Kearney council votes to place Good Life District authorization on May 12 ballot

The Kearney City Council voted to submit a ballot question to the May 12, 2026 primary that would authorize the council to adopt a Good Life District economic development program and to appropriate local sources of revenue remitted by the state for use inside the district.

Brenda Jensen, Kearney city manager, explained the ballot language and the program during the public hearing. Jensen said the Good Life District program, created in state law, is intended to "incentivize or... jump-start transformational projects" by returning a portion of sales-tax receipts to the city for eligible infrastructure and development expenses. She said the program is a 30-year authorization (approved in July 2025 and running toward July 2055 in the example discussed) and that the city would not use property-tax dollars for the program. "There's no new taxes," Jensen said. "If you're the customer... you're not even gonna know the difference." She described data sources the city would use to document out-of-state spending, including third-party tools such as Buxton or Placer and local hotel receipts.

Jensen said a Goss and Associates economic-impact analysis submitted with the city's application estimated roughly $1.1 billion in combined state and local tax impact over the 30-year program; she characterized that figure as encompassing sales, property and income taxes and spillover effects. Jensen also explained how the Good Life rebate overlaps with a statutory "turn back" for the Sportsplex: the Sportsplex receives a 70% turn-back within a roughly 600-yard radius (capped at $17 million for the Sportsplex financing cap), and the Good Life rebate applies first in overlapping areas per state statute.

Council members voiced support for adding the question to the May primary to reduce cost and limit voter confusion, and urged clarity in public outreach. One council member said adding the measure to the primary helps keep costs down and "keeps the skepticism down." City staff emphasized they will update web materials and provide more educational information so voters understand the mechanics and limits of the program.

During public comment, Jacob Bono Larjic of 2009 5th Avenue urged the council to consider removing minimum parking mandates in parts of the Good Life District to allow developers to place buildings closer to the street and increase taxable building value rather than oversized parking lots.

After public comment, a council member moved to close the public hearing and adopt Resolution No. 2026-18, the motion was seconded, and the council voted 'aye' in roll call. The resolution will place the question before voters on May 12, 2026.

Votes at a glance

- Resolution No. 2026-18 (place Good Life District authorization on the May 12, 2026 primary ballot): motion carried by roll call; all members present voted 'aye'. - Consent agenda (items 1–8): approved by roll call; all members present voted 'aye'. - Ordinance No. 8782 (amending school-zone section 8-805 of the city code): adopted after suspension of readings; roll-call vote recorded as 'aye' by members present.

Why it matters

If voters authorize the council to adopt a Good Life District economic development program, the city could receive a share of state sales-tax receipts generated inside the district and spend those funds on state-authorized uses inside the district—primarily infrastructure (water, sewer, paving), façade improvements on the public side of buildings and other eligible development incentives. Jensen said the measure is intended to help attract out-of-state visitors and new retail, stimulate infrastructure investment and leverage private development.

What remains unsettled

Jensen said the city would draft a program only after voter authorization; exact program details, including any limits on particular project types and how much of the rebate could be used for residential development (state statute limits residential uses to a portion of available funds), will be specified in that later program. The economic-impact estimate cited is a projection from Goss and Associates and was presented as part of the city's application; the estimate was not debated to a conclusion during the hearing.

The council also completed routine business, approved the consent agenda and passed Ordinance No. 8782. The meeting adjourned after roll call.