This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. This is a test caption. the location of the new library. Heritage. Omaha. They championed the fundraising for the Central library of $158 million. The city contributed 20 million to that project, and even Mr. Begley agrees. That's a pretty good return on our investment. Ali Pointer was an architect on the on the project and HDR under the leadership of Tom Trelawney, put together a really neat project. They were a lead design team, and then Margaret Sullivan Studios was a consultant that helped with putting together our community engagement. There were thousands of people that responded to surveys that contributed in workshops and design charrettes and, and really pulled together a nice project. Then I wanted to recognize Kiewit and all of the construction teams that they put together to actually build the project that we can be proud of. Reignwood development under the leadership of Bart Thompson. I'm just encourage you to make your way over to 72nd and Dodge and experience all four floors of this project that really will capture your imagination. I just want to say congrats, Omaha. >> Well done. >> An affidavit of publication is on file, and a current copy of the Open Meeting Act is posted in a white binder on 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. A reminder that you will have three minutes to speak on an agenda item. Please stay on topic. For those not providing in-person testimony and would like your comments entered into the public record, you can email the City Clerk's office at City Clerk at City of Omaha. Dot org. Council members received these emails and 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 also like to remind council members to speak clearly into their microphones, so audience members in attendance and at home can hear, and those that come up to the podium the same as well. Make sure you stay between the two microphones so people can hear you. Thank you. >> Item six to consider a class C liquor license for the deuce, located at 2311 North 24th Street. >> Public hearing is now open on. Item number six is the applicant here today? Yes. Please come up. >> Good afternoon. My name is Willie Stennis. I am the owner and operator of the LLC at 2311 North 24th Street. Let's give you a little bit of information about The Deuce as we go forward with that. The deuce essentially offers an elegant cultural entertainment hub destination catering to a mix of professionals and mature young adults with an enthusiasm for curated experiences, live music, spoken word including poetry, comedy, jazz and blues, and other musical performances. Key offerings include a private karaoke room, meeting room, weekly live entertainment events, curated selection of specialty cocktails, many of them made at the table. Craft beers, wines and menu of small plates designed to complement the experience. We will host public and private events and corporate bookings catered to a diverse clientele seeking social networking and entertainment. Excuse me. Experiences. Our hours of operations. General operating hours that I'm seeking would be Monday through Sunday, 11 a.m. to 2 a.m. as part of our program. Again, this is kind of we're looking to kind of create a space for professionals, an elevated space to network for meetings to occur as well during the day. And then as we look to expand to offering food services on the adjacent property, looking to have a food option where we convert a shipping container to a full service kitchen, which would be dedicated to offering food to the establishment. With that said, we would have a program that operates between that 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. time for food to offer food and potential cocktail to individuals who would be there. But then also, as I mentioned, I'll be seeking participation in collaboration from corporate partners and having that space available for networking opportunities, co-working space and or corporate retreats or meeting spaces during that time. Let's see. One thing that I also want to highlight as to why suggested that time frame. I had attended an event workshop in which I visited Omaha, happened to be there, and they kind of explained that their research showed that many tourists that come to Omaha are looking for activities that occur after 10 p.m., and especially on Mondays. Further, some of the market research that I did for the target audience and demographic indicated that many of them don't go out until about ten or so p m, and so closing prior to 2 a.m. would reduce revenue potential for my business and dollars that would circulate in Northeast Omaha into other areas. Furthermore, my establishment is pretty small place, maximum maximum occupancy on the inside is, I'd probably say I know when it was a former establishment, it was about 49 people. And so as I'm thinking about the winter and being able to pay for as I did my research, rent and other expenses, you know, I want to be able to maximize how long I can operate to ensure that we can, one, pay our bills, pay our employees and things of that nature. As it relates to my education experience, I possess a Bachelor of Science degree in Biological Systems Engineering. One of my emphasis areas being in food processing. I have completed a series of business courses while matriculating my engineering degree. My professional experiences have ranged from education, program development and more recently, economic and urban development as it relates to board management, I shadowed the owner and employees at Johnny T's and Blues from 2021 to 2022, and I recognize that my experience in management is limited, and it's a risk with going into this type of business. But I've built operational capacity around me to gain quickly. One learn from supportive mentors who are renowned in hospitality leaders in Omaha, and I will also plan to enroll in hospitality management development opportunities such as the Applied Leadership Academy at Metropolitan Community College. So one of my mentors is Brian O'Malley at Metro, and then renowned Glenn Weller as well. Furthermore, I plan to hire Penny D of PD Marketing Management, who has over ten years of experience in bar industry to provide operations and management consultation for at least the first 1 to 2 years of operation. That way I can level up and become more adept to knowledgeable about, you know, the operations of the business as well. My goal, in all honesty, is to be a responsible business owner within the 24th Street corridor. Born and raised inside of the area I've worked in the area. Many of the neighbors have known me since I was a little boy. The adjacent property owners behind me, 88 year old lady known since I was younger as well. And so I really want to provide a needed service and job creation, but also serve as a partner. Ensuring quality of life is not negatively affected. Over the years and more recently, I've had the opportunity to meet with neighbors, discuss my development plans and learn of their concerns, which included community member loitering on surrounding lots and streets, noise from outdoor music outside, permitted times and levels, and other disturbances. As I've talked to my neighbors, as you've probably gotten a letter or statement of support from many of them, I've reassured them that their concerns will be priority for me as we operate, and we'll be informed of any outdoor activities that may affect them. Related to my business. Additionally, our establishment, as I said, we're looking to make it more of an elevated space, raise the standard of nightlife in North Omaha. And so with that, we'll have a doorman. We will have private security. I've also begun the process of contracting with off duty Omaha police officers. And so once I have liquor license and. And my, my, oh my gosh, my operating permit completed, I'll be able to finish that process with them. The dude's essentially is a type of project that Omaha's planning documents, including the Forever North Plan, have been calling for. We're ready to move forward with. From the planning phase of North Omaha's recovery into operational reality. And so I'm asking the support of this council to allow us to continue elevating the culture and the commerce of North 24th Street. Thank you. >> Thank you. Are there any proponents here today on item number six? Seeing none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is closed. Council Member Melton, you're recognized. >> Thank you, Mr. Stennis, could you come back up? Yes. Thank you so much. Thank you. I have just a few questions for you. And reason being, I want your business to be successful. I sit and chair the law committee. So when we have bars that are that that are having issues where there's a number of calls from the police, we call the bar owners in in front of the law committee, and we have with other problem bars, ask them to fill out long forms. And this council has actually even asked that their licenses be suspended because of the problems that they've caused. I don't want to see that for you. I really want you to be successful. The issue is right where you are. The prior bar, which you had no ownership of or involvement in, they had over about a four year period, 611 911 calls. So the location itself, I think, is prone to maybe obviously disruptive behaviors right at that location. What will you be able to do to ensure that your business isn't going to be a repeat of the problem business that was there before? >> Good question. Thank you. I think one of them is not being an absentee owner and operator. Again, as I stated, I live in the area. I live about A35 minute walk away, five minute walk away from the establishment. And I have relationships with my neighbors. And so from that, relationships and the actual care for them, you know, I'll ensure that I'm working with them on that. As I stated, also as it relates to kind of the activity, one of the that establishment, I have working knowledge essentially, of knowing those individuals as well who operate it. And I know a lot of the times I'll again, own the adjacent property. And so a lot of the times when I would discuss even with them about individuals parked on my lot, I would get the response of, well, they're not coming inside of our building. Right. And so with me, as I mentioned, with hiring private security to manage the premises and things of that nature, I would be encouraging them to also not just manage my property, but also the surrounding property. Case in point, we held an event during Omaha days in collaboration with the Empowerment Network. William King's organization as well. And we had, you know, thousands of people within the corridor, hundreds of people on my property for pull up and vibe events, outdoor little concert as well. And William King's organization had an SDL approved my security not only managed my property, but also helped with the security team during Omaha days as well. So in that same premise would be applied as we operate. Furthermore, you know, I'm a familiar with, you know, septet principles and close property signs and things of that nature. So we'll be working and encouraging the residents around my area to get those particular things as well. I've also been speaking to the pastors of the surrounding churches to discuss how we might be able to assist them with one, just cleanliness, you know, if there's any event, but even things that aren't coming from our establishment, being able to go over there, clean up their property for them just as a byproduct maybe of just us operating, but also. >> That's great. That's being a great neighbor. >> Yes, yes. But also by potentially even collaborating with them to where we're managing that property for them during operating hours, we can restrict access to those to those vacant properties as well as kind of the things that I'm looking to do to mitigate that. And then, you know, I know there's limited things that we can do for people that are may be loitering in their vehicles on the street outside of calling 911 if they're violating the law. >> Well, thank you. And and by the way, just because 911 is called or a tavern report is made, don't think of that as a negative, right? When we receive the tavern reports and I tell owners this all the time, I mean, nine times out of ten I read a tavern report and, you know, I go, well, the bar did exactly what they should have done. And so, I mean, those can be positives for you, right? Because you're doing the right thing or your staff's doing the right thing. You're kicking people out if they're intoxicated or, you know, protecting a victim of sometimes you have domestic violence and you're helping protect the victim and you need to call 911. So don't think of a tavern report necessarily as a negative. >> And I'll also add, if I may. Yeah, as I mentioned, with having a relationship with my neighbors, that makes me accessible as I spoke to those that did have some concerns and communicated with me, I did share my contact with them. And so I want them, you know, first to contact me. I'm all about addressing an issue first before we have to basically conflict manage before we have to involve any outside parties to do that as well. So just wanted to add that piece in there. >> No, and I think having the security, getting to know, I mean, and if you're already a neighbor, you may know that the northeast precinct captain I do. I mean, calling and saying, hey, do an analysis. Are there things I should do? Are you going to have cameras? >> I am. >> And I think that's great for you and for your protection and your staff's protection. And also your, you know, your customers as well. I think the cameras are very important both inside and outside of the bar, because you can't always control who's coming. And we understand that. But I think the concern is, is that we're going to have a repeat in this area is just ripe and booming right now. And and I think, you know, I know I don't mean to speak for Miss Goodwin, but I think, you know, she's done a lot of work and worked with the other business owners to really, you know, make 24th Street a place, an attractive place where visitors to Omaha want to go, where other people in the community want to come down to. And I think that's great that, you know, it sounds like you're going to have professionals during the day, but when it gets to nighttime, I heard you say jazz, which sounds fabulous. But let me ask you, I know there have been bars just in our downtown area. They want to, you know, business maybe down and they want to get some additional business and they, they get outside. Promoters know that we've seen as a repeat. I mean, that's not something you're planning to do. >> I'm not planning to do that at all. As I stated before, elevating this the standard and what entertainment looks like in North Omaha is critical to me. So there's a brand, there's an identity that I'm going by, and I can't afford to go outside of that brand. And so if it's a honestly, I'm saying this kind of loosely right now because I'm not thinking of even having an outside promoter coming in, but in the event that that is the case, they're a partner in there promoting the brand and identity of what we have. You know, because if I, you know, decide, oh, we're going to have a. I don't know, for something crazy, you know, type of event, you know, that that dilutes the brand, that dilutes the patroness of those who have said that they want to be a part of our members loyalty program. You know, and these are the things that they want to see. These are the, the, the type of activities and experiences that they want. So I began to allow others that have a different brand than that. Then I lose my, I lose my base. And I've spent a lot of time researching my base. >> So with, with that, I mean, I have a couple concerns. First, the prior location, they actually closed at midnight and still were having that many problems. And I know you mentioned you said that you wanted to stay open till two would closing at one, at least for your first year to try and establish that this is the kind of bar you're going to be. Would that be something you'd be willing to do? And then you could come back and ask the council to extend that to two. Once you've kind of proven what kind of bar you're going to be. I mean, our biggest concern is last location actually closed at midnight and was still a problem. Would you be willing to at least limit it to 1:00? I think for the neighbors. >> I think definitely I would I would consider that, but I would also say that. Again, I'm present. Present. I'm there again. When they close, they left any even Omaha days when we closed, you know, at 2:00, I was there with my dad until 4 or 5:00 in the morning, picking up trash, ensuring that, you know, people that were lingering went about their business, you know, but also just an avid watch. This is my main job as of right now. So I intend to do you know, what's necessary to, one, protect the community, protect my business, branding, personal identity. >> So well. And you know what? I believe that because you went through, I mean, with the education that you have, you know, you don't have to be doing this. It sounds like you're kind of you're following a dream because. >> Following my purpose, okay. >> And I love that, right? It's the American dream, owning your own business and having a successful business. I really, I want us to be to partner with you in trying to do that. I think I'm recommending that you agree to one, but I also a class I license so that there's no selling, basically takeout liquor. Does that make sense? So that when you're closing down, you're not selling a bunch of alcohol so that then they can go outside and drink and loiter in the neighborhood, which, you know, it's going to be very difficult for your security. You don't want your security to be there till 3 or 4 in the morning. >> Right. >> And would that be something that you would consider just doing a class C so that you can only have sales on premise? >> I'd consider that, but I would also explain as to why I chose class C. I did do the research as to the difference between the both and. So the reason why I chose class C, I'm always I'm a, I'm a planner. And so I plan ahead knowing what we're planning to do, you know, in the future. And so as I mentioned previously that. And this will occur more than likely during the same year of this license being approved. And so being a fuel entrepreneur, you pay for things. I was always taught in engineering measure twice, cut once. So looking at my costs and things of that nature, applying for the class C, understanding that we would be eventually providing food. And then from a standpoint of the, the class C and off premise, as I mentioned, it's an experience that I'm looking to create both, both in the hospitality of beverage and food. And so we would be curating signature drinks that paired with our food options and things of that nature. And so if there was someone that was ordering food that had a particular drink that paired with that, they would be able to order that food and drink and go. And it's not designed from a standpoint of it's not going to be designed from a standpoint of someone ordering a drink and being able to leave at the end of the day. And furthermore, know a lot of, you know, the bars, even within North Omaha that