Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. N. Bigly. 25 10 or 12 minutes. Heat. Heat. Okay. Heat. Heat. Goodwin Harding hug Melton Row Fester Mr. President >> here. Please stand for the pledge of allegiance and remain standing for opening remarks by myself. >> Good afternoon everyone. Please have a seat. Before we get to a couple of proclamations by Council Member Goodwin and Council Member Hug, I wanted to recognize that the month of April is National Volunteer Month. And we have our neighborhood cleanups that are taking place in April and May. And that requires a lot of volunteers from our neighborhoods that we all represent. And I wanted to thank the ones in my district in the city because those events are very time consuming and and labor oriented. But the volunteers in our city, I just wanted to give a great example and a shout out to all those volunteers because without great neighborhoods, we don't have a great city. So I wanted to thank them. At this time, I'll allow Council Member Goodwin to do a proclamation and then I'll be followed by Council Member Hug. Thank you, Mr. President. Well, we are marking the passage of the Fair Housing Act on April 11th, 1968. And just to bring some context to that, um, you know, in the 1930s, the the federal government actually crafted federal language that was redlining. And essentially it restricted where various people uh could live. Um that was uh people of color um even immigrant populations like Italians. Um and that that legislation lasted um even the effects of it lasted well after the 1960s. um to the point where uh often times you'll find neighborhoods where there are still covenants that even though they may not be enforced, but these covenants restrict uh people of color and other populations of uh living in specific areas. And so this is this is very important um because it marks a time of of really our nation living up to its its standard that all men are created equal um and have a right uh to the pursuit of life um and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And so with that, I'd like for those who represent um you know, our housing organizations, I believe we have several in the audience today to come forward to the podium as I read this proclamation. It's a good group. And >> I think what the course of order is after I read this that's a really big group first. >> All right. So whereas the passage of the federal Fair Housing Act on April 11th, 1968 established a national commitment to eliminating housing discrimination and dismantling racial segregation across the United States. And whereas the city of Omaha upholds these principles within its municipal code, ensuring robust local oversight and protection for all residents engaging in real estate and property transactions. And whereas while federal law prohibits discrimination based on race, color, sex, national origin, disability, religion, and familial status, the city of Omaha chooses to lead by example, extending these vital protections to include age, creed, marital status, sexual orientation, and gender identity. And whereas we recognize that equitable access to safe and stable housing is the bedrock of a thriving local economy, a driver of innovation and a fundamental requirement for building a resilient community. And whereas despite the 58 years that have passed since the landmark federal act, systematic barrier barriers and unequal housing opportunities still persist, reminding us that the pursuit of housing justice requires our constant vigilance. hand. Whereas the city council remains steadfast in its resolve to address the work that remains to be done to ensure every resident can call Omaha home without fear of prejudice. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Omaha City Council hereby designates April 2026 as Fair Housing Month and calls upon all residents, housing providers, and community leaders to reaffirm their commitment to the law, to better understand their rights and responsibilities, and to ensure fair and equal opportunities are provided for all. In witness there, we have set our hands and caused the official seal of the city to be affixed on this 7th day of April, 2026 >> and I believe we have a few speakers. >> Am I going first? >> I'm not shy. >> Hi, I'm Jerry Ford. I'm the housing services program manager together and we brought a lot of people as we tend to do. Um a lot of amazing frontline staff that's out there meeting people where they're at every day. So we have representation from our three housing programs, our um support services teams that are going all over the place taking referrals trying to get people housed or stay housed. And this is very excellent timing because on Friday we have the ribbon cutting of our housing stability clinic. um on 24th in Levworth, the old Levvenworth Cafe. Um so they've already been meeting with people there. Uh a very amazing team meeting people that are coming in either from the streets or from um because they're behind on rent utilities and trying to do a lot with the little and they're amazing at it. So thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Councilwoman Goodwin and the city of Omaha for the proclamation. I am Teresa Hunter, executive director and CEO for Family Housing Advisory Services. We were established in 1968 on the heels of the Civil Rights Act and we established a fair housing center in 1994. And our initial was to just bring home ownership to underserved populations. And since then we established the fair housing initiatives program and that was to work in con concert with the FAPS or the government organizations the fair housing assistance programs to help them reach their goals of tackling housing issues and fair housing issues and doing the investigation investigative the outreach and education part of those things. And so we appreciate you for observing this as fair housing month and we thank you. >> Thank you. >> Uh good afternoon, Councilman. Uh good afternoon, Chair uh Bag Lane, Vice Chair Harding, and thank you uh Councilwoman Goodwin for the opportunity to recognize the hard work that many of our providers do on a daily basis to help our most vulnerable individuals maintain and find housing, uh find ways out of homelessness and find their footing in our community to be successful. Uh it's a pleasure always to work in concert with the in partnership with the city, uh both the mayor's office and this council. uh Threshold COC is um you know we're really lucky to have such a a vast and strong partnerships across our nonprofit uh sector and uh these individuals who are dedicated every day to help serve uh the citizens of this community and so uh thank you for recognizing them and on on behalf of the the COC again thank you uh Councilwoman Goodwin >> Jason great job can we get your name and address for the >> yes that's true uh Jason, I think you should probably It might be stamped somewhere. Uh Jason Feld House, uh 6001 Dodge Street, corporate office, uh 7724 Reed Street, Pilion, uh personal. >> Well, thank you all. So, we really appreciate together the Family Housing Advisory Services, Threshold. I see we have our homelessness coordinator Tamara Dwire and of course uh Kayn with our uh health um human rights and relations uh committee department. Um any other organizations? Did I miss them? We really appreciate the coordination you do to not only serve those in affordable housing, address uh affordability as well as uh to work with our homeless populations and everything in between and above the work is very important. So I have three four proclamations. We'll turn around really quick get a picture and then I'll hand it over to Ron. How's that sound? >> Okay. jump up on top of your chair up here. >> Oh, I guess as good as any. Thank you. >> I think I got everyone. >> We're fine. >> All right. You ready? Okay, one more. Ready, Mr. President? >> Thank you. >> Um, Brian Leon, would you bring your crew up here, please? You guys seen how this is done, so it makes it easy for you guys. >> I'm sure we have all heard the past weeks the national news of how air transportation was affected across our country because of the shutdown. Um, we've seen and heard other cities hit hard from TSA officers not showing up to work for various reasons. They couldn't afford daycare. They couldn't afford gas. Um, they just couldn't afford to go to work. And uh, I'm not saying all of them didn't show up for that reason, but I'm sure a large portion of them. The secret is in Omaha at Omaha Empley airfield, we did not experience those call outs and those no-shows. Traditionally, the Omaha CSA runs about 4% vacancies a day for training, sick days, vacation. There may have been one day they dipped down to 5%. But even that statistically is within their norm. So that shows that like we all know, Omaha is known for its work ethic. Omaha is known for employees and employers who have each other's back, who have a commitment not only to their job, but their fellow co-workers and the public they serve. Our Omaha TSA officers and the staff is no different. So, with that being said, let me put these on to make sure I don't miss a word. >> Thank you, madam council member. >> Well, I do, too. So, thank you for pointing that out to me. I'm going to move this just a little closer. Okay. Whereas the Transportation Security Administration was established on November 19th, 2001 to protect the nation's transportation system and ensure the freedom of movement for people and commerce. Whereas the dedicated federal security director, transportation security officers, inspectors, K9 teams, and support staff at Omaha Epley Airfield serve as a first line of defense in maintaining the safety and integrity of our skies. Whereas these professionals consistently demonstrate resiliency and commitment, ensuring that millions of travelers passing through Omaha each year reach our destination safely while navigating complex security environments and involving global threats. Whereas as the build terminal modernization program progresses towards a new centralized security checkpoint, the CSA workforce in Omaha has shown exceptional adaptability and patience, maintaining high security standards admit significant airport construction and terminal transition. Whereas the city of Omaha recognizes the vital role that TSA agents and the American Federation of Government Employees, local chapter 803 serves in maintaining a secure and effective airport, which is vital to our regional economy, tourism, and the personal lives of our citizens who travel for family, business, and discovery. Whereas during several shutdowns in recent years resulting in TSA agents not being paid, they still maintain the high level professionalism and dedication in the eyes of personal financial hardship. Whereas the month of April serves as an appropriate time to recognize the professionalism of these who work behind the scenes and on the front lines to keep the gateway to the west secure. Now for therefore be it resolved that the Omaha City Council does hereby proclaim April 2026 as TSA appreciation month in the city of Omaha. And we urge all citizens to join us in expressing gratitude to the men and women of the TSA at Epley Airfield for their service, their vigilance, and their dedication to the safety of our community and the traveling public. Thank you. You can come down here. >> Where would you like us? Thank you. >> You guys both come over here. Thank you for the service, guys. >> Hi, my name is Garrett Wooten. I am the vice president of uh American Federation of Government Employees, Local 803. I just wanted to thank you all for this uh honor and um um behalf of the officers, I appreciate we appreciate the support that uh the community has given during these trying times. Um it's been a godsend. So, thank you very much. >> Can we get your address to I'm sorry, just for the record. >> Sure. Um I live in UT, Nebraska. It's 406 First Street. >> Thanks. Thanks. >> 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 you would like your comments entered into the public record, you can email the city clerk's office at city clerk@c city of omaha.org. Council members receive these emails and we read them. Finally, council members may ask members of the audience back up for clarifying questions. excuse me, but not for extra time to speak. I would like to also remind council members to speak directly under their microphones so audience members in attendance and at home can hear. And those coming up to the microphone here as well, make sure you're in between the two of them so we can all hear you as well. Thank you. Item six, to consider a class C liquor license for Pastime Neighborhood Bar and Grill located at 5059 South 108 Street. >> Public hearing is now open on item number six. Is the applicant here today? >> Good afternoon. Name and address for the record, please. Chad Dery, 3309 South 88 Street, Omaha, Nebraska. >> Thank you. We might have some questions for you, so don't go too far. >> Okay. >> Are there any proponents here on item number six? >> Seeing none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is closed. >> Got a motion and a second. Roll call. >> Goodwin. >> Hardin. >> Yes. >> Hug. >> Yes. >> Meltton. >> Row. >> Fester. >> Yes. >> Mr. President, >> I. Motion pass seven to zero. >> Thank you. >> Item seven to consider a classide liquor license for assemble located at 1440 South 13th Street, sweet 104 to 105. >> Public hearing is now open on item number seven. Applicant, good afternoon. >> Hi, I'm Denise Wagner. Um I live at 4410 Vinton Street. >> Thank you. We might have some questions for you. >> Are there any proponents here on item number seven? Seeing none, are there any opponents? public hearing is closed. This is my district and I'll uh just ask a couple questions, Miss Wagner. >> Sure. >> Um I'm glad you're going down to Little Bohemia. I know they're welcoming you. Tell us just briefly what your establishment for Assemble is going to look like. >> Yeah, so Assemble is just a DIY craft cafe where people can come in and try lots of different types of crafts. Um the problem with crafting sometimes is you go out and buy all of the materials and then you decide you don't really love it. So, it's going to be a place where people can come together um support the local Omaha creative community and then also explore their own ideas and imaginations as well. We're going to do some a little bit of outreach work, too. So, I'm hoping to host some times where we could get um maybe some businesses in Omaha to donate supplies and then craft items to give to Lydia House or Children's Hospital, those types of things as well. >> Great. And what are your hours going to be? >> Well, that's a I'm still trying to decide. I think probably about 10 to 8 or 9 usually um Wednesday through Saturday and then Sunday probably noon to 6. >> Okay. Thanks for being here today. I'll certainly be supporting this down in my district in Little Bohemia. >> Second roll call. >> Goodwin. >> Yes. >> Harding. >> Yes. >> Hug. Yes. >> Melton. >> Row. >> Fester. >> Yes. >> Mr. President. >> I. >> Motion pass seven to zero. Item eight, to consider a class eye liquor license for Sunny's Builder District located at 724 North 16th Street. >> Public hearing is now open on item number eight. Mr. Nodle, good afternoon. >> Good afternoon, Mr. President, members of uh the council. I'm Sam NLE. Uh I'm here on behalf of Land Yachts 2. Our address is 1501 Mike Fehey in the builder district. >> Thank you. Are there any proponents here today on item number eight? Seeing none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is closed. Council member Goodwin, you're recognized. >> Thank you, Mr. President. And so this establishment is in district 2 in north downtown or the builder district. Can you just tell us a little bit about uh you know what you plan to offer, your hours of operation, what makes you unique to all the other establishments in the area? >> Absolutely. Um, are you familiar with Sunny's in Exarbon Village just north of the NRL food hall? >> I am not, so enlighten me. >> All right. So, um, it's a seasonal bar that operates as an event space. Um, we host a bunch of live music. We're typically open um, in April and then we usually shut down right after Halloween. Um, but we have live music usually on Fridays and Saturdays. Um, we last year in the park that we're leasing, we did a partnership with Film Streams to do a a community movie series. Um, so we'll work with them again this year. That'll probably start in June or July. Um, and then we'll host uh um uh we have uh well, we have a a large screen on this one. So, we'll host uh u World Cup watch parties and things like that. in um so it'll be very similar to the sunnies in Exarbon Village. The only difference is um the fence around it is a little bit more substantial and instead of just having a screen, we have a stage as well. So, and the concerts are free to the public. >> Sounds very cool. I look forward to uh engaging and um frequenting the establishment. Thank you. >> Thank you. We look forward to working with you. >> I move to approve. >> Second. >> I'll second. And I'll a quick comment, Mr. Nodle. I I really enjoy the exorbin sunnies. I've been to those concert outdoors. It's a great venue and I I have no doubt in the builder district it's going to be a great venue there as well. So, thanks for being here today. >> Thank you, sir. >> No further lights. Motion in a second. Roll call. >> Goodwin? Yes. >> Harding? >> Yes. >> Hug? Yes. >> Melton? Yes. >> Row. >> Fester? >> Yes. >> Mr. President? >> I. >> Motion pass seven to zero. >> Item nine to consider a classide liquor license for KMR Fusion and Sushi located at 906 North 16th Street. Public hearing is now open on item number nine. Applicant, good afternoon. >> Hello. Um, my name is Theophilia. >> Microphone's down just a little bit. Thanks. >> Yeah, my name is Theophilia and located at 906 North 16th Street, uh, Sweet B Oan, Nebraska. >> Thank you. Are there any proponents here today for item number nine? Seeing none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is closed. Council member Goodwin, you're recognized. >> Thank you, Mr. President. >> I'm sorry. Point of order. Can we make sure that everybody has their cell phone shut off, please? And electronic devices. Thank you. >> Or shut that land light down then back there. >> We We know that it works good and we can hear it. So, thanks, Council Member Goodwin, please. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Interesting council day already. So, um, this is another establishment in district 2, and it looks like you'll be a neighbor to the the previous, um, establishment. Can you tell us about uh your menu, um, your hours, uh, and what you plan to do with the space, if anything unique? >> Um, so the restaurant, it's Thai and Sushi Fusions, and it's a family-owned business. >> Excuse me. I think if you might need to move the microphone down. this one. >> Yeah. And speak directly into it, please. >> Okay. So, it's a family-owned business and the menu is uh Thai and sushi restaurants. >> Um and we are open Tuesday to Saturday 11 to um 9:00. >> Tuesday to Saturday 11 to 9:00. >> Right. Yes. >> Got you. Well, my husband loves Thai. Um and his favorite place is quite a ways away. So, we'll see. Uh will when when do you open? >> Uh we open February 7th. So it's been 2 months. >> Okay. So you're already open? >> Yes. >> Okay, great. Well, it looks like we'll be paying you a visit and good luck on your new your new operations. Uh motion to approve. >> Got a motion in a second. Council member Hug, you're recognized. >> I can barely see you over the top of that monitor. I apologize. >> Um I I do want to acknowledge the beautiful job you guys have done in renovating this building. this building was I I don't think it was vacant, but it definitely looked like it was vacant for a long time. >> Yes. >> And uh you definitely brightened up that corner and uh so I want to commend you for doing an outstanding job. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. No further lights. We had a motion and a second. Roll call. >> Goodwin? >> Yes. >> Hardin? >> Yes. >> Hug? Yes. >> Melton? >> Yes. >> Row? >> Yes. >> Fester? >> Yes. >> Mr. President, >> I. >> Motion pass seven to zero. Item 10 to consider a class C liquor license for a Sappery liquor store located 8524 Park Drive. >> Public hearing is now open on item number 10. Applicant here today. Good afternoon. >> Good afternoon, Mr. President. Council members, uh Daniel McDow appearing on behalf of the applicant. >> Thank you. Are there any proponents here today? >> Did we get his address? Can we get your address as well? >> Uh 8524 Park Drive, Omaha. >> Thanks. Any proponents here on item number 10? Seeing none, are there any opponents? >> Public hearing is closed. >> Got a motion and a second. Roll call. >> Goodwin, >> yes. >> Hardin, >> yes. >> Hug, >> Milton, >> Row, >> Fester, >> yes. >> Mr. President, >> yes. >> Motion pass 7 to zero. >> Thank you very much, councelor. Thanks. Items 11 through 13 can be considered together for McGill Industrial Park, Replat 2, located north of 111th Street in Rainwood Road. Planning board and planning department recommend approval. Items 11 and 12, ordinances to reszone this property from GI district to GI district and HI district. Item 13, a resolution to approve the final plat. >> The public hearings for items 11 through 13 are today. Before I call for proponents, applicant here. Good afternoon. >> Kyle Hazy with ENA Consulting Group 10909 Mil Valley Road representing the applicant. Like myself like to make myself available for any questions or comments. >> Thank you. >> Council may have. >> Thank you. Any proponents here? Items 11 through 13. Seeing none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is closed. Council member Feserson, you're recognized. >> Thanks, Mr. President. Kyle, just a couple questions for you. We talked about this case a little bit this morning. It's actually just outside the city, but um pretty close to my district, uh just west of Lake Cunningham. >> So, it drew my attention in that respect uh with all we have going on at Lake Cunningham and um some really great improvements we have uh to that resource for for citizens. And so, this is a a property that um I think is already zoned general industrial. This would divide those lots into two and our main general industrial, right? >> Correct. But it' be a a new use, which I understand will be a concrete batch plan. Is that correct? >> Batch plan. Yes. >> Um, and I know planning has been through this case and made sure that it meets all kind of storm water regulations and it's consistent with its base zoning. My understanding is this is far enough to the west it's not visible from Lake Cunningham. Is that correct? >> It's about two miles uh away from Lake Cunningham. >> Yeah. And there's topography there where that's not a problem. >> Correct. >> There are cases other places in the city where that is a problem. So, I just wanted to make sure. Um, so I appreciate you answering those questions. >> Okay. Thank you. Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Got a motion and a second. No further lights. Roll call. >> Good one. >> Harding. >> Yes. >> Hug. >> Yes. >> Melton Row. >> Fester. >> Yes. >> Mr. President. >> I. >> Motion pass 7 to zero. >> Thank you. >> Items 14 through 16 can be considered together for Stratford Park, Replat located southwest of Rachel Snowden Parkway and 173rd Street. Planning board and planning department recommend approval. Item 14, an ordinance to reszone this property from AG district in R4 district to R4 district. Item 15, a resolution to approve the final plant. Item 16, a resolution to approve the subdivision agreement. >> Public hearing is now open on items 14 through 16. Applicant, good afternoon. >> Good afternoon. Caleb Ben Wen with Lampren, 147110 West Dodge Road. Here on behalf of the applicant and available to answer any questions. >> Thank you. Are there any proponents on items 14 through 16? Seeing none, are there any opponents? >> Public hearing is closed. >> Second. >> Got a motion and a second. Roll call. >> Goodwin. >> Hardin. >> Yes. >> Hug. >> Yes. >> Milton. >> Yes. >> Row. Yes. >> Fester. >> Yes. >> Mr. President. >> I. >> Motion pass 7 to zero. >> Thank you all. Item 17, an ordinance to reszone property located at 528 North 33rd Street from GC District to TOD 3MX District. Planning board and planning department recommend approval. Be's communication. >> Public hearing is now open on item 17. Applicant, good afternoon. >> Hello. Lawrence Butler, LT Butler, Engineers, 4809 Northwest Radio Highway, representing the applicant here to answer any questions that you may have. >> Thank you. Are there any proponents here today? Item 17. Seeing none, are there any opponents? Martin Janisk uh 520 North 33rd Street represent the Giver Park Neighbor Association and the Gford Park uh business district along with property owners in the area and businesses in the business district as well. Um and I'm an architect during the day. Um we are we are here um not necessarily we are not against any development just to start that off. We appreciate new development in the business district. We are just very concerned about what might be proposed in that district. Historically, you can see in this old photo, the business district in its good days were very where was a very vibrant neighborhood with businesses and so on thriving. This right over here is where the proposed development is going to take place. In that lot, we've had back in the day there was a historical circle theater. And today, for the last few years, we've had actually more than a few years, we have a neighborhood market. Just to kind of let you know what the business district is like. It's very vibrant. It's not a retail is successful in this neighborhood. This is another picture in the summertime. This happens every Friday night in the business district uh in the summer. Uh currently we have a building. If you ever drove through the neighborhood, we have an old building that's being renovated. This is what it looked like about a year ago. You kind of see that. Today it's being renovated for retail. There's three retail bays. New windows are going in and it's u and it's going to be three new retailers. We have interest in people uh to do business in the neighborhood. Uh today uh we sent a letter into the council and a lot of you I assume have read it. It's on the uh agenda and I just wanted to revisit a few items. After I sent that I had the opportunity to have lunch or coffee with Lawrence Butler and Don Curry, two of the people involved with this project with the owner. Uh the owner is uh building two uh duplexes to the west of this property in the in the business district, but it's more towards the residential side, not on 33rd, which is the main drag, the main retail space. This right here, if I can. So, so u we know I know we're here for a reasonzoning u application, but in that application is requested that you submit a plan. And when you submit a plan, it's also should be meant to be reviewed. And so that's what we're doing today. We we'd just like to have the opportunity to uh express our uh concerns and these are concerns that would affect the business district in the long term. Um when we this black and white drawing was given to us by um Lawrence Butler and on the red and green additional pieces to it uh was our some of our concerns. And after I met with them uh and sent this in uh a few more came up uh as we went along. And one of the items is uh we're showing a trash dumpster and a grease dumpster and we're showing cars and the access to it. Um when we uh uh one thing we've not shown is where is all the residential trash dumpsters is too. You have res uh recycle bins and trash bins and so on. So that will also be back in this area. As I looked at this plan more and again you're submitting this as a an article to this resoning. I'm not sure if 100% how accurate it is. Um, I'm gonna step it up. Let me see if I can here. So, if you take this dimension right here, which shows nine feet, and you go over here and you you takeick off what you think the 9 ft is. I had the opportunity to um I I like very curious if if how accurate that was because it looks as though if you take the nine feet, you have maybe a 14oot drive and it's not an alley. It's actually a private drive. This is part of this building here. >> Mr. Janisk, I'm sorry. Your 3 minutes is up. >> Okay. >> So, I might have some questions to follow up on for you. So, thanks for coming down today. >> No problem. That went faster than I thought. >> I know it always does. >> Are there any other opponents here that wish to speak today? >> Hi, Chris Foster, 3413 California Street. Um, I just wanted to reiterate what Martin said that we're very prodevelopment. We def we definitely want more development in the 33rd in California business district. Um I've lived uh at 34th in California for about 40 years and I've been through countless studies starting with you know destination Midtown on that committee and in Gford Park in the 33rd in California business districts. There's always a high priority to redevelop it in the right way you know have respect for the historic nature of the buildings and so forth. So, um, and and actually when I was president back in 1999, 2000, 2001, uh, crime was was absolutely terrible and people were I it was just downright dangerous and and, uh, some of the worst things you can imagine occurred in some of the buildings down there. Um, so it's been a a kind of a steady two steps forward, one step back, and I think we're we're in a good place. and and uh we uh and and Danny, you probably remember uh Eva Swanson, our neighborhood historian who just lived across the street. Uh I worked with her on a history of 33rd in California book and uh again a long time ago back in 1999. And one of the things Martin had showed that photo of the 33rd in California business district probably in the late 40s, early 50s and there were 15 to 20 small businesses, grocery stores, an ice house, uh a pharmacy, California bar is still there, a bakery, a variety store, the Circle Theater got torn down, a a garage, the California beauty school, on and on. So, we really want to kind of get back to that. It's a very walkable neighborhood. We want to um you know have good businesses and services for the neighborhood. So um just to finish up to have residential on both floors, you know, have residential on the second floor, great commercial, retail on the first floor seems like a better fit um for the long term of the business district. So, we'd like it to be a win-win with the with the property owner and work with them and and and have a bigger discussion about do we do like an NCE overlay to really think through intelligently the the Gford Park business district and the neighborhood. So, thanks >> thanks for being here. Are there any other opponents here today? Larry Store, 5015 Lafayette Avenue, 68132. I'm against this uh resolution. Like most of these things, these overlay and uh improvements to the neighborhood is not really uh wellinformed to the people. The people in the neighborhoods often say they were never contacted. about 500 ft away there was a sign or something. There probably a lot of the people that live in that area right now that are extremely surprised about this. Who really has time to read these agenda items and then go searching on the computer to find out what the hell it's about? There needs to be some more information to the public. I used to live in that area in my early college days. And yeah, we've seen a lot of small businesses squeezed out, but this is the sign of development. We got to wake up to the fact that they're going to be developing that neighborhood with multiuse high-rise apartment buildings probably. Thank you. >> Thank you. Are there any other opponents here today? Public hearing is closed. Um, I got a couple questions, Mr. Butler. >> Certainly. >> Good afternoon. >> Yes. >> Um I I walked that night with the neighborhood leaders that are here today. >> When when they showed that picture, if if Mr. Mr. Janisk's picture that he showed of the alleyway >> Yes. >> the dumpsters that are on the side of the building, they're on the west side of Danny's. >> Okay. >> Where are those going to go? >> Uh they're going to go on the northeast. Well, let me see of the existing grocery store. Would that be the southwest corner of the grocery store? >> Okay. If if I can can I Mr. Janice, can you come up and can you show that picture of looking to the north where the dumpster is? So, thanks for bringing that up, Mr. Butler. So, that's looking to the north there. Are you saying that you're going to put that trash can on the southwest part of the building right there? >> Yes. I don't think the property line in the picture is accurate. I think from the building to the property line, there's 14 ft that's shown along the survey. So, there's ample space to get around that dumpster. I don't think it's a big concern, but the goal is to put the trash can. It's right by the building now. So, putting it or right by the grocery store as you see it now. Um, so we did talk with on we met on March 10th uh and discussed several items which I want to expand on later, but yes, that is the current um proposed location of the trash can. >> Okay. And it's my understanding that is there going to be a fence put up there where those red lines are on the property line? >> Um, I believe so. Again, have to talk to the owner because this is just a reasonzoning. So, I believe there's going to be a fence that separates the uh >> the uh house to the west and the grocery store. Yes. >> Okay. >> And if it's my belief that from where those property lines were staked, is it 10 ft from where those lines of the property line are to the building there? >> Uh the survey shows 14 ft. So, um, that's I don't have it with me, but the survey from the west edge of the grocery store to the property line shows 14 ft. >> Okay. So, I don't think that's accurate, first off. >> Okay. And did did you have any meetings with any businesses around there besides Danny's? >> Uh, yeah, I had meeting with uh Martin on March 10th. Um uh what became of that meeting? The first part of the meeting was Martin wanted to buy the land. That's currently at 528 North 33rd Street. Um the owner did not want to sell. The owner's rep said that uh bluntly and stately. We don't want to sell. Okay. Uh second thing is they wanted a retail station like you described earlier where you have the retail on the first level and then a apartment on the second level. Uh the owners discussed that before we got there I guess and before we even got to the development stage and they didn't feel it was feasible for them. So they went off with the duplex and that's where we are now. Um, as I guess also we showed him a site plan. Um, and he did say the parking concerns that he had. Uh, but we are uh we are providing the two parking stall that that are required by the Todd 3 MX um zoning designation. So, we do have that um Met. Um, and then also I guess as was surprised to me uh he owns a lot of those buildings. the lot of the um the farmers market that you're shown, half of that is on this lot, which the owner lets him use. Um but the owner wants to now develop that into a duplex. So, he does have that right as long as he goes through the appropriate channels through the city. Um as we're doing now, to get that done. Um and then also he has a lot of property. So, he has a lot of interest, Mr. Martin does um in in making this retail. Um and I don't think it's right that you want to tell the owner what to do with the retail and it's not your land. That's that's one thing I do uh strongly disagree with because he does own a lot of land and that's great, but this is the owner's land and this is the direction that he's going. So, but >> thanks. And you brought up the parking spaces. >> Yes. Um, so again with that picture, if it's 10 or 14 feet, I I guess I'm confused on that. But two things come to mind. One is there's also a grease like a grease dumpster kind of not in that picture, but you know where it's at back there. >> Yeah, somewhere. It's not in front of the dumpster. >> It's actually right behind where that exhibit A is. It would be a little further south of that. At least when I was there. >> Okay. Is that also I mean is it your intention that it would be put on the southwest part of the property where the dumpster is going as well? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> I guess we didn't see that as a big deal. The owner didn't see that as a big deal as he uses the property. Um he uses the dumpster daily. And I my understanding again was just if I I saw that when I was there in the morning I saw the trash truck come to dump that and I I'm just looking in my mind trying to figure out how that truck will get down that alleyway. But you're saying it's 14 ft and not 10 ft. >> That's what the survey shows. 14T. >> Okay. Um there's other lights on. I'll let council member Harding you recognize. >> Thank you. Um I think we're complicating this a little bit too much. This is a simple reasonzoning request. We are not here to review a plan. What what after the the uh resoning, the owner could come in with a different allowable use within that zoning code to sit here and and um parse out the the details of a of this conceptual plan. conceptual not is is um it's a it's it's not appropriate. This is a simple zoning request. We are not here to review a site plan. >> Thank you, Council Member Harding, you're recognized. >> Oh, sorry. You're done. >> Council member Ferson, you're recognized. >> Thanks, Mr. President. I just wanted to add that um I appreciate seeing those historical photos. It is a great historical area of our study. 33rd 33rd in California. I do want to call out Martin and Chris for their passion as you can tell for the for the area and for the neighborhood. You've been advocates for decades and it shows. Uh and I'm glad you're interested in uh its future too which I think is bright. Uh I'd be happy to work with you on your interests around the NCE overlay that has worked well in other places. Uh Dundy for example, that's also historic in nature and I think that would apply well here too. Uh, I have also had dealings with Mr. Butler. Uh, he's done some good projects in my district, too. And I think, um, you're an honest broker that would, uh, work well to try to address these issues, too. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member Good when you're recognized. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Um, I appreciate this discussion. And as you know, neighborhood revitalization is near and dear to my heart. And I've to have worked with not only uh Chris, but also Mr. Butler and appreciate both of your passions to do meaningful work um in in our city. I did have a question for Dave Fanslaw, our department uh head for planning about the difference. I know it was discussed um you know potentially uh a different type of overlay versus what's proposed here which is the zoning um commercial it's currently general commercial to to what would be the difference in what was recommended by um Mr. Chris Frostster, NCE. >> So, yeah, Dave Dave Dave Fans on city planning. Um, so to just for the basics, TOD is not an overlay. It's a it's a land, it's a zoning classification all by itself. >> Thank you. >> So, as a few people have thrown out the NCE plan, um, they have worked very successfully um, in other parts of the city. um South 10th Street, Dundee, um we're entertaining one on downtown Elhorn. So, um if one if if if the neighborhood and the property owners in this area would like to pursue an NCE overlay, their first step, and I I think a few of them know that is to contact my department. We will meet with them. we will step them through that process and we will help them um formulate what what they want their NCE to be. There'll be public meetings, there'll be public outreach, there'll be of course planning board and city council hearings to approve something like that. But yeah, that process we've worked through that a number of times. >> And Dave, what does NCE stand for? >> Uh it's a neighborhood conservation overlay district. So really to provides density um or speaks to density in an area. >> So it's close to transportation lines. It's shown um this area generally is shown as to on on our master in our master plan on our land use plan. So yeah, we support obviously it's the TOD zoning is uh master plan compliance. It um promotes walkable neighborhoods along with the TOD built into the TOD code is also um AC our ACI standards. So our our urban design code standards are built into the TOD zoning. Um so anything that is constructed basically has to follow our urban design code. >> Thank you. I did want to just say this in general although I know we're really not talking about programming today. This is really a vote about zoning. Um, and it does follow uh, as Mr. Fansaw spoke to the master plan that I always talk about, we want to make east of 72nd Street livable, viable, a place where people want to live and they don't have to live. services and amenities in a community is really important, especially when it comes to revitalization because as you have depopul meaning people moving out oftent times the services and amenities go with it and so um in general not to really open up the debate here about what should go there I'm always a proponent of bringing we need housing clearly we need every unit we can get but when we can at services and amenities. And what I mean like just I know there's a grocery store there and you've got coffee shops, but when you can make it viable because when you go west of 72nd Street, I always say you can spin around and five five find five of everything. But then when you go east of 72nd Street, that becomes a lot more sparse. People want to live around what they can get to quickly. And so that's just my broad point of view as we develop. But I know that's just very general I'm saying this and I know specifically neighborhoods have to look at what's best for them. Um, but that's just my my perspective as as as I'm looking at, you know, development and infill and revitalization in my district as well. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. I Mr. Janis, can you come back up, please? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Did Did you have any comments you wanted to address? Yeah, I think uh like I said before, we knew this was about a zoning issue and and we're not against the reszoning. We we just want to make sure that what gets placed there is appropriate for that location. Um we know there needs to be housing. Uh we would like to if this does get approved, which which we're all for the reasonzoning, uh that maybe there's a a motion to attach to that vote that the project does get reviewed a little more serious because we do think there's some issues with uh access to parking, the dumpsters, the conflict, and that's all in that letter we sent. And we think it's even it could get worse because some of the businesses have reached out to us in the last day or two and they they've been kind of surprised that there would be uh the potential of parking maybe happening in the business district which they're already struggling to make sure their customers have enough parking and um so if there's a chance to put a motion just to have whatever Lawrence does come up with with the owner um we're okay with it. We just want to make sure it's reviewed well and that it's thought through and be very thoughtful of a whole business district, not just this one site. So, and I think there's still some, you know, things that we should work out. So, that's it. >> Okay. Thanks. >> I appreciate it. >> Thanks for being here today. Mr. Butler, one last question for you. >> Thanks for your patience. >> Do you have any response to Mr. Janisk on what he just said? >> Um, well, first of all, the the TI3 MX does allow retail. So, if the owner does want to change his mind, I I believe that it does allow retail as well, if I'm not mistaken. Um, but in in as far as what the building owner wants to do, I think he has a vested interest in this and wants to see retail, which is great and which is outstanding. I'm a historic person myself. I like doing historic buildings. I like keeping the uh viability of a neighborhood within having historic buildings stand and being renovated, but also at the same time the building owner wants to go this direction and as long as it's um ethical, moral, legally right, then I think that's the way to go. >> Okay. Thank you, Council Member Harding, you're recognized. >> I'd agree with Mr. Butler and I I think it's um look I I I know Chris and and Martin from actually we should put a a platform tennis court here, right Chris? Um to attempt to backend an attachment to this that takes away the owner's property rights that he has within a zoning code. Whatever is allowable within the code, I think is inappropriate. So, I I know this is not in my district, but um I I want to make sure that that since this is a simple zoning request, I I'll make the motion to approve. >> Got a motion and a second. No further lights. Roll call. >> Goodwin, >> yes. >> Hardin, >> yes. >> Hug, yes. >> Melton, >> Row, >> Fester, >> yes. >> Mr. President, >> no. >> Motion pass six to one. Item 18, a resolution to approve the downtown soccer stadium and mixeduse tax increment financing redevelopment project plan located northeast of 11th and streets in an amount up to 48,214,614. A's communication and support. B's communication opposition. >> Public hearing is now open on item number 18. Is the applicant here today? I see him coming down. Mr. Levy, good afternoon. >> Good afternoon, council members. David Levy, excuse me, Barrett Home Law Firm, 1700 Farnum Street. Uh, I have with me, uh, Alexis Spulos, who is chief operating officer and general manager of Union Omaha, and we have some, uh, Union Omaha supporters as well. Uh, this is another of many steps in this exciting journey for this exciting project. Um, it is a complex project and and should this pass, we will be back before you again. And there there are a number of steps to go including the redevelopment and enhanced employment area agreement which really set forth the details uh of the city's participation uh with tax increment financing and a general business occupation tax. As you all know, what's before you today is the redevelopment plan uh which authorizes the division of taxes for tiff and the imposition and the future of a general business occupation tax. I think by now you're all familiar with the project, but I'll just take a minute and go through some pictures here again to orient everybody. Uh on the kind of right side of the project or of the you can see the stadium and then you can see Abbott Drive here as it becomes coming. This is 10th Street as it will go across onto 11th Street Stadium on the north end. Then the mixeduse development that's part of this overall district plan here. Um, this is a city cso facility. The entire site is about 20 acres. Stadium takes a little less than half of that. Um, and then the rest is is mixed use and streets and sidewalks and things like that. Uh, and the cso facility. Union Pacific has a track here uh, which will remain uh, in some fashion. They'll still be able to bring their locomotive up as they do during the College World Series and they'll have an event space uh, there as well. Um, here's an image looking from the north. You can see the proposed stadium in the foreground there and then the mixeduse development to the south uh and and west a little bit. Uh, essentially those mixeduse buildings are ground floor retail facing this here which we're calling the prominade. that would be a street, but during uh matches, both men's and women's, concerts, other events, that would be closed to automobile traffic, and that would be a great pedestrian space. I'll show you a rendering of that in in just a second here. Those mixeduse buildings would have retail on that, and then they would have parking accessible behind them and then residential uh above. Overall, we're talking about somewhere between 450 and 500 housing units as part of that along with the stadium. The stadium would have approximately 6,500 fixed seats with room for another approximately 2,000 fans to be uh in there in standing room only and BMS and and things like that. Here is uh the image conceptual of that prominade area. Again, you can see uh those mixeduse buildings, the taller buildings on the right there. Um and the stadium uh there in the end terminating that that pedestrian thoroughare. This is uh economic impact numbers. These are projections of course um from 2025. These are just the stadium. I'll just hit a couple of highlights. Uh 225 construction jobs. um 195 full-time equivalent operations jobs um and then uh 420 jobs overall uh and about $175 million uh overall economic impact uh over an approximately 30-year time frame. The last thing I want to do here is is talk a little bit and I know Jennifer Taylor from the city law department is is here as well and will help me out here and and correct me I'm sure if I get off track this is um current projected sources and uses very high level round numbers we're still uh working through all of this. Um the the fundamental concept is that the city uh as the council authorized a few months ago um has a purchase and sale agreement with Union Pacific to buy this land. Um we hope that the city will close at the end of this the month on this land. The city will uh own the land under the stadium and and own the stadium. Um the stadium itself is projected to cost approximately $140 million to build. And then the mixeduse development is projected to be about $191 million. So total project cost of about $331 million. The tiff request is $48.2 million. The EA request is uh about $35 million. Um the the general funding concept is that the developer then would assign the TIF revenues uh to the city uh for the stadium. There's also uh we have uh applied for and have a hearing on April 21st in Lincoln for a state turnback incentive that's capped at $25 million over 20 years or $1.25 million a year per year that would also be assigned to the city to help pay the the debt service. So the city would issue lease lease purchase bonds and revenue bonds to pay for the majority of the cost of building the stadium. And then the developer would assign those tiff revenues, those turnback tax revenues uh to the city to uh address the the debt service on those bonds. And then the developer would make a lease payment annually that would be calculated essentially to cover the city's debt service uh on those bonds. So at the end of that uh time period, let's say those are 25-year bonds. They get paid off. the city owns the stadium and those incentives and the team's lease payments um and and the team equity. You can see there the top line about 23 million $23.5 million in in team equity to the stadium as well. Um this at the end the the city owns the stadium uh and and those incentives and and the team's lease payments have have paid for that stadium. um that ownership structure with the city owning that in our view um really mitigates the city's risk here. The city has that asset from day one. Um the city has control essentially acting as a landlord. Um, and nobody wants to even think that this could happen, but uh if something were to happen, the team would go away, let's say, or the the women's team would go away or something didn't work out, the city would have that stadium, the city could could go out, seek a new tenant, uh, and and keep that that flow of funds happening. If the team were to own the stadium, that would be a lot more complex process. So, we think that this structure, spent a lot of time discussing this structure with the city law department, with the mayor's office, with you on the council. Um, we think that this structure is a good structure economically for the city and for the team. Um, and we think it it best mitigates the city's risk here. I'm going to ask Alexis to come up if she would please and and talk a little bit about the history of Union Omaha in Omaha and and the team's commitment here in Omaha because th those are significant and to the point about the team the men's team is what we have so far. Uh the plan is to have a women's team as well and then concerts and lots of other events um to really fill this stadium up and have this be a very very active place downtown. Um, and I think this commitment again addresses this is a big project and we're asking a lot from the city. The team's commitment and their history demonstrates um that this will be a successful project in my view. So, go ahead. >> Thanks, David. Um, Alexis Bulos, chief operating officer and general manager for Union Omaha, 2402 South 102nd Street, Omaha. Um, again, I'll just reiterate this is an exciting step for us in this process and we're grateful to be here and thank you for the support, open communication. Um, we're so glad to be able to have stakeholders that are interested in this project um and are supportive and and open to asking us questions. Um, you know, the the club itself has been around and had successfully accomplished six wonderful seasons. We're in our seventh. Um, we're one of the winningest professional men's soccer teams in the United States. We have trophies. Um, we have supporters. We have fans. Um, and now we need a home. Um, and we want you all to know how committed we are to Omaha and the metro area, continuing to be our home into the future, 10, 15, 20 years from now. um both the men's team, a women's team, um and an academy um youth programming, ways for us to continue to impact our community um in and around Omaha and the state of Nebraska. We are passionate about the things that we can continue to build on. Um you'll hear from some of our supporters, but the key to this for us is community. It's not just about soccer. And so the more um opportunities we have to share soccer with our community in our home um the better off we will all be. So we look forward to the opportunity to continue sharing what we have and and building on the success that we've seen over the last six seasons and keep watching us. We play on Saturday and we're hoping for another win. >> Thank you all. We'll certainly be here for any questions. >> Thank you. Are there any other proponents here? Edward Fox, 5511 Harney Street. Um, I appear today as a supporter and a day one ticket holder of Union Omaha. Um, I've been following the club for six years. I am a founder of a Union Omaha supporters group called Proud Owls, a member of a couple other supporters groups, and I can tell you among other things that the community I've found surrounding Union Omaha the last six years has been one of the greatest aspects of my life postco. the community that we built, the community that the team tries to encourage us to build. For those of you who don't know, on the crest, which I have on my shirt here, um there are three stars. They stand for people, place, and purpose. These were the founding ideals of Union Omaha. Initially, Union Omaha retired the number one jersey and uses the motto one means all. And that's intended to be an invitation to the community to come and participate in this project and come be a part of something that represents our city, represents the values of our city. One of the disappointments of being a fiveyear, six-year fan of Union Omaha is that I've had to go to Pilion for the last few years to be able to enjoy Union Omaha soccer. And so, um, I'm extremely excited that we're now playing in Omaha on a temporary basis, but even more excited about the idea that we could have a home. and not just a home, but a home that's at the doorstep of our city. Um, as someone who unfortunately travels quite a bit, I make that drive to Epley Airfield a lot. And the idea of a bright shining new stadium uh to replace what's currently a fairly empty space is also something that I think will provide a great amount of beauty and enjoyment and improvement to the city of Omaha. And so I would strongly encourage the council to support this project as a lifetime Omahan, as a fan of Union Omaha, and as uh someone whose wife is a small business owner and who will be spending the rest of my life in Omaha, this is a great opportunity for the city in my opinion. Thank you. >> Thank you. Other proponents Uh, good afternoon. I'm all city council. Donny R Johnson, the Johnson Equestion Foundation, North Hall Concerned Tradition Foundation, 4928 North 52nd Street. You know, for some reason back in the 60s and the 70s, we had soccer and we had a pale in Brazil, but soccer is growing rapidly. Basketball is suffering a little bit. Football's suffering and baseball's starting to come around, I guess, better than what it was doing after Pete Rose. But in the meantime, Barry Bond's doing a wonderful job. But when I flew into Nigeria, I wanted to know why Team Elijah came all the way from Nigeria to play basketball, but he's a great soccer player back home. So basketball and soccer, they kind of go hand in hand. And the best athletes are coming out of the soccer world as you move forward into the global economy. So I know um folks are upset with Mr. the Trump but messes up in our uh the White House and we're waiting to get getting ready for the World Cup this summer and if we should start losing we'll take Mr. Harding up there and say I'm going to Washington DC and let's fix this problem. >> Thank you. Are there any other proponents on item 18? Good afternoon. >> Good afternoon. Uh Dan Rcowski, 5307P Street. I just wanted to say that I am excited to see this project. Uh Councilman Hug spoke on it a little bit earlier. I think the backbone of Nebraska is the workers and I just hope that this project isn't a uh race to the bottom for the workers. Um obviously with the city um going to be in charge of this, you know, I just kind of look to make sure the developer and the contractors that are awarded this project uh have certified payroll uh unemployment insurance, workman's comp, and uh at or above area standard wages. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other proponents here today? Seeing none, are there any opponents? Larry store, 5015 Lafayette Avenue, Omaha 68132. I watch the news all the time, different channels. I'm opposed to this. I listen to the radio. I I have a lot of friends that are sports fans and I don't for the life of me ever hear anything about anybody wanting a soccer stadium, another one. And we're chewing up space for another thing that won't be used. We can't draw people downtown for another one big thing when there's one right across the street practically from us. People stopped going to the safe auditorium. They stopped going to the ballpark. There's lots of vacant parking lots around the universities. There's lots of different stadiums around the universities. There's lots of playing fields around the high schools. We're already paying for playing space. Why don't we use the big buses to bring people in from the river boats and in from the west and in from the north, in from the east? from Iowa since we're forming cooperated things and uh take them to the different high school fields or theraton or the UNO things that are already there that we are already paying for and have paid for. Stop spending the money and reduce my taxes. >> Thank you. Are there any other opponents here today on item 18? Seeing none, public hearing is closed. Council member Goodwin, you're recognized. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Um, this soccer stadium is in North Downtown in District 2, so it's definitely this exciting development. I did want to invite uh Jennifer Taylor up for the law department um as she knows this capital stack well. Um, and first of all though, I did want to address specifically this is a 6,500 seat stadium. How does that compare to Kraton Stadium and why is the next level needed? >> Uh, Jennifer Taylor, City Law Department. Uh, I think this is a 6,500 seat stadium, but I believe it it can be expanded with additional seating, so it would be slightly larger than Morrison Stadium. um and how it compares. Obviously, uh Morrison Stadium is tailored to and intended for use by Kraton's bothraton soccer teams. And I know that they are are working through a way to temporarily share that stadium for a couple of years, but I believe the intent here in our conversations with the Union Omaha uh organization is you'll have both a men's team and a women's team and the academy and other events such that this stadium will be uh utilized over probably 200 nights, days, etc. a year. So there isn't enough time in one year, especially during a uh our non-winter season, which apparently is still going on, um to to actually share those to to share the facility between everything that Kraton needs and everything that Union Omaha intends to do with the stadium. So just there's not enough time. They they need separate facilities because they have so much demand for the use. I think they can also be complimementaryary. One of the things I think we've talked about with council and we've talked a lot at at uh length with unit Omaha is there are ways for both Morrison Stadium and this stadium to support uh soccer tournaments around the city. So we have new fields at Levi Carter Park. We will have new fields at Tranquility. Those can bring larger tournaments here and you know then we can utilize these stadiums to do say final games for such tournaments. So there's a lot of I think synergy with other uh city assets that both stadiums can support and there is enough utilization in both stadiums that they need to be have their own individual homes. >> Thank you for that. And so um I know we did get briefed on this and my understanding is that the Union soccer team is is they're nationally known and they're winners. Currently we have an event that we could host but we don't have the space for it. Is that correct? >> Correct. That is uh an understanding that Alexis has shared with me. Um she's probably better equipped to explain it, but there is um a turn >> I we can call. Yes. Well, Alexis, please before I speak. >> No, absolutely. Thank you. Um and just I'll address the theraton issue as well. You know, there that facility is 3,500 um fixed seats with an upwards of 5,000 total SRO. So, we're looking at at a significantly larger stadium for us um in the future. Um and scheduling for that is is very complicated. It was an interesting Tetris for me to to try and get the league to agree to a lot of these things. But, um as it relates to the tournament that you're asking about, so we're in the US Open Cup, which is a um an open tournament for soccer within the United States. Um USL League One participants, championship participants, and MLS clubs. Um in 2024 we hosted Sporting Kansas City at Kiglia had had over 6,000 fans that attended that match. Um and we have won and entered the round of 32. Um which gave us the opportunity to again host an MLS team. And unfortunately because of the conflicts and schedules, we worked very hard with Kraton and with UNO to make it work so that we could host um that match next week on Tuesday or Wednesday. And unfortunately um it just didn't work with US soccer. And so we are going to be traveling to Colorado on Monday night to play Tuesday um against Colorado Rapids which could have been our home match. So we have those opportunities that we unfortunately miss out on. >> Right. And so what does that look like for tourism if we could host an event of that level? I mean how many visitors are we talking about that would be coming here to Omaha that would be utilizing hotels, restaurants, you know, renting cars, all the things. So, um, the MLS teams travel with a significant, um, entourage, we'll call them. So, Kansas City traveled with about 250 to 300 folks, team support staff, etc. They had about half of our fans at that match were not local, came either from Kansas City or Iowa, Sou Falls. Um, and so I would say, you know, somewhere in the neighborhood of 3,00 to 3,500 folks came for that match that were not residents of Omaha. Um and so yeah, that's a disappointing thing for us to miss out on from a hospitality perspective. >> Right. So when we talk about uh making Omaha uh number one city, making it an attractive place, um we're we're really elevating that with uh this investment here with uh Union uh soccer team and then the stadium. >> Correct. And that was a nationally broadcast CBS sports um match that you know drew near 50,000 eyeballs um of a match at Kiglia Field that was sold out. So it was it was a great night. >> Thank you for that. I did want to bring Jennifer back up to talk about >> um where taxpayer money falls into the line item here. Um I see um developer equity, construction loans, PACE, TIFF, EA, LB1317, CIP funds is where I draw my my eyes to, but can you talk to us a little bit about um how the city contributes and therefore where we can look at this line item to find taxpayer dollars if any. So, uh, Jennifer Taylor, City Law Department, the only like true general obligation, general fund dollars that are part of this project would be the funds that are identified in the capital improvement plan. Uh, those funds would be primarily um infrastructure used for infrastructure. So, they'd be used for sewers, streets, utilities, etc. for site preparation. Uh, to the extent that we will can identify funds available for that project. So, we're still kind of working through the exact numbers on that. We had always started with about 12 million. It might be closer to eight depending on exactly um what what work is needed on the site and what we can find funding for that's available to do public improvements. But those dollars would be used only for public improvements. Those public improvements would support the stadium as well as the mixed use. Um would also be uh likely used for improving 11th Street. And also there's, you know, we're putting in the the uh 10th Street connector. So that connection between 11th Street and 10th Street that would actually open up North Downtown to the Ball Stadium, uh the the baseball stadium and CHI is a it's a huge connection there. And so those funds that are identified as as capital improvement funds would only be used for those types of expenditures. Everything else that is identified as being a source of funding for this project is either uh owner equity or if it's something the city is assisting with. The city's providing essentially kind of a financing mechanism for the project. But the way that we're setting this up, the city would would have a direct and specific revenue stream to cover its annual debt service and that would be contractually obligated with the stadium and this turnback tax and the tiff. So those bonds that the city would issue uh would be handled very much like we handled the Hilton. So the annual debt service would be covered by those sources of revenue and the lease payment from Union Omaha on an annual basis with a guarantee. >> Right. So we're talking about $12 million of CIP funds for a a $331 million project. >> Correct. >> Okay. And so this is really set to make the city money. we own the property. Um, when can we see the project cash flow? >> Um, well, essentially the way that we'll be set up is that as soon as we have debt service, we will have payments. So, uh, it'll take I'm going to go back to 18 to 24 months, I think, to build the stadium. >> 18. Thank you. Um, so the stadium will be the first thing built. We'll obviously have to do site prep and infrastructure installation and then construct the stadium. Once that is done, the developer will uh in their partnership with Hines will move on to developing the mixeduse portion of the site. So that's the site just to the uh south of the stadium which will include as Mr. Levy mentioned four to 450 apartments, significant retail of you know kind of event space. We are continuing to work with Union Pacific on how they will locate their big boy train and their event space that they use during the College World Series. So really what we do we have here is an opportunity especially with the connector project to open up this area of north downtown to a lot more pedestrian traffic and a lot more um um activity in north downtown than we have today. Right now this site is basically a non- tax producing u vacant parcel of land that up uses periodically for events but otherwise is not necessarily I think what you would call the most attractive spot in in downtown. And we have the opportunity here to turn this into um activated property tax generating uh development that is immediately adjacent to additional land that is owned by a local nonprofit that will also develop that land which then to the west of that is all of Milorworks Commons. So now you're really adding to what has been the efforts of uh the developers of Milworks Commons. you're adding to those efforts and expanding to the east and making this whole, you know, kind of effectively a really significant large and and vibrant neighborhood. >> Yeah. So, we're talking about connecting downtown to north downtown through 10th Street. So, then we're we're adding some safety uh to the way we can get from, you know, across 10th Street, really that Charles Schwab stadium across 10th Street. Um then we're developing a right now very underutilized site uh to provide 450 apartments uh 225 construction jobs uh 129 uh permanent jobs not to mention the restaurants um and the other amenities that are really just would be a part of this mixeduse development. So, it's really we're getting an asset um for North Downtown. And I I love the inter intergenerational connectivity of the program. I mean, you talked a little bit about the youth's academy, and I think that's important um especially as you go further north into uh district 2. I was wondering if we could have um the representative for the union um to come back up and talk about that youth academy and how they're already working with kids around the the city and how that could also it's going to be a place where they can do more activities and and and learning >> and and I'll let Alexa speak to that because I know she's very passionate about the youth academy and right now they really don't have a home for that and they use a lot of different spaces and so I'll let her share a little bit more about that. Sure. Thank you again, Alexis Bulos, Union Omaha. Um, you know, we're doing our very best right now to reach out and be a part of growing soccer, whether that's in North Omaha, South Omaha, you know, working with Northstar, Girls, Inc., Boys and Girls Club, um, and just giving kids the opportunity to play soccer. It can sometimes have a a financial burden in the opportunities for that these kiddos have to play. And so right now without facilities of our own, we're really beholden to the nonprofits and what facilities they have access to, what partnerships we have, um, and being able to staff that in the best way we can without having a youth programming staff. Um, and and those are all things that kind of hinge on this um, new stadium uh, ability for us to have offices and hire more coach coaches and be able to really ingrain ourselves in the community to to build those programs out. Um, and you know, once we get our foothold within those nonprofit communities and in those neighborhoods, we'll have the opportunity to really work with the league, um, to build a feeder for our team and be able to find talent within our own communities, outside of our communities, and and bring them in. And, you know, we've had several academy players that have signed with Union Omaha that have gone on um, nationally to play elsewhere um, who've been a part of our community since they were 16. Um, but we just right now don't have the facilities to build and grow that out. um to to provide them with the things they need um and and the services that that they should be given at that age um to be growing into strong players and adults. >> Yeah. So, you're saying that there's a commitment to underserved youth and other youth built into this uh project? >> Yes. And you know, we'd love to do more right now today. I would love to be able to do 10 times what we're doing with with our partners. Um and and you know, our hope is that as soon as we um get this sorted through, we'll we'll be able to to make uh an even bigger commitment in those neighborhoods. >> Great. I have one last question about affordable housing. So, I don't know if this is a Mr. Levy question or a Jen question. >> Yes. Um, but we have 450 apartments and you know, anytime number one, we need all types of housing. You'll always hear me say that. TIFF is involved in this project. That's a part of this agenda item today. Uh, what can we what is the project committed to in terms of affordable housing for um this mixeduse development? >> Thank you, Councilwoman. Again, David Levy, Barrett Home Law Firm, 1700 Farnum Street. I can't give you a specific breakdown. um among housing types or affordability levels across those apartments today. But I can tell you um that my clients are um committed to providing housing um among those let's say 450 units um across different income levels. We have met with Front Porch for example. Um we are working with uh others uh in the community who are doing affordable housing and not just workforce housing but deeply affordable housing. So um I I would fully expect that among those apartments there will be affordable housing, there will be workforce housing and there will be market rate housing. >> Thank you for that. No further questions for me. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you. Council member Harding, you're recognized. Uh, thank you, Mr. President. So, full disclosure, I'm a suffering Tottenham Hotspur fan. Edward knows that. He knows that we're on we're on the verge of re relegation. It's the best soccer complex in the world, and they may not even be in the Premier League, but we can have a beer over that. So, and you talked about the the you go to Epley a lot and it's look first I this is a great project and I I believe in the project. Um I'll get to some questions I have here and and my hesitation on going forward today. Um but when when we used to drive in from Epley Airfield to our downtown, I'm rolling it back about 30 some odd years. We went past the up yards. We went past Aaron Farah um scrap metal. We went by a sarco. Um and just to make sure you got a really good view of that, we put you up on a 60oot vioideuct. So you got a bird's eye view of all that gloriness. And and now today we have, you know, a string of pearls. We have um we have the the the roads at grade. We have first national um tower. We have um Mutual of Bamas's tower coming out. you have Galp University agree this this would be a fantastic um uh addition to the entry to our um to our city but I you know we we've all had briefings um we had one as recently as last week um I had some additional questions as it related to both environmental and and the financing of this um which is and we were just given that information I've got the the environmental at about 10 a little after 10:30 this morning and the uh the financial stack sources and uses really just before this meeting. And they're they're vastly different than what was originally proposed in the the TIFF application. And so I I I have some questions um that I' I'd further like to explore before um going forward on this today. And that's in no that I don't want anyone to take that as I have any hesitation on the project itself or the the viability of the project or what it would add to to the city. Um because I think those are all very positives. But I I'll ask you know a couple questions um today, but I think what I'd really like to do is just lay this over for a week because all this information I'm going to use your words, Mr. Levik, this is a complex project. I'm going to add complex and fluid as we're finding out because things are changing and we want to make sure we do this correctly because this is a big commitment not only by the city but a big commitment by by Union Omaha as well too the ownership um and you even said or maybe it was Jennifer Jen said this that we're asking a lot from the city so I want the city to be good partners but we also have to understand the deal going into it as well too So, um, you know, for example, one of the things on the the, uh, sources and uses is the 25 million as it relates to to turnback. I mean, can this project, we're not going to know about turnback until probably June. >> So, there's actually legislation that that may pass here that would require a decision 30 days after the hearing. So, not very far off from June, but we have the hearing, as I mentioned, I think on April 21st. Um, and so we'd get a decision by May 21st. So, 10 10 days short of June. But you're right, we we do not know the answer to that question right now. We we feel good about that application. >> Yeah, because I don't think the legislation has actually been I mean, it would take an emergency order to put it in place that quickly. And >> Right. And then we don't and then the tiff committ or the tiff committee the turnback committee would then have to render their decision too which would be 30 days right within 30 days if that's what passes >> right >> commit the emergency clause applies which is not entirely clear in the bill >> I I and that's one of my questions or concerns that I'd like to far it out over the the next week or so >> um in addition to that um >> I I think it was it was mentioned too that we would close on the property by the end of the month, too. And if so, if if we do close on the property by the end of the month and we don't get turnback on this, um I mean that's we we now owns the property, correct? >> Correct. >> Okay. And does this project happen without turnback? Without that incentive, as I stand here today, I don't see how this project happens without the the state turnback tax, the LB 1317 >> uh turn back. >> So, these are these are some of after our briefing last week and and getting this information today. These are some of the questions that that I think are um that we as a as a body should be asking before we move forward on this. So, I I would I'm going to make a motion to lay this over for a week. again, very much in favor of this. Think it's very additive to the the city and the region. Um, but I want to make sure we're taking the proper steps to go forward. >> Appreciate that. And and I'll just say and I mean this truly with all sincerity. It is a complex project and and I'm the one who said that Union Omaha is asking a lot from the city. We absolutely are. This is a true public private partnership. Projects like this do not happen without a public private partnership. Union Omaha just on development costs of this project are they're already $5 million into this. Um so you know with all that I mean we'd love to have a vote today but I understand very much where you're coming from. And what we don't want is to have any um reservation among any of the seven of you at any point in this process. We may have that. That's the nature of these things. Um, but you know, if it takes a week to get everybody comfortable, then we are absolutely all for that. It is complex. Uh we're going to be asking more from this council, more votes from you on the redevelopment agreement, bond ordinances, um a Seymar ordinance and you know previewing things to come and and so again I this is truly a public private partnership and we want to be good partners and um if it takes more time for you to be comfortable with with what we're presenting to you today. Um, knowing that this continues to evolve, one of the things about the city not being able to close on the property yet, Union or Union Pacific will not let us go on the property and do anything invasive, do geotechnical testing, anything like that until the city owns the property. That contributes to the fluidity in in these numbers just because there are more unknowns than than we would like. And at the same time, we want to move this quickly enough so that we can break around this fall and and uh Alexis can can be showing off for the the team's new stadium at this time in in 2028. There's a lot to do, including building a stadium between now and then. So, I'm taking advantage of your comments to say a little bit more here. I appreciate the leeway to do that. Um, but we do want to be good partners. We recognize that we are asking a lot from the city. This is truly a public private partnership. I believe and number of you have said it better than I can. This is a tremendous opportunity, a once in a-lifetime type of opportunity for the Iran Corps. Um along with you mentioned Councilman Harding, a lot of the great things that have gone on before. I remember getting lost on the way to the airport. My grandfather was driving. I was a kid. He somehow got off that vioaduct and we I wasn't sure we were ever getting out of there and getting to the airport. So, there's a lot of great things going on. This really contributes to it. If it takes another week to have all seven of you be comfortable to vote for this, then then we of course uh are happy to continue working with you and do that. >> Well, and to piggy back a little bit off of that, I mean, I look, I I think I'm I've always been a huge proponent of the public private partnerships and that's one of the reasons or one of the ways we got uh things happening on the riverfront with with Gallup and with uh with the other things that we see happening down there. I mean, that's um those public private partnerships are are the only reason those were able to happen. And I I continue to be a strong proponent to to work those public priv private partnerships um to the benefit of the city. But but again, having just gotten this information, um I would feel more comfortable, again, big proponent. I just want to make sure that I have the time to go through it and ask further questions if I have any of you and and the rest of the the team so that we can make sure that we're moving forward on