Harding Harding Hug Melton Rowe, Mr.

President.

Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance and remain standing for opening remarks by Councilmember Ron Hugg.

We also have proclamations.

Thank you.

Indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

A few proclamations.

And it's I apologize, but just for expediency's sake, it's gonna kind of be a group event.

But and I'm not gonna read the full thing, but I'm just gonna give kind of a brief explanation of what we're doing.

I wasn't here during COVID.

But with great pride, I watched the leadership that this council uh performed during a very difficult time for our for our community.

And I watched a number of other businesses who stepped up and uh helped out their neighbors, their friends, their colleagues, or everybody in the community.

And it really made me prouder to be from Omaha.

So during the shutdown, there was a number of businesses who did exactly what this council did during COVID.

Stepped up, did what needed to be done out of kindness, out of generosity, out of a commitment to the community.

So I want to I I want to thank those businesses who are here today.

And unfortunately, I left my glasses at home.

But uh if you want to come up, they're probably not strong enough, council member.

Um so if you you if you want to come up here, please, Noli's Pizza, Big Mama's Kitchen, Lisa's Radio Cafe, Saving Grace.

Um I know I talked to Hi B, but I don't know if they're here.

Hi V.

Uh L Muchacha Algarega.

I'm sorry I butchered that.

Uh Veg edible.

Are we all here?

So again, I want to personally thank you, and on behalf of the council, for stepping up and doing what makes Omaha green.

And you definitely exhibit that.

So thank you very much.

And I apologize for the abbreviated version.

Last week you knew we were out of power and navigating some difficult difficult.

So uh big mouse.

Thank you.

And now how do you say it?

El Muchacha.

Yep.

Allegra.

I'll remember.

I'll try to remember that next time.

Thank you.

Uh B's not here, I'm sure.

Lisa's radio today.

This is good name.

I gotta make a few deliveries.

Uh you want to talk to these grace.

Uh saving grace.

Thank you very much.

And this must be you.

I'm with Millie's.

Oh, yeah.

This is Noli.

Okay, okay.

Veg edible.

No.

Okay.

All right.

Well, again.

Thank you for stepping up.

Thank you for doing what you do.

Again.

You are the reason.

Omaha is a great place to live.

So thank you.

Thank you very much.

We now have a proclamation to be read by Councilmember Don Rowe for the libraries.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

The friends of the Omaha Public Library, whose mission has been to raise money for the Omaha Public Library System and promote the library to the greater community is celebrating its 50th anniversary.

And whereas the members of the Friends have raised millions of dollars through their tireless dedication to weekly book sales and other philanthropy.

And whereas through the best broad key scholarship, they have funded educational and professional development opportunities for library staff.

And whereas the Friends of OPL host an annual Virginia Frank Memorial Writing Contest for Omaha area middle school students to recognize the creative writing talent of area students.

And whereas the Friends of OPL act as passionate advocates for the library, ensuring that the necessary public support and awareness are maintained to secure a thriving future for all library branches.

And whereas the Omaha City Council recognizes the Friends of Omaha Public Library for their dedication and service to the community.

Now therefore, we the City Council of the City of Omaha wish to offer a sincere thanks to the Friends of the Omaha Public Library.

In witness whereof we have set our hands and caused the official seal of the City of Omaha to be fixed on this 25th day of November 2025.

Thank you, Councilmember Rowe.

We now have some remarks for Councilmember Melton.

The floor is yours.

We just have some visitors here from Marion High School.

Um we have seniors, Maive, Caroline, Audrey, and my niece Ella.

Um they're here visiting, learning more about government, and just let everyone know they're gonna be eligible to vote within the next year and even run for office.

So we welcome the Marion students to our council meeting today.

Go crusaders.

Good afternoon, everybody.

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.

As a reminder, you will have three minutes to speak on an agenda item.

Please stay on topic.

If you would like your comments, enter into the public record.

You can email the city clerk's office at cityclerk at city of Omaha.org.

The council members receive these emails and we read them.

Finally, council members may ask members of the audience back up for clarifying questions, but not for extra time to speak.

I would also like to remind council members to speak clearly under the microphones so the audience members in attendance and at home can hear.

And also people that come up to the microphones in front of us here, please make sure that microphones in front of you for the same reasons as well.

Thank you.

And just real quick, an affidavit of publication is on file, and a current copy of the Open Media Act is posted in a white binder on the East Wall of Legislative Chambers.

Item six to consider a Class D liquor license for big meets located at 4867 South 137th Street.

I will now open the public hearing on item number six.

I believe we have someone by Zoom.

Mr.

Petera Yes, I am here.

You're the applicant, and we have any questions.

What's your name and address, please?

My uh name is Ryan Petera, and then my physical address for my home is 1985 L Street.

It's Omaha, Nebraska.

Thank you.

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.

Festerson.

Yes.

Good one.

Hug.

Melton.

Harding.

Yes.

Rowe.

Mr.

President.

Aye.

Motion passed seven to zero.

Consent agenda.

Any member of the city council may cause any item placed on the consent agenda to be removed.

Items removed from the consent agenda.

It shall be taken up by the city council immediately following the consent agenda and the order in which they were removed, unless otherwise provided by the city council rules of order.

The public hearing on agenda items seven through 13 were held on November 18th, 2025.

Any council discussion?

Get a motion.

Got a motion and a second.

Roll call.

Pasterson.

Yes.

Good one.

Harding.

Yes.

Hug.

Melton.

Row.

Mr.

President.

Aye.

Motion passed seven to zero.

The public hearings on agenda items 14 through 21 are today.

If you wish to address the city council regarding these items, please come to the microphone, indicate the agenda number, the agenda item number you wish to address.

Identify yourself by your name, address, who you represent, and if you're a proponent or opponent.

Okay.

So this is items 14 through 20.

Correct.

Got it.

Thanks, Brinker.

So anybody wants to speak on items 14 through 20.

Are there any proponents?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

To approve 14 through 20.

Got a motion and second roll call.

Fasterson.

Yes.

Good one.

Harding.

Yes.

Hug.

Melton.

Row.

Mr.

President.

Aye.

Motion pass seven to zero.

So now item 21.

Item 21.

A resolution to submit an application for state assistance towards the stadium project.

I will open the public hearing on item number 21.

Proponents.

Marco Floriani, mayor's office, happy to answer any questions about this resolution.

Thank you.

Jennifer Taylor, City Law Department.

Again, happy to answer any questions.

This is obviously a joint application between the nonprofit partner and the city of Omaha.

Happy to fill you guys in with anything else you might need.

Thank you.

Are there any other proponents?

Council members, good afternoon.

Uh David Levy, Barrett Home Law Firm, 1700 Farnham Street, on behalf of Union Omaha, Alliance Omaha Soccer and Downtown Soccer Stadium, Inc., which are all our affiliated entities.

That will be downtown Soccer Stadium, Inc.

will be the joint applicant for the turnback application if this passes with the City of Omaha.

Just a few brief remarks.

This is a milestone in a long and really exciting journey for the City of Omaha, in my view.

This is one step.

Again, what's before you is simply an authorization for the city of Omaha to join with my client in applying for state turnback tax uh incentive.

Um the turnback revenues would help fund the cost of building the stadium.

Um that's where they they would go.

That's what they're allowed to do by statute.

Uh we have an estimate from a firm called Municap that many of you are familiar with.

It's a very well-known, very conservative public finance firm.

Their analysis shows that at the end of the 20-year turnback period, um, the stadium would have received its maximum amount under uh statute of 25 million dollars in turn back revenues, uh whereas the state of Nebraska during that period would have received more than that, over 25 million dollars.

After that 20-year period, the state of Nebraska receives all of the turn back revenue.

So this is an important incentive for this.

I again I think great and really momentous project for downtown Omaha and the urban core and Omaha at large.

Um, but as these incentives go, I think it's important for the the council to know that that is uh revenue that is not being generated today, would not be generated without this project and provides immediate and long-term sales tax benefits to the state of Nebraska as well as helps facilitate this project, which makes all of this go.

Um, just a few statistics as an overview, and again I'll be happy to answer any questions, but I'll be brief today.

The stadium would be have about 6,500 fixed seats, total capacity would be about 8500 with standing room only and berm seating.

Uh the stadium is the anchor.

This isn't just a stadium project, and I don't have this on here very well.

I'm sorry.

Um the stadium really anchors uh a mixed use district.

You can see the stadium here in the foreground.

This is looking south toward downtown or southwest.

Uh the buildings you see there in in the distance are mixed-use buildings.

Those are apartments, those are retail uh office, things like that on the ground floor.

Um so about 500 apartments, about 40,000 square feet of retail.

Uh and with the mixed-use development, this is about a 400 million dollar total investment with about three-quarters of that uh being um private uh toward the mixed use.

Um again, really, you know, this is a uh 15-20-acre development that brings uh excitement and energy and and people north of coming, um provides a gateway to the city as you're driving in from the airport.

You see the tail lights there on the left.

Uh those are cars coming on Abbott Drive.

Um, this would be a great gateway and and front door to our city uh at that location as well.

So with that, again, thank you for your consideration of this.

This is again one one small step and big journey and happy to answer any questions.

Thanks, Mr.

Levy.

Are there any other proponents here today?

Seeing none, are there any opponents Larry Storr, 5015 Lafayette Avenue, Omaha 68132?

This is another one of those projects where we're projecting that things will happen just out of thin air that we'll pay these things off for kind of like Wimpy that says uh I'll pay you tomorrow for a cheeseburger today.

Well, what if people don't want to go to the stadium?

Well, if they don't want to buy anything at the stadium, where are you gonna get the money to pay it off then?

There's a lot of what ifs here.

Uh no guarantees that people will show up and spend the money that's gonna pay for it.

So I suggest that you find a different form of financing.

It's another one of those things about well, it won't happen unless we finance it with TIFF or with bonds and wealthy people buy.

The general public doesn't realize that if it doesn't work, it comes out of their pocket.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any other opponents here on item number 21?

Seeing none, public hearing is closed.

And we have lights on council member Fesserson, you are recognized.

Thanks, Mr.

President.

So this is soccer day today uh with this item and our next item I think we're taking up, uh, which I think is exciting uh as a former soccer player myself, uh, and as someone who cares about this sport and the growth of our downtown area.

I think this is exciting news, like Mr.

Levy described there.

And I thought he did a nice job of explaining this is just the first step.

Uh the city must be a co-applicant on a turn back application, which is why it's before us today.

But also the city would potentially own this stadium.

Um further documents we'll have and discussions we'll have coming before the city council.

There are our other items on this uh topic uh even today coming with a land purchase uh in with a public hearing, I believe, uh in two weeks.

Uh and then I think Mr.

Levy, a much more detailed redevelopment agreement would still come before the council that would include a lot more detail for council members and for the public.

Is that an accurate assessment?

Or Ms.

Taylor too, if you if you'd like to.

Sorry, I'm hiding back there, but yes, absolutely.

Thank you.

And what's the time?

What's the timing of that document?

Uh I'm gonna look at Ms.

Taylor and Mr.

Floriani here.

My hope is that we will be before the council with that document in the first couple months of next year.

We we want to move very quickly.

The the goal is to have the stadium open in 2028, and that requires starting construction in 2026, which requires getting the redevelopment agreement and all of those documents in place.

We have a lot of work to do.

And would we anticipate having a turn back application decided upon by that time?

We have we hope so.

Yeah, yeah.

We don't know exactly the state's timeline and with the legislative session coming up.

Um it's even harder to predict.

Um they potentially hold a hearing on these things.

There's a committee that uh approves these at the state level.

They meet every month if they have business, but they don't necessarily have to be in every month.

So we don't know exactly when the state will take up the application.

But uh if the council uh approves this today and and the ordinance to purchase the land is approved in uh public hearing in two weeks, vote in three weeks, um, then we would file the turn back application immediately thereafter.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

An important part of the mix here, and uh as you I think aptly described, captures only new sales tax from the development itself.

Uh that otherwise is not there in the first place.

So I think it's an important tool for development in downtown and virtually uh every um stadium we've been able to accomplish here in the city.

And um we would be we would hope the state would look upon this favorably to help make this possible.

Um be supportive of this today and supportive in coming weeks.

I think it's uh a great to have our second professional sport located downtown and what it will do for the future forward area and Millworks Common and what has been a challenging site for our city otherwise that has not that has previously gone undeveloped.

So um I'm excited to support this.

Thanks for uh your patience to getting to this stage.

It's been a long road, I know, for this project.

Uh, but it's great for Union Omaha, and I think great for sports in Omaha too.

And uh just to get it on the floor, I'll move approval.

Got a motion and a second.

Thank you.

Councilmember Melton, you're recognized.

Thank you very much.

And and first I want to say um I appreciate the fact that you used MUNICAP to do this analysis.

The city used uh MUNICAP a number of years ago, and Municap actually does very conservative, it uses very conservative numbers to make sure that whatever the city is doing, especially for purposes of bonds, um, that they're going to be able the the project is gonna be able to perform to pay off those bonds.

And I think we've already seen that with the MUNICAP study that we have.

What they said um is actually we're seeing it come to fruition now.

Uh and so I I think that that's using an expert.

So it's not just us sitting here or Mr.

Levy saying this is this is what it's gonna do.

We actually got experts to be able to tell us.

And I one thing that wasn't mentioned, and since we have some girls from Marion here today, is one of the one of the teams is gonna be our the first, um it'll be a professional women's soccer team that's gonna be housed at this soccer stadium.

So it'll be not only men playing in the uh at this stadium, but we will actually have our own women's professional team at at this uh union soccer stadium.

So that's something I'm very excited about.

Um I too played soccer, maybe not very well.

Um and I played at Tranquility, which is coming up next.

Um and I've attended some of the union soccer games out at at Warner Park, and albeit, you know, Sarp County is wonderful and growing out that way, but I would love to see this in downtown Omaha.

And I think being right next to the to the CHI stadium, right next to um the baseball field, it just I think it's an addition to our downtown that again will almost give it another transformation.