have the classy with being able to do that, they'll just put a sticker on the, you know, on the on the top, that's not a sealed container. What I'm looking to do is to invest in one of those kind of like bubble bubble tea machines where it's actually sealed and they'd have to break the seal to do that. And I understand to your point also also, well, that's not preventing them from pulling it off. And, you know, down the road. >> Right, right. >> That's the premise of. >> Well, and my thought would be instead of jumping right there, giving your bar the, the time to kind of get the trust of your neighbors, establish that trust. And then I think they would be probably be more, more likely to maybe support that. So once the food you open the adjacent place and then maybe you want your catering license because you already have that in place, then come back in a year and let's look at that. But I think especially with the council would be more comfortable if you would agree to the 1:00 time frame and the class. I know it's something that that you would have to agree to on the record. We can't the city Council can't force you to do that. We. It can only be by agreement. But I think in order to get the liquor license, at least recommended by our council, I think that's that's what we're asking. And not a lot. I'm not asking you to go back down to the midnight. Right. But maybe kind of do this in your first year, kind of prove yourself and then come back. And we have done that and we have lifted any restrictions that we have kind of a let let's trust each other, get kind of get to know each other. And also it will, I think, help along if you want that. It gives you also that that encouragement to have this bar and run this bar the way you think you want it to run. I've just seen too many times because I've been on this council for 13 years. We've had a lot of we had a lot of good intentioned bar owners who. They didn't necessarily pick the clientele that was coming in and creating the problems, and they just didn't necessarily have the experience to figure out how to how to fix it. And we've had one just recently. When you don't have kind of those years of experience, maybe give yourself a year to kind of get there. That would be my that would be my request. And I think the request of, of some of the other other council members I had, I think I had one other question for you. Oh, you said kind of your, your target market is kind of people that go out after ten. And I know that's more of an age thing than, than anything else. Right. Well, the younger people, the younger people don't go out until after nine when we're going to bed. >> But the ISO, I did a demographic study, actually a survey and my bar or the establishment would be 30 and up. And so many of those individuals who indicated that actually are in the age range of about 35, 45, 50, that has indicated that many of it, you know, being a Friday or Saturday. In that regard. And so if I could maybe amend the recommendation, I think I would be, you know, open to 1:00. I would ask if maybe on a Thursday, Friday, Saturday or Friday, Saturday, that that would be allowed to be to two and the rest of the week till one. And being completely transparent with you and my heart of hearts, I plan on closing at. Well, I want to test the waters, really test the market. But my heart of hearts, I would like to go home at 12, but I don't want to. Again, as I mentioned before, running my running the. My projections and having, you know, rent, insurance, things of that nature to account for. I don't want to limit myself in that. And so. If I could amend your recommendation for Friday, then, and Saturday being, you know, 2 a.m. >> Well, and what we see, I can tell you this when we look at the tavern reports and we look at kind of the bars that have the most problems, you know, when they're problems start, it's usually about 130. It's that 1 to 2, that closing time, it's after 1:00. When we see the highest number of calls. Number one, people have been there long enough that I think they've consumed alcohol and maybe aren't making the right decisions as well. Right. >> Well, I understand that. >> And. And so that's, I think that's where that 1:00 comes in. So that's gonna be my recommendation. I think there are other lights on. So maybe I'll ask to kind of circle back after some of the other council members. But I, I do, I want to see you to be I want you to be extremely successful. So these are things that I, I'm offering and suggesting because I think it'll help your success. >> For sure. All right. That was. >> Asked if my. Bar consultant could come over. >> I was asking if I could come up. I did sign. Well, yeah. >> Council member, I'd have to ask you the another lights on. So yeah, we. Thanks. Thanks. >> Thanks. Council member Melton, Council member Goodwin, you're recognized. >> Thank you, Mr. President. And of course, I know Mr. Stennis and I can tell his narrative about his experience in the neighborhood is true. His education, you know, but I would have to agree with council member Melton as a member of the law committee, that oftentimes. Establishments take on a reputation of the. Almost like a spirit of of a previous. You know, owner location, you name it. I had the opportunity to sit down with the former owner and in their last six months to a year, they did agree to a 12 a.m. closure time to help manage the activities that were happening in and around the bar. You and I know because we are almost neighbors of all the things that happen in and around North 24th Street, and the success of every business when they're upstanding. And I believe this will be, is the goal. But what we have learned is, one, a data point, you may remember is of the seven homicides that have happened on North 24th Street since 2021. What's five? Five of them have happened after 230. And so when we make these closing times more in line with trying to get ahead of that and get ahead of the drinking that that fuels to that, we're we're looking to continue the success of this corridor, which is probably the reason why you feel like it's a great time to start a business, because there is a change in momentum. And so today I want I wanted to be on record that. I want to see the success of The Deuce, but my vote for support or against would be within the ramifications of, again, this testing period to see the success, we talk about police but oftentimes right now, as we're recruiting a new. You know, getting our numbers up, oftentimes, police can't necessarily respond. Police can't have, you know, designated watches and spaces. And so, you know, we can tax police when an area like this previous record, not yours, but the previous record of this area was taxing to police. And oftentimes we couldn't get the resources we needed to manage it, which is really starts with the owner. And so my, in fact, I want to support this, but it would be within the ramifications or the parameters of a one and an initial 1 a.m. closer, and then a class one. And it just helps class, I'm sorry, just helps to manage and to see the success, which I, I really hope and believe it can be. I mean, so I just wanted as the council person to, to let my voice be heard on that. But we sit on the same committee and see this across the city and have to really. And this is not the first time we've made this type of recommendation. So thank you. >> Thank you. And I'll echo I also sit on the law committee, Mr. Stennis, and I appreciate your vision. What you want to do for North 24th Street. But I can tell you, sitting on the law committee with Chairman Melton, who's offered good, steady guidance with her experience way before I got on the council. And I can speak clearly to. I won't name them, but I think the public knows there's a couple of establishments that I've dealt with that have changed ownership and the same issues at the same location happen. And I think it's it's a it's a reasonable request that has been made not to, to hinder your business, but to partner with you is Council Member Melton put it that if if you agree to have an I license in the close at 1 a.m., I think that makes me comfortable supporting this. This item today for your license. And if you came back in a year, if you committed to that on the record, it would, it would be good because it shows good faith. You're here with your dad who's supporting you, you know, your neighbors, you know the neighborhood, you grew up there. But we're not trying to hinder you. We're trying to work with you. And I think it's a reasonable request to with the I that was asked for and the 1 a.m. closing. So I, I will be supporting that if that's what you would agree to. And I will go back to Council Member Melton. >> Thank you. Yeah, that's and that's what my vote today is contingent upon. If you would agree to change that to a class I and close at one, I give you my commitment along the way, I will I will stop into your bar as well. I look forward to it opening. And if you are. And if you're running the way you anticipate and the way you want to run, I mean, I give you my word, I, I will, I will support going back to going to a class C and a 2:00 a year from now. And so I make that commitment to you. But I would ask that if you would be my votes contingent upon it, upon the changing to an I and closing at one, is that something that you would be willing to agree to today? >> Councilwoman Milton, thank you for your feedback and your willingness to come and support at the deuce. I would then ask that all the council members come and support the. >> We can only come three at a time, though. >> If you're going to ask me to do that, all of you come and you know you agree to have a town hall there. You know, to talk to the constituents and the community, which this place is intended to be for, then I agree to that. So do we agree? >> Yeah, I think it's great. So I will I will. >> On the record. >> On the record, I'm going to make a motion to amend to a class I and a motion to add the restriction that they will close at 1 a.m. >> Second. >> Got a motion and a second. Council member. Festersen did you ever like. >> I just. >> Chime in and say, I'll take that deal too, and I'll be there as well. And I commend you on your mentors too. You have some good ones there. And Brian O'Malley and Glenn Wheeler. So I'm sure you'll do well. Thank you. Thanks. >> You have no further lights and I'll be there as well. Not not with others. Okay. Councilmember Melton, you're recognized. >> Oh. I'm sorry. No, it's. >> Oh. So it does say good. >> He mentioned he shadowed at Johnny T's and there's a little nameplate there with my uncle. You know, if I can get one of those. No, I'm kidding. Just kidding. >> If you remember. >> Yeah, but no, I, I, I want to support and we want to see this success. While we really appreciate your partnership, because if every owner were to come in here and really just say, because again, we see this across the city. So you're already setting yourself up for success. Not to say there won't be any challenges, but you, you can count on me to partner with you in solving those challenges. And so I appreciate that, Mr. Sinha. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. No further lights. We had a motion and a second roll call. >> Melton. Row. Festersen. Yes. Goodwin. Harding. Yes. Mr. president. I motion. >> As amended. >> Your second. >> Second. >> Got a motion and a second roll call. >> Hug. Yes. Melton. Row. Festersen. Yes. >> Motion passes 7 to 0. Item seven to consider a class C liquor license for flower child located at 112 Regency Parkway. >> I'll open the public hearing on item number seven. I believe the applicant is on Zoom. Miss Hogan. I'm Derek. >> Miss Hogan is is for the company. But I'm here to speak on their behalf today. And I'm on. My name is Derek Zimmerman. I'm an attorney with the law firm, and I'm here on behalf of Flower Child Omaha, LLC. On behalf of the application for the class C liquor license for the Flower Child restaurant to be located at 112 Regency Parkway. The restaurant, when it opens, is going to serve food both in restaurant and to go. As part of that, they plan to offer alcohol for on sale, off sale hours of operation, 11 to 9, and there were no protests as part of this application. The manager has completed the required training and that's really it. They're they're excited to open and I'm happy to answer any questions that members of the council may have. >> Thanks. Can we get your address as well? >> Sure. 1248 Oak Street, suite 900, in Lincoln, Nebraska, 68508. >> Thanks. Are there any other proponents here today on item number seven, seeing none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is closed. Got a motion and a second roll call. >> Hug. Melton. Row. Festersen. Yes. Goodwin. Harding. Yes. Mr. president, I motion passes 7 to 0. Item eight to consider a class A liquor license for Lumen beer located at 1433 South 13th Street. >> Public hearing is now open on item number eight. I believe the applicant is on Zoom. >> Correct. >> Good afternoon. Get your name and address, please. >> My name is Dan Brouillette. We're at 1433 South 13th Street here in Omaha. >> Thank you. Are there any proponents here today on item number eight? Seeing none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is closed. I do approve. Got a motion and a second roll call. >> Hug. Melton. Row. Festersen. Yes. Goodwin. Harding. Yes. Mr. president. I motion passes 7 to 0. Item nine to consider a liquor license application for the Peregrine Hotel, located at 203 South 18th Street. To add an outdoor area. >> Public hearing is now open on item number nine. Applicant by Zoom. I believe. >> Hello, Danielle Vaughn here. I'm the general manager of the Peregrine Hotel, located at 203 South 18th Street here representing the hotel and hospitality and answer any questions. >> Thank you. Are there any proponents here today on item nine, seeing none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is closed. Got a motion and a second roll call. >> Hug. Melton. Row. Festersen. Yes. Goodwin. Harding. Yes. Mr. president. I motion passes 7 to 0. Items ten through 12 can be considered together for State Highway 133. Addition located northwest of State Street and Blair High Road. Planning board and Planning Department recommend approval. Item ten an ordinance to rezone this property from AG district and GI district to GI district. Item 11 a resolution to approve the final plat. Item 12 resolution to approve the Subdivision agreement. >> Public hearing is now open on items ten through 12. Is the applicant here today? >> Hi, I'm Brad with HDR 1917 South 67th Street here on behalf of the client. >> Thank you. Are there any proponents here today on items ten through 12? Seeing none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is closed. Got a motion and a second roll call. >> Hug. Melton ROW. Festersen. Yes. Goodwin. Harding. Yes. Mr. president. I motion passes 7 to 0. Items 13 through 15 can be considered together for Indian Creek Village, located southeast of 192nd and Fourth Streets. Planning Board and Planning Department recommend approval. Item 13 an ordinance to rezone this property from AG district to R4 district. Item 14 A resolution to approve the final plat. Item 15 A resolution to approve the Subdivision Agreement. >> The public hearing is now open for items 13 through 15. Is the applicant here today? >> Bret Foley Engineering 3937 157th Street, Omaha. On behalf of the applicant. Yes. Final plats consistent with the preliminary plat. Happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> Thank you. Are there any proponents here today? Items 13 through 15. Seeing none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is closed. Motion and second roll call. >> Hug. Melton. Row. Festersen. Yes. Goodwin. Harding. Yes. Mr. president. I motion passes 7 to 0. Item 16 through 19 can be considered together for Loveland, Replat 12, located at 8201 Pacific Street. Planning Board and Planning Department recommend approval. Item 16 an ordinance to amend the boundaries of the MCC Overlay District to incorporate this property into that district. Item 17 and 18 resolutions to approve the preliminary and final plat. Item 19 resolution to approve the Subdivision Agreement. >> Public hearing is now open for item 16 through 19. Good afternoon. >> Afternoon, everyone. Caleb and Weelden with Rynearson 1471 ten West Dodge Road here. On behalf of the applicant and available to answer any questions. >> Thank you. Are there any proponents here on item 16 through 19? Seeing none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is closed. Just a couple questions for you. So this is the old Loveland School, correct? >> You're correct. >> And it's my understanding there's some houses that are to the south of that that are part of this that will be torn down. >> That is correct. The school district has purchased the houses on the same block over a number of years. And those are those are all demolished at this point. >> Okay. And the kids won't get a free year out of school when they're doing this, right. So they're going to be relocated. >> Now, unfortunately for the children, they got to go to the swing school, I think for that next year. >> Okay. And that's my understanding 108th and Grover, is that right? You're correct. Okay. I try to lobby for the students, but I got no juice. So I know that school is built. I think in 1932. And we had some issues with the roads. When I got on the council. So a lot of good progress is being made there. So I'll be glad to support this today. Thanks. I got a motion, a second roll call. >> Hug. Melton ROW Festersen Goodwin. Yes. Harding. Yes. Mr. President. I motion passes 7 to 0. >> Thank you all. >> Item 20, an ordinance to rezone property located at 1415 Elm Street from R4 district to R5 district. Planning Board and Planning Department. Recommend approval. >> Public hearing is now open on item 20. Is the applicant here today? >> Hey, how you doing? >> Good afternoon. Get your name and address for the record. >> Freddy Ellis, 2196 Parker Circle, Omaha, Nebraska, 68110. >> Thank you. We might have some questions for you. Sit tight. Okay. Are there any proponents here today on item 20? Seeing none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is closed. Got a motion and a second roll call. >> Hug. Melton ROW. Festersen. Yes. Goodwin. Yes. Harding. Yes. Mr. president. I motion passes 7 to 0. Thank. Item 21, an ordinance to rezone property located at 2917F Street from GI district to LA District. Planning Board and Planning Department recommend approval. >> Public hearing is now open on. Item 21. Is the applicant here? Good afternoon. >> Good afternoon. My name is Cordell Mika with Rynearson here representing the proponent 14710 West Dodge Road. I'm here to answer any questions as necessary. >> Thank you. Are there any proponents here today on 21 item 21? Seeing none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is closed. Got a motion and a second roll call. >> Hug. Melton. Row. Festersen. Yes. Goodwin. Harding. Yes. Mr. president, I motion passes 7 to 0. Item 22, an ordinance to rezone property located at 12036 North 40th Street from R1 district and R2 district. R2 district Planning Board and Planning Department recommend approval. >> Public hearing is now open on item 22. Applicant. Good afternoon. >> James Shannon. >> Five 417 South 18th Street, Omaha, Nebraska, 68107. Any questions you guys have? >> Thanks. Are there any proponents here on item 22? Seeing none, are there any opponents? I got it multitasking here. Public hearing is closed. Yes. Got a motion and a second roll call. >> Melton. Row. Festersen. Yes. Good one. Harding. Yes. Mr. president. I motion passes 7 to 0. Item 23, an ordinance to amend the boundaries of the MCC overlay District to incorporate into that district the property, located at 925 South 84th Street. Planning Board and Planning Department, recommend approval. >> Public hearing is now open on. Item 23. Is the applicant here today? Are there any proponents here on item 23? >> Good afternoon. Omaha City Council Daniel Johnson, the Johnson Foundation. And North Omaha Concerned Citizen Foundation, 4928 North 52nd Street. Is this number 23 on 73rd and Hickory? We offered a what is a what is it, 73rd Hickory on pine. That building there. We offered them 8 million for that building to put consulate there. Well, that changed that whole area. If we come up with the money for that property. >> I don't I don't think this is near. This is off 84th and Pacific. >> So it. >> Has. >> That 73rd and Hickory just up the street there. >> Yeah. It's about a mile or so. >> So if we buy that. >> Building separate item, that's a separate item. Thanks. Are there any other proponents here today on item 23? Seeing none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is closed. I got a question. Mr.