2026-11-02 - City Council

00:32I

03:56>> Welcome to the Lincoln City Council

03:59meeting of November second. Please be

04:02advised a copy of the open meetings act

04:04is located at the back of the chambers

04:06by the Northwest door. Let us all rise

04:09for the pledge of allegiance followed by

04:11a short moment of silent meditation.

04:13Please remain standing if you are able

04:15to do so.

04:19>> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the

04:22United States of America and to the

04:25Republic for which it stands, one nation

04:29under God, indivisible with liberty and

04:32justice for all.

04:45>> [clears throat]

04:48>> The order of the business of the City

04:50Council is as follows. The clerk will

04:52call the items listed on the agenda.

04:55Under public hearing, anyone wishing to

04:57speak on an item must first register and

04:59sign in at the table located in the

05:01lobby. The Council shall require any

05:04member of the public addressing the

05:05Council to identify themselves, the name

05:08of any organization represented by such

05:10person, and their address unless the

05:13address requirement is waived to protect

05:15the security of the individual. Each

05:17speaker should state whether they are

05:19speaking in favor or in opposition to

05:21the item. Testimony is limited to 5

05:24minutes per speaker. Anyone wishing to

05:26speak on an agenda item should come

05:28forward after the clerk reads the item

05:30and the applicant has presented. After

05:33public comments, the applicant may may

05:35may make one short rebuttal. After all

05:38public hearings, the Council will vote

05:40on resolutions and items listed under

05:42third reading. On the second and last

05:44Mondays of the month immediately prior

05:47to adjournment, anyone may speak on any

05:49issue not on the agenda for that date

05:51nor planned for a future agenda. We ask

05:54that speakers strive for civility and

05:56allow for the business of Council to

05:58proceed unimpeded. Will the clerk please

06:00call the first item of business?

06:08>> Our first annual business today is the

06:10Mayor's Award of Excellence.

06:13>> Welcome, Mayor.

06:15>> Thank you, Chairperson Webber. Good

06:17afternoon, council members. Hope you had

06:18a great

06:19Halloween weekend.

06:21Uh it is great to be back here in

06:22chambers this time to present the July

06:252026 Mayor's Award of Excellence to

06:28Animal Control Officer Rachel Middleton.

06:31Officer Middleton was nominated by

06:33Animal Control uh

06:36Division Manager Denise Bolwit in the

06:38categories of Public Health and Safety

06:40and Valor and Bravery for rendering aid

06:43to a motorist involved in a crash and

06:45providing traffic uh control in the

06:48aftermath of that crash.

06:50On the evening of June 30th, Officer

06:52Middleton was returning to the Health

06:54Department near 33rd and O Streets, and

06:56upon parking, she witnessed the

06:58aftermath of the three-car collision at

07:01that intersection. And quickly grasping

07:04the severity of the situation, she leapt

07:06into action. Officer Middleton swiftly

07:09reported the emergency and requested

07:11immediate medical and law enforcement

07:13assistance.

07:15She then ran toward the crash site where

07:17she encountered a young male driver with

07:19injuries that had left him immobile and

07:21lying on one side of O Street.

07:24With Lincoln Fire and Rescue still in

07:26route, Officer Middleton took charge of

07:28the situation, applying direct pressure

07:30to the young driver's wound to reduce

07:32blood loss.

07:34While awaiting emergency medical

07:35personnel, she maintained a calm

07:37presence and continued speaking with the

07:39victim to help keep him conscious,

07:42alert, and still. Once LFR arrived, she

07:45gave them relevant information about the

07:47victim and went on to assist paramedics

07:49by stabilizing the driver's head and

07:51neck when he was before he was

07:53transported.

07:55Following her medical interventions,

07:57Officer Middleton used an Animal Control

07:59vehicle to block eastbound traffic at

08:0131st and O Streets, and her action

08:04safely diverted traffic away from the

08:06scene of the accident, And then she then

08:09remained at this location two hours past

08:12her shift ended until she was formally

08:14relieved of her duties at 1:30 a.m.

08:18In her nomination letter, Bollwit noted

08:20that, quote, Officer Middleton served as

08:22a vital first responder during this

08:24critical incident, unquote.

08:26She went on to praise Middleton's swift

08:28action which provided law enforcement

08:30and medical personnel the ability to

08:32operate safely in a high traffic zone.

08:36Officer Middleton, we want to thank you

08:37for your extraordinary heroic service.

08:40I'm really proud to present you with

08:41this well deserved Mayor's Award of

08:43Excellence. WE WANT TO

08:49[applause]

08:56[applause]

09:03WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO INVITE UP HEALTH

09:04DIRECTOR CARRIE Kernan to say a few

09:06words about her teammate.

09:09Is she there?

09:09>> Thank you, Mayor.

09:10>> There you are.

09:12>> [laughter]

09:15>> Thank you, Mayor. Good afternoon, City

09:17Council members. It gives me great

09:19pleasure to come before you as we honor

09:22Officer Middleton as a recipient of the

09:24Mayor's Award of Excellence. We are so

09:27so fortunate to have animal control as

09:29part of our health department. I have to

09:31admit I've worked at three health

09:32departments in my public health career

09:33and my nursing career. This is the first

09:36time in animal control division has been

09:38part of a health department. I'll be

09:39honest when I came here a little over

09:41five years ago, I said, really?

09:44It makes perfect sense and I cannot

09:46imagine not having animal control as

09:48part of our health department. The staff

09:50play a critical role in protecting the

09:52health and safety of both pets and

09:53people and are very committed to the

09:56work that they do to protect the health

09:58and safety of our residents. It takes a

10:00special special kind of person to do

10:02this type of work and Rachel is a

10:04perfect example. Rachel's been with

10:06animal control almost 10 years. She's an

10:08experienced officer and a great

10:11phenomenal role model for our new staff

10:12and is always willing to go above and

10:14beyond as a perfect example

10:17for all the members of our community.

10:19Officer Millton, thank you so much for

10:21your dedication for the work that you do

10:22each and every day. And I'm going to

10:24pass it over to Denise to talk a little

10:26bit more about why she thought of

10:28Officer Millton with this award.

10:34>> Welcome.

10:35>> Hi.

10:37As Officer Millton knows all too well,

10:40there is no such thing as the typical

10:42day for Lincoln Animal Control and that

10:43was certainly the case on the 30th of

10:45June.

10:47She never thought twice about helping

10:48the citizen.

10:50She cares about our service to our

10:51community and it doesn't just matter if

10:53it's animals or people.

10:55So her extensive training, her swift

10:57action, and her calm presence served her

10:59well in this high stress situation and

11:02it also serves her well in our more

11:03routine work like removing animals from

11:06danger, rescuing the wildlife, reuniting

11:08lost pets and their families, ensuring

11:10the pet licensing and rabies

11:11vaccinations, and providing the

11:13education that we do.

11:15Rachel,

11:16thanks for your compassion,

11:18your care, and your commitment to our

11:20community.

11:21And there will be another animal or

11:24person who needs our assistance at

11:25sometime. So she's always ready and

11:28willing to answer this call and we're

11:29very proud to have her on our team.

11:32Thank you.

11:34>> Thank you so much, Denise.

11:36Officer Millton, would you like to come

11:38forward and say a few words?

11:41Would you please?

11:42Even if you wouldn't like to.

11:44>> Uh hello.

11:46Thank you so much for the award. I

11:47appreciate it. I don't

11:50feel like I did anything different than

11:51anybody else would, but I want to thank

11:53my family and friends and my co-workers.

11:55Another officer was also came by to help

11:58me as well.

11:59And he's your officer of finale. So I

12:01just want to thank everybody in my team

12:02and thank you for the award and

12:03nomination. I appreciate it. Thank you.

12:05>> You want to introduce your family

12:06members to us all?

12:08>> I have quite a few. I have my three

12:10children. I have my daughter Gwen, my

12:12son Liam, my daughter Evelyn, my husband

12:14who is a great supporter of me and his

12:17name is Sam, and my sister Carissa. My

12:19mother is over here. I don't know if

12:21anybody can see her. She's Tina,

12:23my best friend who I've known since

12:25third grade, and her three boys who are

12:27basically nephews of mine. So

12:28>> Great.

12:29>> the crowd. So

12:31>> We thank them too for supporting your

12:32service. Thank you.

12:41>> Thank you, Mayor. And yeah, thank you,

12:43Officer Middleton. Um you know, it it

12:46strikes me on behalf of the entire

12:48council, I want to thank you for your

12:49service to the city of Lincoln. It

12:51strikes me when you say that uh you did

12:54what you think anyone would do in that

12:56situation, and I think that that uh

12:58shows that you have a hero's mindset,

13:00and Lincoln's really lucky to have you

13:03and uh your family and friends. Thank

13:05you so much for for sharing Officer

13:06Middleton with us and and the city of

13:08Lincoln. Any comments from council?

13:10Councilman Duden.

13:11>> Yeah, I wanted to say, you know, my

13:13first job when I was going to college

13:15was to be the uh

13:16animal control uh person in Norfolk,

13:19Nebraska.

13:20But uh back then they titled it as pound

13:22master, and I had no clue what that was.

13:25So

13:26but so someday you could be running for

13:28city council.

13:30>> [laughter]

13:31>> Before lucky, right?

13:34>> Good job.

13:35>> Thank you.

13:36>> Any other comments from council?

13:39>> Thank you.

13:39>> Already. Thank you, Officer Middleton.

13:41Thank you, Mayor.

13:41>> you so much for your time.

13:43>> All right. Let's give her another round.

13:45[applause]

13:51All righty. We'll give everyone a little

13:53bit of a some time to exit the chambers

13:56for photos.

14:04>> Two pick. Thank you.

14:10>> Okay. Do we want to wait for

14:12some audio? It looks like there might be

14:14some audio issues.

14:26Is everything okay?

14:28Okay.

14:30Um,

14:32Madam Clerk, we may proceed.

14:37>> Next on our agenda will be our consent

14:40agenda, sections one, two, and sections

14:42three.

14:46>> All righty. Is there anyone here to

14:48present on the consent agenda?

14:52If so, please come forward now.

14:56Is there anyone from the public who

14:58wishes to speak on an item on the

15:01consent agendas? That would be sections

15:03one, two, or three. If so, please come

15:06forward now.

15:09Seeing no one from the public come

15:11forward, Madam Clerk, we may proceed.

15:13>> We can now vote on these items. I'll

15:15call item one A.

15:17Item one A is approving the construction

15:19engineering services supplement

15:20agreement number two for the signal

15:22project at Cotner and Adams Street,

15:24introduced by Carlson.

15:25>> So moved.

15:26>> Second.

15:27>> Second by Bekius. Discussion?

15:30Seeing no discussion, Madam Clerk,

15:32please call the roll.

15:33>> Carlson.

15:34>> Yes.

15:34>> Bowers.

15:35>> Yes.

15:35>> Washington.

15:36>> Yes.

15:37>> Duden.

15:37>> Yes.

15:38>> Shobe.

15:38>> Yes.

15:39>> Bekius.

15:40>> Yes.

15:40>> Webber.

15:40>> Yes.

15:41>> Motion carried 7-0.

15:43Item one B is approving the professional

15:45services agreement supplement number

15:46four, agreement between the city of

15:48Lincoln and Schemmer Associates Inc. to

15:50amend the preliminary engineering

15:51services for the First Street and

15:53Cornhusker Highway intersection

15:54improvement project, introduced by

15:55Carlson.

15:56>> So moved.

15:57>> Second.

15:58>> Second by Bekius. Discussion?

16:01Seeing no discussion, Madam Clerk,

16:02please call the roll.

16:03>> Bowers.

16:04>> Yes.

16:04>> Washington.

16:05>> Yes.

16:06>> Shobe.

16:06>> Yes.

16:07>> Duden.

16:08>> Yes.

16:08>> Bekius.

16:09>> Yes.

16:10>> Carlson.

16:10>> Yes.

16:11>> Webber.

16:11>> Yes.

16:12>> Motion carried 7-0.

16:14Item one C is approving the construction

16:16engineering services supplement

16:17agreement number two for the ninth and

16:19tenth street signal project at A and D

16:21streets introduced by Carlson.

16:23>> So moved.

16:24>> Second.

16:25>> Second by Beckius. Discussion.

16:28no discussion, Madam Clerk, please call

16:30the roll.

16:35>> Yes.

16:36>> Carlson.

16:36>> Yes.

16:37>> Bowers.

16:37>> Yes.

16:38>> Weber.

16:38>> Yes.

16:39>> Motion carried 7-0.

16:41Item 1D is approving the on-call

16:43professional services task order

16:44supplement agreement number one between

16:46the city of Lincoln and Felsburg Holt

16:47and Ullevig to perform NEPA services for

16:50the South 27th Street Bridge South of

16:52Rokeby Road project introduced by

16:54Carlson.

16:55>> So moved.

16:56>> Second.

16:57>> Second by Beckius. Discussion.

16:59Seeing no discussion, Madam Clerk,

17:01please call the roll.

17:02>> Shoob.

17:03>> Yes.

17:03>> Duden.

17:04>> Yes.

17:04>> Washington.

17:05>> Yes.

17:06>> Carlson.

17:07>> Yes.

17:07>> Bowers.

17:08>> Yes.

17:08>> Beckius.

17:09>> Yes.

17:09>> Weber.

17:09>> Yes.

17:10>> Motion carried 7-0.

17:12Item 1E is setting the board of

17:14equalization hearing date of Monday,

17:15November 23rd, 2026 at 5:30 p.m. on the

17:18assessments for the downtown management

17:20BID, downtown management core overlay

17:22district, downtown maintenance district,

17:24and West Haymarket maintenance district

17:26introduced by Duden.

17:28>> So moved.

17:29>> Second.

17:30>> Second by Washington. Discussion.

17:33Seeing no discussion, Madam Clerk,

17:34please call the roll.

17:35>> Duden.

17:36>> Yes.

17:36>> Washington.

17:37>> Yes.

17:38>> Carlson.

17:38>> Yes.

17:39>> Bowers.

17:39>> Yes.

17:40>> Shoob.

17:40>> Yes.

17:41>> Beckius.

17:41>> Yes.

17:42>> Weber.

17:43>> Yes.

17:43>> Motion carried 7-0.

17:45Item 1F is resolution setting the

17:48hearing date of Monday, December 14th,

17:502026 at 3 p.m. for the assessment of

17:52weed abatement costs incurred by the

17:54city of Lincoln for the period of

17:55November 1st, 2025 through October 31st

17:58of 2026 introduced by Duden.

18:00>> So moved.

18:01>> Second.

18:02>> Second by Carlson. Discussion.

18:06Seeing no discussion, Madam Clerk,

18:08please call the roll.

18:09>> Washington.

18:10>> Yes.

18:10>> Bowers.

18:11>> Yes.

18:11>> Carlson.

18:12>> Yes.

18:12>> Shoob.

18:13>> Yes.

18:13>> Beckius.

18:14>> Yes.

18:14>> Duden.

18:15>> Yes.

18:15>> Weber.

18:16>> Yes.

18:16>> Motion carried 7-0.

18:19Items 2A through 2D were introduced by

18:21Shobe.

18:22>> So moved.

18:23>> Second.

18:24>> Second by Washington. Discussion.

18:27Seeing no discussion, Madam Clerk,

18:29please call the roll.

18:30>> Beckius.

18:31>> Yes.

18:31>> Duden.

18:32>> Yes.

18:32>> Shobe.

18:33>> Yes.

18:33>> Washington.

18:34>> Yes.

18:35>> Carlson.

18:35>> Yes.

18:36>> Bowers.

18:36>> Yes.

18:37>> Weber.

18:37>> Yes.

18:38>> Motion carried 7-0.

18:42Okay. That concludes our consent agenda.

18:43We shall move on to section four, public

18:45hearing liquor resolutions. I'll call

18:47item 4A and 4B together. Item 4A and B

18:50is manager application of Jordan Reed

18:52for MCO LLC doing business as Casa

18:54Bovina

18:55and the Mercado located at 4841 North

18:5884th Street and the related manager

19:00application of Jordan Reed.

19:02>> All righty. Is the applicant here to

19:06uh present?

19:07All righty.

