Fester. >> Good one. here. >> Hardin >> here. >> Hug >> here. >> Melton here. >> Row. Mr. President >> here. >> Please stand for pledge of allegiance. Remain standing. I will make opening remarks to the flag of the United States of America to the stands one. >> Please sit down today. Good afternoon. Couple brief comments. It is Brinker and I did the math. The city of Omaha turnedund 169 years old. It was incorporated on February 2nd, 1857. So, we got the math figured out on that. We're 169. We're glad to be here today. And also, it's Black History Month. I want to recognize that with being 169 years old, we elected the first African-American as our mayor. So, we've come a long way and got a ways to go, but we're all glad to be here today. Thank you. >> An affidavit of publication is on file and a current copy of the Open Meeting Act is posted in a white binder in the east wall of legislative chambers. >> Good afternoon. Welcome to this meeting of the Omaha City Council. As a courtesy to those in attendance and to facilitate the conduct of our business, we ask that you please silence or turn off all electronic devices. I didn't do that last week, but I did it today. So, please mind those rules, please. A reminder that you will have three minutes to speak on an agenda item. Please stay on topic. If you would like your comments entered into the public record, you can email the city clerk's office at city clerk@c city of omaha.org. Council members receive these emails and we read them. Finally, council members may ask members of the audience back up for clarifying questions, but not for extra time to speak. I would like to remind council members to speak directly into their microphones so the audience members in attendance can hear and at home as well. And the same at the front podium here. If you're speaking, make sure those microphones are in front and you're speaking clearly into the mics. Thank you. Item six to consider a class C liquor license for nowhere lounge located at 3502 Leenor Street. A is communications and opposition. Public hearing is now open on item number six. Is the applicant here today? >> Mr. President, fellow council members, uh my name is Michael Roberry, address 16172 Spencer Street, Omaha, Nebraska. I'm here on behalf of Cortez Bar doing business as the nowhere lounge. Uh I'm here to speak on some of the um objections that we've had towards the bar, particularly with the parking situation. One of the parking situations was a business across the street from where we were located. They worried about whether or not our patrons were going to leave their cars there overnight. Since they put that uh in, we've communicated to them and spoke with them and put their mind at ease saying one uh our bar is not open all day. So the customers coming in and out will not interfere. We open at 3 starting Thursdays. We'll go Friday, Saturday, Sunday, close at 2. We also discuss with them if a car is left overnight that we'll have towing pick it up and have them towed away. And additionally, we've been discussing uh a lease agreement with them uh to use their parking at night. Uh and since then, they have been put at ease. I also saw one other remark uh saying that there's already a lot of parking issues. We've been in communication with uh our landlord. There's parking in the back of the Nowhere Lounge in which we're going to start renting the back of that parking as well. The other portion of this uh they mentioned was a noise complaint that a bar can be noisy. We want to make it clear that this is a upscaled cocktail lounge. We totally redid the inside. In addition to that, we're not having music. This is not a party lounge. It's not somewhere where you go get drunk and have a an obnoxious time. Um so we want to make it clear that that is not what this bar is about. If there are any questions, uh we'd be happy to answer those. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Are there any proponents here today? >> Seeing none, are there any opponents? Please don't go far. I'll have some questions for you. Public hearing is closed. Council member Hug, you're recognized. Um would you come back up, please? >> Yes, sir. >> In these older neighborhoods, parking is always an issue. Um, unfortunately, and you you mentioned that there's a parking lot behind this building, but you don't currently have possession of that parking lot. >> Not currently. Since the parking issues just got brought up, we're discussing with the landlords to rent out the back of the space. Those are going those communications. >> How many additional parking spaces would that be? >> Do you know how many additional there are back there? >> You have to come back up to the podium. I'm sorry. You know how much parking >> around 10 space >> seven to 10 spaces in the back and then across the street where we're in discussions for lease of the neighbors parking. I believe there's another four there. >> Another four there. So potentially you're looking at potentially leasing another 11 spaces, but you don't have leases. >> Not currently. No. >> Okay. So we don't know if you're are going to be able to negotiate a successful agreement on your behalf. >> I couldn't say 100% but we are 99% of the way there on both of those. It's just these the second um complaint came in today. Uh and that's when we started immediately took action to call the landlord and say, "Hey, can we do the back? We want to make sure that the neighborhood is put at ease, that this parking congestion issue um is taken care of." And just because you lease it doesn't mean your customers are going to park there >> as in any space. But again, if the customer doesn't park there, there's always those options of towing and getting them way that way. There's >> And what's your occupancy permit rated at? >> Uh I think 65 >> 65 and we're looking at 11 spaces. Um well, unfortunately or fortunately it it's not my district. I'd have to defer to uh the councilman of that district, but I I certainly wouldn't hesitate laying this over until we have some concrete leases before us. But that's just my opinion. Thank you. >> Thanks, Council Member Hug. Can we get your name and address for the record, sir? >> Uh Rodo. >> Scoot over a little bit. There you go. Thanks. >> Rodulfo Cortez >> and your address. >> Uh 17 uh the address for the business of um >> your address. Uh 1716 Band Camp Avenue, Omaha, Nebraska 68108. >> Thanks. We just need to do that for the record. So um Mr. Rubberry, is that how you pronounce it? >> Yes. >> Um so when you said you talked to a business across the street, what business was that? I >> believe they're the Key Masters across the street. That's Eric Hansen who owns it. >> Okay. I know Eric and Key Masters. When did you speak to him? >> We when did we speak with them? >> Last week. >> Last week. >> Okay. I I I got some concerns here because I I spoke to him yesterday and I'm taking you at your word. You said you think you're 99% there. That's not the message that I got when I went and walked. So, let me walk through me with this for a second. So, there's key masters there. They have spots on the west side of their building, I believe. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. And that's their business spots. Or is that lease? I think they lease their so from their business they lease those. >> Yep. Okay. And then the north end of their property that's their private parking lot. Correct. And then the east side as well I think they got some parking for their business trucks. So you said you talked you do you have a lease agreement? Council member Hug was asking you this. Um and I drove by there again I I know the lay of the land well but I drove by with one of my colleagues today. The north end of the antique shop. Are you saying that you're going to lease spots for parking at the lease for the um antique shop? >> Yes. >> Yeah. Be right. But there's parking behind >> on the on the north end, right? >> Correct. >> Okay. Okay. So, do you have an agreement in place to lease that parking? >> No. As I said, we just got the second complaint today and that's when we reached out to our landlord to say, "Hey, can we start?" >> Okay. And I I know uh we spoke on the phone when it came through um in December and I had asked you to reach out to the businesses in the neighborhood and the neighborhood association. Did you guys reach the reach out to the Leworth neighborhood association? >> Did you reach out to anyone besides >> No, just the key. >> Okay. And I I know you want to be a good community partner, but I I'm not comfortable supporting this today until at least you're making assertions that you're 99% there with these leases. And that clearly isn't what I was told yesterday when I left my council office. I stopped by there on the way home. I walked around and I talked to Mr. Hansen who they've been there a long time at Key Masters and they're not against your business, but the parking is a concern. And since you brought up that you're 99% there, I that's not what I'm being told. So I'm not comfortable supporting this, I'd like to Do we have time to lay this over? >> Yes, you can lay it over one week to the 10th. >> I don't like laying over these, but in light of what I'm hearing, I do, if somebody would support that, I would like to lay it over for a week to allow you to talk to Mr. Hansen. And if you have lease agreements with the antique store, uh that would be reassuring to me. And again, I'm not against your business, but I think I need to get these things cleaned up since there's been some push back on. >> I just want to make clear what we need from Mr. Hans. Would you What do you want from Mr. Hansen? Uh would you want him to send an email saying, "Hey, we can't lease it, but we agreed that there's a tow regulations that they're going to take care of." I just want to make sure there's a sub lease that their landlord says, "No, we we don't want to go through with that." I I would like you to to work out if there is any agreement with key masters. Just get that in writing. Yeah. I mean, I don't need it in blood oath or anything, but I want a good reassurance as we talked on the phone in December. >> You want to be a good neighbor and a good partner and you're you're investing in the community, which is great, but let's not start this on a rocky path at the beginning. So, I'd like to at least give you a week if you could get that assertion from >> absolutely >> the antique store there next to you and also key masters. >> We can do that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I appreciate it. >> One week. >> Motion a second. No further lights. Thank you. Roll call. >> Fester. >> Yes. >> Goodwin. >> Yes. >> Harding. >> Yes. >> Hug. >> Melton. >> Yes. >> Row. Mr. President, >> yes. >> Motion pass seven to zero. >> Thank you. Thank you. Item seven to consider a classy liquor license for Super Makato Newestra Familia located at 2323 L Street. >> Public hearing is now open on item number seven. I believe we have Miss Davenport on Zoom is the applicant. >> Yes, I am. >> Can you hear us? Okay. >> Yes. Can you hear me? >> Yep. Can we get your name and address, please? >> Yes. Cindy Devport and my address is 10429 White Road, Ravana, Michigan 49451. >> Thank you. Are there any proponents here today on item number seven? Seeing none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is closed. >> I I just block you, Ron. Ron, Mr. Hug, you are recognized. >> Uh, good afternoon. Um, what always gets my interest on any liquor license in in my district is if there will be sale of individual liquor like those small they call them shooters and single cans of al single cans of beer, single cans of whatever. Um, some of the family fairs I know are selling singles, but do you intend to be selling singles with this property? >> Um, we would sell similar to what our other locations do sell, unless that's an issue and a concern, then we can discuss that. Um, well, it's it's a concern of mine because once they go out your door, there's literally no control once they go off your door and you're you're reasonably close to a high school. Um would would that be something you'd be voluntarily willing to do is is to restrict the sale of single liquor items, single >> can you talking about um just for I was going to say for clarity the little um couple ounce? >> Yeah, those things liquor. >> Those are what you're referring to. >> Yeah. And the single cans of beer under what's the definition, Madame Clerk? >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, our typical amendment is no single sales of beer or no single sales of distilled spirits of 1.7 ounces or less. >> Yeah, that's something that the retail team can. >> Okay. So, you would be voluntarily in agreement that we could put that restriction on this license. >> Yes. And I do have a question regarding that. If at a future date we get like a lot of requests regarding around that, can we come back to the commission and discuss that again? >> That would be a commission level decision. Yes. >> Okay. Yes, we would be willing to not carry the the smaller 1. >> Okay. So, madam clerk, what what would the procedure be to amend this at this point in time? So there would be an amendment um with that no single sales of beer or no s or no sales of distilled spirits of 1.7 ounces or less. And then if that's approved, it would be approved as amended. So there'll be two. >> So I'll I'll make the I'll make the first motion to amend to reflect prohibit prohibiting single liquor items including beer. >> Second. specific. >> Is that clear enough for >> we need to say 1.7 >> less amendment? Okay. So, the amendment will be no single sales of beer or no sales of distilled spirits of 1.7 ounces or less. >> What would and and what would the ounces on the beer be? >> It's I think it's the >> no single sales of beer which is that I think the 12 ounces cans. >> I'm sorry. the 12 oz cans is my understanding. >> And it was is is it less than the 20 30 32 ounces? >> No. Single of beer. >> 32 of the second. >> No, he said beer. >> This is airplane shooters. So, >> okay. So, it's that one. >> Okay. My apologies. The amendment is no sales of single containers less than 30 32 ounces of beer and 375 milliliters of liquor. >> 375 milliliter >> 375. >> Okay. So that's the amendment. No >> beer items 32 ounces or less and >> 3.375 milliliters of alcohol. >> It's done already. If you have something else do it ahead of time. It would be helpful to look forward to it. >> Any other comments? >> So, are we clear on what your amendment is? >> I'm clear on what my amendment is. >> Madame Clerk, can you read it one more time so we are crystal clear and then I'll recognize council member Melton? >> I sure can. Okay. No sales of single containers, less than 32 ounces of beer, and 375 milliliters of liquor. So that is a motion for council member Hug. Correct. >> Correct. >> Can we get a motion or a second? >> Second. >> Okay. So we had a motion and a second. And council member Melton, you're recognized. >> Yes. I just want to make sure that the applicant understands what what she's agreeing to. Are Okay. Because we kind of changed it there and then changed the ounces. So are you comfortable agreeing to that at this time >> at this point? Yes. >> Okay. Thanks. I just I just wanted to make sure we weren't skipping past you. All right. Thank you. >> No further no further lights. Um roll call. >> Fester. >> Yes. >> Goodwin. >> Yes. >> Hardin. >> No. >> Hug. >> Yes. >> Melton. >> Row. >> Mr. President. >> Yes. >> Motion pass six to one. >> Motion and a second. Roll call as amended. >> Fester. >> Yes. >> Goodwin. Yes. >> Hardin. >> No. >> Hug. >> Yes. >> Melton. >> Yes. >> Row. >> Mr. President. >> I. >> Motion pass. Six to one. >> Item eight to consider a class C liquor license for very important pizza located at 25502 Farnum Street. >> The public hearing is now open on item number eight. Applicant. Good afternoon. >> Good afternoon. Uh Dylan Espinosa. Uh very important pizza like she said just up the street here at 252 Farnum. Uh going to be a pizza parlor. Um yeah, I guess I don't know how much information you want about the entire thing. Uh seven beers on tap, three batched cocktails, uh is the goal. Uh it's not going to be a bar in the sense that you can't come in and get a Jack and Coke or a ginonic. It will be three um like I said, three batch cocktails, uh seven beers on tap. Um yeah, for years I had uh been running until this Cooji out at Countryside Village. Um Dave uh owns that spot. I was running that for him. He has a liquor license at a couple different spots. Prior to that, I had my own pizza shop in Seattle for some years. Um sold liquor. The liquor license wasn't in my name. It was in my business partner's name. Um but yeah, so got some history with it. Um open ideally 11 to 10 most days, seven days a week. So, it's not going to be um it's not a bar in that sense. I'm not trying to run um a place that's open till two or even past 10. Possibly one day 11 on um Fridays and Saturdays, but past that pretty much just a pizza parlor. >> Okay. Thanks. We might have some questions for you. Don't go too far. >> Sure. >> Thank you. And welcome here to Omaha. Of >> course. >> Are there any other proponents here for item number eight? Seeing none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is closed. I'll just say welcome to um You want to just come back up for one second? I'll ask you a couple questions. >> Um so when do you plan are you open running now? >> No, no, no. Um we things go well maybe last week of February, first week of March. >> Okay. >> Um >> and what what kind of pizzas you got? >> Uh a New York style. >> Okay. Thick. >> No, no, no. Very thin crust. classic uh like deck ovens. Got some baker's pride. Um classic baking ovens. Past that. It's a pretty small menu. Meatballs, salads. Um I've been doing this for