Kearney, Nebraska
April 24, 2007
7:00 p.m.
A meeting of the City Council of
Kearney, Nebraska, was convened in open and public session at 7:00 p.m. on April
24, 2007, in the Council Chambers at City Hall. Present were: Stanley A.
Clouse, President of the Council; Michaelle Trembly, City Clerk; Council
Members Randy Buschkoetter, Bruce Lear, and Bob Lammers. Absent: Don Kearney. Michael
Morgan, City Manager; Michael Tye, City Attorney; Amber Brown, Assistant to
City Manager; Wendell Wessels, Director of Finance and Administration; Kirk
Stocker, Director of Utilities; and Rod Wiederspan, Director of Public Works
were also present. Some of the citizens present in the audience included: Mike
Kalb, Bruce Lefler, Byron Hanson, Tina Krings, Jim Tacha, Jim Lynaugh, UNK
Representative, Paul Wice from KGFW Radio.
Notice of the meeting was given
in advance thereof by publication in the Kearney Hub, the designated method for
giving notice, a copy of the proof of publication being attached to these
minutes. Advance notice of the meeting was also given to the City Council and
a copy of their acknowledgment or receipt of such notice is attached to these
minutes. Availability of the Agenda was communicated in the advance notice and
in the notice to the Mayor and City Council. All proceedings hereafter shown
were taken while the meeting was open to the attendance of the public.
I. ROUTINE
BUSINESS
INVOCATION
Father James Torpey from St.
James Catholic Church provided the Invocation.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Three Boy Scouts from Troop 158
led the Council members and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
ANNOUNCEMENT
Mayor Clouse announced that in
accordance with Section 84-1412 of the Nebraska Revised Statutes, a current
copy of the Open Meetings Act is available for review and is posted towards the
back of the Council Chambers.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There was no Oral Communications.
II. UNFINISHED
BUSINESS
There was no Unfinished Business.
III. PUBLIC
HEARINGS
AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 59-103 AND
59-104 OF THE CITY CODE
Moved by Buschkoetter seconded by
Clouse to remove from the table Public Hearing 1. Roll call resulted as
follows: Aye: Clouse, Lear, Lammers, Kearney, Buschkoetter. Nay: None. Motion
carried.
Mayor Clouse opened the hearing
on the proposed amendments to Section 59-103 “Conditional Use Permit Procedure”
and Section 59-104 “Amendment Procedure” of Chapter 59 “Administration and
Procedures” of the Unified Land Development Ordinance, a part of the Code of
the City of Kearney to provide procedures pertaining to written notification of
proposed rezonings, including conditional use permits, for properties located
within a specified distance of the property being rezoned. This matter was
tabled at the last meeting.
City Planner Lance Lang
presented this matter to the Council. For the past two months discussion was
held at the Planning Commission meeting regarding notification of the public
concerning public hearings for rezonings and conditional use permits. Staff
researched the issue at the Planning Commission’s direction and contacted other
cities and organized a meeting with representatives from the Kearney
development community including developers, builders, engineers and surveyors.
Following is a summary of these findings for your consideration.
State law requires that the
City publish notification of the upcoming hearing in a newspaper of general
circulation at least 10 days in advance of the hearing and also do one of the
following:
1)
Post the property with a sign
indicating the type of hearing (rezoning or CUP), the location, date and time
of the hearing. State law specifies the minimum size of the sign. (The City
of Kearney already posts a larger sign than the required minimum and posts more
that one sign if the property is large.)
2)
Send written notification to all
property owners within 300 feet of the property at least 10 days in advance of
the hearing.
Currently the City of
Kearney uses the “publish and post” option (number 1) above and by doing so the
State requirements for public notification are satisfied. Since our current
practices in Kearney meet the State requirement for adequate notification there
is some flexibility in how implementation of written notification can be
approached. The key components include:
a)
Determining the area (radius)
of influence – 200 vs 300 feet
b)
Compiling the names and contact
addresses of owners of record
c)
Sending the notification letter
The following chart
compares the current practice of these factors in several Nebraska cities. (all
communities listed are First Class cities like Kearney, except for Lincoln)
|
CITY
|
RADIUS
|
RESEARCH
|
ABSTRACTOR
|
MAILING CERTIFIED
|
|
|
|
|
Yes
|
No
|
|
Yes
|
No
|
|
Lincoln
|
200
|
Developer
|
|
X
|
City
|
|
X
|
|
Grand Island
|
300
|
Developer*
|
|
X
|
City
|
|
X
|
|
Hastings
|
N/A**
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
North Platte
|
300
|
Developer
|
|
X
|
City
|
X
|
|
|
Norfolk
|
300
|
Developer
|
X
|
|
City
|
|
X
|
*Grand
Island Planner says that developers are strongly encouraged to use a certified
abstractor/title company to compile the ownership list. If the list is
incomplete or inaccurate the city considers the application to be incomplete
and rejects it.
**City
of Hastings does not provide written notification. As with the current
practices in Kearney, Hastings publishes in the paper and posts the property
with a sign to meet legal requirements. In the past, written notices were
mailed in lieu of posting, but this method was deemed less effective than
posting the property.
In discussions with Staff
from these cities several issues of interest were raised:
·
The cost of mailing the letters is
generally covered through higher application filing fees. The current fee in
Kearney for a rezoning request or a CUP application is $100.00. In Norfolk and
Grand Island the fee is $300.00. Norfolk specifically raised their fees to
cover the additional staff time required to process the written notifications.
In North Platte the fee is $250.00 plus the current rate for certified mail
($3.17) times the number of letters mailed.
·
Research of the property owners
could be conducted by the developer or by the City. City Staff could provide
this service in-house or the City could hire an abstractor to perform the
research and provide the results to the city. The cost to perform the owner
research in-house would require additional staff and it would impact the
current deadline for accepting applications. The lead time would need to be
increased to give staff adequate time to conduct the research and still meet
the internal and state specified timeline for processing the application. If
it will be the developer’s responsibility to provide the information the City
may require proof that a certified abstractor has conducted the research.
Norfolk requires a certified abstractor or title company to compile the list of
record owners. This requirement costs the developer about $25.00 per
property. In this manner, the liability for mistakes is the responsibility of
the abstractor
·
In North Platte the letters are
sent certified mail. The staff person there recommended against this practice
as long as we publish and post to meet legal requirements. In their
experience, the certified mailing is quite time consuming and not worth the
extra effort.
·
When asked if problems
occasionally arise in these other cities because a property owner within the
specified notification area claims that he/she did not receive the letter, the
answer was yes, there have been problems. Even though it was explained that the
legal requirements had been met through publish and post, projects were
occasionally delayed if someone protested about not receiving the letter. Not
often, but it happens.
·
For good measure, the issue was
raised at the annual Nebraska Planning and Zoning Association Conference
recently. Attorney David Ptak, a well respected land use attorney from eastern
Nebraska, stated that he would not send any type of written notice if the legal
requirements of publish and post are currently being met. He summarized the
issue “If you do more than is required you raise people’s expectations to that
level and it will likely cause problems down the road.” If the consensus is
that some type of written notice to adjacent property owners must be sent, his
advice was to have the ownership research performed for the developer by an
abstractor or title company for a distance of 300 feet and for the City to mail
the letters certified.