>> De planning. >> Dave, this is just for. Is this to install a sign? If I'm reading this correctly. >> So they correct. They needed an amendment to their conditional use permit to install a new sign. And one of the conditions of that approval from the Planning Board and from the department was to lay the zoning down on top of it. >> Okay. Thanks, Dave. >> Sure. >> Second, got a motion and a second roll call. >> Hug. Melton ROW. Festersen. Yes. Goodwin. Yes. Harding. Yes. Mr. president, I motion passes 7 to 0. Item 24, a resolution to approve a special use permit to allow medical offices in the district located at 4463 South 110th Street. Planning Board and Planning Department. Recommend approval. >> Public hearing is now open on item 24. Applicant. Good afternoon. >> Good afternoon, Gisela Larsen with Grid Architecture, LLC. I'm here to represent the owner if there's any questions. >> Can we get her address? Get your address please. >> 02645 North 1/65 Street. Thank you. Nebraska. >> Thanks. Are there any proponents here today on item 24? Seeing none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is closed. Second. Got a motion and a second roll call. >> Hug. Melton ROW Festersen. Yes. Goodwin. Harding. Yes. Mr. president. I motion passes 7 to 0. Item 25, a resolution to approve a special use permit to allow general offices in the district located at 2332 South 24th Street. Planning Board and Planning. Department recommend approval. >> Public hearing is now open on item 25. Applicant. Good afternoon. >> Good afternoon. Jim Clements, executive director of HOME and formerly Project Houseworks, a local affordable housing organization. Happy to explain or answer any questions the council has. >> Thanks. Can we also get your address? >> Yes, we are located at 2316 South 24th Street. >> Thank you. Are there any proponents here on item 25? Seeing none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is closed. Motion approved. Second. Got a motion and a second roll call. >> Melton. Row. Festersen. Yes. Goodwin. Yes. Harding. Yes. >> Mr. president, I. >> Motion passes 7 to 0. Item 26, a resolution to approve a special use permit to allow scrap and salvage services in the GI district, located at 6030 South 60th Street. Planning Board and Planning Department recommend approval. >> Public hearing is now open on. Item 26. Is the applicant here today? Good afternoon. >> Hello, my name is Terry Morrison with Ehrhart Griffin and Associates, 3552 Farnam Street. I'm here on behalf of the owner. >> Thank you. Are there any proponents here today on item 26? Seeing none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is closed. Right. I'm sorry. Councilman hug. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. >> President. >> I just can't resist a man. What a difference a few months make. Is it Terry? Yes. Okay. >> Terry. >> I'm going to ask some questions, and it's more just to get it on the record. Okay. So just for clarification, your client was operating without the proper special use permit? >> Yes. Without the understanding that they needed one until it was recently brought to their attention. My understanding. >> Did your client recently purchase this operation? >> No, they've been running it for 27 years, I think. >> Okay. So do we know how long they were operating outside a special use permit? >> I don't know the specific timeline. They've been doing the tire shredding. >> But it's multiple years. Yes. Multiple of years. Yes. Okay. Safe to say it's over ten years. >> I believe so. >> Okay. Information you provided to me recently, you indicated that there is a dust abatement system associated with with this specific piece of equipment. It's er. Mr. System. >> Yeah. So it's a low speed operation and it has a water spray device that helps keep any dust or any small particles down. So they're not getting airborne. >> Okay. And it's my assumption that that dust abatement system, dust arrestor is used every time and all the time. This piece of equipment's in operation. >> Yeah, it's just part of the equipment. It comes along with it. So it operates when the, when the device is on. Yes. >> Okay. The only other question I have is I think it's pretty common knowledge that loose tires contain water. Typically if they're outside in the rain, there's a cavity. Rain gets stuck in there and that becomes a great habitat for breeding of mosquitoes. And every year we all see the public service announcements about drain your, drain your ponds, your pools, your any apparatus, retaining water on your property, drain it to abate the habitat for mosquitoes. I'm assuming. And you're gonna have to correct me, but I'm assuming your clients are turning over the product. The inventory of the tires relatively quick. >> Yeah, they they go through a lot of tires. I think it's like 900,000 per year. So there's no, no real time that it sits there. It's all in and out. Continuous operation. >> Okay. So you wouldn't have tires sitting there for 30 days. >> No. >> Okay. Wouldn't have them sitting there for two weeks. >> Not to my knowledge. No. >> Okay. I had one request and I that was probably communicated to you that I was requesting that your client put on an air monitor, and I'm installing air monitors in my district in conjunction with the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Environmental Health Department. We're siting six. We have three installed. And I asked your client to consider putting the two of them up on his perimeter, his property, and the message I got back was no. Is that consistent with what you believe? >> Yeah, I think so. The to elaborate on that a little more. So as they've been in operation, they haven't had any complaints. We met with the city environmental people. There was no concerns about air airborne issues or concerns with this operation. They're also in an industrial area where they have a neighbor who crushes Rock. Across the road. There's dust and debris coming off that all the time. They're concerned that if they put those in, even if it's not theirs, it may pick up contaminations from other industrial operations, which then may seem like it's theirs. And so really it comes down to their operation with with being a low speed operation with the water suppressant. They haven't had any complaints. They don't feel it's actually an issue on their part. And so they don't want to want to do that and open a can of worms that might not be their their problem. >> And I understand that's their opinion. Now, my opinion is different because I think that that goes both ways. It might also protect them from being wrongfully accused, if you will, may not accuse, may not be the right word, but it would probably help identify exactly where the where the particulates are coming from. And you brought up a good point. And Mr. or Mr. Stubby, I don't know which one of you will answer this question, but recently I was told that the city has no. Ability to enforce permitting of or. Air pollutants and air contamination that. The only thing the city can regulate is noise. Am I doing. Mr. one of you answer that question? >> I'll take a shot and then maybe Bob has something to add. So Dia de city planning. No, there's. There's a section of the zoning code that deals with noise and. Substances or I guess air that goes. Or pollutants that go across property lines. But most of that falls under public works. Environmental quality. >> Public works. And so similar to what Dave indicated is that air quality division would be responsible for things such as the equipment that's being used to actually operate the shredding machine. When it comes to health related situation, that would fall under Douglas County Health Department. >> So it would not be under the purvey of public works or of or planning or any department within the City of Omaha. >> Yeah. Again, when. >> It comes to regulate, has a city is noise, is is noise. >> That. Dave that's not totally accurate. We we can control light pollution crossing property lines. We can control noise or at least monitor the noise. I don't have the zoning code in front of me, but those are the two I know of are at the top of my head. >> Okay. And again, Mr. Stewart, Mr. help me answer this question. So in. Approving the special use permit, the only thing the city of Omaha was requiring from the applicant was a noise study. >> Well, Dave city planning. No, there's a list of conditions. Tied to this use permit. So noise being one of them. I mean, there's an operating statement and certain other operating characteristics that we will monitor. >> So but nothing related to airborne particulates. >> That is correct. At least from the planning side of things. Yes. >> Okay. Was there anything from your department, Mr. Stuby, related to airborne particulates? >> Yeah. Again, the only thing would be with regard to the actual equipment, similar to when we dealt with this, to the proposed operation to the north, I think they were operating it with a diesel engine, and we would fall under that requirement. But when again, when it comes to health related, that falls under Douglas County Health Department. >> Okay. Thank you, Miss Julie Terry, is this equipment operated by diesel engine? Yes yes. Okay. Okay. So, Mr. Stubb, in light of the fact that they are operating with the diesel motor, they've still met all the all the requirements. >> To the best of my knowledge, I'm not aware of any issues that were identified. >> Okay. Well, Terry, I'm unhappy your client declined to voluntarily put an air monitor. I'd like an opportunity to meet with your client and see if I can convince them myself. And. But Mr. President, that's all the questions I have. >> Okay. Thank you. No further lights. Motion in a second was made. No further lights. Roll call. >> Okay, I think I made the motion. Motion we didn't hear. Oh, I think Amy did. Oh, you did okay. That's fine. >> Are we good? Motion and a second. Okay. No further lights. Roll call. >> Hug. >> No. >> Melton. Row festersen. Yes. Good one. Yes. Harding. >> Yes. >> Mr. president. >> No. >> Motion passed 5 to 2. Consent agenda. Any member of the City Council may cause any item placed on the consent agenda to be removed. I was removed from the consent agenda shall be taken up by the City Council immediately following the consent agenda and the order in which they were removed, unless otherwise provided by the City Council. Rules of order. >> 31 being Removed. >> Yes, 31 is Removed. >> Public hearing is now open on items 27 through 31 notes, 27 through 30 and 32 through 34 approval. Got a motion. >> 27 through 30, 32 through 34. >> Got a motion a second roll call. >> Hug. Melton ROW Festersen Goodwin. Yes. Harding. Yes, Mr. president. I motion passes 7 to 0. >> Item 31. >> Is an ordinance to approve an operation and maintenance agreement with the Miller Park Trust for public improvements, ease communication and support. B is an amendment of the whole requested by the Law Department, and C is an amendment of the whole requested by the Law Department. Distributed on April 21st. I believe they're at your seats. >> Council discussion for item 31. Council Member Goodwin, you're recognized. >> Thank you, Mr. President. So item 31 is the Miller Park Trust Future development. And last week we had just some discussion and then some amendments to just to modify how the the actual agreement read. I know we had Mendoza Neighborhood Association who came to suggest expanding the advisory board from 3 to 4. Also to allow the mayor to appoint in the city to approve, I believe, a sixth member on that board. And so that was part of the amendments we requested. We also wanted to understand more the areas of the scope of work in which the city would maintain essentially management or be responsible for that included the golf course, the fountain, and I believe the pool. And so we did get that information provided to us. And Jake I was wondering if you could provide us with just a scope of that, not only the work, but then the, the, the actual cost, as you see it today. >> Sure. >> Linda Parks and Rec, excuse me, as far as maintenance goes, on an average, we have $87,000 in the area in there and that that will still help for the roads and elevate trees and some fencing and stuff like that. That's still part of the project or part of the park itself. The golf course itself, expenses on average is about 360,000 a year, and that will still be, excuse me, maintained through us. And then the swimming pool itself, on average is about $176,000 a year, and that'll still be under our maintenance. >> Can we also thank you for that. We also discussed, just as the websites develop, which I know is also a part of the agreement, that there would be clear pathways to citizens reporting any issues. I don't think that was necessarily addressed within the amendment, but it's something that I'm recommending just so that, again, users of the park have clear pathways to reporting issues, as do council members, because oftentimes those issues come to us. So I'd like to motion to approve the amendment of the whole. >> Second. >> Got a motion and. >> A thank you. >> Motion and a second. >> Just to clarify, that would be the revised amendment of the whole that was just distributed. >> Yes. So that I would like to motion the revised amendment of the whole as recently distributed. Do we need a second? >> Second had a motion and a second. Did you have any other comments? Councilmember. >> I did not. Thank you, Mr. President. >> You're welcome. Council member Festersen you're recognized. >> Thank you, Mr. President. I'll support the amendment of the whole as well. I just think it was important to have the conversation that we did last week. And today when you have these kind of agreements and expectations of funding and support that everything is crystal clear in terms of people's responsibilities. And I think the amendment of the whole does a better job of that than what we had last week, for the reasons that Council Member Goodwin just noted. But also things like it wasn't clear who was reporting to the city last time about potential capital improvements and who would approve that. That's now been called out as the park's director. One of the advisory board members will now be appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the council. I think that's a good addition to it encourages ongoing communication between all parties, which in an agreement like this is very important. And then we had a conversation about those baseline maintenance numbers, too. And it's important that we all have an expectation of that, even if those are approximations going forward. And it's not so much the park maintenance numbers in this revised agreement, because the foundation intends to take over park maintenance and probably increase that at least threefold from what it currently is, which will be very positive, but does give a baseline number as to our expectations and responsibilities going forward around the golf course and the pool. So with those things being clarified, I think this is a good addition and a good agreement, and I'll support that today. >> Thank you. No further lights. Roll call. >> You hug. >> Yes. >> Melton. Row. Festersen. Yes. Goodwin. Harding. >> Yes. >> Mr. president. I motion passes 7 to 0. >> The public hearings on agenda items 2035 through 46 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 and if you are a proponent or opponent. The public hearing is now open for items 35 through 46. Are there any proponents today? >> Good afternoon, Omaha City Council. Daniel Johnson the Johnson Equestrian Foundation, North Omaha Concerned Citizen Foundation, number 42. It seems like over the years since, it's been moving out a lot of property up there. It's going for sale. So the one on 73rd and Pacific, we asked the West Africa to buy that property for 8 million to put consulate, because Guatemala and Mexico have concerns. >> This is an agenda item on 4242 is yeah, that's Epperson Pacific. >> Yeah. Part of the Witherspoon they're selling to buy that property too. >> It's not near where you're talking about. It's specific to 91st Pacific. >> I think the city should go ahead and buy that property and give it to the council. >> Thank you. Are there any other proponents here today? Seeing none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is closed. Got a motion and a second roll call. >> Hug. Melton. Row. Festersen. Yes. Goodwin. Yes. Harding. Yes. Mr. president. I motion passes 7 to 0. Item 47, an ordinance to approve amendment number one to the construction manager at risk agreement with McCarthy Building Companies, Inc. for the Papillion Creek Water Resource Recovery facility. Secondary expansion project A's communication and support B is communications and opposition. C is. Amendment of the whole request by the Law Department. D is documentation from the Law Department. E is a revised amendment of the whole requested by the Law Department. Distributed April 21st, 2026. >> Had a motion and a second for the revised E amendment of the whole Council discussion. Council Member Harding, you recognize. >> So I'll start off with. I don't think much has really changed since we had the public hearing on this, but I know the city has met both with the state auditor, state auditor, and and both the attorneys, attorney general's office. So, Ryan, if I could, I know you if you would mind coming up to the podium, you distributed to the council the contents of that letter and wanted to know how how would you characterize the meeting that you had with the attorney General's office. >> Ryan White and Deputy city attorney? I would first like to clarify that we did not meet with the state auditor's office. We offered to meet with the state auditor's office. So that offer was declined. >> But you did meet with the AG's office? >> That is correct. >> Okay. How would you characterize