some years now and >> okay, >> kind of wanted a shop where it was dialed into just a few things as opposed to having some kind of Cheesecake Factory menu. No shots fired at Cheesecake Factory. Um but simple, you know, dial in what you do well and do that. >> Okay. >> And you will be open for lunch as you said by your hour. The goal is to be 11 to 10 every day. Okay. >> Um and yeah, especially with Zen up there doing such good >> afternoon business, I was hoping to kind of >> ride their coattails a little bit with how much uh fanfare they have up there. >> Okay. Well, >> sorry. Go ahead. >> No, sorry. I was actually just going to mention because you said welcome to the area. Like I did come here from Seattle four years ago. I am originally from Sous City. >> Okay. >> And so it's like I'm I'm from the Omaha was we uh vacationed here. >> All right. Well, I got relatives in Seattle and my mom was from Sous City. Oh, wow. >> So, welcome again and we're glad I'm looking forward to um to getting up there and having some good delicious >> Well, that's the thing is I walked here, so just putting that out there. >> All right. All right. Good marketing right there. >> Very easy to get there. >> Um, >> thanks for being here today. >> Yeah, of course. >> Motion to approve. >> Got a motion in a second. Roll call. >> Fester. >> Yes. >> Good. >> Yes. >> Harding. >> Yes. >> Hug. >> Meltton. >> Row. Yes. >> Mr. President >> I >> motion pass 7 to zero. >> Real quick, anything's fine. Is it decorum here that I should stay to the end or? >> You're good. >> I'm in the middle of painting as you might have noted. So, >> take care of business. >> I appreciate that. >> Good luck. >> Thanks so much. >> Items 9 through 14 can be considered together for Antler View West located southwest of 192nd Street in West Maple Road. Planning board and planning department recommend approval. Items 9 through 11, ordinances to reszone this property from AG district to DR district, R seven district and MU district. Item 12, an ordinance to approve a mixeduse district development agreement. Item 13, a resolution to approve the final plat. Item 14, a resolution to approve the subdivision agreement. >> I will open the public hearings for items 9 through 14. Are there is the applicant here today? >> Good afternoon. >> Good afternoon. My name is Andrew Coer with Thompson Dre and Dorner 10836 Old Mill Road. Uh here on behalf of the client, we're the civil engineers for the project and I'm available for any questions. >> Thank you. Are there any proponents here on items 9 through 14? Seeing none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is closed to approve. >> Motion in a second. Roll call. >> Fester. Yes. >> Goodwin. >> Yes. >> Hardin. >> Yes. >> Hug. >> Meltton. Yes. row. Mr. President, >> I >> motion pass 7 to zero. >> Item 15, an ordinance to reszone property located at 7400 Western Avenue from R3 district to R5 district. Planning board and planning department recommend approval. >> Public hearing is now open on item 15. Applicant here. Good afternoon. >> Good afternoon, members of the council. Joseena, 17516 Rig Street here on behalf of the applicant to answer any questions. >> Thank you. Are there any proponents here today? Seeing none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is closed. Council member Feserson, you're recognized. >> Thanks, Mr. President. Just one question for you. Um I believe this um item represents six new tennis courts at Kraton Prep. >> Yes, sir. >> On the green space that kind of fronts uh Western Street there, Western A. >> Uh currently used kind of for lacrosse and practice, right? >> Yes, sir. Yeah. Um I think it's a welcome addition. I've had support from the neighbors on it, too. Um I was interested in an update on the rest of your project there. Quite a few things happening there from a campus perspective and the athletic facilities in the back. >> Correct. >> Any update on those timelines? >> Well, I can say that part of the reason was to allow some additional impervious. The Jesuits are moving out of the quarters and they're going to master plan kind of that south end which is under underway with RDG planning. And so I'm today speaking probably about the tennis courts and maybe a future uh parking lot. They're considering a performing arts edition. Uh but there's master planning currently ongoing when the Jesuits do leave the the residence. >> Great. That sounds like good progress. Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Got a motion and a second. Roll call. >> Fester. >> Yes. >> Goodwin. >> Harding. >> Yes. >> Hug. >> Yes. >> Meltton. >> Yes. >> Row. Yes. >> Mr. President, >> I. >> Motion pass seven to zero. Item 16, an ordinance to amend the boundaries of the MCC Overlay district to incorporate into that district the property located at 4910 L Street. Planning Board and Planning Department recommend approval. >> Public hearing is now open on item 16. Is the applicant here today? Are there any proponents here for item 16? Seeing none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is closed. >> Approved. >> Got a motion, a second. Roll call. >> Fester. >> Yes. >> Goodwin. >> Hardin. >> Yes. >> Hugg. >> Yes. >> Melton. >> Row. Mr. President. >> I. >> Motion pass seven to zero. Item 17. An ordinance to amend the boundaries of the MCC Overlay district to incorporate into that district the property located at 13780 Millard Avenue. Planning board and planning department recommend approval. >> Public hearing is now open. On item 17, applicant is here. Good afternoon. >> Excuse me, Kyle Haz with the ENA Consulting Group, 10909 Mil Valley Road, representing the applicant. Make myself available for any questions council or audience may have. Thank you. >> Thank you. Are there any proponents here today? Seeing none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is closed. >> Got a motion and a second. Roll call. >> Fester. Yes. >> Goodwin. >> Hardin. >> Yes. >> Hug. Yes. >> Meltton. row. Mr. President, >> yes. >> Motion pass 7 to zero. >> Thank you. >> Items 18 and 19 can be considered together for property located at 30002 Dodge Street Planning Board and Planning Department. Recommend approval. Item 18, an ordinance to reszone this property from GC District to TOOD 1 MX District mixeduse. Item 19, an ordinance to resend the ACI overlay district for this property. >> Public hearing is now open for items 18 and 19. applicant. Good afternoon. >> Good afternoon. Uh Scott Brown, RW Engineering and Surveying, 7525 North 101st Street. Um here representing the applicant. Happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you. Are there any proponents here? Seeing none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is closed. Scott, I couple questions for you. >> Um what what is the goal and what are you going to be doing here? It's an old Radio Shack, right? It's been a number of things over the years. >> Radio Shack when I was a kid. >> Yep. It was a Sprint store at one point. Yep. Most recently, uh, Religious Assembly was in there. Um his plan is to create a u music venue or a kind of an open mic poetry venue, some kind of a gathering space in the evenings and then to sell um coffee and and such drinks throughout the day for various acts that come in or local acts or local theater groups or just create a space for creatives to come share their art. >> Okay. And just curious about long-term parking. Have you looked at that? And >> yeah, it's definitely a concern of the development. He he understands he's on Dodge Street and with some of these concerts that, you know, they tend to go into 10 11 o'clock in the evening. Um, and with the limited parking on site, he's exploring options to secure parking stalls with the neighboring uh business development there to the west, maybe get some of those parking stalls in the parking garages reserved. Um, but part of the move to the TOD zoning was the removal of the parking requirement simply because he wasn't able to adhere to the parking requirement of the previous zoning since he's only got so many stalls on that site. >> Okay. >> So, he's still going to provide as many as he can. Um, but it's it's only I think current plan is less than 20. >> Okay. And and what's the timeline that you want to get this up and running? Do you have any goals on a timeline on this? >> We we've just been engaged for design within the last two months. um and he's intending to um rehab the entire facility. So, I would guess it would be probably a year and a half was finished. >> And I I would encourage you to reach out. It's a community I grew up in. It's the Gford Park Neighborhood Association. >> Okay. >> They're really active and they're they're good people that represent that neighborhood district. So, I I would ask if you would please reach out to them and just kind of let them know what your plans are there. >> Absolutely. And he may have already done so. I know he's been doing a lot of re reach community outreach and talking to a lot of people. >> Okay. Thanks. I Mr. Fanzel, I got one quick question for you on this, Dave. >> Sure. Dave Fansel, city planning. >> Um, so if this gets approved today, this doesn't have anything to do with traffic or any of the public works engineering as far as the traffic flow goes here. Is that correct? I I guess I'll say if this is approved today, um the request is in conformance with the master plan. So that's what we looked at first, right? And it's no different than the gentleman made a reference to didn't quite say it this way, but to get away from the parking rags. We we receive a number of requests um for CBD zoning, NBD zoning um that are partially to do with those um parking rags, but they're also those requests that make it to this body are master plan compliant. I would say that this request is no different. Dodge Street, as you all know, has been designated a TOD corridor. Um and this application is that they're reszoning to to which is master plan compliant. Okay. Thanks, Dave. >> You bet. >> Is there any other comments by council members? Do we have a motion? >> Motion to approve items 18. >> Thank you. Second. Got a motion and a second. Roll call. >> Fester. >> Yes. >> Goodwin. >> Harding. >> Yes. >> Hug. >> Yes. >> Meltton. >> Yes. >> Row. >> Yes. >> Mr. President. >> I. >> Motion pass 7 to zero. One public hearing can be held for items 20 through 22 for property located northeast of 46 and California streets. Planning Board and Planning Department recommend approval. Item 20, an ordinance to reszone this property from GI district to CC district. Item 21, an ordinance to amend the boundaries of the MCC Overlay district to incorporate this property into that district. Item 22, a resolution to approve the Saddle Creek Marketplace Tax Increment Financing Redevelopment Project Plan in an amount up to $9,5,590. A's communications and opposition. The public hearing is now open for items 20 through 22. Are the applicants here today? >> Yes. >> Good afternoon, Mr. President, council members. Bob Griffith 11440 Weston Road here on behalf of the applicant with Sonia Saddle Creek LLC. With me as well as Larry Join in my office were the attorneys for this project. Uh Joe Detliffs of TD2, he's the engineer and Mitch Holland the developer. Um here to answer any questions. I know Don normally does this. Um, so I'll do my best to kind of live up to that example, but we'll start just give a kind of a general overview of um, items 21 and 22 through 22. Um, and then I know Mitch will speak in greater detail about the TIFF um, and the specifics of the project. So, as far as the reszoning, as you know, it's currently zone GI, General Industrial. This is the site right here. Um, and then around it, the red is general or is CC and then down here some MCC overlay. So that's what this request is for to kind of come more in compliance in conformance with what is around uh the area. I think we can agree that general industrial currently is a bit outdated. It doesn't really make sense for this site and for what um the intent of this area is and um along with the master plan's intent. So, um I think the neighborhood and and that the neighbors would agree that maybe a general industrial use is not the best and um so that's part of the the impetus is to bring that more into conformance. Um as far as item 22, which is the tiff, um I'll just go over it generally. This is a five-phase plan with phase one in the southwest corner here being a four-story apartment building. Uh including a total of 138 units, two levels of covered parking. Um phase two, as you can see, if you recall, this is the family fair ger. Um that will be um intended to be three commercial bays um and with three tenants. I phases one and two will likely kind of go together with the intent being that this spring we'll start start some demo and move forward with those. Um ideally um this will all wrap up um with phase five being the last phase here up in uh this corner uh end of 2030. So it's a long range project a total investment by Woodsonia style creek of over hund00 million. They're very invested in this this piece of ground in this project. They feel strongly about it. Um total mixed use uh multif family units include 223. Um it is market rate. Um there's a mix of studio, onebedroom, two-bedroom. Um the 60,000 ft box retail I mentioned, but then also approximately 7,500 of smaller retail space. Um total tiff request that we're asking for today is $9 million. We're also asking for some EA funding uh and a little over $12.5 million. Um, just for context, I know there's as as as is expected, there's some affordability questions. Those deals are difficult. This particular project does not include an affordable affordability aspect, but um the ROI inclusive of TIFF and EA um is only about three and a half%. So, this is a tight deal. Um the way that it doesn't happen without the EA and the TIFF funding, it's essential to make this deal possible. Um, and maybe to offset some of that, there's almost a million dollars of public improvements that includes landscaping, new sidewalks, increased walkability, safety, things like that, as well as just a general, um, kind of revamp of the area and these buildings. So, um, happy to answer any questions. Myself and the team are here, and I know Mitch is will have, uh, ability to walk through the project in greater detail and answer your questions as well. >> Thanks. Are there any proponents here today? Afternoon, Don Seaton, Omaha City Planning Department. Um, Robert gave a pretty good uh Robert Griffith gave a pretty good overview of the project. Uh, I don't have an awful lot to add. I would like to re-emphasize that EA is going to be one aspect of this project. Um, the the agreement for both the TIFF and an agreement for EA will come back. So, there'll be another opportunity for a public hearing on this project. Uh again, the TIFF support is $9,590. Um it's uh maybe worthwhile to take a look at. Couple pictures of the site, the phase two, that's the big box retail building presently occupied by Family Fair. Uh, Robert didn't note, I don't believe that Family Fair has made a decision to leave the site um and their and their lease. That's completely separate and independent um a decision they made separate from this project. This is a um retail strip mall along the western edge of the site. And this is the other existing building on the site, retail strip mall right along um Saddle Creek. This project has been reviewed and approved by the tiff committee, been reviewed and approved by the city planning board. It's um it's an appropriate land use for the area. I think the site is pretty well aged and be draggled. Could use a little attention. Uh really really is a good candidate for redevelopment. We ask for your approval. >> Thank you. Are there any other proponents here today? >> Mitch Holand, uh 200010 Manderson Street, Elor, Nebraska 68022. Uh I'm the developer of the project. Uh just a couple things. I think Don and uh Bob did a good job, but wanted to uh thank staff just for their efforts on this project. This has been a project that's been in the works for the better of two and a half years. Um I think we started looking at this site uh when we were under due diligence efforts with our project at 39th in Dodge uh which is just about a mile north of this that was 138 units. That was the old Travel Lange lodge site which had a lot of fun stories to it. Uh but we've we've held countless meetings with staff. I think our first plan uh on this project that we discussed with staff probably two years ago uh was all multif family. That was kind of the original concept. But as we advanced discussions both with staff, the neighborhood, uh some stakeholders as well as a couple few key tenants, uh it was important to us to try to keep this a mixeduse project. So not just multifamily. Uh we wanted to keep commercial, we wanted to keep retail, and I really think that's the plan that's uh before you folks today. So, uh, obviously we're excited to be hopefully moving forward. I'm happy to answer any further questions, uh, on the development that the council might have. Um, but it's obviously a tired site and we want to kind of breathe new life into it. So, that's really the intent, but happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you. Are there any any other proponents here today? Seeing none, are there any opponents? >> Excuse me there, ma'am. >> Yes. Uh, good afternoon Omaha City Council, Donn R. Johnson, the Johnson Equestion Foundation and North Hall Concerned Citizen Foundation, 4928 North 52nd Street. I think what Larry and these young men are doing is wonderful, but the problem I have with Larry and his program, they're not paying their fair share of wheel tax. There's heavy equipment that's tearing up our street. We want the increase of the wheel tax on these folks. >> Thank you. Are there any other