this complex project. >> Again, appreciate that. I will be at your disposal. >> So that was that was a motion to lay over for one week. >> I'm done. >> Thanks. There was a motion and a second. Council member Fester, you're recognized. >> Thanks, Mr. President. I don't want to be repetitive of any further comments other than to say that u I'm very supportive of this project to for all the reasons that have been noted uh by the proponents, big soccer fan to former player um but then also uh underused property in our city that could very much use this kind of um redevelopment as you enter our city. So most people I talked to have that mindset and are very excited about uh the potential of soccer and the success of this current team going forward, but they do want to be assured of risk on something like this when we talk about a pretty complex project as has been noted, several different sources of of funds um to make this happen. And I think in my mind um what may be of most risk risk there is the turnback situation not having the outcome of that decision yet. Um and that's a very important one. We think that'll generate about $25 million to this project and actually $52 million overall. So I don't know why the state would not approve that. It's to their benefit too um to do that. But you don't know until you know. And I know that hearing's been delayed uh up until this point. uh now uh scheduled for April. So um I think we do need to know the outcome of that before we sign the dotted line on something like this. But for me that that that dotted line comes with the redevelopment agreement which will happen later. Um I would not be comfortable proceeding with that until we know the outcome of that turnback decision. Um but today is today is just the plan. Um, so as we talk about a number of different moving parts here that we're getting more detail on by by the day, it doesn't concern me necessarily to vote this today, realizing we have to get to the redevelopment agreement. Uh, and that's what really matters here. Um, but I also want the council to be, you know, um, comfortable as a body overall. Um, in my briefing, it seems pretty apparent that of course the city is going to own or would own this stadium going forward, about $140 million stadium. But it's also important to point out there'd be $24 million of private investment, private equity in that proposition, and then the team lease, the team would lease it from the city, uh, which then covers our our annual payments on that stadium. Would that be an accurate statement, Miss Taylor? Jennifer Taylor, city law department. Yes, that has we have um the the cost of the stadium and the city's uh partnership and participation has we've gone through a number of iterations of how to how to uh accomplish that. Our our current plan, I think we've gone through and we've vetted it with our bond council as well as city finance department and and our partners. Yes. So what we're setting up is is a situation where our annual debt service payments would be covered by pretty much three simple sources of revenue which would be the turnback tax, the tiff revenues and the lease payment. Uh and we would uh structure that in the agreement. So when the agreement comes to this council, you will have the opportunity for me to show you exactly how those guardrails are put in place and what those obligations are. Um that will ensure that we can fully uh pay our debt service and any necessary reserves, etc. uh through the sources of revenue that we have on an annual basis. >> And that's a 30-year proposition. >> Uh it would be a 30-year. Our bonds are probably going to be 30-year bonds. Mr. Curtis, >> Steve Curtis, City Finance, I don't know that we've structured it just yet. It's probably 25 or 30 though. >> There you go. So, um and are obviously then the lease arrangement would match the term of our bonds, >> right? And if for some unforeseen reason or a league goes somewhere else or a league 20 years later has challenges um the team is still obligated on for that for those lease payments. >> The lease the lease agreement would be an ongoing obligation. Yes. And we will work through that to ensure that we have some remedies and some backups and guarantees. Uh Mr. Lovey and I still have chats about exactly what that looks like. But yes, I mean it is my job to ensure that the city is protected as possible. You know, there's always going to be risk in any proposition, but as much as I can minimize that risk is is obviously my goal and my job on behalf of the city. Uh, Mr. Levy and Union Omaha understands we've had many conversations about ensuring that the city is is covered as much as possible. Um, at the end of the day, we still do have an asset that we own. Um, but yes, those things will be placed in the agreement as well. All of these things are are you know very appropriate and and good questions and are things that we are working through and when the agreement does come to this council probably in early June. Uh so we will know about the staff application by then um we'll be able to identify the specific sections in this agreement that provide those guardrails, those protections and explain the entire structure. Uh we're we're getting much closer to having I mean I'm working on the agreement as we speak. Mr. Levy asks me about it almost every day. Um, but yeah, so I mean the agreement is is in place. We've had a number of conversations. We've been working through the structure of this for close to 18 months now. So we've spent a fair amount of time talking about these concerns, the exact concerns that you have and you've expressed. And so uh we are ensuring that those things will be addressed in the agreement. >> Okay. And we have another stadium downtown that has positive cash flow and a very um impactful economic economic um development on our city. um every year, which is about to be the College World Series in June. Um but that's not as busy uh around the year round as some would like. Uh we don't think that'd be the case here, though. We're talking managed by um a private entity that anticipates at least 250 days or nights of activity during the year. >> Correct. And and again, the uh the Union Omaha and the entity, the the private entity is going to be obligated to pay us a certain amount of money every year. So, it's in their best interest to utilize the stadium as much as possible in order to generate additional revenue. >> Okay. And then we've talked about timeline a little bit. Let's talk about environmental, too, because that does also concern me. Um, in our discussions, I know we received that report. Uh, some of us on the council have a long history with this particular property, too, and are concerned about what could be on this property. Uh, we won't actually know that or can't know that until the city would take possession, though, and do further testing. Right. Correct. And and there's and I can understand some concernation about that. There's a couple of things that I would I would point out. One, Union Omaha or Union Omaha, sorry, Union Pacific's uh use of this property is, you know, we're fairly familiar with what they've used the property for. It's very similar to and maybe not quite as intensive of a use as lot B was or the CHI site. So, we know what those sites and the conditions are on those sites. We also are aware of the conditions in Milwork Commons. So, we've have a significant familiarity with the environmental uh conditions of almost every surrounding piece of property that all came from UP to begin with. So, although we don't know, we we haven't been able to go down and and dig and specifically pull out um soil and test it. It is safe to assume that it's going to be relatively similar to the neighboring parcels of property. And we do know what the environmental conditions of those properties are. So I I when I say no, we don't know exactly. We do have a pretty good idea of what it will look like. Um so there's that and and we can't do any of that testing until we own the property. Also, we can't apply for any remediation grants from the EPA or the federal government until we own the property. So obviously once we own the property, we will also be applying for those grants to assist us in any remediation that's necessary. Um, in the meantime, we do know exactly what the EPA has required from a building perspective for all of the neighboring sites as far as uh, you know, no ground flooror residential and certain restrictions on what you can build there. Union Omaha and their partner Hines have uh, taken all of those restrictions into consideration when designing and developing the project. So at a minimum if if that's it, you know, if those are the restrictions that we have, we have a there's a project in place that can u be built in line with those restrictions. So that's all to say, you know, I I appreciate the consternation and I understand and and and that's that's kind of where we are. I would also just remind the council as we talked about in our briefings last week, part of this property will be utilized for the new CSO facility which we need to build and this is the basically necessary and appropriate and needed place to do that. So we do need it for a public works perspective. I'm looking at Mr. Stwie. Um and also we need the the land to uh create the connector between 11 and 10th Street also which is very necessary infrastructure for our downtown. So, it's not just buying it for the stadium and the mixed use. There are very specific city purposes that require us to own this land. And because Union Pacific is a railroad, we do not have necessarily the option to take it by imminent domain if we needed to. So, we need to work with Union Pacific to get a control of this property. >> So, you believe it's in our interest to own it regardless of this project? >> I It is my opinion that yes, we do need to own this property regardless. I would also point out that not only do we have the cso and the connector project that we need to do on this property, but uh the city is probably the best and possibly maybe the only entity that really can acquire this from UP and undertake um you know any sort of uh government assisted remediation. We are the best suited to take the property and develop it. If the soccer project doesn't for some reason and nobody believes that it is doesn't uh move forward, it's still a piece of property that needs to be developed. Union Pacific is not incentivized to do so. The city is >> and based upon a previous um land um deal that was approved by the council, there is also a $10 million fund available to remediate should this be necessary. >> The project budget does include 10 billion dollars specifically set aside for environmental environmental geotechnical remediation. So there has been there have been funds identified and earmarked for this specific uh uh purpose. If we don't need that much, great. That's less money we have to spend. Um, if we can find other ways to pay for those services or those things through grants or something else, great. That's less money that we need to spend. So, those are all things that we will undertake. In the meantime, we are continuing to work with UP. There are are still some outstanding survey issues and we need to identify. We need to specifically locate the CSO facility in a way that allows UP to continue to bring in Big Boy and have an event space for them. So there are reserved easements that are still being finalized. How that all works is is in fact we have a meeting with UP tomorrow to kind of try and finalize some of these issues as well. So it is as Mr. Levy said it's a complex project for many many different reasons. Um but we have spent a significant amount of time trying to get to the end point of a lot of those issues so that we can bring a project to you. You know, this is a redevelopment plan that really only authorizes the division of taxes and taxment financing and the imposition of a general business occupation tax. Um, neither one of which actually would go into effect until we have a redevelopment agreement before you. So, this gives us the authority to do those two things. Everything else is a function of the redevelopment agreement that will come to you eventually in June. >> And at that point in time, we will know uh we will have ironed out a number of these kind of last final details >> in your ideal timeline there. Where when is the city acquiring that property? >> Uh the city would like to acquire the property by the end of April uh in orders in order for Union OMAD to be able to go on the site and start testing and site prep and again as Mr. Levy said so they can start actually construction in the fall. >> So we would likely know the results of that prior to our re redevelopment agreement as well. >> Correct. Um but then the city would as I said we would own the property. The redevelopment agreement would put those guard rails in place as to how it would develop. Um, assuming that the sales tax turnback application is approved, then we then we've definitely got a project we would move forward with. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thanks, Mr. President. >> Thank you, Council Member Melton. You're recognized. >> Thank you. And you know, I ask you the same question on almost all of these projects because we get opponents that say, "Quit spending my tax dollars." So, are is anybody's tax dollars actually paying for this project? Because other than CIP, which is public infrastructure, >> correct? Is anybody's taxes paying for the stadium? >> No. >> Okay. It's paying for the roads, >> the sewer lines that that were responsible utilities to put in utilities. >> There's obviously this is not a site that has any sort of utilities or underground sidewalks, streets, any of that. And again, the 11th Street to 10th Street connector is a huge boon to downtown and north downtown. So, it's an important piece of infrastructure. >> And that and that's coming out of our our capital improvement plan. So the bonds that that we take out for basically public works infrastructure. Is that right? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um also um the reason I and I just want to quickly I think everybody else has covered everything but uh Mr. Levy and and for you know I completely support this but I just got the information to try and explain the capital stack and I have a number of emails from people and what I like to do is I like to be able to respond to them. before I have the vote as opposed to justify my vote afterwards. And since I didn't have time to do that, I think that it's it's prudent that we just take one week. Um I think and that's why I seconded that layover uh for one week so that the the public can actually get the information as well. And and most ordinances we do a first reading, we do a public hearing and then third week we do we we vote. On these we kind of do it all in the same hearing. But this is so big and actually I think so important for Omaha and it's going to have such an impact especially combined with tranquility. You know love always talking about tranquility but the youth soccer with tranquility which I think those will be the same people that are going to come down to Union Omaha to not only watch the games but probably participate um in the the youth academy. So, I mean, I I just think we have a lot of the soccer coming together um with both of those projects and and I think this is absolutely fabulous for our downtown. >> And and I I just want to be able to articulate that to people who have sent me emails wanting to know why is the city going to own a soccer stadium? >> And and I'll uh reiterate what Mr. Levy said, which is over the next week um I am at your disposal. You know how to find me. I'm happy to answer any questions or assist you in any way. And and that's I think it and like Councilman Fester said, I it's about the risk. >> I mean, I question why does a city want to own a hotel 20 years ago? Um but I understand what you're saying is it actually reduces our risk. It's actually easier for us. But in your redevelopment agreement, I just want to make sure that I mean we do have guarantees in there. I want to make the risk to the city as low as possible. >> I I completely agree. And that's what that's your reasoning for wanting to actually own the stadium. >> Yes. Um because you know if we own the stadium as Mr. Levy indicated uh then we are more in control of of what happens and obviously then they're obligated to us. So and at the end of the day we have an asset that we own. So all of those are things that I think are much uh much more beneficial to the city in order for the city to have that kind of control than if they were to build and own the stadium themselves. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you, Council Member Row. You're recognized. >> President, I just want to um I'm I'm supportive of this project as well. I think it's just a huge economic development opportunity that we can't mess up. We got to get it right. Um and I wanted to verify with uh Council Member Harding or Mr. President, are we going to continue the public hearing as well next week >> or is it just the vote? H >> public hearing is already >> It is closed. Okay. >> Just a vote next week. >> Okay. >> And so just a vote next week. >> Okay. Thank you. >> No further lights. We had a motion and a second for a layover of one week. Roll call. >> Goodwin. >> No. >> Harding. >> Yes. >> Hug. >> No. >> Melton. >> Row. >> Fester. >> Yes. >> Mr. President, >> yes. >> Motion pass 5 to two. Thank you. >> Consent agenda. Any member of the city council may cause any item placed on the consent agenda to be removed. Items removed from the consent agenda shall be taken up by the city council immediately following the consent agenda in the order in which they were removed unless otherwise provided by the city council rules of order. >> The public hearings and agenda items 19 through 25 were held on March 24th, 2026. Any council discussion? Have a motion. >> Second. >> Got a motion and a second. Roll call. >> Goodwin. >> Harding. >> Yes. >> Hug. >> Melton. >> Yes. >> Row. >> Fester. >> Yes. >> Mr. President. >> I. >> Motion pass. Seven to zero. >> The public hearings on agenda items 26 through 54 today. If you wish to address the city council regarding these items, please come to the microphone. Indicate the agenda item number you wish to address. Identify yourself by your name, who you represent, and if you are a proponent or opponent. The public hearing is now open on items 19, I'm sorry, items 26 through 54. Are there any proponents? Uh, 10635 Common Street. Um, item number uh 43, proponent, >> and I'm here to answer any questions. >> Thank you. Are there any other proponents here today? >> Hi, Kaylin Deilius, director of the Human Rights and Relations Department for the City of Omaha. I'm here in support of item number 47. Happy to answer any questions. This is our HUD contract. >> Thank you. Any other proponents on items 26 through 54? Seeing none, are there any opponents? >> Jessica Malli, 5033 Steward Street. Sorry. Um I'm uh items 51, 52, and 53. Is that appointments to a B? >> Okay, that's what I'm here to oppose. >> Thank you. Are there any other opponents Larry store 5015 Lafayette Avenue Omaha 68132 I am opposed to number 52 and number 53. I did send an email to you asking for it to be considered today. The reason I'm opposed because I live in the area of this uh nominated people that work in the area where I live. They own some businesses. They have owned many businesses. They were also in cahoots with a council member for uh neighborhood improvement district. Much of it did not get improved. much of it was owned by uh the couple that are being proposed to uh be nominated for positions and I think there's a conflict of interest because of the amount of property that they own but also the amount of property that they let uh get severely blighted and abandoned people breaking into them. fire started. Everybody else gets assessments and fines for uh bad property, sidewalks or whatever. Some of them today didn't like it, did they? Well, I've watched that area deteriorate and be completely ignored for a long time. I'm surprised there's not a lot of people here today because a lot of them were very upset with the BID development uh at the assistance of Mr. Fester. But the uh the name people for these positions have been longtime purchasers and developers of properties, but they didn't clean up their own properties. they owned along Saddle Creek. A lot of the residents didn't really get to have much input on it. And now I go down that street and he's selling the property. He's a he's asked for TIFF to help develop it also. But that the old parking lot there right on Northwest Highway. He's got his name plastered on it and the property is so many acres or part acres for sale boarded up. Some of the glass windows have been fixed, but he's boarded up again. The dental office on the other end of the other side of that to the south, completely boarded up. I've saw that time after time along Saddle Creek, but also across the road into uh Northwest Radio up to 45th Street in the uh Miss Goodwood's district. I drive that area a lot to watch it. I don't like what I see in that area because it's obvious the city has ignored it except for the possibility that they allowed homeless people to go into >> Thank you. Your three minutes is over. Thanks, Larry. Thank you. >> I don't like what your three minutes is up, Larry. Your three minutes is up. Thank you. >> Your minutes is cut the mic. Can you have him removed, please? Thank you. You're removed, Larry. You're removed. Thank you. Are there any other opponents here today? >> You've already you've already spoke, >> but I mean I thought we were you were just asking who was opposed and for >> and you spoke in opposition, right? >> But I didn't make my comments. Can I make some comments? I thought I was coming up back up later. There's just a misunderstanding. >> Is that okay? >> Go ahead. >> Okay. >> Thank you, council. Um, sorry about the misunderstanding. 