, there says that is meant to prohibit it, prohibit those multiple writers on things like the E, scooters and in different things like that. And. what I was attempting to do was to not outlaw things like tandem bicycles. So, um, the way that I drafted it, it's meant to, it's meant to read so that if it's manufactured to allow for multiple riders, it's okay. If it's not, um, if it's manufactured for a single rider, it's, you're not allowed to have multiple riders on it. So, um, so with that, I might suggest that maybe, um, Maybe someone offer an amendment to councilman news, because I don't think we necessarily want to adopt what was presented in the council materials. Um, I think, um. We want to adopt what was, uh, presented, uh. we can maybe just say presented to council for consideration this evening at the meeting, something to that effect. Yeah.

Mr. Mayor, I'm happy just to read it in the record bill. So I'll motion the amendment to the motion that section 75.25 prohibited uses Is altered to a no person shall write a lightweight e-scooter hoverboard upon a roadway within the corporate limits of the city in which the posted speed limit is greater than 25 miles per hour. Any person writing a lightweight e-scooter or hoverboard may cross such roadways at a marked intersection obeying all posted signage and warnings and in accordance with all applicable laws. B, no person shall operate a bicycle, skateboard, e-bike, cover board, scooter, or lightweight e-scooter while carrying another person upon the device, and no person shall ride as a passenger on any such device upon any public street, sidewalk, alley, or path unless the device is specifically manufactured by the producer with designated passenger seat or structural accommodations for more than one person.

Second.

Motion by Lucas 2nd, by make new to. Alter the, this item to the language that was read into the record.

Ed. Bring up a question, I guess. Bill, some bicycles have an extension on the actual where people can. Stand on the back is that prohibited or.

I think under the language here, I think if it's typically manufactured as a structural accommodation for more than 1 person. Then it would be allowed it would be allowed if it's if that's what those if that's what those. We'll call them like foot pegs would be intended for. And I think it would be allowed under this language. So.

And then I have a question under 75.01, which I don't think that's been changed. It says electric personal assistant mobility device, the line below that, the next line below it. It says wheelchair or other self-balancing two non-random wheel device. Don't wheelchairs normally have four wheels? on how you balance two wheels.

To be honest, I took that language from some of the other communities' definitions. So I'm trying to think of what a two non-tandem wheeled device would be.

I couldn't either.

I can't think of a good example of one. But that's what a lot of other communities are using as a definition for that electric personal assistive motility device.

Well, I know the electric ones, they have four wheels. Two at the back, two at the front.

are you suggesting that we should make a motion to make change two to four i would suggest i would motion that we change two to four yeah i think hold on we have a motion do we have a second of that motion second Motion by reaker 2nd, by Lucas, changing the word to. To the word for that correct? Mr. yes. Paragraph 7,501. Okay, you had something to say.

Yeah, I'm just really confused. Um, and no, it's, it's just. Lawyer ease here, and I'm trying to figure out if. We're changing that to so when I think of it. two non-tandem wheels, so tandem wheels. And they're saying, we're just trying to exhibit a definition here is all we're doing here. So let's just read through this for a second. Electric personal assistive mobility device, any motorized wheelchair or other self-balancing, makes sense, two non-tandem. So that's like a negative. A wheelchair has two tandem. So it's saying two, because it has a tandem set of wheels here and a tandem set of wheels here. This is saying two non-tandem.

I guess when I think about tandem, I think about like with a truck, you've got tandems, you've got two wheels side by side.

Negative. Tandem is in line, isn't it?

I don't know.

Definition of tandem. Because I know when you're flying a jet and it's tandem cockpit, you've got a pilot and a lift carrier in the back.

And I don't think the power chairs are in line. The wheels are offset. You've got 2 in the back and then the front ones are more center.

Yeah, I think a lot of people are using this definition. Someone's put some thought into it and I think we might be muddying the borders. I don't know. I think we're trying to read too much into it.

I can't see anybody getting picked up for having 4 wheels.

I can't see anyone getting picked up for riding a wheelchair.

I think this talks about a segue, you know, those 2 wheel device that goes down. It's not a wheelchair device. It's a traveling device. I think that's what they're talking about here.

I'll withdraw my motion.

Okay, and we're back.

I do have another question. Sorry folks, but no under 75.22. Um. I'm a bit confused about this, and that's normal. You know that. But it says, no person shall park a bicycle, e-bike, hoverboard, or lightweight e-scooter on a street other than upon the roadway against the curb or in a rack to support the device or in such manner as to afford the least obstruction to pedestrian traffic. It almost sounds to me like we're wanting them to park it so that they have obstruction to the pedestrian traffic. Am I reading that right?