19:08Before we get started,

19:10I hear the feedback too. Is it do I've

19:12asked from

19:14Director Marvin, did you get city comms

19:16to come in by chance?

19:17>> The

19:18>> Thank you.

19:19>> TV people.

19:19>> Yeah. There's some feedback. So

19:22Welcome. You can just start with your

19:24name and address and then tell us a

19:25little bit about the application.

19:27>> Alex SA here on behalf of MCO LLC. Um

19:30address is 7110 Southampton Road.

19:34Um this is a manager application uh for

19:36Jordan Reed who is now overseeing the

19:39restaurant and retail operations for all

19:42of MCO and felt it was proper to

19:45formalize his name on the liquor

19:47licenses. Um Jordan's been in the

19:50restaurant and hospitality industries

19:52for

19:53over 15 years um with experience in

19:56selling, serving, and managing alcohol

19:59inventory and

20:00um thought it was a great choice to have

20:02him on the liquor license.

20:04Happy to address any questions you may

20:06have.

20:06>> All righty. Thank you. Are there any

20:07questions from council?

20:10Seeing no questions. Thank you so much.

20:13>> Thank you.

20:14>> Is there anyone from the public who

20:16wishes to speak on this item, item 4A

20:19and 4B? If so, please come forward now.

20:24Seeing no one from the public come

20:26forward,

20:27we may proceed.

20:31>> I'll call item 4C. Item 4C is manager

20:34application of Todd Eicher for Garage

20:37Beers LLC doing business as Liquid

20:39Assets Sports Bar and Grill located at

20:402755 Jamie Lane Suite 14 through 16.

20:45>> All righty, is the applicant here to

20:47present?

20:49Come on down.

20:51You can just start with your name and

20:53address and then you can tell us a

20:54little bit about the application.

20:55>> Okay. So the name is Todd Eicher. Uh

20:57address is 3044 St. Avenue here in

20:59Lincoln. Um so I'm one of the original

21:01owners of Liquid Assets Sports Bar and

21:03Grill. Our original manager is no longer

21:05with us. So I'm just kind of moving on

21:07the liquor license from owner to to

21:08manager.

21:10>> Great.

21:11Uh any questions from council?

21:13>> A really good presentation.

21:15>> Yeah.

21:15>> I'm sorry, I didn't hear that.

21:16>> It was a really good presentation.

21:17>> Oh, thank you.

21:18>> All righty. No questions from council.

21:20Thank you.

21:21>> Appreciate it. Thank you.

21:22>> Is there anyone from the public who

21:23wishes to speak on this item, item 4C?

21:26If so, please come forward now.

21:29Seeing no one come forward, madam clerk,

21:32we may proceed.

21:33>> I'll call item 4D, application of Site

21:35Development Lease 6 LLC doing business

21:37as Scarlet Hotel for an addition of an

21:39indoor area measuring approximately 129

21:42ft by 81 ft at 2101 Transformation

21:45Drive.

21:47>> All righty. Is the applicant here to

21:48present?

21:49Welcome.

21:50>> Yeah, thank you. Brian Sullivan uh

21:52representing 2101 Transformation Drive,

21:55which is a footprint of Scarlet Hotel,

21:57and expanding that space to basically

21:59include an area that was developed at

22:01the time of the build.

22:03>> All righty.

22:03>> Yeah.

22:04>> Are there any questions from council?

22:06Councilman Washington.

22:08>> Not a question, it's just a comment. I

22:09want to congratulate you for having

22:11absolutely no liquor violations since

22:13you've been open.

22:14>> Thank you. All right.

22:16Knock on some wood please somebody.

22:18[laughter] Yeah.

22:19>> Any other comments or questions from

22:21council?

22:22All righty. Thank you so much.

22:26Is there anyone from the public who

22:28wishes to speak on this item, item 4D?

22:31If so, please come forward now.

22:34Seeing no one from the public come

22:36forward.

22:37>> Mr. Chair, I

22:38agree with you. No one else is coming

22:39forward. I'd like to make a motion that

22:41we approve

22:43items 4A through 4D.

22:45>> All righty. Is there a second? Second by

22:47Councilman Duden. Any

22:50discussion?

22:52Seeing no discussion, Madam Clerk,

22:54please call the roll.

22:57>> Carlson.

22:57>> Yes.

22:58>> Bowers.

22:59>> Yes.

22:59>> Washington.

23:00>> Yes.

23:01>> Duden.

23:01>> Yes.

23:02>> Show.

23:02>> Yes.

23:03>> Beckius.

23:03>> Yes.

23:04>> Webber.

23:04>> Yes.

23:04>> Motion carried 7-0.

23:08>> Thank you.

23:10>> That concludes section four of the

23:12agenda. We'll move on to section five,

23:13public hearing resolutions. I'll call

23:15item 5A.

23:16Item 5A is approving the qualified

23:18transportation plan which allows city

23:19employees to use pre-tax dollars to pay

23:21for eligible commuting and parking

23:23expenses.

23:25>> All righty.

23:30Welcome.

23:31>> Good afternoon, Council. John Thober,

23:33Total Rewards division leader with the

23:35City Human Resources Department, 555

23:37South 10th Street.

23:38And what the plan and and document does,

23:41it just codifies the city's process for

23:43allowing employees to utilize pre-tax

23:45dollars for parking expenses and

23:49eligible commuting transportation

23:51expenses such as you know, transit bus

23:53passes.

23:54So that's the the purpose of the plan.

23:56>> All righty. Any questions from Council?

23:59All righty. Thank you.

24:01Is there anyone from the public who

24:02wishes to speak on this item, item 5A?

24:05If so, please come forward now.

24:08Seeing no one from the public come

24:10forward, Madam Clerk, we may proceed.

24:12>> I'll call item 5B, miscellaneous 26008,

24:15application of urban development to

24:17declare the Azalea Land Redevelopment

24:20Area generally located at 3701 Prescott

24:22Avenue blighted and substandard.

24:24>> Welcome, Director.

24:26>> Good afternoon. Uh, Marvin, Urban

24:28Development, 555 South 10th Street.

24:31I'm going to put a couple of maps down

24:33here.

24:35Um, so we know the area that we're

24:36talking about.

24:44So,

24:45here's Highway

24:47Highway 2.

24:49Um, just north of Highway 2 is this area

24:52that we call Azalea Land.

24:55And

24:57there's an article in the

25:00Lincoln Journal Star a few years ago

25:01that kind of

25:03identified

25:05uh, the condition of Azalea Land.

25:08Um,

25:09it was an it was an it was a garden

25:11center

25:13and it kind of um,

25:16aged out and there was some buildings

25:18there.

25:19Um, wasn't used for a long period of

25:22time. Buildings were cleared out of

25:24there

25:25and it was sold to one developer

25:29and then that developer sold to

25:31NeighborWorks

25:32this particular

25:34area of land.

25:36And we're kind of excited about this as

25:40an effort to try to create additional

25:42affordable housing in some of our

25:44neighborhoods. So,

25:46this particular blight study that you

25:47have before you is one step and many,

25:50many steps that will follow.

25:52Um,

25:53but it utilizes a

25:57um,

25:58tool that the state passed as a

26:00blighting standard, which is blighting

26:02for a condition of creating affordable

26:04housing.

26:05And what NeighborWorks

26:08has proposed is to build some town homes

26:11in this area.

26:13Um, I know Charlie West, she is here.

26:16Um, I'm not inviting him to come up

26:18right now, but I think he's really been

26:20involved with this neighborhood and

26:21trying to create committees and ways to

26:24communicate with the neighborhoods

26:25because obviously

26:27um,

26:28you've been on the City Council long

26:30enough to know that when you do infill

26:31development that there can be concerns

26:34that are created by the surrounding

26:36neighborhoods. And I think um Charlie

26:39has tried to address that by keeping in

26:41close contact with those neighbors. Um

26:44we all know that owner-occupied homes

26:47that are going to be available to people

26:50at a at an affordable price point is is

26:54difficult work. It's very difficult

26:56work.

26:57And the blighting standard that will be

27:00used will help ensure that

27:02a percentage of the homes that are built

27:05in this area will be affordable. And

27:08NeighborWorks pioneered in the state of

27:10Nebraska

27:12um a land trust program

27:14that then puts those buildings within

27:16the land trust that keeps them

27:18affordable um

27:21basically in perpetuity. Say 99 years,

27:24but you know, I'm not going to live

27:25another 99 years. So in perpetuity lasts

27:28for a very long period of time.

27:30And um so we're excited about this as

27:33something that is kind of a new type of

27:36development that could go in and we

27:38think that it'll fit with the character

27:39of the neighborhood.

27:41I'll stop there and answer any questions

27:43if you have any.

27:43>> Thank you Director Marvin. Are there any

27:45questions from council? Councilman

27:47Duden.

27:48>> Dan, on that one picture that you just

27:50>> This one?

27:52>> Yes. Uh

27:53are is this area going to look like the

27:55upper top left photograph because the

27:58the bottom lower left one looks more

28:01like an apartment complex.

28:02>> Right. I think I think the goal here,

28:04but Charlie's here, I think that they've

28:06done some additional design work. He can

28:08get to that.

28:09>> Kind of a open area park in the middle?

28:11>> I think the goal is to have some open

28:13space.

28:14I think

28:14>> Park location because it's kind of in a

28:16bowl right there.

28:16>> Yeah.

28:17>> You want me to take that?

28:18>> Sure. Charlie, and if you can just say

28:20your name and address.

28:21>> NeighborWorks Lincoln, 2530 Q Street.

28:23Thanks for having me. Uh all of these

28:27are uh these are not renderings. These

28:29are concept images. So it's we're we're

28:31pulling pieces of each of these.

28:33Um,

28:34the intention, so the upper left image

28:38where you have kind of the internal

28:39courtyard, that is a a major design

28:41element that came out of our community

28:43engagement. Um, we had initially

28:44intended for the the roadways to be

28:46internal

28:47and the residents encouraged us to look

28:50at a model where the all the roadways

28:51are on the outside of the property. So

28:54you basically have you have 18 units

28:56that are all fronting onto shared green

28:58space.

28:59>> Right.

28:59>> Um, and I think it's I I've been

29:02referring to it as I've been talking up

29:04the project is the the biggest front

29:06yard in Lincoln.

29:07Um, it's going to be shared. I think

29:09some of the the the upper right is uh

29:12more of a uh a potential design. Uh,

29:16it could be a I mean a shared kind of

29:18patio space. That's really going to be

29:20up to the residents to decide how they

29:21activate that space. We're just giving

29:23them the space to to work off of. There

29:26will be an HOA eventually that that

29:28takes over the responsibility for for

29:30management.

29:31Um, the bottom left image, so some of

29:34our architectural uh call outs we're

29:37working with P Studios um and they

29:39designed the Fallbrook row homes that

29:41you see in the bottom left.

29:43Um, our row homes will mimic that

29:45overall aesthetic

29:47um while

29:49we are affordable housing developers and

29:51those units are are far from affordable.

29:53So the the call out is to the the basic

29:56bones and we'll uh basically design

29:58those with uh affordability in mind.

30:02And then the bottom right image is just

30:04uh the overall design of those row homes

30:06is really unique. Uh, usually in row

30:09house living you don't have if you're on

30:10an internal unit you don't have interior

30:14light. You have light on the ends, you

30:16don't in the middle.

30:17Um, but the design of these buildings

30:19has an internal courtyard

30:22that brings light into the center of

30:24each unit so that you have a kitchen

30:25sink that looks out over a courtyard.

30:28I was fairly against it being an

30:29affordable housing developer. I see that

30:31as uh built as square footage that is

30:34expensive and could be captured for

30:35living space. When I toured those

30:37properties, I was a complete convert. I

30:39think it's incredible that we're able to

30:41bring light into into otherwise pretty

30:43dark um

30:46row house units.

30:50>> Just so the the process here, what's

30:52before you is a blight study. What will

30:55follow will eventually be a

30:56redevelopment plan that will have

30:58renderings that will show the allocation

31:00of the tax increment financing and spell

31:02out in great detail what the facades and

31:05the and and will look like and there's a

31:08process by which we go through design

31:11review. Um I think we're we're

31:14we're far away from that point, but that

31:16that this is a step towards that.

31:20>> Councilman Duden.

31:22>> Dan, wasn't there a townhouse proposal

31:24for this area once upon a time?

31:27>> There was um

31:28>> That was that was the previous

31:30developer, their approach.

31:32>> And that's the one that disappeared or

31:33what?

31:34>> Yes.

31:35>> Okay.

31:37Good answer.

31:39>> Keep it simple, right?

31:41Any other uh questions for Director

31:44Marvin or uh

31:46Charlie while we have him up here?

31:49All righty. Thank you. All right. Thank

31:51you.

31:58Is there anyone else who would like to

31:59present on this?

32:02Um

32:03yeah. Is there anyone from the public

32:05who would like to speak on this item?

32:07Yeah, come please come [clears throat]

32:08forward.

32:10Welcome. You can just start with your

32:12name and address and then

32:14>> Oh, good afternoon.

32:15>> And please pick one of the microphones.

32:17Thank you.

32:17>> There you go. Come new at this.

32:19>> Yep, no no worries.

32:20>> Just wanted to look earlier this year. I

32:22look good?

32:23>> Yes, looks great. [laughter]

32:24>> That's that's important.

32:25>> Giving me a run for my money.

32:27>> I understand it's being photographed

32:29overall. Um my name is Jim Morell. 3909

32:33South 37th Street. I'm in the Prescott

32:35neighborhood overall. And I just want to

32:37start by

32:38I fully support Neighborhood Works and

32:41their development of this land. I think

32:43they've taken on an incredible task, a

32:45hard task, of making all this work with

32:4720 apartment units, etc.

32:50And I've been to a couple of the

32:51commission planning commissions meetings

32:53overall, and I appreciate Neighborhood

32:55Works being so accessible

32:57to get me up to speed and the

32:59neighborhoods up to speed in terms of

33:00what's going on overall. And I guess

33:03this is the

33:05blighted standard

33:08hearing, I guess for the TIF funds, as I

33:11understand I'm new to this overall,

33:13which I think in my opinion it should be

33:15granted

33:17and they should give them double TIF

33:18funds

33:20available because it's such a hard task

33:22overall. And I say my only really one

33:24feedback is maybe with those funds to

33:27put one

33:29item on it in terms of maybe an

33:31accelerated

33:33design standards review.

33:35The planning commission has a set of

33:37design standards and even sketchbooks of

33:41houses of how to integrate exactly into

33:44neighborhoods and stuff like that.

33:47Right now it's set for review as I

33:49understand it at the very end. When I

33:52submit when my project is done and I

33:54submit for building permit, the planning

33:56commission staff will at that point

33:58review the sketches.

34:00That's kind of late in the game.

34:02I'm an architectural engineer. I've done

34:04many of these and usually at the very

34:06end

34:07nothing aside from a paint color can get

34:09changed. And for good reason because I'm

34:12the developer, I'm paying $10,000 a day

34:15in loan fees. I need to accelerate, so

34:18the pressure's on.

34:19What I'd like to say is maybe have a

34:21more staged

34:24planning commission review according to

34:26their design standards. Nothing bizarre,

34:28nothing out of the ordinary, but just

34:30their design standards.

34:33My neighborhood people have commented on

34:35other developments where that review was

34:38rushed and the

34:40final product was not satisfactory. So,

34:43that's why I'm suggesting maybe a stage

34:46review.

34:47If that's possible. I don't know how it

34:48works.

34:50But why not?

34:52Overall. That's about all I have for it

34:54overall. But again, I love working with

34:57Neighborhood Works. I look forward to

34:59seeing the final product. Okay, thank

35:01you.

35:02>> Thank you. Are there any questions from

35:04Council?

35:05Councilman Backius.

35:06>> Uh not a question, but thank you for

35:07your comment. I appreciate it.

35:09Neighborhood Works Lincoln is a great

35:12partner with the city of Lincoln in

35:13terms of being able to meet neighborhood

35:15design standards. And I know that

35:16Charlie being here today hearing your

35:18feedback

35:20uh will take that feedback very

35:21seriously um as he works through what

35:24these concepts look like when they come

35:26to fruition. So, thank you so much for

35:28your feedback. Appreciate it very much.