Um I agree I don't want to use taxpayer dollars to fund a lot of these things, but that's why this is a turn back tax.

So the money wouldn't exist.

Um in fact, uh Ms.

Taylor, the land that we're using, I mean, it's completely undeveloped.

There's nothing there.

Is that correct?

Uh Jennifer Taylor City Law Department.

That is correct.

Uh at present it is owned by Union Pacific.

Um their use of that property is generally to support some event space that they they do during the College World series when they have their train come up.

Otherwise, uh it is pretty much a significantly underutilized parcel of property.

And and so right now the only revenue coming from that property is a very minimal property tax because it's railroad land owned by the railroad, so it's not as much as a normal property tax assessment.

That is correct.

Okay, so really we're we're we're getting no revenue from this land whatsoever.

Correct.

And uh and us, I want to clarify for the turn back tax, a hundred percent of the tax doesn't go back to the project.

This calls for 70 percent of the sales taxes will go back to the property.

So this is only in regards to sales tax, and 30 percent will then go to the state.

And well, and the the city.

I mean, the the other 30 percent will go to um the sales taxing government entities, correct?

Of the state sales tax, yes.

30 percent will be retained by the state, 70 percent will be turned back to the city to use towards debt service for the development.

The city will obviously independently retain its 1.5% local option.

And and I think we we talked earlier, and I know that the agreement has we you haven't completed the agreement, but uh somebody said something, oh, what if it just fails, then the taxpayers will be on the hook for this.

What steps are you taking that we've done before with other projects to maybe make sure that that's not going to happen?

Uh through the process of negotiating the redevelopment agreement, obviously um the city is not going to take step one towards starting this project unless we have certain assurances that the project's going to go forward and that our partners have sufficient funds dedicated to the project in order to make it happen while it's not all just um you know city financed.

And then at that point in time, we will have uh certain agreements in place that have obligations, both financial and um I would say remedial or penalty-like, on our partner to ensure that the project goes forward.

But there'll be milestones that we have to we have to hit before we make any sort of significant investment.

Okay.

And and and I appreciate that.

And I I think we had at least I think Mr.

Levy said there's going to be about 400 million dollars in investment.

And this is an application for just 25 million in turn back tax, but it's capped per year.

So it's capped at one, I believe 1.2 million per year, is that correct?

Correct.

So if sales tax exceeds 1.2 million per year, then actually the the state will see more than 30 percent because they'll get all of the excess over what the 1.2 million.

That is all correct.

And then I would also point out, as we discussed earlier this morning, too, the impact it has on the neighboring developments.

Right now, you have this large underutilized vacant piece of land, which is essentially uh it's a it pulls down some of the neighboring developments.

As this uh as this gets redeveloped, it's only a boon to those other areas that are already underdeveloped in uh north downtown and downtown.

And I think what I'm always looking for when when we have this, everybody says just quit spending.

But sometimes it takes money to make money.

And I'm always what I'm always looking at for any project is what's the rate of return on our investment.

And and here we're really literally not investing any money or taking any money away from any other project, from fixing potholes or caring for parks.

This is just about turn back sales tax, correct?

Correct.

And we wouldn't otherwise have the money.

That we would not otherwise have.

And if there is $25 million of turn back tax uh utilized by the city to finance this development, there's also $25 million that will go to the state, so that's a hundred percent return.

If I did sort of how I look at this is that's it, it's not a fiscal note, it's actually revenue positive.

It is revenue positive.

All right, thank you very much.

You're welcome.

Thank you.

Councilmember Goodwin, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Um, I'm excited to see this project develop in District 2 and how uh it is extending opportunities into the district.

I did have a question for Mr.

Levy, please.

I was just moving over there so I could see you.

I but I must have known a question was coming, yes, Councilwin.

Um as we talked yesterday, and we appreciate that opportunity to get an overview.

Uh we pulled this off the agenda for a reason, obviously, to elevate uh a lot of the details that have already been discussed here.

Um you talked a little bit about how soccer's growing nationally, and then also how this is a different uh opportunity than maybe some of the even uh surrounding fields uh like Creighton and such.

Can you go into that a little bit more, please?

Sure, thank you.

Um and and I appreciate Councilwoman Mountain bringing up also the women's team.

So this is a men's uh stadium for men's professional soccer and women's professional soccer.

Um in addition to that, though, with this being a professional stadium and tranquility is coming up next.

And I went to a lot of soccer games there, I didn't play there.

But um, you know, and and I also though having kids who played travel soccer, I spent a lot of sales tax in Kansas City and Denver and Minneapolis and and lots of other places.

And with a facility like this, I I believe, and and the other facilities that are going on, you really elevate Omaha to a place where people are gonna bring their kids and their families from all over the country to play in in tournaments here.

And what to your question, what this stadium does is it creates a draw for those tournaments and for kids and teams who are looking at well, do we go to Omaha or do we go to Denver?

If they think, hey, my kid gets to play, if they make the championship, they get to play in a professional soccer stadium for that championship game.

That that that's a different level of that puts those tournaments on a different level.

That puts the demand for things like Tranquility and Levi Carter Park and the other facilities that are going on in town at at a different level.

It really puts Omaha on a different map with regard to soccer, and I think even youth sports, this field could be used for lacrosse, for example, um than we're on now.

So it it really it's not to me overlapping, but it's really additive to those other facilities and those other projects that are coming.

And you all hear about it all the time.

Those projects are very popular, and um there's a great demand for for youth sports fields and and youth soccer.

I believe soccer is the fastest growing youth sport in the country by some measure, and and you know, this will help Omaha be be a part of that growth and and help the urban core uh be a part of that growth and benefit from that growth.

Thank you for that.

And you mentioned that there's a different scale here if you look at, for instance, Creighton's ability to host and uh the scale that would even require turnback tax.

Can you give us a little detail on that, please?

Yeah, I thank you for that.

I I should have looked, uh I didn't I forgot to go back and look, honestly, and see what Creighton's seating capacity is, but I'm I'm gonna venture a guess that it's a a third to a quarter of what we're talking about here, and it's a beautiful stadium.

I actually look at it every day out my office window.

Um and and it's a beautiful stadium.

And Union Omaha is going to play there in 2026.

Um it is a smaller facility than what we're talking about here.

When Union Omaha played at Werner Park in the championship a couple of years ago, they had over 5,000 people in attendance.

Um so you can only imagine a stadium designed for soccer downtown, what what will happen there?

Um Creighton also, there's there's really serious scheduling challenges.

They've got a lot of events and a lot of use of that stadium in that field for their men's team and their women's team practices, all of those kinds of things.

So again, uh to me, these two facilities really complement each other, and the fact that they're both downtown and and in the urban core is just all the better.

Absolutely.

And so when we start talking about what this will cost, um isn't it correct that once it's built that it's looking to not only generate taxes but also rent or lease uh funds for the city, is that correct?

Yes.

So the the current thinking is that the city will own the stadium.

Um Union Omaha or downtown Soccer Stadium, Inc.

will pay the city an annual rent payment that will go a long way over, let's say it's a 30-year lease that would go a long way toward paying off the bonds that the city might issue to finance the stadium.

Part of that is the the turn back revenues, part of it is the lease revenues will be before you with an application for tax increment financing as well, which then somewhere all of that would be turned back, if you will, to the city again to support the repayment of those bonds.

So it is really the project that is generating the funds over time that that pay for the stadium.

The city uh is in really a true tremendous um public-private partnership using its powers to to finance that.

You got to have the money up front to build the project, but it's the project that then pays off those bonds.

Great.

So really what we're talking about is um a multi-faceted project that can benefit youth all the way up to professional sports, spurring tourism, also with a holistic approach to housing, uh mixed use retail, um, you know, and activities, all the things you want to see really in our community to potentially retain, you know, young professionals, attract young professionals, even small businesses to a currently underdeveloped part of town.

Couldn't set it better myself.

And and I would just add uh mixed income housing as well.

So another one of the city's goals and and challenges.

Um, you know, bringing 500 housing units and and potentially more with adjacent projects to the urban core and and to north of coming and and really, you know, that pulling downtown north is all uh a benefit of not just the stocker stadium, right?

It's the anchor, um, but the the whole district that the soccer stadium catalyzes.

Right.

And we talked about how we look at how Levi Carter Park, as you'd mentioned before, can you know not necessarily be connected, but really I think people want to understand that development is moving north, but there's opportunities to really, you know, redevelop even further north that includes North Omaha or Northeast Omaha.

Yeah, absolutely.

And and you know, uh my clients have formed another nonprofit entity, and I apologize I'm forgetting the name of it right now, but the the sole purpose of that nonprofit entity is youth programs and community programs and and other things like that.

So they are very committed to the community and and to youth in the community and and exactly what you talked about, and and they see this facility as an opportunity to really make good on that commitment writ large.

Yeah.

Well, I love this for Omaha.

I love this for District 2.

And as we move forward, uh you'll have my support on this project.

Thank you.

Well, thank you very much.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Councilmember Harding, you're recognized.

Uh David, please.

I'll give a little um historical perspective first to pick up a little bit on what uh Councilmember Melton was talking about.

Um about 30 years ago, uh the city was in discussions with Pinnacle Foods about relocating their facility off of um Twelfth and Capitol and looked at the Union Pacific ground, which we're talking about here, um, to relocate uh their facility there so that we that was a potential site for the uh what's now the CHI Center.

Turned out that for a number of reasons it didn't happen.

And the CHI Center ended up somewhere else.

But for the last 30 years, that ground has basically sat idle.

And except for during the College World Series when the Union Pacific Railroad brings in uh their train to host events, it it gets little if any use otherwise.

So to see something like this um uh be an opportunity for that site, I think is is is really tremendous for the city.

But that's it that's approximately 23 acres or so, I believe, 25.

25 acres.

And um, and I know we're probably getting a little bit of cart in front of horse here, but um the the stadium itself will only take up about what, eleven acres?

11 to 12 acres.

Okay, and then uh I hope I'm at liberty to say that you know maybe there's um an easement for Union Pacific to continue to bring their train in.

Absolutely.

And but that still leaves eight or nine acres of developable ground for I think some of the other things that you were talking to uh Councilmember Goodwin about.

I think that's right.

Um, you know, you gotta think about streets and things like that, but but when you take that out, I think you're right after the stadium and the UPEs Mint Streets, all those kinds of things, you're still looking at um at probably eight to nine acres.

Okay.

So I I'd set that all up for I guess some of the the next questions then.

So the turnback tax that um that you have anticipated um for um uh well first of all, what when would the when would the state see any monies coming back, revenues coming back to them in from their portion of the turn back?

So the the state would see revenues in year one of the turn back, which is effectively if if the stadium opens in 2028, the state would be receiving 2028 generated sales tax revenue.

Um the municap estimate for that first year is that the state would receive about 200,000 in sales tax.

In that first year also, though, you know, as things are getting going, um the you know, the the it it's ramping up.

The state starts to so just 200,000, 400,000 the next year, um, up to 2 million dollars back to the state in sales tax in that year 20 of the turn back, and then the turn back goes away, and the state receives all of the turn back revenue from then on.

And I I do want to make the point, uh, Councilwoman Melton, you brought this up a little bit too.

This turn back, the the radius for turn back under state law is six hundred yards.

This is all new turnback.

This isn't uh sales tax from existing from the CHI Center, for example.

They have their own turn back that gets carved out of this.

So these municap numbers are project generated sales tax only.

Okay.

And then I that's kind of where my next question was kind of going then.

The turnback estimates are are not based just upon what's generated from the stadium.

It's also Municap study, I'm assuming also took into account the other development, those eight-ish acres that I talked about of the potential other development that comes in there that goes along with revenues generated from the stadium.

Correct.

So this would be sales tax revenue generated at the stadium and in the mixed-use district that I've also talked about that that is part of this project ultimately, yes.

And as I think Ms.

Taylor said earlier, and and you have said as well, too, we have a long way to get to the the final agreement.

So really the purpose of what we're doing here today is for the so that it can move on to uh the state for consideration of the turn back.

Correct.

Okay.

Correct.

All right.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'll be in support of this as well.

I appreciate David you taking the time yesterday um to brief Councilmember Goodwin and I walking through this.

And as I think of downtown, you know, we mentioned the Creighton Soccer Stadium, you referenced that.

And my colleagues did a good job of touch on a lot of things that we're thinking about.

When you think of downtown, you got the CHI Center, Schwab, Steelhouse, Capit, Millworks.

I'm missing a bunch of things, but Creighton expansion.

You think of our urban corridor city and all the things happen, and this is just another anchor for downtown Omaha and north of downtown to really have that transition and transformation and continue.

So I'll be happy to support this as well.

See no further lights.

We had a motion and a second roll call.

Festerson.

Yes.

Good one.

Harding.

Yes.

Hug.

Melton.

Row.

Mr.

President.

Aye.

Motion passed seven to zero.

86 now.

Go to 86.

Okay.

Without objection, we'll move 86 up to next in the document here.

Item 86, the resolution to approve an application for state assistance for the Tranquility Park Sports Complex.

I will open the public hearing now on item number 86.

Are there any proponents?

Jennifer Taylor, City Law Department.

I'm uh here to answer any questions you might have about this application as well, which is a city application in conjunction with the Omapa Public Facilities Corporation because this is entirely city-owned asset.

Thank you.

Are there any other proponents?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed, Councilmember Melton, you're recognized.

Um I'm a little disappointed that we don't have anyone other than Miss Taylor here from the city with showing what tranquility is going to look like because I think it's fabulous.

Um and again, this is we're looking for turn back tax.

It would be um like the soccer stadium.

Um it's revenues that that we don't have now.

Um, and so uh I think that's I think that's important um to note that there won't be any probably any development unless we're able to expand tranquility.

Um does is there anybody from the city that has any photos of what tranquility is going to look like?

Okay, Miss Taylor, I'll come answer some questions.

