Hug, Melton, Roe, Festerson, Goodwin is absent.

Mr.

President.

To the Republic for which it stands.

One nation under the indivisible with liberty justice.

May have a seat.

For the remarks today, I wanted to uh show a little bit of love to our planning department.

It's been about 30 years since Omaha developed a vision for its future with the Omaha Master Plan.

Our city is growing and it faces challenges and opportunities, a lot different than it did back in the 1990s.

It's time for a new comprehensive plan.

Our planning department wants to hear your voice.

You can help guide the future of our city's growth and development by taking a short 12-minute survey.

In the survey, you'll be asked about your experience living in Omaha, your preferences for future development of our city, and your support for different types of growth.

You can find the survey online at We Make Omaha.gov.

A comp plan is a city's vision for the next 20 years.

It outlines a city's preferred direction and where we grow.

In order to make good decisions about Omaha's future that reflects who we are as a community, we need a new comprehensive plan, and we need your participation.

We make Omaha.gov.

Before we begin, we got a couple of proclamations today.

The first one is by Councilmember Pete Fesserson, and the second one is by Councilmember Brinker Harding.

Thanks, Mr.

President.

Uh, I have just two things I want to note today.

First of all, if you're a winter Olympics fan like I am, uh, you're sad to see that event end.

It's been tremendous over the last couple of weeks, and ended uh in a very exciting faciting fashion with both the women's and men's hockey teams winning gold in overtime.

Uh the one Omaha connection I wanted to note in that respect is uh you may not know that on the men's hockey team, uh, Jake Guntzel uh was a participant who's an Omaha native, uh went to UNO, played UNO hockey, and now plays for the Tampa Bay Lightning.

So he's now a gold medalist, and we're very proud of that uh with him being from Omaha.

The second thing I want to note uh that we're also very proud of, and also includes athletic prowess, is my friend Taryn Smith.

If she wants to come down to the podium, please as you may have seen in the Omaha World Held recently, uh there was a story about Taryn's adventure uh being the first woman uh in history to complete what's called the toughest row across the Atlantic Ocean from uh the Canary Islands to Antigua, uh 3,000 mile journey, uh took her 46 days, solo venture for 46 days on the ocean, um, and finished with uh with uh a great placement, and also in the meantime, raised money for our local charity.

So we wanted to honor her today.

And I'll read the following proclamation.

Whereas the community of Omaha takes immense pride in the extraordinary courage, resilience, and athletic prowess of Teryn Smith, a graduate of Miller South High and Nebraska Wesley University.

And whereas Tyrin has secured her place in maritime history by becoming the first American woman to successfully complete a solo journey in what's called the world's toughest row, a formidable and grueling 3,000 mile journey across the Atlantic Ocean.

And whereas Taryn departed from Spain on December 12th, 2025, and arrived in Antigua on January 27th, 2026.

She braved the elements for 46 days, paddling 10 to 12 miles a day while navigating wind, rain, and tough seas with a spirit of patience and determination.

And whereas beyond her physical feat, Taryn utilized her international platform to champion the next generation of leaders, raising nearly $37,000 for girls on the run Nebraska, the largest single contribution to this organization's 23 history, 23-year history, and whereas her journey serves to highlight the values of discipline and resilience she cultivated at the Mary Lorraine Dance Center, proving to young women that they possess the strength to achieve any goal they set their sights upon.

And whereas by viewing the vast challenges of the ocean as lessons in life, learning to slow down, wait for the storm to pass, and embrace the art of patience, Terran serves as an inspiration for Nebraskans of all ages.

Now, therefore, be it resolved that the City Council of Omaha officially commends Terren Smith for her historic achievement and her heart for service.

And we look forward to seeing her next challenge, whatever that may be.

Congratulations.

Thank you so much for this honor.

It really means the world.

A lot of people have expressed surprise that a woman from Omaha, Nebraska, a notoriously landlocked place, decided to row across the Atlantic Ocean by herself.

But to me, it's not a surprise at all.

Omaha is a place of creativity and innovation.

And my row is really a product of my community.

It was brought to life by friends and family and neighbors.

We are meant to go out in the world and do big things, and I just feel so grateful to be from a place that supports that.

So thank you very much.

Spoken like a pro.

Well done.

If I can just make one comment, you may get you're very proud of where you're from, but we're very proud of you.

So thanks for doing that and putting Omaha again on the map.

Um, but I'm just amazed.

And thank you for providing all that hope to other young females in our community.

I mean, what a great thing you did something like that, but then it was also for charity and uh help other young women see that they can basically accomplish anything they want to do.

So I just my heart goes out to you, and thank you.

Thank you so much.

Yeah, okay.

Before I start, uh before I start, uh, I also wanted to know that um, in addition to Jake Gunsel, that Jack Hughes, who scored the golden goal, played, uh, I'm told for the Lancers for a bit too.

So we have a couple of Omaha connections on the U.S.

hockey team.

Um, I'm gonna last week um we lost a uh a true Omaha leader in Mike Annie, and I have a proclamation to read uh for Mike Annie, and Lisa Yanne couldn't be here today, but I will make sure that she gets the proclamation.

Whereas Michael B.

Yanni was born on December 3, 1933, the youngest of nine children of Lebanese immigrants in Kearney, Nebraska, Mike rose from humble beginnings to become a titan of international business and a cornerstone of civic life.

And whereas Mike shared 65 years of loving marriage and a lifetime of shared purpose with his wife, Dr.

Gail Walling Yanni, together creating a blueprint for life lived with principle, curiosity, and focus on making the community better for future generations, and whereas Mike's commitment to his home state was unparalleled, as evidenced by his role in establishing the Yanni Heritage Park in Kearney, securing land for the Ashfall Fossil Beds State Historical Park in Northeast Nebraska, and championed the growth championing the growth of the University of Nebraska Medical Center.

And whereas, as the founder of America First Investment Company and later Burlington Capital, Mike's financial acumen and steadfast leadership bridged continents and connected Midwest industrial and agricultural development with all corners of global trade.

And whereas Mike's greatest investment was always in people, having founded a youth mentorship program, partnership for kids in Omaha, serving as an impassioned advocate for aspirational projects of others, and always seeking to uplift those in need without desire for personal credit.