35:30>> And then in terms of your point of

35:31asking the questions about the pictures

35:33overall, I think it's a win-win-win. I

35:36think Neighborhood Works wins because

35:38they have very satisfied customers. And

35:40then Neighborhood Works and the Planning

35:42Commission wins too. So, the city of

35:44Lawrence wins too. So, it's a

35:45win-win-win. All in a good day.

35:48>> Yeah.

35:48>> Right. Thank you all.

35:49>> Thank you.

35:53All righty. Is there anyone else who

35:55would like to speak on this item? If so,

35:57please come forward now.

36:00Anyone else who would like to speak on

36:03this item?

36:05Seeing no one else come forward, Madam

36:07Clerk, we may proceed.

36:12Or Director Marvin, would you like to

36:14Okay, next item. Yep, okay, perfect. We

36:16may proceed.

36:18So fast.

36:19>> I'll call item 5C, Miscellaneous 26010,

36:22application of the Director of Urban

36:24Development to declare the area

36:25generally bounded by Northwest 27th

36:27Street and Highway 34, blighted and

36:29substandard.

36:31>> All righty, welcome Director.

36:33>> Um

36:34good afternoon, Dan Marvin, Urban

36:35Development, 555 South 10th Street.

36:38Um what you have before you is on the

36:40other extreme of of blighted and

36:42substandard. This is out.

36:44Um,

36:45on the edge of Lincoln. This would be

36:47Purple Heart Highway.

36:50Um, this is the area of town. So we're

36:52up in the northwest part of Lincoln.

36:56Um,

36:57and it shows that this is AG property.

37:01In the past, uh, we have brought forward

37:05um, from the encouragement of the

37:06chamber and those looking to see if

37:10there are areas of Lincoln that would be

37:12ripe for um, and when I say industrial

37:15development, that doesn't mean something

37:16with a smokestack or that, but

37:18manufacturing facility of some type that

37:21provides primary employment and provides

37:24an opportunity for business to locate

37:27here in Lincoln.

37:28Um, and this property borders um,

37:34uh, residential development to the east.

37:37And so there would be a buffer that

37:39would be um, between the property that

37:42would be zoned for industrial

37:44development and residential. They'd put

37:46a buffer there. There's a terrain change

37:49in that property too. So that's

37:51higher elevation. The residential would

37:53be above that. So we think that's a

37:55compatible use. It's gone through um,

37:58comp plan changes so that this is how

38:01it's existing zoned. And the goal here

38:05um, would be to

38:08there's a blight study that recognizes

38:10that this area is blighted and

38:12substandard.

38:13And then we would have this within our

38:15inventory. So when uh, developers are

38:18looking for a place that they could

38:21locate a business, they would know that

38:23this area would qualify for tax

38:26increment financing, but it does not

38:29prequalify that applicant from being

38:32able to work through the process.

38:34One of the requirements that we have

38:36with our tax increment financing policy

38:39is what's called outer area. What is

38:41outer area? Well, this would be outer

38:43area. And what does that mean? That

38:45means that a business

38:48um has to meet certain standards. One of

38:50the standards that we carve out is that

38:52it has to bring business into the

38:55community. It has to be additive. So

38:58this would And the way we define that is

39:00that over 50% of their business that

39:03they transact is business from outside

39:06Lancaster County, meaning generally

39:09that'd be a manufacturing facility that

39:11would sell all around the country. So it

39:14is what

39:15what people call call as primary

39:17employers. It's bringing in new business

39:20into our community. So in that

39:22particular case, if this land is

39:25blighted, it's in our inventory,

39:27developers would be able to view that as

39:30an opportunity, but that does not

39:32prequalify

39:34um any applicant. There's still a long

39:36process going through. We'd be back

39:39before you multiple times. Um so this is

39:42just the first step in that direction.

39:45I know D Dena Kalkowski is here too, so

39:48she can speak to this. She's uh their um

39:51the applicant representative.

39:55Council Duden?

39:55>> any questions from Council? Councilman

39:57Duden?

39:58>> Yeah, wouldn't this be the property

39:59that's just directly north of Kawasaki?

40:01>> Yes. Yes.

40:02>> So it kind of mimics that property.

40:04>> Correct. Correct.

40:06>> Use.

40:07>> There's There's industrial there. And

40:09what I understand is

40:11over many years um

40:14this area has been identified to to kind

40:17of mimic Kawasaki, and then at one time

40:20it was taken out and assumed it was

40:22going to be uh residential. And I think

40:24now that it's kind of more of a hybrid

40:26with a buffer strip of residential on

40:29the east side of this, and then the rest

40:31of it would be remaining uh industrial.

40:35>> Any other questions from Council on this

40:39item?

40:41All righty. Thank you, Director Marvin.

40:44Is there anyone else who wishes to speak

40:46on this item? Welcome, Ms. Kalkowski.

40:48>> Good afternoon, members

40:49>> of the Council. Dana Kalkowski. Uh, 1128

40:52Lincoln Mall, Suite 105. Uh, here today

40:55on behalf of Northwest 27th LLC. They

40:58own about 135 acres of this 146 acres

41:02included in the blight study.

41:04Um, obviously they fully support the

41:06blight designation and and have been um

41:09working to try to get that designation.

41:11Uh, they feel this is a really important

41:13step for being able to market the

41:15property for potential economic

41:18development opportunities. Um, as Dan

41:21mentioned, we understand that just

41:23getting the blight designation doesn't

41:24assure you of TIF. You have to have an a

41:27project that comes in and and meets the

41:29city's criteria uh for utilization of

41:32TIF, but I think we know um that in

41:36order to be competitive in in putting um

41:39things out for site selection using L

41:42PAD, it's very important that they be

41:44able to check the box that there is a

41:45blight designation so that there's at

41:47least a potential to come in and ask for

41:50TIF. So this first step is really really

41:52important um for doing that and and

41:55allowing the the maximum ability to

41:57market it for some of these economic

41:58development pro projects. So we

42:01obviously are fully supportive and I'd

42:03be happy to answer any questions you

42:05might have.

42:06>> All righty. Are there any questions from

42:07Council?

42:09Councilwoman Washington.

42:11>> Not a question, but uh Ms. Kalkowski,

42:13thank you for hanging with this project

42:15for a while. Uh, it's good to see it

42:17back on the docket.

42:18>> Thank you.

42:20>> Any other questions or comments from

42:21Council?

42:23All righty. Thank you.

42:26Is there anyone else who wishes to speak

42:27on this item?

42:30Anyone from the public who wishes to

42:32speak on item 5C?

42:34Seeing no one come forward, Madam Clerk,

42:36we may proceed.

42:38>> We'll call item 5D, approving the

42:39parking management agreement between the

42:41city of Lincoln and the Lincoln and the

42:43Lincoln Lancaster County Public Building

42:45Commission to provide parking management

42:47for the public building parking garage

42:49located at 10th and K Streets.

42:52>> Welcome. Good Good afternoon, Dan

42:53Marvin, Urban Development, 555 South

42:5610th Street. Um this is a uh

43:00this is a an agreement that handles

43:04how the

43:06uh parking garage that is just north of

43:08here that's under construction will be

43:10managed. Um Park and Go, which is under

43:14um the umbrella of Urban Development,

43:16Tony's here as well.

43:19They have done a great job at being

43:21stewards of other parking garages,

43:23namely the Joint Public Agency. So the

43:26Joint Public Agency um when we started

43:29this really never had any employees and

43:32to this date I don't think that it has

43:34any employees. So it it isn't capable

43:36really of hiring a parking manager. So

43:39the city lends its um skills in parking

43:43management to be able to run the garages

43:46that are south of Pinnacle Bank Arena.

43:49And the agreement that uh is structured

43:51in that way is generally within business

43:55you're going to have direct costs and

43:56you're going to have indirect costs. So

43:58a direct cost would be um an elevator

44:01within that building fails and needs to

44:04be replaced. That's a direct cost that's

44:06specific to that particular uh building.

44:10If there's lights that are failing or

44:11there's you know somebody crashes

44:13through the gate, those are things that

44:15are direct costs of that building. And

44:18then there's regular maintenance

44:20elements too, sealants and other things

44:22that are part of that parking garage

44:24management. Those are direct costs and

44:27the building has to cover that. And then

44:29there are indirect costs. They're the

44:31costs of Park and Go being able to

44:34provide that. And this agreement defines

44:36what those indirect costs are and how

44:39they're allocated. They're allocated

44:41through the number of stalls that are

44:43out there in the parking garage world

44:46and this would be a piece of that. And

44:48so then this parking garage would cover

44:51those aspects of uh indirect costs,

44:55general of the administrative costs.

44:57That's been a um a good model that we've

45:00used. It rewards the joint public agency

45:03with revenue that are is used for debt

45:06service or other costs associated with

45:09those parking garages. And it's also um

45:13for this agreement with uh the Public

45:15Billing Commission, it's a way of

45:16providing uh revenue for the Public

45:20Billing Commission. They're not hiring

45:22people to do that. They're using uh

45:24piggy backing on the services of Park

45:27and Go.

45:28Um we had had in the past an agreement

45:31with Public Billing Commission of a

45:3350/50 cost sharing. This will be more

45:36lucrative for um Park and Go, or I mean

45:39for um the Public Billing Commission.

45:42And so this I think is a good fair uh

45:45arrangement. We're happy to be able to

45:47um

45:48push this put this forward to you.

45:51>> All righty. Thank you, Director. Are

45:53there any questions from Council for

45:54Director Marvin?

45:56>> It's been kind of Dan Marvin day.

45:57>> Council, yeah.

45:58[laughter] Not a bad day.

46:00>> After after this I I won't be uh

46:02if you're tired of me you're

46:04>> Any other comments or questions for

46:06Director Marvin?

46:08All righty. Thank you.

46:11Is there anyone else who would like to

46:13speak on this item? If so, please come

46:15forward now.

46:18Is there anyone from the public who

46:20wishes to speak on item 5D? If so,

46:23please come forward now.

46:25Seeing no one come forward, Madam Clerk,

46:27we may proceed.

46:28>> We can now vote on these items. I'll

46:30call item 5A, approving the qualified

46:32transportation plan which allows city

46:34employees to use pretax dollars to pay

46:36for eligible community and parking

46:37expenses, introduced by Carlson.

46:39>> So moved.

46:40>> Second.

46:41>> Second by Becky. Yes. Discussion?

46:44Seeing no discussion, Madam Clerk,

46:46please call the roll.

46:48>> Duden?

46:48>> Yes.

46:49>> Washington? Yes. Carlson?

46:51>> Yes.

46:51>> Bowers?

46:52>> Yes.

46:52>> Shobe?

46:53>> Yes.

46:53>> Beckius?

46:54>> Yes.

46:55>> Weber?

46:55>> Yes.

46:56>> Motion carried

46:56>> 7-0.

46:58Item 5 B is miscellaneous 2600 8

47:01application of Urban Development to

47:02declare the Azalea Land Redevelopment

47:04area generally located at 3701 Prescott

47:06Avenue blighted and substandard.

47:08Introduced by Carlson.

47:10>> So moved.

47:10>> Second.

47:12>> Seconded by Beckius. Discussion.

47:15Seeing no discussion, Madam Clerk,

47:17please call the roll.

47:18>> Carlson.

47:19>> Yes.

47:19>> Bowers.

47:20>> Yes.

47:20>> Washington.

47:21>> Yes.

47:21>> Duden.

47:22>> Yes.

47:22>> Shobe.

47:23>> Yes.

47:23>> Beckius.

47:24>> Yes.

47:25>> Webber.

47:25>> Yes.

47:26>> Motion carried 7-0. Item 5 C is

47:28miscellaneous 2601 0 application of the

47:31Director of Urban Development to declare

47:32the area generally bounded by Northwest

47:3527th Street and Highway 34 blighted and

47:37substandard. Introduced by Carlson.

47:39>> So moved.

47:40>> Second.

47:40>> Second by Beckius. Discussion.

47:44I'll recognize myself just briefly. Um

47:48you know when originally we took action

47:51on the comprehensive plan uh for this

47:54area I was I was critical of uh

47:57industrial investment. Uh but that was

48:00you know a decision the council took to

48:03um make the action that we're taking

48:05today consistent with the comprehensive

48:08plan. And I think voting yes uh on this

48:11item is appropriate because it's

48:13compatible with the consistent plan. And

48:15I also think that um you know whether

48:18there's the ideology that this area is

48:20better suited for residential or if it

48:22is better suited for industrial use that

48:25brings in jobs through uh a

48:27manufacturing business, I think at the

48:30very least making it this designation to

48:33include it in the inventory uh as as

48:37potential uh qualifying projects makes a

48:39lot of sense um regardless of of your

48:42stance on this. And I think that uh you

48:45know I appreciate Director Marvin noting

48:47that it doesn't prequalify necessarily

48:49any project from utilizing tax increment

48:52financing. But I think that this is an

48:54opportunity that should be made uh

48:56available to those who are seeking to

48:59invest in Lincoln. I think that uh

49:01voting yes on this will just continue

49:03future conversations about what's best

49:06for this area of land and I'll be voting

49:10yes. If there's no other councilman

49:12Duden.

49:13>> I'll say one thing and I don't think

49:14this area is actually really

49:16[clears throat] suitable for residential

49:19to begin with. You're going to have

49:22planes and jets flying

49:24kind of a glide path right there for the

49:26airport. So an industrial designation is

49:29definitely a much better suitable

49:31situation.

49:35>> Any other discussion from council?

49:38All righty, madam clerk, please call the

49:40roll.

49:41>> Powers.

49:42>> Yes.

49:43>> Washington.

49:44>> Yes.

49:45>> Schobe.

49:46>> Yes.

49:46>> Duden.

49:47>> Yes.

49:47>> Beckius.

49:48>> Yes.

49:49>> Carlson.

49:49>> Yes.

49:50>> Weber.

49:50>> Yes.

49:51>> Motion carried 7-0.

49:57We'll call item

49:595 D approving the parking management

50:02agreement between

50:04the city of Lincoln and the Lincoln and

50:06the Lincoln Lancaster County Public

50:08Building Commission to provide parking

50:09management for the public building

50:11parking garage located at 10th and K

50:13Streets. Introduced by Carlson.

50:16>> So moved.

50:17>> Second.

50:17>> Second by Beckius. Discussion.

50:19Councilman Beckius.

50:20>> Just want to say a quick thanks to Tony

50:22and his team

50:23for the management that you provide

50:27you know all across the city including

50:29JPA

50:30ground and now Public Building

50:31Commission parking garage as well. You

50:33guys do a great job and so I know we're

50:35in good hands but just wanted to

50:36publicly acknowledge you and say thank

50:38you. Really appreciate it.

50:40Thank you, Chuck.

50:41>> Any other

50:43comments from council?

50:46Seeing no further discussion, madam

50:48clerk, please call the roll.

50:50>> Beckius.

50:51>> Yes.

50:51>> Schobe.

50:52>> Yes.

50:53>> Duden.

50:53>> Yes.

50:54>> Washington.

50:54>> Yes.

50:55>> Carlson.

50:56>> Yes.

50:56>> Powers.

50:57>> Yes.

50:57>> Weber.

50:58>> Yes.

50:58>> Motion carried 7-0.

51:02That concludes section 5 of the agenda.

51:04We'll move on to section six, public

51:06hearing, ordinances, second reading, and

51:07related resolutions. I'll call item six

51:10A.

51:11Item six A is amending the pay schedule

51:12for the employee group whose

51:13classifications are assigned to the pay

51:15range prefix by the letter M by creating

51:17the classification 3152 crime analysis

51:20unit head.

51:21>> All righty, welcome back.

51:23>> Good afternoon again, John Thober, human

51:24resources, 555 South 10th Street.

51:27Uh so this new classification

51:28encompasses a high level of expertise

51:30and oversight of the crime analysis unit

51:32within the Lincoln Police Department.

51:34The uh work in this area has just

51:36evolved over time and the new

51:38classification is just an updated better

51:39reflection of the the work being

51:41performed.

51:42Uh this will not uh create a new FTE. It

51:44will be um an existing one being

51:46reclassified, reallocated. Um there is a

51:50cost [snorts] to the department of a

51:51just over $8,000 which um finance has

51:54verified their budget can absorb.