I could share how I interpreted that. I interpreted that as I'm going to park it in the street. I better put up next to the curb and not stick it out in the middle of the street. That's how I read that.

Okay, now the next question that I have is 7529. Um, no, lightweight scooter or cover board. But we permitted on a street without a headlight. Or without a yellow or red light reflectors. I don't know how you put a headline on the cover board. Or a tail light on the hoverboard.

That's the best point.

Maybe it just shouldn't be operating at night then. Okay.

And actually, I just happened to see one going down the street at dusk the other night. Oh, really? And a hoverboard. And at least some of them have lights on the edges that they're shooting out. I mean, it is low to the ground, but there are lights on, at least some of them.

Like an alien.

I've not seen an alien vehicle, so I'll leave that to your expertise.

Okay. Not bad.

Other questions or comments, Nick, I would just like to hear from chief reviews on these ordinances and think and get his thoughts and opinions on the scooters and the bikes. And if we are on the right track, if we need to add anything, this is enough. Chief, let us know your thoughts please.

The evening mayor and the council. Um, I'm good with everything that's been presented. I would really like to see them from the state highways. Like, we did the. The, uh, 4 wheel devices, that's where we. See, the most dangerous activities, which would take care of the Jeffers, the Dewey and avoid the speed limit thing. Uh, I think our biggest issues are on the 1 ways and roadie road. We could just keep them off the state highways. Is that why some of these other cells were.

Is that all of the devices or. Mostly, are you looking at any scooters or you want to include eat bikes into that? Or you want all of these.

Off of my recommendation all of them. because they get out into the traffic lane, they ride the roadway. Some can't go as fast, some go too fast, and it is just dangerous on the higher speed roads. I know we had a discussion about speed and I spoke with the mayor and maybe if we did the same thing we did with the four wheelers and just eliminated them on state highways, that would take care of our problem on those higher speed roads. Brad?

Would that include East 4th Street? Because I know the reroute. No. It would not.

It's not a state highway.

Go ahead. So that would include Rodeo Road, Jeffers, Dewey. East 12th. And Newberry.

Buffalo Bill. And East 12th. I know everybody thinks East 4th is. I even did at one point until I started looking at some of the state's maps, but it is not designated as a state.

Technically, Highway 30 turns at the intersection of Newberry and goes north to East 12th and runs.

I think Rodeo Road and the one-ways are the ones where we see them the most.

Yeah, I agree.

Thank you if I could just add to that this, um. I spend most of my days on Dewey street and that's what prompted. This was. Seeing the amount of the devices on Dewey street and. That was the whole intent of this was trying to get them off of the main roads. Um, all the devices. I, I still feel like should be included in this. I know that there was a big debate and I know that it was voted down, but I do feel like we're only taking care of. Part of the issue in this ordinance, but. That's just kind of where I feel good moving in the right direction with this, because at least we have something to work on. So, I think it's in the right direction. I do think the highways are probably the major problems because. Most of the other roads are going to be 25 mile an hour, except for a select few. So.

So I took one of these for a drive. One of the concerned citizens who, he hates all of these regulations, by the way, but he wanted me to try it out and see for myself. And so I went to one around downtown.

I tried it different ways, roads, on the sidewalk.

These e-bikes go way too fast to be on the sidewalk. And that would be my only concern with trying to get them off of there. We don't do them on the highway. They'll move over the sidewalk and they go, I mean, doing 25 mile an hour on the sidewalk is just too fast. It really is. So that, you know, not to make this even more of a tough decision, but that's my concern with that.

Well, sorry, it, it just like what the, I know that. A lot of them are not, it's not a lot on the state highways, right? In town. They're not allowed on the highway. That doesn't mean that they're. Writing them on the sidewalk. I get what you're saying. They, because in this, they would be a lot on the sidewalk, but I think most people would take a different route. There was a 25 mile an hour street, so I get what you're saying with that, but.

I don't know if they would or not. That's my concern. Right?

Right.

Yeah.

And Mr. mayor, um, you know, when I think about rodeo road, there's a good part of rodeo road that doesn't even have a site. So, if you're going to ride bicycle on rodeo road, where are you going to run.

To that point, do you mind are we including bicycles in this category as well? And which they buy on the state state, I was bicycles, bicycles, bicycles, pedal bikes. I wouldn't. Yeah.

No.

Okay. So just motorized bicycles, he bikes. Yes. Okay.

In my opinion.

Sure. Sure.

I know it's a tough debate. I really do and I get where I get all sides.