opponents? >> Luis Himenez, 2709 Der Avenue. Uh so, uh been following it since premeating. You're going to have three separate votes on this or just two? >> Three. Okay. Uh, actually, I'm just going to pose all of it because I understand that the neighbors didn't want any residential component along Saddle Creek cuz it blocked their their view of the skyline and uh people were very mad and uh maybe that's why Jurham decided not to seek reelection for a fourth term. uh but uh I I think this is not for the vicinity this development I think it's for uh the medical profession professionals um commercial mixeduse that makes sense. Uh but just to put more residential, more people in there, it without uh really a steady with traffic and uh with um the neighbors coming forth and supporting it. I think uh Mrs. Bucket was the first opponent and I'm the second opponent. So I think that tells me all I need to know. Thank you. >> Thank you. Are there any other opponents? >> Thank you. >> Larry Store, 5015 Lafayette Avenue, Omaha 68132. I am a Dundy resident since December of 1971. Lewis is not. But I want to tell you this reminds me of the definition of blight. You guys don't know why Don doesn't know what blight is. Just go a few blocks north on our Northwest radio in Miss Goodman's district and you'll see what blight is. But I think that's intentional blight. This is not blight. Did you see those pictures on the screen? That doesn't look like a blighted area. It looks vibrant. It looks like people are shopping there. What gives you the right to declare some of our neighborhoods blighted because some developer doesn't want to spend the money to develop it out of his own pocket. And then you turn around and drive the area and you see their name on the things that are for sale. Like excuse me, Mr. Nattle. His name's all over Omaha, but he gets tiff for a lot of those things. This is not fair to me. Now, I need to move because I can't afford the taxes here, but I can't. But for your 20-year obeyance of my property tax and a loan, maybe even paying for the cost of my new house, I can't do it. But I'll pay you tomorrow for a hamburger today. It's a wimpy booger. And it's also illegal against citizens. It's it's unfair to the citizens that do pay to finance this the rich guys and then they move out of town like Kagra did. And you guys blew all those beautiful apartments up downtown Omaha. You could have had those for so-called affordable apartment, affordable housing. You could have even put up the homeless there and the railroad cars could have traveled around Omaha. But no, you got to let somebody that says, "I can't afford to do it, but for tiff come in and do it." Well, you get better or get busy on the Northwest Radio Highway before it gets burned down by the homeless which are no longer there, the Somali community that is. dry that area for about three hours or couple times a time and you'll see what I'm talking about. It's a hazard. That's blighted. Thank you. Are there any other opponents? >> Aaron Feinger, 2719 North 49th Avenue, 68104. You very rarely see me here as a private citizen or on the same side as Larry, so great Tuesday for all of us. Um, I'm a member of the neighborhood who relies on family fair for last minute dinner items. Uh, fan of China Palace and the taco truck in the parking lot. Someone who's purchased windshield wipers at the advanced auto parts also on this site. Big fan of the diversity of our neighborhood. This area does need redevelopment. No one is disputing that. And in general, I am not opposed to TIFF and I recognize this is one of your only tools available for you to do economic development. Um, I don't begrudge Mitch for wanting TIFF or for wanting to redevelop this site because that's what developers do. It's his risk to assume. And Bridget and Don, they're great. They're just doing their jobs. Planning board evaluates those criteria. Um, and state law is state law. So, that leaves you all as city council member as the people who can ultimately affect the changes that neighborhood residents would like to see here. um and in tiff projects moving forward since we're going to see more of them moving north along Saddle Creek presumably. The frustration you're hearing in the record in your inboxes is likely inevitable because the process for citizen engagement um seems to be incredibly problematic. it doesn't feel like it means much and we're engaging in all the ways that we're supposed to do it, but still don't have any real assurance or idea that our input or concerns are going to be addressed as this project moves forward. So, the desire for more affordable housing, which I understand you are constrained, um or there's no real legal mechanism for that to happen. Um, or that the design of these buildings look more should look more like the surrounding neighborhood than like Village Point. No offense to our West Omaha representatives. Or that the site plan includes infrastructure updates that improve the neighborhood like moving the sidewalks back from Saddle Creek. They're already incredibly dangerous. Or California Street. and that we plan redevelopment with the existing community in mind, like who lives here now, what they want, how we use this space, what we're hope to do with it in the future. We just really don't have any asurances that these concerns will be taken into account here. And that's a problem with the process, and so is something that I hope that you as city council members can fix. Having watched a lot of TIFF projects move through council, I'm not naive enough to think that this opposition will stop this moving to the next stage. But I am hopeful that there's been enough frustration with this project and others that we can revisit the process moving forward and do the following. Figure out a way that citizens concerns and inputs can be meaningfully incorporated. find a way to address our affordable housing pro crisis using this economic development tool in supporting the diversity that makes our >> neighbor time's up. Thanks. >> I was done, Danny. Thanks. >> I know I never want to cut you off, but thanks for being here today. >> Yeah. >> Is there any other opponents? Good afternoon. >> Good afternoon. My name is Nick Kohler. I live on 4806 Dodge Street. Um I've been lived in Dundy essentially my whole life. I grew up at 51 Capital. Went to Dundy, McMillan and Central. Um, I went away to college to go to GW, George Washington, out in DC, um, from 2018 to 2025. And when I moved back, I saw quite a lot of change in Omaha. Some for the better, some for the worst. And I think one thing that really struck me is Omaha has a housing problem, but Omaha has an affordable housing problem. And I think it's very telltale in the Dundy area, the Duke Apartments, which are right, I believe, east, I'm sorry, right west up on the hill on Saddle Creek. Those apartments were put in place almost similarly to my understanding of these apartments here to redevelop and to sort of revitalize. Those apartments from my understanding have not filled their vacancy are still struggling with vacancy issues and I will say by my research which you know can go from there on. I looked on the website two days ago and I saw 40 vacancies on the apartment website. I understand there are hundreds of units but it's very worrisome that a sort of a luxury apartment that's already there is struggling to fill their doors and to fill their apartments as we speak. Another thing that concerned me reading articles about um this project in place that studios are starting at I believe $1,150 with two bedrooms going for $2,450. I know he said that that's market rate, but that is almost Washington DC market rate compared to the Omaha market rate from my understanding. So, as I said again, and I want to reemphasize, Omaha does have a housing problem, and I am very appreciative of the mayor's efforts as well as the city council's efforts to get more housing here in Omaha. But as I said, I do not want to see another luxury apartment complex be vacant in a couple of years because we thought it was a good idea at the time. I think it's important to think of the people that are there now, the people that will live there, and the people that will be there afterwards. Thank you all. >> Thank you. >> Is there any other opponents? >> Hi, Jessica Malli, 5033 Sword Street. Can you hear me? Yes. >> Okay. Um I'm here also as a neighbor um constituent of Council Member Fester, a business owner in 68132 and 68104. So kind of squarely in the area that we're talking about. Um I'm also speaking for dozens um and up to hundreds of my fellow neighbors uh who can't be here today. I mean, lots of times we can't make it because this is during working time and also many immigrant neighbors who don't want to be on camera stating names and addresses in a government building currently, which I think we all understand. Um, I'm also not here uh just to oppose TIFF in general. I think um the last couple people who spoke covered the frustration with the process. Um, and then also in our neighborhood, a lot of the opposition is with the affordable housing not being present in this during our uh kind of housing crisis, but also that the the area in question and these businesses, the buildings are tired, but the businesses are absolutely thriving. Um, they are almost majority immigrant-owned and a lot of them are uh legacy businesses. They've been passed down. Um and they've the intention is to keep going for the next um however many years 10 20 years been here for 30 years 10 years 20 years 6 years. I bring that up because in the planning board it was mentioned that these are mostly transient businesses and and mostly vape shops which is not true at all. They're beloved thriving businesses. Um so it's it begs the question who is tiff for? Is it for luxury apartments and developers or is it for our community members? Mitch mentioned that they've been working on this for two and a half years and and he's engaged with us to an extent. We've organized meetings and tried to get the word out to our neighborhood that this is happening. The timeline is moving incredibly fast. We've been told f it seems even faster than normal. So, we haven't had a a total chance to kind of connect with our council members as fully as we wanted to. This feels very rushed. Um, and if they've the project's been going on for two and a half years, right at the end in between passage from the planning board to city council to say, you know, Mitch has has has graciously met with us and said, okay, you can submit a design, but do we have any apparatus in place to hold him accountable to the community? This sounds like a conversation that started should have started two and a half years ago. Um, so in the case for this project, for these reasons and a multitude of other reasons, I'm opposing TIFF for this project specifically. Do you have any questions? >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> Thanks for being here today. Is there any other opponents? Public hearing is closed. Council member Feserson, you're recognized. >> Thanks, Mr. President. Um, and thank you all for your testimony and for your engagement on this project. Um, especially the neighbors. Um, I've been following this case and have read the numerous emails we've all received on it, uh, of concern. I know there was a large neighborhood meeting. Um, and then of course I followed the planning board proceedings in those minutes and I've met with the developer twice now and have had conversations with Family Fair and in fact was on site over the weekend at Family Fair. Um, and I want to engage a little bit more on a comment you made, Mr. seat here in a minute. But um there's no doubt, I agree, this property could use some reinvestment. It is tired. It's been decades since we've seen any reinvestment there from a capital perspective. Uh but I do understand the concerns that are being expressed. Um so I think there's a few things I want to try and unpack here. Um and the first thing I want to start with is is process and neighborhood engagement as that has been a common theme from the emails of concern that I've received. Um I don't know if Mitch or or Bob if you want to address that. how that's gone up from your perspective and what those steps have been and and where you see it going from here. >> Yeah, I thanks Pete. Um there's been some unique parameters on this project in terms of there being an anchor grocery store that we're bound by certain confidentiality provisions in that lease, what we can and can't share obviously with any business, right? Um, so I'm not able to come up here and say, "Hey, here's the date that XYZ tenant is leaving and here's why." Right? But from the start, what we shared with staff, planning commission, and the neighborhood, and that I want to make abundantly clear, is we are not driving out family affairs part of this project. What we absolutely want to prevent is a vacant box sitting there, which will happen. That will be happening in the coming years regardless of our project moving forward or not. That's one of the reasons why the existing ownership group decided to sell um in terms of engaging in the community and the neighborhood. Um with any big project like this, this has changed, right? This is a this is a project that's going to involve a lot of change. Uh do I think it's a positive project for Omaha and the community and the neighborhood? I do. I absolutely do. Um and I think we've been engaged with the community. I think we have a lot of support from the community and neighborhood. Um there is some opposition, right? But by and large, I think this is a project that the neighborhood and community are very excited for. Um, I think we've engaged, you know, to the extent that we can. We're gaining feedback. We're we're certainly not making promises that we're able to implement every, you know, recommended change or modification to the project. Uh, but we do want to get that community feedback and I think we're going to continue to do that. I will say in all of our Omaha projects, this this fortunately is not our first project. I think we have a good track record of doing that. Um, we worked on a project, Danny and I, together at 39th and Dodge where there was a lot of neighborhood interest. 39th and Dodge, there was a lot of neighborhood interest on that project. And, you know, post council making their decision, there were changes that we made. One of the big ones was they wanted to see more parking. That was a huge change that we ended up making where we added a full level of additional parking there. Probably not a decision that going back I would do again. we're we're we're not using all those parking stalls, but you know, we were receptive to what the neighborhood wanted to see within reason, right? We can't make every change that everybody wants to, but I I I think Councilman Ferman, we have a a good track record of doing that. That's my commitment to this project. You know, we're not just showing up to these meetings to to check a box. Um so that is my commitment to to this project, too. >> Okay. And from a process perspective, what we have here today is the project redevelopment plan. >> Yep. a zoning overlay and a zoning change. What really comes back later and solidifies a project is a redevelopment agreement. Um, and that'll happen in this case too, which is typically six, eight weeks out. Is that probably the time frame you see, too? >> Yeah. Yeah, I would. >> And so, in between now and that time, should this pass today, there's much more time to talk about and engage on issues of concern that have been expressed today? >> Yeah. And I think there's there's a lot of time beyond that as well, Pete, where a big piece that the neighborhood wants to provide feedback on, you know, among others is design. of these buildings and we've been really clear. I'm on record to this is these are not the set designs that we're moving forward with. We're gonna have to comply with the MCC overlay. There's probably going to be a TOD overlay. You know, we're going to progress these designs. That's that's going to that's going to kick off once we're approved by you folks. Right. So, I think there's a lot of time for those designs to be implemented. Um we we have got some feedback to date uh within the last three weeks from the neighborhood. My request to them was, hey, send me what you do want to see first. what you don't want to see and then we'll see what we can actually implement. So, we did receive those. We are going to take those um into consideration. I mean, ultimately, I don't want a building that just sticks out down here either, right? And I don't want to build the same apartment complex that we've got 50 of them down here, too. So, um Pete, to answer your your question, yeah, the the design implementation is going to be well beyond this six week period. There's not a rush to finalize that. >> Okay. Thank you for that. Uh, I might come back to that here in a second, but um, you can sit down for a minute if you want. Uh, I'll just have a comment on affordable housing, too. That was another common theme I heard of concern um, and of interest, and I think it's all of our interests, uh, throughout the city because we know we're about 30,000 units short in the next 5 years in our city for affordable housing. >> Um, and in this project, there is no affordable housing. we met and we talked about that and expressed my interest in that, but uh I respect your response which is um that's not part of your plan and in fact that's not a product that your firm offers I believe. >> Yeah. >> So that's not something you're pursuing here even though I'd like to see that here. Um I can't say you're not playing by the rules in your application and and and how that's gone through the process to date. But I will say, and I've said this before, um I do think personally