51:57>> All righty, thank you. Any questions

51:59from council?

52:00Thank you.

52:02Is there anyone from the public who

52:03wishes to speak on this item, item six

52:06A? If so, please come forward now.

52:09Seeing no one from the public come

52:11forward, madam clerk, we may proceed.

52:15>> I'll call item six B, amending the pay

52:17schedule for the employee group whose

52:18classifications are assigned to the pay

52:20range prefix by the letter A by creating

52:22the classification 3674 public health

52:25laboratory technolo- technologist.

52:30>> I'll call

52:30>> Good again, John Thober, human

52:32resources, 555 South 10th Street.

52:34Uh so this is a

52:36well, we're recreating a classification.

52:38It was deleted back in 2024.

52:41Um however, the health department has

52:43identified a um you know kind of a

52:46couple needs I know operationally, uh

52:47but um the primary reason for this is

52:50there are

52:52um federal and state uh lab licensing

52:55requirements and standards are currently

52:57being um contracted through third-party

53:01vendors to meet this requirement. And by

53:03creating recreating this classification,

53:05we're able to have someone

53:07uh who satisfies that with just their um

53:09the educational background requirements

53:12uh for that. So

53:14uh again, there will not be any new FTEs

53:16with us. Uh an existing position will be

53:18uh reclassified. Uh so there's an

53:20estimated cost associated with that of

53:22just over $7,000.

53:24Um however, that will be more than

53:25offset by the savings in the the third

53:28party contracting uh by over 13,000. So

53:31they're going to

53:33it'll be a cost savings um when this is

53:34all set and done for the department.

53:37>> All right. Thank you.

53:39Any questions from council?

53:41Thank you. Is there anyone from the

53:43public who wishes to speak on this item,

53:45item 6B? If so, please come forward now.

53:49Seeing no one else come forward, Madam

53:51Clerk, we may proceed.

53:53>> I'll call item 6C, amending the pay

53:55schedule for the employee group whose

53:56classifications are assigned to the pay

53:58range prefix by the letter N by creating

54:00the classification 5231 transportation

54:03equipment operator three.

54:06>> John Thober, Human Resources, 555 South

54:0810th Street. Uh another request to

54:10create a new classification. Uh this was

54:13part of the page negotiations discussed

54:15with the and approved

54:17uh by the union. Uh so this new

54:19classification

54:20um will serve as a crew lead um in our

54:23transportation area of of Lincoln

54:24Transportation Utilities in addition to

54:27obviously performing just the

54:29um the their their street and and

54:30transportation work that they do similar

54:32to our other transportation equipment

54:34operators. So uh this structure also

54:37aligns with um other areas of of of LTU,

54:41like in particular with the utility

54:43area, we've got the same structure with

54:45a um

54:46equipment operator three uh that also

54:48[clears throat] serves as a a crew lead.

54:51>> Awesome.

54:51All righty. Any questions from council?

54:55Thank you.

54:57Is there anyone from the public who

54:58wishes to speak on this item? If so,

55:00please come forward now.

55:03Seeing no one come forward, we may

55:05proceed.

55:06>> I'll call item 6D,

55:08>> amending the pay schedule for employee

55:09group whose classifications are assigned

55:11to the pay range which is prefixed by N

55:13by changing the pay range of the

55:14following classifications. 5229

55:17transportation equipment operator one

55:19from an N13 to N15 and 5230

55:22transportation equipment operator two

55:23from N16 to N17.

55:26>> Welcome.

55:27>> Jonathan over Human Resources 555 South

55:2910th Street. I think this is my last

55:30item and then you can be done with me.

55:33So again, we're revising these two

55:35existing classifications. Again, this

55:37was part of the page negotiation process

55:39as well.

55:40Again, just better reflects the work

55:43that those classifications are

55:45performing. And we currently have

55:47transportation laborers.

55:50We will eventually delete that

55:51classification and we will utilize the

55:53transportation equipment operator one is

55:55more of our entry level

55:57position classification in this area as

55:59well.

56:00So again, this also just as I mentioned

56:03aligns with our other areas of LT with

56:05the structure

56:06similar to what we've done on the

56:07utility side.

56:09>> All righty. Thank you. Any questions

56:11from council? Councilwoman Washington.

56:14>> Um thank you for coming

56:16back four times.

56:17>> My pleasure.

56:18>> Will there be any new FTEs added because

56:21of this?

56:21>> Not because of this. I know there are

56:23new FTEs just within the LTU budget, but

56:25not as a result of this. And and fair

56:27question too with the so for instance

56:29going back to our

56:31transportation equipment operator

56:32threes,

56:33there will be internal

56:35postings for that and the folks that are

56:37selected to move into those. Again, we

56:39will be reclassifying those so it won't

56:41add any

56:43new FTEs just through the movement, but

56:44this whole structure really just kind of

56:46helps build into more of a progression

56:49within the the transportation area, but

56:51it's it's not directly adding any FTEs

56:53result of the restructure.

56:54>> Thank you.

56:56>> Any other questions from council?

56:58All righty, thank you.

57:00Is there anyone from the public who

57:02wishes to speak on this item? If so,

57:04please come forward now.

57:07Seeing no one else from the public come

57:08forward? Madam Clerk, we may proceed.

57:11>> [clears throat]

57:14>> I'll call item six E, street name change

57:1626001, application of planning and

57:19development services to rename a portion

57:21of 89th Street to Bay Hill Drive between

57:24High Mark Lane on the north and New Mark

57:26Lane on the south.

57:27>> Welcome, director.

57:29>> Good afternoon. David Carrier, director

57:30of the Planning and Development Services

57:31Department, 555 South 10th Street.

57:34Uh what I have before you for your

57:35consideration is a street name change

57:37that has come from our

57:39uh recommended approval from my street

57:41naming committee. Um these types of

57:43items just for clarity do not go to the

57:44planning commission. That's why it's

57:45coming straight to the city council for

57:47your consideration.

57:48Um

57:49the proposal before you today is to

57:51rename a portion of 89th Street to Bay

57:53Hill Drive.

57:54Um this is the stretch of 89th Street

57:57that is

57:58uh being recommended to change to Bay

58:00Hill Drive. Um it is between High Mark

58:03Lane and New Mark Lane.

58:05Um what has happened out in this area is

58:08that

58:09um the 8900 uh

58:11na uh numbering

58:13um was used for these four lots in Green

58:17um because the 8800 had been expired.

58:20And so um because of that um there is

58:23some concern from um uh public safety

58:27folks,

58:28uh specifically Lincoln Fire and Rescue,

58:30that there might be some confusion on um

58:33fire and and medical calls um that some

58:37of these um units um would be considered

58:41in the wrong place when they're trying

58:42to find it as fast as possible. So

58:44what we have here is we have four

58:46unbuilt lots and then three built lots

58:49that are affected by this proposed

58:51change. We have been in touch with the

58:53three existing property owners. Um a

58:56general consensus was was reached that

58:58this was unacceptable.

59:00Um there might be someone here to still

59:01speak on that. I'm not certain of that.

59:04Um but um we have been in con contact

59:06with them and generally speaking through

59:08the process it was acceptable to make

59:10the change. Um and moving forward uh we

59:13would have more clarity on the response

59:16of our emergency services uh for this

59:18change. So with that I can answer any

59:20questions that you might have.

59:22>> Already any questions for Director

59:23Carey? Councilwoman Washington.

59:26>> Uh thank you Director. Um I know we

59:27don't do street change name changes very

59:30often especially when there's already

59:32folks who live on that street. Um I

59:34noted in the report that their street

59:36number doesn't change. Their house

59:38number doesn't change but the the name

59:39of the street will change. Um what's the

59:43potential cost to any of the homeowners

59:46who already have built their houses?

59:49>> Um the main cost involved is there is

59:51some time and some

59:54fairly significant paperwork to get

59:56addresses changed for all you know any

59:58particular um

1:00:00you know

1:00:01paperwork that has to go through this.

1:00:03So um

1:00:04I don't have a cost estimate for that. I

1:00:07mean it certainly there is some time and

1:00:08some hassle that way so we acknowledge

1:00:10that.

1:00:11>> And in in that uh that cost and time is

1:00:14the homeowners.

1:00:15>> Correct.

1:00:15>> But they're aware that this is and they

1:00:17were in those discussions.

1:00:18>> They're definitely aware of that. Yeah.

1:00:20>> All right. It looks like there was a

1:00:21fourth house built. Is that house

1:00:24fronting on the other street?

1:00:25>> Yes.

1:00:26>> Okay. Thank you.

1:00:28>> Any other questions for Director Carey?

1:00:31Already. Thank you Director. Is there

1:00:33anyone from the public who wishes to

1:00:35speak on this item? If so please come

1:00:37forward now.

1:00:42Welcome.

1:00:44You can just choose a microphone and

1:00:45then start with your name and address

1:00:47and

1:00:48>> My name's Robert Beck and I am one of

1:00:50the homeowners of those three affected

1:00:53homes there.

1:00:54And it's true that the main cost is

1:00:57going to be

1:00:59telling everybody that needs to know

1:01:01that we have an address change

1:01:03from all the mail that we receive and so

1:01:05forth.

1:01:06Um

1:01:07my house is the only house that has a

1:01:11plaque in the rock

1:01:14that the street number and

1:01:18South 84th Street. And I requested that

1:01:21they cover the cost of replacing that

1:01:25part of my address because

1:01:29to no

1:01:31choice of my own that's what I have to

1:01:33do. And I was told that there is no

1:01:36provision

1:01:37or no

1:01:39current way that they could submit any

1:01:42kind of costs

1:01:44for reimbursement. And

1:01:46if that's possible, I would like to see

1:01:48that that

1:01:49is

1:01:51something that we could do. And thank

1:01:52you for asking that.

1:01:56>> All righty.

1:01:57Any questions from council for the test

1:01:59fire?

1:02:01Councilwoman Washington.

1:02:02>> Um, thank you Mr. Vack. What is the cost

1:02:05do you estimate of having the rock

1:02:09re chiseled?

1:02:11>> That's something that we really haven't

1:02:13checked out yet. But it's to remove one

1:02:17of the stones and have a

1:02:21a stone made to go in there. I'm

1:02:23guessing several hundred dollars.

1:02:25>> Yeah.

1:02:26Thank you.

1:02:28>> All righty. Thank you.

1:02:32Is there anyone else from the public who

1:02:34wishes to speak on this item? If so,

1:02:36please come forward now.

1:02:37>> I got a question for Director

1:02:38>> Yeah, Councilman Doody, you're

1:02:39recognized. He has a question for

1:02:41Director Carey.

1:02:42>> I'm not sure why we're doing this.

1:02:43>> wait till Director Carey gets up here.

1:02:52Councilman Doody.

1:02:52>> Yeah. Could you explain why we're doing

1:02:54this?

1:02:56>> It it is it is mainly for the it was

1:02:58identified as a concern for EMS

1:03:01response.

1:03:04And it's and the the the the naming was

1:03:06out of order

1:03:08for the way that the other other

1:03:11um

1:03:12properties were addressed.

1:03:15And so there's a there's a

1:03:17concern that there is confusion out

1:03:18there or would be confusion on a

1:03:19response.

1:03:23>> Councilman Bachyrycz.

1:03:25>> I I I just I don't quite follow that at

1:03:28all. I don't see how that would be a

1:03:30concern

1:03:32technology that we have now.

1:03:36>> We'll recognize Councilman Bachyrycz and

1:03:37then we can come back to Councilman

1:03:39Dudden if there's any follow-ups.

1:03:41Councilman Bachyrycz.

1:03:42>> Thank you, Chair.

1:03:43Uh

1:03:44Director Carry, I understand that

1:03:45there's not a mechanism that the City of

1:03:46Lincoln can do to

1:03:49um to work through this particular

1:03:51issue, but I was curious as

1:03:55uh I remember this

1:03:57redevelopment opportunity very vividly

1:04:01when it came through to plat these new

1:04:04lots.

1:04:05Um has anyone do you know to your

1:04:07knowledge reached out to Mr. Gergen

1:04:10um or the developer about the address

1:04:12plaque issue?

1:04:16>> I do not have that answer. I can find

1:04:18out though.

1:04:20>> Councilwoman Washington and then we can

1:04:22come back to Councilman Dudden if

1:04:23there's a follow-up.

1:04:24>> Um my memory is not um accurate on this,

1:04:28um but I do remember the conversation in

1:04:31another place where we did do a street

1:04:34name change and there were a number of

1:04:36homeowners who had those engraved stone

1:04:39plaques on their homes and I

1:04:42I was just curious if the decision was

1:04:44different there

1:04:46or if it was the developer who stepped

1:04:48in.

1:04:49>> Again, I can't 100% answer that, but I'm

1:04:52confident that it was on the private

1:04:54sector side of it, but again, we can I

1:04:56can look into that more directly.

1:04:59>> [clears throat]

1:05:00>> Any other questions, Councilman Dudden?

1:05:02>> Can can you tell me has there been an

1:05:04emergency call for service there that

1:05:06they had problems with?

1:05:08>> I can't answer that that there was

1:05:10actual problem for a response, but it

1:05:12was brought up by LFR that this was

1:05:14certainly a concern with the way the

1:05:16numbering was done.

1:05:20Any other

1:05:22is is good? Any other questions from

1:05:24council?

1:05:25All ready.

1:05:26>> Thank you.

1:05:27>> Thank you.

1:05:29I called for to see if there was anyone

1:05:31else from the public who wanted to speak

1:05:32on this item, but just real quickly,

1:05:34anyone else who wishes to speak on this

1:05:36item?

1:05:37Seeing no one else come forward, Madam

1:05:38Clerk, we may proceed.

1:05:41>> I'll call

1:05:42Excuse me. I'll call item 6F, text

1:05:45amendment 26012 request of upsilon 5

1:05:47capital to amend Lincoln municipal code

1:05:50section 27.72 .060 to allow an open

1:05:54unenclosed porch within a corner front

1:05:56yard no closer than 10 ft from the

1:05:58street line.

1:06:00>> All ready. Is there anyone here to

1:06:02present on this item?

1:06:05Welcome. You can just start with your

1:06:07name and address and go from there.

1:06:09>> Uh no, Chestnut 1201 West Avon Lane.

1:06:12Um first of all, good morning or good

1:06:13afternoon actually.

1:06:15>> [laughter]

1:06:16>> With the time change you got. Um but

1:06:18yeah, so we do request the tax amendment

1:06:20to

1:06:22the current Lincoln municipal code.

1:06:25Right now as it stands,

1:06:27there is not allowed to be a porch in a

1:06:28corner front yard setback.

1:06:31This was actually brought up to us from

1:06:33planning as a suggestion to make this

1:06:36change to the municipal code. It would

1:06:38allow

1:06:39I guess versatility for a lot of their

1:06:42projects they've had actually had this

1:06:43come up with. It would save them time,

1:06:46save us time.

1:06:47It doesn't necessarily affect anybody

1:06:50negatively.

1:06:51In actuality, what it does is it just

1:06:54makes it the same as a front yard or a

1:06:56side yard. Keep in mind this is for a

1:06:59open porch. This is not for a closed

1:07:01porch.

1:07:02This does not affect how close the

1:07:06actual building can be to the setback or

1:07:09to the property line.

1:07:10So it's pretty simple,

1:07:12but I would be open to any questions.

1:07:15>> Any questions from council?

1:07:17All ready. Thank you.

1:07:19>> Thank you.

1:07:20>> Is Is anyone from the public who wishes

1:07:22to speak on this item, item 6 F? If so,

1:07:25please come forward now.

1:07:28Seeing no one from the public come

1:07:29forward, Madam Clerk, we may proceed.

1:07:32>> Recall item 6 G, change of zone 05068 J,

1:07:36application of Krueger Development

1:07:38Company to amend the revised

1:07:40the layout of Block 3 of the Woodlands

1:07:42at Yankee Hill PUD, generally located at

1:07:45Mojave Drive and Nicole Lane to add a

1:07:47commercial use and an additional 24

1:07:49multi-family dwelling units and remove a

1:07:51pedestrian way between Nicole Lane and

1:07:53Yankee Hill Road.