So, if someone is willing to make a motion, the council would certainly consider emotion or we. Well, more more than likely have at least 1 more reading of this. So, further research and discussion and, you know, potential changes could be recommended to myself for the city attorney. And we'd be happy to bring them for consideration in 2 weeks if the council would like to go that direction. So, the other hand, if someone wants to make motion, make the motion, we'll see where it goes.

So, just for clarification purposes, some, this can still be amended 1 more time and be approved. On that last amendment that is correct. Yes. Okay.

As long as we don't rip it up and start over, then we probably would want to read it 1 more time for the sake of clarity, but just a minor change or a small change I should say is fine. So, Ed.

Trying to figure out the logic, I guess we're leaving advice, letting the bicycle be on on the highway. Not the e, by when the e, by goes faster than the bicycle. So. It seemed to me like if we're going to restrict 1 from being on the highway, we ought to restrict the bicycle because it goes slower than the trap. So, I'm not sure where the logic is on this. Really?

I mean, chief, do you have any logic around that thought process? Which is essentially that the bicycle moves slower, but yet they're allowed on the highway. So why wouldn't we allow the bike? What what's your thinking?

My logic goes back to what I said, prohibit them all.

Even bicycles? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Rod?

This is tough. I drive Rodeo Road every day. And I see a lot of kids. Probably need to be more of them. But I see a lot of kids riding bikes up Rodeo Road. A lot of them are on the sidewalk. I think a bicycle being pedaled is a lot... Lower if we have anything we should be thinking about maybe if you're on an e bike and you're not over 16, you shouldn't be on the road. Maybe it should be an age limit because, you know, the rules of the road, because you've got a driver's license most generally. 16, that's kind of like voter safety with a boat.

I, through this whole discussion, lean more towards an age limit on this, because that makes more sense.

And I know it makes it tough on your department, because how do you know if it's a 16-year-old or a 13-year-old that looks 16 years old? But I think maybe we should lean that way. If you're 16 years old and you're riding an e-bike that does 25, it's almost like a motorcycle. It'd be like a... moped type operation. If you got a 10 year old on a e-bike and they can do 25 or 30, they really don't know the rules of the road. That's just me thinking out loud. But if somebody is over 16, they should know the rules of the road and be able to ride.

I know one was 14, but I'm pretty sure the other one was young.

I'm sorry, did you say we had two accidents since our last meeting? Yeah, one last Thursday and one last Friday.

We are.

And one other thing to add, my kids and grandkids have both told me, and I should be walking the trails more myself, but they've been walking the trails and they would like to see the e-bikes and the scooters off the walking trails because they said a lot of corners and stuff, it's dangerous with them e-bikes and the scooters on there when they're walking.

That e-bike I was on goes. You give it a little switch and it goes. Yeah.

We do have in what's being proposed, we do have a provision in here that regarding the trails that signs could be posted prohibiting the motorized type devices, so we do have that provided for so you could either it would be allowed, or if you have a signage up that says that it's not allowed, then they can't be. Which I think is a pretty reasonable way to go about it, because there are some stretches of trail that are great or straight yeah.

Oddly, this is one of those that's probably consumed a lot of thought from all of us because we have to know where the right answer is way more than you'd think. The thing, I appreciate what Chief's saying because, I mean, if one bad injury or one death was prevented, then it was probably a good decision. But at the same time, I mean, if bikes can't ride through your town, I mean, you could lose tours cutting through the community and different things. So there's probably some effects of that. But I don't think we should overlook if somebody's acting up on an e-bike, if they're cruising around people in between lanes or speeding, they'd still be subject to the rules of the road under this as proposed. Is that correct? So it is better than nothing because I think law enforcement has the ability to cite people and try to stop bad behavior on those. And so I think we have to think about it a little bit as if you can't speed and you can't weave in and out of people and- and act irresponsibly with them it's certainly better than what we have today other questions or comments calling the question on item number nine as amended what was the amendment no we amended you're right

Oh, sorry, I missed my eggs. Sorry. We have to vote on the amendment. I apologize. I'm calling the question on the amendment in the, the paragraph same be so the new stuff built set down.

The amendment is what should have been proposed.

Okay, we're back amendments passed back to the original question as amended any further comments or questions. Okay, if anybody has any ideas on how we might further improve this, feel free to recommend it over the next couple of weeks and we can consider including it the next version. So, or we can at least present with language that could be read in the same manner. We did tonight.

Mr mayor yes, sir if we adopt this now, we can come back 6 months from now and and re. We can change it if we need to do something. Yeah.