Uh we had a great there is a great slideshow presentation um that I think would be really important to have available, and maybe somebody can have it available when we look at the bonds that we're going to have on the agenda.

Um attached to our agenda.

If anyone's interested in seeing what tranquility is gonna look like, you can go to uh the Omaha City Council, the city clerk's website, and you can pull up our agenda for today, and you can go to I think it's 86 and attached to that, there's some uh very nice slides of what it's gonna look like.

We have 12, it looks like 12 fields, um, but as part of this project, we're hoping to expand it to 16.

We're gonna do all of the basically grading for the 16 so that all we have left maybe to do is do the install the turf.

Just install the turf.

So we're really hoping that we can get to those 16 fields.

Yes, I I think we're very optimistic that we can get to those 16 fields.

And right now I know um, and I don't think that uh the Mohol, the Patrick Mohole would mind if I if I talked about that well, the amount of investment he's already put into it into planning for development around tranquility, but we're looking at at least one, potentially two hotels.

We're looking for a major anchor for rest, a couple of restaurants, fast food, and so all of that sales tax, 70% of it will go as a turn back to tranquility.

But again, from dollar one, the state is gonna be receiving 30 cents of every sales tax dollar.

Is is that correct?

It's not a hundred percent.

The state will be receiving money from day one that they wouldn't have received before.

That is correct.

And uh, Mr.

Mohall and the Mohol development is contingent upon the city undertaking this redevelopment because the intent is we make ourselves more marketable too, and on our commission and visitor bureau can can share that as well.

Make ourselves more markable with these larger tournaments as these larger tournaments come in.

We need places for them to stay, places for them to eat, you know, um retail facilities to sell equipment and things like that.

All of that that doesn't exist today, the Mols are planning to develop in support of the expansion of Tranquility Park.

And Tranquility has been there, obviously, since I I was a kid who played there, and I think Mohols have owned the land that long as well.

Uh and so they haven't developed it.

So I think we're fairly certain this when they say it's not gonna get developed unless Tranquility develops, we know that to be true.

Um and I guess this is something that I think is is really important for youth sports.

Again, we've been trying to find the funding for tranquility uh at least since I started council 13 years ago.

I know I've been working on this, kind of been my my dream project, so to speak.

And I think that we we finally have gotten to a point where the project will pay for itself, but we definitely need the turnback tax in order to make that happen.

The other revenues will be the users will pay for that.

So this project again is paying for itself.

We're not using taxpayer dollars, we're not using the general fund, we're not using money again that would pay for road repair or park maintenance or any anything else that the general fund would pay for, is that right?

A large part of this project is being paid for with brand new revenues the sales tax turnbacks, some um occupation tax and other such revenues.

Um obviously revenue generated by larger tournaments um helps as well, and there is some uh some budgeted funds that are dedicated towards the park today.

But other than that, yes, this is largely funded by new revenue.

And none of the development around tranquility, it um even qualifies for tax increment financing.

So you'll we'll never see a project come up for tax increment financing for any of that development.

Correct.

Uh and in addition to the sales tax, we're only talking about turnback tax for the what 600 yards, which that there's really virtually no development, and it's pretty limited.

But I think that these large, I mean, you have 12 to 16 fields, people coming in, they're gonna be spending money outside of the turnback tax.

They'll be up at target, they'll be up at 137.

I mean, yes, there's there's a lot of area outside the 600 yards that will benefit from the expansion of Tranquility Park.

And I know we probably don't have those figures, but the state will see a hundred percent of all of that money between the hotel tax, additional sales tax, and I think even development outside this 600 feet because of tranquility, uh, we'll see the property tax from that as well because there won't be any TIFF.

But I I think that there's actually a lot of money that will be generated.

Again, this will be revenue positive, no fiscal note, and the state will see an increase in revenues from day one.

Is that accurate?

Correct.

Thank you very much.

You're very welcome.

I'm asking for everybody's support on this, and it's a long time coming.

And and the location of this actually benefits kids from all over our community.

And I also think it's a great partnership with Levi Carter because we can do a lot of bigger tournaments, and it's actually pretty easy because this is kind of right off 680.

Um, it's actually easy to get to from really anywhere in the city.

Uh and so I I think that this is this is kind of a great um development to go along with Levi Carter.

Uh and then hopefully with a union soccer stadium, we kind of have this focus on soccer that's always been there in Omaha.

We've always been a big soccer city, at least for the youth.

Um, and so I I think it's gonna be great.

Because in addition to this, we're gonna have trails.

That there's some mountain bikers.

I went to that last year, which is really neat.

And we're gonna make some improvements there, so we're not gonna be taking away from the trails that are being used by other people other than soccer users.

And some of these fields I think we mentioned could be used for lacrosse as well.

These are multi-purpose fields, so they actually can be used for a variety of different sports.

You know, rugby, field hockey, lacrosse, soccer.

So these are multi-purpose turf fields lit at night, don't have to rest, longer usage periods because of lighting.

Um, you know, the opportunities that the city has to bring in all kinds of different activity to this park with its expansion is unlimited.

All right.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate all your work on this.

You're welcome.

Thank you.

Councilmember Felserson, you're recognized.

Thanks, Mr.

President.

This is the uh second big soccer item on the agenda of today that I referenced in my original remarks.

And if that downtown stadium is about young professionals, I think this one is about young families.

And I support it too.

I think it is a game changer for youth athletics in our community.

Depending upon if it's 12 fields or 16 fields, we estimate a 30 to 36 million dollar positive economic impact on the city.

And it is all new revenue uh under this turn back application.

This turn back application is very important to this overall picture as we talk about tranquility and how that's financed.

And there are several of those sources that are still being finalized.

Umlike the soccer stadium, though, uh, we um hope to have that turn back uh application decision by the time we're at redevelopment agreement stage.

This product's quite a bit further along in the respect that it's already turning dirt, and we have approved a construction contract, and also later on our agenda today.

Uh we have a hearing about 65 million dollars worth of bonds to help finance it in these initial stages as well.

So that uh leads me to this final question of um risk from your perspective.

Um there's been some um concerning uh reports of how turn back applications are being uh considered right now in Lincoln, and I think there's several in the queue that have not been approved and may not be approved for several more months.

We're hopeful that these two projects are not in that mix, and I think they are different, and they are producing new income to both the city and the state.

But for whatever reason, should that not be approved or should that be delayed?

I'd like your comments on potential risk given the construction contract we have and the potential for bond approvals here in a couple of weeks.

So if we get to a point where we're not granted turn back tax or this application is not approved, obviously we'd have to stop the project and we'd have to reevaluate how or if at all possible we could move forward with it.

So the contracts are set up in a way that we can do that without significant risk to the city.

But obviously it's important that this application gets submitted.

It's important that it is reviewed by the state expediently and hopefully favorably.

And so then we can continue to move on.

Otherwise, um if we are in fact denied, we'll have to put the brakes on the project and reevaluate whether or not we can move forward.

And as a as it applies to that construction contract and also the potential bond approval, what would that look like?

Well, again, as we do with most of our bond ordinances, your ordinance is authorized, authorizing not issuing.

So if we don't uh if we are not approved for sales tax turn back, then obviously we would not move forward with issuing the bonds, and we'd be back to a place where we'd have to reevaluate our financing of the project and exactly how we move forward.

Okay.

Thank you.

And I suffice it to say from that answer that this is very critical components of this project.

This isn't happening, but for this occurring.

Uh so we hope our state partners are listening and are participating and helping our city uh with these economic development projects.

We have worked hard to find just about every source of revenue that we can to support this project and this expansion.

Um we've kind of reduced the scope as you're all well aware because of a budgetary issues.

Um this financing tool is much like with Union Omaha critical to this project moving forward.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Goodwin, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr.

Mr.

President.

Um, first I wanted to just commend um Mayor Ewing on his leadership and his emphasis on you know caring about parks and uh tourism across our city.

I think that's one of the denominators, the common denominators here in how both of these projects, not just the union stadium, but also Tranquility Parks are moving forward.

Um had a question that came up actually in our conversation yesterday about the different types of turnback tax.

Um we talked today one about a specific sports complex type turn back tax.

I think we've also referred to, and it may not be a turn back tax, but that's where you come in, Jen, to sort out the details, not just for me, but probably some other inquiring minds.

The hotel tax, but could potentially also be a turn back tax, maybe not.

So I'll stop there before I get into the weeds.

On the one hand, with the union, we were talking about a specific product at the state that is a turnback tax, correct.

Correct.

We're talking about the same turnback tax here, and then is it the same as the North and South Omaha turnback tax?

The North and South Omaha turn back tax are very different.

Okay.

State incentive program, and actually, Mr.

Coos is probably more versed in it than I am, or actually, Mr.

Curtis.

Um, but that is a separate um state uh state sales tax that's turned back to the city under a state statute that is then given to us that we then disperse to North and South South Omaha.

Entirely different programs.

Entirely different.

Okay.

Yep.

That's good.

So this this particular application and the application with Union Soccer are both being submitted to the state under the sports arena facility financing.

There's another A Act.

Um good job.

Um that particular um state incentive program is the basis for these two applications.

We do also receive turn back tax financing for the arena convention center that was applied for back in um 2001, 2002.

That is under the convention center facility financing act.

Sure, there you go.

Oh, there's the other F.

But that's a different program as well.

Yep.

Gotcha.

And then the hotel tax is entirely separate.

So the hotel tax is uh actually a city-based occupation tax that we are we are pursuing our opportunities to possibly utilize that to assist in certain specific projects, but that is a city program.

Yeah, but it would still apply to this tranquility project.

Potentially.

It could potentially apply to this program.

This is one way we're looking to help fund um the the expansion at Tranquility Park by utilizing basically every financing source we can find.

Absolutely.

And I just think that sometimes for the you know average listener, right?

We're throwing out all these terms, and most of you know, people are saying, okay, wait a minute, turn back here or turn back there.

Is this Tranquility project gonna touch you know on dollars for North and South Elm Hall?

And that's not the case.

Um there are very different programs for different types of use under the various statutes that are provided either by the state or local government.

Correct.

And it is hard to keep track of all of them.

Although we do not have a ton of incentive programs at our disposal, we are trying to use the ones that we have to the best of our ability.

Yeah, thank you for that clarification.

Of course.

Thank you.

Councilmember Rowe, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

I saw Jacqueline sneak in.

Did you want to be called up or you have something to contribute?

I uh I don't want you to just be left hanging out there.

Hi, Jacqueline Morrison from the mayor's office.

Uh one of my coworkers said that councilwoman Melton had asked about pictures, and I said, Yeah, of course we have pictures.

So I was running down with pictures in the event that um anyone needed visual images of the the park.

Well, while you're here.

And now I've got to figure out how to uh if I can while you're doing that, I wanted to make another comment on sales tax.

So you know the the the taxes the sales tax that we're talking about in this turn back is based on operations, right?

It's the facilities operating or the development operating.

None of us have really talked about the sales tax generated by the construction of the development.

That's where I mean that multiplies significantly the amount of sales tax that's generated and how much we collect.

Um and I don't think that's subject to I mean that's just the turn back that just comes into the to our uh operating expenses here at the city.

So every time you see a hotel bin built or a sidewalk being framed with a two by four, you know, those materials are being taxed um and generating sales taxes as well and will be a benefit uh to the city.

Okay, yeah, sorry.

Okay.

I did not bring a flash drive, but I'm gonna try my best to show my students.

Thanks, Councilman Rowe, Councilmember Melton, you're recognized.

Ag team that I'm the one that asked for the pictures.

So I I thought if you can pull them up, I just I think I think it, you know, it it's just great to see what the fields are gonna look like.

Um we're gonna have new a new concession stand, I think new playground for kids, and also addition well, we're gonna do maintenance on the current parking, but and then add additional parking.

Is that right?

That's correct.

That is all correct.

So um just trying to uh zoom out just a little bit.

If you can see here, um this shows the layout of the first 12 fields that would go in.

There is additional parking on the east side of the park as well as on the um north side of the park.

And then I'll scroll down.

You can see some of the the seating uh furnishings that will be used.

It's very similar to what you see at the Riverfront Park, just an upgraded park experience.

A lot of the feedback that we received is people want it right now, tranquility really looks like athletic fields and they want it to restore that park like experience.

And so the design team has looked at what are the opportunities to do that.

Well, and and also in addition to this, which is separate from the cost of this project, but as part of our CIP, um we will be um expanding Fort Street along that, and and part of that is the bridge.

Yes.

Um that's on the north side.

And so that and I think that's really important, especially for the people that live around Tranquility.

One of the things we did was we widened 120th Street.

We had to go after funds for that, and that is something we had to do first before we could even start this project, and that was completed.

So now the next step will be Fort Street.

Absolutely.

Uh when we so we have the improvements that happened at 120th in Maple.

The next improvements that you'll see will be 120th in Fort.

Part of it, the the big expense to get started is that bridge.

And so that bridge will happen alongside this project.

One of the things that we looked at with the park too was the circulation, and so you really want three entrances and three exits to the park, and so there will be roadways added within the park to make sure people can get out get in and get out, and that they aren't backing up traffic on any of those uh main streets, which people from the neighborhoods will use, and so a lot of thought was given to those traffic studies to make sure that we had good circulation through the park.

So I'll just this uh image right here shows kind of what some of those fan corridors will look like.

And so there will be one of the things that we're excited about that was just announced with Nebraska State Soccer.

There is a Nebraska State Soccer Hall of Fame that doesn't have a home.

And so we are working with Nebraska State Soccer to give the Nebraska Hall Soccer Hall of Fame a home where they can honor people who have both played soccer in the state, but also um have some ties to the trend to Tranquility Park.

So this is a rendering of what some of the what the inside of one of the buildings will look like to create like a museum-like experience to honor some of the history of the park, but also participants in soccer throughout the state.

I'll just keep going.

So you'll see here this is ways to incorporate that park-like setting, so you'll see a lot more trees, a lot more native grasses, a lot more areas for families to spend time.