As you can see from this
information there are some variations in how different communities approach the
notification issue. Although there are potential negative aspects, every
community listed above (except Hastings) is providing this service to the
residents of their community. Consequently, there must be enough value and
positive results that it is worthwhile to continue to send written notification
even when it is not required.
An important point to
remember is that written notification is the only consistent way in which
absentee property owners will be notified of a proposed change in zone that may
impact their property. If they do not have an out of town subscription to the
Kearney Hub and they are not in Kearney to see the posted signs they will not
know. Admittedly, the system cannot be 100 percent accurate since property changes
ownership on a daily basis. The best information that can be sent is limited to
the quality of the information available. From time to time some owners may be
skipped, some addresses may be wrong or other glitches in information may
occur. However, by providing written notification to the best of our ability
the City of Kearney and the developers that build their projects here will be
making the best effort possible towards public awareness.
At the Planning
Commissions’ request, staff held a meeting with several members of the
development community to discuss this issue. They were concerned about the
implications of this proposal. Although they may provide written or oral
testimony on their own behalf, Staff perception of their concerns can be
summarized as follow:
1)
As previously noted, the City is
currently meeting state requirements for public notification. The developers
understand this and asked the staff if this notification issue has been a
serious problem in the past. Staff admitted that there have been very few
complaints over the years, especially when the sheer number of rezonings,
conditional use permits and other related development requests over that amount
of time is considered. It is unfortunate that from time to time some citizen(s)
may claim that they were not aware of a rezoning in their neighborhood, but
they have some responsibility to keep up with what is happening around them.
Again, the real issue here is absentee owners. However, even if it were decided
to only send letters to absentee owners, all the property research would still
need to be done in order to determine whether the owners are absentee or local.
2)
The developers agree that there
may be some benefit to a better-informed public, but at what cost? If
developers are required to provide owner addresses to the City they will either
tie up their own staff resources to do the research or hire out to an engineer,
architect, surveyor or abstractor to have the list prepared or pay higher
application fees for the City to do it. Either way, the cost incurred will
ultimately result in an increase in development cost that will be passed on to
the consumer.
3)
Is there any liability associated
with the written notices? What are the consequences if someone is not included
on the mailing list; the letter goes to the wrong address; the property has
changed hands; the owner lives out of town? Even though the developers
recognize that the written notification goes above and beyond what is required
and is therefore being done purely in the interest of customer service, is
there any chance that projects may be delayed as a result of this? Law suits
may be unlikely since the minimum state requirements are being met, but an
unanticipated one month delay can be very costly to the developer. The opinion
from the developers is why do we want to do this if it is not necessary and has
not been a significant problem in the past?
Other options were
discussed during the meeting including:
·
Increasing the size and/or number
of signs that are posted. The City of Kearney already posts larger signs than
the required minimum. The signs cannot be enlarged any further and still be
adequately supported on a single post. For large properties more than one sign
is posted.
·
Include an informational flyer in
the utility department billing maybe twice per year with information regarding
Planning Commission, City Council, other commissions and boards, website info,
telephone and contact info, etc.
·
Advertise in the Kearney Hub in a
user-friendlier manner than the public notice section. By state law, the
hearings must be published in the public notice section of the paper at least
10 days in advance of the meeting date. We will continue to do this but the
city could buy advertising space each month to promote better public awareness
of the Planning Commission agenda items. Perhaps a map of the City could be
included in the paper a week or so before the meeting with approximate locations
of agenda items numbered on the map. Below the map each corresponding number
would describe what is proposed. For example:
1)
Rezoning from R-1, Urban Single
Family Residential District to C-2, Community Commercial District, 6811 2nd
Avenue.
This
type of graphic format is similar to the map that is provided in the Hub for
people to locate garage sales and would be easy to comprehend. The cost of
pursuing this would be somewhere in the estimated range of $300.00 to $620.00
each month, tending more towards the low end. The money that would have been
spent on serving written notice could be spent on this method instead. The
Planning Commission felt that this method has merit and instructed staff to
pursue this option as well as putting the information on the website. Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of the
written notification procedures.
Based on our research Staff
recommends the written notice method be approved as follows:
1)
To require the developer to
compile the ownership list for property owners within 200 feet of the subject
property (same distance as required for 200-foot Radius Map for Planned
developments); and to provide this list to the City with the application. There
may be a requirement for certified abstractor/title company to prepare said
list, or not depending on the City Council’s wishes. Staff recommends that the
developer be required to hire an abstractor.
2)
City staff can provide the
developer with a map showing the 200-foot arc around the subject property that
depicts surrounding lot lines, streets, and subdivision names to aid in their
research.
3)
Once the developer provides the
owner list, City staff can then control the content of the letter and the
proper mailing time. Staff will mail the letters via U.S. mail, on or about 10
days in advance of the hearing. The mailing can be by certified mail, or not
depending on the City Council’s wishes. City staff recommends not using
certified mail.
4)
The additional postage and staff
time that will be required can be addressed by raising the application fees
accordingly for rezonings and conditional use permits, as was done in the other
communities.
The final decision will be
reflected in Chapter 59 of the Unified Land Development Ordinance, which sets
forth regulations for “Administration and Procedures.” Section 59-103 addresses
Conditional Use Permits and Section 59-104 addresses rezoning amendments.
If City Council approves a
code amendment the development community will be notified of the upcoming
requirements in the City Development Newsletter. City Administration proposes
that the new requirements take effect after a three-month grace period to
notify the community of the changes.
Council member Buschkoetter stated
that the cost of the HUB map advertisement is estimated between $310.00 and
$615.00. He asked what the cost of the process would be for doing the title
abstract for the 200-foot radius and to send out the letter (registered or
not). City Planner responded that the number of conditional use permits in a
month would be the variable. In the discussion with staff, they use certified
abstractors for the legal work on new districts and projects to acquire ownership,
which is a minimum of $25.00, and would be $25.00 for each abutting property in
the rezoning radius within 200 feet. A City block is usually about 300 feet
long and the reason they went with 200 feet is to try to minimize some of that
notification expense. In some of the older areas of town, where the lots are
smaller, it would be possible to have 20 property owners in that 200-foot
radius. On the newer development areas of town, there are larger tracts owned
by one developer and larger lots.
Council member Buschkoetter stated
he was more interested in the cost to developers. City Planner replied that he
could not say what those costs might be because there are so many variables.
Kearney is the “best deal” in the state in terms of our fees; rezoning is only
$100.00. In the other communities that he talked with, their fees are $250.00
plus and average quite a bit more than our fees. If the developers have to pay
the abstracting fee, that raises their costs. If the City pays the fee, then
it raises our cost. Staff is reviewing fees now and so those costs could be
considered when looking at adjusting fees.
Council member Lammers stated
that it seems there have been very few complaints over the years about property
owners not being notified about rezoning. Since Kearney is meeting state
requirements, he did not see the need to add the expense to developer’s
costs. City Planner responded that the cost benefit has to be weighed. It
will provide better public information and will promote awareness especially
for the absentee owners. Hastings does not do it, but Grand Island, Norfolk,
North Platte do so they must see some value in doing it.