that multifamily projects seeking tiff in Omaha um should be subject to some kind of requirement or at least an incentive to do affordable housing with projects like this. And that can be done uh that can be done through a just a simple uh policy change through our TIFF committee review. Uh I think that can be done through resolution or even ordinance. And I I really think that needs to happen uh when we talk about our overall challenges and portfolio of things we need to pursue when it comes to affordable housing. So I'm hopeful that the tiff committee is hearing me say this. I've had I have this topic on our next planning committee agenda to talk further and if needed I'm willing to pursue a resolution or ordinance to make this possible for future projects because I don't want to be again in a position of saying well yeah we'd like to see affordable housing here but it wasn't required and so we're just we're just not doing it. Um, having said that, I do want to condition that expectation. Um, when people think about TIFF and multifamily affordable housing in the city. Um, in the last few years, that would have been maybe a few hundred units and I'm we're talking about 30,000 units that need to happen in the city, right? So, this is definitely not a silver bullet, but something I think we do need to take seriously and pursue as part of our our portfolio for affordable housing. So, um, that's my intention on that issue. Um I do believe in this case as I think Bob said though um there is a but for clause with TIFF that must be met and that's something we take very seriously too. I do think that's the case with this project. Um as he mentioned um it's not more than maybe 2.3% or maybe a 3 and a half% ROI even with those incentives. And frankly that's a lot lower than I've seen uh from most any other project I've seen come through um with incentives. So I believe that's the case. Uh and I believe you are meeting that test as analyzed by the planning board and the planning department to to this uh to this point. Um I want to talk about a few site details now that we started to brush upon uh in your in your first response there. So I I'll have to say it's an unusual shaped site and it is a bit of an odd layout when we talk about your first phase there and the proposed apartments. um both because California Street has a pretty extreme um elevation change there, but also because it's kind of in the back there of the buildings. Um can you speak to that a little bit and what what the thought was there? >> Well, I don't know who put this building on crooked 20 years ago, but that's honestly been the biggest challenge of this site. Uh we've got Joe with with TD2 here. We've spent numerous hours trying to figure out how to put this site together. Um why that building was placed at an angle I don't know. Uh but it has it has created um some challenges with with maximizing the density. The building that you see in the south this would be the southwest corner uh is virtually the same footprint as the building that we have at 39th and Dodge. And that's kind of where this idea started is we were looking around for another site that we could do you know around 150 units in. Um the grade change is one of the challenges, but we're also trying to really use that uh in terms of the building design. So if you look at that today for 46th Street is almost 20 ft above where the loading dock is for family fair. And what we're going to do is two levels of underground structured parking that are going to be buried into that hill. So instead of you know you seeing those typical two levels and then the four stories on top of it, those two levels are going to be buried where today we are going to get rid of the loading dock uh access that goes off of California Street. That's a a mess and I think that's a major benefit as well. That will then serve as the entrance to an underground parking garage for the first level. The second would come off of 46th Street if you can keep pointing at that. If you can see right here. So that would enter the second sublevel of parking and then units would then be on grade with the corner of 46 and California Street. So today that's it's about an acre and a half of just slope ground. Um as you move further or north on 46th Street, we are going to do a small rowhouse project which mirrors the exact uh type of units that are on the opposite side of 46th Street today. Okay. So, if we were looking at an aerial, you would see right about here, I think there's 10 or 15 rowouses uh that are there. So, our intent is really to maximize an area ground that isn't currently being utilized at all. The challenge with that though, Pete, that I want to go back to on the use of TIFF in this case is I have almost $5 million of retaining walls, geopolit. Um that's that's why we're ultimately pursuing the use of TIFF on this. So, I think it's a great use of that piece. Um, in terms of the existing family fair box, what you don't see today is we are actually going to lop off the front, call it 20 ft of that building, which is all mess space and then offices. So, that's all going to come off. We're going to shift that building back a little bit and then we'll do new uh storefronts on each of those uh for three to four tenants in that space. And then our future phases, so phase three, four, and five, meaning uh the existing multi-tenant building on the west side, hopefully a new restaurant user on the north, and then the existing multi-tenant building on the east side, uh would all go as we uh recruit new tenants to those spaces. Um >> and then the parking lot is the other one. >> Yeah, I want to come back to that in a second. Can you speak to the materials on the multif family building? Um that's, you know, of concern that's consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Yeah, >> we had the same conversation across the street with the Duke many years ago. >> Um, still flexibility there in terms of your final designs. >> Yeah, absolutely. I mean, we've got a we've got a general schematic design that's included in our TIFF application. I mean, we ultimately want to build, you know, a class A community that we represent our application, but in terms of what that final design looks like, it's very in flux at this point um on that piece. >> Okay, I think that's good for, you know, additional conversation and input on it. So, back to family affair for a second and and Donna, I might call you up for a minute because I know there's only so much you can say. Um, but I'm pretty confident I heard in your remarks that Family Affair has told you they are in fact leaving. You want can you repeat that comment? >> I haven't spoke, you know, Don Seaton, city planning. I haven't spoken to them directly and personally, but that's what I've been told. >> Okay. That's my understanding. I did speak with them directly and personally and I wouldn't say they told me that but that was my clear impression from our conversation even though I expressed to them the interest of uh supporting family fair and having a grocery store there which I think is very important to the community and in many of our districts. Um, I believe this is just me talking that their current lease goes through 20 2028, but if I had to opinion on my conversation with them, I would say they don't intend to stay there until 2028, unfortunately. Um, so let's come back to that building then. That, uh, Mitch, you said that that building does not get demolished, right? You just you're talking about the front part being removed. >> Yeah. Um, I mean, for all intents, we're we're redoing the entire building with the exception of the structural components. So, new roof, new mechanical, new electrical. Uh, it'll have an entirely new facade, both east, west, north, um, and south. And then we're going to relocate the the looney docks. Instead of being on the south end of that building, they will now be on the, uh, east side of that building. So, overall, it'll look like a brand new building. >> And when would that work start on that phase? >> We would plan to start that in 2026. Okay. >> And in our conversation um with in your discussions with Family Fair or any other potential ger, you'd love to have one of them stay in that building, right? And that be your interest. >> 100%. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um let's talk about the surface lot a little bit. I do think one of the benefits of what we have on the agenda today is the zoning change and the overlay because when you do that um we take this to GI um to um I just lost the designation here. Uh we change it from general industrial which is very positive because you don't want something general industrial happening on this property in the long term. Then the MCC overlay is what controls parking lot landscaping and things like pedestrian friendly improvements and things of that nature. So I want to talk about that a little bit. >> Um that surface lot right now is essentially a heat island. Um >> and there's a lot of parking there that doesn't get used. Can you talk about what'll change there with this proposal? >> I mean the biggest piece is there are no landscaped islands there today. It is just a sea of asphalt. So, what we'll do is completely tear out that existing parking field um and put in brand new lighting, brand new parking, all brand new landscaped uh islands and medians. And a big piece of what we want to do is connect 46th Street to the project. So, today if you go there, it's it's chained off. Uh and there's a huge grade change as well. So, you're walking around to Saddle Creek to get in. Um, so you'll see here on the west side, uh, we want to add a new pedestrian connection point to 46th Street, uh, to allow folks to come from the neighborhood or 46th Street, both the people living in our apartments and those in the neighborhood down into the commercial and retail area. Uh, and then I always forget the the name of the trail. Somebody here can probably chime in. I'm looking at you, Dave. I don't know why, but we are adding a new trail system on California Street. Uh, that'll go along that path as well. >> Okay. And are we talking trees in the parking lot? And how many trees are we talking? >> I don't have the exact number, but yes, it'll be it'll be treated in uh in those islands. >> Okay, which is a detail that'll be forthcoming probably in the agreement. >> Yeah, we we'll have to comply. This goes back to my point of all the MCC requirements, public work requirements, landscaping requirements. >> Okay. And in your remarks, you said about a million dollars worth of uh investments in these type of things. Um talk about the sidewalks a little bit. Um, Miss Feinger made a comment on the sidewalks, which is true. Uh, they are very close to um, California Street and to Saddle Creek there. Not much of a barrier at all. I think the sidewalks aren't more than 4 feet right now. >> Yeah. >> Will those sidewalks all get replaced or what's what's the plan with that? >> The ones on 46th Street in California on our up to our property line will be uh what we don't control, we tried hard to acquire it was the post office. So, we won't touch any of their property or their rightway, but the ones on 46th Street in California will be as part of our project. >> And do they get larger or how would you describe the >> I would have to ask public works on what will be required there. I don't know if they'll if they'll get larger or not. I know the one on California because it's a trail will be I think that's 10 feet on that one, but I'm not sure how wide the ones on 46th Street will be. >> California will be 10 feet. >> Yeah. >> Okay. I don't know if public works is a poss if you're um prepared to answer that question yet or if that comes in the next phase of this project. >> Public works public works. So yeah, 4 foot is not an acceptable sidewalk width anymore. I think it's 5 foot is the minimum sidewalk width that would be required. >> So we'll probably see five it would be five feet on 46th Street there, but then the 10 feet on the California. >> Yeah. Everything from the standpoint of sidewalks, trails all meet current standards. >> Yep. >> And then I presume 5T on the Saddle Creek portion of your property >> for that when that uh next phase goes. Yes, that'd be upgraded as well. >> Yep. That's my post office too. And there I I see people struggling, pedestrians struggling in there every day, but I realize that's not part of your uh project here. That's a federal uh situation we're talking about there. Um okay. I want to talk briefly about the other tenants here. That is a concern of mine too. Um, and we're talking u businesses like China Palace and Hello Nepal. Um, there's Lee's Beauty Supply. There's a Papa John's and then a Sudin um business also along Saddle Creek there. No one is being no one's lease is being ended as a result of your project. Right. >> That's correct. in that strip mall and in the building that is that is near Saddle Creek. Those are phases three, four or five. What what year are we talking in terms of when those things would start to happen? >> I wouldn't expect I mean where nobody's going to be impacted is the new building up on the north end which that could end up being a 10,000 foot multi-tenant building depending on the tenant base we get there. Um and also an opportunity for relocation for some of these tenants as well. Um the challenge that you have is these two buildings on both sides. They're obsolete. We've got maintenance nightmares on those. We're just not going to be able to keep them long term. I don't want to keep them long term. Um but those are planned for 2029 and beyond for those two pieces. But as you touched on, nobody's leases are going to be impacted as part of those projects. >> Okay. So nobody's being evicted and you wouldn't see work on those on those potential buildings until about 2020 then. >> Correct. So plenty of time to further engage those business owners and have those conversations, right? >> Yeah. And the building on Saddle Creek, we've had a couple tenants come to us that would like to get out of their pieces. So when we use the word transient, that's more of the reference that we're making um to those types of those types of uses. >> Okay. All right. I think we have some other lights on here. Uh so I'll I'll yield the floor for now. One last thing though in terms of engagement. You've committed to engaging on that should this pass today and continuing that conversation. >> Um there has been some um issu some u interest expressed around continuing cultural engagement with these business owners and the neighborhood. Even things like farmers markets and such. >> These aren't things that would be in a redevelopment agreement, but are those things that you'd be open to in terms of your relationship with the neighborhood? >> Yeah. and and that was we had a great meeting on the 17th of December and items like a farmers market are absolutely things that we're going to entertain. The the the parameter that we're going to have is there are national tenants that we are trying to recruit to those site and a lot of times they file their own declaration and covenants on what you can and can't do. So there will be parameters we have to work around. That's why we can't outright commit sure you know we'll we'll do a farmers market but um I would like to be able to do those things. I mean, who doesn't want a a farmers market next to their multif family community? I mean, it's a natural amenity. So, to the extent we can, yeah, we want to be able to do those things. >> Okay. Thank you. Thanks for the engagement on this. I appreciate it. Um, as I mentioned, I think the reasoning of these uh properties and the overlay are very positive to all the things we just talked about there. I think the redevelopment plan will require a lot of these things to occur as well, but the real key will be the redevelopment agreement. So, I'm pleased to hear you're um still willing to engage in that process going forward and with the neighborhood. And if the neighborhood wants to have uh any further remarks, I don't know if Jessica or Erin um would you like to come up and engage on anything I just said yet? All right. >> I could ask you a specific question if you'd like. >> All right. Come on up. I have one one question for you which is um our process isn't to call people up for further comments but I do have a question for you. Um the items we just talked about here and in particularly the site characteristics and the site details um are those things that are of interest to you. Do you feel like that could have um still worthwhile uh input from uh the neighborhood um going forward? >> Do I need to restate? >> Yeah. >> Uh Jessica Malli 5033 Seward Street. Your question is, are we concerned about the the characteristics of the site? >> Yeah, the many things that we just talked about and that the developer committed to continue to have conversations on. Would that be of interest to you? >> I mean, it's absolutely of interest. Um, and we've we we have been, you know, we've got communication going with Mitch. That's not really the problem. And I think the bigger issue is he can listen or be open to or you know answer our emails, but that feels very different fundamentally or spiritually from engaging with the community. Um we're talking about national retailers. We still haven't heard anything about who that is. Um you know uh council member, you're part of the neighborhood. You know how how strongly we like to support local businesses. Um, I think that's a huge loss uh of of local entrepreneurialship. Um, and uh and for also for the neighborhood and or sorry for the community members who live there um having access to these things like culturally appropriate food and hair supplies and taxes and groceries. Um, so it's I think it's bigger than just kind of like picking the pallet or the design of the building. I I they it was not shown on the screen the renderings that we were shown. That is that is a big concern of the neighborhood that it does feel like a completely different place. It's someone not from here coming in recreate recreating something we've seen and we don't like. That's a lot of what we enjoy about living where we do and doing business where we do. um and it feels more like home um right now for a very incredibly diverse neighborhood. Another strong point. So yes, I we definitely want to continue to have this conversation and engage with the developers, but I think it's a bigger conversation than that. And like I said, the concern being he's he's not held to any of that. You can just say, "Well, it doesn't work. Not it. Sorry. Um we can't afford that or we don't like it." So we already kind of made the plans. You know what I'm saying? >> Mhm. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Thanks, Mr. President. >> Thank you, Council Member Harding. You're recognized. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Um I I'll start with maybe some of the last comments just to I mean I I think that um both with what Mitch has expressed to us today and I think the track record that he has um I think there's a a willingness and an openness to to listen to um input. But again, at the at the end of the day, it's it's their risk. It's it's their capital. Um and and they need to make sure that it's a that it works. Um that that they're that it's it's profitable for them and they're willing to make that investment in the neighborhood. Um those uh you know, a lot of the tenants that are there today are actually national tenants, too. But that's kind of a side issue. I'll I'll reserve the rest of my comments for um the the redevelopment agreement, but um I I'll close with this. I think it's one thing that I think always gets lost or doesn't necessarily get mentioned when we're talking about affordable housing and making um making it maybe a requirement of tiff if there's housing within the the project is I mean even um council uh member Feserson mentioned that over the last number of years it might have only been you know it's really even if you made it 10% I can't remember match how many units are in 200 >> 200. So that's like 20 some odd units out of this. And um that's not a whole lot. I think we need to be looking at other incentives or other tools or other ways that that we can encourage um that kind of middle market or workforce housing. But the point I was going to make is that um and I had this conversation with someone earlier today is that these types of projects also leave openings in other housing um opportunities. As people move into these units, there are units that become vacant and therefore available that might be um more affordable for for others. So, it having a having a development that uh that has new housing in it can actually help address the the lack of housing or affordable housing or workforce housing um across the rest of the city. So, look forward to to seeing the u the agreement when it comes to us. Um, and I know you'll be open to to listening to the input, but but again, it has to be something that works for for the development in the the long run as well, too. Thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member Row. You're recognized. >> Thank you, sir. Uh, Mitch, I have a just a real quick question followup to uh Mr. Harding's questions on had did you happen to do any proformal work on what the project would look like if you did include say 20 or 25 affordable units in the project. >> How would that impact I mean you're on a thin margin now. >> Yeah. >> At full market rate. What kind of a return would you anticipate if you if you were mandated to put 20 units of affordable housing in there? Um, how would that impact the project? >> You touched on a good point and and Pete brought it up earlier too. Um, with TIFF, with EA, we're at a 4.1% rate of return and that's with I can't remember who spoke on it. Um, top of market rents in my opinion. We got a project down the street, new construction, that those units aren't at what the rents that we're going to need here for it to pencil. That's the challenge, right? Um, so to answer your question, I mean, typically we we target a 7 and a half% rate of return. This was a little unique where we bought the site last year because we kind of had a gun to our head. So, it was going to either have the opportunity to work on it or not. So, this is lower than we would typically do to begin with, but we've kind of already jumped in. Um, so to answer your question, you know, did we did we look at an option of providing affordable housing on this? We we didn't and it was mostly because the threshold was so low to begin with. But the other parameter that that we run into is a lot of the key financing that we utilize with these kind of projects, you will not get the financing if you have any kind of deed restriction on affordability. It's mostly because the lender just won't take the risk. If something goes wrong with the project, they need to know somebody else can take that over, make it work without having an overarching deed restriction, right? That XYZ units can be affordable or not. So that would be my concern. I know that's not what we're talking about today, but Brinker, I think you brought up a great point. If if you're going to incentivize affordable housing, it has to be incentivized through other tools. If if you use the existing tools and kind of take out of those, I can tell you our project at 39th and Dodge wouldn't have happened. This project would not happen. I would probably gear it solely towards commercial. Um that's just, you know, this developer's opinion on it. But um multif family is just hard to get the pencil right now. that's why you don't have very many affordable units to begin with. But I think, you know, adding an additional restriction is probably just going to mean less units in the market. Um, would be would be my opinion. >> I appreciate that that that answer. The mayor commissioned an affordable housing task force recently and I've been fortunate to serve on that. We've had a couple of meetings and we're talking about about a half a dozen, you know, ways that maybe we could impact the affordability question and create more affordable housing. >> And I've just, you know, cautioned the team that we don't want unintended consequences to come from a mandate. >> Yeah. you know that that would take a project that maybe could be built and you know if 39th and Dodge is not built that's what 300 units or 150 units and 223 units here where we have the potential of unintended consequences. I'm not saying that there's um shouldn't be some discussion about it, but I think we need to be careful that we don't um take more units out of the market than what we expected going in. And then um I had a question for Mr. Fansaw. Um Dave, I didn't prep you on this and maybe uh Don will have a answer to this, but let's say in the last two years of the tiff projects that have come for housing, do you know what percentage would have gone toward affordable units Dave Fanaw City Planning? Um yeah, it's on my desk, but I don't know what what is maybe Bridget or Don since one of them put that information together for me could answer it. If not, we will surely provide it to all of you as soon as we can. >> Bridget, >> Bridget Hathley, city planning. I don't have it right now, but I'm trying to pull up our website. And on our website, um, I just look at our TIFF reports because our TIFF reports indicate the number of affordable, whether it's affordable, meaning under 80% AMI, or workforce housing, which is 80 to 120%. So, I could probably figure that out, but I just need a little more time. But it is on our website. >> Okay. I I guess I don't need to get this exact specifics. I think the point I wanted to make was it's a bigger or a higher number than most people would think. that there are a lot more uh tiff projects have affordable housing in them probably than not. And um so I didn't like I said I didn't forewarn anybody but I think I remember reading that >> Don if I can interrupt. >> Yes sir. Uh, so yeah, Dave Fansville, city planning. I'm going to guess over the last again guess. So maybe I shouldn't be doing this forum, but I'm going to guess over the last five years, we are close to that what has been talked about 10%. Out of all the units, not every project, right? But of all the units that TIFF has helped bring online, we're I think we're close to 10, but again, we'll get you that information. >> Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Council Member Goodwin. You're recognized. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Um, I have two questions. One is for Don, please. Um, clearly a lot of this discussion has been geared around TIFF and it had been brought up, uh, what are the conditions of blight? Uh, they're more than simply subjective. Is that correct? >> They're more than what? >> Uh, subjective. Yeah, they are more than subjective. Um, Don Satan, Omaha City Planning Department. Um, there are really two factors that the state law has us look at. One is the condition of the built environment. Um, and you know, are the buildings in good shape, poor shape, average? And we can go to the county assessor's website and do an analysis uh based on their rankings of building conditions to get that data. And that's fairly objective data. Uh but the other aspect is what is the um demographic nature of the population that lives within the area um particularly in terms of unemployment um poverty rates uh per capita income. And um those are really empirical data points that um you know there are thresholds that are set in state law. For instance, uh unemployment uh to be eligible as to be designated as blighted and substandard or community redevelopment area, you need to have um unemployment levels that are 120% of the statewide unemployment level. That's a measurable factor. Uh population change, if if the population is growing by more than 5%, that's considered kind of a thriving area and therefore not eligible for designation of the CRA. So, we look for a stable or declining population. And again, that's a fairly measurable factor. Uh, yeah, it isn't always um a matter of visual blight. Uh, for instance, I live about a dozen blocks north of this Saddle Creek site uh north of Radial Highway, an area that um Mr. Stores is talking about being extremely blighted. My neighborhood doesn't look that bad. My neighborhood looks pretty good overall in my opinion, but yeah, a lot of it is measurable. >> Thank you. Um, I had another question then for the developer. Um, there has been concern about the small businesses that are currently occupying the space and how they do provide um, you know, various products and services. also representing specific cultures, but I'm more focused on the entrepreneurial aspect of the small businesses, knowing that small businesses employ the majority of our workers nationally. >> Um, is there an opportunity for these small businesses to be grandfathered in um to your project um potentially at um you know, rates that might be a little more affordable? I again I do know that you have um you know a project and an ROI to make. Yeah. >> Um I just looking at redevelopment for instance in on North 24th Street. um looking at those small businesses and ensuring that they have an opportunity to >> participate in the progress moving forward is something I look at and so I can understand the concerns of the neighborhood um and the neighbors that not only would they still have access to uh maybe some of these amenities but also that the small businesses would have an opportunity. >> Yeah. I mean to answer your question um when we talk about the small businesses I I can't remember who else mentioned it. I think seven of them are large national chains that are there today that tend to follow large grocery anchors. So we haven't gone door to door to their employees. We've made sure to communicate with the actual business owner and companies. But a few of them when they heard the grocery was leaving have started to look at relocating to other grocery anchor centers. So, we might be only talking about two or three tenants when we talk about the the locally owned ones. Um, in terms of those that want to stay that didn't seek termination rights. Um, but to answer your question, yeah, my hope is I mean, one of them in particular, it's a great example is the Chinese buffet. Been there for almost 30 years. They've got a, you know, business that is profitable. They're kind of a staple in that center. Um, and we are, you know, in discussions with them to figure out how we can have them be a part of the project in the future. This is a little unique where we're not we're not leaving those two existing buildings just because of the condition of them. They're just not safe to be there. So, can I say, hey, you're going to stay in this space and we'll work around you long term into the project. It's just not going to be an opportunity because we are going to tear those buildings down. There's just no way around it. But would there be an opportunity in a multi-tenant building? Uh, potentially. Um, but at their current rate, some of these folks are paying5, $6 a foot in base rent. that's that's less than the operating cost on the building. So, I can't promise that we're going to be able to do that. We wouldn't be able to move this project forward. >> Well, I do think this is an opportunity uh to be a model. I think that anytime you're working within an area that >> is on the cru crux of redevelopment, >> there's a dance. >> Um you want the project to happen, but then you don't want to lose character. You don't want to push small businesses out. And in no way am I implying that you are. Um, but there may be some other opportunities to even support the small businesses partnering through with other organizations. Um, and I'm glad to hear that, you know, you are working with them. Um, but I do think that that's it's it's going to be critical as we look for reinvestment east of 72nd Street that we find the balance >> with how we build and grow and revitalize, which I'm all for. Yeah. But where you're not only supporting the community and ensuring that they have an opportunity for it to to look like >> for sure, >> you know, sometimes I one time I heard a developer say that they wanted an area we were developing to look like Elhorn and I cringe because I thought Elhorn's Elhorn and it's great, but people want their neighborhoods, people want that small store, people want that small business to have that chance. And so I think that >> maybe there's some talking offline about how they're supported. I get five to six, you know, dollars a square foot is cheap cheap, but how do you help them grow into it? And that's how we can support small businesses. I think there's some opportunities for that that because again, this can be a model >> for how we successfully revitalize other neighborhoods. >> Yeah, absolutely. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Thank you. Couple of comments I'll make. I I appreciate everybody being here today that came out to support or oppose the project. Um I want to reserve my comments. Council member Melton, you're recognized. >> Oh, no. I was just going to move to >> because I know it's your district and you can't. Okay. >> And so um I was just going to move >> Pete's district, but >> Oh, >> by a by a half a 50 feet. So >> Oh, it's about Okay. It wasn't that far. I'm like I thought this was your district. Well, I'll even move to approve her second. Mr. Professor said, >> "Thank you." >> Thanks. Okay. So, um, the people that came down, I I watched a planning board meeting and took several pages of notes so I can understand and just hear what people were saying. And Mr. Pate on the planning board, he he made the comment. He said, "This area has been transformed over years." And I can tell you growing up my 56 years on Earth, having been down there in Saddle Creek when it was just to the south, it was Hinky Dinky and Walgreens and Target and the Tropics Bar was there. Mama's Pizza, Blockbuster was the greatest thing ever in the mid 80s on the east side there of Saddle Creek. And then my buddy's sister had Sunny Beaches in 1986, right in that bay on Saddle Creek. And then it was a a goodrich distribution center there in the 70s and 80s and even going back. So when I heard Mr. Pate say that, it really made me understand what the people that are speaking up just to have their voices heard on where they're coming from having understood that area my whole life. Um the developers the investment is $103 million and change is a hard thing but as council member Feserson talked about we're not ignoring affordable housing or the crisis we have. We are working with the mayor and council member row is on a committee that's looking at it to bring our ideas together. I recently attended um a groundbreaking in Columbus Park for some affordable units. It was bitter cold a few weeks back. I think there's 150 units that's off 22nd in south of off of Pacific. Um so the things I'm hearing um that have been addressed and will continue to be addressed. Mr. Holand, can I just ask a couple quick questions of you? So, at the planning board meeting, it was discussed that you had had some meetings and I know there were some emails with the neighborhood faithful that had concerns. How many times you met with them before and after the planning board meeting? I think it was December 3rd or 4th. Is that correct? >> Yeah, we met um before the initial planning commission meeting and then we met after again before this meeting. And if if these items are passed before us today, you're committed to have continued conversations and meetings. >> I