Sorry, hopefully that's not too blurry for everyone, but that's a rendering of where that hall of fame area will be, those particular signages would be highlighting different individuals and different events in the park.

So this is just another image of spaces where teams will be able to go and take pictures as they are celebrating, uh, but also again when you're sharing this on social media, getting Omaha out there indicating we're here, uh, come, we want to welcome you to our state to play.

This is a fan corridor right outside of the concession stand overlooking what would be the championship field.

So one of the things that we need to be able to be competitive is a championship field that can house more or allow for more people to watch the games, and so we would be redoing a championship field, and so that's an image of what we'd be looking at here.

And I'll just scroll down.

This is um just an example of adding some elevations in the park so that uh when you have other children who are there who are not playing organized sports, they will have places to go and spend time in the shade and enjoy the park-like setting.

I'm going a little faster, but just an example again of some of those flexible seating areas.

Hoping to get to I think I might be at the end of the slide deck, but there is also the trail components.

So right now there are natural surface trails within the park.

We've partnered with Thor to do a conceptual design.

Currently, Tranquility is our only, I believe the acronym is NYCA trail that we have to allow for competitions for mountain bike in the city.

And so we will be updating those trails to be able to accommodate NYCA and mountain biking competitions, and then we'll also be adding some more uh paved trails so that people will be able to walk around if they're not engaging in the sports activity.

So that's just some updates on the park.

Thank you.

Thank you for coming down and showing us those renditions because I thought they were really neat, and I wanted people to be able to see really what tranquility can be transformed into what we're looking at doing.

Yeah, and so again, this is revenue positive for the state.

The state wouldn't have that revenue without it.

Um we're also gonna get you know, absolute an absolutely beautiful park for the citizens of Omaha, but then one that we can make money off of too.

So it's kind of a win-win.

If you don't mind, I'll uh if I have a second, I can show you another document that I thought was also interesting.

We had some analysis done of where people come from when they visit Tranquility Park, and so each one of these represents a household that was going to the park, and so you can really see that this park is frequented by everyone throughout the city of Omaha.

So this is City of Omaha's park and the place where we go to play.

So just thought that was a good slide from the conversation, one of the previous conversations we had.

And the last um piece I'll share if I can get there pretty quickly.

Uh so some of that questions came.

So a question came up about what is spent right in that 600 yards versus what will be spent outside of the park.

And so historically this shows where people who leave Tranquility where they go.

And so you'll see Eagle Run shopping center is a popular destination that would be outside of that 600 yards.

And so that's indicative of people who are here going shopping.

Same with Shadow Lake at Town Center, going to Papillion.

And so those are all places that will still be able to bring in revenue for the state and also for the city that are out that are not included in that turn back.

So when we say this is not just going to turn back tax within that area, this is true data that we received to show where the top people are going when they leave the park.

I'd probably question the shadow lake, but all the rest of them I think are right by Tranquility.

Shadow Lake's a little farther than two miles.

But um, but all of the rest of them, yes, and that'll be a hundred percent of that additional tax revenue will benefit the state of Nebraska.

Absolutely.

And not just the city of Omaha, but I mean the entire state of Nebraska.

Yes.

Jacqueline, I want to thank you for your your time and your effort and getting this application pulled through so that we can make it kind of before our deadline before the new legislative session starts.

Yes.

And I appreciate you getting some of that additional information in regards to revenue.

I think that's gonna be the important story to tell.

Okay.

Is that additional revenue outside the 600 yards?

Yes.

Uh because that's 100%.

Yes.

And I I think that's the I think that's what gets us over that hurdle for that turn back tax approval.

At least that's what I'm hoping.

Okay.

I appreciate your efforts.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Harding, you're recognized.

Thank you.

Uh Jacqueline, uh, I'll say don't go too far because I I think we'll some of these uh questions might turn up more in in 41 when we're there.

But um I will say, I think I and I said this when we were approving the GMP.

You know, my preference was that um that it this would have been 16 fields rather than 12.

Uh I think that makes a big difference.

I think we've had some people testify that it's a difference of having one hotel versus two hotels.

Um I'm still hopeful we can find a way to to get to 16, but um we'll probably have more of that discussion in 41.

Um there have been recently an a number of applications uh for turn back, and again, this is really the only thing I as I understand it that we're doing in this action is that this is so that we can have this um application uh be on on the December meeting if there is a December meeting of the turnback committee in Lincoln.

But there have been a number of recent applications that that focus on on youth and in particular youth sports, you know, be it soccer, be it volleyball, baseball, cheer, lacrosse, you name it.

But they're all I think what's interesting about these applications is that they're all about youth and and in particular youth sports.

And and I I think that's great for a community because I think that's something that we can really be building on that's really important, one of those important components about making sure that we keep families around here or we keep family and encourage families to move here.

Remember, Forbes voted us the number one city to move to in America in 24.

But we we can't rest on those orals.

We got to keep doing those things to encourage um youth and youth activities because there are other benefits to youth sports rather than just the physical exercise.

I mean, it teaches our kids responsibility, dedication, accountability, sportsmanship, and those are all good values that I think we want to instill in our youth.

And I think I'm I'm a big believer in that youth sports can be um a great pathway for that.

So I would I would actually encourage those who um who sit in those decision making um seats to approve all the turn back uh projects that are in front of them if if they can make the case for for them being um uh revenue positive.

But I I think these are important components to um to make sure that this is how we want to grow our city and what this is the kind of activities we want our youth to be involved with.

Um so I know we'll have some more discussions in in 41, I think, on the the bonding issue of it, but at least for the application part, I'll be supportive, I'll be supportive um uh for the turn back.

That'll be different.

Got a motion and a second, no further lights, roll call.

Festerson, good one, yeah, hardy, yes, Melton, yeah, row, Mr.

President.

Aye.

Motion passed seven to zero.

Item 22, an ordinance to approve a contract with Dales Trash Service for 2026 litter can collection services.

I will open the public hearing on item number 22.

Are there any proponents here today?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Item 23, an ordinance to approve a storm sewer maintenance agreement with Invest Omaha SCLC for the CIP Saddle Creek Apartments located at 1012 South Saddle Creek.

Public hearing is now open on item number 23.

Are there any proponents?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearings closed.

Item 24, an ordinance to approve the Charles Street Town Homes Tax Increment Financing Redevelopment Agreement.

Public hearing is now open on item number 24.

Are there any proponents?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Item 25, an ordinance to approve a parking lease agreement with River North Transit LLC for the lease of eight parking spaces at Hitchcock Park.

Public hearings now open on item number 25.

Are there any proponents?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Item 26, an ordinance to approve the second amendment to the cell site license agreement with Verizon Wireless for communications equipment located at Tranquility Park.

Public hearing is now open on item number 26.

Are there any proponents?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Item 27, an ordinance to approve the accumulative final work.

Authorization number nine, establishment of binding guaranteed maximum price for Hausman construction for the construction of Levi Carter Park Activity and Sports Complex.

The public hearing is now open on item number 27.

Are there any proponents?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

And 28 and ordinance loving a special tax assessment on properties for litter group 2026 dashes 01.

Public hearings now open on item number 28.

Are there any proponents?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Item 29, an ordinance leving, a special tax assessment on properties for weeds group 2026-02.

The public hearing is now open on item number 29.

Are there any proponents?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Item 30, an ordinance loving a special tax assessment on properties for trees group 2026-03.

The public hearing is now open on item number 30.

Are there any proponents?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Item 31, an ordinance to accept the bid of Great Plains Uniforms, LLC for uniforms for the Omaha Police Department.

Public hearing is now open on item number 31.

Are there any proponents?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Item 32, an ordinance to amend section 23-177 of the Omaha Municipal Code by adding the employment classification for crisis support specialists.

Personnel board recommends approval.

I will open the public hearing on item number 32.

Are there any proponents?

Chelsea Ship Human Resources Department here to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Claire Anderson Hubbard, HR also here for questions.

Deb Sander from HR here to answer any questions on this item and the next item as they're both classifications.

Thank you.

Are there any other proponents?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Councilmember Fesserson, you're recognized.

Thanks, Mr.

President.

Uh yeah.

Um quick question for you.

Uh we talked about this position, crisis support specialist in our public safety committee meeting this morning.

Uh the intention would be to add this position to the fire department, correct?

Fire and police both.

And tell us a little bit more about this what this position might do.

I'll have Claire do that.

She did all of the research on this position.

Okay.

Um, so this as Deb mentioned, there would be one role in the police department and one in the fire department.

Um it's kind of a pseudo-case management position.

So this individual is a civilian, they would receive referrals from police or fire based on interactions that they had with individuals on scenes, typically, um, but but not necessarily exclusive to on scenes, but the the referrals would come from those two departments.

Um and then my understanding is they'd kind of set that person up, interview them, work with their family, and set them up with resources related to mental health, substance abuse, housing, um, any uh areas where they feel like they're at risk.

Great.

Thanks.

We that was consistent with our discussion this morning, and something I thought was worth pointing out, and I think a valuable addition to uh what our police and firefighters do and what people in crisis need.

So thank you.

I look forward to supporting this next week.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Goodwin, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Um I had a question along the lines of uh council member Festerson about this role.

Uh, what department will house this role?

Uh the fire department and the police department would each have one.

I see.

So there would be um two for fire, one for police.

How will this work with the mental health specialists?

I don't know that's probably not the right term that's currently on staff with OPD.

Um, that is a great question.

Um I do not have the answer to that question, um, but could uh discuss it with the mental health coordinator to get more information on that.

I do imagine they may have some overlap um in terms of like referrals and um individuals, but then I think a secondary question to that.

I'd love to have the answer.

And again, if you need to follow up, that's great.

Would be how do you see this uh person's role um coordinating with our homeless coordinator?

I imagine there would be um some overlap with that as well.

Um, one of the at-risk factors that they mention is housing.

Um, so I I don't know the extent to which that they would work with that person, but I imagine there would be um some collaboration there.

Yeah, I think that clarity would be important to us, even as council members because oftentimes we are you know fielding these questions as well, and so understanding how to refer and how to navigate that would be important.

So look forward to getting more information on that.

I will thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Item 33, an ordinance to amend section 23-177 of the Omaha Municipal Code by adding the employment classification for engineering technician three personnel board recommends approval.

Public hearing is now open on item number 33.

Are there proponents here today?

I'll bet there is.

Good afternoon again.

Claire Anderson Hubbard, City HR.

Here to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Any other proponents?

Seeing none are there.

Come on down.

Uh Jim Tyler, City of Umall Public Works.

I let the people from human resources know that if there were microphones closer.

There you go.

Jim Tyler Public Works.

Um, if there are any questions that human resources can't answer, I'm here to answer those for you.

Thanks.

Is there any other proponents here?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Item 34, an ordinance to amends sections 23-177, 23-438, and 23-445 of the Omaha municipal code to reflect the changes negotiated for functional employees group for 2026 through 2029.

Personnel board recommends approval.

I will open the public hearing on item number 34.

Proponents.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Bernard Inembosh, Deputy City Attorney.

I'm here with uh Annie Matthews and Tyler Hibica who are part of the negotiating team.

The item before you is a contract with the functional employment group.

They're a group of approximately 20 clerical folks who have access to labor negotiation material.

Therefore, they were kicked out of or separated from local 251.

And you're gonna see a similar pattern between this and the Semtech uh contract, which is the next one in the AC that'll be next month, uh similar wage increases and similar additional benefits, uh, just by way of of touching these employees have been subject to a two percent per year wage increase for the last three years for the four-year term of this agreement.

It's four percent for 2026 and then three years for 27, 28, and 29.

Uh kind of some of the notable things.

The city through uh support of the mayor's office is now gonna be offering parental leave to its employees.

So these are the first series of contracts that you're gonna see with six weeks of parental leave for employees who have qualifying births, adoptions, or fostering of a minor child.

Uh a couple other changes that you'll see consistently uh is a parking reimbursement account for those employees who work downtown and are not provided parking, whereas most of our employees around the city are, and it's an opportunity to offset some of the costs that they incur as a result of that.

Uh some increases in dental insurance from a thousand to seventeen hundred and fifty those amounts have not been increased uh since the early 1990s, and a slight increase in the amount of sick leave that employees can use for the benefit of their family to take care of kids, and then um an increase in the amount of sick leave that's paid out for those employees who carry significant sick leave balances at the time of retirement.

So happy to answer any questions.

Um if you want me to do anything more detailed, happy to do so.

But I do also want to thank uh Miss Matthews and Mr.

Hippico for their assistance in uh negotiations in this contract and the others as well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there any other any other proponents here today?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Item 35 in ordinance to amend multiple sections of chapter 23 of the Omaha Municipal Code to reflect changes negotiated with the civilian management professional and technical employees council for 2026 through 2029.

Personnel board recommends approval.

Public hearing is now open on item number 35, Mr.

Andon Boss.

Bernard Indenbosch, Deputy City Attorney.

I won't reiterate what I already said.

This is a contract with the civilian management professional technical employee council, uh, the group of approximately 500 employees that represent our civilian management and professional employees.

Um, as I said, this is the second one of three we'll have soon, and hopefully have others coming after that.

But uh the benefits and increases are similar to what I talked about for functionals.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Is there any other proponents?

Randy New Yan SemTech President, 1819 Farnham Street.

Here to ask for your support uh and approval of this contract.

We believe it's a fair contract, um, and it's benefits both the city and employees.

We also like to additionally express our appreciation for the work of the city's negotiation team in support of the administration here to happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Is there any other proponents here?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Council member Fesserson, you're recognized.

Thanks, Mr.

President.

Uh Bernard, if you would.

Uh just a couple of quick questions for you on these labor agreements.

Um, I just want folks to know that um the administration and the city council take these agreements very seriously uh as we work with our uh employee groups to uh make sure uh they're well provided for while also providing um efficient city services and watching out for the taxpayers.

So these are multi-year agreements, and uh the four percent um salary increase in two thousand twenty-six proposed here is already accommodated in the 2026 budget, right?