Council member Lear asked if the
City is creating additional liability by engaging in the process of sending out
notification letters. City Attorney Michael Tye responded that his
understanding of the proposal is that the City is not going to change the
process that complies with state law by the publication and the posting. He
was also present at the discussion with the developers and was not aware of any
litigation that has happened in any of these other communities or any claim
that can be made for giving more notification than what the law requires. The
question would be what the expectation is once the City would decide to do
this. He believed that people would expect the City to act in a reasonable way
to obtain the property owner information. By going to an abstractor to obtain
that information would be a reasonable way to get the listing and would be
mailed pursuant to code. If someone inadvertently was missed being sent a
letter and they came to the Council with a complaint, Council would have the
option to give that person more of an opportunity to evaluate or study the
impact of the rezoning on them and would have the option to proceed at that
point or delay it. There would be no liability issue as long as the other state
law requirements were met. The Council always has that flexibility in any
event.
Council member Lammers asked if
there was any data on the average time is takes for abstractors to research
property owners. City Planner stated that staff’s recommendation was the
developer should hire the abstractor in advance and provide that information to
the City with their application. It would be their responsibility to have that
in place. The problem with City staff doing the research is they could not
start until they receive the application. Meeting internal deadlines would be
impossible to accomplish if property abstracting could not begin until that
time. He was unsure if they could keep their same application date and
deadlines that are set up at the present time.
The Planning Commission had also
recommended placing an interactive map regarding rezoning on the internet for
public access. This would be a fairly low cost informational tool and would be
implemented in the future. They have made great strides with the GIS system
over the past few years. However, there has been some discussion that the City
needs to meet with the Register of Deeds, the County Assessor, and the Board of
Supervisors to begin some talks about how to share information more effectively
and also how to share it with the public through technology.
City Manager Michael Morgan stated
there is nothing that says the notification letter needs to be certified. In
the other cities, they simply go to the county courthouse or get on line with
the map the City provides, obtain that information and bring back the list to
staff. They have very minimal cost in doing it that way. Although property
does change hands, it is likely 98 percent of the time that would be okay and
that process would reduce those costs significantly. The City could have the
developer sign a form stating they have made their best faith effort to access
the county records and this is the best information they could obtain and
provide us with the addresses. The City would send out the notification letter.
Sometimes out of town developers are absentee owners as well and this would be
another way of notifying them. Mr. Morgan said that if a street or alley is
involved that must be considered. City Planner stated if there is a street or
an alley abutting the property, the 200 feet starts on the other side of the
street in many of the cities they contacted. These considerations would also
be options.
Mike Kalb, 621 West 21st Street
and an employee of BD Construction addressed the Council. They were involved
in this process previously in other cities because they do residential development
in a lot of communities. The last city where they did this was for a golf course
development in North Platte. They were not required to have a certified
abstract copy of the property owner, but a complete list. Since he was the
developer, he had to drive to North Platte and look through all the records and
produce the list. Although, the cost was low, it did take an entire day to do
the research and it made him feel that North Platte was not that excited about
helping developers do a good project in their city. His other concern is that
he lives in the Pioneer Neighborhood, and if the typical property owner in his
neighborhood would want to take that property tear it down to rebuild something
else, it most likely would not be the big developer that has the money to pay
the abstractor fees. It would have some negative effects on redeveloping his
neighborhood and getting some of those areas cleaned up. He suggested before
they add another level of work to the developers (large or small); he asked
that the City consider how it will affect the overall development of all
different types in Kearney. At the going rates, several properties could cost a
developer thousands of dollars. Even for those that own only one property, it would
be a lot of money for people in his neighbor who work a blue collar job and
might deter them from doing the project.
Council member Lear asked if this
process would apply to any Conditional Use Permit, such as applying for a home
based business to be in a residential zone. City Planner stated this would
apply to any Conditional Use Permit application. Conditional Use Permits are
issued because the use is not minimal impact to neighbors. There are a lot of
issues that need to be decided by the Council at the time of the application.
Babysitting services are controlled by the state, but dog grooming business in
the home is a great example of impact to the neighborhood. Renewals for
Conditional Use Permits are reissued upon request as long as there are no
complaints to consider. It could be stated in the language that this process is
only for initial application of a CUP. At the DRT meeting, the developer
comes in and presents their plan with all the positives. Often concerns from
the neighborhood are not brought forth until the Planning Commission meeting or
sometimes even at the Council meeting. Staff tends to put a lot of emphasis on
input from the neighbors.
Moved by Clouse seconded by Lammers
to close the hearing and authorize Administration to draft an ordinance
providing that (1) the City send a written notification within a 200-foot
radius of the Rezoning application and/or Conditional Use Permit application,
(2) the developer will be responsible for the research of the property owners
in their application, but would not need to be certified through an abstractor,
(3) the property owners list shall be submitted with the application, (4) City
staff will provide the map showing the 200-foot radius around the proposed
application, (5) City staff will send written notification by regular mail to
the affected property owners, and (6) City staff will review and adjust the
fees accordingly. Roll call resulted as follows: Aye: Clouse, Lammers,
Buschkoetter, Lear. Nay: None. Kearney absent. Motion carried.
LIQUOR LICENSE AND MANAGER
APPLICATION – CASEY’S GENERAL STORE #2711, 607 WEST 39TH STREET
Mayor Clouse opened the public
hearing on the application submitted by CASEY’S RETAIL COMPANY, dba “Casey’s
General Store #2711” for a Class B-76263 (Beer, Off Sale Only) Liquor License
located at 607 West 39th Street, approve the application for Corporate Manager
for Tina Marie Krings, and to consider approval of Resolution No. 2007-70.
Tina Marie Krings, District
Manager for Casey’s Retail Company, presented this matter to the Council. She stated
they have a zero tolerance policy and any employee who sells to minors is
automatically terminated. They conduct a very through age restrictive training
at the time new employees are hired and periodically throughout the year. They
also send out reminders to staff to be sure to ID people.
Council member Buschkoetter asked
about the distance a liquor license holder needs to be from a school. City
Attorney Michael Tye stated that it is from the door of the establishment of
the liquor license holder to the school door. It is not from property line to
property line. In this case with the store being right across the street from
the school, it would be measured from the door of Casey’s to the door of the
school. In this case they would be far enough away to comply with the Nebraska
law to hold a license (300 feet).
City Attorney gave a brief history
that a few years ago the previous owner of this location went through
litigation in the District Court which went all the way to the Nebraska Supreme
Court on issues of whether it was appropriate to hold a license in that
location in various forms. The City of Kearney did pursue that litigation and
it was deemed to be an appropriate place for the holding of liquor license.
There was no one present in
opposition to this hearing.
Moved by Lammers seconded by Lear
to close the hearing and approve the application submitted by CASEY’S RETAIL
COMPANY, dba “Casey’s General Store #2711” for a Class B-76263 (Beer, Off Sale
Only) Liquor License located at 607 West 39th Street, approve the application
for Corporate Manager for Tina Marie Krings, and approve Resolution No.