am. >> And in the planning board meeting, you said um you're committed to working with the community and the feedback and the designs aren't finalized yet. What What does that exactly mean? So on the on the apartment complex in particular, um that's the one where we probably have the most flexibility within the confines of the zoning, right? Um I'm very much open to the neighborhood's input on that project. I think that that came out of our meeting on the 17th where we said, "Hey, I don't want to hear what you don't want. Show us what you do want." Right? Real examples in Omaha that you think would be a good solid project to do here. So that's been my request. um the neighborhood has provided that uh and when we go to kick off formal you know construction drawings um Danny that's that's absolutely something that we're going to take into consideration. >> Okay. And I do want to stress and have you reiterate for the record. Council member Feserson asked you >> and you had commented in in the planning board meeting that the tenants that are currently under lease now >> they're not going to be evicted or told to leave. Is that correct? >> Yeah. I'm not terminating anybody's leases or evicting anybody as part of this project. >> Okay. And you're committed to, I'm assuming, as you move forward, if this passes, >> to work with those tenants of good faith from all different ethnic backgrounds that have moved in the the Chinese restaurant, been there 32 years. All the other restaurants that council member Fess Fesserson mentioned, you are committed here today that you're going to work with those businesses. If they want to stay, you can certainly work with them to do that. Yeah. And not just that, some of these folks who said, "Hey, long-term, we just don't see this being fit for our business model. I I've already done this with a couple of tenants down there said, "That's fine. You know, let's agree to some sort of notice period where if you find another location and you want to leave, I won't make you stay, right? Even if you have another four years on your lease." So, we've already entered into a grievance like that. And one last thing as I'm listening to the good discussion today on the I think north of California on 46 on the west side there's row houses that are there now. Correct. >> Yep. >> And you're going to blend in aesthetically row houses on the east side. Is that what I heard you say? >> Maybe not aesthetically. I mean to be honest with you, those are pretty modern what were built on that side. But in terms of the concept, we do want to blend off of those, right? Where it's a tuck under garage type concept. I know the boss apartments across where I've lived for >> many years. That's there's row houses there and they work to at least blend in aesthetically to the Mort Meadows neighborhood and they did a great job there >> and I know they talked to my neighbors. This is years ago when that was developed. But >> that was a big part of some things that that were important to the neighbors and I'm I'm glad you're committed today to continue having those conversations with the neighbors. And again, thanks for coming down and the ones that have reached out to me. I I've appreciated the comments that I've heard and even if they didn't give me their name, that's all right. I I would prefer they would, but their messages are are loud and clear and I understand them. But again, with an investment of $103 million, um we'll go ahead and take the votes here today if there's no further light. So what, Madame Clerk, just to be clear, are we voting on individually on 20 through 22? >> Yes. Individual votes for items 20, 21, and 22. >> Okay. No further lights. We're voting on item 20. Roll call. >> We need a motion. >> I'm sorry. Didn't we have a motion on that? >> Move to approve. >> Roll call. >> Fester? >> Yes. >> Goodwin? Yes. >> Harding? >> Yes. >> Hug? Yes. >> Melton? Yes. >> Row. Mr. President >> I >> motion pass seven to zero >> motion and second roll call >> Ferson >> yes >> goodwin >> Harding >> yes >> hug >> yes >> Melton >> Row >> Mr. President >> I >> motion pass seven to zero >> motion to second roll call >> yes >> goodwin Harding yes hug >> Melton yes row >> Mr. President >> I >> motion pass 7 to zero. >> Item 23, a resolution to approve the workforce housing round four tax increment financing redevelopment project plan located northwest of 33rd in Miami streets in an amount up to $46,000. >> Public hearing is now open on item number 23. Applicant, good afternoon. >> Good afternoon, Don Satan. I may have the overhead. Um this is the uh Don Seat and Omaha City Planning Department. This is the workforce housing round four tiff project uh from Holy Name Housing Corporation uh executive director Matthew Kavanaaugh. Uh this is a residential infill redevelopment project involving eight vacant lots in North Omaha. Uh these lots will be replplatted into 10 development sites. Each will contain a single family home. uh new home, newly constructed three-bedroom, two- bath home around 1,600 square feet. And these will be sold to income qualified households. Uh the area is also in or the project's also in an extremely blighted area, so it'll be a 20-year TIFF term. Total investment in the neighborhood is approximately $2.7 million. TIFF support uh for the project is $46,000. Project meets our required criteria for the TIFF program. It's been reviewed and approved by the planning board and the TIFF committee. It's an appropriate land use for the area. It's good to see the infill development and relatively affordable housing uh provided by this project. We ask for your approval. >> Thank you. Are there any proponents here today on item 23? >> Good afternoon. Lacia Goodwin with Holy Name Housing, 4324 Fort Street. Happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you. Are there any other proponents here today? Seeing none, are there any opponents? >> Uh, good afternoon. I'm all city council D. Johnson, the Johnson Equestion Foundation, Northam Hall Concerned Citizen Foundation, 4928 North 52nd Street. I support Mrs. Goodwin and Mr. Don program. But can you folks have those builders increase their will tax and lower the will tax on consumers? We getting hit with a $50 will tax. >> Thank you. Are there any other opponents here today? Seeing none, public hearing is closed. Oh, I'm sorry. Council member Goodwin, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. President. Um, Miss Goodwin, if you could come to the floor. I think this is the exact thing we were talking about in the previous conversation, affordable housing. So, I think it would be good for us to just understand um, one, what does it look like for these income qualified households? >> Yes. So for this particular project, the funding source is the middle income workforce housing fund that is offered through the state of Nebraska. And our goal is to create um a product that not only uh lowers the barrier to entry for home ownership for um more moderate incomes. So that's going to look like um a demographic between 80 to 120% of the area median income. And so those looks those look like young professionals and small families. >> Thank you. And then will there be any site preparation that you foresee in these eight lots? >> Yes. So um as Mr. Seatan mentioned, I'll use the projector here. Um these are currently vacant lots. Um, and so, uh, we typically do some grading and ex excavating on these sites. Typically, we run into some minor challenges like existing basements from previous demolitions. Um, our project also includes adding um, new sidewalks, street cuts, and utilities to the site. >> Thank you. This had come up in an earlier conversation. So, I was somewhat um laying the foundation for the fact that so many of these projects uh specifically in this surrounding area do have extensive site preparation that might not exist in other uh types of development. So, thank you for that. No further questions. >> Thank you. Council member Hug, you're recognized. Um, so this is not the first time you have used TIFF for single family homes. >> To my understanding, I'm relatively new with the organization. Um, I believe we've used it one other time for single family. >> And how does that affect the purchase price? >> It doesn't impact the purchase price, but what it does for the organization is it minimizes our losses. So, one of the challenges when you are doing affordable housing is that the cost to develop um especially in East Omaha um outweighs what the the property can appraise for. So, it costs us around $275,000 to develop these sites and build the house. Um typically we will list them at 245 and in this case we will in fact list them at 245 just because um that f seems to be a an income range that we're a listing price that is accessible to the income range that we are targeting. Um and so when it comes to our return on investment without TIFF, um we would be losing about 10 point almost 11% and the inclusion of TIFF reduces that loss to about negative 5%. >> Okay. But that's not getting loaded back into the sale price. That's correct. >> So it does have a positive impact on the sale price. >> You could say that. Yes. >> Okay. So the important thing I want everybody to look at and to realize is TIFF can be used for single family homes. So you guys are doing a great job. Thank you. >> Certainly. >> Thank you. No further lights. >> Motion on a second. Roll call. >> Pastor Sid. >> Yes. >> Goodwin. Yes. >> Harding. >> Yes. >> Hug. Yes. >> Melton. >> Row. >> Mr. President. >> I. >> Motion pass seven to zero. Item 24, a resolution to approve the Mariah Intergenerational Center tax increment financing redevelopment project plan located at 2601 North 24th Street in an amount up to1,182,400. >> Public hearing is now open on item 24, Mr. Seaton. Good afternoon. >> Yeah, good afternoon. Don Satan, Omaha City Planning Department. Uh, this project's located at 2602 North 24th Street in North Omaha. Uh the site contains a small wornout building that will be removed. Um a new three-story community fil facility will be built. Uh there'll be a restaurant and a second commercial bay on the main floor. There will also be a public assembly space, kind of an event space, uh second floor classrooms, and five to seven office spaces on the third floor. The developer is Mariah Intergenerational Center, Inc. uh managed by Reverend Lacier. The total investment in the neighborhood is about $6.5 million. The tiff support for the project is1,182,400. Uh there's also a grant from the state department of economic development that assists the project. And this project meets our required criteria for the tiff program. It's an appropriate land use for the area. Uh, it's a nice amenity for the neighborhood and complies with the goals of the city's master plan. We ask for your approval. >> Thank you. Are there any proponents here today? Ralph Ralph Lacader, 2409 North 161st Street. Uh, first of all, would like to thank uh Don and the uh TIFF team for their assistance. Uh this was the uh first TIFF application that we completed. We would not have been able to do so without their assistance. So we do appreciate uh their work. I'm available to answer any questions you might have about this project which clearly will help to revitalize 24th Street and North Omaha overall. Thank you. >> Thank you. Are there any other proponents here today? Seeing none, are there any opponent Oh, wait a minute. Sorry, Willie. Willie Barney, 2401 Lake Street, wanted to stand in support, strong support um of this initiative. This is the type of development that we love to see at 24th and Lake and along 24th Street. Um have partnered with Dr. Lacer and his wife for many years. Um I've seen them very active in the community in many different perspectives, but has presented this project in front of hundreds of people in the community. Very, very wellreceived. So, we wanted to stand in support and appreciate the investment that he's making uh in the community. Thank you. >> Thank you. Is there any other proponents? >> Bridget Hadley, city planning. I just want to speak to because I know sometimes uh neighborhood uh folks and others don't really understand how long some of these projects take to even come to you all. And I just want to say that we've been talking with Dr. Lacier about redeveloping on North 24th Street for a few years, maybe many. And um it has it surprises me sometimes how we can talk with someone about a tiff project and it may take five 10 years sometimes before it actually they can make it pencil out and actually come to fruition. So, um, this is just an example of a project that's been thought about and, uh, they've been back and forth to the drawing board and we've had conversations with them, of course, and and he's had different conversations with other members of the city. So, it just takes time and um, I just want to say this is just one of those examples where TIF was on the table. We knew we would be able to help and support him on the project, but it just takes time and and tiff was definitely needed. So, just wanted to speak to that. >> Thank you. Is there any other proponents? >> Uh, Winsley Durand, uh, 16463 Monroe Street. um as a member of the 24th Street B um uh this is the exactly this um the kind of development that we would like to see along the uh 24th Street corridor and we're in support of it. >> Thank you. Any other proponents? Seeing none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is closed. Council member Goodwin, you're recognized. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, Pastor Lacader, if you can come back to the podium, please. This is an exciting project. Infill development um is critical to this area. Can you tell us where you're at in the phase? I know you've done some site development prior to this. What phase are you in now? >> So, there was a building uh there on that site. It has been demolished. Uh we also uh uh encountered a number of uh environmental issues with the site because it was previously a uh gas station. Uh we did have assistance uh from the state department of environment and engineering uh to remove the uh underground storage tanks uh to remediate the site. Uh uh we've just uh gotten through I I believe successfully uh the site plan approval and uh we're about 60% complete uh with the design of the facility itself. Uh we're hoping to uh begin construction by June of 2026. We're anticipating about an 18month maximum uh construction period. >> Great. And I heard the that that it's mixed use and that that there's plans for a restaurant. Do you have commitments for programming right now? >> Uh we have no commitments. We have ideas. We have uh restaurants that we would like to uh see there. We're essentially looking for a fast casual restaurant >> uh that offers a variety of food choices for the community. Uh we also would hope that that restaurant choice would uh provide uh food choices for Kraton University uh students since it will be in close close proximity. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member Fester. You're recognized. >> Thanks, Mr. President. Just want to say congratulations getting to this point. I know it's been a labor of love for you and it's going to be a great compliment to the church of historic nature there. and one more step, right, to come back to us uh on the redevelopment agreement, but I'll be happy to support it then. And it's a good looking building and it even matches your suit today. So, >> would you like a motion to approve? >> I'd like a motion to approve. >> I'll second it. >> Got a motion in a second. Roll call. >> Person, yes. >> Good one. >> Hardin, >> yes. >> Hug, Milton, >> Row. Mr. President, >> I. >> Motion pass seven to zero. Consent agenda. Any member of the city council may cause any item placed on the consent agenda to be removed. Items removed from the consent agenda shall be taken up by the city council immediately following the consent agenda in the order in which they were removed unless otherwise provided by the city council rules of order. >> The public hearing on agenda items 25 through 31 were held on January 27th, 2026. Is there any council discussion? >> Got a motion and a second. Roll call. Fester. Yes. >> Goodwin Harding. Yes. >> Hug. Yes. >> Melton. >> Yes. >> Row. >> Mr. President. >> I. >> Motion pass seven to zero. 527. >> Okay. 58 now. >> Public hearing on 58. >> You pull in 58. >> Yeah. Oh, okay. >> So, sorry. So, we do 32 through 57. >> Okay. So, >> I'd like to remove 58 from the consent agenda. >> Thank you. >> Public So, we got a Do we got a vote on it? Okay. So, 58 has been pulled from the consent agenda. The public hearing on agenda items 32 through 57 are today. If you wish to address the city council regarding these items, please come to the microphone, indicate the agenda number you wish to address, identify yourself by your name, address, who you represent, if you are a proponent or opponent. Public hearing is now open. Are there any proponents? Seeing none, are there any opponents? Public opponents. Luis here minus 2709 Dwey Avenue. Um I uh am a proponent of items 32 to 57 accepting 55. Thank you. >> Thank you. Are there any other opponents? Public hearing is closed. A motion. >> And a second. Roll call. >> Fester. >> Yes. >> Goodwin. >> Yes. >> Harding. >> Yes. >> Hug. >> Melton. >> Row. >> Mr. President. >> I. >> Motion passed seven to zero. Item 58, a resolution that the city of Omaha asked the United States Congress, specifically the Nebraska elected delegation to Congress, to pass HR 5356 to create a national infrastructure bank to finance urgently needed infrastructure projects. >> Council member, public hearing is open. Council member Harding, you're recognized. >> Call for >> uh yes. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Are there any proponents on item number 58? Seeing none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is closed. Council member Harding, you're recognized. >> Uh we Yes, we discussed this a little bit at pre-consel. Is there um I think someone from the mayor's office was going to be here this afternoon to brief us on this. And is that I don't see a representative who said they were going to be here. Um, okay. Well, I I'll start by saying I'm going to make a motion to place this on file. Thank you. And um I'm not sure why there's no one here to um explain this. I mean, it was this was put on our agenda um to support a House resolution. Um and and I guess we don't have a reason for um or got a briefing as to why this was happening. So I was prepared to make my comments as to why we should not do this. I was hoping that uh the the third floor could have explained what HR 5356 um is. So I guess I'll I'll take it up and and kind of give a little bit of the background on it. HR5356 is a $5 trillion um budget item that establishes a federally chartered bank to provide long-term lowcost financing for public infrastructure projects, which all sounds good, but um the capitalization of this bank uh uses private capital and exist what what that really means is existing treasuries. um to fund this bank. And um I want to note though that that may they the argument is that they say it's not taxpayer funds or federal debt, but the CBO also notes that that debt uh still remains a federal liability. This program also um would duplicate uh many other existing federal programs and state programs that that currently exist. So, I have concerns um about this and and just that the increase in in this federal spending and government overreach uh will lead to financially dependent programs um that that will be um likely add to our national debt and increase inflation. um the na this national bank in in my estimation and for my research is you know right for you know bureaucracy and intensive um instit institution which unnecessarily as I said expands the federal government's reach into the state and local projects I have concerns about then who makes those decisions what gets funded how much money will be funded how the repayment process works and So, you know, those those decisions, you know, we've seen in the past are based upon partisan favoritism rather than objective economic need or or project viability. Um, I think we saw some of that um through failed funding uh that we saw with some of the Green New Deal projects. I also believe that the infrastructure investment um can rely on on what can really another way to look at uh solving this issue is to look at how private public private partnerships can be a player in this uh in this realm uh rather than this government sponsored bank. And there are interesting ways we can we can look at doing that um to solve some of these problems. Um, one would be uh prioritizing streamlining of the regulations. In other terms, you know, the cutting red tape and that permitting um uh or if you had this reform would reduce time and therefore cost to get projects from the idea stage to blueprints to shovels and ground to completion. And I'll give you a couple of examples. We have something called the fiscal responsibility act which sets one-year time limits uh for the review of simple or simpler environmental assessments and two-year limits for complex environmental impact assessments. Prior to um having the fiscal responsibility act, those same um assessments would have taken four and a half years. And time is money, we all know. So that would be one way that we could look at at reducing the cost for infrastructure investments. Another is to streamline the decision-making process. Um currently a bridge project might require uh review of permits from EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Interior, etc. And what if we had a single point of contact uh that could make or have that uh the ability to to if you will quarterback that that project and it would prevent agencies from working in silos, but also eliminates the potential for conflicting uh reports or conflicting decisions of those agencies that I just mentioned on a certain project. There are other I won't take too much more time on streamlining projects other than mention a couple others. You can narrow windows for for litigation. You can expand categor categorical um exclusions. Uh some of the projects currently require these to go through extensive reviews that don't necessarily warrant them. Um you could expand digital tracking of projects so that um you could departments couldn't sit on on permit approvals. Um there are other areas I think to explore funding for infrastructure projects as I mentioned with the public private partnerships. But we could have policies that make it easier for those for private investment and private management of those assets. I'm not saying I'm a proponent of these but I think these are options that could be considered. You could shore up programs like the highway trust fund so that currently EVs don't contribute to their fair share for the use of transportation systems. We could support passage of the speed act and permit act. Those are also time-saving uh reforms. And you could have expansion of tax credits and tax credit programs like new market tax credits and opportunity zones. And these these are just some of the issues and concerns I would have before blindly voting to support uh this resolution today which um we had not been briefed on previously. Um I might also mention there there's currently a bill in in front of the Nebraska Unicamel LB126 that actually is having a uh public hearing on that today. um as I mentioned in in my previous comments that there are existing um state and and federal um programs or uh that currently exist and I don't see the the need for this um first of all I don't see the need for HR5356 and I certainly don't see the need for this council to weigh in and and ask the congressional delegation from the state of Nebraska to support Thank you, Council Member Melton. You're recognized. >> Thank you very much. I I have to say I was I was literally shocked when I saw that the Omaha City Council was now going to start considering congressional bills on in our council meetings. Um we have never historically done that. Um, in fact, we quit doing legislative bills for the legislature a number of years ago because it seemed to me we were taking up three, four, even sometimes five hours debating a legislative bill that the legislaturator is going to vote on. I we were elected as Omaha City Council. We were elected to debate things that were coming that the Omaha City Council is going to vote on. Um I really our meetings could last days if we're going to start debating all of the bills that are going in front of the legislature that the legislature was elected to vote on and now we're going to add the US Congress. Um number one to this resolution we are asked to support a resolution 5356. Yet the resolution's not attached. So it's not even attached to our agenda. I don't I guess I'm supposed to blindly vote on something that somebody else did. a one-page summary of number two, this there is a cost because in this bill there is an appropriation um of I think I believe it's going to cost about 50 million per year just to administer it. So they might not be using the five trillion might not be actual taxpayer dollars although the loans are backed by them. It's going to there's always that administration cost. So that's another 50 million. But let me just whether you support it or not, let me just educate everyone as to where we are in this process. This bill was introduced um by Congressman Davis from Illinois. He has 53 co-sponsors, all of which are Democratic. I think in our pre pre-consil meeting, um it was stated that it was bipartisan. There isn't one single Republican on here. So that I don't it's not bipartisan. I might support it anyway. I don't know. But what happened is it literally just got introduced to committees September 15th of 2025. So where this bill is, it actually goes through seven committees. So, it's currently sitting in the budget committee, education and workforce committee, energy and commerce committee, financial services committee, natural resources committee, transportation and infrastructure committee, and last but not least, the Ways and Means, which might be one of the most important ones because that's the about the money. Um, it's sitting at committee. So there's no amendments to it yet because it actually has to go through the process of seven committees. It is so premature for us to be even voting to support this because this bill isn't anywhere near what it end up being. So I'm not going to put my name on something now that says I support this when well six months from now this bill could look very very much different than what it does. And that's what happened with Bill. Now you're going to have be other people that are going to come in and and talk about it and they're going to make compromises and some of the people who vote yes on that on today's bill might not like the compromises and might not like the end result. Now, for me, I don't know what's in it. I may not support it. I may support what Brinker said that there's other ways to do it. But until I see the final bill, there's no way I can give my opinion. And I just want to make another opinion. I I just want to note um next week, are we going to see a resolution to support or not support funding of Homeland Security? Because I'm sure we'd spend a lot of hours on that if we had proponents and opponents. Um you know, that's coming up. That's the next one. We passed the bill today, but in two weeks we're going they're going to have to have a vote on Homeland Security. Are we going to see a resolution? Did we see a resolution on the minibus appropriations package which significantly all these things significantly affect Omaha not just this infrastructure but it was by one of our congressmen and it was in to reduce child trafficking and prevention project which actually provided $2 million for the University of Nebraska and Omaha. So it was $2 million actually put into our city to prevent child trafficking. Um, it also included uh money for Encompass Omaha and it actually went to the city of Omaha for hospital-based violence intervention program. It was about a half a million dollars. I didn't see any resolutions for that. I did not see a resolution to support the infrastructure investment and jobs act. That's all about infrastructure. That was $94.1 million for Eple airfield. We didn't do a resolution on that. Was it because it was Congressman Bacon, Senator Rickettts, and Senator Fiser that were proposing it? I would like to think not. I would like to think it's because historically this council doesn't vote on congressional or Senate bills. And I'd rather not start now. And by the way, for 2026, which we didn't do a resolution on, just for this year, um there's another $10 million for the airport infrastructure for Epley airfield, specifically for Omaha. One year ago, there was no resolution in support of the Back the Blue Act, which ensured those who risk their lives to protect us, including firefighters, paramedics, law enforcement. Um we didn't do a resolution on that. Um, we didn't do a resolution for Senator Rickettt's bill improving the federal environmental review review and permitting process, which I think uh, Councilman Harding just brought up identifying it will help infrastructure if we can streamline the permitting process. Um, I could I really could go on and on, but the mayor has the ability to draft a letter. The mayor can send a letter on behalf of the mayor of Omaha. the mayor can send it to every single congressman um in Washington and every senator. He has that right. He has that ability. This city council can send a letter and we often do. We draft letters and we send them down to our state legislators. We've sent them to our our congressmen and the letter is sent out to all seven of us and do you want to sign this or not? Sometimes all seven of us sign it. Sometimes two of us sign it, you know, and somewhere in between. This is something that the mayor and the council has done for well over a decade. That's how we've handled this. We've never had resolutions in regards to congressional bills. I'm not going to assume that this was politically motivated because we happen to have somebody on our council um that may be running for something. I really hope it's not. this council. I have always been extremely proud of every member on this council that we've left politics at the door when we walk in this room. And I commend every one of you sitting here because you've all done that. And I would like to keep it that way because I think we've run very well having our council meetings that way. Um, and I would like to proceed not bringing politics into the Omaha City Council on a weekly basis at our official Omaha City Council meetings. So, um, I I'm not looking any more into this bill because it's not even ready to be looked at sitting in seven different committees. Um, so therefore, I I support just placing it on file. I don't see how anybody could actually vote in order to support this based on where it's at in Congress sitting in committees, not even remotely finalized. So, thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member Row. You're recognized. >> Thank you, Council Member Begley. I think it's going to be pretty easy for people to understand that I I too think it's way too early to take a position on on this in my opinion. Um, I did do some research. I did go looking for the for the bill and I I found an 83page document that kind of it's the as Amy said, it's the initial go. It's not clearly not going to be what is presented to Congress for if it does come uh to a vote after it comes through seven committees and and other discussion. Uh, clearly not. I you know, on the on the face of it, it's probably an okay thing. you know, just looking at the what at the bill, but it's way too early to say that I'm that I'm going to be willing to support it. Um, so, you know, it's an 83page document and, uh, I went to the Congressional Research Service. What they do is they take these bills and kind of boil them down to a three or four page summary just to give lay people like me a chance to understand what's in the bill, what to look for, um, etc. They have not taken a position yet. they have not posted anything. It's in research now. Uh but but it's not um it's not been looked at thoroughly enough for them to even take a position. So for for me to take a position uh would be um be a mistake on my part. So I I will not support the resolution as it as it is. I will support the um the motion to place it on file going forward. Thank you. >> Thank you. There's no further lights. We have a motion to place on file. Item 58. Roll call. >> Fester. >> Yes. >> Goodwin. >> Harding. >> Yes. >> Hug. >> Yes. >> Melton. >> Yes. >> Row. >> Mr. President, >> no. >> Motion pass 5 to2. Item 59, an ordinance to approve the contract with Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. for household hazardous waste transportation and disposal to be collected at under the sink. >> Public hearing is now open on item 59. Are there any proponents? Seeing none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is closed. Item 60, an ordinance to transfer a permanent easement in land to MUD to relocate facilities upon city-owned property located on the southeast corner of North 209th Street and Park Road. >> Public hearing is now open on item 60. Are there any proponents? Seeing none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is closed. >> Item 61, an ordinance to approve a major amendment to the Iron Bluff mixeduse district development agreement. Planning Board and Planning Department recommend approval. >> Public hearing is now open on item 61. Good afternoon proponents. >> Um my name is Brendan Findle with Lampernerson 14710 West Dodge Road. Uh here on behalf of the applicant and ready to answer any questions. >> Thank you. Are there any other proponents here today? Seeing none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is closed. Item 62, an ordinance to approve a major amendment to the Kensington Park mixeduse district development agreement. Planning board and planning department recommend approval. >> Public public hearing is now open on item 62. Mr. Join. Good afternoon. >> Good afternoon, Mr. President, members of the council. Larry Join 11440 West Center Road appearing on behalf of the developer. Uh this is just an amendment to the mixeduse development agreement to increase the fast food freestanding fast food restaurants from 12% uh to 13.4% and it's based upon the total area out there with Nordstreams and Coventry North and then Kensington Park. The overall percentage of fast food is actually less than the 12% threshold when you combine them. So we appreciate the recommendation from the planning department as well as the planning board and I'm here for questions. Thank you. Are there any other proponents? Seeing none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is closed. >> Item 63, an ordinance to approve the 26 and Corby tax increment financing redevelopment agreement. >> Public hearing is open on item 63. Mr. Satan. >> Yeah. Don Seat, City Planning Department. I'm here for any questions you may have. >> Thank you. Are there any proponents? Seeing none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is closed. >> Item 64, an ordinance to approve the Rose at Field Club tax increment financing redevelopment agreement. >> Public hearing is open on item 64. Mr. Seat, >> Don Satan, city planning here for any questions. >> Thank you. Are there any proponents? >> Mr. President, council members Bob Griffith 1140 Weston Road here on behalf of the applicant. Here as well as Charlie