It it is the that amount was established in the weight adjustment account.

I think there was an appreciation for the fact that the employees had had uh smaller increases in the past years, and unfortunately, we've had some unprecedented inflation numbers in the last three or four years that we haven't really seen for the last 15 years.

Um, so that I think there was a recognition of that as we were getting ready to negotiate in the finance department accounted for that in their projections.

And as you summarize the agreements, they talk about wages and various other benefits and health care.

They do not um make any changes to the current pension contributions from the city or employees, right?

Correct.

And the reason for that is we believe that um what was a financial crisis in 2009 and 2010 uh and remedied through um negotiations at that time continues in these contracts, and although uh the pensions themselves, civilian and uh public safety pensions are still underfunded, they're on track with that news that new projection where we thought they'd be at this stage, right?

Correct.

The pension reform for civilians was implemented in 2015.

At that time, the expectation is it would take till 2046 to be fully funded, so 31 years.

Uh, we're actually a couple years ahead of that right now.

The projection is to be fully funded by 2044.

What I would say, and I spoke before the retirement committee of the legislature last week is we put a plan in place.

The expectation, if you looked at the projection, it was very, very gradual growth.

10 or 15 years, frankly, in the 50 percent range.

But when you start to get to the set mid-70s and 80s, that increase will be four or five percent per year.

That's the nature of what we're attempting to do, which is basically amortize the unfunded liability for those employees that have already retired.

Yeah.

Thank you.

I think it's just important that we talk about that and not forget about those things and let people know that we're still watching that very closely.

Correct.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Item 36, an ordinance to approve an agreement with Douglas County in the amount of 79,000 dollars and to authorize funding from the fiscal year 2024.

The public hearing is now open on item number 36.

Are there any proponents here today?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

I guess David.

Good afternoon, Omaha City Council, Donnie R.

Johnson, a Johnson E.

Question Foundation, and North Omaha Concerned Citizen Foundation, 4928 Noah 52nd Street.

Most of you folks here wasn't born in the 70s.

And therefore you probably don't understand what you're doing.

We've had a lot of complaints over the years when the church said the courts should stay out of marriage, it's the sacred.

And the courts was right.

We have come to the conclusion the church was right.

And therefore, the funding of some of these programs in the 70s goes back to the same.

Iron Woman, hear me rolling.

Donnie, we need to stay on topic, please.

Yeah, but can you start sending some money for the medical marijuana instead of all this money for the women?

Donnie, you're off topic now.

Thank you.

Are there any other opponents?

I don't think that was public hearing is closed.

Item 37, an ordinance to amend section 44-151 of the Omaha Municipal Code regarding the 2023 National Electrical Code.

A amendment of the whole requested by Council Member Rowe.

The public hearing is now open on item number 37.

Are there any proponents?

Good afternoon.

My name is John Nebel, J-O-N-N-E B E L.

Um behalf of the IBW Electrical Workers Local 228946 L Street.

Since 1897, it's been updated every three years, and that process involves months long uh adaptation and revision of uh suggested ideas on how we can make the electrical industry safer.

Uh so when that process takes hold, it's about a several thousand codes are suggested to be uh revised and it gets whittled down over those months-long process to uh a few hundred.

And what we're debating here today at this time is effectively a handful of codes that the state refused to adopt when they adopted the 2023 version of the National Electrical Code.

Um those codes are come down to three different sections.

One is a new emergency or the new uh service disconnect on the exterior of a home that would allow first responders to disconnect power before entering a home that is flooded or on fire.

Uh the second one is for a whole home search protector that provides for a more affordable uh living standard in a home.

Uh obviously it protects your home against surges and would uh protect your electronics and uh and large appliances with digital displays from uh being damaged in the instance of a search.

So uh it's a minimal cost uh to save thousands on that on that end for those appliances.

And the third uh is probably the most critical here, and that's uh a life safety code that uh would expand the ability to have life safety equipment on large appliances and in different areas of the home.

Uh, those are in the form of GFCI.

Uh you'd probably uh you probably uh understand what they are if you think about your bathrooms and your kitchen countertops, uh, the little receptacles with the um with the reset button.

Uh basically it's a smart receptacle or a smart breaker that says uh I know some or the breaker would understand if someone is being electrocuted and cut cut power to that device.

So I would like to expand that.

Uh get a full slate.

I know I'm uh my time's currently up, so I know we've done this before.

If anybody has any questions for clarification, I'm happy to provide answers.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there any other proponents here today on item number 37?

Are there any opponents?

Well, good afternoon, Nick Dolphins.

Uh 9719 Giles Road in Libista.

I'm speaking on behalf of the Metro Omaha Builders Association, and it's 450 members.

Uh I'm from Omaha, had a 22-year career building just in the Metro Omaha area on the HAP Committee for the City of Omaha, and have the honor of serving through MOBA on the mayor's new task force for affordable housing.

In my career, these code books have grown and grown.

The code book we're talking about has around a thousand pages and several thousand uh codes written in there.

Um you question one of these items in a meeting like this or a thoughtful meeting on code implementation, the response is oftentimes what's the price of one human life?

And to me, that's difficult.

Um it implies there's one virtuous decision to make, and we all care about human life.

Um, I'm raising three boys.

We care about the kids, we care about neighbors.

Um, but that's the type of comment to keep elected officials on their heels.

Um to kind of stop a thoughtful conversation.

Uh, but that's we're starting to turn a page in our country on looking at this.

These codes have gone from hundreds of dollars to thousands of dollars, and now we have statistics that it's tens of thousands of dollars we're adding to these homes.

Uh, and it's definitely a large item making homes less affordable.

Um now we have a well-documented affordability crisis, and thankfully, elected officials across the country are starting to question this.

The National Association of Home Builders suggests 12 amendments to this code.

MOBA worked with the unicameral to come up with eight of them.

Anna, last time we talked about this, specifically stated um these eight items are not eminently dangerous or life safety issues, in her opinion.

North Carolina had 36 amendments.

Utah had 10.

Virginia created a task force within their state and saved 24,000 on the price of one home because they put a lot more thought into this than most of us are.

Two states have moratoriums on all code changes until 2031.

So there's some really great momentum of people thinking a little bit harder than we have in the past, uh, not conceding safety, but really digging into it.

So I think Omaha has the opportunity today to do the same and run with that momentum, and I hope we look at it that way.

Your time is up.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

And just so you guys know, there's lights up there.

I don't know if you can see it, but it kind of little cheaters there for the three minutes kind of indicates for you.

So the floor is yours.

Thank you.

Uh, my name is Dave Voltman.

I'm the founder and uh senior vice president of the home company in Omaha.

We build about 175 homes a year, making us the third biggest home builder in the state, and we also develop about 400 residential lots per year.

Um, what I'd like to point out, and I don't know how I can get this to work, but um this home on the screen uh in 2012 we founded the home company, and uh we built this house in 2012 for uh $300,000.

In fact, I remember selling the exact same one for 299,900 in 2012.

This same home in today's market is averaging $585,000 a house.

Now there are multiple reasons that that happened.

Land went up, regulations on land went up, labor, materials, and in general, just regulation that we're talking about today.

It's become a death of a thousand cuts.

It's a thousand dollars or it's two thousand dollars, but over time, it adds up to an incredibly large number that were making it unaffordable for Omahaans to have homes.

National Association of Home Builders did an analysis of every large community, so Omaha specific that if you create increase the price of a home by a thousand dollars, Omaha is losing five hundred and forty-six families that can now not afford a home.

$2,000 is over a thousand families that cannot afford a home, and so on and so forth.

We've identified about $24,000 in regulations that have increased in just the recent past that have increased.

Like Nick had said earlier, safety is very important to us.

We agree with that.

We build our homes safe.

But what I would ask for the members of this council is that if this is a safety issue, like the proponent of it said, I would ask once this passes, how many of you are gonna go back and retrofit your homes with all of these items?

I'll bet not many.

And that's the important part that we want to get across is while we agree with safety.

I know I'm not going back and retrofitting my homes with these eight items.

There's no point.

The homes that we're building today are a hundred times safer than the ones that were built even 20, 30, 40 years ago.

At some point in time with this task force that they're doing with the mayor, we can talk about affordability, or we can actually do something about affordability.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Are there any other opponents here to speak today?

Melvin Sudback 16255 Woodland Drive with Sedback Homes.

Um we've been working with quite a few emerging and uh young developers in the northeast part of town uh working on a much needed affordable housing.

And here again, too, it's it's a price.

I think our homes are as safe as they've ever been.

Uh, we keep adding more and more expenses on to the houses that are affordability, it's just not working.

Um, with some of our young developers, it's very tricky to get these projects to work where they're successful, and we can place uh uh much needed families in in in housing.

So thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Is there any other opponents here today?

Hi, I'm Corey Jensen with Corey Jensen Construction, uh 7719 North 159th Street in Bennington.

And uh just a small uh contractor, uh starter home builder, and I just feel like uh this uh increase in price will just uh really hurt uh trying to keep the price down.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any other opponents?

Larry Arkfeld 152 16 Ballman Av.

Uh yes, some of the safety issues probably are fine, but there's way too many that you're involved in that for nonprofit organization to do housing for people that want to live the dream of having a new house, this increase will pretty much kill them.

I mean, you're not talking thousand dollars, you're gonna be talking five to six thousand dollars because there will be price gouging going.

You put a GFI on an AC.

I've talked to many AC mechanics, and they have said the same thing that years down the road that AC will start to cause more problems firing up in the springtime.

The GFI is gonna trip, you're gonna call an electrician, he's gonna come in, throw a breaker in that he doesn't need to, and charge you, it could be anywhere two or three hundred dollars that you're wasting money on.

Now, the big issue is grounding.

Improper grounding is what's going on, and that is what needs to be looked into.

I've seen it many times out there in the field, and yes, there is a lot of safety measures that can be taken to stop what's going on.

But as far as I can tell, for the person to live the dream of building a new house, this increase is gonna get ridiculous.

It's up to now that what do we do?

Just build houses for millionaires?

Because that's what's happening.

The small middle class person cannot afford to build a dream house like they want because they're just way overpriced.

And I have to agree with a lot of these builders that they're right.

Stuff needs to change.

I agree.

There is safety measures that can be taken that should be taken out in the field.

And a lava is craftsmanship has gone down drastically.

And my 40 years in the business, I've seen it in houses that we haven't done, that people cut corners because it's the almighty dollar.

That is what needs to come to an end.

We need to take care of people more than our pocketbooks.

And I think Omaha would flourish from it from doing stuff like this versus out to just gouge people, because it is not fair.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there any other opponents?

That was your first thing I agree with.

Larry Stewart, 5015 Lafayette Avenue, Omaha 68132.

I like the way some of them get to go slightly off topic and they're not interrupted.

People like myself and Donnie.

Seldom do.

But I'm gonna go off topic a little bit here because I wonder topic, Larry.

You're gonna be dismissed.

You didn't interrupt any of the things.

You said you're gonna go off topic and just preempting you.

Don't please.

Let me finish.

Don't tell me.

I'm wondering, sir, the mic is yours.

If you're gonna go off topic, you're gonna be removed.

This is really ridiculous.

The floor is your.

Why don't you stand up and yell at me again like you did?

I'm not yelling at you at all, Larry.

This is my time.

Three minutes you're using.

The floor is yours.

May I speak?

I'm wondering if this is a way you drive customer citizens out of their homes with higher prices because somebody went in and looked and said, Oh, you got a bad circuit in the house.

Here's what you're gonna get fined if you don't fix it.

Is that how we get all these vacant homes that are being broken into because people moved out?

Windows broken into and uh boarded up.

Uh Mr.

Harding, just look at the uh mega sort of mega saver on Hamilton Street.

You're off topic.

Northwest Radio, drive that area.

Larry, you're off topic.

You'll see what I'm talking about.

You're off topic, please.

Thank you.

Vacant homes.

Well, thank you very much.

This is very nice of you.

Very nice of you.

Next speaker, thank you for your patience.

This floor is yours.

Okay, come over here.

Nope, okay.

Nope.

Good girl.

Yeah, it's fine.

Sorry.

I just moved, so I developed my address because I haven't remembered it yet.

Um Alexander Liu uh addresses 4354, North 88th Plaza, uh, Omaha 68134.

Um more of a question, actually, for you, uh, and I guess any of the builders that they can answer this.

So I'm no expert in uh housing or anything, but I'm honestly curious as to how much of an impact safety is actually gonna have on affordable housing, because I don't think that uh increased safety features are the reason that housing is so affordable, or sorry, not affordable, excuse me.

Because we like as we increase safety, that if it is the reason that housing is so unaffordable for people, I don't think that should be the reason people are being pressed out of homes that people are not able to buy homes personally.

If that is the reason, which I don't think it is, that is kind of ridiculous, then obviously something should be changed.

However, like if you just are looking at the housing market and things like I mean, if you're like referring to the 2008 housing crash as somebody else referred to before, it wasn't safety features that caused that.

That was banks mishandling things.

Had nothing to do with safety features.

So we are looking in the wrong place if we're gonna try and blame added safety for the reason that people can't afford homes.

If we need to increase things and people in the electrical unions think this is a necessary thing because they are seeing issues with maybe power surges or whatever else is the reason.

I don't know if you'd mentioned why you thought this was an issue, and I just misheard it.

I don't know, I might have missed that.

That might have been my fault.

Whatever the reason is, probably a good, you know, it's a good thing that they're suggesting that.

Again, I'm not an expert in all electrical stuff, but safety features should not be a reason that people cannot have homes.

If it is a necessary thing, yeah, we should probably add it.

But it's again something we should look into.

I don't think it's a bad thing to want to have added safety features, but people should also be able to afford to have a home.

Thank you.

And just for the record, are you this is an opposition right now, or are you an opponent?

Listen, I'm not against having it.

It says more that the question is like I don't understand why this should be like a contentious issue, and I was more asking the experts here, like I said, on either side, because I'm not an expert in this field, and I'd like it to be answered by whoever thinks they can answer that.