1:07:56>> Alrighty. Is there anyone here to

1:07:57present on this item?

1:08:01>> Christina will come up.

1:08:09>> Welcome. And you can just start with

1:08:11your name and address and then tell us a

1:08:12little bit about your application.

1:08:13>> Sure. Christina Malgoza from Krueger

1:08:15Development, 8501 South 78th Street in

1:08:18Lincoln, 6835 No, 68516. Sorry, there's

1:08:21a lot of zip codes that I go by.

1:08:24Okay. So I think pretty straightforward.

1:08:26Um this is a PUD amendment bringing

1:08:29together a couple of different aspects.

1:08:32One of them is a pedestrian easement

1:08:34that heads out from Nicole Lane to

1:08:36Yankee Hill Road, which we worked with

1:08:39the planning department to determine

1:08:40because of the steep grade there and the

1:08:42pretty low dug utilities that would

1:08:44would be better not to try to install

1:08:47that sidewalk. Um this might be where

1:08:49this overhead is

1:08:51helpful.

1:08:57>> Oh gosh.

1:08:59It'll happen.

1:09:06>> So right now on this aerial view, you

1:09:09still see kind of an acreage right here

1:09:11that has been developed into two

1:09:13different duplexes and that pedestrian

1:09:15[clears throat] easement was supposed to

1:09:16go through the two of those, kind of

1:09:17where that old driveway is at. Um and

1:09:20the planning department helped us

1:09:21determine that with the length from that

1:09:23address out to 78th Street and Yankee

1:09:26Hill That that access was close enough

1:09:28to not need the addition of pedestrian

1:09:29easement.

1:09:31Uh the second part of the application is

1:09:34to revise the layout of approximately

1:09:37Mohave and Nicole Lane,

1:09:40which is this space right there. I'll

1:09:43pull up this visual.

1:09:49Okay.

1:09:50Um so here we have Mohave and here we

1:09:52have Nicole. And as you can see from

1:09:54this visual, we have an apartment

1:09:56building here to the south. We have a

1:09:58commercial building to the north.

1:10:00Originally, the layout was with the

1:10:01apartment to the north and a row of

1:10:04townhouses to the south.

1:10:07Um and just

1:10:08with the change of time and over the

1:10:10years and our commercial development

1:10:12that has been successful here to the

1:10:14north, we thought it made more sense and

1:10:16better utilized the ground

1:10:18to add this layout. So the commercial

1:10:21building is what's prompting the change

1:10:22of zone as the apartment was technically

1:10:25already allowed. Um but in this spot we

1:10:27are able to add a few more units to what

1:10:29we had planned originally. And so I know

1:10:31that is noted in the application for you

1:10:33as well.

1:10:35I think I can throw up some pictures if

1:10:37you want to see the proposed kind of

1:10:40rendering of what that apartment might

1:10:41look like.

1:10:44Just visually.

1:10:46Um

1:10:47there is already seven apartments over

1:10:49to the west of this project as well. So

1:10:52again, fitting in with what's already

1:10:53being developed there. And this is kind

1:10:56of the facade of what our commercial

1:10:57buildings look like there. Our crew

1:10:59development office is there as well if

1:11:00you've different buy on Yankee Hill and

1:11:0178th and seeing all of those going up.

1:11:04I also have Noah who was just up here

1:11:06from uh Riga to help as well if you have

1:11:08any technical questions.

1:11:10>> All righty.

1:11:11Are there any questions from council for

1:11:12the applicant?

1:11:15All righty. Thank you so much.

1:11:18Is there anyone from the public who

1:11:20wishes to speak on this item? If so,

1:11:22please come forward now.

1:11:26Seeing no one from the public come

1:11:28Madam Clerk, we may proceed.

1:11:30>> I'll call items 6 H, I, and J together.

1:11:35Items 6 H through J is adopting Lincoln

1:11:38Electric System annual budget for 2027

1:11:41to become effective January 1st, 2027,

1:11:44the related Lincoln Electric System rate

1:11:46schedules to become effective January

1:11:481st, 2027, and the related authorization

1:11:52the issuance of Lincoln Electric System

1:11:54revenue and refunding bonds in an amount

1:11:56not to exceed $500 million.

1:11:58>> Welcome. You can just start with your

1:12:00name and address and then tell us a

1:12:01little bit about the action before us

1:12:03today or the items.

1:12:05>> uh Emily Koenig, uh CFO for Lincoln

1:12:06Electric System, uh 9445 Rokeby Road.

1:12:10Um

1:12:11so we're going to go over um

1:12:13mentioned several items here uh kicking

1:12:16off with uh the budget and rates

1:12:17proposal for 2027.

1:12:20Um we're also going to talk about our

1:12:21long-range financial planning, which is

1:12:24part of the reason why we're seeking a

1:12:25rate increase this year to show a little

1:12:27bit of visibility into what's coming for

1:12:29LES. Um look at the actual rates that

1:12:31we're proposing and the relationship to

1:12:33the cost to serve customers and then

1:12:35talk about our financing authorization.

1:12:37So our budget authorization for 2027

1:12:41that we're seeking is $795.3

1:12:43million. That's increased $86 million as

1:12:46compared to last year's authorization.

1:12:48Uh that's equally split between the

1:12:50operating and capital portions of the

1:12:52budget. Um just as a reminder, our

1:12:54capital budget

1:12:56is uh authorized for projects that will

1:12:58be undertaken in the next two years, but

1:13:00that is not the cash flow for 2027. Um

1:13:03that's a lesser number, which I'll share

1:13:05on a future slide.

1:13:08Our operating budget is $369.6

1:13:11million.

1:13:13Um

1:13:13this visualization shows the components

1:13:16of the operating budget.

1:13:18Uh like to highlight that the power

1:13:19costs, transmission, and depreciation

1:13:22portions of the budget are about 69% of

1:13:25that pie, and it is difficult for us to

1:13:28change those costs year over year. That

1:13:30power cost amount is essentially getting

1:13:32power to serve our customers. The

1:13:35remaining portions of the budget are

1:13:37payroll and benefits at 21 percent and

1:13:39all the other activities of the utility

1:13:41for day-to-day operations is at 10

1:13:43percent.

1:13:46Power cost, that large portion that I

1:13:48showed, net power cost, the orange bar

1:13:51is the 2026 budget and the dark blue bar

1:13:53here is the 2027 proposed budget. The

1:13:56major factors that are causing this to

1:13:58be 28.8 million greater than the 26

1:14:022026 budget is related to SPP market

1:14:05purchases or Southwest Power Pool market

1:14:07purchases to serve additional load

1:14:09primarily driven by our commercial

1:14:10class.

1:14:12So that class will pay the costs that

1:14:15are incurred for the utility through

1:14:16their rates.

1:14:19Operations and maintenance and

1:14:20administrative and general costs, sort

1:14:22of all the other activities day-to-day

1:14:24of the utility. Again the same format

1:14:26for this chart. The 2026 budget is shown

1:14:29in orange and 2027 proposal in dark blue

1:14:31there. It is up 12.4 million.

1:14:35The most impactful amount here is our

1:14:37transmission expenditures. Those are

1:14:39payments to Southwest Power Pool for

1:14:41expansion and improvements of the

1:14:43transmission system that serves the

1:14:45entire regional footprint.

1:14:47And then some other lesser increases

1:14:49that are more routine in nature

1:14:52are shown on this slide.

1:14:54Other things that are included in our

1:14:56operating budget include the sustainable

1:14:58energy program which we've done for many

1:15:00years since 2009 I believe.

1:15:02That is budgeted at 2.2 million as it

1:15:05was in 2026.

1:15:07We may see changes to that in the future

1:15:08as we're currently undergoing a study of

1:15:10that program with a third-party

1:15:12consultant.

1:15:13We also have our energy assistance

1:15:15program which is outlined in a LAS

1:15:17resolution from the early 2000s and as

1:15:19rates increase and customer counts

1:15:21increase that number increases a bit so

1:15:23it's at 441,000.

1:15:28Our capital budget is

1:15:30or the authorization we're seeking is

1:15:32425.7 million. As I mentioned

1:15:34previously, we only expect to spend

1:15:36165.3 million in 2027. Uh the chart on

1:15:40the left hand side there shows the spend

1:15:43out of those projects that are requested

1:15:45for authorization over time. We've

1:15:47highlighted the Terry Bundy generating

1:15:49station additions as that is a major

1:15:51project for LES

1:15:52and kind of overshadow some of the other

1:15:54expenditures

1:15:55that you see there.

1:15:57The 2027 capital cash flow shows what we

1:16:00expect to spend in 2027.

1:16:03Routine for LES of kind of just keeping

1:16:06things going and maintaining our assets

1:16:08is about 75 to 80 million.

1:16:10And so the increase over that for 2027

1:16:12that expenditures is really related to

1:16:15the Terry Bundy

1:16:16additions

1:16:18that we brought you last year that are

1:16:19for meeting our resource adequacy

1:16:21requirements in the Southwest Power

1:16:22Pool.

1:16:24That brings us to a rate adjustment

1:16:25recommendation of six or six excuse me

1:16:283.5 want to be really clear there 3.5

1:16:32percent for our base retail system.

1:16:36That is within our target that we

1:16:37identified last year of 3 to 5% annually

1:16:41and it is helping us meet future

1:16:43expenses that are coming our way related

1:16:45to transmission expenditures.

1:16:49So to touch a little bit on the future

1:16:51we do have updated costs for our Terry

1:16:53Bundy generating station project. Last

1:16:55year when we were here talking to you

1:16:57that was budgeted about 180 million.

1:17:00It's looking to be closer to two 230

1:17:02million at this point. That's related to

1:17:04increased costs from the generators

1:17:05which is the major portion of that

1:17:07project tariffs that were not

1:17:09contemplated as part of the budget and

1:17:11as well

1:17:12contract for general construction

1:17:15vendor that is out for bid right now and

1:17:17we will know more about that in

1:17:18December, but we expect based on the

1:17:21engineering experts that we've been

1:17:22working with that that will be greater

1:17:24than what we had originally anticipated.

1:17:27We also have

1:17:28increased transmission expenses. I'm

1:17:30going to show a slide on that coming up

1:17:32and then we wanted to clarify there's no

1:17:34major costs in this budget for nuclear.

1:17:37Um, we are part of the Great Plains New

1:17:40Nuclear Consortium with NPPD, OPPD, and

1:17:42Grand River Dam Authority for siting of

1:17:44nuclear generation in Nebraska, but it's

1:17:46really early uh in that work, and so

1:17:49it's too early to include anything in

1:17:50our base case, but there are some

1:17:51expenditures in 2027 for engineering and

1:17:54and research associated with that.

1:17:57And we also don't have a potential new

1:17:58renewable energy addition contemplated

1:18:00in our base case. Uh, LES is currently

1:18:03evaluating a potential addition. Um, we

1:18:05had anticipated that that might be

1:18:07coming to the LES board right about this

1:18:09time, so as we were out in the

1:18:10community, we were sharing information

1:18:11about the potential rate impacts from

1:18:13that, but it's not included here because

1:18:15it's undetermined at this time whether

1:18:16we will be moving forward with that.

1:18:20Uh,

1:18:20so long-term forecast of capital

1:18:23expenditures is shown in the top there.

1:18:25We do have um significant infrastructure

1:18:28and capital expenditures that we're

1:18:30anticipating. As I mentioned, 75 to 80

1:18:33million is about normal for us, and so

1:18:35there are years that are above that. We

1:18:37have a major uh technology project that

1:18:40we need to upgrade our Enterprise

1:18:41Resource Planning software.

1:18:43Um, we have additional generation needs

1:18:45that will come in during this time

1:18:47frame, yet to be determined what those

1:18:48are, and then just capital projects that

1:18:50are existing generating units as well.

1:18:52And so uh we have 663 million of

1:18:56expenditures in the next 5 years. That

1:18:58compares to a 2021 number. If you looked

1:19:01out 5 years from that time frame, it

1:19:03would have been about 221 million. So

1:19:06this is a bit of a demonstration of the

1:19:09significant difference that we're seeing

1:19:10in our infrastructure needs for the

1:19:12utility um related to growth and also um

1:19:16kind of resiliency and uh reliability

1:19:19projects as well.

1:19:21In the bottom, transmission

1:19:22expenditures, those are those costs that

1:19:25are coming through via the Southwest

1:19:27Power Pool uh for increased transmission

1:19:29expense. A few years ago, this was an

1:19:31annual amount of 8 to 12 million

1:19:33dollars. We're seeing the potential for

1:19:35this to increase um close to 75 million

1:19:38dollars a year. Those costs cannot be

1:19:40borrowed for. Uh they are uh required to

1:19:43be collected through rates each year.

1:19:45And so those are significant costs that

1:19:47we see coming. And that is part of the

1:19:48proactive measure that we're taking by

1:19:50having uh rate increase this year not

1:19:52only to cover some additional costs that

1:19:54we see in '27 but to plan and have rate

1:19:57um stability going forward and not rate

1:20:00shock for our customers.

1:20:02Um but these are significant. We have a

1:20:05lot of representation on the Southwest

1:20:06Power Pool um voting committees as this

1:20:09work is being identified through that

1:20:11effort. And And so LAS is well

1:20:13represented for kind of the size that we

1:20:15are uh in the Southwest Power Pool

1:20:17footprint.

1:20:19Projected rate increases for the future

1:20:21years um that gray band there is our 3

1:20:23to 5% target that we identified last

1:20:25year. Um the blue bars show what we

1:20:28anticipated last year when we were here

1:20:29at this time. And we've seen a slight

1:20:31uptick in 2028 but generally um in '27

1:20:35as compared to what we saw last year but

1:20:37um still within that 3 to 5% guidance

1:20:39range.

1:20:41So as far as the proposed rates um just

1:20:44to clarify a term that I used earlier

1:20:46and didn't define but the um base retail

1:20:48system is um all customers except for

1:20:50anyone that's on a market energy rate.

1:20:52Uh those rates are developed uh with

1:20:55contractual agreements with those

1:20:56customers. So we've um kind of carved

1:20:58that out and it's uh they have a more

1:21:00unique arrangement. And so the base

1:21:02retail system is related to all of the

1:21:04other customer classes, residential,

1:21:06business, larger business

1:21:07um

1:21:09so forth. When we set rates, we have the

1:21:11objectives of uh revenue sufficiency for

1:21:14the utility, uh revenue stability,

1:21:16making sure that we can pay bills when

1:21:17they come in, uh wanting the rates to be

1:21:20cost based. And so those that cause the

1:21:22costs to to be incurred will be the ones

1:21:24that pay for them, um defensible, and

1:21:27then also easy to administer and

1:21:28hopefully easy

1:21:30uh to understand for our customers.

1:21:32So moving into the actual rate increases

1:21:34by class, uh you'll see at the bottom

1:21:36there of that table the base retail

1:21:38system is 3 and 1/2 but there are a

1:21:39variety of rate for different customer

1:21:41classes based on the cost to serve them.

1:21:44We target 95 to 105% cost of service.

1:21:48Um, that's why we have a slight slight

1:21:51increase to the residential one to get

1:21:53them within that band. Um, you'll also

1:21:55see heating service is uh notable there

1:21:57at 10%, but they're only 81% cost of

1:22:00service. We've closed that class to new

1:22:02customers. We're moving customers off of

1:22:04that. We've been in close communication

1:22:05with them, and so this is not a surprise

1:22:07for those customers to see a more

1:22:08significant

1:22:09uh rate increase.

1:22:12Uh, because most of our customers are

1:22:14residential, we're highlighting here the

1:22:16changes to residential bills. That's

1:22:17about 130,000 of our 160,000 customers.

1:22:21Uh, the facilities level charges are the

1:22:24ones that collect for transmission

1:22:25expenditures, and they are fixed monthly

1:22:28on a residential bill. And so based on

1:22:30the level that a customer is in, um

1:22:32which is identified um via their average

1:22:3512 months monthly usage, um

1:22:39they will see different uh varying

1:22:41increases here of $3.25

1:22:43per month up to $10.15 per month.