And we'll read this 1 more time in 2 weeks anyway. So. but yes it could be brought back if the chief begins to have difficulties with it or something he'll come and say hey we need to reconsider this and because we've encountered this situation or something like that okay calling the question on item number nine as amended item number nine is passed as amended At number 10, 3rd, being in action to adopt ordinance number 4, 2, 5, 5, and next thing lot 1, deep waters repeat administrative. No division Lincoln County, Nebraska, consisting of approximately 2.326 acres into the corporate limits of the city of North flat lane.

The ordinance ordinance number 4255. An ordinance of the Mayor and Council of the City of North Platte, Lincoln County, Nebraska, to include within the corporate limits of the City of North Platte certain lands described as Lot 1, Deep Waters Retreat, Administrative Subdivision, Lincoln County, Nebraska, repealing all ordinances in conflict herewith, providing for the effective date and publication thereof.

Mr. Mayor, I move to adopt Ordinance 4255, annexing Lot 1, Deep Waters Retreat, Administrative Subdivision, Lincoln County, Nebraska, Consisting of approximately 2.3 to 6 acres into the corporate limits of the city of.

On final reading 2nd, motion by record 2nd, by the discussion on this item. Seeing done calling the question, I have number 10, please. Number 10 is passed. I've never 11 adopt the recommendation with the city planning commission preliminary and final approval of industrial park subdivision 10, 3 plan located South of East Francis street between devco Avenue and bicentennial Avenue.

Mr. mayor, I moved to adopt the recommendation by the city planning commission for preliminary and final approval of the industrial subdivision 10, 3 plan.

2nd.

Motion by Lucas 2nd, by die Judy, would you give us a quick word about what's going on here?

Please.

Mayor counsel, what you have in front of you is the preliminary and final platform. It's sitting on property that is just south of the newly created. East Francis, and so what we've done is created. five lots on the south side and then we also included the two lots that the city owns on the north side in this subdivision because when the street went through there was a little piece of property that needed to consolidate to those two north side lots so that's what we're doing and splits it up as you can see we've put in kind of proposed roads easements in there so that all the lots that are being created have access to future roads and water sewer those types of things you have any questions questions or comments stone pr3 which is a planned residential and it has a plan um A portion of them can be used for other types of development because it's in that overall plan.

Thank you.

Yep. Hi.

Do you talk to us about. The subdivision without roads being in and are we doing that for private in parties as well?

So, yeah, so, um, when somebody is doing a lot split like this, um, it's 1, 1 that would have been similar would have been that brewer property that you guys did probably 6, 8 months ago. So, what our regulations state in subdivisions is that you have to have access to. uh city improved road or infrastructure and by putting those easements in there that's what we're proposing when we're splitting those is that's going to be where the future roads will be now that can change down the road a little bit later but right now to meet the subdivision regulations that shows you where that access would be okay thank you

So this is a residentially zoned city property. Is the thought process to sell these lots off for residential building or what's kind of the?

That's for you guys to decide. It can always be changed.

No clue in the sand.

Other questions or comments? Calling the question on item number 11, please. Item number 11 is passed. I have number 12 begins with a public hearing to consider comments or to receive comments on the idea to adopt the recommendation by the flat planning commission for a conditional use permit to allow an office space for the North Platte opportunity center in an R3. excuse me R3 dwelling district located at 1205 South Tabor Avenue. So I'm opening the public hearing right now. I'll ask Judy to quickly describe what we have going on. Please.

Mayor counsel, what you have in front of you is a copy of the review comments and on the 3rd page, it's a justification that was provided by the applicant, um, a hand on site plan. And then I provided a couple of location maps, uh, actual location map with an aerial so that you can see where it is. And then a zoning map, um, current zone property. And so what they are looking at doing here, this property is currently owned by the North Platte Opportunity Center, and they would like to put some office space in there for the services that they provide the community. And if you remember not too long ago, just north of this site, we did a similar conditional use permit for Lutheran Family Services to do the same type of thing.

Questions or comments on item number? Oh, excuse me. We're in the public hearing. Is there anyone? Thanks Judy. Do we have any other anyone in the audience like to make a comment or ask a question regarding this item? If so, please approach microphone. Let us know your thoughts. Close the public hearing motion by second by recur to close public hearing calling the question on closing the public hearing. Public hearing is now closed. Council will now consider the adoption of recommendation by the North planning commission for conditional use permit to allow an office space for the opportunity center in our 3 dwelling district, located 1205 South Tabor Avenue.

Mary, I'm moving. We find the request for conditional use permit. Well, office space for the North flat opportunity center located at 1205 South paper Avenue meets the minimum standards stated in our code of ordinance in section 156.322. And a proven grant conditional use permit requested with the condition. All elements of the application are complied with. Based on the following factual findings 1. You shall conform to all applicable ordinances, laws, and regulations of any governmental jurisdiction. Number two, you shall have adequate water, sewer, and drainage facilities. Number three, ingress and egress shall be so designated as to minimize traffic congestion in public streets. Number four, you shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. Number 5, you shall be in harmony with the character of the area and the most appropriate use of the land.