And whereas the City of Omaha gives pause to honor the extraordinary life and enduring legacy of Michael B.

Yannie, a visionary leader, philanthropist, and devoted family man who passed away on February 14th, 2026 at the age of 92.

Now, therefore, let it be known that we recognize Michael Bianne as a grand example of leadership and know that his legacy shall remain forever in the hearts of many individuals he mentored and inspired in witness whereof we have set our hands and cause the official seal of the city to be affixed on this 24th day of February 2026.

Again, uh Lisa couldn't be here today, but I will make sure that uh she and her family gets a copy of this.

Thank you, an affidavit of publications is on file, and a current copy of the open meeting act is posted in a white binder on the east wall of legislative chambers.

Good afternoon.

Welcome to this meeting of the Omaha City Council.

Is a courtesy to those in attendance and to facilitate the conduct of our business?

We ask that you silence or turn off all electronic devices.

A reminder that you will have three minutes to speak on an agenda item.

Please stay on topic.

For those not providing in-person testimony and would like your comments entered into the public record, you can email the city clerk's office at Cityclerk at City of Omaha.org.

Council members receive these emails and we read them.

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

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

And also those that come up to the podium, make sure those microphones are both right in front of you so we can hear you clearly as well.

Thank you.

Item six to consider a class I liquor license for Hyderabad House, Biryani Place, located at 2537 South 174th Plaza.

This item was postponed from the February 10th, 2026 meeting.

The public hearing is now open.

Are there proponents or the is the applicant here today?

On Zoom.

Shakarol.

Mr.

Chikara, can you hear us?

I don't know.

Mr.

Chikara Gata Shikara, can you hear us?

Do you have us muted there?

Because we can see that you're zoomed in, but we come back to it.

I think he's probably the time.

Okay.

Well, one more time, can you hear us?

Yeah, he's in the message if you want to go into the next one.

Okay.

If you can hear me, just stay put because we're going to try to get you hooked up and we'll come back to you on the agenda.

I can hear you.

All right.

Thanks.

Can you give us my phone?

My I was logged in on my uh PC, but uh the microphone doesn't work, so I'm trying to log in on my phone.

Okay, we hear you just fine.

Can we get your name and your address for the record, please?

Uh my name is Gita Chokara.

And your address?

It's for uh once again.

It's for uh Hydrabadi House.

Let me get the address.

2537 South, 174 Plaza.

Thank you.

We might circle back if we have any questions.

Are there are there any proponents here today on item number six?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Got a motion and a second roll call.

Harding.

Yes.

Hug, Melton, Rowe.

Festerson.

Yes.

Mr.

President.

Aye.

Motion passed six to zero.

Item seven to consider class C liquor license for Bucky Dexter's located at 4213 South 84th Street.

Public hearing is now open on item number seven.

Is the applicant here today?

Applicant for Bucky Dexters here today.

Seven.

Got a motion and a second to lay over for one week roll call.

Harding.

Yes.

Hug.

Melton.

Row.

Festerson.

Yes.

Mr.

President.

Yes.

Motion passed six to zero.

Item eight to consider a class I liquid license for cozy lounge located at 5813 North 60th Street.

Public hearing is now open on item number eight.

Is the applicant in attendance today?

Yes.

Hi.

Name and address, please.

Good.

Thomas Lemon.

And the address is 5813 North 60th Street.

Thanks for being here.

If we got any questions, we'll might pop you back up.

Thanks.

Are there any proponents here on item number eight?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Councilmember Fesserson, you're recognized.

Mr.

President.

This is actually located in a council member Goodwin's district, but it's really close to mine too.

Are you a new owner then?

Is it a uh well I I own the Get Down Ocean Lounge as well.

Yeah, okay.

And so you're expanding the business here too.

Oh actually, that um the Get Down Ocean Lounge.

I have a business partner and the cozy.

This will be this is uh I'm doing this alone.

This it'd be a uh a single solo dolo mission for me.

So first time managing this particular location though.

Indeed.

Okay.

Um and how goes the get down ultra lounge in Florence.

Everything's going uh as well as as you know as it can go.

Um I think I think we've been fairly successful being there for nine years.

Okay.

I know we've had a lot of conversations about that over the over the years, and that's my sense of it too.

There had been some recent um items or uh incidents of concern at this location, but it probably goes back a couple years ago now.

Um are you aware of that?

Or absolutely yeah, nothing since though, right?

No, I mean my mission is to kind of kind of clean the place up a little bit in terms of uh uh make it a little safer.

Yeah, great.

Okay, thanks.

It's nice to see you again and I'll I motion to approve.

Absolutely second.

Got a motion and a second roll call.

Harding, yes, hug, yes, Melton, row, faster, yes, Mr.

President.

Aye, motion pass six to zero.

Item nine to consider a class D liquor license for IMART located at nine zero one zero fourth street.

Public hearing is now open on item number nine.

I believe we have the applicant by Zoom.

Hello, I'm the Cas Groom from IMAC Omaha, Nebraska.

So my location is 901040 Street, Omaha, Nebraska.

68134.

Thank you.

Are there any proponents here on item number nine?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Motion to approve.

Motion and a second roll call.

Harding, yes, hug, Melton, row, festerson, Mr.

President.

Aye.

Motion passed six to zero.

Item 10, a resolution to approve the preliminary plat for Cattail Creek commercial replat to located northeast of 192nd and Q Streets, Planning Board and Planning Department.

Recommend approval.

Public hearing is now open on item number 10.

The applicant, good afternoon.

Good afternoon, members of council, Douglas Strees and 10836 Old Mill Road.

Appearing on behalf of the applicant, here to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any proponents here on item number 10?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Second.

Got a motion and a second roll call.

Harding.

Yes.

Hug.

Melton.

Row.

Festerson.

Yes.

Mr.

President.

Aye.

Motion passed six to zero.

Item 11, a resolution to approve the preliminary plat for a line 192, located southwest of 192nd and Q Streets.

Planning Board and Planning Department recommend approval.

Public hearing is now open on item number 11.

Applicant, good afternoon.

Joe Foley, 3930 South 147th Street here in Omaha.

Good afternoon.

Here to really answer any questions.

That's a one lot subdivision.

We want to zone it to R6 for about 90 apartment units.