Sullivan, the applicant here for questions. >> Thank you. Are there any proponents? Seeing none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is closed. >> Item 65, an ordinance to approve change order number 11 to the establishment of binding guaranteed maximum price with Hosman Construction, Inc. to increase the final project budget to 39,968,263 for the construction of the Levi Carter Park Activity and Sports Complex. >> Public hearing is open on item number 65. Are there any proponents? Seeing none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is closed. >> One public hearing can be held for items 66 through 73. Ordinances loving a special tax and assessment on real estate within Benson Business Improvement District, Blackstone Business Improvement District, Dundee Business Improvement District, Elhorn Business Improvement District, Little Bohemia Business Improvement District, North 24th Street Business Improvement District, North Saddle Creek Business Improvement District, and South Omaha Business Improvement District. >> Public hearing is now open. Is there any proponents? Items 66 through 73, >> Winsley Durand, 16463 Monroe Street. Um, on behalf of the North 24th Street Business Improvement District, I am a proponent here for any questions. >> Thank you. Are there any other proponents? Seeing none, are there any opponents? >> A proponent. >> Opponent, the floor is yours. Thank you. >> Good afternoon, members. Adam Watson, 11725 Arbor Street, Sweet 300. Can I use this? Um, item 72 is the Saddle Creek B. Um, I'd like to mention first I'm in favor of BIDs. I think they create a nice competitive advantage for the businesses surrounding or on those routes. Um the unintended consequence of this particular one happens to be which this is the property that I currently own and manage. I can there we go. Right where my finger is is the Dundy Creek Apartments. >> Scroll it so we can see the >> zoom out. There you go. >> There we go. >> Thank you. Perfect. >> So, the core of this district to me is uh on the Saddle Creek Road. The red arrow that I inserted is my apartments here, which is the Dundy Creek Apartments. Um I think the intended consequence of this is like I said to create a competitive advantage for the businesses in that area with its the streetscapes and the investments into improvements. The unintended consequence to me is it created a competitive disadvantage for my property. And I'll tell you how I get there is the majority of my tenants have mentioned to me, let me get a little closer, is although they're within proximity and I and I appreciate the process of drawing the map and getting to a district. Uh however, my property can't easily access Saddle Creek on the core of this district. In fact, there is no passageway for my tenants to even walk there without going. If this is the core of my area, you'd walk one, two, three, back about four, four to five blocks to get back to the core of Saddle Creek. Either way you go, it's this way or this way. So my tenants can't easily walk to it. They can't see it. So there's no real advantage for me to be in this district. There's honestly a competitive disadvantage because the other uh apartments in this area are this closer, substantially closer by several blocks. So not only do I not have an advantage, I have a disadvantage because now those properties can say, "Well, we have this great amenity right next door to us. We can raise our rents to offset our increase in taxes. It's it's of benefit. I don't have that benefit. My tenants don't have that benefit. So, in essence, I'm subsidizing my competitor's advantage. >> Your threeminut time is expired. Thanks for being here today. >> Thank you. >> Are there any other opponents on items number 66 through 73? Luis Himemenz, 2709 D Avenue. Um, I think this is an opportunity to uh tell you some grievances about the process of uh the BIDS. Um, I appreciate that you have BIDs and that the state provides for BIDs and such. I think you need more a congruent effort. There was talk about earlier in this council meeting about having gravitas on an issue like let's let's focus on something let's focus on that while you do all those things I think you should also be focusing on formalizing bids uh and how they're operating in Omaha and uh I I don't foresee any more popping up uh I know the law department provides administrative efforts. Uh but uh some BIDs do this and that. Um I think that uh there should be like some sort of baseline if if you want to be a B. These are things that you have to do. Um and I don't think that uh is well defined uh within Omaha. uh the state statute says yes you can do these things but outside of that like you got you you keep uh these things you know you you keep these efforts and I think you should be formalizing BS time after time especially that now you have history on how they operate uh uh codify those efforts. Thank you. >> Thank you. Are there any other opponents? Public hearing is closed. Council member Melton, you're recognized. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. President. >> Right. So, I I have to say this one this one gives me a little um heartburn because I looked up and sir, if you could come back up and my apologies. Oh, you're all the way back there. I'm sorry. If you could come back up. Uh, Mr. Watson, while you're walking down, I I noted that you're the the highest assessed owner, I believe, cuz you're Dundy Creek Apartments, correct? >> Right. >> You were assessed over $3,000. The total cost was about 26,000. I mean, you're you're paying over 10% of the total, >> right, >> cost for the B. Um I I actually kind of see your point. I don't have that map attached to our agenda. Do you happen to have that? >> Yes, sir. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> While while you're getting that, I'm going to ask >> one thing to make clear. That doesn't mean he's the highest assessment. He's the highest person who hasn't paid their bill. >> Oh, this isn't the only This isn't a complete list. >> No, this is only a list of those people who haven't paid their bill. The only one that we assess prospectively, and you can say that's what their bill is, is the downtown. >> So, you know what? I was just going I if you sensed it I was just about ready to come to you Bernard and say how are how were these assessed and how was it determined and so that was kind of my question out of all of these property owners. So, I think you you answered my first question before I asked it, but >> So, yeah. So, the the South just like all the other BS and I I don't I didn't look at the South Saddle Creek B because I wasn't aware that was going to come up, but the when the B is created, the the board that you guys uh uh confirm that the mayor appoints and who's the one comes to the council with the B chooses the assessment methodology they want, whether it's front footage or whether it's by assessed value. >> Right? So what basically happens is downtown is different. We're talking about all the other BIDs in 224 they'll spend a certain amount of money. This particular B is roughly $26,000 or whatever the amount is. Um and at the end of the year and we allow some passage of time and things take a little bit of time. We divide up the amount that's been spent in that B amongst the people within the BID based on the assessment methodology that's in the approved ordinance. Then bills are sent out to those folks for for that portion. Um those bills, I believe this year, were sent out sometime in August. And then if the bills aren't paid, then we start the process of assessing the properties for the the unpaid amount eventually hoping to recover the amount that the city has effectively loaned to the BID so that they can operate. Um I I don't there's no question this if not is certainly one of the largest assessments. I don't I just don't know whether it is in fact the largest in >> in the South Afric and my question would be because even if I have heartburn over it here here's >> here's I think the conundrum that the city council is in >> is that the B was formed and Bernard correct me if I'm wrong and they do it by a petition process and they notify all the property owners when they're forming the initial B in order to form the boundaries is that >> when the initial B is formed then there's a notice sent to every property owner prior to the time and you guys hold a public hearing for that notice in order to invite people to object and again you're unable to create the B if more than 50% of the accessible units protest. So, I think where we're at is once the B was formed with these boundaries, >> unless we were to have voted to change the boundaries or the property owners voted to change the boundaries that were in the B, >> right? >> We can't at this point, in my opinion, the city council can't exclude you from the B even if I personally think your property shouldn't be in it as a personal opinion from what you said. I mean, you gave you gave me good reason why it probably extends too far west based on the benefit and the B. I I'm not saying I disagree with you. Problem is, we passed an ordinance and it's included in the B. And so, I don't and I don't know legally. I'm a lawyer, but this isn't my area of law. I don't know how legally you can remove yourself from the B. Bernard, is there any legal process for doing that? >> Can I share what I was >> Hold on. Let me get my question answered. Certainly the the the city council has the ability to amend any of the of the B ordinances to change the boundaries. You can increase them or decrease the boundaries. So that would be within your authority. I think the bigger question you're talking about is >> but that's in the future. I mean that's I'm >> well this isn't a bill that that's expended now, >> right? >> I don't know. Maybe I'm anticipating what you're going to say, but I mean the the theory behind being able to assess for business improvement districts is that the property within the district especially benefiting from the work that the district is doing. I mean, that's that's the justification for being able to assess to property owners within the district. >> Okay. But where we're at today is by law, by a city ordinance, your property is within the B. So I think today we have no choice. We can't amend the ordinance. We can't amend it because the money's been spent and we can't say you don't have to pay it. We're going to make this city of Omaha taxpayers pay it because those are our two options. If you don't pay it, then that then my neighbors are paying it who live off 132nd Dodge who literally have no no benefit from it. Right. And so what we have to do as a city council is vote on you're part of it now. >> In the future, if there's action that you want to request the council to take, I mean, I I don't know what steps you would need to go about doing that. I would suggest starting with the B board, but where we're currently at is whether we think you should be included or not, we have to assess the property for this amount because the money's already been spent and I can't tell the taxpayers of Omaha they have to pay that $3,000 after I've already approved the boundaries. >> So those I just wanted to let you know the position we're in. >> Understand? Um, I'd add to that if I can when I >> Well, I'll give you that. I mean, that that's I wanted to let you know what my opinion was. If you have something in relation to what my opinion is or why I have it, feel free to ask. >> So, when I got the invoice for the assessment, I called because I said, "Hey, I'd like to object to this." They said, "Well, don't pay the bill and come to this hearing." >> Right? >> I mean, if you want to appeal, right? Correct. So that was my appeal process to it was this >> correct and now I'm giving you so I have the right to appeal cases to the court of appeals if I lose a trial. Right. Right. >> But it doesn't mean I'm going to win. It doesn't mean that the law that the judges can change the law based on my argument. So if Nebraska if the legislature has a statute even if the Supreme Court may disagree with the statute. >> Yeah. if that's still current law, even if the Supreme Court agrees with me and we both think the law should be changed, they have to rule against me because the law hasn't been changed. So, I I kind of wanted to give you that perspective. Sure, this is your appeal process, but what I'm saying is a law has already been established, >> the ordinance has already been approved, and your property is part of this B. until your property is no longer part of the B, then we have to approve this assessment because we have an ordinance that requires it. >> Understood. >> And what I'm telling you is if we were to say, you know what, we're going to override this. You probably shouldn't be a part of it. >> The person that has to pay for it, it's not like the bill just goes away. The taxpayers of Omaha have to pay it. So, what you're asking me to do is instead of requiring you to pay it, which by law you should be paying it because we have an ordinance that includes your property in the B. That's the law. So, the law says you have to pay this amount. If I override that law, then what I'm saying is everybody else's neighbors who don't live anywhere near here, maybe Danny because he might live near this area, but other than Danny, um you're saying that my neighbors and Don's neighbors and Levana's neighbors have to pay this assessment that those are the taxpayers of Omaha. So until the laws changed and you get yourself removed from the B, >> if you're able to, I mean, you're going to have to take those steps. But that's in the future. In the past, I have to follow the current city of Omaha ordinance where your property is included in the B. Therefore, you have to pay the assessment because the money's already been spent. And I'm not going to tell the taxpayers of Omaha they have to pay your debt. I mean, so I I just want you to know I I kind of agree with you where your property is, but that's not what I vote on today. >> Understand? >> I gotta vote on what the current law is and what the current law requires. You're going to need to get the law changed. The law being the ordinance if you don't want to pay in the future. >> I my perspective on it is not as an attorney. It's is this is a group of folks that have a bar tab and I'm just one less person to pay. So in in essence I'm saying well split that >> but the bar but the bar owner shouldn't have to pay the tap right I mean >> no split whatever's left in that eat the food >> I'll go ahead and stick to my legal argument on equity for the taxpayers of Omaha because that's unfortunately what I was or fortunately what I was elected to do >> right thank you council member Feserson you're recognized >> I'll simply just add that yeah this is a assessment from 2024 we're talking about here today that's already been through the board of equalization so this this must and will happen next week. Um, I don't object to you being here as a matter of process, but I would say I disagree with your analysis. I I believe you do and your property does benefit from the B and the $5 million of infrastructure that just happened right there and some of those improvements are within a half a block of your property. Um, I think in most BIDs when there's a large multif family property nearby, capital improvements like this, they are included. And we had that discussion I think three years ago when this first was um uh created. Um but if you're feeling you're not getting all you want out of the out of the B right now or going forward, I think that's right. You should engage the B themselves and the chairman as a matter of a first step and see if there's a way to rectify that or maybe make sure that what they're doing now and in the future does um meet your satisfaction. Um that'd be my recommendation for now. >> Thanks. >> Thank you. See >> item 74, an ordinance to an ordinance to approve amendment number two to the interlocal agreement for fire and emergency services with Elhorn Suburban Fire Protection District number two for the purchase of two weed trucks at a total cost to the city of $60,000. >> Public hearing is now open on item 74. Are there any proponents? Seeing none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is I'm sorry. Public hearing is closed. Council member Ftherson, you're recognized. >> Not. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Item 75, an ordinance to accept the bid award of All State Pest Control, Inc. to provide pest control services for the Omaha Fire Department. >> Public hearing is now open on item 75. Are there any proponents? Seeing none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is closed. >> Item 76. An ordinance to approve a contract with Armored Knights, Inc. for armored car service in the amount of $93,126 annually. >> Public hearing is now open on item 76. Are there any proponents? Seeing none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is closed. >> Item 77, an ordinance to approve an agreement with the Nebraska State Probation District 4A in the amount of $13,000 and authorize funding for such agreement from the city of Omaha's fiscal year 2023 Project Safe Neighborhoods Grant Award. Public hearing is now open on item 77. Are there any proponents? Seeing none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is closed. >> Non-action items, items 78 through 87 do not require public hearing or city council consideration at this meeting, but will be placed on a future agenda for public hearing and or vote. The reason for non-action is noted after the item on the agenda, as well as the date the item is expected to appear on agenda for consideration. Roll call. >> Fester. Yes. >> Good one. >> Harding. >> Yes. >> Hug. >> Melton. >> Row. >> Mr. President. >> I. >> Motion passed. 7 to zero. Meeting is adjourned at 4:36.