2nd, motion by recur second by new. Judy already kind of provide the description of what's happening here. Does anyone have any questions or comments? Brad.

Do they plan on building any new structures or are they just going to use the existing facilities?

No, at this time they'll just be using the existing facilities. They may renovate the interior a little bit for the office space, but that's it.

Which site was going to be the one where we can frame with services with that on that condition?

It's right to the north and east just a little bit on that Linda court. Um, kind of if you look at the aerial where it says, um, lock. 3, I believe.

Okay. That's what I thought. Okay. Thank you.

Other questions or comments. Being done calling the question on item number 12, please. 5, number 12 is passed. I have number 13 begins with the public hearing as well. adopt the recommendation by the planning commission to adopt ordinance number 4259 to vacate cody avenue between west 13th street and rodeo road located between 1201 and 12. excuse me 2401 and 2405 rodeo road and retain a 10-foot utility easement laying the ordinance please

Ordinance number 4259, an ordinance of the mayor and council of the city of North Platte Lincoln County, Nebraska. Vacating a certain portion of street, providing for the vesting of title of said vacated street and provided the effective date of this ordinance and publication thereof.

Thank you public hearing is now open Judy. You want to give us the short version please?

Okay, and mayor and council what you'll see again is ordinance copy of the review comments and then I put a couple of. Aerials and some pictures on here of where this is actually located along with that. You'll see a request from 1 of the property owners and he is the property owner at 2411 that has requested that vacation. This is a property that's been before us. We just recently did a subdivision for this area. Um, and Mr. Houseman is the 1 that has the, um, watch that he is planning to put some, I believe apartment complexes or duplexes on there. And since, um, Cody Avenue isn't used and a lot of us probably didn't even know Cody Avenue existed. Um, he has just requested to have that to give him some more landscaping space, um, make the property look a little bit better there. Um, the neighboring owner of the hotel is in agreeance with it and if you've ever driven by there, you can kind of see that they probably already kind of use it anyway. So.

Thank you public hearing is still open. Anyone has any comments on this item? Please approach microphone. Let us know what your thoughts are.

We have moved to close public hearing.

Motion by recur second by. On the question, I'm closing public hearing place. Public hearing is now closed council now consider adopting the recommendation by the planning commission to adopt ordinance number 4, 2, 5, 9 to vacate Cody Avenue between West 13th street and road. Your road looks between 24 or 1 and 24 or 5 rodeo road and retain a 10 foot utility easement.

I moved to waive the 3 meetings required on almost under 4, 2, 5, 9. And I moved to adopt ordinance number 4259 to vacate Cody Avenue between West 13th Street and Rodeo Road.

Second. Motion by Reker, second by McNew. Discussion on item number 13. Ed?

Mr. Mayor, why are we retaining the utility?

I know there's a good reason for it.

I'm sure there is.

Um, we have above ground power poles that run on the East side of that to service, um, the motel that's there and probably some others, but that's why they wanted to retain that.

So, essentially, we're already using the property. It's just not on these. There's.

us the city the power poles oh yeah yeah the power poles were in the street um but the street is owned by us and i don't know it was done years ago i don't know why they wouldn't have put an actual utility easement in there because typically we do we have streets we have utility easements um but uh we needed to create one if we vacated the street the power poles are already there the power poles are already there other questions or comments

Okay, this item will be passed on 1 reading if it's voted through calling the question item. Number 13. Item is passed number 14 begins with a public hearing. uh to consider or to receive comments on the adoption of a recommendation by the reply planning commission to adopt ordinance number 4260 to approve an application by robert and sally forbes to rezone certain land from an r3 dwelling district to a b1 neighborhood commercial district located at 820 south walnut street lay in the ordinance please

Ordinance number 4260, an ordinance of the City of North Platte, Lincoln County, Nebraska, rezoning certain lands described as Lot 1, Shannon Administrative Subdivision, North Platte, Lincoln County, Nebraska, from an R3 dwelling district to a B1 neighborhood commercial district, repealing all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith, providing for the effective date and publication thereof. Thank you.

Judy, please.