5033 Sewward Street. Um Jessica Malli, I'm opposing the appointment today um of these three members to the B for a few reasons. I've a brick-and-mortar business owner on the corridor. Um and I'm the probably the newest one on the block actually uh for a lot of these businesses have been there um since the 80s, many decades. Um this reappoint is coming as a surprise. Um, as I've spoken to my neighboring businesses, we just learned about this over the weekend. Um, and so I went around um asking if I was the only one that didn't know this was happening and I learned that a lot of my business neighbors also didn't know this was happening and are really displeased um to hear. So, there's a lot of broken trust with this um with specifically with uh Joshua Hanam um and his wife Dena and um Molly. I'm not sure. I don't know these people personally. This is not a personal objection. This is just a business objection. Um the streetscaping project was uh very difficult for our corridor. Um also very expensive. A lot of it needs repaired on our own dime. Um, people have been put in the B that they didn't realize when they were in the B, the grocery store, the auto repair. Um, they're paying fees at for streetscaping that didn't even happen. This is just coming really quickly and so we're asking I'm here representing several businesses actually. Um, since this happened quickly, they couldn't all be here, which is my cafe, um, Simpsons Auto Repair, the Homie Inn, um, who else? Uh, Global Foods, Green Line Cafe, which is me. I'm not sure if I said that. Uh, Innovative Roofing, um, any other businesses I just didn't get a chance to talk to. Sergeant Peppers has also been very publicly outspoken about how this project has gone. At the I would like to oppose these appointments and at the very very least lay this over. So, if you want to hear from um people who are really affected by this, we can do that maybe as soon as next week. But this is just kind of a really quick like please stop this before this goes any further. We're concerned of how this uh project has gone and may continue to go. Thank you. >> Thank you. Are there any other opponents here today? >> Seeing none, public hearing is closed. Council member Feserson, you're recognized. Mr. >> President, just comments on two of these items 26 through 54. I am supportive today of um Mayor Euin's um reappoints of these folks to several BIDs here, not just the Saddle Creek, but um Saddle Creek was mentioned. Um these are reappoints to folks who have served um in the initial creation of that B uh and have done the work. Um I've always encouraged there be more involvement and I welcome more involvement in that interest uh going forward if that's the case. It's not a conflict of interest to be a property owner u in a B. In fact, that's a requirement uh to be on a B board of of any B. Uh so I don't I don't think that particular comment was um was justified, but I do welcome additional involvement and I hope other business owners will consider uh applying to the mayor's office to be uh on this board. This reappoint just makes sure they can still have a minimum of five members, which is required. Uh but they can't have more. Uh many BS have seven, some have more than that. Um, I'm sure the mayor's office would be in agreement to want to see that happen. Uh, more involvement's better from my perspective and I'm I'm sure his. And then the last item I would just say, um, number 39, I want to thank public works, um, for their, um, persistence on this project. This is a $2.8 million repaving project in Florence, uh, North Ridge Drive. It has never been paved in our city's history and probably never will have been except for the poverty plan that we have uh as it applies to unimproved streets. So, they qualified for that program. Um this $2.8 million will be covered by the city to get that done this year and it'll be a great great improvement for that part of part of our city uh that needs it badly. So, I don't see any further lights on. So, I'll motion um to approve items 26 through 54. >> Second. >> Thank you. We had a motion and a second. I'll make a couple comments. Um, for people that are here that are listening out there, when I remove somebody, and I hate to have to do this, but when I remove somebody, it's because either you're off the agenda items or your three minutes is up. And as consistent, as fair as I always try to be, I've cut people off at three minutes consistently every time. And I'll even say when the first time I threw Mr. store out of our meeting. I met with them in our pre-consel meeting the following week and I try to get a conversation that hey I don't want to have to do that. What can we do to just kind of have a understanding of each other and and Mr. Store didn't want any part of that. So I consistently will try to be fair but when he interrupts a meeting at the end of three minutes or he's off topic during his comments then I will have him removed. So that's in fairness to the public. So we have a meeting that is structured and that is not out of line and it's not disruptive. So I appreciate that. Second, uh, Council Member Feserson, that North Ridge Drive, I know he's been working on that since I've been on the council. So I share your jubilation and that's finally going to get done because I I drove that with him on the way to lunch one day and he helped me understand what that process was of how those funds can be applied to certain areas and it was a good learning experience. So congratulations on that. We have no further lights. We had a motion and a second. Roll call. >> Goodwin. >> Harding. >> Yes. >> Hug. >> Yes. >> Melton. >> Yes. >> Row. >> Fester. >> Yes. >> Mr. President. >> I. >> Motion pass seven to zero. Item 55, an ordinance to approve amendment number one to the construction manager at risk agreement with McCarthy Building Companies, Inc. for the Pilion Creek Water Resource Recovery Facility Secondary Expansion Project. A is communication and support. B is communications and opposition. C is amendment of the whole requested by the law department. D is documentation from the law department. >> Council discussion item 55. I know we had Sorry. Go ahead, Council Member >> Melton. >> We had a motion and a second to lay over no lights >> to the April 21st. >> April 21. Correct. >> Okay. >> Motion to layover. There was a second for layover to April 21st. No lights. Uh roll call. >> Goodwin. >> Harding. >> Yes. Hug. Yes. >> Melton >> Row >> Fester. >> Yes. >> Mr. President, >> I. >> Motion pass seven to zero. >> Item 56, a resolution to approve the builder's risk insurance policy term and conditions and payment of the premium in the amount of $2,800,000 for the Pilion Creek Water Resource Recovery Facility Secondary Expansion Project. >> Public hearing is now open on item 56. Are there any proponents? >> Seeing none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is closed. >> Second. >> There was a motion and a second to lay this item 56 over as well for two weeks to April 21st, 2026. No further lights. Roll call. >> Goodwin. >> Harding. Yes. Hug. >> Melton. Yes. Row. >> Fester. Yes. >> Mr. President. I. >> Motion pass seven to zero. Item 57, a resolution to approve a settlement agreement for Newport Blue Impact LP versus City of Omaha in the amount of $310,000. >> Public hearing is now open on item 57. Are there any proponents? Seeing none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is closed. Council member Harding, you're recognized. >> Actually, I'll let Mr. Ro go first because this is his project but I I'll have some comments after he >> withdraw. Council member Harding. Council member Row, you're recognized. >> Harding. Uh yes, this has been a U project that uh honestly when I was elected in 2021 within two weeks of that election, I was contacted about this property. So it's been on my radar for almost five years. and I believe it was on the radar of council member Paul's for a number of years before um I took office as well. So, it's been a classic building that checks all the boxes for nuisance and condemned building. It's on a very high-profile street uh just off of 108 and industrial road. Uh so there are thousands of cars that drive by there. It's been in disrepair for all of those years. It's a it's a it's a nuisance property. It attracts um illegal activity as reported by uh members of the southwest precinct of our Omaha police. It's been um set on fire numerous times. Our fire department's been there. We've spent resources trying to uh salvage that property. It's been since my time, we've had three different owners of the property. And the owner today is not a developer, does not want to own it, wants to de to to to turn it, and uh they just haven't had an an opportunity to get that done. So, thankfully, our uh law department and our finance department were able to come up with a creative solution. I'd like to call Tyler up and maybe you could kind of speak to how that negotiation went and how we came to the terms that uh we're voting on today. Um well >> that's what Tyler >> Yes. I will tell you that um I did prep prepare the confidential memorandum for this council. I don't want to get too much into some of the reasons I list out in there because it is protected at the moment by attorney client privilege. If I get into those forum sorry Tyler then give your name and address. >> Tyler hea 1819 Farnum Street sweet 804 uh city of Omaha law department. Um really uh there was a lawsuit that was filed and there was a temporary restraining order that was issued by the judge. Um the city does have an opportunity to go into court and to challenge that. Um there's some positives for the city of Omaha in the case. There's some negatives for the city of Omaha in the case. Um those some of those negatives were outlined in that memorandum and some of our concerns. Um if we went into court and tried to challenge the TTRO, um some of those concerns were addressed in that memorandum. Um and we made the recommendation um to this council that we accept the settlement agreement where in the settlement agreement what the city is agreeing to do and the really the only thing the city is agreeing to do is uh to not assess the property if um the purchase order that was approved by this council for the $310,000 is the purchase order that is used to demolish the property. So um if something were to happen um and we had to get another bidder and another price, the settlement agreement would not apply to that. But if this settle, this purchase order is used to demolish the property, the city would agree to not assess the property, we then would um be allowed to demolish it and we would not be challenged on our decision to demolish it in the future for some sort of inverse condemnation or other type of action. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you for that for that explanation. I will tell you that uh uh the funds used the when I mentioned the creativity of our law department and finance department, the funds being used to uh do this demo work come from uh community betterment funds that are funded by Kino operations. Um, and I actually got a call from Bill Harvey who uh runs Big Red Kino and he said, 'You know, we we pay these fees every month and he goes, "I really appreciate that the fees that we pay are going to be used for something like this. They're actually one of the neighbors in that area, uh, their business." And, um, and I could go into all of the neighbors that have contacted me on the north, on the west, you know, across the street. Um, the property is just has been a nuisance and I I hope we can vote to uh move forward today. >> Thank you, Mr. Harding. >> Thank you, Council Member Harding. You're recognized. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. President. Uh, totally agree with with Don. Uh, this this property has to go. It it's been a problem, a nuisance. Um and appreciate the u both um the law department and finance for coming up with the uh for the funds recognizing or identifying the funds that would be needed to to do so. And it's a actually it's a my mind a very good price for for the demo. But I'm really concerned that um as Mr. Rose said, I think it's the third owner since he's been on the council. Um, this owner doesn't want to develop the ground, but uh, the owner is getting a lot of benefit by holding the ground and filing the the temporary or getting a temporary restraining order against the the notice to demolish uh, last fall. I think it was in October 25 that they asked for and received a resoning from General Industrial to CC. that adds to the value of the property. You uh as as Mr. Row mentioned, it's at about 108 and L. Very highly visible, recognizable, marketable piece of ground, especially with new zoning on it that allows more uh uses on that ground than than GI would have. And uh with a uh very favorable amount uh for the demolition costs of a little over 300,000, it basically adds or if you will, it's about $187 or so per square foot. It's about it's just short of four acres. That is the cost to to demo it. And with the additional uh value that's been that really comes along with this reszoning and then only less than $2 a foot to demolish the ground, we're we're doing more to make this property even more valuable to the the current ownership and we're and we're waving the the ability to put a lean on the property. I mean, what we should be doing is doing exactly what Mr. row wanted to have done years ago, demolish the property, but we need to put a lean on the property and when the sale of that property, which most likely is more likely to happen now with the reasonzoning and having a clean site, I you know, I I'm all in favor of getting this done, but I'm not in favor of of waving the right to put a lean on it. And I know that might cause more time, but that's exactly the game that the the the current owner is trying to play. and I'm not going to be a part of it. >> Thank you. Council member Feserson, you're recognized. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Do you want to have a chance to address the lean issue or something you'd prefer not to address in >> As far as the lean issue? I mean, that is part of the deal and and council member Harding's concerns are valid. Um, it is to some extent a benefit to this specific property. Um the job is to to weigh those benefits with the potential risks that are outlined in the memorandum and then decide what the policy decision is there um for this this council and and and we've made a recommendation and it's up for you to decide with finality. >> Yep. I understand your position and I also understand Mr. Harding's position. And I, you know, I I I share some of those concerns, but I I'll also just share a story that I was at the Crimes Stoppers event um last week and I sat next to the officers from the southwest precinct in this area and um that was the one thing they asked me. We t we talked about a lot of different things, but the one thing they asked me is when's when's this hotel coming down? And I think it sometimes um you just have to take some action uh from a policy perspective as you noted there and and get it done. And I think that's been Mr. row's calculation and so I'll be supportive today. Thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member Row. You're recognized. >> Thanks. I'll weigh in a little bit more. Um I had a similar reaction to u when Mr. Koozie told me about um the the track that this was going. And I I did I had the same reaction. I said, "I don't like that deal." But you know what? The neighbors have been long-suffering. I think that's a word that I can use. They've been suffering through driving by this property looking at this property. I mean, I have people at my church every week, hey, what are you doing about that hotel? When's that hotel coming down? It's a eyes sore for Millard. And uh I I just want us to take an opportunity. And I recognize the risk and for us for me to go back to the neighbors and say, "Oh, we're going to wait uh until the property is sold so we can collect the the dollars." I I'd love to have the $300,000 in our bank account. Trust me. Um but I I'm gonna have a hard time explaining to the neighbors that we had an opportunity to to take it down and and we missed it. So I'm going to be voting in the affirmative uh to tear this building down. >> Thank you, Council Member Harding. You're recognized. >> Sorry. Yeah. I'm not I don't I'm not going back and forth with you, Don. again because you know I you know I'm supportive of getting this knocked down but I meant to say in my earlier comments too that we're again we're almost rewarding the current property owner by not taking care of his property and I I am concerned of a precedent that that may set for other property owners going forward that hey all I have to do is wait the city out, file a file a a temporary or get a temporary restraining order against the the action to condemn or to to demolish and they'll make a deal with me. But I I you're right, the people not only in that neighborhood, but everyone who drives up and down uh 680 there, or is it 80 at that point and L Street and 108? You're right. they have. But I I think u I I can't I'm not an attorney, but it would seem that all the the reasons that we put the the order to demolish on there are valid and that this property owner should be held responsible for it. I mean, all they have to do is when they sell the property for that increased value with the the new zoning and and a very small amount, less than $2 to to demo the site, they can pay us at closing. They can eliminate that lean by paying paying us to eliminate the lean at closing. We have we have we have, I think, the facts on our side. I understand that that's going to take more time, but that's I worry about that that precedent that we may be setting to entice others to do the same to their property. >> Thank you, Council Member Goodwin. You're recognized. >> Thank you, Mr. President. And um listen, vacant and abandoned properties, welcome to Norththeast Omaha, Southeast Omaha. They're in abundance. And I think um no one wants to see it in their neighborhood, right? No one wants to drive past it. Um I I have to agree with Council Member Harding that whereas I want to see Council Member Row get this done, you know, it's $300,000 that Wow. you know, we fight for dollars to bring back to our district for things that are are very important. Um, it's why I'm going to kind of plug a longer term solution. It's not going to help this, but it's LB620 is that receiverhip. We've got to be able to cycle these properties out sooner. we've got to where they're sitting, they're vacant, they're abandoned, they're attract, they're all the things that council member Row said, you know, they're attractive nuisances. Um they're lowering property values. Um in in in in district two, they're um a lot of houses that could be rehabbed that that could be then turned into pro productive housing. Um so longer term, I always think about the short term. The short term is getting this done in in Council