It's kind of grade challenge, so the uh the owners worked hard to make it pretty appealing to the neighbors, and we've met several times with the neighborhood and everything, and I think everybody generally supports the project.

So be happy to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you.

Are there any proponents here on item number 11?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Got a motion and a second roll call.

Harding.

Yes.

Hug.

Melton.

Row.

Festerson.

Yes.

Mr.

President.

Aye.

Motion pass six to zero.

Items 12 and 13 can be considered together for South Side Terrace 3, located southeast of 30th and T Streets, Planning Board and Planning Department.

Recommend approval.

Item 12, a resolution to approve the final plat.

Item 13, a resolution to approve the subdivision agreement.

The public hearing is now open for items 12 and 13.

Applicant, good afternoon.

Hi.

Terry Morrison with Airhard Griffin and Associates 3552 Farnham Street.

I'm here on behalf of the ownership group.

Thank you.

Are there any proponents here today?

Items 12 and 13.

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Got a motion and a second.

Row call.

Harding.

Yes.

Hug.

Melton.

Row.

Festerson.

Yes.

Mr.

President.

Aye.

Motion passed six to zero.

Item 14, a resolution to approve a major amendment to the presumed special use permit to allow outdoor sports and recreation in an AG district.

Located at 2410 South 217th Street, Planning Board and Planning Department.

Recommend approval.

C is communications and opposition.

Public hearing is now open on item number 14, Mr.

Driesson.

Good afternoon again.

Douglas Drees and 10836 Old Mill Road.

Appearing on behalf of the applicant, uh the applicants here in the audience as well as the attorney.

We have submitted the uh required landscape plan and construction plan of the parking lot.

We're good with all of the other recommendations, and with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any proponents here?

Diana vote, um 260 Regency Parkway Drive, Omaha, Nebraska, 68114.

Um, I'm actually here more as a neutral commentator.

I represent the Skyline Woods Homeowners Association.

Um, and we we are fully in favor of reinstating the golf course and the related amenities and the new clubhouse.

Uh we just want to put on the record that by this support, we are not waiving uh the right to enforce the covenants that run with the land should that become an issue.

Thank you.

Are there any other proponents here today?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Got a motion and a second roll call.

Harding, yes, hug, Melton, row, festerson, yes, Mr.

President.

Aye.

Motion pass six to zero.

Item 15, a resolution to amend resolution number 2025-1077, approving that Conestoga collection tax increment financing, redevelopment project plan to designate the redevelopment project site as 2415 Florence Boulevard.

I'll open the public hearing on item number 15.

Mr.

Seaton, good afternoon.

Oh, yeah, good afternoon.

Don Seaton on Omaha City Planning Department.

Uh the council approved this TIFF project a couple weeks ago, but the location was not properly identified.

Approval of the item on today's agenda.

We'll correct that error.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any proponents here today?

Item number 15.

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Excuse me.

Got a were you an opponent?

Yes.

I'll allow it.

I didn't see you back there.

Yeah.

This is in the way.

Larry Store, 5015 Lafayette Avenue, Omaha 68132.

I am opposed to this because I don't think number one.

We need a new children's museum and everything else just down there.

We're on item 15.

City City 16.

16.

We're on item number 15 right now.

13.

I'm sorry.

Public hearing is closed.

Council.

Sorry.

We had a motion and a second.

Who was the second?

Second.

Thank you.

We have motion a second.

No further lights.

Roll call.

Harding.

Yes.

Hug.

Melton.

Row.

Festerson.

Mr.

President.

Aye.

Motion passed.

6 to 0.

Item 16.

A resolution to approve the 8th and Douglas redevelopment plan.

An amendment to the downtown Northeast Redevelopment Plan located northeast of 8th and Douglas Streets.

Public hearing is now open on item number 16.

Ms.

Taylor, good afternoon.

Good afternoon, members of City Council.

Jennifer Taylor, City Law Department.

Um as discussed in pre-council this morning.

The redevelopment plan is being brought here to you today for approval.

Uh and it includes the both the proposed beam redevelopment project and the contemplated uh relocation of the Ohmad Children's Museum.

Excuse me, Jen.

Can you please silence your cell phone?

Thank you.

I don't know.

I can't see.

It's on the floor up there.

Ms.

Taylor, please continue.

Thank you.

No problem.

I was at the state legislature in a hearing last week where somebody's abandoned iPad went set off an alarm and didn't and kept going for like two minutes.

And I kept talking.

So we know you can talk, Jen.

So anyway, so the redevelopment plan obviously contemplates both the beam redevelopment project and the proposed uh relocation of the Omaha Children's Museum.

I know that there has been some discussion in in the public about the viability or the or the ongoing viability of the children's museum project.

Uh I believe that the funders are still kind of looking at whether or not they can raise funds and whether they can proceed with that.

In the meantime, um I know that the new style project is is generally on hold, but both projects, if they become viable, will move forward in accordance with this plan.

We are presenting the plan today for approval so that those things can happen if that funding becomes available, and also it allows us to reimburse uh new style development for a significant amount of site work that they have accomplished on the site.

So they have undertaken uh significant grading of the site, a large scale scale sewer relocation, um, design and engineering for the city's proposed standalone garage, which will likely proceed regardless, um, as well as some road work.

So there's been several million dollars expended by uh New Style in preparation of the site, which will make the site obviously now what I would call shovel ready or ready for development.

In the event that neither project moves forward as currently contemplated, the city does have a far more valuable site with which it can either sell to a new developer or RFP for another project.

Uh but in the meantime, we would like to go ahead and reimburse new style for the money that they have spent to improve our land at their expense.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Are there any proponents here today in item 16?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Opponents and item number 16.

I can't see him.

Is he out there?

Public hearing is closed.

Second.

Got a motion and a second row call.

Harding.

Yes, hug.

Melton.

Row.

Fasterson.

Yes.

Mr.

President.

Aye.

Motion passed, six to zero.

Item 17, an ordinance to create road maintenance district number 2025-01 for the purpose of improving South 91st Circle from Pacific Street north to the terminus.

Public hearing is now open on item 17.

Is the applicant here today?

Are there any proponents here today on item 17?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Got a motion, a second, roll call.

Harding.

Yes.

Hug.

Melton.

Row.

Festerson.

Yes.

Mr.

President.