Okay, thank you.

Is there any other opponents here today?

Good afternoon, Mr.

President, counsel.

My name is Jason Thielen.

I'm here on behalf of Welcome Home, which is a non-profit organization made up of business owners, individuals, and other nonprofits working with uh elect officials that such as yourself to try to work on the affordability issue through non-taxpayer subsidized uh ways of doing it.

And this is a great example of it, if we have the courage today to vote, like we should vote.

Uh, I'm not gonna repeat a lot of what's already been said.

Sir, can we get your address, please?

I'm sorry.

Oh, I'm sorry, no problem.

Uh 10 uh 909 Mill Valley Road Suite 100, Oma, Nebraska, 68154.

Thank you.

It's been a while since I've seen y'all.

Um as of the end of this year, according to Omaha Multiple Listing Services, the average closed price of a newly constructed home in Omaha is 491,000.

491,000.

And I know the thought is, well, geez, they must be making a ton of money because they're building them so expensive.

And the reality is the costs have gone up astronomically.

Not all the fault of building codes.

There's a very, very complicated industry, the housing and development industry is working it every day.

Um, but I think we have lost our way uh in terms of what is realistic and what is needed.

If I want to put as many safety features into my home to bubble wrap it and make sure if I fall or my kids run into something, nothing happens to me, I should be able to do that.

But any time government starts to mandate things, which is what you're doing, as this was already brought before this council last year, it's being brought back up for uh for obvious reasons.

Mandates cost people money.

And is it the people that can afford it?

You cost.

It's the very constituents in which every one of you sit up here claim to be supportive of, trying to take care of, that get hurt the most because they don't have options.

Those people that can afford a $500,000 house have options.

Why are we in the situation we're in?

Partly because of the 09 crisis that had happened.

We lost a generation of builders.

We lost thousands and thousands of units brought on uh on the market to keep up with pace.

We do not build enough housing.

That's across the country, everybody knows that.

We have to make hard decisions, and you have to put your political aspirations aside and do the right thing.

Vote against this, vote for Mr.

Rose's uh amendment.

I'm on the HAP committee, and I know my time's almost up.

Very frustrating for me.

I get asked by the professionals that I work with every single day to give my time for free to help the city out.

The guiding principle of the comp plan, I'm a part of that housing group as well.

Omaha is a place where people can afford to live and choose the housing and lifestyle that best suits them.

That's a guiding principle of the comp plan, of which all of you voted for, as well as the HAP housing affordable action plan that you all voted for as well to put us what where is the commitment to the word affordability that every one of you have heard use over the years.

Where's the commitment?

If you vote for this, you're not committed for affordability.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, Mark Stadola, owner of Charleston Homes 19211 in Grand Avenue Circle, Omaha, Nebraska, 6802.

Uh I've been in this home building industry for almost 40 years.

Uh for uh 30 years of worked with the city of Omaha, uh, going back with uh Jay Davis, many of you know Jay Davis, worked on many code committees with him as we reviewed codes over the years.

Uh IBW came up here as a proponent, talked about electrical industry safer.

We all want this industry safer.

We've instituted many codes over the years to make it safer.

Um I've gone out with Jay Davis with different city officials after tornadoes, uh, the most recent one a year and a half ago in Elkhorn, affected one of my communities, and we're trying to figure out how can we make things safer.

These eight items that are amended out, aren't part of that group.

You've at the state level, they've amended it out.

Every jurisdiction around Omaha has accepted that.

Bellevue, Papillion, Gretna, Douglas County, all of their experts have said the state's doing the right thing.

Your own experts, Anna Bezboy Osni, Mike Wilverdee.

We've met with, we've talked to them.

Anna spoke with you last time.

This was up and said, leave it the way it is.

These are your experts.

Okay.

Having worked so many years with Jay Davis and going back and working with Anna, it's always been about life safety, the integrity of the home.

Two of the most expensive issues here.

We talked about safety of the firefighters.

The firefighters can disconnect the meter right now, as it is.

It's simple for them to do.

I'm not going to explain it because I don't want everybody to know how to do it.

But if you do it this way and put that disconnect, a five-year-old will be able to go up and shut the power off to your home.

People will put a lock on it.

Adding a 50 amp to a carport.

We currently have that option.

Less than 5% of the people choose that option.

Okay.

Explain to me, you guys talk a lot about why we're doing different things with these soccer fields, why it's smart.

Please tell me why life safety, it's important to put a 50 amp in a garage.

Why?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

President, uh, members of the council, Perry Nealin, uh spell it and not sign in, P-E-R-R-E-N-E-I-L-A-N here before you today on behalf of the Omaha Area Board of Realtors, and it's more than 3,200 members, all of which live and work in in each one of your districts.

Um what are we doing here, guys?

I mean, come on.

All seven of you came and sat before the Omaha Realtors and their government affairs committee and board of directors and said, I will do whatever I can to support affordable housing and reduce regulations.

We're not even asking you to pull back on any existing regulations.

We're asking you to stop piling on.

Stop the death by a thousand cuts.

This is not that hard to say no to.

Okay.

We're doing what we get.

We're not Vail or San Francisco, we're almost at a half million dollars in Omaha, Nebraska.

Thirteen years from now, it's gonna be a million dollars.

We can't keep doing it.

I'm asking you to keep your word that you made, do the right thing, support the role amendment, and not the full ordinance.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there any other opponents here?

Public hearing is closed.

I'll have a couple of comments.

Um I appreciate everybody coming down today.

Um I brought this forward.

It was the same one that passed the city council last year, and it was vetoed by the former mayor.

To me, this is about safe affordable housing.

It's common sense for the families that live in Omaha.

It's life safety measures.

We had testimony in Lincoln from several different groups of people that were in support of this.

The state electrical inspector, manufacturing insurance companies, I believe the fire marshal.

This um is we looked at this and analyzed it when I got on the council and now I brought it back because I I feel strong about that.

We're not we're not penalizing affordable housing and saying this is the sphere of the air road that's gonna terminate affordable housing.

We can have safe affordable housing with the measures that we're putting in here today.

I got a couple questions for Mr.

Nebel, please, if you could come back up.

Yes, sir.

Name for name and it can be a good one.

John Nebel, uh 8946 L Street.

Mr.

Nebel, um how many states in the country have what we have before us here today?

Is this something new?

No.

No, uh, so 38 states have adopted a form of the 2020 or 2023 code.

2020, the codes that we're discussing here today all came from the 2020 edition.

Uh, Nebraska was working under the 2017 edition, skipped 2020, went right to 2023.

So 38 states have already made amendments.

Okay.

And we talk about life safety measures.

Can you explain what that means of people that are listening today, what the life safety measures are?

So, so yeah, when the code started, it was very thin, and we expanded to a thousand pages.

When electricians started uh our union, it was three years life expectancy.

Now it's we can work a whole career.

So the the life saving measures are all in that thousand-page document, and they're riddled throughout it.

Uh, and specifically for this one, it's GFI protection.

So it means if you touch something that's plugged in, you're not gonna get electrocuted.

The breakers that we're talking about installing would sense that and they would be able to turn off where the current breakers do not have that type of technology, and they would just allow the electricity to flow.

Okay.

And potential savings to not only the safety for people that are families that are gonna be living in homes.

What are the savings with this equipment that it'll bring?

And I know there's a little bit of cost to it.

What would you say the cost is?

You figured it up.

What is the cost for the equipment we're talking about here today?

It's around $700.

I was I went to a local uh retailer over the weekend, priced it all out, and uh, and it was a hundred dollars more per breaker.

Uh typical home needs about three of those breakers, and it was a hundred dollars for the whole home search protector, maybe a hundred and ten if I remember right.

And then uh the cost for the combo meter disconnect is uh is two hundred and sixty-nine dollars, I believe, at at the local retailer right now.

Now, all of that together, you should also consider that there's an offset cost of the material that's outdated that you would no longer have to buy.

So we're spending $700, $700 there.

We're not spending another $200 and some dollars on that outdated material.

So overall cost is around $500.

Okay.

And explain again for for laymen and women out there listening.

A basement GFI, what is that?

Uh, it's just a different type of receptacle, like the one you've seen in your kitchen countertops and your bathrooms.

We've been around for a couple decades.

Uh, and it's a GFI in the basement.

Uh typical the reason why we put them in the basement or why this code wants to put them in the basement is because basements are susceptible to flooding.

So uh people with bare feet down there could be at risk of being electrocuted if you don't have proper electrical protections.

And with this protection with the the basement GFI, this provides it and it'll prevent somebody from getting electrocuted.

Correct.

Okay.

The range and dryer GFI, same concept.

Same concept.

Yeah, people are being electrocuted around the dryers from faulty wiring.

Uh this technology would allow the the circuit to understand that there was somebody something wrong, someone being electrocuted, it would shut it down.

Okay.

And the meter socket disconnect.

Walk me through.

Do you have a picture you can show what that looks like?

Yes.

So the meter socket disconnect.

Um the gentleman that spoke on that you can the fireman can pull it, uh pull the meter and shut off power, that's correct.

That's accurate.

But there's uh there's a risk to that because you're pulling a live circuit under load, and when you separate power like that, when it's unprotected, there's a chance they could arc and uh and burn the individual doing it.

So that's why you don't want to do it.

Uh I also won't tell you how to do that.

But this is the combo uh meter socket that you're that would be installed.

So if anybody knows what their meter socket looks like, it's typically just this uh box with the round circle in it.

We just have uh a breaker underneath it, it's got a door cover on it.

A person generally wouldn't even know what they were looking at.

Um firemen would know, first responders would know, electricians would know, and you could put a lock on it, firemen have their uh universal skeleton key bolt cutter that could open it up, but it's not going to be something that uh that a five-year-old is going to come and disconnect.

And just so you're aware, too.

Uh if you think that's a problem, anybody that has the air conditioner has a disconnect on the outside of their house already, looks similar to that.

It's got a cover on it, and you don't really know it's a disconnect, but any five-year-old could walk up and uh and turn it off if they knew about it.

But since we're not hearing about rampant disconnects being flipped, I don't think it's gonna be a problem.

Okay.

And the surge protection that we're speaking of here today with this, what is a surge protector do?

It it absorbs the electric uh surge that's coming through on the power lines.

Um what it would do would take the hit, so the uh electronic boards in your microwaves, your uh uh ranges, your fridges anymore, any computer, anything that has a um chipboard in it, uh, is susceptible to these surges.

So it would absorb the hit so those devices wouldn't uh take it and wouldn't need to be replaced.

And if you didn't have that surge, is it safe to say that if you with our grid challenges that we're having?

I know that's been discussed in the news with the Omaha Public Power District and the Southwest Power Pool and just a grid in the country in general.

Is it safe to say that if you don't have that surge protection and a surge happening in your house, those motherboards, those electronics, the appliances, is it safe to say that the price tag for a surge could be in the tens of thousands of dollars?

You betcha.

Yeah, it's it's the cost of replacing the appliance, if not the repliance, it's just the board.

I uh to go on a little bit of uh crosstalk.

Uh the the gentleman from the home company uh it's a nice home, the Sedona, I live in it.

Uh I uh appreciate that home, uh, but I would be going back and putting in the surge protector because my uh I did have a surge and I lost my microwave and the uh the board to my oven in the last year.

So that cost me around 4050 dollars, I think, to replace those.

Okay.

Thank you.

We have a lot of lights on I want to yield my time and I'll follow up on the end.

Thank you.

Councilman Rowe, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

I had uh I I did have a couple of questions.

Um just as a background, and don't go away, John.

I'm I have some questions for you, but um it was a year ago in January, I think that John Kavanaugh introduced the uh the code adoption at the state level.

And so you're right, they they adopted the 2023 code with I think it was with five carb outs that that are itemized, and that's where my the basis of my amendment was to sync up the Omaha Code with the state code, and honestly, to sync us up with other jurisdictions in the in our neighborhood, Papillion, Sarpe County, Douglas County, other areas that elect that our electricians are working in.

And John introduced that and it was vetted, and I'm sure there was plenty of of conversation with signed by the governor in March.

So that's the code that we're working under.

And um, and we do need to sync up because we're out of compliance today.

So I appreciate Danny bringing the bringing it back up, but I think we need to adopt the amendment uh to to put us in alignment with what the state is doing.

But I think we need to adopt the amendment to put us in alignment with what the state is doing.

And I do have a couple of electrical questions.

The one is the GFI currently is required on 125 volts, right?

And under the new code, I think it includes two up to 250 volt outlets, and that's where you get the dryer and the uh those other big appliances, right?

Correct.

Yes.

And so just doing a little bit of research.

Are those GFIs that you're buying that are electricians are buying today to handle those pieces of equipment?

Are they made to handle up to 250 volts?

Or because what I what I read was that there's a thing called nuisance tripping, and what you find is it's a failure of the outlet.

It's not necessarily an issue with the appliance that's going to shock somebody.

It's a failure of the outlet.

Does that make sense?

Uh I've heard of it.

Um the the GFIs when they originally came out, it was just for 120 volt, so it was like a regular plug-in thing, and uh the idea was to those are things that everyone's going to be able to plug into.

The bigger equipment has a different style of plug.

People generally don't plug into those uh unless they have that type of equipment.

So uh that was where the separation was.

We spent a couple of decades working with that.

We heard about nuisance tripping.

I was in the field for 20 years and I never dealt with a nuisance trip.

It was always a faulty piece of equipment.

It was like the the GFI doesn't, it just goes bad and doesn't reset.

It doesn't generally just have a nuisance tripping, but it has been something I've heard in the industry.

I think some of the uh manufacturers in the industry asked for kind of a moratorium on it until uh later in 2026 so that they could develop a a product that would work in that case, but I don't think they're there yet.

I think that's why we're seeing the failure.

But I'm not an electrician, I'm just asking the question.

I haven't seen it, no.

Um the other one was on the emergency disconnect.