Mayor and Council, on this one, this was a site that's right on East Phillips Street, and it currently serves as a daycare center, which was granted a conditional use permit a number of years ago before they located there. This property is being sold, and the new owner is looking at the possibility of maybe doing some different things in there, maybe doing an office space, maybe a boutique that's on the the justification that was supplied by the applicant. And so probably the best use instead of coming back again for a different type of conditional use. And since it is in an area that's zoned pretty much commercial all around it, we thought the best use was to go with a B1, which is a neighborhood commercial district that kind of it's not real intensive because of the area. You wouldn't want anything too intensive because parking restrictions on the lot. But, you know, a little shop or hair salon or something would work in there.

that was a request thank you public hearing is open if you have questions or comments like make statement please approach microphone let us know who you are and let us know your thoughts motion by garrick second by die to close public hearing calling the question on closing the public hearing please Public hearing is closed. Council will now consider to adopt a recommendation by the planning commission to adopt ordinance number 4260 to approve an application by Robert and Sally Forbes to rezone certain land from an R3 dwelling district to a B1 neighborhood commercial district located at 820 South Walnut Street.

Mr. Mayor, I move to adopt ordinance number 4260 to rezone certain land from an R3 dwelling district to a B1 neighborhood commercial district at 820 South Walnut Street on first reading.

Second.

Motion by Vols, second by Reker. Any discussion or questions on item number 14?

Right. I was wondering the diagram they put here. Where's the parking ad on that? Is it off of Philip street? Is that open all across there and then go off of Philip or how does that work? Judy.

So currently on the property, if you drive by there and you kind of look at it, there's a garage space on the west end and there's quite a large concreted area there. There's also some additional parking around behind and you can park parallel right against the alley and against the building. There's enough space for that.

So, they'd have enough room for the square footage they have for whatever they're putting there for parking for customers.

That's a good question. It really kind of depends on what they end up putting there. Um, the building I looked on the assessors, um, data, I think the building's 1500 square feet. So if you go with just a general. Office space, um, you would only need 1 parking space for every 300 square feet of. of usable area so they would end up with maybe the requirement of having five off-street parking stalls and it appears to me just by looking at it in the size of the lot um i think i looked that up to um the lots 126 feet by 100 feet and it just appears with what is there currently you could pretty easily get the five parking stalls what if it was a beauty shop Um, a beauty shop is 3 parking stalls per, um, beautician. 1st chair, so if they went with 1, yeah, easily 2, it might be a little bit of a stretch. Um, but again, if they're going to be moving some walls and doing some things like that, it would have to go through the building, um, in the building permitting process.

Other questions is the applicant in the room duty.

Yes, yes.

Hi, would you mind approaching the mic for me real quick?

I'm Brenda.

No, um. My concerns mirror rods and I guess. You have no idea what's going to go in there. We don't have crystal balls. If it did, ingress, egress is really difficult to all fill up. You have to come in through the alley and then zip into that front parking or to the side a little bit. You have that little well house, it's not a well house, it's like an electrical, whatever, gas line or something. I just wanted to hear your thoughts on what you were thinking of doing there. 60,000 foot view too. I'm not gonna hold you to anything.

Right now there's a possibility of I have some counselors interested in probably a nice portion of it. So you're looking at the possibility of two counselors, and so they would have two people, you know, two cars for that hour at a time. That's probably almost half of the building. Yep. And then you have the other part, possibly a realty office, possibly a boutique in that garage space or don't know. More than likely, I don't really want a salon or anything in there just because I think of sewer wise and water and hair. I don't I don't think I want to deal with that. So I'm looking more of, you know, or maybe a tax person in there or some, you know, something pretty low key that you're not going to have a whole lot of traffic. Currently, you can go right off of the road. So when you're looking at the house, you have the front door, and then you have another section. But maybe half of that lot is parking, and you can come right off the road. on the west side of it is the old garage and so you can park i was there today you could probably park at least four or five cars right in front that's not using the side of the garage nor behind it and so behind it there's actually probably three stalls behind it um the daycare that was there there

gone now yesterday was their last day but they had they probably usually had about three vehicles in the back there that worked there awesome sounds like you're you're gonna go with the constrictions of the property which is really good there was a big roll off there so i didn't want to navigate it but thank you it sounds like you're you're thinking this through a lot and you're you're thinking the right things in there so i appreciate it very much thank you yes thank you

Other questions or comments, Nick, thank you.

I feel like this is a perfect fit to rezone being across the street from them all and everything like that. I also do think that. The parking is a little tight. It's described to be a little bit more than what I actually think that it could be. But the advantage that they have is they have South Walnut street right there. So they've got off street parking where people can walk up to. So. Um, I think it's a good fit. I'm. I think it's a good move to do this.

Ed, thank you. Mr. mayor. Um. What types of businesses can go in this type of zone?

Judy.