Aye.

Motion pass six to zero.

Consent agenda.

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

Items removed from the consent agenda.

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

The public hearing on agenda item 18 was held on February 10th, 2026.

Any discussion?

Got a motion and a second roll call.

Harding.

Yes.

Hug.

Melton.

Row.

Fasterson.

Mr.

President.

Aye.

Motion passed.

Six to zero.

The public hearings on agenda items 19 through 38 are today.

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

Indicate the agenda number you wish to address.

Identify yourself by your name, address, who you represent, and if you're a proponent or opponent, the public hearing is now open.

Are there any proponents on items 19 through 38?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Opponents.

Okay.

And I just don't think that Michael Robinson should be a member of the BID, especially for five years.

He illegally added my name to the water.

He'll legally try to get me evicted from those water bills.

And he has been harassing me throughout the whole three years that I've been at Jackson Fair Deals.

He is a board member of OEDC who's director.

And I just I don't see why we would add him to this with all the stuff that he's done to me.

Why would we give him a chance to be on this BID board?

So I'm um I don't want that to happen.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thanks for being here today.

Thank you.

Are there any other opponents on items 19 through 38?

Seeing none, public hearing is closed.

Motion approved 19 through 38.

I'll second.

We got a motion and a second.

Roll call.

Harding.

Yes.

Hug.

Melton.

Rowe.

Fasterson.

Yes.

Mr.

President.

Aye.

Motion passed.

Six to zero.

Item 39, an ordinance to acquire private property.

Located at 1111 M Plaza for the Missouri River and Papillion Creek.

WRRF secondary treatment design project.

I will now open the public hearing on item 39.

Are there any proponents here today?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Item 40, an ordinance authorizing and approving an amendment to the master lease purchase agreement to provide funds for a modern streetcar system and an amount not to exceed 70 million dollars.

Lease revenue bonds series 2026 D.

Public hearing is now open on item number 40.

Are there any proponents here today?

Good afternoon.

Uh President Bailey, members of the city council, Jennifer Taylor, City Law Department.

Um just as a brief overview of the bond issuance that's before you today.

Sorry, my 17 pages of notes.

Okay.

Um this is not an increase in the existing authorization necessarily uh what has been previously authorized by this council.

So just as a quick review.

Um council in December of 2022 authorized $360 million of revenue bonds and $80 million of lease revenue bonds in order to support the streetcar project.

Since then, um none of the revenue bonds have been authorized or issued.

We have issued the $80 million in lease revenue bonds.

Um in addition to the $50 million that was issued and authorized pursuant to the mutual of Omaha specific private placement bond.

So effectively, we have uh the city council has authorized and authorized issuance of 130 million dollars of lease revenue bonds in order to fund expenses related to the streetcar as of the end of 2025.

Uh the almost street car authority has expended approximately 130 million dollars uh in funds in furtherance of the project.

So we are at a point now where we need to uh enter into another tranche of funding for the streetcar project.

So we would need a second tranche later in the year, but again, we're we're splitting these up in order to save on carrying costs and kind of minimize market risk.

It does not increase the amount that the council has set forth, uh, which is effectively 440 million dollars to fund the project.

Right now, the project budget is at 421 million dollars.

Uh Mr.

Jensen can correct me, but I would say the majority of the project, almost all the project has been either bid or is subject to a grow uh a maximum price contract.

So that 421 million dollars pending change orders is really a pretty solid price.

So we're still under the 440 that this council has generally authorized to pay for this project.

This is simply just uh an authorization of $70 million for now, and it will be an additional lease revenue bond issuance and not a revenue bond issuance.

Um as I have briefed the council and we discussed this morning.

The reason for changing the financial instrument is effectively that we can get about a four and a half percent interest rate on a lease revenue bond, and we are at about a six and a half to seven percent interest rate on a straight revenue bond.

So that two two and a half percent difference effectively constitutes about seven to eight million dollars a year in additional costs.

So if we were to go uh a different financing route, it would significantly impact the financial viability of the project.

Whereas it is currently set up under a lease revenue bond.

We can pay for the entire debt service with the excess ad blue arm tax revenues that we are expected to generate in the district.

Mr.

Jensen can answer some questions about that.

Um but under this current financing system, we will have enough revenue to pay the debt service.

If we were to change the financing instrument into something else, it would add, as I noted, several millions of dollars a year to the cost, plus actually a fairly heavy 25 to 35 million dollar debt service reserve.

Again, those are costs we don't need to incur, and frankly, would um uh severely hamper the viability of the project.

I won't go into anything else there.

You've been given briefing members, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Are there any other proponents here today?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Omaha City Council, Donny R.

Johnson at Johnson E.

Question Foundation, North Omaha Concerned Citizen Foundation, 49, 282nd Street.

I think what the city is doing in the and Mr.

Johnson is doing is wonderful.

But would would the council take in consideration all this new money coming in in a streetcar?

I believe is going to be a wonderful project.

We have two sales tax on auto purchase.

Can they remove one of the sales tax and increase the world tax on somebody's developers?

Thank you.

Are there any other opponents here today on item number 40?

Larry Storr, 5015 Lafayette Avenue, Omaha 68132.

I am a opposed to this ordinance and I concur 100 percent with one uh gentleman that already sent this email to you.

I sent a copy of that to uh uh join him, and I'd like to read that for the record because it's not clear whether what I say today gets on the record unless I send it to you in an email later, which doesn't make much sense, so I'm gonna read it.

I urge a no vote to the ordinance.

Approving an amendment to spend even more money on the streetcar, everybody in Omaha except those profiting from the project, like real estate modules, streetcar authority, and gifter, Jay Nottle, who donated $3,500 to Mr.

Harding for Congress, hates.

It's pretty insulting that the Omaha City Council ignored the will of the people and approved the hugely expensive streetcar project with goodly unproven funding source.

Goofy unproven funding source, except for my taxes.

We asked the Jean Stotter by a large margin when she uh showed this down, shoved it down our throats.

But for some reason, probably apathy, the council members retained their seats, which is too bad.

Now the streets are a mess.

Businesses are losing tons of money.

They're having meetings at night about it.

While the Omaha Public Works Department drags out and detours for months, if not years.

I urge a no vote on the ordinance.