I'm not too worried about the five-year-old.

The thing that worries me is, and I hate to admit this, but once in a while I'll go on social media, and there's one that I just consider evil, and it's called next door.

And every day I see kids running up and and doing ding-dong ditch.

You know, they're they're uh disrupting their neighbors, they're hitting the doorbell, they're running, they're smashing into the garage door, they're doing just nuisance things.

My concern is that they're gonna figure out how to throw that switch, how to hit that lever, and all of a sudden now I've got a house without power.

And I'm not even so much concerned about me and and it happening to me, because I can just go out and throw the switch.

But you know, if my mom who lives in Lincoln, and or if she had lived in Omaha and wanted to go spend three months in Florida, and somebody came by and hit that switch, now we have serious problem.

There's a there's a serious problem because there's nobody there to know it.

And water pipes freeze, um, there's all sorts of bad things that happen.

It's the 15-year-old that I'm worried about, not the five-year-old or the 14-year-old or the 12-year-old.

Yeah, I I think the uh the cover with the the little uh hole there, that's a lock mechanism, so you can you can padlock it and you won't you won't have that problem.

Well, that's the craziest argument I've heard all day.

And I'm just trying to be honest, being transparent.

Why would I put a lock on something that the that the fire department is going to have to cut off if the intent is for them to quickly be able to disconnect the power?

I'm I just don't follow that reasoning.

Otherwise, they need to like if they don't want to risk themselves by pulling the meter and creating an arc, they would wait for utility to come and do it.

Uh so you're you're waiting for some other professional to come and disconnect it.

Instead, you just have to cut a lock and you can open it and disconnect it.

Okay.

Okay.

I had a couple other questions on that, just on the basics of the the electronics, but I'd rather move on to the affordability piece.

And so you can sit on.

But the um the I appreciate the mayor's commitment to affordable housing.

Um many of us, not all of us, but many of us passed the uh the affordability housing action plan, the HAP plan.

And some of us have been frustrated with the lack of action that's come out of it.

And we've had some action, we've approved some ADUs, and we've done some things to help with affordability, but not to the in my mind, it's not been to the level of um it's not moving the dial on the affordable affordability issue.

And so I appreciate the mayor appointing the task force and um actually brought a list of the names.

It's people that are in the industry, and they and they're smart, they're smart people.

And they and they're smart, they're smart people.

Jody Holston from over here.

Steve Jensen from the mayor's office and uh Key Station and myself are going to be serving on this task force.

Now we haven't convened yet.

Our our first meeting is next week.

My my concern is how do I go to that meeting and suggest what I assumed this was low-hanging fruit.

How am I going to suggest things that really are going to take courage to pass?

Things that really will move the dial.

I'm not sure how I'm going to handle how I'm going to handle that meeting.

But I but I do appreciate at least with that smaller group, I think we have an opportunity to make a difference, and I hope that we can make a difference.

And I hope the council, because as you said, or as I heard, all seven of us, it's important to all of us.

We want to see more housing built.

We know how important that is.

So anyway, I'm going to support the amendment, clearly.

And uh I appreciate your I'd appreciate everybody's support a couple of weeks.

Thanks, Mr.

President.

Thank you.

Council member Harding, you're recognized.

First, uh I'm glad you're going to support your own amendment, but I mean I'm going to support it too.

So you know.

Um actually, uh John, could I be come up on this?

Some of this is going to feel like deja vu all over again because a lot of the same arguments I think a lot of us on this council have today, whether it's pro or con or the same ones we had the last time we visited this issue.

But um I I know you you did um you you I wrote down initially that um you didn't bring up the cost.

I think you got those costs um out on the table when uh council president uh bagley was asking you.

But one of the things I think you mentioned uh the last time you were up here was uh the number of um deaths that had occurred um due to um electrical accidents.

Do you remember what those stats were?

Uh I don't know the stats offhand, but I know I do know there was deaths around children playing around dryers and air conditioners.

Okay, and I think I think the my memory, and I went back and I revisited the um testimony from when last November when we were discussing this, um I think it was a little over a hundred, and that was over a ten-year period of time.

But I wondered, uh I wanted to know since then, I wanted to know how many of those that were injured or lost their life uh were due to the I'll say the lack of these amended items within the 2023 code.

I'm not sure, but I can uh I can definitely do some research and see if I can find out.

Okay.

I'd appreciate that.

Um so that that those were the questions I had for you.

Thank you.

Um I I know you know we we talked or a number of the uh people who spoke in opposition talked about um wanting to have safe environments and and wanting to make sure that the products that they're proud of and sell every day are are just exactly that.

And I do think these um these seem to be a bit of of an overreach to to include these.

Um we cannot adopt a code more lenient than the state, but others other states have we can adopt um the same one that the state has adopted already.

What uh oh I'm gonna ask Mr.

Rowe because I think I remember one of them was um now you're required to have a surface mount uh plug on on a countertop, correct, rather than having it on the side.

That's that's one of the ones that maybe didn't get included in the list of right.

That should have been opted out as well.

That should have been item number six in my view, but it didn't it didn't get uh thought through.

So today there's a device that is required to be put on the top of the countertop, not on the side of the countertop, because on a hydraulic like a plunger system, so it can be um level with the with the countertop.

Um in my view, it's pretty play, pretty easy place for Chile to I would agree.

And there is was mentioned too by some of the the um testifiers is that there are some states um that certainly adopted the code with even more amendments than that we're considering or even had moratoriums on on what we're what we're currently discussing.

Um I find it also interesting that later on on our agenda, speaking of affordability, we have an item um on the bonding and the amount of to the tune of 40 million dollars to address affordable housing.

And I know Mr.

Thielen uh who's worked very hard on the the welcome home, maybe didn't get a chance to throw this statistic out today because of of time, but the anywhere from you know 25 to 32 percent of a of a home today uh is tied up, the price of that home is tied up in in regulations.

Now I'm not I'm not so naive to think that we just throw all the regulations out the window and and uh and that the the price is gonna be you know 23 to 32 percent lower.

Um but we need to have common sense approaches to these issues.

We know we're not jeopardizing uh safety with the our own um our own uh permits and inspections um professional has said so, the state has said so.

Other communities, as was brought up with Papillion La Vista, Bellevue and others have adopted the the code with the with the amendments.

Um I I I'm very confident that we're not uh we're not compromising safety.

The other uh issue that I know will be again, deja vu all over again that the Dave uh Ottman brought up was the $1,000 increase.

It was interesting.

I think Dave, the last time we discussed this, the $1,000 increase um I had written down was 435 families that was that was taken out of uh of the market for that house.

And and your statistics now say over five almost 550, so that's grown exponentially just in the in the year we've been talking about this.

So again, these are one-a-halves, they're not need-to-haves for safety purposes.

And if we continue, as Mr.

Nealand said and and others have said, if we continue to have death by a thousand paper cuts, this is exactly the direction we're going.

And if we're taking out the ability for five hundred over almost 550 people, I'll even use John's numbers if it's uh, you know, if it's only 500, which I doubt, but if it's only 500, we're still taking out probably 350 families that could otherwise be affording a home.

These are reasonable, not safety-threatening amendments.

The state has adopted them, the other metropolitan area jurisdictions have adopted them, and I for the the sake of making sure that we're not adding needlessly burdensome uh uh uh requirements uh to homes at the cost of those homes, which are already a real issue, I'm supporting Mr.

Rowe's amendment.

Thank you.

Councilmember Melton, you're recognized.

Thank you.

And I I won't repeat what um Councilmember Rowe and Councilmember Harding uh uh have stated.

But I think I think the most important thing is somebody stated, um, one of the opponents stated, you can talk about affordable housing, but you need to do something.

Well, not only are we not doing something, we're actually doing something harmful to affordable housing.

We're actually taking not just two steps backwards, but probably four steps backwards.

And second, I've always heard from contractors and and subcontractors, one of the most difficult things is when you have different rules and different codes in different jurisdictions.

So that on one side of Harrison, you have one set of codes.

On the other side of Harrison, you have another set of codes.

I mean, we need to keep it consistent, at least on a statewide basis.

Maybe different on one side of the Missouri River versus the other side.

Um, but at least we need to make it statewide.

We can't be having Omaha have a different code than Ralston, then Papillion, then La Vista.

And to me, saying that we just want Omaha or just want Lincoln to have it, you know what, go take this fight up with the state.

Just because you lost it, the state, don't come back to the city and say, well, by the way, we're gonna target you, City of Omaha, and make the cost of your homes less affordable.

And every single person that passed the affordable affordable housing act.

I mean, how hypocritical that one of the first votes you're gonna take, because we really haven't taken any action on the plan.

So the first vote we're gonna take, again, is to make housing more expensive.

I mean, this app might be the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard of.

And all Don Rowe is asking for is these simple amendments.

If somebody wants a surge protector, put it go buy a surge protector.

We bought one.

But by the way, losing a microwave is not losing your life.

It's not a life saving.

It's it's definitely not life-saving.

Um I mean, a 50 amp in the garage.

That what life is that saving, requiring that?

I mean, and again saying, well, these are just little, it's just little.

Again, death by a thousand cuts.

Oh, it was gonna be 700.

Really, it's only 500 because we're gonna save 200.

Well, that 500 is gonna be 700, probably in the next year with the way that costs are going.

So I I guess I don't understand why we're gonna have this fight in Omaha, why Omaha is gonna do something different um than the rest of the state because it's going to make when you're building housing.

I mean, we had a lot of the home builders, you're not building just within the city limits of Omaha.

You're building, well, in SIDs.

You're building um, you know, j again, just across Harrison Street.

And so now it's like, wait, which code are we following?

What do we have to do and where?

So I I'm not buying this life-saving um business at all.

This this is more what this is, it's you're you're taking your fight up at the city council because you're lost at the state level, and you're making housing more expensive.

I don't know who you're benefiting.

Um other than you lost at the state level.

Uh we need to make it statewide.

We need to have all of our codes the same with our neighbors, and we need to make sure that the promise we made to the people of Omaha and the people that can't afford a home that were promising we're gonna try and make buying a home more affordable.

So let's do that.

Let's not pass something that's gonna make it more expensive.

And again, the majority of the people, this is just for new homes.

So I I don't know if anybody lives in a new home that's sitting up here.

I've been living in my house for 20 years, and the people before me, I think lived in it for 20 years.

So, you know, I'm in a 40-year-old house and I raise three boys too, who were into everything.

And, you know, if they were if they were something was gonna happen, it probably would happen to one of my boys.

Um how they made it through our house.

I consider it pretty safe.

Um, and I again agree with with Don with Tic Tac challenges.

I don't know that we need to make any more anything more open to um kids and not five-year-olds, I would say I'm more worried about the 15-year-olds uh who can come around and and turn off the power in our in our houses.

So I I guess I I'm in support.

I think Mr.

Rose, Councilman Rowe's amendments make sense and they're not gonna hurt affordability.

I because we've got all these other things.

We've got inflation, we have the increased costs of everything.

Let's not increase it even more.

Let's not keep over 500 people from being able to afford a home.

Let's keep our promise to the citizens of Omaha when we promised them that we would make housing more affordable.

I agree with Mr.

Nealon.

We all made that promise.

We all made that commitment, and we need to fulfill that commitment, and it's a commitment for the people that can't afford it for lower income for working class people that want to buy a house, want to be first-time homebuyers.

This is what we're talking about.

$500,000 is the average cost of a home.

Absolutely ridiculous.

I could have never afforded that when I bought my first home.

Bought my first home, it was $135,000.

And that was I don't know, in 2001.

Let's keep our commitment to people and keep our commitment to making housing affordable.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilman, Councilmember Goodwin, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

I do appreciate hearing all the arguments today.

You'll find that um I'm a proponent of and a champion of mixed income housing.

I believe we need all types of housing, and I think our builders know that.

Uh, I think our electricians know that.

And those of us who are on this council understand low-income uh housing is different than the very vague word of affordability, because it you do beg the question, who is housing affordable to?

You're then starting talking about people's various income and then affordability to me may mean different something different to the next person.

I find it interesting today that we don't have the folks who actually let's just say the organizations that build affordable housing, um, they're not here today.

Uh I did do a little bit of homework as I have people very adjacent to me who are uh who work in affordable housing um for their careers, and I begged the question to them.

Now they're not here to speak for themselves, but I said, okay, I heard a framework of anywhere from 700 to 1700 as being what this expense could be.

And I said, Does that um you know change the cost of affordability for, you know, in my district, a new build runs about 300,000.

Um, so when you're looking at a house that costs that much, you know, um, does uh the safety, okay, um comparing to that cost adjustment really change the um the affordability factor.

And uh the folks that I asked said no.

Now they're not here to speak for themselves.

I'm not going to um, you know, mention the organizations, the local organizations that they work for.

I'm also gonna beg the question or maybe make the point because the word hypocrite hypocrisy was used.

My colleagues here uh did not vote for the public poverty elimination plan.

Uh, but then would beg and use the word hypocrite if we choose not to support uh you know the amendment.

And I would say that if we're looking at it at its face, that and we're using the word affordable, um, that we'd also be supporting the poverty elimination plan, and it wasn't supported.

Um and so I'm just gonna throw that out there since the word hypocrite was used.

Um I think what I found as I did my research was that folks said, you know what?

No one wants housing to simply be unaffordable.

But for those who are truly low income, and I represent one of the poorest zip codes in the state.

Um that they also don't want to sacrifice safety.

I appreciate our expert here uh with you know uh in the electrician field that would give us that that insight, and I think that they are the experts.

Um they're they're the ones.

I know we have the builders, but these are the electricians telling us that this is the upgrade we need.

And so um those are my thoughts around this.

Uh definitely a champ champion of low-income housing, affordable housing, mixed income housing, market rate housing, luxury housing, and guess what?

I actually have that all in my district.

Um, but I think there's a balance here we can strike, and so those are my thoughts and comments as I look to support this upgrade when it comes to vote.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Seeing no further lights.