I can't recite the, um, be 1 district right off the top of my head, but, um, office space salons, you could do dental clinics and it'd be 1. you can't do intensive uses like, um. Gas stations that would not be able to be there. Um, so it's your lower traffic. You could possibly do a restaurant, but I think with your parking restrictions, there's going to be some issues with getting that approved. um but yeah you're lower intensive it's like our lowest intensive commercial district what's a boutique um little uh what would you call it knick-knack shop like i don't know souvenirs place my wife goes all the time careful pete we're on camera don't worry they don't watch this other questions or comments

Seeing them calling the question on item number 14, please. Number 14 is passed and our 15 opens with a public hearing. And this 1, we will be talking about a possible recommendation by the planning commission to adopt ordinance number 4261 to approve an application by Randy and Cheryl. Oh, boy, is it? Okay. Sorry about that folks to rezone land from an R3 drilling district to a B2 highway commercial district located at 818 and 820 South Bailey Avenue laying the ordinance please.

Ordinance number 4261, an ordinance of the City of North Platte, Lincoln County, Nebraska, rezoning certain lands described as Lot 1 and Lot 2, Lot 13, Taylor's Addition to North Platte, Lincoln County, Nebraska, from an R3 dwelling district to a B2 highway commercial district, repealing all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith, providing for the effective date and publication thereof. Thank you.

Okay, public hearing is now open Judy please.

Mayor council here again, you'll see the review comments attached to that is a. Justification from the applicants. a site plan and I also attached a zoning map like I did with the others. This one is a little bit unique because half of the property that they own is in a B2 highway commercial district. The other half is in the R3 residential district. so if you look at that zoning map you're going to see the two lots that abut Dewey that we're not requesting to rezone and then the two lots that abut Bailey that we are requesting to rezone but that is all under the same ownership and this is a future site for a new commercial business the applicants are here if you have any other questions or I can answer anything also we're in the public hearing so we'll reserve the right to call you back thank you

Anyone would like to make a comment on this item please. What's microphone? Tell us who you are and what your addresses.

Hi, Tanner brands Christians and companies. Forty six. Oh, nine. Thirty third Avenue South Fargo, North Dakota. I'm here working with the applicant. We are the developer for the project and then here is going to be the operator for the car wash. I think this is a great spot to kind of continue the redevelopment of that area and we're open for any questions you have. Thanks. Thank you very much.

Any other questions or comments from the public?

PJ Hamilton, 818 Reed Avenue, North Platte. I have a lot just one blocks east of there. It's a little where the old ATM machine used to be right next to Hershey State Bank. I'm in favor of this. I think the two houses there should have been commercial a long time ago. How that got by, I don't know, but I'm in favor of it. I'm a block away. So thank you.

Thank you. Other comments from the public?

Mr. Mayor, I move that we close the public hearing. Second.

Motion by Reker, second by Nestle to close public hearing. Calling the question on closing the public hearing. Public hearing is closed. Council will now consider adopting the recommendation by the North planning commission to adopt ordinance number 4261 to approve an application by Randy and Cheryl to rezone certain land from our 3 dwelling district to a. To a B2 highway commercial district, located at 818 and 820 South Bailey Avenue.

I moved without ordinance 4261 to rezone certain land. Menara 3, dwelling district to be to highway commercial district at 818 and 820.

South Bailey Avenue on 1st reading 2nd motion by recur 2nd by. Okay, discussion Nick.

I'm probably getting ahead of myself, but just looking ahead if this does get rezone to be too commercial. What's going to happen with the alley?

So, as you can see, on that map, there's 4 different bots and the alley is in between the 4 lots obviously. And so, um, the. Developers already talk to the city about the possibility of vacating that alley, um, moving the utilities, um, in that alley and.

Combining all the lots together to make it 1. Who's going to who's paying to combine the utilities? They would be okay. Thank you.

I had a question.

Yes, thank you. Mr. Mayor probably more for the developer to Judy. Um, what street do you anticipate the traffic coming off of and going back on to.

We've got entrances off of Dewey and also Bailey. So you can enter entrances and exits on both sides. So I could, you know, mostly see people entering up on Dewey and then, you know, coming out, going through the vacuum. So then exiting on Bailey, they want to come back around. But if they, you know, once they kind of figure it out, they can go through the back way on Bailey as well to enter.

other questions or comments so you can enter and exit off of both bailey and dewey correct it's not going to be one way in one way out no enter exit ingress egress somehow yes

So, go ahead.

So, I know this is getting ahead of things, but the, the line of cars that will be going in to wait to get worse. Do they come in off of Dewey? And that's where the line forms or is it going to come off of Bailey?

They can go either. They can go Bailey and then come around to the West side of the wash or they can enter in Dewey and then go to the South there. Okay. Oh, I didn't see that. Yeah.