2007-70. Roll call resulted as follows: Aye: Clouse, Buschkoetter, Lear, Lammers.
Nay: None. Kearney absent. Motion carried.
RESOLUTION
NO. 2007-70
WHEREAS, CASEY’S
RETAIL COMPANY, dba “Casey’s General Store #2711” has filed with the Nebraska Liquor
Control Commission and the City Clerk of the City of Kearney, Nebraska, an
application for a Class B-76263 (Beer – Off Sale Only) Liquor License to do
business at 607 West 39th Street, Kearney, Nebraska, and has paid all fees and
done all things required by law as provided in the Nebraska Liquor Control Act;
and
WHEREAS, CASEY’S
RETAIL COMPANY, dba “Casey’s General Store #2711” also filed with the Nebraska
Liquor Control Commission and the City Clerk of the City of Kearney, Nebraska,
an application for Corporate Manager of Tina Marie Krings; and
WHEREAS, a hearing
was held relating to said application on April 24, 2007.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED that the President and City Council of the City of Kearney, Nebraska
approve or recommend approval to the Nebraska Liquor Control Commission of the
issuance of a Class B-76263 (Beer – Off Sale Only) Liquor License to CASEY’S
RETAIL COMPANY, dba “Casey’s General Store #2711” located at 607 West 39th
Street, Kearney, Nebraska, and to approve the application for Corporate Manager
of Tina Marie Krings.
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby instructed to record the Council action
favoring the issuance of said license in the Minute Record of the proceedings
of the Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED THIS
24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2007.
ATTEST: STANLEY
A. CLOUSE
MICHAELLE E. TREMBLY PRESIDENT
OF THE COUNCIL
CITY CLERK AND
EX-OFFICIO MAYOR
AMEND PASSENGER FACILITY CHARGES
AT KEARNEY REGIONAL AIRPORT
Mayor Clouse opened the public
hearing to receive input on increasing the Passenger Facility Charge from $4.00
to $4.50 per ticket and to submit a new application requesting the funds go
toward shared funding on projects approved by the Federal Aviation
Administration at the Kearney Regional Airport and to consider approval of Resolution
No. 2007-71.
Airport Manager Jim Lynaugh
presented this matter to the Council. On January 25, 2005, the City of Kearney
approved Resolution No. 2005-6 authorizing the implementation of a Passenger
Facility Charge (PFC) in the amount of $4.00 per ticket subject to approval by
the Federal Aviation Administration. On April 25, 2005, the City filed a
Passenger Facility Charge Application with the Federal Aviation Administration.
The funds collected would be used towards studying the cost effectiveness for
expanding or replacing the current terminal facility and to design and
construct either the expansion or replacement.
With Jim as the new Airport
Manager, he reviewed the entire scope of the PFC and its purpose for the
Kearney Regional Airport. Based on his review and being in the best interests
of the Airport to rescind the current application using the PFC funds collected
for the study and design for expanding or replacing the current terminal
facility. He determined that the Airport has other projects that far exceed the
need to expand the terminal facility.
In accordance with FAA
regulations, on March 16, 2007 he notified both Great Lakes Airlines and Air
Midway that the City of Kearney will be submitting a new application amending
the fee to $4.50 for passenger facility charges, and that the current PFC funds
and any future funds collected would go toward shared funding for projects
being considered and past projects approved by the Federal Aviation
Administration after November 6, 1990.
The revenues collected by current
PFC and any future PFC will go toward the Kearney Regional Airport shared
funding of AIP projects to include the following:
·
Runway 18/36 Rejuvenation Project $18,215.67 City
of Kearney share
·
Snow Equipment Removal (SRE)
Building $45,038.59 City of Kearney share
·
Apron Taxilane Reconstruction $63,389.68 City
of Kearney share
·
Airport Lighting Project $27,249.45 City
of Kearney share
These shared funds will go
toward improvements at the Airport. It is estimated that the City may be able
to collect enough funds for the projects by September 30, 2009.
There was no one present in
opposition to this hearing.
Moved by Lear seconded by Buschkoetter
to close the hearing to receive input on increasing the Passenger Facility
Charge from $4.00 to $4.50 per ticket and to submit a new application
requesting the funds go toward shared funding on projects approved by the
Federal Aviation Administration at the Kearney Regional Airport and approve Resolution
No. 2007-71. Roll call resulted as follows: Aye: Clouse, Buschkoetter, Lear, Lammers.
Nay: None. Kearney absent. Motion carried.
RESOLUTION NO.
2007-71
WHEREAS, on January
25, 2005 the City Council passed and approved Resolution No. 2005-6
implementing a Passenger Facility Charge in the amount of $4.00 per ticket; and
WHEREAS, on April 25,
2005 the City filed a Passenger Facility Charge Application with the Federal
Aviation Administration indicating the funds collected would be used towards
studying the cost effectiveness for expanding or replacing the current terminal
facility and to design and construct either the expansion or replacement; and
WHEREAS, it has been
determined that the Airport has other projects that far exceed the need to
expand the terminal facility and that it would be in the best interests of the
Airport to rescind the current application using the Passenger Facility Charge
funds collected for the study and design for expanding or replacing the current
terminal facility; and
WHEREAS, it has been
determined that it would be in the best interests of the Airport to submit a
new application amending the fee to $4.50 for passenger facility charges, and
that the current Passenger Facility Charge funds and any future funds collected
would go toward shared funding for projects being considered and past projects
approved by the Federal Aviation Administration after November 6, 1990.
WHEREAS, on March 16,
2007, the City notified Great Lakes Airlines and Air Midway that the City of
Kearney will be submitting a new application amending the fee to $4.50 for
passenger facility charges, and that the current PFC funds and any future funds
collected would go toward shared funding for projects being considered and past
projects approved by the Federal Aviation Administration after November 6,
1990; and
WHEREAS, a hearing
was held on April 24, 2007 to receive any public comment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED by the President and Council of the City of Kearney, Nebraska, that it
would be in the best interests of the City to submit a new application amending
the fee to $4.50 for passenger facility charges, and that the current Passenger
Facility Charge funds and any future funds collected would go toward shared
funding for projects being considered and past projects approved by the Federal
Aviation Administration after November 6, 1990.
PASSED AND APPROVED
THIS 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2007.
ATTEST: STANLEY
A. CLOUSE
MICHAELLE
E. TREMBLY PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL
CITY CLERK AND
EX-OFFICIO MAYOR
IV. CONSENT AGENDA
Moved by Buschkoetter seconded by
Clouse that Subsections 1 through 12 of Consent Agenda Item IV be approved.
Roll call resulted as follows: Aye: Clouse, Lear, Lammers, Buschkoetter. Nay:
None. Kearney absent. Motion carried.
1. Approve Minutes of
Special Meeting held April 10, 2007 and Regular Meeting held April 10, 2007.