that meeting? >> I felt that it was productive. >> Okay. And how would you characterize the letter from the AG's office that we received today? >> The letter concluded by stating that the Attorney General's office could find no violations of state statute and stating that the attorney general would take no further action on this matter. >> Okay. I think that's what they said. In part, that was not their total conclusion. Would you agree with that? >> I would state that the Attorney General reiterated the initial questions that the Attorney General raised and stated that while the Attorney general had still some concerns, that those conclusions were, in fact, reached. >> All right. I'll read in part some of what the attorney general's letter said, said. We conclude that the lack of a competitive bidding process deviated from certain terms, and the spirit of the original c ma agreement that was in relation to the cell performing aspects of that agreement. And then as it related to the fees. They said in part, we nevertheless remain concerned about compliance with public policy expressed in laws passed by the Nebraska Legislature of adhering to city of city, adhering to council approved contract terms, terms, the city and the c Ma appear to have disregarded when the parties agreed to proceed with the proposed GMP without having first competitively bid. Each work authorization as required by article ten of the contract. So, with all due respect, I. That's why I wanted to bring up the fact that the conclusion or the characterization of how the meeting went or the the the letter, I think, was in part what you said was just that in part. And that there was there was more to it than that. So I want to go back to two well, two items that really, I think, are there. There are many items that I have I still have issues with. I'm sorry. You can I'll have you back up if I have questions. Thanks. That that I still as I said, I don't think have changed really since the. This was initially put before us. So the the original agreement laid out the rules of the road, so to speak. How how the, the process was to take place as it related to any self-performing work to be Self-performed. I don't believe that that was followed. And further evidence by that was not followed because we have. Now the amendment, which was the GMP, includes the GMP. The rules of the road from the. The 2024. Ordinance has has been changed such that the. The cell performance work was. Bidding for. That work was not done in that standard. It was done in an open book process. So and I don't know if this would be for public works or for the law Department, but in in this I believe it's in paragraph four. 4.2.1. It starts off as it relates to the self-perform cost of work. It says with city approval, McCarthy chose to self the work packages listed in table 4.2.1. So I guess I would like to know the answer. Who made the decision? Ultimately as to do the open book process? Was it the city or was it McCarthy and Jim? If you could come up and maybe answer that. >> Jim Tyler, City of Omaha Public Works the decision was made by the team, the city, in collaboration with HDR, our engineer and McCarthy. That decision was made due to the complexity and the criticality of the scopes of work required to complete the project. >> Okay. In paragraph 10.01 D in the third paragraph, it starts off. Third paragraph based on the size, complexity, and duration of the project, the owner decided that an additional mechanism for the procurement of self-performance of certain key scopes of work was appropriate. That says there it said the owner. The owner would be the city. >> The owner of the city. Okay, we are the city. We we, we. >> So was the city that made the decision. >> Okay, let me the city has the final say. We are the owner. Yeah. So obviously we made that decision. Okay. And I apologize for using that word. Obviously I didn't mean to, but we did not make that decision in a vacuum. That decision was made with our engineer HDR and then our contractor McCarthy on, you know, on. These are the critical scopes of work that require this type of work to be done by a strong contractor doing the self-perform work. >> Why was the decision made not to follow the the, the agreement, the 2024 ordinance where it spelled out how that work was to be. Well, even if even if it was deemed to be so complex that no one else would bid on that. There was still a process in place in the 2024 ordinance that said, McCarthy would put their bid together and submit it as if as if they were doing it like anyone else would have to submit their bid. But it was it was deemed that that wasn't necessary or it was decided upon by someone that that wasn't necessary and that we would just use an open book process. >> We decided that in the best interest of the city to make, to make sure that we had cost and risk control, that by going to the open book process Self-performed process, that gave us absolute control of the cost of work. >> Is there not a procedure that should have been followed to amend at that point? >> I will let Ryan answer that question about the amend to that point. Do you want to answer that question, please? And again, that I'm going to talk. Ryan can talk to the the state statute that allows for a contract to be further amended. >> Ryan Weelden, Deputy city Attorney I think, as I understand your question, Councilmember Harding, is you're asking if an amendment was required at that point in time? >> No, I'm asking why the procedure wasn't followed. >> The procedure. >> The the procedure that was spelled out in the 2024 ordinance as it related to Self-performing work. Why was that procedure not followed? >> Yeah, I think that's. >> I misunderstood. >> The question. >> I thought. >> Well, no, but I mean, it's. >> No that. >> But okay, I want. >> To hear I apologize. I thought you were according to the law. >> Well, I want to know that answer. >> According to the law, as we understand, the law allows the Cmarq contract to be amended. As long as we don't exceed the. >> No question. I'm not questioning the look. And I should have said at the top, I'm not against the process, but hold on. >> Yeah, okay. >> I'm not against the simple process. What I'm against is having an agreement that was vetted and public hearings were held and scrutinized and agreed upon and then not followed. There's an amendment process. It was not followed here. >> And so we, the city. Looking that the state law contemplates those changes during a CMR process to be made without nullifying the contract, chose to make what we thought was. And we continued to feel that in the best interest of the city for the cost control of this project, for the ratepayers. Okay. To make sure that the best way for us to do this project, because of the difficulty and complexity that we are going to put in a cost control mechanism that assures we get the absolute best cost audit done on the front side and on the back side for the city of Omaha. >> Okay, Ryan, show me that. Show me that language. Show me the language that Jim just referred to. >> State statute. >> So we so we as a city can enter into an agreement. That's what I think I'm hearing. We as a city can enter into an agreement. But then unilaterally change that agreement without any public process after it's been agreed to. Why have why have a contract to begin with? >> Ryan, we said deputy city attorney. I don't believe that. That's what Mr. Tyler was stating. As a general principle of just contracts, the parties can agree generally to amend the contract at any point in time. I think. What was that? >> Was was that done? >> That's what's before the council today. >> Okay. And your and we're being asked to retroactively change what the original agreement is called for after that work has been. Been BID on with an open book. >> Ryan Weelden, Deputy city Attorney. >> Can someone just tell me, look, when I was growing up, if I did something wrong, I was asked to fess up to it and say, hey, I made a mistake. And this is the process that maybe I was supposed to do, but I didn't go through that. But I apologize. I did something wrong. I need to, I need to make that correction, but I'm not hearing that. What I'm hearing is we are, we are, we are asking for language to be approved in a subsequent agreement that makes good on a process that wasn't followed as originally agreed to. I tell me how I'm missing that simple kind of concept. >> Ryan Wilson, deputy city Attorney I'm attempting to answer the question you initially asked, which was where the language in the state statute is that permits refinements in in commitments to be made. And that's in 13, 29, Dash 12. And it states. >> Can you pull that down a little bit? We can't see that. >> And it states in relevant part a construction management contract may be conditioned upon later refinements in scope and price, and may permit the political subdivision and agreement with the construction manager to make changes in the project without invalidating the contract. Later refinements under this section shall not exceed the scope of the project statement contained in the request for proposals, and it's my understanding that that is what has occurred here, that as the CMR process proceeded, as the parties worked together to work on the design and discuss how this project would be built and constructed, that it was determined that refinement should be made to the project and that that is where this open book performance was, was came into effect. Okay, that is. >> What I don't disagree with the language that's that's sitting on. Just leave that up. Please. But it says may be conditioned upon later refinements in scope and price and may permit the political subdivision of the city in agreement with the design builder and construction manager to make those changes and on and on. I'm not I'm not disagreeing with that. But what you're what we're doing, what we're being asked to do is make that change after the fact that the original language wasn't followed. I mean, that's what I said this earlier too. I said in this process, had it come to the conclusion that there was that this was to complex for anyone. But but the the Seema to do, then it should have been brought to us at that point in time that so that that political subdivision could make that refinement upon that knowledge. But we're being asked to do is is make good on what what was not followed in the original in the 2024 ordinance. Is that is that not right? >> Ryan. We deputy city attorney construction has not started yet. So I think what the council is being asked is to approve a refinement in. >> The construction hasn't started. But the bidding process certainly has taken place. And that's I'm not talking about the construction. I'm talking about the process that was supposed to be followed for the cell performance of work. I, I feel like you're, you know, maybe, maybe you don't want to acknowledge what I'm saying or, you know, I can't imagine that it's that unclear what I'm saying. I agree that we can change the contract. And that's generally what I would say that the AG's office said in their letter is that, hey the form of the contract is okay. But as they as they stated twice that they, you know, the lack of competitive bidding process deviated from certain terms in the spirit of the original Seema, and that they remained concerned about compliance with public policy expressed in laws passed by the Nebraska legislature of adhering to the Council approval contract terms, terms. The city and the CMR appear to have disregarded when the parties agreed to proceed with the proposed GMP without having first competitively bid. Each work authorization is required by article ten of the of the contract. So I'm not disagreeing that we can change it. But what. But we've. We violate the public's trust if we're changing it to accommodate a process that was not followed and agreed. What was agreed upon in an earlier action. We're violating the public's trust by doing so. In my opinion. The. I'm not I maybe I've talked long enough, but I'll say one other thing. Then I'll probably talk about fees later, but I'm just talking about the bid process now. We received a letter also dated April 16th from from the mayor to the Council and. Asking for us to vote yes on the amendment and listed a number of reasons why. And actually. Mentioned, you know, in a couple of the bullet points about Hawkins, I this has absolutely nothing to do with Hawkins, at least in my mind. Absolutely nothing. But I think the I think the letter probably should have said something along the lines of, you know, we made mistakes in the process. The agreed to terms and conditions for this process were not followed. The public's confidence in the city's reputation would be at risk, as well as the parties interested in doing business with the city. There's reason that we draft, consider, pass and agree to terms of agreements with the city. It protects the citizens. It protects the taxpayers, and it protects those that we contract with. And when we're not adhering to those terms and conditions, it's a violation of the public's trust. >> That's all for now. >> Thank you. Mr. Kazi. A couple questions for you, please. >> Mackenzie Law Department. >> Can you speak to the Attorney general's letter that was referenced that we received today? The council received. >> Yes, I have it in front of me. >> Okay. Can you give your your thoughts on what you read as far as compliance? Did we follow compliance in state law in this process that's before us? >> Sure. The point being made about the Attorney General and his opinion on the public policy aspect of this process is well taken, but the Attorney general is not unlike the city attorney in many ways. His job is to provide a legal opinion, and the attorney general himself acknowledges that in his letter. He kind of refers to this. I think he used the word legal mandate, saying, quote, the attorney general is charged with ensuring compliance with Nebraska state law, including state statutes relating to the construction bidding process. He acknowledges that's his job, and that's what this letter is to do, is to talk about whether we're acting. The city is acting in compliance with state law and the construction bidding process, and has been already stated. His ultimate conclusion was based on the information we have at this time. Nothing we have discussed concerning the ordinance appears unlawful under Nebraska statute. On that basis, we will be taking no further action on this matter. That's his legal opinion on the matter, which is what his job is. And Council Member Harding is correct. He then does go on to talk about his concern about the public policy aspect of it, which is perfectly fine for him to weigh in on, give his thoughts on and give his opinion on. But I think what the that's the equivalent of me saying, I think that this, you know, some law we're passing about dog licenses is fine. But as a public policy, I don't really care for dogs. That's two different things. One is acting within my scope of authority as the city attorney to opine on a legal matter in front of the city. The other is not similar. In this case, the attorney general's job, which he lays out specifically as to ensure compliance with Nebraska law. And he has opined that the city has. The rest of it. His comments is, I guess, interesting. I'm not really sure it should be relevant or persuasive, but he certainly free to give those comments. And I appreciate that the attorney general weighed in on this matter, and I appreciate that the attorney General, unlike other state officials, took time to meet with the city, talk about these issues and ultimately give an opinion on this matter. I think it's beneficial for all of us. >> Thank you. I. Is there somebody from McCarthy here that can come up? I have a couple questions. >> Hi. >> Council Jaren Murphy with McCarthy. >> Building companies. I also have my colleague BJ Peterson with us this morning or this afternoon for 201 South 1/30 Plaza Omaha, Nebraska 68137. >> Thanks for being here today and I appreciate your patience because last month you didn't get afforded the chance. On behalf of McCarthy, that we have good, great contractors in this city. And and McCarthy certainly doing this job. The city chose your firm to do it. Hawkins and others were also considered great partners of the city as well. So since you didn't get a chance to talk a month ago, I just wanted to get your thoughts on the processes and how you guys followed them and your thoughts on that process. >> Yeah, thank you for that. I appreciate the opportunity. So two years ago, we were selected as the city's Seema to begin the process of the design. And then also putting together a GMP for the project. And I represent hundreds of people across McCarthy HDR, the city that work together in a collaborative way to figure out the best way to mitigate the risks. Now, in my professional opinion of this type of project, there are tremendous risks on this project to be able to put it together. This is a plant that needs to stay active, that needs to operate. There cannot be any shutdowns. There can't be any unexpected shutdowns, and it has to be planned from the beginning of how we're going to construct the overall plant. We included a market outreach and a cost modeling effort from 30% design to 100% design. And we did a market outreach that included 60 bid packages, nearly 800 invitations, and more than 180 bids that were received. Through that process, we worked closely with the city staff, the city Human Rights and Relations department for SID participation, with their expertise, guidance, guidance and collaboration. We developed a plan for success for these small businesses, and we commit to this city to make sure that they are successful throughout the project. Due to the size and complexity of the project, the team concluded, which the team includes McCarthy city HDR made the decision to move forward with this open book third party reviewed Self-perform scopes to mitigate the immense risks on the project. The guaranteed maximum price also establishes an open book review and audit process throughout construction, so every cost is transparent, it's audited and can be reviewed throughout construction. This addition was made for the city's benefit. This provides a strong and transparent foundation for the guaranteed maximum price. It's a plan that took two years to develop and can start building. With over 300 local craft professionals tomorrow on it. It's a plan that accounts for six years of escalation, risk, labor risk, weather risk and risk associated with converting 50 year old treatment processes that can last an additional 50 years. We're committed to continually finding ways to save money for the city and provide the best value throughout the process. Some examples that we have implemented throughout the pre-construction process, we helped to mitigate the process of the $88 million aqua aerobics system, which the council already approved, to put that outside of our contract to save approximately $8 million of markup on that, on that that scope of work, we reduced our original fee from the RFP, saving the city an additional $5 million and all the remaining markups included in the GMP were scrutinized by HDR engineers and the city. As we continue in construction, as your CMR will