Everybody except for Kewood and HDR would be a lot better off if the city pulled the plug on the street.

Streetcar right now.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any other opponents here on item number 40?

Louise Human is 2709 Dewey Avenue.

I am opposed to this, not because of the money situation, but what the money is going to afford.

I got the opportunity to hear our mayor, John Ewing, and he said that since he took office, he brought the streetcar project on time.

It's going to be on time.

Now the question is, is it going to be on budget, under budget, over budget?

I don't know.

And uh this seems to me to be a speculate financial scheme that doesn't address the infrastructure that uh is going to be in place.

And uh $421 million on top of what you would spending to make sure that the streetcar can go along seems like a lot of money for the infrastructure.

And all I asked of the previous mayor was can you put some restrooms, public restrooms along uh the line.

Uh there's no talk about refinancing uh this money so that infrastructure can be approved.

All they are talking about is just refinancing the money.

Uh so I oppose to this because we're asking a lot from Omahans to participate on the streetcar without restrooms.

I think uh that would be just contaminant to the infrastructure.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any other opponents here today on item number 40?

Seeing none, public hearing is closed.

Council member Harding, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr.

President Steve Jensen, if you could come.

First, but um two things before I have some questions for you, Steve.

One, it was just stated from a couple of um testifiers a minute ago when reading from uh a letter that uh was sent.

It does, contrary to what the letter said, it does not add dollars to the project, which Ms.

Taylor actually said in in her testimony as well, too.

So wanted to clear that one up first.

And then secondly, I think it was stated from when Ms.

Taylor was talking that to change the financial tool from the lease revenue bond to the revenue bond, um, when I think originally as an anticipated or as envisioned, this was going to be the opposite of that.

It was going to be a revenue bond and not a lease revenue bond.

So that leads me into some of my questions for you, Mr.

Jensen.

Could you explain why the change and what that what that means to the city and the taxpayers as well, too?

Sure.

Steve Jensen, Deputy Chief of Staff for Economic Development in Mayor Ewing's office.

Um with regard to the change, I think is as uh uh Jennifer explained, the um switch from uh revenue bond to lease purchase bond um uh is at a lower interest rate.

So saves, I think over the course of the of time, I think it was 200 million in uh um uh interest payments.

Over 30 years, I believe.

Over the yeah, over the length of the bonds, and so that amount of money then is then available to help pay for uh the streetcar and ultimately also for affordable housing.

So um I think the um it the uh the intent is to save that money, that interest, and uh use it really to pay for the construction of the streetcar and and for affordable housing as well.

And and using because they're they're two different financial tools.

Um talk about the uh if you will, talk about the the reason one might have preferred a revenue bond over the lease revenue bond, but for the savings.

And I'll and then we can talk about the projections after that.

Sure.

And I'll let if I I'll let Jennifer correct me if I'm if I misstate something, but the revenue bond really is just relying solely on the revenue that would come from uh the tax increment financing uh mechanism that we're using to pay for uh the streetcar and to pay for the bonds.

Uh in terms of the lease purchase bonds, um those lease purchase bonds also uh bring uh the backing of the city uh for those lease purchase bonds.

And so there would be, if there was not enough revenue, there would be um uh city funds would be used.

However, by preserving or saving that 200 million dollars, it just makes it even more um uh likely and and um ensures that we'll be able to pay for all of the bonds uh using the revenue from uh tax increment financing from new development.

Okay, and again, because there's there's about a 200 basis point difference between the two financial instruments.

That's my understanding.

Uh the lower, the lower being um the lease revenue bonds or the lease purchase and therefore being able to save 200 million over the the life of the bond or uh 30 30 years, I believe.

Correct.

Um because I I just want to make sure this cards on table for everyone to understand that it was originally anticipated that we were just going to use uh the revenue bonds and therefore rely solely upon the proceeds from the tax increment financing.

True, although you had already approved lease purchase bonds.

For a portion.

For a portion of it.

Yeah, not that it was anticipated.

I'm sorry to jump in.

It was anticipated that that was for that tranche and not for future tranches, but because of the difference from maybe then and even when the project was originally envisioned, the difference between the the basis points differential between the two financial instruments was a lot smaller and and therefore wasn't as much of maybe a concern financially over the course of the the term of the bonds.

Right.

And yeah, go ahead.

No, that's exactly right.

And I think uh uh Steve Curtis could probably give you the specifics, but yeah, at the time there was not a big difference between lease purchase uh interest rates and the revenue bond interest rates.

Okay, so then if you could you you handed out something a little earlier today too to the council um talk about the the projections um originally anticipated maybe by MUNICAP and what we are seeing so far that's uh in the process of or is slated to be um I guess broken ground or anticipated to be uh under construction soon.

Sure.

What that means financially to the model.

Sure.

So originally um when we looked at the project and looked at the uh potential for development in the corridor, looked at we had um uh market studies that were done for residential, for office, for retail and so forth.

And those those studies all told us that we could expect probably at least $3.2 billion worth of development over a 15-year period in the corridor.

But we wanted to be um conservative, we wanted to back that up and take another look at it.

So we hired MUNICAP uh corporation to come in and take a look at it.

We knew that they were even more conservative.

Um and so they looked at they spent about nine months, looked at every property in the corridor, looked at all of the information we gave them, and they came back and said they they felt that they could guarantee more or less that there would be at least two billion dollars worth of development in the corridor over 15-year period, which was enough uh for the projected cost of the streetcar at that time.

Umce that time, we have approved in the information I gave to you earlier today, um, we've approved uh just shy of 1.3 billion dollars worth of new projects in the corridor that have been approved by the council.

Um so we're actually running well ahead of even our earlier $3.2 billion projection.

We're now projecting that we would see a minimum of three $3.9 billion worth of development in the corridor over a 15-year period.

And so we're even running ahead of that schedule right now.

We have another roughly $400 million worth of uh potential development that we are aware of that developers are working on.

Um we would like to see that come in this year if we if we could, but uh we know within the next year or so we'll see that $400 million, and we know that there are projects uh being considered that we just aren't aware of.

So we're in very good shape right now in conversations with the uh finance department, um, that $3.9 billion if it was uh finance as we're talking about would produce probably five hundred uh be able to support probably five hundred and fifty million dollars worth of bonds.

