View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version

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