continue to work collaboratively to save even more money and dollars for the city in different lump sum model. This only goes up and savings never come back on a project of this size and complexity. Self-perform is expected as it ensures greater control over safety, quality and schedule, while also providing the most transparent and audible view of costs. This approach fully accounts for the risks inherent in a six year project, while maintaining strong city oversight. Along with third party audits throughout construction, our role has been worked to work in lockstep with the city to deliver a plan that is transparent, that is accountable, and is positioned for long term success. I just want to thank you, Council, for your support up to this point. It's been a lot of work by a lot of people to get to this point, and we will do everything in our power to make sure it is a successful project over the next six years on a very important infrastructure project for the City of Omaha. >> Thank you. Thanks. Mr. Murphy, a follow up question. Just to reiterate, who reviewed this process? It was HDR. It was you guys. It was the city and Jacobs, is that correct? >> That is correct. >> Okay. And in respect to when the bidding was done, how many invitations did you say were sent out? >> Yeah, we sent out over 800 invitations. I believe the exact number was 797 90. >> Got a good memory. I'm looking at that. And you received it looks like 186 bid packages from the 60 competitively bid scopes. That's correct. Correct. There's other lights on. I'll have some more questions. Councilmember Melton, you're recognized. >> Thank you. Well, I'm not sure. Ryan. >> Mr. Wilson, if you could. Come back up. I guess what I'm. Here's the one of the biggest problems I have is we, the City Council approved the agreement two years ago. September 17th, approximately two years ago, 2024. Yet even in the mayor's letter, he stated, Omaha Public Works, HDR and McCarthy then collaborated for 18 months to develop the final design that accounted for critical. The criticality and complexity of the work to build the largest project of its kind. When did you start collaborating to do the open book? Oh, sorry. Whoever can answer it, Mr. Tyler. >> I might defer to McCarthy or HDR for more details, but. >> Sure, anybody that can. >> Answer I'm going to do I'm going to do my best to answer that. You know, I became aware of these conversations going on right around the May time frame of 2025. >> So that would be basically a year ago. >> Correct? >> Okay. Well, it says that the city, the owner, I mean, it says that the owner approved. >> Yes. >> So if it was May of 2025. You know, I'm looking at what was it, Mayor Stothert or Mayor Ewing that approved this? >> Okay. You are saying the owner in regards to it has to be the mayor as the owner? >> Well, the city. >> The city. Okay. >> Clearly it wasn't anybody. >> On the owner. >> Because we didn't. >> Have a vote. So let me let me I'm going to answer that. And and then again, I think I can answer the question that Brinker asked about, you know, did we do something wrong? So if I'm allowed to answer that too. >> If you could. >> Just sure. >> I got my questions. >> We were. And I. So when we're referring to the owner, we're. Should be saying public works on behalf of the owner, if that's what you're asking. I'm not quite sure what your question is. >> Well, I guess that's so public works. So you it says the owner. The owner is the city. The owner is not public works department. The owner is the city. >> Correct. >> Okay. And so when it says that the city approved, I want to know what elected official approved this. >> So an elected official did not approve at that time. And we felt we were well within the law of 13, 29, 12. That allows a contract to be amended at a further date. >> So my question would be, you believe that public works on its own without approval of the mayor or the city Council can make that decision to not follow the current? And let me finish. Yeah, not. And by the way, I'm not not trying to catch you on anything. I'm trying to make it clear as to what happened is that. And I think that's where the problem came in is that I believe public works, and I'm not singling out any particular person, not the department head, not necessarily you, I think. Okay. Whatever group that there was decided that members of the Public Works Department had the unilateral authority to determine that we don't have to follow the agreement, that we can do what we believe is in the best interest of the citizens of Omaha. And we can do that and bypass any elected official, because it took a year before you brought it in front of the council. And quite frankly, if it was May of 2025, depending on the day, I'm not sure which mayor we had. So I'm guessing it didn't it wasn't presented or approved by either mayor. >> Yeah. So I'm I'm going to tell you how what we did, we believed what was right. And in retrospect, what we should have done. Okay, so if I if we could do this over, we would have come to council. With that. At that time, we may be not thinking 100% legally because we were thinking completely about how do we deliver this project in the best interest of the city. We, we looked at the law that said, this can be basically decided at a later point of time. Okay. >> And I understand, but you know how that can be decided later in time. Meaning that's the city council. All agreements, especially of this size and magnitude, right? I think if it's over $50,000. So clearly there's no question that this is over 50,000. They all have to receive approval from the city Council. Yes. And one of the and Jim, I just I just want to say, I mean, one of the reasons is we are elected by the people. These are the people's tax dollars. So each one of us sitting up here has a fiduciary duty to pay attention to how the money is being spent. And I think what you're saying, just let me finish what you're saying is that members of the Public Works Department decided that they knew better than what we did, and they were deciding it in the best interest of the people. And I just want to say that that's not how our city government is set up. If it were the case, then the Public Works Department would need approval from the city Council to do any of these things, because you could just decide it's in the best interest of the city and you don't need it. We approved an agreement, and what I'm saying is it doesn't appear that the public works, even the public Works Committee, there's three people on the public Works Committee that it wasn't brought in front of the Public Works Committee at that time. It doesn't appear that it was even brought to the mayor. Whichever mayor it was at that time, because some people in public works, I understand, thought they were doing the right thing. But the right thing would have been if we decide to self-perform and do an open book. That's not what the agreement says. So we're gonna have to go in front of the city council and ask for the agreement to be changed. And I'm just saying it should have been done in May of 2025 when you started the open book bidding, because starting that open book bidding on Self-performance is in contradiction to the agreement the City Council passed. So you did something in contradiction to what the City Council passed. >> And we we thought we thought, yes, we should have came to you at that time. Retrospect, obviously, we should have came to you at that time. >> And I think that's how can I. >> Please, can I please finish? Please. We fully believed that we were doing what was in accordance with state law by making a decision that we made. Retrospect, we should have came to you back then. Okay. But the Attorney General agreed that we did not violate state law. With that decision. We made. >> No, no, actually, that that is is not true. He's saying he actually specifically said. Let me read that. Whether the city chooses to ratify such a departure from the council approved CMR agreement is, however, a decision best left to the judgment of the City Council. So he said he didn't say what you did was correct, he says. But instead of him telling you that he's gonna redo it, he said, well, that's up to the city council can say, no, you can't do it. Because actually this city council, which is the whole problem, is that you avoided the City council's vote to begin with. So now this is where we're at and what the attorney General said. Well, the city Council can override that if they choose to. We haven't chosen to do that. That's what we're voting on today. And what I'm saying is, I think what Public Works did was decide first that they had the power and the authority to make that decision on behalf of the mayor and the city council. >> And what we thought we were doing. Was following the law. When we made that decision, but you. >> Weren't, because the law requires city Council approval. The law requires that if you want to change the agreement, you have to get city Council approval and the statute, section 13 2912 said if they are in agreement, okay, the owner and the contractor are in agreement to Self-perform. What I'm saying is you made the decision to make that agreement with. With McCarthy, without the mayor or the city council. The statute doesn't say that. You don't have to have approval of the mayor and city council. Any agreement has to be passed by the city council. We hadn't passed an agreement to allow that change. So in all honesty, by you saying what we did actually by doing the open bidding and the open book, I do think you violated law. I think you violated city ordinances, and I think you violated the statute because it says you have to be in agreement. And the only way you can be in agreement or have the authority to agree is with this council's approval. So that that's what I'm saying. So I guess I would actually think that there's an argument that can be made there. What the Attorney General says is he's leaving it up to us to decide whether or not that is a violation, because I'm going to vote no for that reason. I do not think that public works had the authority to enter that agreement and do the open book bidding without bringing it in front of this council first, because this council has to approve any changes. If we approve, we're not in violation of the statute, but we haven't approved it yet. And in fact, the open bidding went forward then without our approval. And to me, that's a violation of our city, of our city code, our city code requires that the council vote on the agreement, which is why on September 17th, 2024, we voted on that agreement. You went back in contradiction to that agreement and decided on your own unilaterally. To change that agreement. And now you're coming to us a year later and saying, well, we've already done it. So now, in order to be in compliance with code, we need all of you on this council to vote to amend the agreement to fit the actions we've already taken. You didn't have the authority to take those actions a year ago. That that would be my opinion. My second problem that I have, again, I'm still struggling with these fees and I don't know, is there somebody here that could answer a question of whether 22.5% in overhead fees? Is industry standard? >> I can answer that question. >> You can. You and. >> I can. >> Yeah. >> I can. And and I'm sure that Hawkins going to come up and say something contradictory to what I say. If they're asked to answer that question, we absolutely know that the fees that we allowed McCarthy to have on this project are within industry standard. We constantly are watching texts, ratepayer dollars, okay. We had we consulted with HDR, we consulted with Jacobs. We. We we negotiate contracts all the time. We absolutely know that those fees that we negotiated, okay, were in the best interest of the city and are in line with industry standards. That's a fact. And we worked very hard to get those fees where they were at. >> Okay. If somebody from HDR, can you confirm that that 22.5% in overhead fees on $163 million? And by the way, it's a question I'm not set up like it's an honest I have no idea. I'm a lawyer. I have no idea what industry standard on fees are. >> Hi, I'm Ron Silva with HDR engineering at 1917 South 67th Street. And yes, to answer your question, I mean, the the Self-perform work, whether it was done by McCarthy or whether it was done by somebody else, would have had a 15% markup on it, regardless of who did that work. The fact that McCarthy's doing it is their markup on that self-perform work. So if it was done by somebody else and they had that 15% markup on it, that would have been underneath the overall project and McCarthy's 7.5% fee would have applied to that as well. >> Okay. Well, in the original agreement, we didn't have the 15%. And you're saying that 15% is industry standard, but this amendment actually then has another, I think, 7.5%. So basically there's they're getting fees on top fees, which equates to over almost 23%. So it's 15% the industry standard or 23%. >> When you look at it as a total, there are two separate things. Okay. We're looking at we're looking at two separate markups, if you will. There's the markup that any contractor or subcontractor would have on their work itself. Okay. And that ranges anywhere depending upon the complexity and the risk of the project. 5% or less to 15%, maybe even some high risk projects could have 20, 25% markup on them. Since this project is all under so, so whoever had that work would have that built into there. So let's say, let's just use building crafts as an example. If building crafts were going to do this work and they did X, Y, z work, they would have had 15% markup on that work. If building crafts would then be working for McCarthy underneath this project, then McCarthy would have on top of building crafts. That's 7.5% for the management and risk associated with managing that subcontractor. So there are two separate markups. One is for just doing the work. And in the CMR arena, it's another 7.5%, which is actually lower than what McCarthy told us at the RFP stage. On top of that work. So any work would have 7.5% marked on top of it. >> But is that standard? If you're self-performing. >> The work? Yes, yes. >> And by the way, yes. I have no idea what these answers are. Yes. >> In my opinion, the answer to that is yes. Someone else might have a different opinion, but yes, every contractor who does that work is going to have that work. I don't believe any contractor. This is just my belief. Any contractor is going to take high risk work for just 7.5% markup. It will be more than that. >> But if you're the same contractor and you're already getting the 15%, it would be standard to have an additional seven and a half on top of it. >> That's how this contract is set up. That's how these CMR contract is set up and other CMR contractors are set up the same way. >> Yeah, I'm not asking about this one because this one, well, this contract is changed. And so I you know, depending on what contract we're under because currently the contract that was approved by council in 24, that's actually the contract that currently exists. >> Right. But there is there is no, I don't I can't, I can't recall there's no discussion about markups and fees, right. In that agreement, right in that original agreement. So those were all negotiated the same way as what work was. Self-performed, I understand your conversation, but all those were negotiated during the last two years. >> Okay. And have you had the opportunity who reviews the numbers to look at maybe some of the discrepancies? Is that something. >> Like which numbers are you talking about? Well, I'm sorry. >> When we're looking at kind of the additional fees, it still seems to me, even if with the 7.5% added, as you said, would be industry standard, it still seems to me that the amount that they're getting is, is higher even than that. But I mean, is there is that something. Mccarthy company or Jacobs looks? >> At? Yeah. Jacobs has provided input on that too. But that that. That markup that the, the total markup that. Mccarthy is getting is more than the 7.5%. >> Yes. I guess that's where I'm. >> Coming from. It is more than the 7.5%. When you look at just what is going to be paid to McCarthy, the 7.5%, however, is lower than what McCarthy originally proposed. When the RFP were received for for the just the straight markup on all work, it's lower than what it was originally proposed. >> Okay. And that was when they weren't self-performing. >> We didn't know that they weren't going to be self-performing at that time. Okay. There were certainly aspects and talked about Self-performing work. I think all all three proposals talked about doing Self-perform work during the RFP stage. >> Okay. All right. Thank you very much. >> Any other questions. >> For me? No, I appreciate you providing your your expert opinion. >> And that's what it is. It's an opinion. >> Thank you. All right. And I just also want to want to clarify. There was there was some talk that there was 790 BID invites. Mr. Tyler those are for those were for Seb's. We're not talking about the scope of, of the Self-performing open book that we're approving that you're asking for approval. >> Today, the 790, if I'm correct, is the in totality. That's not the SUV portion. The SUV portion was more like like 180 invitations to BID, something like that. But the 790 is the in totality, bid solicitations, 160 were returned. Of the 60 scopes of work that were right. >> But that's not what we're talking about today. There was no there were no bid invites for the 163.3 million of Self-performing work. Correct. >> There were bid invitations for the materials and equipment suppliers for the vendors. So if you look. >> I understand, but not for the the self-performing work that that McCarthy's going to be doing for. >> Not for the labor portion of the work that is going to be self audited or going to be audited. And. Audited. >> I just wanted to clarify that. Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. I have nothing further. >> Thank you. Councilmember Rowe, you're recognized. >> Thank you, Mr. President. I don't have any questions. I do have a comment. When this was first brought to us, it's been, I think a couple of months ago, I expressed some hesitation about item number ten and the fees and. Wasn't comfortable with it then. And I was I'm thankful that the attorney General has weighed in on this. Mr. Hilgers. I respect him and and his opinion, and I might be comfortable that we're not going to get sued, but I am still a bit uncomfortable with how the public policy is going to be perceived and how what what we approved and how it the process worked seems to be in conflict. And I don't know that I feel any better today than I did a couple of months ago. In that regard. >> Thank you, Council Member Festersen. You're recognized. >> Thank you, Mr. President. As I indicated several weeks ago when we first started these discussions, this is a very difficult situation to put a city council in, to navigate and try to review a, you know, huge contract that has a lot of technical details to it, a lot of different numbers to it. None of us have that expertise, and that's what we're trying to wade through here today. But I think the council was appropriate in making those delays and trying to do our due diligence here and opening any inquiries we got from external stakeholders and internal stakeholders. And I do commend the department and the law Department for doing that, and I personally have spent a lot of time on this. I know we all have and have literally two trees of paper on my desk right here. Just on this topic. I have a couple follow ups to the conversation today. So a lot of this discussion is about the Self-performance issue and the article ten. I think the city would say what they did was in the best interest of the city and their opinion, and followed the CMR process. In their opinion, and was consistent with state law and allowable allowable by state law. There's also been the opinion that in doing so, the city may have violated a city ordinance. So I want to ask a very direct question of you, Ryan, and then also of your boss, Mr. Koozie. Since you are the city attorney involved in this project and Matt is your boss and is the >> The city attorney. Did the city violate any local city ordinance in doing what it did? >> Ryan Wilson, deputy city attorney I don't believe that the city did. I believe the law department can defend the city's actions in this case. >> Mr. Cusack. >> Mackenzie city attorney, I concur. >> Okay. >> Thank you for that. So then I want to talk a little bit more about the Self-performance. Itself. I think parties are still not in agreement over how this process went. It sounds like. But I think there is agreement that the Self-performance work amounts to $187 million. Of that $187 million, over $130 million was for equipment and materials and subcontractors, and those were all BID. That's the number that was BID to the 790 invitations and the 186 bids that were part of this project that do include local trades and responsible bidders. So I wanted to point that out. That was not at all clear in our first public hearing on this item. So I wanted to call that out because I think that's important, but what is still contested then is the 57 million in Self-performance labor by McCarthy. And that's in my mind, what's really what we're talking about here today. So then you wade through all those issues as a city council. And I think it's our primary objective then to try and ensure was the process fair? You've heard, at least from the city's perspective, and our city attorney, that it could be done and did not violate any city ordinance. But was it fair? And to me, that's the crux of the matter. And even of that, I would say it's not entirely clear to me. I think there are there is documentation on both sides that Hawkins, as a respected contractor, was inquiring and seeking to bid on certain items. Mccarthy, as the CMR responded and acknowledged that inquiry. But that's where the communications and documentation seems to drop off on both sides. I don't think that's ideal. And makes it further complicated for us to to, you know, review this situation. On top of all of our minds, of course, is the ratepayers. And what impact could a decision here have on ratepayers and overall cost to this project? We have a guaranteed maximum price, of course, of $411 million. If you ask McCarthy, they think it's going to be less than that. We do have an unsolicited bid, which is not an official bid at about $350 million. It's probably something more than that. The real number is probably somewhere in between. Hard for us to say, but it is accurate to say if that number is anywhere between those numbers. There's no additional impact on sewer use fees. The magnitude of combined sewer overflow projects in the city is is so large that regardless of the cost of this project in that range, it would not impact sewer use fees going forward. Those will need to increase as they have in previous years, to accommodate what was a $2 billion unfunded mandate. Right. So there's that. So back to where I started. It's really difficult for a city council to wade through contract disputes like this, especially something so complex. We just got to try and ensure there's fairness in the process. I think there's still some disagreement as to that, obviously, but I think we've taken it as far as we can. Thanks, Mr. President. >> Thank you. Council Member Goodwin, you're recognized. >> Thank you, Mr. President, and I appreciate Council Member Festersen words to to really just kind of delineate and help us to sift through all that's being said here. Not to mention all this, Mr. Wiesen, if you could, you had article 13, 2912. If you could put that back on the screen. And then I had a question for the department. The Public Works Department head. Bob. Can you read can you restate what the goal of Seema's is? Bob please. >> Sorry. Bob's public works. So construction manager at risk is a process that allows for a different delivery of a project. And so, you know, normally a well-defined projects. Such as sewer project or building project or something like that. The city has always used the traditional design it, BID it and build it. And, and you take essentially a bid and hopefully that bid that was provided provides the total cost of the project. When you get into a project that is a little bit more complicated, maybe a little bit more extended, utilize an additional delivery process, which is kind of identified in front of you. There's a design build contract, which is not what we're talking about today, but it's construction manager at risk contract. And so that's just a different delivery method that allows for the project owner to be able to take advantage of a designer and a constructor to collaborate on a project that is a little bit more complicated. And to arrive at a, what we would consider as a guaranteed maximum price with hopefully the intent that the overall cost of the project after six years will be less than the guaranteed maximum price. >> Thank you. And as we're looking at article 13, 2912, and I don't have my glasses on, Ryan, and I know that's pretty big, but tells you my age. Can you read that for us here? >> Ryan Wilson, deputy city attorney. I'll stick to the highlighted sections here. Construction manager at risk contract may be conditioned upon later refinements in scope and price, and may permit the political subdivision, in agreement with the construction manager to make changes in the project without invalidating the contract. Later refinements under this section shall not exceed the scope of the project statement contained in the request for proposals. >> Okay. And so, Mr. Stubb, how often does public works make decisions within this article based upon your interpretation? >> Well, anytime that word Bob CDBG in public works, anytime we're going through a process of developing a project, there's always conversations that take place between within the project team. And again, in this particular case, it's a construction manager. So we look at McCarthy or anybody else that is acting as an owner's representative, working with not only our staff, but also with the designer. There's always potential changes with regard to, you know, what the outcome of the particular project would be from the standpoint of what that guaranteed price would be. >> So you would say that making decisions and amendments within these this article is not uncommon within your day to day business as a public works. >> Yeah, it's similar to even with a traditional design bid and build it. I mean, we're always looking at a, at a project moving forward. And the potential is that any project you could have changes that occur during, during construction that have to be addressed. If a contractor comes and says, we need to change something, or an owner says we need to change something, that's something that we work out through the process. >> And would you say that you operated in good faith within your knowledge of this law here? >> Well, obviously, we're using ratepayer funds for this, and I think we've always tried to operate with the understanding that we're dealing with ratepayer funding. I know one of the other council members mentioned the the CSO project, the federal mandate. Same situation on that where we looked at opportunities to reduce the overall program cost. >> And so you would say that you operated in good faith and within the scope of the law, as you were making the decision. That's under question today. >> Yes. >> Okay. And so I did. I wanted to read Mike Hilgers just a few phrases since we, a lot of people have kind of cherry picked through his letter. And I know Mike and I do appreciate his contribution to this discussion, but we are in a we're looking at interpretation. And he does acknowledge that. He said, we understand the city to interpret the word scope in article 13 2912, narrowly. Okay, so that was his interpretation of public works actions in this case, to refer only to the size and nature of the project and not the manner of performance. We do not read. 13, 2912 so narrowly. So now we're it's we're now talking about interpretation further. A few other points I wanted to reiterate, and that is it was said during this discussion that these are taxpayer dollars. And just to be clear, these are sewer rate dollars, although these are dollar still that users of the sewer pay. It's not directly taxpayer dollars. And I do think that, as Mr. Festersen mentioned earlier, does need to be just clarified, although it's still part of rates that sewer users pay. But I do believe the bottom line. One is that you you hear our city law department say they believe that public works operated within the measure of the law. And then you hear our public works department say that they often have to make decisions within this. The scope of the interpretation of the law that we do have to trust our department heads, not to say we never bring them under scrutiny. We need to ask hard questions. We need to look at processes. But that the final word of of Mike Hilgers was based on the information we have at this time. Nothing. We discuss concerning ordinance 44 615 appears unlawful under state statute, and I think that there's a lot that we could dissect here, but we are. We're. When I listen to all the legal minds that have weighed into this, at least the ones we have in writing here and the words from Matt Cuzzi as well as Mr. Wiesen, and then to hear our head of the Public Works Department that that's where we're landing. When it's all said and done. And so as I listen to all of this and way wade through all of it, it's very complex. But those are the facts that resonate, not just resonate, but stand out to me. And so I just wanted to, to really reiterate the, the motion to approve the amendment. I believe it's item number E as it's as it's been reintroduced today. Thank you. >> Thank you. Council Member Harding, you're recognized. >> Just one quick thing on the when I mentioned the word taxpayers, I was talking about the processes of what we do to protect the taxpayers. I obviously know these aren't. These are sewer use funds, but. Let's see. Let me. Mr. I think it's Murphy from McCarthy. >> Yes, sir. >> Can you tell me about the conversations that you had with with Hawkins or anyone else as it relates to some of the the, the work that you're going to Self-perform. >> Specifically when we bid out the work, is that what you're. >> No. I want to know about the conversations that you had about looking to have work done that, that you weren't going to Self-perform. >> Do you mind if I refer to my colleague BJ Peterson? She was a part of that conversation. >> Bj Peterson, McCarthy. Building companies 4211S, 130th Plaza, Lima, Nebraska, 68137. So conversations directly with Hawkins happened in March. And that conversation was about what packages they'd be interested in. And they communicated to us that they could do portions of the work that we had outlined, specifically some portion they wanted. They wanted pieces broken out. So this project obviously is one large concrete basin. Mr. Tyler alluded to it being the size of Memorial Stadium, and they wanted pieces of it to be broken out and compartmentalized. They also communicated to us that they didn't have capacity to do some of the earthwork and other scopes, but could do pieces. >> I think earlier, when you were before this council, you also or maybe it was at a council meeting. Nonetheless, I know it was on the record. You mentioned that you had emails to state that that Hawkins was no longer interested. Can you? I've never seen those. >> We had. So the emails that we're referring to is just that conversation about them wanting pieces to be broken out in smaller sections that they couldn't perform. Some of the specific bid packages, and then separately, we had multiple conversations with other potential bidders. It Erickson been grading the city actually gave us a list of folks that they typically work with, that they want us to have these conversations with. And then we collected those. And we have a. >> But again. >> I really. >> Market outreach documents on that, and we've asked for them, and I've never received those. >> The emails that we've provided are both that documentation and a matrix of the communications that we had in the packaging that we had, as well as that conversation documenting the March 12th, 2025 conversation, that Hawkins is also used as a rebuttal against us. So. >> Okay, that's a little different than what we were promised we'd get. But okay, so since we're bringing that up, tell me. We keep hearing the word that it's it's complex and that that others that you're the only ones that are able to do that. Is that correct? Or it was so complex that no one was responding to. Were any bid packages put out for the other work? >> Through the open book process, we. >> That's not what I asked. >> We elected to. >> Did were any bids put out for the other work? >> Yes. >> There were. >> Yes. >> Okay. Did you respond to your own bid? >> The bids that were put out were so detailed in nature that broke out the self-perform for equipment, labor and materials that those bids didn't have any hidden markups or build ups. Essentially, it's price and scope that's directed. >> You didn't you didn't respond to your you didn't submit a bid as required by the document. Is that correct? Please just answer yes or no. >> The bids came through a system that the city had access to and that we had access to, and so there wasn't a separate compilation that we typically would see in terms of a bid package that we need to respond to. There's so much more. >> Detail ordinance required. You to submit a bid. I think it was a day prior to when other bids would be due for that work that you were going to Self-perform was that done? >> The Self-perform packages were not broken up in a way that that needed to occur, because we were going to be open later anyway. >> Was was the work that you were going to self-perform? Was it prepared in a bid response and submitted to the city? >> No, because we elected to audit that open book. >> Okay. The answer is no. And then? And then then you decide to go to an open book. Is that correct? >> It was part of the open book process that those pieces wasn't. The BID were solicited. >> The bid was required by the ordinance to be submitted, even for any work that you were going to Self-perform was to be submitted even one day prior to. Even if you knew no one else was bidding, you were required to submit a bid and that was not done. >> I'm just acknowledging that the work was broken out in smaller pieces, that it it didn't require that type of a solicitation to submit something early, because everything was open book and transparent. All the details were submitted to the city. >> It was open book and transparent. After the decision was made to go that route, rather than not submit a bid. >> And so we followed the process that was laid out on how we were going to evaluate those. >> You did. No, you didn't. You did not. >> The open book process that we evaluated. >> The open book process was not what was approved. Okay. I didn't want to involve Hawkins in this, but now that we've talked a little bit about their ability to respond or not, I'm going to I think Mr. Hawkins is here. I'd like to hear his side of the story on that part of the process please. And Mr. Rochon. >> Hi. Chris Grosjean, vice president, with Hawkins. He was in those conversations I think you could speak to what the actual conversation was. >> Hold on, hold on. >> Just a house. Procedurally, state their name and address. For the record. >> They will Seten. They'll state their name and address. >> Chris Hawkins, Hawkins Construction, 2516 Deer Park Boulevard, Omaha, Nebraska. >> Chris Grosjean, Hawkins Construction, 2516 Deer Park Boulevard, Omaha, Nebraska. Yeah, so regarding the conversations with McCarthy, we did have two conversations actually about this project. They were Zoom meetings leading up to this project. I think it was about April time frame interest, you know, were interested in the project. Yep. We went through the scope of the project. Yes. What scopes we like to self-perform concrete packages, site piping packages, and those were the scopes we wanted to perform. We asked them during those meetings if they would be, if they were interested in breaking up those packages, which was consistent with the contractual language in the documents to encourage more participation. They didn't act like they were interested in doing that. We said, okay, fine, we'll BID, we'll BID the properties as they are. So we had another follow up conversation with that. So there were two meetings. I received a confirmation email from them saying, we acknowledge your interest in these two packages. The civil site work and the concrete packages will be in touch with you as we get further down the process. And that's when all the communication. >> Was what was the date of that? Chris. >> I don't recall exactly what that was. It was April sometime. I'm not sure. >> Okay. And then, then do you know how long after that that the decision was made to do open book? >> I do not know. >> Okay. All right. Okay. I might have some questions for you too, on fees in a minute, but but well, actually, let me talk about the complexity. I mean, so. There were certainly areas of work that that you thought your company could perform work on, as was anticipated from, from the process. >> Yeah. Yes. >> Okay. All right. But then but no bid packages ever came out for the entire scope or even for portions of at least on on that, that, that we're discussing here. >> Yeah. >> That's too complex. >> Well, I don't know if I. The two complex question I think is interesting a little bit the complexity and the nature of this project was well known far before an RFP was issued. Right. So how all of a sudden we made the decision to go to open book because of the complexity, when those conditions were certainly the same at the time RFP was issued. I don't know that that doesn't really pass the smell test to me that if this was the path and a self-performance open book option was needed because of complexity and duration and challenge of the project, one would think that would have been in the. >> Army because we knew how complex the process or the project was to begin with. >> It didn't change from pre RFP to the point in time when BID interest was was solicited for sure. And you made the comment earlier that this isn't about Hawkins. We're here, obviously, and we are the ones who made the initial objection, but it's a valid point because