Um you've approved up to 490 right now, 40 million of which is going to affordable housing.

Um and so we we have more than enough uh projected development and revenue from that development to cover the 440 million that we um have as a cap for um expenditures for the streetcar.

When you said that 490, I wanted to make sure that that included the 50 of the private placement.

Yes, 440 plus the 50 of the private placement.

It includes the all of the bonds that you've approved for the streetcar for mobility improvements and for affordable housing.

So I just want to summarize a little bit to say that because of the I'll say tremendous savings that we could uh from Prince from interest payments of $200 million over the course of third years, the decision was made to use the different financial tool, although the the reliance, the the backfall, if you will, uh the support uh of that behind that bond will be the the city of Omaha eventually.

Has have there been any discussions with our bond council to see what um what that might do to our bond rating.

Oh uh Jennifer, address that Mr.

Curtis and I have met with rating agencies over the last year regarding our bond rating, and they're aware of how we're financing this project and they're aware of our use of lease purchase or lease revenue bonds.

Um and we have demonstrated that we have a revenue source that is dedicated to that that doesn't come from the city's general fund, uh, and they are comfortable with that explanation.

We will continue to uh share information with them to ensure that this the use of this financing structure does not impact our bond rating.

Uh I would also like to point out uh along the lines of the conversation you're having with Mr.

Jensen that were we to actually utilize a revenue bond as opposed to this lease purchase or lease revenue bond, that revenue bond and those bondholders would actually take a pledge of all of our excess ad valorem tax revenues generated by the project, and they would be first in line, so to speak.

So that those bondholders and that extra interest cost would actually take first bite of those revenues that come in, and our obligations on the existing lease purchase bonds that we have would be secondary to that, and the obligation that we have to logier on the affordable housing bond would be subordinate even to that.

So if we were to pledge those revenues to a revenue bond holder, that extra seven or eight million dollars a year would be sent to them and would not be available for us to pay our existing debt on the existing lease purchase and the Logier bond that we have outstanding.

So actually the taxpayers would be more at risk under that scenario than they would under this one.

Okay.

Thank you.

I guess one just one last closing, not for either of you, but um I know there I just wanted to state uh for the record, and not because of something that was said from one of the earlier testimony from those who testified earlier, but um I know there was something that uh council member Melton pointed out to me that was kind of floating around social media that said I had an equity stake in some of the properties or projects that are going on in this district.

And I'll stay for the record that I do not.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh councilmember Melton, you're recognized.

Uh thank you.

Ms.

Taylor, I'll just call Ms.

Taylor back up since I'll let you off the hook for a minute, Steve.

And I you said a lot.

And so I just I just want to I just want to pull out just a couple bullet points because again, that's what I'm reading on the social media.

61 comments that are tax dollars and property taxes are being used for this.

So I want um I know the answer, but I'm asking you a direct question.

Are any property taxes going to be used for debt service?

The only revenues that are dedicated to the debt service of this instrument are the excess ad valorum taxes generated only within the district, basically tax expense financing revenues, those revenues, those private taxes paid by new development.

And so not your not your everyday average taxpayer.

Anyone is anybody's property taxes in District 7 going to be used for paying for the this streetcar?

No.

Okay.

Um I think that would go for almost everyone except the council person that has the streetcar in their district.

But the residents that aren't along the streetcar route or developing, even their tax dollars are not going to be used for correct the debt service to the streetcar.

Nothing's changed.

Correct.

Second, um I just want to be clear.

We kind of went through everything so quick.

We have in there that the streetcar is going to cover is going to cost approximately 440 million dollars.

That has not changed.

421 million.

421 million, yes.

421 million dollars, that has not changed.

We have only issued bonds for approximately 130 million.

Correct.

We are trying to minimize those carrying and interest costs.

And so what we're doing is each year we're appropriating and issuing bonds to pay for that year.

We didn't just issue 421 million three years ago.

So you're being fiscally responsible by waiting.

So we paid for 130.

We anticipate another 70 million this year.

So you're issuing the bonds this year.

Then next year, we're going to have another we'll just say 70 million, but it's for costs that are being incurred in the in this year.

Correct.

Okay.

And at this point, I would assume if there are costs for this year, we've already signed the contracts and owe the money.

Correct.

Okay.

So for anyone who says just vote no, well, then the council would be voting no in that the contractors and uh vendors, what whatnot are still gonna need to be paid, then we probably would have to use taxpayer dollars to pay them because we'd be in violation of a contract.

Correct.

And and I would just remind you, we've also already issued 130 million dollars of bonds that still have to be repaid.

If we were to stop the project, we would not have the revenues to repay what we've already issued.

And the taxpayers would then be on the hook, and they're not right now.

Correct.

Okay.

Um, and then lastly, um, I know a lot of the work that's being done that that is very painful, but it's the reason it's taking so long, it's we're replacing um and paying for um, and when I say we the streetcar tax increment financing money that is not taxpayer money is paying for all the new utility work underneath the whole route that otherwise would be paid by MUD rate payers.

Correct.

Uh with the exception of the $7.6 million dollars that MUD is contributing uh from, for example, for MUD, the remaining $30 million, $35 million of work that is being done to replace utilities in the core is being paid for by the streetcar project.

And so that's actually saving the ratepayers who are also taxpayers in the city of Omaha, you know, it's just uh an under MUD.

So it's saving those rate payers because that the utilities are close to 100 years old.

So they the work that's being done would have to be done sometime over the next 10 years along every every piece of the streetcar route because all those utilities are close to or over 100 years old.

A significant portion of the utilities that are being replaced with brand new facilities were in or are in the proposed infrastructure replacement plan for the district.

Um and in addition, we had two bridges.

One one's already been replaced, we're in the middle of replacing the other.

That's being those bridges uh have been paid for with the streetcar developers' tax increment financing, is that correct?

Correct.

There has been some contribution from the state to those bridges, but those bridges were also scheduled to be replaced in the next 15 years, 10 or 15 years.

So again, there is a significant state taxpayer cost that is being saved through this project.

Okay.

So I so I I just wanted to, even if you're against the streetcar or don't like the streetcar, at least it I like to call attention to the benefits that the developers are paying for that uh we otherwise would have had to pay for anyway.

Correct.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Councilmember Hugg, you're recognized.