1:22:48Uh,

1:22:49we like to highlight LAS rates versus

1:22:51inflation. So back since 1990, you can

1:22:54see in that chart on the right-hand side

1:22:56there, uh the black is the consumer

1:22:58price index and orange is LAS rates. And

1:23:01we continue to lag that. This year's

1:23:03rate increase is right aligned with CPI,

1:23:06which was at 3.4% when we determined

1:23:08this proposed rate increase of three and

1:23:09a half. So um this year's a little bit

1:23:11different, but um overall we are

1:23:13trending lower than inflation.

1:23:15We also included some statistics there

1:23:18from our competitive market study. We

1:23:20are eighth out of 87 cities for

1:23:22residential affordability. So that's

1:23:23just price per kilowatt hour. Um, 13th

1:23:26out of 87 cities for residential bill as

1:23:28a percentage of household income. That's

1:23:30a really important metric for us. Um,

1:23:32the rating agencies look at that as well

1:23:34as um far as the affordability in your

1:23:36community and then also being able to

1:23:38get rate increases approved when you

1:23:39need to uh for costs that are um coming.

1:23:42And then fourth out of 87 cities for

1:23:45price stability, um recognizing that our

1:23:47price our rates are very stable and

1:23:49business customers and residential

1:23:50customers can know what to expect when

1:23:52they locate in our community.

1:23:56We've used a variety of efforts to get

1:23:57the message out um more so this year

1:23:59than we have in the past actually. We've

1:24:01had two public meetings. We added the

1:24:03mayor's neighborhood round table all

1:24:05really good um meetings. We shared all

1:24:07of the feedback with the LAS board.

1:24:09There wasn't a lot. Most of it was

1:24:11neutral to positive.

1:24:12Um and so just continue to try and as a

1:24:15public power entity get the message out

1:24:17and and take that feedback back to our

1:24:18board.

1:24:20I'm going to skip over this

1:24:22slide that's in my presentation because

1:24:23this one is being held over for its

1:24:25public hearing on the 16th um related to

1:24:28our commercial paper program. So I'll be

1:24:29back to talk about that one. And then um

1:24:32we're also seeking an increase in

1:24:34addition to the budget and rates also an

1:24:36increase in our financing authority.

1:24:38Every other year we come and ask for an

1:24:40authorization up to 300 million. Uh this

1:24:43year we'd like to increase it to 500

1:24:45million just based on the capital

1:24:47expenditures we see coming, the

1:24:49refunding opportunities that we see may

1:24:51present themselves um where we can kind

1:24:53of refinance LAS's bonds for lower

1:24:56interest rates. We did a bit of that

1:24:57this past summer. Um that is one of the

1:25:00best opportunities that we have to save

1:25:02money for LAS customers is to reduce our

1:25:04debt expenditures.

1:25:06And so we just want to have the

1:25:07flexibility to um address our new money

1:25:09needs and the opportunity to um do

1:25:12refinancings when when it makes sense to

1:25:14do so.

1:25:16Okay so to just wrap it up um

1:25:19all four items are noted here. So um

1:25:21we've got the budget and rates uh

1:25:24adoption, the rate schedules, the 13

1:25:27series ordinance which is for the bond

1:25:28financing authorization of up to 500

1:25:31million. Just to be clear we don't

1:25:32expect to issue 500 million um during

1:25:35this time frame. There's no plans to do

1:25:36that immediately. Um and then I'll skip

1:25:39over the CP program one for now. So

1:25:40happy to take any questions you might

1:25:42have.

1:25:44>> All righty. Thank you. Um I think we'll

1:25:46have a few questions. Let's start with

1:25:48Councilman Becias.

1:25:50>> Uh, thank you, Chair Weber. Emily, thank

1:25:52you.

1:25:52>> Yep.

1:25:53>> Um,

1:25:55rising utility costs across the nation

1:25:58are important to everyone, but I think

1:25:59it's really notable that Lincoln remains

1:26:02eighth out of 87 cities in residential

1:26:05affordability.

1:26:06Kudos to LES for that mark. That's a

1:26:09that's a great mark. And that's

1:26:11something that I think that we need to

1:26:13make sure that we remember

1:26:15uh in our communities that rising energy

1:26:17costs is affecting everyone,

1:26:19but LES rates are still

1:26:22one of the best in the nation. Uh, and I

1:26:24appreciate all of the work you

1:26:26>> It's a team and the LES team

1:26:28>> do to make sure that electricity remains

1:26:31affordable in our community in

1:26:33comparison to our peers.

1:26:35So thank you very much for that. I also

1:26:37want to say thank you to the team. Uh,

1:26:40the um

1:26:43I would like to note that the

1:26:46service fees are unchanged for 2027.

1:26:50Uh, and some of those service fees

1:26:51disproportionately impact lower income

1:26:54folks. And I just want to thank you for

1:26:56trying to make those rates unchanged.

1:26:59Um, I think it's really important um

1:27:02when we talk about the grander scheme as

1:27:04to who these impacts of course will will

1:27:07uh who these rate increases will impact

1:27:08the most.

1:27:09Um, so I know that these are difficult

1:27:12conversations to have with community

1:27:14members, but I really appreciate LES's

1:27:17continued commitment to making sure that

1:27:19electricity remains as affordable as

1:27:21possible here in our community uh by

1:27:24making sure that we are

1:27:26um paying attention to the things that

1:27:28we can impact. Um, so not really a

1:27:31question, but a thanks and a reminder to

1:27:33folks that LES really still provides

1:27:36affordable electricity even though we

1:27:38are all

1:27:39painfully aware of the impact of utility

1:27:44cross and how costs across the nation

1:27:46and how they impact folks on an everyday

1:27:48basis. So,

1:27:49thank you.

1:27:50>> Thank you, Chair Weber.

1:27:51>> Are there any other questions from

1:27:53Council? Councilman Duden.

1:27:56>> I want to say I appreciate the fact that

1:27:58when we do lose power

1:28:02yes, it's setting a record as far as

1:28:05getting people took back up. I saw that

1:28:08comparison I think in your in your

1:28:10information

1:28:12that

1:28:13Lincoln's was 18 minutes I think without

1:28:15power compared to 118 minutes

1:28:19nationally.

1:28:20So, [clears throat]

1:28:22oh yes, that was good work.

1:28:23Thank you.

1:28:24>> Thank you.

1:28:25>> Any other questions from Council?

1:28:29I'll recognize myself briefly. I you

1:28:31know

1:28:32I do have some. So, after I ask

1:28:34questions if other Council members have

1:28:36questions

1:28:38I can recognize them. Again, thank you

1:28:40so much for coming down. Really

1:28:42appreciate it. Thank you to the entire

1:28:43LES leadership. I have great respect for

1:28:46the professionals that we have at LES. I

1:28:49do have a series of questions though

1:28:50since we haven't had a chance to connect

1:28:52before this.

1:28:54Number one, I just want to talk about

1:28:55inflation, right? And so the there was a

1:28:58claim that

1:29:00LES lags inflation and I'm trying to to

1:29:03understand that

1:29:05and I I understand if maybe it's a year

1:29:06over a year, but I'm looking at since

1:29:092023

1:29:10there's been

1:29:13and and I think I'm looking at

1:29:14residential rates here a 23.3%

1:29:18increase

1:29:20and I'm trying to get that I'm trying to

1:29:24wrestle that with the the inflation,

1:29:26right? So, I think about like

1:29:28since August of 2023 there's been 19.6%

1:29:33inflation

1:29:35in the Midwest using the the Midwest CPI

1:29:38for electricity. That would be a 3.7%

1:29:41increase

1:29:43a 10.3% increase in inflation

1:29:47for all items and a 17.7%

1:29:51increase in household energy, right? So

1:29:54either the the 23. 3% if we approve

1:29:58what's before us uh as it relates to

1:30:00residential rates, I mean that

1:30:03is still 3.7% above inflation since

1:30:062023. So I'm trying to understand

1:30:09how LES is lagging inflation.

1:30:12>> Yeah, so I would I I can't confirm all

1:30:14of the numbers that you just listed, so

1:30:16I'll um

1:30:17but I will say there was a period of

1:30:19time for about five years or so before

1:30:22that um

1:30:23time frame that you mentioned where we

1:30:24had 0% rate increases. And so I think

1:30:28looking back further is necessary in

1:30:30order to get the whole picture of the

1:30:31lagging inflation. It might not be true

1:30:33in the in the most recent sense of the

1:30:36um you know comparison, but generally

1:30:39over this time frame that we're sharing

1:30:41we have lagged inflation. So what that

1:30:43really may indicate too is we need to

1:30:46have some rate increases because we

1:30:48can't continue to do more with less and

1:30:50we need to catch up a bit.

1:30:53>> I think that you know

1:30:56utilizing inflation or you know the the

1:30:59inflation measured is really helpful in

1:31:01making decisions around rates. I

1:31:04completely agree. I think long term,

1:31:05right, looking at that 10-year picture

1:31:07is helpful, but also looking at the

1:31:09short-term picture too, right? I

1:31:11I think we're in an affordability crisis

1:31:13nationally and so um that that's why I

1:31:16asked that question because

1:31:19I'm trying to understand when we're

1:31:22talking about inflation with

1:31:25rate increases, how LES is measuring

1:31:28that. I know that it's the the consumer

1:31:30price index for uh

1:31:34the the CPIU.

1:31:35Um and I just am wondering out loud if

1:31:39that's the best measure and if we're

1:31:41making sure that that's tied to Midwest

1:31:44inflation versus you know nationally and

1:31:47and I I don't expect an answer, but I

1:31:49just think that when there's

1:31:52in the span of a three years,

1:31:54uh, four years, 23.3%

1:31:57you know,

1:31:59increase in residential rates, that's a

1:32:01conversation we have to be

1:32:03have to be having. And so I would like

1:32:05to continue to have that conversation as

1:32:06years progress.

1:32:09Um,

1:32:10but I think we can move on from

1:32:11inflation unless

1:32:13there was anything you wanted to add.

1:32:15>> Um,

1:32:18I think this comparison is a result is

1:32:21what I want to say. Trying to put it in

1:32:23context a bit, but it isn't a driving

1:32:25factor in how we set rates. We have to

1:32:27set rates based on the costs that the

1:32:29utilities incurring. So it's a it's a

1:32:31factor that we monitor, but it's not

1:32:33we're trying to match or beat inflation

1:32:35isn't, um, part of the story when we're

1:32:38actually establishing rates.

1:32:39>> Yes. And and and again, I don't think it

1:32:41should be tied to it, uh, by any means.

1:32:44I think it's a helpful measurement. I I

1:32:46know just since I've been paying my

1:32:49electric bill over the last couple

1:32:51years, I've noticed it, right? And I've

1:32:52noticed inflation in a wide range of

1:32:55categories. So that's I I just think we

1:32:56need to be,

1:32:58um, mindful when we're talking about

1:33:00rate increases in inflation and saying

1:33:02they're lagging because I think there's

1:33:04some more nuance to that.

1:33:07Um,

1:33:08I I do want to talk about

1:33:11continuing on the residential rate

1:33:12increase. A 4.5% residential rate

1:33:15increase.

1:33:18Why is that necessary when all of the

1:33:21other rate classes, excluding heating

1:33:24service, are at that 100%

1:33:27uh, cost of of operating?

1:33:30>> Yep. So the costs that we're trying to

1:33:32collect for our transmission

1:33:33expenditures and those are directly tied

1:33:36to peak demand. Our residential class is

1:33:39almost 50% of peak demand on our peak

1:33:42day. And so they bear a good portion of

1:33:44those expenditures. The other thing

1:33:46that's working against us is that our

1:33:49experience and projection show that

1:33:51housing growth while continuing to grow

1:33:53in Lincoln is slowing. And so that's

1:33:56putting upward pressure on as well,

1:33:58particularly for these costs that were

1:33:59collecting in a fixed way because

1:34:01essentially you have um

1:34:03fewer homes to collect those costs over

1:34:07and the

1:34:08costs are increasing in an outpaced way

1:34:11you know kind of outpacing the growth in

1:34:13the in the residential customer base

1:34:16I'll say. So um

1:34:18does that help?

1:34:19>> It it it does. I guess I'm trying to

1:34:21just figure out

1:34:22I understand that it's

1:34:25being outpaced, but it looks like then

1:34:26in other areas where it's exceeding 100%

1:34:30that

1:34:31there

1:34:33is some

1:34:34that there's outpaced on the other side,

1:34:36right? And I I didn't know if there's a

1:34:38way that those can be

1:34:40um

1:34:43if if the

1:34:44exceeding 100% and the other rate

1:34:47classes

1:34:49requires us to still be as aggressive

1:34:53with residential rate increases.

1:34:56>> I see what you're getting out. So um we

1:34:58use cost of service methodology in

1:35:00establishing our rates and what we try

1:35:02to avoid is cost

1:35:04class

1:35:05cross subsidization between classes. And

1:35:08so we take our entire budget and

1:35:10allocate it um basically into

1:35:13generation, transmission, um

1:35:15distribution, customer costs, those

1:35:17sorts of things. And then we allocate it

1:35:19to each rate class based on how they use

1:35:21our system. And so that is what um

1:35:24results in the percentages. It isn't um

1:35:27you know such that we can just move the

1:35:29costs around because there's really kind

1:35:31of standard ways to do that, best

1:35:33utility practices as far as how you

1:35:35allocate costs either based on demand or

1:35:37customer count if it's customer charges,

1:35:39those sorts of things. So it's a complex

1:35:41modeling um exercise that we go through

1:35:43to identify what percentage each class

1:35:45is of cost of service. And so the

1:35:48residential class

1:35:50currently without a boost higher than

1:35:52three and a half would be lagging our

1:35:54target just because of how the

1:35:57the standard way, the utility industry

1:36:00accepted way that we allocate costs to

1:36:03that class, um, is working out for them

1:36:06on how they use the system.

1:36:07>> Okay, thank you. That's that's helpful.

1:36:10Um,

1:36:12so I know we there was conversation or

1:36:14discussion about the sustainable energy

1:36:16program, .2 million going to that and

1:36:19that then you went on to state that

1:36:22there's potential new renewable energy

1:36:24option coming to LES and that's not

1:36:28included

1:36:29in this rate increase.

1:36:32What type of impact could that new

1:36:35renewable energy option have financially

1:36:40to the average rate payer?

1:36:42>> Yep. So we shared this in the community

1:36:44as we did our public meetings. Um, one

1:36:46thing to know about that is it's really

1:36:47uncertain at this time. We're evaluating

1:36:49responses to an RFI for that resource.

1:36:52Not even sure that it will happen. Um,

1:36:55but the potential kind of an

1:36:57illustrative example that we showed is

1:36:59if done all in one year, it would be two

1:37:02point around two percent increase

1:37:04stacked on top of

1:37:06um, what we've shown and it would likely

1:37:08occur in 2020

1:37:11eight. Excuse me. It doesn't it's not

1:37:13impactful in 27 because we couldn't get

1:37:15it um,

1:37:17you know,

1:37:18incorporated into our portfolio that

1:37:20quickly. Um, but again, that's

1:37:22illustrative. It's too soon to know, but

1:37:24that is what and we we showed it in our

1:37:27materials in the community as spread

1:37:28over two years so that two percent was

1:37:30spread over 28 and 29 assuming that

1:37:33maybe it'd be later in 28 and we could

1:37:34have some ability to push some of that

1:37:36into 29.

1:37:37>> Okay, that's helpful. Thank you. Um, and

1:37:39then the energy assistance program four

1:37:42441,000

1:37:44being designated to that. That's about a

1:37:4620 a 20,000%

1:37:48increase from last year, right? Did it

1:37:49go from 420 to 440?

1:37:52>> or yes.

1:37:53>> Yes. Yeah, $20,000 [snorts]

1:37:56increase.

1:37:57Is there any way that we're able to

1:38:00measure um, the amount of households

1:38:04that are are served through that or the

1:38:06the cost per household being served in

1:38:08EAP. Um I guess that would be my first

1:38:11question about it.