Item 38, an ordinance to approve various purpose bonds, series 2025 B and the amount of 75 million dollars.

Public hearing is now open on item number 38.

Are there any proponents?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Item 39 in ordinance to approve special tax revenue redevelopment bonds series 2025 in the amount of three million three hundred thousand dollars for crossroads.

Public hearing is now open on item number 39.

Are there any proponents here today?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Item 40, an ordinance to approve a lease purchase agreement with the City of Omaha Public Facilities Corporation in the amount of 37 million dollars for the midtown and UNMC parking garages.

Public hearing is now open on item number 40.

Are there any proponents here?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Item 41, in ordinance to approve lease purchase agreement with the City of Omaha Public Facilities Corporation in the amount of 65 million dollars for Tranquility Park.

Public hearing is now open on item number 41.

Are there any proponents?

49, 28 Noah 52nd.

I I think you know, when I look at number 41 and what Mrs.

Ms.

Melton was saying earlier today, it's a wonderful program for transquility.

But as I mentioned earlier, a lot of you folks weren't born in this 70.

So can we say that the women are doing much better in soccer, like Billie Jane King beat that one fellow?

And uh You folks wouldn't born.

And when Billy Dean King, the lady, we need to stay on topic.

Okay, thank you.

Are there any opponents?

I'm sorry, proponent?

Oh, please.

Oh, my name is Jeff Week.

Um I uh 13958 Fowler Avenue.

Uh Omaha 68164.

Uh I I want to just start my comments as not I was hesitant about opponents or proponents.

Uh I want tranquility, probably more than anything uh that you can even know to get done.

Uh tranquility uh when I help Brett Lidstrom get the turn back.

Uh Pete, thanks for saying nice things about the turnback, because that was my bill.

Uh that was the law I wrote and continued to amend over time to make it usable by all of these projects.

So I'm really proud to hear the city of Omaha seeing the value of that and taking advantage of a tool that the set the state has provided.

So thank you for that.

That's only start with that.

But uh, you have a bond here that's $65 million.

And I know the the total bond is not six or the value of the project is fifty-four, fifty-six, somewhere in their million for 12 soccer fields.

That's way too much.

I mean, when I was working on this project, I had this the whole project, including new fields at Kelly, at $38.8 million.

And um I I just have to tell you guys that it's it's sad to see the escalation, which isn't real.

Um, because I mean, basically it's flat work uh all the way across.

And I know the project or the the um park has gotten flooded, and there's issues with some of that work that needed to be done.

Um, but because the sewer issue is not part of this, the 120 to 124th on Ford Street is not part of this.

The idea that we're paying 54 million dollars basically, bonding 65 to get 12 soccer fields is is terrible.

I mean, I'm pricing them up.

I'm a consultant, I do use sports all day long, and each soccer field that I've done recently has been a million bucks full in with lights and everything.

So the idea we're doing 12 for 54 million dollars.

I I I can't comprehend.

So I I hope you will take a pause before you say you have bonded at 65 when ultimately it shouldn't cost that much.

Thank you.

I'll take any questions.

Thank you.

Are there any other opponents here today?

Oh, I'm sorry.

It's okay.

Public hearing is closed.

Item 42, an ordinance to approve the redevelopment project revenue bonds in the amount of 40 million dollars for affordable housing urban core, A's communication opposition.

The public hearing is now open on item number 42.

Are there proponents here today?

Ms.

Taylor, good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Jennifer Taylor, City Law Department.

I um always supportive of all of the city's bond efforts.

I am only speaking specifically on this one because when we had our previous hearings on this matter, uh I had promised Council Melton as well as the rest of you that I would identify the portions of this ordinance that gave you the comfort that uh this would be a subordinate bond issuance.

So I just wanted to, if you'll indulge me for a couple of seconds, I will identify for you those provisions in this ordinance.

Um specifically the revenues that are being pledged uh for this bond issuance are those revenues, quote, not required to pay debt service on existing or future bonds issued by the city or the city of Omaha Public Facilities Corporation used to fund the modern streetcar system, um, or not required to establish an annual reserve of three million dollars for debt service.

So these bonds and the payment of these uh payment of this bond is actually subordinate to any existing and any future bonds that are issued by the city, authorized by this council to pay for the streetcar project, as well as a three million dollar debt reserve.

So that has been agreed to by the um the purchaser.

Furthermore, it does state in the documents it's a one percent interest rate that doesn't uh begin to accrue until December 1st, 2031.

And just for boots and suspenders, there are four other sections that also state that this is not recourse to the city.

So you'll find sections 3.2, 3.3, 5.2, 6.3, and 7.1 say that this is in secondary priority and not uh a debt of the city.

I can read them all to you.

I can send it to you later, but I just wanted to let you know that that's in there.

And I'm happy to answer any questions.

I would also point out um just as a reminder that these revenues are only available because we are author we authorize them through the urban core housing and mobility plan, as we amended a couple of months ago, that these revenues are also only available because we are installing public infrastructure that creates additional valuation within the urban core that produces these tax financing revenues without that additional public infrastructure.

This would not be possible.

Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Are there any other proponents here today on item number 42?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Council member Fesserson, you're recognized.

Thanks, Mr.

President.

Just briefly I support this item.

I think we covered it in great detail previously as to how it will work financially and how it will work with our partners front porch and also uh emerging developers.

So thank you for that um summary, Miss Taylor.

The one new thing from last time uh that is public now is that the um entity funding this and making this all possible has now come forward and is public, and that's the the Logier Foundation.

So I just want to thank them for their participation in making this possible.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Item 87, a resolution to approve the quote of Eagle Hills Excavation Inc.

for the demolition of 10909 M Street in the amount of 310,000.

Public hearing is now open on item 87.

Are there any proponents here today?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Oh, I'm beg your pardon.

We have a proponent by Zoom today.

Oh, okay.

Opponents are all right.

You can tell it's late in the day.

We have an opponent by Zoom.

The floor is yours.

Can you hear me?

Yes, I can.

Can you guys hear me?

We can hear you just fine.

Thank you.

My name's Adam Smith.

I'm here on behalf of Newport Blue Impact with the owner of the property at 10909 M Street.

And uh I really just wanted to introduce myself.

Thank you guys for hearing me today.

Um I just found out about this yesterday that uh that the property's up for demolition.

I know it's it's been discussed, but it's now it's up for demolition.

And really, I just want to express uh what we've been trying to do and what's been going on at that property.

Um we're a lender.

We lent to somebody who was uh supposed to fix up the property uh, which they didn't.

They ended up taking the money and running, and we ended up taking it back, I think late last year uh in the winter time.

So I've been trying to keep up the property best that I can.

Um obviously I'm not in the area, but we want to express that my main focus is to try and secure the property, take care of it in the meantime, pushing forward actions like the rezoning so that we can market the property, sell it to somebody or or work with somebody who one has the capability and the willingness to restore it or bring it, you know, to a uh a usable fashion.

Right now it's obviously not that.

Um I know security has been an issue.

Um we didn't know, but the fence got taken down because the previous owner was renting it.

We did not know that.

And someone came or the pre the owner of the fence came and took it down.

So I've actually got American Fence Company lined up.

They were out there yesterday putting in new posts to put up the new fence so that once they get the new fence up, we can then go back and reboard the property, secure it, and try to take care of it.

Um we have every step of the way tried to work with the city and work with code enforcement and work with whoever we need to in order to uh to get this to get the property under control.

So I just wanted to express that you know I'm trying to stop this from getting demolished.

That's the last thing that we need right now.

But um I'm sorry, I'm not I wasn't super prepared because I've never done this before, and you know, I found out late last evening that this is going on.

So I I'm not asking you guys to throw out the idea, but I am asking for a little bit more time, maybe uh uh postponement of the of the order.

I don't know.

Um I don't know if that can even be done.

But like I said the fence was going in yesterday.

I those guys I I called them off today.

Uh so nobody showed up to work today, um, because obviously if it's gonna get torn down, we don't need to be putting up a fence.

Um but I've also been working with our security company.

Um so we hired a security company that comes by and they do uh you know they do regularly.

Mr.

Smith, your your three minute time limit is up.

Thank you for for zooming in and for your patience today.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

Are there any other opponents?

Uh good evening.

I'm city council, Donnie R.

Johnson Johnson Question Foundation, Northumberall Concerned Citizen Foundation.

4928 North 52nd Street.

I'd like to ask the council, have you noticed since the 1950s?

That we were ahead of the terminology, you can't sue City Hall, but it has changed.

You can actually sue City Hall now.

Are there any other opponents here on item number 87?

Seeing none, public hearing is closed.

Council member Rowe, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Uh this is in uh district five.

It's uh it's in a uh high profile area.

Um it's 10909 M Street.

Um is the street uh parallel to L Street, which is hot U.S.

Highway 275.

So there are literally thousands of cars drive by there.

And for four years.

Um no, I I'm gonna say it's probably been for eight to ten years.

The people that have been driving by have seen it a nuisance property.

It's a property that is in disrepair, uh that is um wide open to people coming in and out uh for who knows what kind of activities.

It's a it's a uh graffiti that you know a lot of it I don't understand.

You call me you can call me a boomer, which is fine, but some and some of it I don't understand, some of it I do understand, and it is offensive.

And um we we just desperately need to take action on this property.

Uh I I had conversations with uh with Adam and I appreciate his willingness to take my call and we've been able to talk and but you know I kind of my patience is kind of drawn thin, and so I I'm appreciative of the planning department and the mayor and um and Steve with the finance department finding a creative way to uh take care of this nuisance property, and I think we should move forward uh with the demolition.

Thank you, Councilmember Harding, you're recognized.

Thank you.

Um I would agree with uh Mr.

Rowe.

I think it's it's um this property has been a nuisance for too long.

Um the amount to raise the building is um uh I think extremely reasonable.

And if um Mr.

Smith or the ownership group were interested in uh with the rezoning, I think um to have the demolition take place would only add if you if you calculate that back into your pro forma, it's only a dollar eighty per square foot, I think with the the rezoning that you have with that and a dollar eighty per square foot to um that's spread over the the whole four acres.

So um the value that I think you would get from that would be um would actually be in your favor when you went to go market this with the new zoning on it.

Thank you.

There were no further lights.

We had a motion.

I'm sorry, Councilmember Melton, you're recognized.

My apologies and it well and I'm just curious, Mr.

Smith.

How how long has your company um had control over the property?

Uh I believe we took it back last year in December.

Um, so maybe December of 2023.

I'd have to uh no, I'd have to look.

So my first visit to the property was uh in the winter of last year.

So I think in January or February, which means we would have taken it back probably a week or two before that.

As soon as we take it back, it gets handed over onto my desk, and then I go out, I examine the property, I talk to people, and I figure out what needs to be done, and then uh we move forward from there.

So it wouldn't have been much longer before that.

So you have a year but you haven't had anyone local then here making making sure that the property is being maintained.

Okay, I I heard you lived out of town.

Uh yes, I live out of town.

So um we've been in contact with code enforcement, so they've asked us to do some things.

So they asked us to uh clean up the landscaping, clean up the the uh parking lot to board up the building to fix up the fence, and we also got a security company to come and visit the property every uh twelve hours.

But uh when was that?

Sorry?

When did you get the security company?

Uh probably I'd like to say six months ago, uh maybe April of this year, April or June.

Okay, well, because I I'm not I think there have been people there.

There have been people, I mean there it's been a problem property, so I'm not sure that the security people were necessarily efficient or maybe they weren't doing their job.

I think um well what they do is they do a uh a lap around the property if they see anybody they ask them to leave.

They're obviously not law enforcement, so they don't have law enforcement authority.

Um, but really it's more of a deterrent.

And hopefully when the when someone's there, they ask them to leave and they do go.

And they give us updates every day.

Like I said, twice a day, they give us updates of what's going on, and we try to uh act as fast as we can when something is going on.

If there's you know, if we need to call the police or they broke down the fence again, then we'll we'll get someone out there to fix the fence and or if they broke down a door or or ripped off some more of the the plywood that we used to board up, then we immediately uh get to working on somebody to get that out.

But ever since the fence got torn down from whoever the previous uh owner of the fence was, um obviously things have gotten a little bit out of control.

So that's why I had uh American fence out there, and like I said, they were working on it yesterday.

They have most of the posts in already, but uh obviously they're not gonna be uh moving forward if the if the building's gonna get torn down.

Okay, thank thank you.

Yeah, that it's it has been.

I mean, the condition of the property and what's been going on in that property has been out of control for some time now.

So uh it and I think I'm gonna support uh Mr.

Rowe in this because I know he's talked to me about it for a couple years, and I know he hears about it.

I mean, literally weekly, if not daily, from the people that uh that have businesses or live around around this this hotel.

So I think it's not like we just had a problem over the last couple weeks and and councilman Rose decided that you know enough's enough.

I mean, this has been years coming.

So I that's why I'm I'm gonna have to support that the demo, and I I think I would agree with Councilman Harding.

When I saw the cost of this demo, I actually thought it was fairly low for the size of the building.

That's not really my area, but it seemed it seemed kind of low.

So um hopefully you'll be able to sell this land, recoup your money um for the business you work for, and we'll get somebody that will be able to redevelop this land with something a lot better than what the people around it have had to live with over the last couple years.

But thank you.

Thank you.

We had a motion and then oh, I'm sorry.

I probably knew that was coming.

We had a motion and a second, no further lights.

Roll call.

Festerson.

Yes.

Good one, Harding.

Yes, hug, Melton, Roe, Mr.

President.

Aye.

Non-action items, items 43 through 84 do not require public hearing or city council consideration at this meeting, but will be placed on a future agenda for public hearing and our vote.

The reason for non-action is noted after the item on the agenda as well as the date.

The item is it expected to appear on agenda for consideration.

Motion to adjourn.

Second motion adjourned roll call.

Festerson, good one.

Harding, hug, Melton, Roe, Mr.

President.

Motion passed, seven to zero.

Meeting is adjourned at 443.