2. Approve the following Claims:
AT&T $249.93 smcs; Ace Irrigation $85.42 smcs; Adventureglass $7,374.00 co;
Albert Whitman & Co $66.80 smcs; Alltel $701.89 smcs; Amazon $1,077.80
smcs; Anderson Brothers $514.57 smcs; Anderson Ford $28,005.00 co; Arrants,J
$346.60 smcs; Ashworth $422.52 smcs; Aurora Co-op $499.14 smcs; Austin,J
$140.80 smcs; Baker & Taylor Books $6,362.95 smcs; Barney Insurance $260.00
smcs; BBC Audiobooks $57.00 smcs; Beckenhauer,T $108.40 smcs; Bluecross
Blueshield $72,262.18 smcs; Bob's Superstore $7.60 smcs; Bosselman Energy
$19,800.33 smcs; Boyd's Full Service $33.00 smcs; Brilliance Audio $202.36
smcs; Broadfoot's $1,994.25 smcs; Buffalo Co Court $96.04 ps; Buffalo Co Historical
$69.00 smcs; Cash-Wa Distributing $1,904.68 smcs; Central Hydraulic $551.96
smcs; Charlesworth & Assn $1,631.25 smcs; Charter $54.99 smcs; Chief
Industries $360.00 smcs; City of Ky $78,627.43 smcs,ps; Computer Hardware
$79.00 smcs; Copycat Printing $192.60 smcs; Cullen,M $96.30 smcs; Culligan
$74.51 smcs; Cummins Central Power $1,006.74 smcs; D&M Security $54.00
smcs; Dawson Co PPD $9,552.74 smcs; Depository Trust $1,601.25 ds; Dept of the
Treasury $2.03 ps; Development Council $11,125.20 smcs; Dutton-Lainson
$1,104.84 smcs; Eakes $4,713.64 smcs; Elliott Equipment $172.56 smcs; Engels,D
$299.70 smcs; Enslow Publishers $16.95 smcs; Express Distributing $40.50 smcs; Fairbanks
$6,924.57 smcs; Farmers Union Coop $420.00 smcs; Fireguard $1,070.29 smcs; Footjoy
$752.57 smcs; Frontier $8,185.69 smcs; Gall's $677.11 smcs; Garrett Tires
$4,425.48 smcs; Goodner,D $140.80 smcs; Great Plain Safety & Health
$2,055.00 smcs; Great Plains One Call $357.87 smcs; Guideposts $16.94 smcs; H&H
Distributing $273.10 smcs; Harley Davidson $247.12 smcs; HD Supply Waterworks
$705.66 smcs; Hill Construction $6,621.00 co; Hill,M $361.44 smcs; Hofeling
Enterprises $43,080.00 smcs; Hometown Leasing $304.31 smcs; Horst,R $97.00
smcs; ICMA RC $2,874.69 ps; IRS $95,697.90 ps; Int'l Code Council $100.00 smcs;
ISDN $188.25 smcs; Jack Lederman $203.67 smcs; Johnson Service $1,345.00 smcs; Ky
Chamber Comm $12.00 smcs; Ky Clinic $833.00 ps; Ky Concrete $1,803.78 smcs; Ky
Eye Optical $90.00 smcs; Ky Hub $3,331.45 smcs; Ky Towing $168.75 smcs; Ky
Young Life $2,156.08 smcs; Kelley Tree Service $33,000.00 smcs; Kim,H $25.00
smcs; King,S $2,524.00 co; Kirkham Michael $1,534.73 co; Konica Minolta $159.86
smcs; Laughlin,K $180.00 ps; LECC Conference $855.00 smcs; Lindner,S $52.38
smcs; Linweld $24.15 smcs; Lowe Family Limited $190,000.00 co; Luke,D $108.40
smcs; Magic Cleaning $660.00 smcs; Marlatt Machine Shop $1,126.40 smcs; Midwest
Service & Sales $7,868.78 smcs; Morris Press $711.20 smcs; MSI Systems
Integrators $208.30 smcs; Municipal Supply $5,056.91 smcs; NE Child Support
$1,953.04 ps; NE Dept of Aeronautics $2,095.00 ds,er; NE Dept of Environmental
$15,709.71 smcs; NE Law Enforcement $50.00 smcs; NE Library Assn $122.50 smcs; NE
Salt & Grain $8,904.99 smcs; NE Truck Center $6,197.00 co; NE Workforce
Development $3,847.00 ps; NEland Distributors $424.20 smcs; Neopost $262.15
smcs; NIMCO $133.60 smcs; Northwestern $12,135.11 smcs; Office Depot $763.32
smcs; Officenet $415.84 smcs; O'Keefe Elevator $146.15 smcs; Paramount Linen
$479.44 smcs; Patterson,B $64.29 smcs; Pawley,G $50.00 smcs; Payne,R $20.00
smcs; Pep Co $51.10 smcs; Petersen,M $4.03 smcs; Presto-X $245.00 smcs; Proquest
$2,655.00 smcs; Random House $572.20 smcs; Reagan,L $26.20 smcs; Recognition
Unlimited $8.00 ps; Recorded Books $243.40 smcs; Richard's Electric $19,412.25
smcs,co; Rodiek,D $42.18 smcs; See Clear Cleaning $1,400.00 smcs; S-F
Laboratory $692.00 smcs; Shade America $3,163.00 co; Sherwin Williams $413.82
smcs; Sid Dillion $30,754.00 co; Sisson,B $8.53 smcs; Snap-On Tools $1,209.40
smcs; Snow,T $685.00 co; Solid Waste Agency $47,017.64 smcs; Standard Signs
$718.13 smcs; Summit Heating $875.00 smcs; Team Effort $802.53 smcs; Telephone
Systems of NE $22.46 smcs; Thome,B $108.40 smcs; Thompson,J $140.80 smcs; Thompson,L
$30.00 smcs; Thomson Gale $340.58 smcs; Titleist $4,200.19 smcs; Tracy,K $3.78
smcs; Unique Management $14.32 smcs; UNK-Human Resources $21.00 ps; Urban,S
$20.85 smcs; US Bank $306,162.50 smcs; Wald & Co $12,000.00 smcs; Wells
Fargo Bank $300.00 smcs; Wiederspan,R $146.82 smcs; Wilbur Mfg $1,275.00 co; Wilkins
Hinrichs Stober $6,534.02 co; Williams,M $56.57 smcs; WPCI $317.50 ps; Yant
Equipment $227.50 smcs; Yeagley, Swanson, Murray $336.60 smcs; Payroll Ending
4-14-2007 -- $275,146.14. The foregoing schedule of claims is published in
accordance with Section 19-1102 of the Revised Statutes of Nebraska, and is
published at an expense of $_________ to the City of Kearney.
3. Receive
recommendations of Planning Commission and set May 8, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. as date
and time for hearing on those applications where applicable.
4. Approve Application
and Certificate for Payment No. 7 in the amount of $133,189.86 submitted by
Sargent Drilling of Broken Bow, Nebraska and approved by Miller &
Associates for the Northwest Well Field Phase I, Municipal Water Wells and
approve Resolution No. 2007-72.
RESOLUTION NO.