we're only talking about the scopes of work. Hawkins was interested in and would have performed. There were other self-perform scopes that normally we don't participate in, and we still haven't heard how the question was was answered that there was no interest in in those bids either. I don't know. Okay. Right. Fair question. >> Yeah. All right. Thank you. I'll go back to I look, we can argue all day long, probably about the the attorney general's letter and, and the word scope because I think that is something that Miss Goodwin brought up. And it's interesting that in the. I don't think I was cherry picking when I was talking about this, but at least the Attorney General says that that the city's narrow interpretation of the word scope is, is what was pointed out by Miss Goodwin. But it was also pointed out that in a broader sense, scope. Changing it on the scope was something that the Seema Project. Was it goes from from narrow to broad to say, if you changed it from a wastewater treatment to a. And their example was a streetcar that would be that would be something different. But I still think within the scope of what was, what was agreed to or what was presented in the, in the 2024 ordinance is, is what was what we were trying to accomplish here. Hold on. On the fees. I know Miss Melton covered a little bit of this, but I wanted to go back on the fees a little bit. The I guess I'm sorry, Mr. From HR, I apologize. I should know. >> Ron Silva with. >> Hdr and not to put you on the spot, but so. If if I am in open book. Or even I'm sorry, even if if I'm bidding within the CSR project, if I'm a subcontractor and I have I include my fees on my response to the bid with. Within my my response. Right. Yes. Typical. >> Right. >> And you're saying it's then typical for the Seema to put a 15% fee on top of that as well? >> No, I'm not saying that. No. >> Well, okay, so the 15% fee did not exist under the council approved Seema agreement back in 2024. And it wasn't it doesn't even look like it was, as was pointed out by the attorney general, doesn't even look like it was contemplated in the RFP. But now I know I'm going to put words in your mouth. You're going to say, but it was negotiated. >> It was negotiated. Let me let me explain it maybe a little bit differently. Miss Melton. Right. If you had a construction company, right. And let's say you wanted to build this desk, right? It's pretty simple, right? Pretty simple. You'd have to buy all the materials, all the equipment on here to build that desk. And you'd want to make some money on that because you got to feed your family, right? You got to have insurance, you got to have things like that. So you would buy the equipment for this desk, put this desk on it, and then you'd have a markup. And that markup could be since it's simple, it could be fairly low. You know, you're taking low risk to build this desk, maybe five, 10%. Okay. You would give that. And let's say this desk is part of building this building, right? And there's a manager to build this building. You would have your cost to do these materials, and then you'd have your markup of 15% on top of that for you. What you need for your company. Then the company that is managing you, let's say, is the CSR. They have that fee to manage Miss Melton's company. So the CMR has 7.5% fee, which is lower than what they agreed to in the RFP or with the proposed new RFP. And then Miss Melton has the cost of the work, plus her 15%. Now in the Self-perform work, it's the same thing. It just happens to be the same entity. So it would be Miss Melton. Building this desk, marking it up, and then having Miss Melton's management company manage Miss Melton's work in the context of the building. And that would be the 7.5% fee. >> On that. That's what I was going to get at. It's what's really happening here on that Self-perform work that they're there. Had they been required to submit their bid, as was required by the original agreement, then they would have had their fees within their bid. >> Yes. And it may have been more it probably it may have been more. >> Well, okay. Which which actually is interesting to say that because if you're, if you go to a, if you, if you have bids submitted, you know what the price is, right? >> Right. >> That's part of the GMP at the end of the day. Right, right. If you go to an open book, isn't it possible that your fees, that your, your total project cost could be even more? Because if I'm saying, okay, here are my books and this is what it costs, and here are my fees that we've agreed to on top of it, it may have escalated and therefore. Or do they just eat the price on that? >> Well, when you take when you take bids and I I'm not the lawyer political how you you know what the timing of all this was. But when you take bids and you realize that you have only one bidder on something like, was the case for the work that we would have had here. And it was a lump sum bid. We don't know what that markup could have been. >> Right. >> But you know what? But you know, because that's now part of the we do know bid response as part of the GMP. >> We do know we do know what it is. And but let's say it was, you know, X dollars and maybe that X dollars was high because they knew they were the only bidder. Not saying that Miss Melton would do that, but then if she can build it for less, she makes more money in the process that we have, which isn't transparent. We know the every dollar that's spent and the city's only spending and paying for the work that's actually done. So if the lump sum would have been high and they could have done it for something less, the contractor doing that work could have made more money. Here. They're just they're telling you we're going to do it for the cost of the work. Plus our markup to do that work. >> Okay. Thank you. Now as and we keep now we keep also talking about the seven and a half or 7.5%. And it's a lower fee. Well, it might be lower in, in the stated rate, but in actuality, what happens is that the total amount ends up being more, as was pointed out by the Attorney General. And even in their conversation with the city, and concluded in this letter that they they the Attorney General's office was still having some questions as to how how they how the math was working because the math didn't work. When you apply the 7.5% fee to the. 27,000,900 and 793 $600. Fee it. 7.5%. Is. It got to a really. There was a 225 million. Sorry, not 225, $2.25 million discrepancy. And that the $30 million fee rather than the 27 and change fee was. And the explanation from the city was that it was negotiated. So the the 7.5% fee isn't the math wasn't working on that. So I'm not sure I. >> I'm not sure I'm not privy to the math that you're referring to or I don't recall it, but the 7.5% fee as per the RFP was applied to the total cost of the project. So if the total cost of the project is 411 million, the 7.5%, 7.5% of that 411 million is the CMR fee. That is the math that was laid out in the RFP that all responders to the RFP gave us a number for. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. You're welcome for that. I'll just I'll conclude again by saying when I said at the beginning, I just, you know, and I don't believe the process was followed. We, we vetted, we discussed, we deliberated, we acted on a process for the how, how the, the CMR was to go about doing its business. And that process was not followed. And I, I'm sorry to say, Mr. Tyler, you admitted it. You said it right here twice. I wrote it down twice. You said had. You know, in hindsight, maybe we should have come to you at that point. You admitted the process wasn't followed. And again, I it's it's something that we agreed to. It doesn't look like it was done fairly. If it was to be amended, it should have been done. So come to us as as the the political subdivision who has that responsibility? I still have some questions on the fees, but I will not be voting to support this. >> Thank you. Councilmember Melton, you're recognized. >> Mr. Wilson, I just have a couple quick questions. So I think Mr. Mr. stubby had said that they they have changes all the time in public works, and I would agree with that in projects that they're doing. But anytime there's a change order that comes before the council to vote on, isn't that right? >> Ryan. We. Ryan. We said deputy city attorney. Yes, the councilor does receive change orders and votes on them. >> So. And do you believe that city departments can modify agreements that this council has already approved? Can they do that on their own? Just modify agreements? >> Ryan Wilson, deputy city attorney Broadly speaking, I it's a complex question. There could be provisions in the contracts permit amendments, their provisions of the municipal code that state that amendments can be made if they're below a certain threshold for monetary. >> That doesn't apply here. >> But. >> Yeah, if it's I mean, under 50,000, I know it doesn't have to come before the council, but if an agreement has to come before the council to vote on. Yes. Do you believe that the people in the city departments, city employees are able to modify those agreements without the council approval? >> No. If an agreement requires mayoral or council approval to be amended, then it should receive mayoral Council approval for amendment. >> And so but that didn't happen in this. The city, the city employees went ahead with an open book process, which is in contradiction to this agreement. They changed the agreement. Without coming to council. >> Well, it's before. >> You for approval. Now. >> No, but. >> To receive that approval. >> But they've already they've already changed the agreement because they've already gone through the open book. So the agreement pursuant to section 13 2912, it actually is entitled Changes authorized. Well, who who's authorized to make the changes pursuant to section 13 2912? >> Respectfully, no work has been done under the open book process or protocol yet. That's why it's before the Council is part of this contract amendment to receive approval. If the Council doesn't approve it, then the open book process doesn't happen. >> No, it already did happen. That's what you're in fact, here it is, here it is. It's the open book happened and it is right here attached. And it's dated January of 2026. See if this is it's right here. Submitted January 2022, 2026. This is the open book. So it was already done. Now. So and that was not pursuant to the agreement. So city employees changed the agreement and now they're asking us to vote on it. So they didn't have the authority to make that decision. >> It's a proposal for the council's consideration. When I said no work has been done, no construction work has been done. And that's the purpose of the open book process. And no work under that process has been done yet, because the council has not approved it. >> Okay. But if the city if city officials that aren't elected are able to make the make changes to agreements, why do we have to vote on it today? Because you're saying the city hasn't violated any ordinances or anything else, but they engaged in the open book that was not authorized by the agreement. So if they were authorized to do that, then why do we need to vote on this today? >> I respectfully disagree that the open book protocol has been engaged. Again, this process has been negotiated, and it's for your consideration today. If you vote no on this, if the council votes no, no work is done under the open book protocol. That is the approval that is being sought. And if the council decides not to approve that, then that open book protocol isn't followed. >> Right. But to say that open book has the open book bidding process was done, you wouldn't have this unless the open book process has already been completed. >> Perhaps we have. I'm understanding the open book process differently than you are. Again the open book process. My understanding is to provide a way to track and account for labor and productivity rates during the construction phase, and that construction phase has not started yet because the council has not approved that. >> But you already went through the process. The city already went through the process of negotiating all of the fees, negotiating the guaranteed maximum price. That's all that's part of the open bidding process. It's to negotiate all that, get HDR get Jacobs, approve the amounts, right? All that's been done. >> Yes. >> Thank you. So the open bidding process has already happened, and now you're just asking us to change the agreement because it wasn't allowed in the original agreement. >> There are a series of amendments that are presented for the council for approval. Okay. >> Thanks. >> Thank you. No further lights. Roll call. >> Hug. >> Yes. >> Melton. No. Row. Festersen. Yes. Goodwin. Yes. Harding. No. Mr. president. I motion is approved. 43. Item 48, a resolution to approve the builder's risk insurance policy, terms and conditions, and payment of the premium in the amount of $2,800,000 for the Papillion Creek Water Resource Recovery Facility. Secondary expansion project. >> Council discussion. >> Motion to approve. >> Got a motion and a second. No lights. Roll call. >> Hug. Yes. Melton. >> Yes. >> Row. Festersen. Goodwin. Yes. Harding. Yes. Mr. president. I item 48 is approved 7 to 0. Item 49, A resolution to approve the 2025 Tax Increment Financing Annual Report. >> Did a great job. >> Good afternoon, Bridget Hadley, City Planning. Each year, the City Planning Department presents to the City Council governing body an annual report to. Share highlights of the prior year's Tiff activity. A. Sorry. To. To approve or to share the highlights of the prior year's Tiff approvals, as well as projects that have paid off or matured. We also highlight some of the activities of the total portfolio, which I call the active Tiff portfolio. This particular year. This report does not have like on page 14 under number four, there is a percentage. There's a superscript, so there's a percentage missing. And then on page 15 the valuations have not been updated by the time I, I waited till the last minute and submitted the report. I didn't have the valuations. They have come in. So I will be able to update this report. But the community development law requires that I present this report to the governing body by May 1st, and happens to be that this particular month. Today is the last day to present to the City Council. So to at least try to meet what we believe is what the law is stating. We are presenting this report as complete as we can, with as much of the information valuations we can add to it. And I'm hoping to still get that information completed by next week. So with that, I'll try to go through this real quickly. Again, thanking the City Council because it is a public private partnership that allows these projects to be approved between the city council and the mayor. And a lot of city staff are involved with these types of projects to create a lot of destinations around Omaha. Placemaking is also what happens. It's where a lot of people, of course, are living, working and playing. Sometimes it's one piece of that, sometimes it's all of that. So this just happens to be a picture of various places around Omaha. In this report that you have that was presented to you. We do talk about Cra's community redevelopment areas. The law requires that a city of our size, metropolitan size, cannot designate more than 35% of the city's total acres as CRAs are percentage. Maybe a little hard to see is 19.5% by. As. As of 1231 25, and the amount of Ibas across the city. The total acres is 11.8%. So just about 12%. And this map, the green are the Ibas the purple are the CRAs, the green lays on top of the CRA. So the. In order to be an IBA, an extremely blighted area, it has to be a CRA first. Other piece I want to highlight in this report. The basic activity. So 22 TIF projects were approved. The majority of those projects were housing projects and all. There were only three different categories housing, mixed use and commercial. Down here I'm just breaking out. There are two different TIF terms. Some particular projects reside in areas that are extremely blighted. That's 12 projects and then that were approved, and then ten of them were just the normal standard 15 years. So as you can see, over half of the projects that were approved last year were in extremely blighted areas. 52 million is the amount of TIF that was approved that helped to attract 424 million in investment. And I circle this to emphasize, every year, I try to emphasize the fact that that means we've got a leverage factor of eight, and we've actually averaged that same leverage factor for probably close to 25 years. So for every dollar of TIF, we're attracting $8 of other funds. So that's pretty consistent. This map in your report shows just a general scatter site of where the projects are. So each of these colored circles represents projects. So there's five here in the northern part, I would say northeast part of Omaha. Then you have three that are going toward that might be 72nd Street. This area is the Midtown downtown area. And then you've got a project here in South Omaha. So this is just to kind of give you a general idea of where projects are. This darker red is where the streetcar district is, which is the area that's about 1 to 3. Blocks from the streetcar line. The orange goes all the way about six blocks from the streetcar line, and then the turquoise is the the larger urban core housing and mobility redevelopment plan area. So breaking down and going more into the details of the report for the TIF projects that were approved, over 1600 TIF projects, total housing. Rather, units were proposed breaking it down into apartments and single family. Of course, a lot of conversation over there last few years is about affordable housing. So we've been trying to track affordable housing units for the last. More specifically in the last two years on our Tiff application, I think 2 or 3 years ago, we are now asking the applicant to tell us, is this an affordable house housing project or, or units, or are these workforce? And we've delineated that by saying below 80% is affordable and 80 to 120% is the workforce housing. So we're able to capture that information a little bit better on on the applications for proposed projects. So for last year, 375 total units were affordable in workforce. The majority of those were affordable. And a lot of those were most of those rather were lighttech, low income housing tax credit projects. That's generally how we see a lot of affordable housing projects. Occasionally habitat will have some of those projects, but it's usually lighttech. And then just showing further, you know, the 131 where Lighttech. I'd like to show the public improvements because that's one of the reasons we have Tiff and to just emphasize these projects are investing in the public improvements of the adjacent areas. And also the actual site where they're redeveloping. So just some details that I'd like to share or bring out in the report just to move on. So housing, I do want to again go into housing, some of the housing trends for the last five years. This is not in your report. So this is a supplement that I just put together because there's been a lot of conversation. Let's see if I can bring that in a little bit. So in 2020, all the way to 