I don't have the years of experience my peers have because this was all kind of cast before I got on the council.

So I gotta ask some questions just to kind of help work through it in my mind.

So we were gonna do revenue bonds.

Correct.

Okay.

Uh because of the rate, we're now gonna do lease purchase bonds.

Correct.

And and to add the little piece of information to that, in 2022, when we authorized the $360 million of revenue bonds, at that point in time, the interest rate that we were getting on, or we would have gotten on a revenue bond of that type was approximately four and a half percent.

Uh at the time, uh the interest rate on a lease revenue bond in 2022 was about three and a half, four percent.

So the difference that four percent, it really wasn't that much.

And we were getting at that time on a revenue bond the same rate we are now getting on a lease revenue bond.

Only the difference between the two instruments is significantly greater.

So it made sense from a financial perspective in 2022 when we put the plan together, um, unfortunately, economies change and and things have changed, and we're faced with the interest rates we are looking at today, this is a much more fiscally responsible solution.

Okay.

And if I heard you correctly, answering council member Milton's question about will the taxpayers' money be used.

Um you said no.

No.

Okay.

Um is that a perfect world scenario?

That is a current world scenario, and you know, pending you know, massive upheaval of things that I can't predict, I mean, things can always change.

But as Mr.

Jensen has indicated, we are currently ahead of the pace for what we need to generate in order to pay the entire debt service on this model.

Um, and we are confident that we will continue to with what we know is coming, uh, more than achieve what we need to achieve in order to pay the debt service and not have any general fund revenues be dedicated to it.

Okay.

So if some unforeseen catastrophe were to happen, reoccurrence of 2020, um devastating economic downturn to where those individuals who are paying the currently paying those TIFF payments couldn't make those TIFF payments.

Or there was a reduction in what those TIFF payments were being made.

It's a possibility.

I mean, I wasn't here in 1930, but I heard stories.

So an extreme situation.

But if we were to see a reoccurrence of a devastating economic downturn, and there wasn't revenue being generated, or there was a decline in that TIFF revenue coming in, then what would happen?

Um then we would have to investigate how we would proceed to finish the project with the funds that we have available to us.

I mean, I can't predict what might or might happen or what we would be faced with.

Uh I was kind of used the example of the case.

So your comment.

I can't say World War III wouldn't happen, and that would impact lots of things in our economy.

Um, but we are comfortable in saying that we have made conservative financial analysis of this model, and the conservative financial analysis made indicates to us that we are more than comfortably able to pay this debt with the revenues that we've identified pending World War III.

Okay.

Well, I'm I'm not using World War III.

I think that's not realistic, but unforeseen economic downturns can happen for God knows why.

Um another 2020 could pop up right around the corner.

But the problem I have is trying to understand other than the other than the rate difference.

I understand there's a rate difference, but the mechanical mechanism of how a revenue bond functions compared to a lease purchase bond.

So on in a revenue, if the money was not there, we would still be responsible.

The city was still responsible for that shortfall.

In a revenue bond, if the money was not there, the city would in a true revenue bond, the city would not be responsible for any shortfalls.

Okay.

And that's why the rate is higher.

That's why there's a debt service reserve that's required, and all the things that go along with making that financial instrument far more expensive.

And that's different from a lease purchase bond.

Correct.

Okay, so in a lease purchase bond, if the money is not there, there's a shortfall, then the city is on the hook.

The city would be required to find some sort of other mechanism to pay that shortfall, yes.

However, as we have indicated, just like a revenue bond, the only difference is that we're not the revenue bondholder.

But as we've indicated, the source of revenue that we have identified is more than sufficient to pay that debt service.

Okay.

All right, thank you, Mr.

President.

Thank you.

Councilmember Milton, you're recognized.

Just a quick follow-up on that, which I think you should add.

Also, in the event the city were ever to have to make a debt service payment, the city also could get paid back.

Correct.

So I just wanted to follow up with that.

That if some catastrophic 2020 happened and there was maybe a year of economic downturn and the city had to make the payments, as all economies do, they could go up and down, but some catastrophic event happened, it would the city could also be paid back when the economy came back up.

That's correct.

That's a very good point.

I just wanted to make sure that was followed up.

And along with that point, I would also uh remind the council that we are to, you know, excess ad valorum taxes are property tax revenues that are paid by those developers.

So, you know, of all the payments a developer has to make, their property taxes are first and foremost.

So uh the likelihood of them not paying their property taxes is the least is the last thing they're gonna stop paying, basically at the end of the day.

So those revenues will be generated.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Huggie.

I got a rebuttal to the rebuttal.

Acknowledging that yes, Jeffrey Lee property taxes are the first thing any responsible developer or business owner is going to pay.

But however, if they were not to pay them, the tax foreclosure process is lengthy.

I mean, it can be almost three years before they ever go to tax foreclosure.

And even then, there's a length of a redemption period.

So in theory, somebody could not pay their taxes for almost three years and pay them half an hour before the tax foreclosure sale, and they would be redeemed.

Correct.

And as council member Milton just said, uh, in that three-year period where they have to redeem that tax certificate is sold to a tax certificate buyer, that tax certificate buyer pays those taxes, and so then therefore that revenue is generated.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

No further lights.

Item 41, an ordinance authorizing and approving a lease purchase agreement to provide funds for a parking garage at the crossroads redevelopment site in an amount not to exceed 65 million dollars lease revenue refunding bonds series 2026.

Public public hearing is now open on item number 41.

Are there any proponents?

Good afternoon.

President Baglake Meters of the City Council, Jennifer Taylor, City Law Department.

Uh I won't belabor this.

We did discuss it briefly in pre-council.

This uh particular bond issuance is to uh affect some refunding bonds as well as to pay for um obligated costs the city has to construct parking garages acrossroads and will be amended uh prior to the hearing next week to add an additional 25 million dollars that will satisfy the city's obligation to purchase the remaining two parking garages at Midtown Crossing, so ramps B and ramp C.

We purchased ramp A last year for $26 million.

The remaining two ramps will cost us approximately $25 million instead of doing a separate bond issuance for that in a month or two, we just decided to add it to this one.

So uh we didn't have to bring another one back to you basically and to get it done now.

We are obligated to close on those two additional ramps uh March 31st.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Are there any other proponents here on excuse me, item 41?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Thank you.