2007-72
WHEREAS, Sargent
Drilling Co. of Broken Bow, Nebraska has performed services in connection with
the Northwest Well Field Development; Phase I – Municipal Water Wells, and the
City's engineer, Miller & Associates, have filed with the City Clerk Change
Application and Certificate for Payment No. 7 in the amount of $133,189.86 as
shown on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference and as
follows:
|
Original Contract Sum
|
$2,364,294.50
|
|
Change Order No. 1
(4-10-2007)
|
+ 142,586.66
|
|
Contract Sum to Date
|
2,506,881.66
|
|
Gross Amount Due
|
1,084,003.19
|
|
Retainage
|
108,400.32
|
|
Amount Due to Date
|
975,602.87
|
|
Less Previous Certificates for
Payment
|
842,413.01
|
|
Current Payment Due
|
$ 133,189.86
|
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED by the President and Council of the City of Kearney, Nebraska, and
hereby find and determine that Application and Certificate for Payment No. 7,
as shown on Exhibit “A”, be and is hereby accepted and approved.
PASSED AND APPROVED
THIS 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2007.
ATTEST: STANLEY
A. CLOUSE
MICHAELLE
E. TREMBLY PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL
CITY CLERK AND
EX-OFFICIO MAYOR
5. Approve Application
and Certificate for Payment No. 1 in the amount of $113,131.98 submitted by
Paulsen, Inc. and approved by Miller & Associates for the 2007 Part I
Improvements – 39th Street and 2nd Avenue Traffic Signalization and Turn Lane
Improvements which consists of Paving Improvement District No. 2006-908 for 39th
Street from 2nd Avenue west to the east lot line of Lot 1, Block 1, Windsor
Estates Fifth Addition and approve Resolution No. 2007-73.
RESOLUTION NO.
2007-73
WHEREAS, Paulsen,
Inc. of Cozad, Nebraska has performed services in connection with the 2007 Part
I Improvements – 39th Street and 2nd Avenue Traffic Signalization and Turn Lane
Improvements which consists of Paving Improvement District No. 2006-908 for
39th Street from 2nd Avenue west to the east lot line of Lot 1, Block 1,
Windsor Estates Fifth Addition, and the City's engineer, Miller &
Associates, have filed with the City Clerk Change Application and Certificate
for Payment No. 1 in the amount of $113,131.98 as shown on Exhibit “A” attached
hereto and made a part hereof by reference and as follows:
|
Original Contract Sum
|
$394,949.50
|
|
Contract Sum to Date
|
394,949.50
|
|
Gross Amount Due
|
125,702.20
|
|
Retainage
|
12,570.22
|
|
Amount Due to Date
|
113,131.98
|
|
Less Previous Certificates for
Payment
|
.00
|
|
Current Payment Due
|
$ 113,131.98
|
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED by the President and Council of the City of Kearney, Nebraska, and
hereby find and determine that Application and Certificate for Payment No. 1,
as shown on Exhibit “A”, be and is hereby accepted and approved.
PASSED AND APPROVED
THIS 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2007.
ATTEST: STANLEY
A. CLOUSE
MICHAELLE
E. TREMBLY PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL
CITY CLERK AND
EX-OFFICIO MAYOR
6. Approve Application
and Certificate for Payment No. 1 in the amount of $129,136.42 submitted by
Blessing LLC and approved by Miller & Associates for the 2007 Part II
Improvements – 39th Street from 2nd Avenue to Pony Express Road (Paving
Improvement District No. 2006-908) and approve Resolution No. 2007-74.
RESOLUTION NO.
2007-74
WHEREAS, Blessing LLC
of Kearney, Nebraska has performed services in connection with the 2007 Part II
Improvements – 39th Street from 2nd Avenue to Pony Express Road (Paving
Improvement District No. 2006-908), and the City's engineer, Miller &
Associates, have filed with the City Clerk Change Application and Certificate
for Payment No. 1 in the amount of $129,136.42 as shown on Exhibit “A” attached
hereto and made a part hereof by reference and as follows:
|
Original Contract Sum
|
$1,977,660.96
|
|
Contract Sum to Date
|
1,977,660.96
|
|
Gross Amount Due
|
143,484.91
|
|
Retainage
|
14,348.49
|
|
Amount Due to Date
|
129,136.42
|
|
Less Previous Certificates for
Payment
|
.00
|
|
Current Payment Due
|
$ 129,136.42
|
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED by the President and Council of the City of Kearney, Nebraska, and
hereby find and determine that Application and Certificate for Payment No. 1,
as shown on Exhibit “A”, be and is hereby accepted and approved.
PASSED AND APPROVED
THIS 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2007.
ATTEST: STANLEY
A. CLOUSE
MICHAELLE
E. TREMBLY PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL
CITY CLERK AND
EX-OFFICIO MAYOR
7. Approve the bid
received for the purchase of an in-floor conveyor and elevated sort line for
the Recycling Center and award the bid to Elliott Sanitation Equipment Company
in the amount of $280,955.00 for the base bid and Alternates 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6.
8. Approve the Additional
Services Agreement between the City of Kearney and Miller & Associates for
engineering and design services of a solid waste tipping building and approve Resolution
No. 2007-75.
RESOLUTION NO.
2007-75
BE IT RESOLVED by the
President and Council of the City of Kearney, Nebraska, that the President be
and is hereby authorized and directed to execute the Additional Services
Agreement between the City of Kearney and Miller & Associates for
engineering and design services related to the solid waste tipping building, a
copy of the Agreement marked Exhibit “A” is attached hereto and made a part
hereof by reference
PASSED AND APPROVED
THIS 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2007.
ATTEST: STANLEY
A. CLOUSE
MICHAELLE
E. TREMBLY PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL
CITY CLERK AND
EX-OFFICIO MAYOR
9. Approve the request
submitted by Good Samaritan Health Systems and Kearney Park & Recreation to
conduct the Good Samaritan Olympiad 5K on June 23, 2007 beginning at 7:30 a.m.
The route will begin at Good Samaritan Hospital, south on Avenue A to 27th
Street, east on 27th Street to Avenue I, north on Avenue I to Tabor Street,
west on Tabor Street to Avenue K, south on Avenue K to 34th Street, west on
34th Street to Avenue G, south on Avenue G to 33rd Street, east on 33rd Street
to Avenue H, south on Avenue H to 27th Street, west on 27th Street to Avenue A,
north on Avenue to Good Samaritan Hospital.
10. Approve setting May 8,
2007 at 7:00 p.m. as time and date for the Board of Equalization to assess
costs for Paving Improvement District No. 2002-870 for the alley between Avenue
A and Avenue B from 21st Street to Railroad Street; Paving Improvement District
No. 2004-881 for 60th Street from 2nd Avenue to 1st Avenue; Paving Improvement
District No. 2004-882A for 1st Avenue from 60th Street to 65th Street; Paving
Improvement District No. 2004-883 for 65th Street from 2nd Avenue east a
distance of 525 feet; Paving Improvement District No. 2004-890 for 12th Avenue
from a point 604± feet south of 11th Street south to its terminus in a
cul-de-sac; Paving Improvement District No. 2004-891 for 8th Street from the
west lot line of Lot 6, Block 3, east to the east lot line of Lot 6, Block 1,
all in Park View Estates Second Addition; Paving Improvement District No.
