The Hastings City Council on a 5–2 vote with one abstention ratified a Nov. 27, 2024 lease and approved a first amendment between the city and Cathcart Rail Services LLC despite public comments and a pending district court challenge alleging the lease was negotiated outside public view.

The lease ratification was the final action after residents raised questions during the meeting’s citizen communications segment about whether the lease process complied with the Nebraska Open Meetings Act. Several speakers urged the council to defer action and allow the court to resolve a complaint filed by George Hasley, who says the agreement was negotiated without proper public notice.

Why it matters: The dispute centers on transparency and legal risk. If a court finds the city violated the Open Meetings Act, parties told the council the lease could be voided and communications around it nullified, potentially exposing the city to further legal and fiscal consequences.

Council action and what it does: Councilmember Fawn moved to ratify the lease and approve the first amendment; Councilmember Esch seconded the motion. City staff described the first amendment as clarifying the legal description and requiring Cathcart to pay property taxes. The council’s published count after debate was that the ratification passed 5–2 with one abstention.

Public comments and concerns: Multiple residents urged delay. Paul Dietz said a hearing will occur in August on Hasley’s standing and questioned why the council would ratify the lease before the court decides. Willis Hunt said the lease negotiations began in November 2024 and alleged the process departed from prior city practice. Mr. Hasley, who said he and his wife have lived in Hastings for 50 years and previously served on the council, said he filed the court petition after discovering the contract and that the Adams County attorney has concluded the city violated the Open Meetings Act. He told the council that if the judge rules against the city, the lease “will be voided entirely.”

City staff and council comments: Utility staff explained the utility department negotiated the agreement after reviewing longstanding contracts and finding the previous rate had not been changed for decades. Derek (utility staff) said the department sought a fair market approach, applied inflationary adjustments in blocks rather than annual CPI changes, and noted the lease rate represents a substantial increase over historic rents. During debate, a council member said outside counsel advised approval was in the city’s best interest.

Terms discussed and financial context: Public commenters cited terms they considered unfavorable to the city. Roger Kaufman described the agreement as a “30‑year commitment — 15 with a 15‑year option” and said the monthly rent (which he cited as $850) produced a low long‑term return. City staff said the first 15‑year block includes staged increases and that Cathcart will pay property taxes under the first amendment. A Cathcart representative told the council the operation employs about 20–25 people.

Discussion vs. decision: The record shows sustained public concern and a pending court challenge. Council members were told legal advice recommended ratification. The council’s ratification is the formal action recorded; the legal challenge remains pending in district court and could affect the lease’s enforceability.

What’s next: The city and interested residents will await the district court’s hearing on the Hasley complaint. The council did not adopt further procedural changes at this meeting beyond approving the ratification and amendment.

Ending: The ratification concluded one of the evening’s most contested agenda items after roughly three hours of public comment and council discussion.