Well, the only concern I have is, I know little Caesars open the other day I drove into town and it was cars in front of like, I've never seen. I know we had another car wash in town that had cars lined up clear almost into the 1 ways on Francis street. And I just don't want to see our traffic flow on Dewey. I'm not against the business. I'm, I'm all for this happening, but I just want to make sure we don't cause ourselves a traffic problem.

So, we had some discussion about exactly that issue today and I, I think it's fair to say in city engineer and I talked about this quite a bit every chicken restaurant that we've had open here in the last several years as well as every pizza restaurant we've had open here in the last several years has created a. What I would call a traffic issue for somewhere between 3 to 12 days, you know, for a little bit of the day. And then there's really not an issue, you know, so I, I have trouble believing that this will be any different. I mean, I, I hope you guys are famously successful in what you're doing, but, but I really have trouble believing that this is going to be a bigger deal than that. So, is there going to be some traffic issues a day? They open about guarantee it 15 days later? Probably not.

It's just a couple points on that. So we've worked with the, um, and they've suggested we haven't made this change yet because we're waiting on our survey, but the West access is going to be moved to the north of it. And line up with the East access, um, so that will give a little more stacking space there. And these, you know, we've got right now we have 200 feet to the 1st to the, um. To the line, or to where, you know, you can actually go through the, the drive through. Um, so I think we've got a lot of stacking space and maybe crazy for the 1st, few days, but I agree. It's gonna, you know, we'll be able to handle it. You know, Ben's done this a lot with 4 other washes in Nebraska and they'll have employees out there kind of moving traffic around and trying to help out with that as well.

Only question I have other questions or comments. Uh, Ed.

And I, I'm in favor of the project. I'm wondering if we shouldn't have the entrance off of Bailey and the exit on Bailey. Can you make that work in the site plan or not?

Entrance on Bailey only? I think it would really restrict traffic just on the site, so I think we would really want the ingress and egress on both sides.

Other questions or comments, just a couple of things real quick. 1st, I just want to thank the beggars and you guys, they didn't, they didn't have to disclose what they're doing with this. I mean, they, they could have come in and requested a zoning and it would have been a reasonable request. So I'm appreciative of the ability to look at site plan and all that. We have had some traffic issues at the car wash on the Yoda that have. gone beyond the opening but a lot of that is i would hope people wouldn't do that and and or as business owners you can help promote people not parking their car in the middle of a of the one ways while they're waiting to get in so i hope that would just solve itself But one thing I was thinking about a little bit, this is one of the first properties we've had that's gone from an occupation tax property to a non-occupation tax property. Now, car washes would pay sales. They pay sales tax in Nebraska, even though you don't know it. It's kind of like getting a haircut or something. They're paying the sales tax in the car wash world, I believe. Is that correct, I think? Yes. Yeah. And so when somebody sells a property that... Is subject to an occupation tax today, because there would be a lodging tax. Is it how does that work? And do we need to square it up on the property? Or is that a function? Can you walk us through if you're taking a, I don't remember the last time we had a property that left lodging and went to normal business operations. I just wanted to talk through how that works. Unless they want to pay lodging tax.

Yeah, the lodging tax is predicated on. People staying the night unlikely they will be sleeping at the car wash. We hope. No.

Yeah, and I, I think that's just a function, uh, administratively of the, the city. Um, just, you know, looking at the lodging tax collections and all of that with with the. Occupants of the property, um, and determining when when that would fall off. I don't know if that's the answer you're looking for.

So, it isn't really tied to the property. It's tied to the use.

Okay.

So basically, it would be the current owner's responsibility to make sure that squared up in conjunction with closing their business. Okay. And then it would then they would be free of that obligation basically. Okay. So it's not. Okay. I think that's answered my questions. No, thank you. I wish you well with the project.

Thank you.

Other questions or comments. Seeing none, calling the question on item number 15. Item number 15 is passed. Item number 16, approve the claims.

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

Motion by Reker, second by Volz.

Mr. Mayor, I'd like to abstain.

Let the record show Mr. Dye has abstained. Calling the question on approving the claims. Item number 16 is passed public agenda request. We respect our city employees and requests and any complaints or criticism employees not be aired to public meeting concerns about employees should be brought the attention of the city administrator or the mayor individuals violation will be declared out of order. Anyone has a public agenda request item please approach microphone. Let us know what it is. Mr. Mr. Motion by recur 2nd, by die to adjourn calling the question and adjournments. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Everyone. We'll see you back here on next Wednesday, September 9th. Or have our special council meeting to hold the public hearing on the proposed budget.

Thank you. Have a good interest to the community.