2005-893 for 9th Avenue from 10th Street to 11th Street; Paving Improvement
District No. 2005-896 for LaPlatte Road from the east line of Plaza Boulevard,
thence east/southeasterly to the south lot line of Lot 10 of Block 2, and the
south line of Lot 27 of Block 3, Kearney Plaza Subdivision; Paving Improvement
District No. 2005-897 for Cedar Lane from the east right-of-way line of
LaPlatte Road to its terminus in a cul-de-sac; Paving Improvement District No.
2005-898 for Redwood Lane from the west right-of-way line of LaPlatte Road to
its terminus in a cul-de-sac; Paving Improvement District No. 2005-900 for the
alley lying south of 11th Street as it abuts Lots 41, 42, 51, and 52, South
Kearney Addition; Paving Improvement District No. 2005-901 for 52nd Street from
2nd Avenue west to 3rd Avenue; Paving Improvement District No. 2005-902 for 3rd
Avenue from 52nd Street south to the south lot line of Lot 2 of Block 1,
Sorensen Park Fourth Addition; Paving Improvement District No. 2005-903 for
Avenue N from the north lot line of Lot 5 of Block 2, Stoneridge Third Addition
and the south lot line of Lot 4 of Block 2, Eastbrooke Sixth Addition, north a
distance of 1,698.08± feet; Paving Improvement District No. 2005-904A for
Avenue N from the south lot line of Lot 4, Eastbrooke Fourth Addition, thence
north a distance of 210± feet; Water District No. 2004-529* for LaPlatte Road
from Plaza Boulevard east/southeasterly to the south line of Lot 10 of Block 2
and the south line of Lot 27 of Block 3, Kearney Plaza Subdivision; Water
District No. 2004-530 for 60th Street from 2nd Avenue to 1st Avenue; Water
District No. 2004-531A for 1st Avenue from 60th Street to 65th Street; Water
District No. 2004-532 for 65th Street from 2nd Avenue east a distance of 1,058
feet; Water District No. 2004-535 in 12th Avenue from a point 604± feet south
of 11th Street south to its terminus in a cul-de-sac and in 8th Street from the
west lot line of Lot 6, Block 3, east to the east lot line of Lot 6, Block 1,
all in Park View Estates Second Addition; Water District No. 2005-536 for 9th
Avenue from 10th Street to 11th Street; Water District No. 2005-537 for a
20-foot waterline easement along the south line of Lot 2 of Block 1, Sorensen
Park Fourth Addition; Water District No. 2005-538 for a 10-foot utility
easement along the west line of Lot 1 of Block 2, Sorensen Park Fourth
Addition; Water District No. 2005-539 for 52nd Street from 2nd Avenue west to
3rd Avenue; Sewer District No. 2004-472 for 60th Street from 2nd Avenue to 1st
Avenue; Sewer District No. 2004-473A for 1st Avenue from 60th Street to 65th
Street; Sewer District No. 2004-474 for 65th Street from 2nd Avenue east a
distance of 1,058 feet; Sewer District No. 2004-478 in 12th Avenue from a point
604± feet south of 11th Street south to its terminus in a cul-de-sac and in 8th
Street from the west lot line of Lot 6, Block 3, east to the east lot line of
Lot 6, Block 1, all in Park View Estates Second Addition; Sewer District No.
2005-479 for 9th Avenue from 10th Street to 11th Street; Sewer District No.
2005-480 for LaPlatte Road from the east line of Plaza Boulevard, thence
east/southeasterly to the south line of Lot 10 of Block 2, and the south line
of Lot 27 of Block 3, Kearney Plaza Subdivision; Sewer District No. 2005-481
for Cedar Lane from the east right-of-way line of LaPlatte Road to its terminus
in a cul-de-sac; Sewer District No. 2005-482 for Redwood Lane from the west
line of LaPlatte Road to its terminus in a cul-de-sac; Sewer District No.
2005-483 for 3rd Avenue from 52nd Street south to the south lot line of Lot 2
of Block 1, Sorensen Park Fourth Addition.
11. Approve T-Hangar C-3
Lease Agreement between the City of Kearney and E.J. Webber and approve Resolution
No. 2007-76.
RESOLUTION NO.
2007-76
BE IT RESOLVED
by the President and City Council of the City of Kearney, Nebraska, that the
President be and is hereby authorized and directed to execute the T-Hangar C-3
Lease Agreement on behalf of the City of Kearney, Nebraska with E.J. Webber, a
copy of the Agreement, marked Exhibit “1”, is attached hereto and made a part
hereof by reference.
PASSED AND APPROVED
THIS 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2007.
ATTEST: STANLEY
A. CLOUSE
MICHAELLE
E. TREMBLY PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL
CITY
CLERK AND
EX-OFFICIO MAYOR
12. Approve the Developer
Constructed Infrastructure Agreement between the City of Kearney and Ess of
Kay, Inc. to construct public improvements which include the installation of
two fire hydrants, paving and storm sewer in 3rd Avenue in Ess of Kay Addition
to the City of Kearney and approve Resolution No. 2007-77.
RESOLUTION
NO. 2007-77
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE
PRESIDENT AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KEARNEY, NEBRASKA that the agreement
entitled “Developer Constructed Infrastructure Agreement” between the City of
Kearney and Ess of Kay, Inc., a Nebraska Corporation, for the construction of
paving, water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer improvements for Ess of Kay
Addition to the City of Kearney, Buffalo County, Nebraska be and is hereby
accepted and approved. The Agreement, marked as Exhibit 1 is attached hereto,
negotiated with Viola M. Pritchard to construct paving, water, sanitary sewer,
and storm sewer improvements as stated above.
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED that the President of the Council be and is hereby authorized and
directed to execute the same agreement on behalf of the City of Kearney.
PASSED AND APPROVED
THIS 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2007.
ATTEST: STANLEY
A. CLOUSE
MICHAELLE E. TREMBLY PRESIDENT
OF THE COUNCIL
CITY CLERK AND
EX-OFFICIO MAYOR
V. CONSENT AGENDA
ORDINANCES
ORDINANCE NO. 7345 – VACATE
STREETS AND ALLEYS IN COTTAGE ADDITION
At the last Council
meeting, the City Council approved the partial vacation of Cottage Addition for
the development of New Cottage Addition for an area located north of 16th
Street between Avenue M and Avenue O. The applicant requested approval to plat
a tract of land consisting of eight lots totaling approximately 1.75 acres
which included vacating several streets and alleys or portions therefore to be
included into the new subdivision.
An ordinance vacating the lots in
Cottage Addition was approved. However, after the meeting it occurred to me
that I did not prepare an ordinance vacating the several streets and alleys as
requested. Therefore, an ordinance has been prepared and is attached vacating
the requested streets and alleys or portions thereof.