2025, what I want to key in on is this blue line that goes up and down. That line is the is tracking the affordable and workforce housing number of units as a percentage of the total housing. So as you can see it, it vacillates. And so it really depends on what projects we receive that year. And in a lot of cases, you know, some years, maybe we have more lighttech projects than other projects. Other years. So for example, if we look at 2024, I can tell you that 69% of the units were affordable and workforce, but more specifically, those were workforce units because it was the duo project that was approved that particular year. And that project had over 700 units. So that's why that number is so high. But for 2025, the we had 23% of the affordable and workforce housing units that. I mean, 23% is what that represented. And so that's not too bad. Again, these are proposed projects or proposed units. They have to finish the project. They have to complete them. So I just want to share that kind of information that we do have. And lastly, the projects that pay off. So as Council Member Melton has mentioned earlier in the Pre-council meeting, this is important too, because every year you are seeing a lot of projects, you're approving them, allowing for us to have these great places where we live, work and play. But at the end of that term, whether it's 15 or 20, we haven't gotten to the 20 years yet. It'll be a long time. I may not be here, but as they do mature, meaning they reach the 15 year term or pay off early. What we're seeing, this is the actual so of these five projects that paid off in 2025, what we're saying is the value Asian increased by 684% from their base value. So they start at a particular value. And then the construction starts and it goes on through their 15 year term. We're also seeing that those particular five projects produce 676% increase in the tax revenue. And see, these are the numbers down here. And what I've tried to do to just try to approximate what what would happen if those particular properties did not have TIF. That's what this section over here represents. And I work with the city finance department using what they are tracking as the actual increases in valuation each year, and applying those increases to say, okay, if there was no TIF, but we just saw the regular increase in valuation that the city finance department is tracking, what would we see on those five properties? Well, we would see about a 5%, 55% increase in valuation, 54% increase in the actual tax revenue. And so these are the numbers. So that's just very high level. What we are seeing with these projects. And I would just end with with saying that. Again, what you approve is allowing the city and our community to enjoy redevelopment, infill development, community development. It's about revitalization and economic development. So with that, I'll end my report. Thank you. >> Thank you. Council Member Festersen, you're recognized. >> Thanks. Mr. president, is it still a public hearing phase yet? >> Yes it is. >> Yeah. So. I'm sorry. >> Thanks. Skipping ahead. Are there any proponents on item 49? >> Miss Hanley, how are you this afternoon? Danny, are Johnson and Johnson your question? Foundation, 4928 North 52nd Street and North Omaha concerned Citizen Foundation. You know, I'm going back to 1981 in this project, Mrs. Hadley, she came highly recommended from all the folks I know in 1981. And so is Laverne Williamson there. And which would be South Omaha. And Alvarez and Bob Armstrong. Can we look at this thing a little bit different as far as moving forward and look at these consulates that they put me in charge of in 1981 with? We don't have enough input on that. So that 14 million we was asking for for the buildings around 73rd and Pacific, would y'all give that some consideration? Because I know Mrs. Bob Armstrong, Mayor. >> Donnie, we got to stay on the topic of the Tiff annual report. >> Yeah, that's an unusual report, but I'm going back to 1981. We already done that stuff starting at the Laverne Williams Center in South Omaha. And Bob Armstrong and Senator Zirinsky. So you guys can continue moving this way. We want more input put on the black consulate. An African consulate. I'm sorry. >> Okay, Johnny, I think you're getting off topic here. >> Yeah, okay. >> Thank you. Are there any other proponents on item 49? Seeing none, are there any opponents? >> Larry Storer. >> 5015 Lafayette Avenue, Omaha, 68132. I'm opposed to it because I don't get the benefits that people that get Tiff get. And I'm a little ticked off with it. So are a lot of my friends and citizens that I do talk to about it. We all think the same thing. It's like a wimpy burner for Wimpy Burger for the developers that, oh, excuse me, they're also usually a real estate company, a builder, a real estate construction company, and a property owner who neglected it long enough that you declared it blighted and lowered the value. And then they came back and said, well, we want to do this, but it won't get done without Tiff. And to the citizens like me and my friends and the people that I talk with about this. It's almost criminal to think that you can reduce the property value for some person for 15 to 20 years. He doesn't pay anything or or he pays a blighted rate while the rest of us pay a higher increasing rate every year. And you do not admit that because you did decrease something for him, it increased my taxes. Because the school systems lost the revenue that he may be used to pay. Because you blighted it. So they raised their levy on us to pay for it, to make up for it. Well, we don't like that. We think it's criminal and it needs to stop. Particularly when it's usually the same old, same old names involved. Now I know you'll kick me out if I name the names, but they're familiar to everybody. You see it plastered all over the city of Omaha, and we think it needs to stop. Be honest that it does raise my property taxes even if I live two four blocks away. Not just because I'm across the street, but you guys never say that. You never admit that. And some of the slides on here are really. Sort of embarrassing to think that you don't think we see through some of that that. Well, if you don't have the money for 15 years. You probably won't get it because this guy will leave town. We know one big company that did that, don't we? >> Thank you, Larry. >> Thank you. Are there any other opponents here on item 49? Seeing none, public hearing is closed. We're not voting on it today. Correct. Do we need a layover? >> Yeah, we May 5th. >> Yeah. >> State statute doesn't even. >> Require. Do we need a layover then? >> Yeah, we need a motion in a second. >> Councilman Festersen, you're recognized. >> Thanks, Mr. President. Bridget, thanks for that report. I think it is important we do that every year and make this report very visible to the public, both in these meetings and on your website. And I think it clearly shows the benefit of tax increment financing as long as it's applied with the. But for test, which are these products would not have happened without it. I think your report displays that and then clearly shows products paying off. And that benefit in assessment for those improved properties, which does benefit all taxing authorities and taxpayers themselves. I really just want to point out that in your presentation there. So 22 projects in 2025, 15 of which were housing related. So as you noted, 1618 housing units of that of that number, 370 were considered affordable with the 80% average median income or lower. So that's 23% in 2025. And that's a good number, I would say in 2025. That's something I think we're aspiring to when we talk about reviewing our TIF program and its objectives and its expectations for affordable housing, the planning committee had a little update on that this morning, and they're making progress on what they hoped to bring back to us by September. And meeting with lots of lots of stakeholders on that discussion. But I will also say it's 370 units, right? Even 23% is 370 units. That's hundreds of units, not thousands of units. So once again, I'm going to say we got a lot more to do on affordable housing than than just talking about TIF. Last comment, the 20 2024 number you observed there is much higher than we saw from the planning department a few weeks ago. So I think that's our revised number probably since then with the duo. Is that what that was? >> Let's see, the 69% that I was showing. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, yeah. That was high because of the duo project. >> Okay. >> Workforce housing. >> That was much higher number than we had a few weeks ago, but let's just make sure we have all those numbers accurate for all years as we go through that process and assess what we're doing next on that. And then I think you're right. I think it is the will of the council to delay this. >> Can we just do a motion. >> To place on file, Mr. Koozie, and with that suffice and take care of it. >> Matt Koozie, law Department, the statute itself, because we haven't talked enough about statutes today. 18 dash 2117.02 requires that on or before May 1st of each year. I'm paraphrasing of each year the planning Department shall prepare a report to the governing body. So technically all that is really required from the planning department is to submit to the council the report. The statute also mentions all the things that are in the report that Bridget has covered and incorporated into there. I think it's just been by tradition or custom that we've had a public hearing, a public presentation on it, which is certainly valuable, but technically, there's not really a vote or anything that's required. Of course, if the council wants to go down that road and do that and and vote to formally accept it in two weeks, that's perfectly fine. I'm just saying that under the law, all of the planning department is actually required to do is to present a report. And Miss Hadley has done that. I know that there's some information that we're waiting on from the county assessor's on it, and I'm sure that will be received by May 1st and incorporated into Miss Hadley's report. But technically speaking, we don't need a vote. We technically don't even need a public hearing. Again, I, I see that there's a value in having a public hearing, but there actually doesn't need to be a formal vote to accept it under the what the statute requires. >> For purposes. >> Of Robert's. >> Rules and vote, is there anything that the clerk would require us to do at this point? Or if no motion's made and everything's silent, we just move on to the next item. >> My preference still having the floor is that we do delay this until May 5th and adopt it at that point, I like the I like taking proactive action on this and adopting it as a document, rather than the appearance of putting something on file. That's just my opinion. >> I'll second. >> That I. >> I think that the concern was that it was a draft. So that's why we were going to postpone it to May 5th and then have the vote then. >> But so my initial motion to. >> Motion to delay. >> Delay until May 5th. >> Yes. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second to lay over till May 5th. And Council Member Goodwin, your lights on. >> Thank you, Mr. President, and. >> Sorry, Pete, were you done? I'm sorry, I'm sorry. >> Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you for your presentation. I think the more we can educate the the public, our constituents, on what Tiff is and the benefit is just important because it isn't tax, it isn't anybody's tax payer money. It's really a redevelopment tool in disinvested communities. And I can also attest to Council member Festersen statements about how today in the planning committee we are getting updates on how we can ensure. Well well at least find a path toward Tiff being allotted for affordable housing. So to Mr. appreciate that there's already updates on conversations that are happening. And, you know, if I can quote him in saying, we will have, you know, a plan by September 1st. And so we appreciate that work toward it. And really just to affirm to, again, voters, stakeholders that were listening, that oftentimes we have to work within the framework of an ordinance of the law to come up with pathways to ensure that tools like this not only benefit developers, but also are serving a benefit for, you know, folks who need affordable housing, low income housing. But I would also like to say that development in CRA areas benefits the community, because it's actually bringing whether it's housing, mixed use development to a place that otherwise may not have those amenities, services or infill development projects. So I look forward to the final and perhaps, Mr. Festersen, we can put this on the committee agenda to dig into it a little more. But thank you so much for your presentation today. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. We have no further lights. We had a motion and a second to lay over till May 5th. Roll call. >> Hug. >> Yes. Melton. Yes. Row. Festersen. Goodwin. Yes. Harding. Yes. Mr. President. Aye. Motion is approved 7 to 0. Item 50, an ordinance to acquire private property for the Coal Creek culvert and stabilization at Hillside Drive project. >> Public hearing is now open on item 50. Are there any proponents? Seeing none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is closed. >> Item 51 An Ordinance to amend ordinance number 44338 to approve the estimated additional annual cost of $280,800. To provide janitorial services to the Central Library. >> Public hearing is now open on item 51. Are there any proponents? Seeing none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is closed. >> Item 52 an ordinance to amend multiple sections of chapter 40 of the Omaha Municipal Code, entitled Mechanical Code. >> Public hearing is now open on item 52. Are there any proponents. Seeing none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is closed. >> Item 53 D and H United Fueling Solutions appeals the rejection of their bid from April April 1st, 2026 for Opw 55132 Opscc fuel Island. >> This is not a public hearing. If somebody from the company would like to come up to speak from D and H United fueling. Good afternoon. Get your name and address. For the record, please. >> Taylor Hill Rd, United fueling 14909 West Grover, Omaha, Nebraska. >> Do you have anything to say? >> Yes. When we were preparing our bid bond, we misunderstood how to submit it correctly. We had the bid bond. We're under the assumption we need to present it in person. Seven days after the bid. And here we do have the bid bond, but we put it in the Excel document, not realizing that we submitted it incorrectly. >> Okay. We might have some questions for you. We'll have the city. Mr. bloom, if you want to come up. Sure. >> Excuse me. >> Jeffrey Bloom, city of Omaha law Department. In this case. Dash Fueling Solutions submitted a bid that was to be opened on April 1st. Unfortunately, the bidder did not comply by including an electronic copy of their bid bond. When the bid was opened, which is required by Omaha Municipal Code ten dash 103B. Specifically, the code requires the electronic copy of the bid bond to be submitted when the bids opened, and then an original copy of the bid bond to be submitted within seven calendar days after the bid opening. So when the bid was opened at 11 a.m. on April 1st, it was rejected and not read because it did not contain the required electronic bid. Security. The company did provide an electronic copy later that day, but unfortunately, according to our process, the bid had already been rejected. So unfortunately, the city code does not give us any room for discretion in this matter, and it would be potentially unfair to the other bidders that had submitted the bid security properly. So as such, we do ask for a motion to deny this bid appeal. >> Thank you. Is there a motion? Oh. I'm sorry, Council Member Melton, you're recognized. >> Well, first, I just wanted to address the bidder. I understand that mistakes happen. And you also have sat here for over three hours to be heard. I want to let you know that these are some of the hardest cases for us. We understand mistakes do happen, but I want to let you know you're definitely not the first. In fact, you might be probably the 20th bidder that we've had to deny because our ordinance literally does not allow us to make exceptions. I'll give you an example. And it was somebody I knew well, they submitted a bid, and I believe it was at $0.10 off. They had a mistake in their calculation. It was literally $0.10 off on their bid and it was denied. And it was a pretty large contract because our ordinance does not give us any leeway. Now, I don't know if an ordinance change is something we should do, but currently we don't have that. So we have to uphold the bid. We have we have to uphold what the city did in these cases. Otherwise, by the way, we. That would be a problem because we've denied everybody else in the ordinance doesn't allow us to make an exception. And I'm. I just want to say I'm really sorry, and I hope it doesn't happen in the future. But the council, pursuant to our ordinance, code and law, doesn't allow us to make an exception. So I'm sorry. >> Thank you. There's no further lights. Is there a motion? >> I will call you back. Okay. Here. Come on, back up. Oh, you were here for three hours. >> Sorry, Joey. United fueling Solutions 14909. Grover. Just to piggyback off that, I guess, and just me as just a citizen a simple question here. As far as if you guys are required to deny us, and I understand you're required to deny us because we made a mistake in the BID. What was the purpose of actually standing in front of you guys today? >> Did you appeal to it? So come in front. >> Of us and appeal it. Yeah. And by the way, if you ever want to appeal something again, you want to call me before you come. I would have told you this. Okay. >> I wasn't aware yesterday. If you question here, I'm just. I'm just asking the question here just for the sake of everybody's time. Because I know your guys's time is valuable. As I seen, you guys had a lot on your ticket today. >> No, it's it was a good I mean, it's a good question. We just. Unfortunately, BID appeals are at the end. Sure. But, you know, if you ever have a question on anything. I think any one of us would be happy to take your call. Okay. For any questions ever in the future, we're always and even our staff is more than happy to take a call. I would again, I feel horrible that you came down here for three hours and you know that. But unfortunately, I'm gonna have to file. I'm just gonna make the motion to deny the appeal. But because we have to. But feel free to give any one of us a call if you ever have a question on something like that in the future. >> Absolutely. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Thank you. I'll second, there is a motion to deny and a second, no further lights. Roll call. >> Hug. Yes. >> Melton. Row. Festersen. Goodwin. Yes. Harding. Yes. Mr. president. A motion is approved 7 to 0. Non-action items. Items 54 through 68 do not require a 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 an agenda for consideration. >> Second roll call. >> Hug Melton Melton. Row. Festersen. Goodwin. Harding. Yes, Mr. President. A motion is approved. Meeting is adjourned at 509.