1:38:12>> So I I don't know that right now, but we

1:38:15are um in the early stages of an entire

1:38:19uh

1:38:20portfolio of efforts around

1:38:22affordability and that program is

1:38:24absolutely part of that review to know

1:38:27first and foremost is it meeting its

1:38:29intended use, you know, of those

1:38:31dollars? Is it um you know, the best use

1:38:33of the dollars, I guess I'll say? Um and

1:38:36so the analysis on that program is

1:38:38forthcoming. Um and so I don't know for

1:38:41sure how many household I'm sure the

1:38:42folks at LAS who are listening are like,

1:38:44yes, we do. I just don't know it right

1:38:46now, but um just wanting to note that um

1:38:48that and a whole host of other things

1:38:50are um in our um project planning for

1:38:53this next year around affordability.

1:38:55>> Yes. No. And And I don't expect you to

1:38:57know every detail again as as CFO. I am

1:39:00just trying to get a a broad sense. I

1:39:01know that you work with all of the

1:39:03different departments and compiling this

1:39:05information. And so I really do

1:39:06appreciate that. I also think when we

1:39:08talk about EAP, we need to talk about

1:39:10whether or not um there's a way to

1:39:13measure

1:39:14if it if it's

1:39:17if $441,000 being designated that is

1:39:20sufficient, right? Is that

1:39:22helping 10% of people who are eligible

1:39:24or is it helping 10% of people eligible?

1:39:26And I think um

1:39:28that's really critical information that

1:39:30we we as policymakers need to be asking

1:39:34for because again, I I I think about a

1:39:3623.3%

1:39:38rate increase from 2023 to now. And I

1:39:41wonder is less than half a million, you

1:39:44know, sufficient to be

1:39:47uh utilized for people who first have to

1:39:49meet the eligibility requirements um as

1:39:52as residential rate increases go up. So

1:39:54I think that's something and you may not

1:39:56have the answers for this, but as it

1:40:00relates to EAP and the customer service

1:40:02fees, there's disconnect

1:40:04charges for nonpayment, and then there's

1:40:07a reconnection charge if it's after

1:40:09hours. When it comes to reconnection or

1:40:11disconnect, are EAP dollars utilized in

1:40:15that?

1:40:16>> Um the intent is that they are not. We

1:40:19are actually later this week I will be

1:40:22sitting with our internal auditors who

1:40:24did an audit of this program and we'll

1:40:26have better insight into whether that is

1:40:28true or not. Um that's part of our work

1:40:30on this effort um along with to your

1:40:32point of this was established in the

1:40:34early 2000s and um we'd be remiss to not

1:40:37take a look at the structure and just

1:40:39because we decided at that time that it

1:40:41should increase in a certain way, does

1:40:42that make sense?

1:40:44That that's the work to be done.

1:40:46>> I and I I appreciate that audit because

1:40:48I am a 100% with you that the intent

1:40:51should be that those

1:40:53EAP dollars should not be being utilized

1:40:55for those fees.

1:40:56>> when it was first formed was to get

1:40:58ahead of people before their

1:40:59disconnection.

1:41:00>> Yeah.

1:41:00>> Um and that's something that we're um

1:41:03need to investigate more to make sure

1:41:04that that is if that's happening or not.

1:41:06>> I'm not even sure if someone would be

1:41:08eligible for this assistance until

1:41:11they're disconnected, right?

1:41:13>> There may be a um

1:41:14yeah.

1:41:15>> And so if there could be

1:41:16>> in how it's yeah it's intent and then

1:41:18what's been happening. Yeah that's what

1:41:20we're looking at.

1:41:21>> Okay thank you. I promise I only

1:41:32>> to

1:41:32>> uh the

1:41:34Terry Bundy generating station which you

1:41:36know I voted for the rate increase that

1:41:38you know supported the Terry Bundy

1:41:40generation station. I believe that that

1:41:42was critical for reliability when it

1:41:44comes to our grid um being up from 180

1:41:48million to 230 million.

1:41:50Um I understand not being able to

1:41:53anticipate the tariffs, right? I have

1:41:54talked to a lot of folks. I even the the

1:41:58uh fluctuation in in the generators. Um

1:42:02but there was something about uh

1:42:04something that was out for bid with the

1:42:06contractor. What how why was that off?

1:42:09And what level of impact did that have

1:42:12on the difference from 180 to 230?

1:42:16>> Um it has the potential to have a

1:42:18significant impact. We um we're in the

1:42:21same position as a lot of utilities

1:42:23right now trying to do you know uh

1:42:27install new generation assets. And um

1:42:30while we were

1:42:32uh benefited by moving forward with the

1:42:34mid rate mid-year rate increase to get

1:42:36ahead of the um you know price increases

1:42:39on the generators. Um this is also kind

1:42:42of related to that on a supply and

1:42:43demand side thing. People wanting to

1:42:45come in and do that work on a relatively

1:42:48small site. We're just kind of uncertain

1:42:50you know if that job is appealing or

1:42:52not. Um we'll know more in a few weeks

1:42:54when we were able to open the bids, but

1:42:56early indications as we work with our um

1:42:59engineering consultant that's helping

1:43:00with that is it's going to be more than

1:43:02we had originally thought just based on

1:43:04supply for um vendors to do that work in

1:43:07the market.

1:43:08>> Okay.

1:43:09That's thank you. I appreciate that. Um

1:43:12and then real quickly the

1:43:15uh

1:43:17three I I know that in 2026 the budget

1:43:19had a goal of a 3% retail

1:43:23uh

1:43:24rate increase and that we're at 3.5. I

1:43:27residential again 4.5. What was the and

1:43:30I should know this, but I don't. What

1:43:32was the 2026 budget for a retail rate

1:43:36increase? Did we have those numbers or

1:43:38is the 3% goal for retail just that and

1:43:42then how it gets broken down?

1:43:44>> 3% was what we had for 2026. That was

1:43:47the budget.

1:43:48>> For retail, right? Like residential

1:43:49retail?

1:43:50>> Yep. All of this is retail.

1:43:51>> Okay. And was it broken down based off

1:43:54of rate classes of how we get to 3% if

1:43:57that's the goal?

1:43:57>> we were here last year that we would

1:43:59have had a table similar to that one

1:44:00that stuck to 3%.

1:44:02>> Okay. And I'll I'll find that. I was

1:44:04just curious to

1:44:05>> share it too. I just don't have any of

1:44:06that with you.

1:44:07>> And And my last question is you know, so

1:44:10I I see this 4.5% residential rate

1:44:13increase. I think about the options we

1:44:15have as council members, right? We can

1:44:17vote yes, we can vote no, we can amend,

1:44:19right? I I think about uh

1:44:23the

1:44:25you know, if we vote no, right? Just on

1:44:27on the rate increase, that does not put

1:44:29LES in a great position. Um if there was

1:44:34alternative proposals for a 3.5%

1:44:37residential rate increase or a 4.0 4.0%

1:44:41residential rate increase, what impact

1:44:44would that have on both the the

1:44:46operating and and capital budgets of

1:44:50LES? Cuz I I know they're split equally.

1:44:53>> Um

1:44:55>> Roughly. Not I don't mean

1:44:57Yeah.

1:44:58>> That one is going to be tough for me to

1:45:00come up with right off. I could do it

1:45:02that on the full system. I mean,

1:45:04unfortunately, what we'd have to do is

1:45:06go back and relook at our budget and and

1:45:09cut out some potential, you know,

1:45:12>> I want to call them discretionary, but

1:45:14you know, we we did a really good job of

1:45:16scrubbing the budget to get to the three

1:45:18and a half overall, which includes the

1:45:19four and a half for residential. So um

1:45:22we'd have to cut some some things out of

1:45:24our budget.

1:45:25And and again, I didn't expect you to,

1:45:27you know, do back of the napkin math or

1:45:29anything like that. I'm just curious

1:45:30because, you know, when I'm making

1:45:32decisions, I have to look at the options

1:45:34I have available to me, yes, no, or

1:45:37alternatives. Um and I'm I am just

1:45:40trying to fully understand uh

1:45:42where we're at with with the situation.

1:45:44But that's all the questions I have. I I

1:45:46don't know if you have anything

1:45:48>> Nope. I'm just I'm making a list and I

1:45:49hope my friends over there are too.

1:45:51>> Yes, and I Well, I can always email this

1:45:52too. Um

1:45:54and thank you so much to my colleagues

1:45:55for allowing me to take up so much time

1:45:57questioning.

1:45:58>> Can I ask a question?

1:45:58>> Yes, Councilman Bowers is recognized for

1:46:01question and

1:46:02I'll see if other council members

1:46:04have questions as well.

1:46:06>> Thanks, appreciate it. Um okay, so one

1:46:08thing that I've heard a lot is that

1:46:09rates are increasing because we have a

1:46:11data center and residential increases

1:46:14are covering the cost of the data

1:46:15center. Can you please address that?

1:46:17>> Uh not true. Um the uh

1:46:21any data center any customer that's over

1:46:2220 megawatts would be in our large

1:46:24market um energy rate class and just

1:46:28like all other customers they pay their

1:46:29cost to serve them. There is no cross

1:46:32subsidization.

1:46:33>> Perfect. I wanted to ask that question

1:46:34because that's something that I'm

1:46:35hearing a lot that I don't think has has

1:46:37been reflected

1:46:39to uh uh to the greater community.

1:46:41>> Yep.

1:46:42>> Um

1:46:43let's say the council votes down your

1:46:44request for this increase. Where would

1:46:46the cuts come from?

1:46:49>> In its entirety? That's about $12

1:46:51million we'd have to cut out of our

1:46:53budget. Um

1:46:56that's a really great question. Uh we'd

1:46:58have to go back to the drawing board.

1:46:59That's a lot. As I pointed out the in

1:47:01the operating budget because those will

1:47:02be operating dollars and the

1:47:06there's about 10% of that $369 million

1:47:08or about 30 million that's really kind

1:47:10of the maintenance of everyday

1:47:12maintenance and so forth that isn't

1:47:14people cost. Um so there's not a lot to

1:47:16cut out of that. Um

1:47:20we would have to get back to you with a

1:47:21plan.

1:47:23>> Because I'm kind of wondering like if

1:47:24when you all were creating the plan um

1:47:26was the assumption just that the council

1:47:28would vote it in or do you know what I

1:47:30mean like

1:47:30>> we

1:47:31no uh no not necessarily. We um you know

1:47:34we do everybody in our organization

1:47:36submits what they think is a prudent

1:47:38budget and then we did some significant

1:47:40cutting of that as well before we

1:47:42brought this proposal forward for you.

1:47:44Um our board has endorsed it and so

1:47:46they've gone through it you know. I

1:47:48won't say they've all gone through it

1:47:49line by line but they had the

1:47:50opportunity to do that um and give their

1:47:53recommendation for both the budget and

1:47:55the rate increase. So I think we'd be

1:47:57pretty taxed to pull $12 million out of

1:47:59our operating budget. Um I wish I could

1:48:02come up with a better plan than that

1:48:04right now. Um

1:48:05but no we don't we don't um take for

1:48:07granted that you're all going to approve

1:48:09it. So I think wiping out the rate

1:48:11increase in its entirety would be

1:48:13extremely difficult for us

1:48:14>> Uh

1:48:15>> meet our financial metrics and to

1:48:16continue to be a double A rated utility

1:48:18by the bond rating agencies as well.

1:48:20>> Okay.

1:48:21Um this might have already been uh uh

1:48:23asked and answered, but I just uh ask it

1:48:25in a more plain way just for my own

1:48:26brain. Um

1:48:28if I understand correctly, the

1:48:30residential increases are going into the

1:48:31fixed facility charges, right? So even

1:48:34if um someone has an increase or a

1:48:36decrease in their uh uh energy usage, um

1:48:40there's going to be an increase no

1:48:41matter what. So even if someone uses

1:48:43high or uses low, it's going into the

1:48:45fixed facility charge, meaning that they

1:48:46will be charged an increase

1:48:48regardless of if there's an increase.

1:48:50Can you explain the rationale uh for

1:48:52doing that uh way instead of spreading

1:48:54it out amongst

1:48:56increased energy usage?

1:48:57>> Um so the facilities charges collect for

1:49:01fixed costs of the utility um from a

1:49:04residential customer, and those levels

1:49:07are a proxy for demand that they place

1:49:09on the system, which is based on how

1:49:11much energy they use. So um

1:49:15let's say a customer used a lot less

1:49:16energy in 2027. In 27 they'd be um you

1:49:20know, let's say they're in level one,

1:49:22they'd see $3.25

1:49:24increase on their bill from the

1:49:25facilities charge, but their energy use

1:49:27would be down.

1:49:29I used a bad example. Let's say they

1:49:30were level two and it was $5 because

1:49:32then if they use a lot less energy in

1:49:342027,

1:49:36they

1:49:37perhaps might see themselves move to

1:49:38level one in 28 because it's a 12-month

1:49:41rolling. We look at it every year. We

1:49:42reestablish it. So there's still

1:49:43incentives to use less energy. Um I'm

1:49:46not sure that's exactly what you're

1:49:48getting at, but um for 2027 alone, if a

1:49:51customer uses more or less, they will

1:49:54see the change based on the energy

1:49:56charge, the per kilowatt-hour charge,

1:49:59but they will for sure see the increases

1:50:02in the facilities charge that are

1:50:03monthly charges.

1:50:05I don't think I answered that very well

1:50:07for your

1:50:08>> I guess my question is why not just have

1:50:10it spread out across energy usage as

1:50:12opposed to fixed energy?

1:50:13>> that's not how we incur the cost. The

1:50:15transmission costs come to us as fixed

1:50:17and not generally related to how much

1:50:19energy customers use day-to-day. And so

1:50:22we would have the risk of not collecting

1:50:24enough money for the utility to pay

1:50:26those bills when they come in.

1:50:28>> That makes sense. Thank you so much.

1:50:29>> Yep.

1:50:30>> Um one of the concerns that I have is,

1:50:32you know, there has been uh increased or

1:50:35there's been an ask to increase um

1:50:38consistently for the past couple of

1:50:39years and as as we've all mentioned

1:50:41before before that there have been

1:50:42several years where there hasn't been a

1:50:44request for increase. And I think one of

1:50:46the things that I'm concerned about is

1:50:48LES is one of the most affordable in uh

1:50:51uh in the nation. I think as I'm looking

1:50:53at the statistic right now, eighth out

1:50:55of 87 cities for residential

1:50:57affordability. I'm worried that we are

1:50:59getting away from that mentality of how

1:51:01do we prevent rate increases, which is

1:51:03one of the things that in my opinion has

1:51:05kept us in the more affordable line. And

1:51:08so I just wanted to give you an

1:51:09opportunity to respond to that. I mean,

1:51:11do you feel like that there will be

1:51:12continuously rate increases from

1:51:15annually here on out and breaking from

1:51:17that tradition of not always asking for

1:51:19a rate increase or do you see sometimes

1:51:22in the future where we might get back to

1:51:24where there might be like another five

1:51:26years in a row where there's not a rate

1:51:27increase?

1:51:28>> Due to the way that the industry is sort

1:51:31of transforming itself with

1:51:32electrification and um you know aging

1:51:35infrastructure of the transmission

1:51:36system, I don't foresee a period of time

1:51:38in the near future at all or even the

1:51:40mid mid-term future where we would not

1:51:42come forward asking for a rate increase.

1:51:44Our whole um

1:51:46not our whole, one of the um

1:51:48points of this rate increase too is to

1:51:51have rate stability for customers so

1:51:53that we can take on those increasing

1:51:55costs as they come. If we were to wait

1:51:57until we have $75 million of

1:51:59transmission expenditures in a year and

1:52:01try and increase rates all at once to

1:52:03cover that, it would be, you know, 20%

1:52:05rate increase for customers. So we're

1:52:07we're starting to try and ease into it a

1:52:09bit. Um rate increases are never

1:52:12fun or good or preferred um by our

1:52:14customers, but we're trying to do it in

1:52:16the most prudent way that we can um to

1:52:19maintain

1:52:20both affordability and rate stability

1:52:22and revenue afford or revenue stability

1:52:24for LAS.