Council Member Clouse introduced
Ordinance No. 7345, being Subsection 1 of Agenda Item V to vacate the 16-foot
wide alley as it abuts Lots 1, 2, 3, 72, 73, 74, Cottage Addition; vacate the 16-foot
wide alley as it abuts Lots 75, 76, 77, 146, 147, 148, Cottage Addition; vacate
Avenue N as the same abuts Lots 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, Cottage Addition;
vacate the west 33.0 feet of Avenue O as the same abuts Lots 146, 147, 148,
Cottage Addition; vacate the north 7.0 feet of 16th Street from the east line
of Avenue M east to a point 33.0 feet east of Avenue O as the same abuts Lots
3, 72, 77, 146, Cottage Addition all in the City of Kearney, Buffalo County,
Nebraska, and moved that the statutory rules requiring ordinances to be read by
title on three different days be suspended and said ordinances be considered
for passage on the same day upon reading by number only, and then placed on
final passage and that the City Clerk be permitted to call out the number of
the ordinance on its first reading and then upon its final passage. Council
Member Lammers seconded the motion to suspend the rules. President of the
Council asked for discussion or if anyone in the audience was interested in the
ordinance. No one responded. Clerk called the roll which resulted as follows:
Aye: Clouse, Buschkoetter, Lear, Lammers. Nay: None. Kearney absent. Motion to
suspend the rules having been concurred in by three-fourths of the City
Council, said motion was declared passed and adopted. City Clerk read Ordinance
No. 7345 by number. Roll call of those in favor of the passage of said
ordinance on the first reading resulted as follows: Aye: Clouse, Buschkoetter,
Lear, Lammers. Nay: None. Kearney absent. Motion carried. Ordinance was read by
number.
Moved by Lammers seconded by Lear
that Ordinance No. 7345 be passed, approved and published as required by law. Roll
call resulted as follows: Aye: Clouse, Buschkoetter, Lear, Lammers. Nay: None.
Kearney absent. Motion carried.
By reason of the roll call voted
on the first reading and final passage of the ordinance, Ordinance No. 7345 is
declared to be lawfully passed and adopted upon publication in pamphlet form
and made available to the public at the Office of the City Clerk, the Kearney
Police Department and the Kearney Public Library.
VI. REGULAR AGENDA
ORDINANCE NO. 7346 – AUTHORIZE
ISSUANCE AND SALE OF BOND ANTICIPATION NOTES FOR PAVING IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
NO. 2006-908
On February 14, 2006, the
City Council approved the One and Six Year Plan for Kearney Street
Improvements. This plan included a project that needs to be financed by the
issuance of Series 2007 Bond Anticipation Notes. The project includes Paving
District 2006-908 (Phase II and III - 39th Street from 2nd Avenue to Pony
Express).
Bruce Lefler from Ameritas
Investment Corp. presented this matter to the Council. The Notes will provide
short-term financing for the project. After the project is completed, the Notes
will be redeemed at maturity with cash received from the issuance of Series
2008 Various Purpose General Obligation Bonds. The Bonds will provide long-term
(twenty years) financing for the project.
The Series 2007 Bond Anticipation
Notes will be dated May 29, 2007 and will mature on July 1, 2008. The interest
rate for the Notes is 3.60% and the total principal amount of the Notes will be
$2,590,000.00.
The City will issue Series 2008
Various Purpose General Obligation Bonds to redeem the Series 2007 Bond
Anticipation Notes when the Notes mature on July 1, 2008. It is anticipated
that the term of the Bonds will be twenty years. The City will be required to
include appropriate funding in its annual budget to pay the principal and
interest on the Bonds during the twenty-year life of the Bonds. Funding to pay
the principal and interest on the Bonds will come from the one-half cent
special sales tax.
Council Member Lear introduced
Ordinance No. 7346, being Subsection 1 of Agenda Item VI to authorize the
issuance and sale of Bond Anticipation Notes of the City of Kearney, Nebraska,
in the principal amount of Two Million Five Hundred Ninety Thousand Dollars
($2,590,000) for the purpose of providing interim financing for the costs of
constructing street improvements in Paving Improvement District No. 2006-908 of
said City pending the issuance of permanent General Obligation Various Purpose
Bonds of the City; prescribing the form of said notes; agreeing to issue the
City’s General Obligation Various Purpose Bonds to pay the notes at maturity or
to pay the notes from other available funds; entering into a contract on behalf
of the City with the holders of said notes; and providing for publication of
this ordinance in pamphlet form by authority of the City Council and effective
date of this ordinance, and moved that the statutory rules requiring ordinances
to be read by title on three different days be suspended and said ordinances be
considered for passage on the same day upon reading by number only, and then
placed on final passage and that the City Clerk be permitted to call out the
number of the ordinance on its first reading and then upon its final passage.
Council Member Buschkoetter seconded the motion to suspend the rules. President
of the Council asked for discussion or if anyone in the audience was interested
in the ordinance. No one responded. Clerk called the roll which resulted as
follows: Aye: Clouse, Lear, Lammers, Buschkoetter. Nay: None. Kearney absent. Motion
to suspend the rules having been concurred in by three-fourths of the City
Council, said motion was declared passed and adopted. City Clerk read Ordinance
No. 7346 by number. Roll call of those in favor of the passage of said
ordinance on the first reading resulted as follows: Aye: Clouse, Lear, Lammers,
Buschkoetter. Nay: None. Kearney absent. Motion carried. Ordinance was read by
number.
Moved by Buschkoetter seconded by
Clouse that Ordinance No. 7346 be passed, approved and published as required by
law. Roll call resulted as follows: Aye: Clouse, Lammers, Buschkoetter, Lear.
Nay: None. Kearney absent. Motion carried.
By reason of the roll call voted
on the first reading and final passage of the ordinance, Ordinance No. 7346 is
declared to be lawfully passed and adopted upon publication in pamphlet form
and made available to the public at the Office of the City Clerk, the Kearney
Police Department and the Kearney Public Library.
OPEN ACCOUNT CLAIMS: $47,845.93,
NPPD - $41,896.65, PLATTE VALLEY STATE BANK - $1,720.60, SCHOOL DISTRICT #7 - $43.65
STAN CLOUSE
Mayor Clouse stated there are
four Open Account Claims. With the absence of Councilman Kearney, they will
not vote on the payment to School District #7. The other three claims will need
to be voted on by two separate motions.
Moved by Lammers seconded by Lear
that Open Account Claims in the amount of $47,845.93 payable to Nebraska Public
Power District and in the amount of $43.65 payable to Stan Clouse be allowed.
Roll call resulted as follows: Aye: Buschkoetter, Lear, Lammers. Nay: None.
Clouse abstained. Kearney absent. Motion carried.
Moved by Clouse seconded by Lammers
that the Open Account Claim in the amount of $41,896.65 payable to Platte
Valley State Bank be allowed. Roll call resulted as follows: Aye: Clouse, Buschkoetter,
Lammers. Nay: None. Lear abstained. Kearney absent. Motion carried.
VII. REPORTS
None.
VIII. ADJOURN
Moved by Lear seconded by Buschkoetter
that Council adjourn at 8:06 p.m. Roll call resulted as follows: Aye: Clouse,
Lear, Lammers, Buschkoetter. Nay: None. Kearney absent. Motion carried.
STANLEY
A. CLOUSE
PRESIDENT
OF THE COUNCIL
AND
EX-OFFICIO MAYOR
ATTEST:
MICHAELLE E. TREMBLY
CITY CLERK