Larry store, 5015 Lafayette Avenue, Omaha 68132.

I'm opposed to the way this thing is written, but I'm imposed because I think we already settled this years ago, but here it is coming up again.

If it's not your property, why are you uh wanting to build a new garage?

Are you gonna buy the property back from the real estate guy, the guy that's also the developer?

And he also got the TIFF.

There's already a garage out there, why don't we use it?

Great big garage.

That how long was that lot set out there with nothing being done?

Why?

Now you're gonna lease something back and pay again?

I've got a better idea if one's to use the garage that's on the corner of 72nd and Cass Street.

It's a large garage, you can run the buses through there and pick up the homeless people.

You can let the homeless people stay in there.

You can let the county use their social services offices to meet with families and uh young offenders and uh all those programs that you have in Omaha right there in that large garage that you're not using for anything.

Now you want to build a new one, but don't you have to buy the lot back or buy the property back somehow?

I thought this was all settled with a combination.

Real estate guy, uh developer, construction guy, they're all three.

A lot of them are all three.

I thought this was settled.

Why is it not settled?

This is not our property now.

But if it is, use the garage you got.

Stop spending my tax dollars.

Thank you.

Are there any other opponents?

Uh good afternoon, Omaha City Council, Donnie R.

Johnson at Johnson Equestion Foundation, North No How Concerned Citizen Foundation, and 4928 North 52nd Street.

I'd like to rebuttal what Mr.

Larry just said because I understand what the city is doing.

I looked at the garage many years at Down Cass, it's collapsing, and the people who in the industry are the new training system gets started.

People may come from West Omaha and park their electrical cars in this new garage that which makes sense.

I sometimes we ask ourselves are these old buildings gonna handle all the new system?

And they're right, moving that out and putting in another system in there because they park the electrical cargo in there, jump on the bus or whatever in that train.

My theory is that since they're gonna be making so much money, can you lower the sales tax on automobile for senior citizen and increase the will tax and give us a refund on a tax tobacco tobacco people again?

Too much for tax money.

Thank you.

Are there any other opponents here on item 41?

Luis Man is 2709 Dewey Avenue?

There's uh two points I like to make is uh this is I think analogous uh and and analogous to the way that development is done in Omaha, it's an open promise and a uh then uh under delivery.

Is uh this is I think analogo and and analogous to the way that development is done in Omaha, it's an over promise and a uh then uh under delivery and so I with this garage uh uh or are the the the these parking garage purchases is it because uh you're rescuing uh midtown uh and then if you're doing that then how come the uh the public uh public build building commission, how come they can't come in in here too and uh work with you to get these uh parking garages.

Uh Mr.

Cohen said they're not going to be uh purchasing any more uh parking garages.

Why is that?

Is it is it like against state law, is it policy?

Are you guys not willing to work with them about it?

Um so I think that uh this is not explained here, and if it's not any of that, is it because this is gonna be an asset uh along the streetcar route?

And if it is, it's not well explained on the agenda.

And if it if it's an asset for the streetcar.

Uh I had another thought on this, but th those are my two points.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Are there any other opponents here today?

Item 41 seeing none, public hearing is closed.

Council member Melton, you're recognized.

Thank you, Ms.

Taylor.

If you could just come back up.

Of course.

I'm gonna repeat myself, you know.

Of course.

Um for Jennifer Taylor, City Law Department.

Thank you.

For first of all, for parking garages, again, their revenue bonds, uh lease purchase revenue bonds, and currently all the money then is generated from the leasing of the spots in the garage or the people who pay to park there.

Correct.

And the debt service on those bonds that are associated with parking facilities are are paid for through the enterprise fund for the the parking enterprise fund.

You you actually you you knew what question I was gonna ask.

Um the debt service is made through the enterprise fund, therefore Mr.

Storr's tax dollars are not being used to pay for this.

It's the leases on the garages.

That money is a separate fund, it does not go into the general fund.

Um, and currently we've been positive uh I mean we we've never been negative, I think, in Park Omaha in that enterprise fund.

At least for the last several uh for several years, yes.

Yeah.

So um, and I noticed here I I just wanted to be sure we're actually basically we're refinancing bonds because it was we had previously issued it looks like fifty-three million for the Omaha baseball stadium funds.

We have 40 million outstanding from 2016.

So basically, are we getting a better rate?

Um I'll let Mr.

Curtis answer the refunding question.

Steve Curtis City financing.

Generally, what you're doing is taking the uh if you think of the term of a 30-year bond, and you have a number of them out there at four or five percent, as it gets closer in, you can knock those down to our percent or two.

In this case, it saves us about three million dollars on a one-time basis.

And that's what the majority is.

I mean, we were talking about crossroads, but really the the amount we're issuing in bonds for crossroads is very small because this is just to acquire the property.

This isn't we've already acquired the property.

This is kind of again, much like the streetcar and and we do with other projects, we are tranching this.

So there will be another issuance of lease purchase bonds later on in the year.

Okay, but uh like I said, we're doing the midtown crossing as part of this one as well, so that we're essentially putting everything together in one, so we don't do another one for about six months.

Right.

I was just noting when we're talking about 60, 40 million is getting a better interest, we're getting a better interest rate on 40 million of bonds that we already have.

Correct.

That was the they were done in 2016, and then for at least police and fire projects, we have a remaining four uh around four million left, and so basically we're getting a better percentage interest rate on on those bonds.

So the majority of these bonds actually is for 2016 bonds that we're just getting a better interest rate on.

Those are refunding bonds, correct.

And then there is the the amount of money that'll be dedicated towards the building of the park parking garage across, which we have already obligated to do, and then it will be increased by 25 million dollars to account for the money that we need to purchase those two remaining ramps at midtown crossing, pursuant to the purchase agreement that we approved uh year and a half ago in July of 24.

Right.

We've already entered into that contract.

And so now we're just now we're getting and actually I think it looks like some of the interest rates have gone down, so now's probably a good time.

I would much rather be doing this now than a year ago.

Yes.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Nothing further.

Thank you.

Harding.

Yes.

Hug.

Melton.

Rowe.

Pasterson.

Mr.

President.

Aye.

Motion passed six to zero.

Meeting is adjourned at three fourteen dollars.