1:52:26>> I think the last question or statement

1:52:28that I have is just about, you know,

1:52:30residents struggling to pay their

1:52:31electric bills. You know, the increase

1:52:33of $20,000 I believe is what you said it

1:52:36was $20,000 for energy assistance

1:52:39program when asking for an additional

1:52:43millions of dollars in. I'm just

1:52:46concerned and curious about whether

1:52:47we're seeing an increased demand for

1:52:49assistance, especially after several

1:52:51years of rate increases and how many

1:52:53households are struggling to pay their

1:52:54bills and do we think that that funding

1:52:56is adequate to address that need? And

1:52:58you mean even with the whole system, I

1:52:59know that when your light bill when your

1:53:01lights get your electricity gets

1:53:02disconnected like

1:53:04from what I understand, people have to

1:53:05take off the entire day because the

1:53:07technicians will be out sometime between

1:53:098 and 5, right? And if these are people

1:53:10that are already economically vulnerable

1:53:13and financially lower income,

1:53:15I'm getting really concerned that the

1:53:16$400,000 and the increase of only

1:53:19$20,000 to that after we're asking for

1:53:21millions of dollars more compounded with

1:53:23the fact that we have a system where

1:53:24people have to take off from work,

1:53:27I think that we need to relook at that

1:53:29whole thing cuz it's just I mean who is

1:53:31that working for, you know? And I don't

1:53:32think that it's working for low income

1:53:34folks.

1:53:37>> Are there any other questions from

1:53:38Council?

1:53:42All righty. Thank you so much.

1:53:43Appreciate it.

1:53:47Is there anyone from the public who

1:53:49wishes to speak on these items? If so,

1:53:51please come forward now.

1:53:56Welcome Mr. Winston.

1:54:04>> I was hoping I wouldn't be the only

1:54:06person, but

1:54:07good afternoon members of the Council.

1:54:10My name is Ken Winston. I'm testifying

1:54:12on behalf of Nebraska Sierra Club and

1:54:14our

1:54:16more than 10,000 members and supporters.

1:54:18I'm testifying in a neutral position

1:54:21supporting part of today's proposal

1:54:23raising concerns about other parts of

1:54:25it.

1:54:26First of all, um

1:54:28mm frog in the throat. We want to

1:54:30acknowledge that LES is an excellent

1:54:32utility. I think there's already been

1:54:33some comments about that and the and the

1:54:35presentation clearly indicated that.

1:54:38Uh they've got low rates, high levels of

1:54:40reliability, and we also appreciate our

1:54:43public power system and we also

1:54:45appreciate the the leadership that they

1:54:47have including their CEO and their CFO

1:54:50who you've just heard from.

1:54:52We support the sustainable energy

1:54:54program and the

1:54:56thank you

1:54:58councilman. Um

1:54:59um and the energy assistance program. We

1:55:03support those in that increase. We also

1:55:05appreciate the fact that LES's overall

1:55:08rates are very low in comparison to

1:55:10other utilities. However, we have

1:55:12concerns about two aspects of the rate

1:55:14proposal, the tiered facilities charge

1:55:16and the overall residential rate

1:55:18increase which has already been

1:55:20addressed to a certain degree by

1:55:22by questions from council members. Um

1:55:26so just quickly I guess I just wanted to

1:55:29pull out the

1:55:30the chart uh

1:55:32facilities charge.

1:55:34Chart is that

1:55:36coming up?

1:55:39Okay.

1:55:40Um [clears throat] oh okay that's for my

1:55:42rate class.

1:55:43There we go. Facilities charge.

1:55:46Um concerns about the uh

1:55:49facilities charges. Now um overall the

1:55:53facilities charge is an interesting idea

1:55:56and

1:55:56as a matter of fact when it was first

1:55:58proposed in 2016 I think I was the only

1:56:00person who came and testified in support

1:56:02of it. So so in general I like the

1:56:04concept. However, when it was first

1:56:06proposed in 2016 the facilities charges

1:56:09were $10.50, $14.50, and $19.50.

1:56:14Now they're 30.50, 45 and 69 and the

1:56:17proposed increases are 32 33.75, $50 and

1:56:2279.15.

1:56:24And we're just concerned about the way

1:56:25that these are escalating.

1:56:27Um, this is more than a 300% chart

1:56:30increase in 10 years. To our knowledge,

1:56:32that hasn't been examined as to how

1:56:34that's impacting customers.

1:56:36Um, on the low end, we think that that

1:56:39um that's a disincentive to reduce

1:56:42energy usage. Um, I think Councilman

1:56:45Bowers indicated some concerns about

1:56:47that.

1:56:48Uh, on the high end, we're concerned

1:56:49that it's a disincentive to go all

1:56:51electric, to invest in heat pumps or

1:56:53EVs.

1:56:54Um,

1:56:55we're also concerned about the fact that

1:56:57there are some low-income customers

1:56:59who are who fall into some of the higher

1:57:01income higher rate classes, and I just

1:57:04wanted to show that. And I do appreciate

1:57:06the fact that LES

1:57:07uh is

1:57:08they're they're providing this

1:57:10information. So I just

1:57:12uh would encourage you to look at that

1:57:13because you're going to have people who

1:57:16are going to have a $10 a month increase

1:57:18uh a $5 or $10 a month increase uh in

1:57:21their in their bills, and I would

1:57:22encourage you to look at that.

1:57:24Uh,

1:57:25so we're particularly concerned about

1:57:27fixed charges impacting low income and

1:57:31um

1:57:32and fixed income customers.

1:57:34So also um I guess I also wanted to talk

1:57:36a little bit about the

1:57:38uh I could leave that up there if you

1:57:40want, but about the overall rate

1:57:41increases. Uh, overall residential rate

1:57:44increase specifically as uh Councilman

1:57:47Webber and Councilman Bowers had uh

1:57:49mentioned. Um, and

1:57:52I guess I'm just going to show this

1:57:53quick. Um, this is the historical rate

1:57:56increases over the last several years. I

1:57:59I don't have the residential increases,

1:58:01but I know that they've gone up

1:58:02considerably.

1:58:03Um, and

1:58:05uh we appreciate the fact that that LES

1:58:08is trying to recover the costs of

1:58:10transmission, but we would submit that

1:58:12residential costs residential customers

1:58:14are not driving the need for new

1:58:16transmission.

1:58:17Uh, that's driven largely by commercial

1:58:20customers. Um, and and I think there's

1:58:24um well, I think there's some slides of

1:58:26LES.

1:58:28Uh, actually there's one that I wanted

1:58:29to use here quickly, if I can find it.

1:58:32Um.

1:58:34In June of this year,

1:58:37LES had a new

1:58:39uh

1:58:40new peak.

1:58:41And second sentence says

1:58:43uh in

1:58:44in the increasing commercial load led to

1:58:48a new system peak of 3836 MW.

1:58:51So it appears to us that the uh the

1:58:55increased demand is being driven by

1:58:57commercial customers, not residential

1:58:58customers. So um

1:59:01I guess

1:59:03I know I'm running out of time, but let

1:59:04me just run through a couple other

1:59:05things. Um as uh has been noted, uh

1:59:09residential rates have increased by more

1:59:11than 20% in the last 4 years.

1:59:13>> Thank you, Mr. Winston. That is time.

1:59:15Thank you. Are there any questions for

1:59:18Mr. Winston?

1:59:21All righty. Thank you so much.

1:59:22>> Okay. Thank you. And I may

1:59:25uh forward my written comments to the

1:59:28city council. So thank you.

1:59:31>> Is there anyone else from the public who

1:59:33wishes to speak on this item? If so,

1:59:34please come forward now.

1:59:40Anyone from the public wishing to speak

1:59:42on these items? This would be your

1:59:44opportunity to do so.

1:59:46Would LES like to make a closing

1:59:48statement or respond to any items?

1:59:51All righty.

1:59:52Perfect. Thank you. Uh

1:59:54seeing no one else come forward, uh

1:59:57Madam Clerk, we may proceed.

2:00:00>> That concludes section

2:00:02six on the agenda. We'll move on to

2:00:04section seven, ordinances third reading

2:00:06and related resolutions.

2:00:08I'll call item 7A. Item 7A is text

2:00:11amendment 26009,

2:00:13application of Lincoln-Lancaster County

2:00:15Planning and Development Services

2:00:17Department to amend Lincoln Municipal

2:00:18Code section 27.60.060

2:00:22to remove an obsolete reference to amend

2:00:24section

2:00:28for early childhood care facilities to

2:00:30amend sections 27.72.030,

2:00:3427.72.040,

2:00:3627.72.050

2:00:38to provide clarification for application

2:00:40of side and rear yard setbacks and

2:00:42outdoor dining areas and to amend

2:00:44section 27.72.060

2:00:47to clarify that both outdoor and outdoor

2:00:49dining and drinking are permitted in the

2:00:51required front yard. Introduced by

2:00:53Bowers.

2:00:54>> So moved.

2:00:55>> Second.

2:00:56>> Second by Carlson. Discussion.

2:00:59Seeing no discussion, Madam Clerk,

2:01:01please call the roll.

2:01:02>> Schoub.

2:01:04>> Yes.

2:01:05>> Duden.

2:01:05>> Yes.

2:01:06>> Washington.

2:01:08>> Yes.

2:01:09>> Carlson.

2:01:09>> Yes.

2:01:10>> Bowers.

2:01:11>> Yes.

2:01:11>> Beckius.

2:01:12>> Yes.

2:01:13>> Weber.

2:01:13>> Yes.

2:01:14>> Motion carried 7-0.

2:01:16Item 7B is changes on 26018 application

2:01:19of Eric Hasselbalch for a change of zone

2:01:21to add landmark status and historic

2:01:23overlay to the property located at

2:01:261116 Good Hill Boulevard. Introduced by

2:01:29Bowers.

2:01:30>> So moved.

2:01:31>> Second.

2:01:31>> Second by Carlson. Discussion.

2:01:34Seeing no discussion, Madam Clerk,

2:01:36please call the roll.

2:01:37>> Duden.

2:01:38>> Yes.

2:01:39>> Washington.

2:01:40>> Yes.

2:01:40>> Carlson.

2:01:41>> Yes.

2:01:42>> Bowers.

2:01:42>> Yes.

2:01:43>> Schoub.

2:01:44>> Yes.

2:01:44>> Beckius.

2:01:45>> Yes.

2:01:45>> Weber.

2:01:46>> Yes.

2:01:46>> Motion carried 7-0. Item 7C is creating

2:01:50wastewater special assessment district

2:01:52number 1190 Hill Crest Heights for the

2:01:54purpose of constructing an 8-inch

2:01:56diameter wastewater main along Anthony

2:01:58Lane and East Hill Crest Drive between O

2:02:00Street and Malaga Drive Hill Crest

2:02:03Trail. Introduced by Bowers.

2:02:05>> So moved. Second.

2:02:06>> Second by Carlson. Discussion.

2:02:09Uh I'll just recognize myself real

2:02:11quickly. Um you know I I think

2:02:14uh so I'll be voting in support of

2:02:16creating this special assessment

2:02:18district and I just want to speak why on

2:02:20the record. You know I think it's

2:02:22important when there's a request for a

2:02:24special assessment district to

2:02:26um look at what options are available

2:02:30to the homeowners. And to me it became

2:02:33uh quite apparent that there are uh

2:02:36there the amount of feasible options

2:02:39other than a special assessment district

2:02:41just aren't there. Um

2:02:44I think that

2:02:46it's also important, you know, looking

2:02:47at the options, right? A private

2:02:49construction agreement that would be

2:02:50difficult um to make that work. Uh there

2:02:54was, you know, consideration looking

2:02:56into that but a a that approach looks

2:02:59impractical. Um a community improvement

2:03:02district, those are new uh to the city

2:03:04but essentially uh there would be

2:03:06difficulty potentially in in gaining uh

2:03:10the agreement to move forward from

2:03:12non-participating properties and also

2:03:14there would still be that uh additional

2:03:17levy that I think would uh

2:03:20not necessarily meet the benefit of

2:03:22those neighbors who are opposed to it.

2:03:25Um

2:03:26and I also think it's important to note

2:03:28that while we're creating the special

2:03:30assessment district today um the final

2:03:34assessment charged to each property

2:03:36owner is not determined until the

2:03:38project is completed um and that's when

2:03:41the the council convenes the Board of

2:03:42Equalizations and I would like though to

2:03:45have continued conversation

2:03:47uh with folks about LTU about um the the

2:03:52portion that will be assessed to the the

2:03:54homeowners uh

2:03:56and how that aligns with other

2:03:59priorities LTU has uh as it relates to

2:04:03new growth when it comes to the the CIP

2:04:05and so um I I typically approach special

2:04:08assessment districts uh with a skeptical

2:04:11perspective. This is one where I think

2:04:13it makes a lot of sense and that's why

2:04:15uh I'm going to be voting for it. Any

2:04:17other discussion from council?

2:04:19Councilman Duden and then Councilwoman

2:04:21Washington.

2:04:21>> my concern was this was the assessment

2:04:24uh to the homeowners

2:04:25and I know that's coming for a later

2:04:27date so but I I will support this as

2:04:30well.

2:04:30>> Mhm. Councilwoman Washington.

2:04:32>> Thank you, Chair Weber. Um

2:04:35as you noted today we're voting to

2:04:37create the district, not to set how the

2:04:40apportionment of the cost go to each

2:04:42homeowner.

2:04:43Um, I would like everyone who came out

2:04:46last week just to to speak. Um, I am

2:04:49aware that

2:04:50there will be that second hearing to

2:04:53talk about the apportionment. Um, and

2:04:55that just the creation of the district

2:04:57sets

2:04:58gives you notice that there will be a

2:04:59bill that comes

2:05:01um due. And I

2:05:04I did hear each person um talk about

2:05:07whether or not they were supportive or

2:05:09not, whether or not it was going to hurt

2:05:11a little bit or hurt a lot

2:05:13um to take on that additional costs. And

2:05:16I just wanted to to note that

2:05:19when when areas like this come into the

2:05:21city, we're all aware that there is some

2:05:25horizon that we're all looking toward

2:05:27when city water and city sewer are going

2:05:29to be um available or necessary. Um, and

2:05:34having neighbors in your small area um

2:05:37have raw sewage in their homes because

2:05:40their septic septic systems have failed

2:05:43um gives me great pause and concern.

2:05:45This is a health issue that goes beyond

2:05:48just that single home and actually

2:05:51impacts potentially many other people.

2:05:54And though I know this is going to be uh

2:05:56a big cost to bear um

2:05:58this is some of the costs we have for

2:06:00living in community and being aware that

2:06:03maybe our needs um aren't going to be

2:06:05the first uh or the top priority, but

2:06:08somebody's needs or a group of people's

2:06:09needs are going to be the highest

2:06:11priority. And I will be voting in

2:06:13support for the creation of the

2:06:15district, and I am certainly willing to

2:06:18keep the conversation going when we talk

2:06:19about apportionment uh when the

2:06:21construction is done.

2:06:23>> Well said. Any other discussion from

2:06:24Council?

2:06:26All righty. Uh, Madam Clerk, please call

2:06:28the roll.

2:06:30>> Washington.

2:06:32>> Yes.

2:06:33>> Bowers.

2:06:33>> Yes.

2:06:34>> Carlson.

2:06:35>> Yes.

2:06:35>> Schobe.

2:06:36>> Yes.

2:06:37>> Beckius.

2:06:37>> Yes.

2:06:38>> Tuden.

2:06:38>> Yes.

2:06:39>> Webber.

2:06:40>> Yes. [snorts]

2:06:41>> Motion carried 7-0.

2:06:44That concludes section seven of the

2:06:45agenda. Section eight is ordinance first

2:06:47reading and related resolution is item

2:06:50eight A. Section nine is our pending

2:06:52list. Our items nine A through nine C.

2:06:55>> I would move adjournment.

2:06:56>> I'll second.

2:06:57>> Moved by uh

2:06:59Beckius, seconded by Carlson. Any

2:07:02discussion on the motion to adjourn?

2:07:03Seeing no discussion, Madam Clerk,

2:07:05please call the roll.

2:07:07>> Powers.

2:07:07>> Yes.

2:07:08>> Washington.

2:07:09>> Yes.

2:07:09>> Duden.

2:07:10>> Yes.

2:07:10>> Beckius.

2:07:11>> Yes.

2:07:11>> Carlson.

2:07:11>> Yes.

2:07:12>> Shobe.

2:07:12>> Yes.

2:07:13>> Webber.

2:07:13>> Yes.

2:07:14>> Motion carried 7-0.

2:07:15>> We are adjourned.

```*