Member Rose's district for this specific site, but the longer term is looking at how we we not allow this to happen over and over again. I think all of us can point to it in our district. All of us have one. I've got a lot probably the most next to council member uh Row or Hug. But I I I'm concerned about the president. I think specifically because of what is we know happens in district 2. Um although I am supportive of you getting this done, I think we I think we need to rethink this. So I'll be voting no. >> Thank you. Council member Melton, you're recognized. >> Well, I would agree. I mean, just a couple hours ago, we were sitting as the the board of equalization, and what do we always say? Well, if the work's been done, we're not going to make the taxpayers pay. We have no choice. Um, you know, we deny the appeal and uphold the assessment on the properties. And we do that for, you know, um, people who have may have been in the hospital and their yard didn't get mowed and then the city had to go out four times and we're charging them an administration fee or they've got garbage on their property. They, you know, and the city goes out, they do the work. We say we're going to assess the property. I think that one today was $600. It was 600. Um, and I think she had been in the hospital and couldn't her sister was trying to take care of things and didn't didn't do it right. And we assessed their property. And so every single person that was on our our agenda were individuals and many of whom came down and told us they couldn't afford it. Another gentleman was on $1,000 a month, I think, income, fixed income. Okay, we just heard Saab stories that I always say, but when you're sitting on the board of EEK, you have to rule according to the ordinance and the law, not with your heart because that's the job we accepted. So now I feel like I'm voting with my heart for because how much I like Councilman Row. Um, and I know how hard he's worked on this and the people and the police officers. Um, and also the crimes and I think some of the trafficking, multiple kinds of trafficking that have been going on in that property that there are actual victims inside. So that's there are victims on that property. Um, but the precedents that this sets after what we did between 1 and 2 o'clock today and now we're going to give and I I have no idea who this owner is. I don't even believe I don't believe they're from here. I don't think any of us know them. No idea. I mean, all I then some generic name that you've given me, right? Um I just I I'm having a really hard time giving the property owner that kind of benefit after saying no to all the people we said no to a couple hours ago. But I'm struggling with this one. And I don't know if we want to if you want to lay it over and give us time to think about it. I could add it. It may be persuasive, it may not be. As far as the precedence is concerned, I do see distinct characteristics of this case um that probably wouldn't be present in future cases. And as Brinker council uh Harding said, uh we have a good deal here. Um, and if there is delay, the the risk, and I kind of want to be careful here because it gets into some of what was said in the memo, it's not just the time, it's the potentially losing the deal and having to find a different source of funding for uh in a more expensive de demolition. So, that is part of what's interplay into this um into this specific circumstance. So I would say that that I trust me I understand like I had the same reservations at one point thinking through this that every single one of you have had but I do see some distinct characteristics of this case that probably would not be present in future cases. >> Council member Melon, are you done? >> Please. Yeah, >> he responded to that one with me. Well, and I guess that would be part of my concern is there is an open case going on right now. >> So, this is for purposes of of settling. Now I and there is a risk that we'll have to demolish this property and it could cost quite a bit more. And there's no guarantee that we actually will recover that if the land doesn't sell or if the owners the property isn't worth the as much. And and and by the way, here's where I'm the lawyer and I'm going to defer to somebody that knows more about the the property and the value of the property. Um but that that would be my where I would probably be voting for it. I don't want to cost the city more money with no opportunity to get it back. So, >> and that's kind of the difficult process here. >> Thanks. >> Sorry. Were you done? I'm not trying to cut you. Okay. Quick question for you, Tyler. >> The president that you're talking about specifically. >> So, we have two options and and I don't want to go outside and >> just cut me off if I'm going down the road that I shouldn't go down, but >> we have two options. We we agree with this settlement is proposed here today. >> If if we pass it, it's done. If we reject it, that puts us at risk for a future higher price to demo it if we go down that road again. >> Yeah. What would happen is we would have a hearing and I try to do it as fast as possible um to get rid of the TTRO immediately. Um and if we get rid of the TTRO immediately, I don't want to mislead you. We we could potentially salvage the the current purchase order, the current price. If that doesn't happen though, then you're waiting an extended period of time um an extended period of time where it's it's still standing there. We're still having the same issues. And then also because of that time, we may lose the $310,000 price as well and really truly be starting from scratch um instead of just waiting for the pendency of the the case to be over. Um, as far as what would happen at the TTRO hearing, I mean, I'm not going to say we have zero chance to win. We don't. We have a good case, but there are some some risks that we've seen outlined in the memo um that would be present. >> It's one of those risks that if we don't pass this and and my colleagues did a good job outlining a lot of things with police responding, fire department, I can't imagine how many calls have been there, trafficking, all those things. Is there the risk if we don't pass this, the cost could go up for the city? But also, I mean, do we know what the timeline would be in litigation if this didn't pass? >> I mean, if we if we won on the TTRO hearing, which we might, we might not. Um, if we won on the TTRO hearing, we'd be able to demolish it very quickly. If we didn't, it's it's a guess. I mean, I've seen cases drag on for a year. Sometimes you can do some things to really press them and get them done quickly. So I would say to be safe, I would say somewhere in that six months to a year time frame. Um potentially a little longer if things get drugged out where that case is is pending. Um and then at that point the current purchase order might go away. Um we no longer have that contract. And then even if we were to prevail at trial, then you got to rebid it. You got to secure funding. You got to start from that process >> and the precedent that was discussed. Are you concerned about that a precedent being set if we approve this? >> I I was and I am and I thought through that um when we were really first initially discussing this idea. Um, but as I said, I do think there's some distinct characteristics that make this advantageous advantageous in this particular instance that wouldn't necessarily be there in the future. And um, our our law department would have no problems digging in our our feet in the future if those um, circumstances are not present. >> Okay. >> And I'm sure the council would as well. >> Thanks. I'll um, council member Hug, you're recognized. >> Finally. Um, just to get this out there, I am voting yes. I I I don't disagree with Mr. Harding at all. I agree with everything he says. But I'm more of a glass half full guy than a glass half empty. This is an investment in our community. The sooner we can get this building gone and get this property redeveloped, the sooner we'll have another property in there, generating more tax dollars, generating more jobs, generating something more beneficial to the community. I know how the courts can go. This could drag on two years. Feasibly, if you had somebody that wanted to stall it off, it could go on three years. It's possible. It's happened. I don't want to put our police officers and our firefighters at further risk of having to go back to this property. I don't want our community to have to suffer this. I want to see our community move forward. I mean, we we we tabled something today that we all know we're going to approve, the soccer stadium. And there's a lot of faith and confidence in our community to be to believe that our city can support something like this. In the grand scheme of things, as somebody once told me on the third floor, $300,000 isn't a lot of money. It is a lot of money if you look at it like, okay, we're giving this guy something. We're not really giving him something. We're taking control of the future of this city. That's what it's getting us. So that's why I'm supporting it. I want to see our city move forward. I want to see our neighborhoods move forward. Now on the other side, a couple of years ago, and I mean like two short years ago, I had a friend of mine, a close friend, he did 30 days in county jail for a downspout. True story. Anybody wants his name, I'll be happy to give you his name. He went to court over a downspout. He got 30 days. We need to hold that same standard to owners of these properties all over our city. We need to use that same prosecution and start holding the people accountable. And council member, I have been supporting LB620 for since its inception. And LB620 is a gamecher. It would change situations like this. So, let's look at this as a glass half empty. Let's look at this as moving our society and our city forward. If that means giving somebody $300,000, don't look at it that way. Look at as we're taking we are buying control of our city, our future, and our destiny. So, that's why I'm supporting it. Thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member Row. You're recognized. >> Thank you once again. Thank you, Council Member Hug. I appreciate those words because that that's kind of the track I was going down as well. I my goal is just to make that a productive property. You know, it's just not productive today. It's a nuisance and it's a detriment to our community. if we and we were fortunate. I was thankful that the council voted for the CC zoning change because it did offer the the owner uh an opportunity to have a better opportunity to sell that property and they had a wider net that they could cast and and u I don't know you know if they're in negotiations on the sale of that today or not but I think um for me I think it it's just a it's time for us to move forward and I'm not interested been, you know, really laying it over. I think we're all pretty much settled in our mind where we want to go. I think we can just dispose of this today. Literally dispose of it. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, Council Member Harding, you're recognized. >> Tyler had a couple quick questions. >> Yes. >> Um, Council Member Melton looked at me like I knew the answer to a question I thought she was going to ask, and I I honestly I'm anticipating this, and I don't think I know the answer, so I'm going to ask the attorney. Where would the city stand for settlement of the lean at closing or for I mean so if you get to closing and there's lean on the property where would the city stand in payment >> second to real property taxes >> to taxes. Okay. >> Yeah. So it's a special assessment. It's a uh it is in a way a tax and as far as priority is concerned we would be second to real property tax. >> Okay. So yeah, we would get paid in essence >> if the purchase price Yes. Assuming that I don't >> assuming the purchase prices for more than the taxes there, we would get paid. >> Um, so tell me I I I I'm not sure I quite understand on why the bid changes if this does if if this settlement isn't agreed to. I I mean it is it's a good it's a good deal. Um it's a good price and if it's a year down the road it it probably doesn't be the price for I mean we've been talking about this and I don't know that months and I don't know to what extent it would be honored at that point in time. Um it's >> it's it's becoming >> Yeah. Which Bernard's saying it's only good probably for a specific period and and typically that wouldn't be for 6 months. So I I assume there's been some communication with the the demolition company to see if they would continue to honor this prize. >> Uh yes, there has been. As of now, he is. I'm actually he he calls me frequently. I've been speaking with the owner. Okay. Um he's actually been taking steps throughout this process. Um there's certain preparatory steps you have to take before you demolish the property. Um he's been allowed to take some of those steps. He's taken some of those steps. He's he's getting close to ready to go in and actually demolish it. Um and at this point in time is still is still willing to demolish it for that price. Is there uh I mean we it's it's been I see Scott Lane back there too and he could probably give us chapter and verse of all the unfortunate and disgusting things that have happened in that property as it sits vacant and Miss Melton talked about the trafficking both drug and sex and um it it's it's terrible with with what's happening and and that's why this needs to be addressed. Don't you think that um when you say it could be six months or a year, don't you think a judge would take some of those safety considerations into account when making a judgment as to that to ruling on on whether or not that that restraining or the temporary restraining order continues. >> I think they're relevant factors. Yes. And they would be taken into they should be taken into consideration. That's part of the calculus. >> Yeah, I would too. Um, I guess last thing I was going to say to Miss Goodwin's um, you know, think think of, you know, if if if the funding is there today for the demolition from the city side and at closing, the city is reimbursed for that or the leans paid off. Think of what that 300,000 could do toward demolition in in other parts of our town. I mean, we've we when I first got on the council, um my memory is that we would at at budget time, we were always trying to find extra money to put in the demolition fund. And if we identified $300,000 that could be used for demolition and it could be used for demolition in this case with a lean and the city and that's repaid, then think and we could use that 300,000 for for more demolition in other areas of town. I think that would be a benefit. >> Thanks. >> Thank you, Council Member Hug. You're recognized. >> The benefit would be if we could get LB620 passed. We would never have any demolition costs ever again. If we if we do not approve this, we will have to go back out to bid. And the one external factor that's out of our control is the price of diesel. All the equipment that's going to be used in demolition of this building uses diesel. The trucks that haul it away, the bulldozers that are going to bulldoze it and load on them trucks. I think diesel's gone up well over a dollar a gallon. So, and more than likely once this building is demoed and is hauled away, it's going to go to a private landfill place to be processed. Their equipment's using diesel. So, I would spec and I and I I've already heard from another contractor who does demolition work and he told me he had no idea how how this guy could do it so cheap. So, I would speculate that if we go back out to bid on this, it's probably going to come back closer to 400,000. But again, the risk is in how many times do we want to put our firefighters at risk? How many more times we want to put our law enforcement officers at risk when we can move our city forward and get this developed? Thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member Goodwin. to recognize. >> Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I want to be clear that I'm a problem solver and I I get that council member row is is is trying to solve a problem, at least the first step because I I want to clarify that the the process is is that the building will be demoed, but the owner still owns the land. Is that correct? >> Yes. So then we don't have control. We we we have taken a step, but that property could still sit there vacant. All right. And that's where LB620 comes in because it it moves that cycle along um through receiverhip and potential remediation and development. But so I just want to clarify that although I I I get the urgency. I mean, again, I I drive past houses as I go to my home that have been sitting there for decades. Um, and so it's not that I don't care about remediating nuisance uh properties for and and and can identify also with all the horrible things. I mean, that's why I'm oftentimes on my soap box, if you will, uh about uh safe communities, um beautifying neighborhoods, and supporting small businesses. Uh so, I just want to clarify my position here. If if we had the lean uh ability, then hey, I'm I'm all for it. Um, and I don't know the extenduating circumstances that would create a separate case for a situation down the road. And today we don't have LB 620. It's it's a state law that would have to be passed. So what I what I am hearing though is support for that. Um although it wouldn't necessarily we'd have to adopt something at the city level uh when when that passes when and if it passes. So I I'm taking notes on that. Um uh but again I think that factor that we will not have that lean position although it' be second you know um and I and I think it's going to pass regard regardless and I and I support that for you council member uh Ro I want to be very clear about that but um I I still with all the enthusiasm of council member Hug um you know um and I probably again won't sway how it goes overall but I I just can't I can't go forward forward with that. So, ju just wanted to bring that clarity to to the conversation. Thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member Row, you're recognized. Last time, >> I have a I I have about 50 pictures on my phone of this property, and I'm tempted to come up and show them on the screen, but the graffiti is too too vulgar for me to even show my wife. Um, so I'm not going to do that. But I am going to might make a motion that we approve item number 57. >> We have a motion and a second and I'll comment. Thanks for your memo and sitting here and taking the incoming because we learn from each other. I say this all the time. I I had my mind where I was going and I had pause but I am going to support this because at the end Mr. Lane's inspectors all police fire the betterment and safety of our community. It's an eyesore that's been there too long and this is maybe not the perfect tool to get rid of it, but it's one that I'm going to support today and we'll deal with the others that are out there in the future. >> Thanks. >> No further lights. We had a motion and a second roll call. >> Goodwin, >> Hardin, >> no. >> Hug, >> yes. >> Melton, >> no. >> Row, >> yes. >> Fester, >> yes. >> Mr. President, >> yes. >> Motion pass four to three. Item 58, an ordinance loving a special tax and assessment to cover the cost of constructing sidewalks in district number SWR 2025-01. >> Public hearing is now open on item 58. Are there any proponents? Seeing none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is closed. Item 59, an ordinance to approve a streetscape maintenance agreement with Jasper Stone 192nd and Dodge LLC for the Avenue 1 Replat 6 site northeast of 192nd and Burke Streets. >> Public hearing is now open on item 59. Good afternoon. >> Good afternoon, council members. My name is Carlson Cook uh with Jasper Stone Partners located at 16820 Francis Street. Um here to answer any questions regarding the streetscape maintenance agreement. >> Thank you. Are there any other proponents here today? Seeing none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is closed. >> Item 60, an ordinance to approve a 5-year master software and services agreement with VersaTerm Public Safety US, Inc. for the Omaha Police Department. >> Public hearing is open on item 60. Are there any proponents? Seeing none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is closed. Item 61 to the T construction appeals rejection of their bid from March 4th, 2026 for OPW55129 concrete street reconstruction 183rd Street and Wright Street. >> Uh is there someone from T Construction here? >> Yes, Aaron Meyer is to the T. I'm sorry. >> Yeah, >> sorry. Go ahead. >> Uh my address is 517 North 9th Street Plats, Nebraska. Uh, I was just here to appeal the rejection of our bid due to a clerical error on my insurance agent's behalf. Turned in the wrong uh, bid bond. I have with me the raised seal. I was the low bidder on the project as of the date. Um, just really looking for an opportunity to to be considered in this project. I'm new to the SEB program. uh we're highly qualified to handle and tackle this job. So, didn't know if we would be able to still be considered for this due to a clerical error on my insurance agents behalf and I didn't know if you guys wanted the raised seal. Correct. Bid. >> No, we don't need that. Thanks. Stand by. And uh city Tyler >> and then Tyler Heath City Law Department. Um this is uh we've seen a few of them recently. It's another one where uh city ordinances require that that bid bond be sc the actual bid band be scanned into the electronic bidding system. It be present when the bids are opened. We can look at that. Um and if it's not there we reject the bids. It's it's somewhat draconian, but I mean, unfortunately, you have to have a line somewhere when you have I don't know how many bids we have every year, and you need to get the bids done, the bids processed, and having that deadline and that that crisp deadline is a benefit to the city. Um, it's harsh, but in the past, we've we've demanded strict compliance, and um hopefully next opportunity gets, we can get that bid bond in here and and move forward. But uh the recommendation is to deny the appeal. >> Thank you. Is there a motion? >> Council member Melton, you're recognized. Yeah, please. >> Well, and for the opponent uh to the TE construction, this council has dealt with these so many times. Um, and and I just want to say unfortunately what seems like something clerical because it's part of the ordinance and it's required and we have held every other bidder to it and we've denied them when the bid bond is not there. We have to remain or we should all remain consistent in what we do and how we vote. So that's the reason why I'm going to have to do the motion. I don't like to do it, but I have to do the motion to deny the appeal um because that's what our ordinance requires. And I understand it seems like it's just clerical, but we've denied multiple biders um their appeals based on this because the ordinance specifically requires it. >> Second. >> Have a motion and a second. >> Well, and I I didn't actually say motion to deny the appeal. So, >> we have a motion to deny and a second. No further lights. Roll call. >> Good one. >> Yes. >> Harding. >> Yes. >> Hug. >> Yes. >> Milton. >> Yes. >> Row. >> Fester. >> Yes. >> Mr. President. >> I. >> Motion pass. Item 62. Building Crafts Inc. appeals the rejection of their bid from January 28th, 2026 for OPW53979. Pabio WRRF belt filter press expansion. >> This is not a Let's see. Not a public hearing. Someone from the company to speak on the bid. Mr. Powers. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Uh Jim Powers, McGrath North, 1601 Dodge Street, Sweet 3700, uh 68102. Uh good afternoon. I'm here on behalf of Building Crafts, Inc. who was uh bid was rejected on the project. And it's important to note that they were the lowest bid, but it was rejected because uh public works found that the city could not or that the building craft they did not think could uh complete the project on budget on time. And in connection with this uh appeal, I did we have submitted a letter and I think it's part of the agenda and I just want to make sure everyone has gotten that. Um and I've just taken part of that letter and put it here. And also with me today is the president of the company, John Zala. He's going to talk about this the ability of the company to perform under this project. Uh the reason the uh bid was rejected was not about the bid. It was about uh ongoing problems with another project on Missouri River digesttor 2 and three. Now that project is almost complete and uh we're not saying there weren't some issues on it. Uh and we also believe a lot of these issues with it relate to a supplier that was pre-selected, not our choice. Uh but what I think is important is that in denying the bid, they uh awarded to another party based upon what they said was a long history that they could perform. Well, BCI is not new to the city of Omaha. They've been doing projects for over 10 years and have had no problem uh until recently with this contract. And if you look in our letters on page two, but here's just a summary of the contracts and those total over $15 million. And based upon our math, we believe that they were the lowest bid on these projects and save the city about 1.5 million over the course of this time. And so I think when you look at a bid and you say they can't perform, you can't just take one isolated project and say there's some issues. There are issues and the city noted it, but we're standing behind the contract. They have not run from the project. They're still working, still trying to perform, still, in fact, I believe they're very close to completing it. And the public works, I think, is has isolated that and pushed that contract to say they can't perform this contract. The contract that was bid is very similar to one of the very first project they did for the city. And I think that the real question for the city council today is can they perform? Can they perform on time? And do they have the ability to do so? And I I just think that anybody's involved in construction knows over the course of the time. Every once in a while there are some issues. But the real issue is do the parties run from the obligation. Do they stand behind the contract? Is the city going to lose money on this deal because of it in some fashion? And so I I think you'll find that the that's not what they're going to say that the city that they're still working together. They have a very good relationship, always have, and we want to continue to have that relationship with the city on behality of the history and those projects right there, which is right in their wheelhouse, what they do. And I think you'll find that they're ready to perform under this contract and can and the isolated issues that happened on the other project don't necessarily mean that automatically it should bar them from another project if the bid meets it if they have the qualifications and which they certainly do and a long history at the city and I think uh it's better to hear from John uh the president of the company talk about how they intend to perform and what they can do in the future. So, I'm going to turn it over to John. >> Good afternoon. Uh, my name is John Zalla. I operate out of our Kentucky office at 2 Rosewood Drive, Wilder, Kentucky, 41076. Um, I want to thank you guys for uh uh everyone here for allowing me to speak. Um, just real quickly, a quick history. our company. My grandpa and five other uh uh people started the company back in 1956. In the late 60s, early 70s, my dad, who's still with us now, um took the company from they were doing small remodels on churches and schools and took them to building water and wastewater plants. He's never built a water wastewater plant before 1970, but they started then. And that's what we do almost exclusively now out of out of Kentucky office, out of our Omaha office, and now down in Texas. and we we operate we build water and wastewater treatment plants and I think we we do it pretty well and I think we are prepared to do this project successfully. Um you pointed out the project up there before one of the first projects we did um on the same site uh we did that uh uh very successfully. It's a very similar project with the same type of equipment and things like that. Um we do have the management team available um to do this project successfully. Um uh and if we get the opportunity to do this this project, I can uh uh give you my personal guarantee. I'll be involved with the projects. We have our regional manager Chad Nikoli that'll be involved on a weekly basis uh with the project. We got an experienced project manager lined up for it with a couple project uh uh engineers working with him. U and and we just like the opportunity to do it. We'd like the opportunity maybe to sit down with the city again and and propose our team uh getting in front of them and then uh see what we can do about the doing this project successfully for you all. Thank you. Council members, any questions, comments? Council member Melton, you're recognized. >> Thanks. Well, and again, I like to try and keep consistency in how I make decisions. So, and you can sit down if you would like. No problem. And and I guess what I would like to do is just if I could call the um city up, >> it's up to you. >> I don't care which one of you wants to come up because I mean because here's the questions. >> I guess I don't know necessarily know I have any questions. How about you interrupt me if if I say anything wrong either one of you. what I what how I look at these appeals for purposes of awarding contracts and I think Mr. powers. Actually, in your on page three, you actually cite a case Roth versus City of Sutton um where the Nebraska Supreme Court um has concluded that public officials have broad discretionary authority in the competitive bidding process while finding in favor of municipalities so long as they are acting in the best interests of the municipality. That means absent a showing of bad faith, favoritism, ill will, fraud, or collusion. And I've always looked at it as as long as our directors have I don't believe they've abused their discretion that they're doing it for any other kind of um purpose other than what's in the best interest of the city, then I support the bidder that they've selected. And again, that's why in our process, um, it's lowest and best. And that is what our ordinance requires. And so I will leave it to our directors to make that decision and I will support them as long as I don't find that there is an abuse of discretion. Meaning the contractor or the bidder that was rejected. It doesn't they could be a good they could be a good person. Maybe there were problems. Maybe there weren't problems. In fact, I don't necessarily think that's relevant at this point. Um, I don't find that the our our city department head or his assistant or our attorney has acted in any kind of bad faith, ill will, or abuse their discretion in choosing the bidder they choose chose. And it's over a 7 million project. And I think the difference in the bids was about 40,000, which is fairly insignificant. Um anyway, and so that that's the reason that I will stand behind the public works department because I nothing has been presented by the appellant to show that it was based on bad faith, favoritism, ill will, fraud, or collusion. So unless I've said anything differently, Jim, I believe that you um rejected the bidder. >> Yeah. Uh Jim Tyler, >> sorry to other Jim, I apologize. >> Jim Jim Tyler, city of Mr. Tyler. Yeah. Jim Tyler, City of Om Public Works, like as you said, um less than $40,000. Um and we have the discretion to go with what is lowest and best. Okay. The current performance of building crafts, you know, they're looking at projects that were done over the course of 10 years. The current performance of building crafts, this project, they have been on notice for almost two years to try to get this project back on track. And it's an incredibly important project for the success of our treatment plant, the current project that they are over a year over budget on. So we were lock step in line with our engineers, our plant managers on um we are not going to have this contractor with this bid working on this project. It's not in the best interest of the city. >> Okay. Thank you. And that that's all that's all I needed to hear. Quite frankly, I don't want to hear the arguments over who said what to who or who delayed what. Like, I don't think it's relevant to this other than I find that your reasoning is sound and that it's not based on fraud or ill or collusion or something else. Um, and that's how I look at it. I don't believe that you've abused your discretion and going with the second lowest bidder based on lowest and best bid under our city ordinance. All right. I have nothing. Is it possible? >> Please go ahead. >> Thank you for your comments. I I understand what you're saying and you know that's why we put the case in there. We're not you know that we're telling we know I've worked with Ryan on bids and and so in the city. So that is the case uh that there is broad discretion but that discretion goes both ways. you have the discretion to send it back uh to the uh public works and the real issue is can they perform and what they're saying is they can't perform because I'm a problem on one so it's not they have shown no ability we think we could show the ability we think the history especially the first project so that's all we're saying but for sure I you know I think it's important you say what the law is and we did >> thank you for that and I just like to put What I try and do is remain consistent of everyone so that no matter who the bidder >> sometimes we've had an you know an appellant up that I know I know has done a good job you know but we I we have to stay consistent so I'm just letting you know how I review these cases and the kind of discretion that I give to our public works department who know far better than me um what you know what contractors they want to perform on their contract who they believe is the best and I don't think it necessarily means your client couldn't perform the work, but they believe that maybe another one could is the better is the better choice. And I'm going to go ahead and give them that discretion to do so. >> And and I just like to say also I I meant to say this earlier when the biggest concern is this some how a black mark on them going forward in the future with the city of Omaha and that you know when you you get a just hey you had a problem on one you can't work for us anymore. I don't think that would be proper and I don't think that uh so I think this is just we really wanted to put our best foot forward here today to tell this you know that explain who we are uh we think we can do this project and we like the opportunity. >> No and I you know my my um just unsolicited advice but in response to that would they're still working on that current project. I mean, make sure they're doing that project well, communicating with public works because I think our public works department, I mean, they'll allow somebody to maybe mess up, but as long as they're they're going to show you how they can fix it and how they've turned around anything or, you know, if there were communication issues, these guys these guys are really willing to work work with them and they do want competitive biders. So, we don't want they don't want to turn somebody away because it actually could increase the cost of future projects. We want competitive biders. So, I guess I would suggest after this, if this doesn't pass, really work on on on maybe working on that relationship under the current project so that they'll want to work with with them, you know, again in the future. >> Understood. I appreciate that. But I I don't think communication really I mean I do they do work hard on that but >> again I don't want to get into the specifics just because I think there's enough here in my opinion but I always think it's just important to tell people how and why I'm voting the way the way I am as opposed to just be remain silent and give a vote that you have no idea um how you know how or why we did it. And that's why I do it. is try and remain consistent and treat every person that's in front of that podium fairly kind of regardless of who they are. I just try and maintain the same standard for how I view these. So, no, thank you very much, Mr. Powers. I appreciate I appreciate the the time and effort that you put into this because it really made us think unlike other >> opinions and >> nothing further. >> Thanks, Council Member Melton. Council member Hug, you're recognized. >> Mr. President, I'd like to make a motion to lay this over for a week >> today. >> Why is everybody looking at Bernard? We have to vote on it today. >> Yeah, >> we have to vote on it today. All right. Well, then I make a motion that we approve the appeal. >> We have a you allow the appeal. >> If you allow the appeal, you would have to direct it to the department, too. >> That's what I said. Okay. >> Okay. >> That did not get a second. I'm going to make a a motion to deny the appeal. >> There's a motion and a second to deny the appeal. Council member Goodwin, you're recognized. >> Thank you. Um, I just wanted to say that in situations like this, we we as the council, we do need to rely on the guidance of the department heads primarily because we're not experts in this space. Um, and I think that when we get put in the middle of these decisions, we then have to do a whole lot of learning on the spot to understand what we're considering here. And that can be very complex. And I'm thinking more so of even another agenda item on this case where then we we're just pulled in the middle and we're forced to then call to question our department heads which I don't have a problem with when there is fraud or anything like that. But that's not what we're dealing with here. So I also wanted to address the the concept of potentially a black mark. I don't think that's what's being said here. Um, I believe that essentially our public works department is addressing a specific decision that was made and then we have to determine if we're going to move forward with that decision or not. >> If you would let me comment on that, please. I'm glad that was brought up because this this is about this project. We would never take and and take a contractor and say we're not going to allow you on all future projects. This is about this project, the current performance and where we need to be right now. >> And thank you. That's what I wanted to elevate that that I think that that's what's in front of us and and that's the decision that will be made today and that we've we've seen it before where other contractors have come and they've been awarded contracts or allowed to participate in the bid process because now it was a new contract in a in a in a different scenario. So, I just wanted to bring that clarity. um to to this discussion. Thank you. >> Thank you. Council member Feserson, you're recognized. >> Thanks, Mr. President. That was the exact point I just wanted to emphasize to this is not a black spot. I think that's the main point of the the appellent here and that that's clear and we appreciate you as a competitive bidder going forward regardless of the outcome here today. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Thanks. And uh my comments are the same that you came up from Kentucky. Mr. Mr. Powers did a great job of outlining the projects you've done successfully with the city and I'm glad it's been reiterated here a couple times, Mr. Powers, that it's not a black mark. And I think Mr. Tyler said the same thing that if there's future contracts with the city, this isn't going to be held over your head if this is rejected today. So, I think you did a good job and we appreciate you coming up to demonstrate your street credit, if you will, on behalf of your company of a couple generations. It sounds like that whatever happened here that public works is rejecting your bid. It doesn't prevent you and we hope that you do come back because you being here today signifies to me that whatever happened, it's you are putting your mark of your family's generations of your company for the city of Omaha. So appreciate you coming here today. We have no further lights. We had a motion and a second. Roll call. >> Goodwin. >> Yes. >> Harding. >> Yes. >> Hug. >> Yes. >> Milton. >> Yes. >> Row Ferson. >> Yes. >> Mr. President, >> yes. >> Motion pass. Items 63 through 89 do not require public hearing or city council consideration at this meeting, but will be placed on a future agenda for public hearing and or vote. The reason for non-action is noted after the item on the agenda as well as the date the item is expected to appear on an agenda for consideration. >> Motion and a second to adjurnn. Roll call. >> Goodwin. >> Harding. >> Yes. >> Hug. Melton. >> Row. Fester. Yes. >> Mr. President. >> Yes. >> Motion passed. Meeting is adjourned at 5:33.