Melton Rowe, Festerson, Goodwin.

Harding.

Mr.

President.

Here, please stand for the Pledge Allegiance and remain standing for opening remarks by Councilmember Harding, and I'll be doing a proclamation as well.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Recognizing the more than thirty-one million Americans who claim Irish ancestry with month-long celebrations centered around Saint Patrick's Day on March seventeenth, honoring the contributions made by the Irish to the civic cultural and economic fabric of our nation.

And whereas Irish have immigrated enlarged to the Omaha region since its establishment in 1918 four and have shown resilience and determination in overcoming adversity to achieve prosperity while maintaining a vibrant culture heritage that enriches the diversity of our Omaha communities.

And whereas the City of Omaha engaged the City of Nase in 2001 for a potential twinning between the two cities, with the official signing ceremony taking place in March of 2002 with the delegation from NACE arriving in Omaha to participate in the annual St.

Patrick's Day parade and festivities.

And whereas the 2026 festivities on February 27th with the Irish Music Festival featuring Derek Warfield and the young Wolf Tones, they were fabulous.

I went to it and continued on March 1st with the ladies' agent order of Hibernians Juli, fostering community spirit through traditional food and entertainment.

And whereas the Omaha Irish Cultural Center will host a third annual Irish Film Festival on March 6th through March 8th at the Benson Theater, the 11th annual St.

Patrick's Day Awards brunch recognizing local individuals for outstanding public service and lifelong achievements.

And on March 14th, the ancient Order of Hibernians, Father Flanning Division will host Omaha's 154th annual St.

Patrick's Day Parade, the oldest enlargic ethnic parade in the city of Omaha.

That'll be held on Saturday, March 14th.

Now therefore, be it resolved that March 2026 will be observed as Irish American Heritage Month in Omaha, Nebraska.

And all citizens of Omaha are encouraged to observe this month by celebrating the vibrant culture and enduring legacy of the Irish people.

In witness whereof we have set our hands and cause the official seal of the city of Omaha to be a fix on this third day of March 2026.

Enjoy the month, everybody.

Thanks.

An affidavit of publication is on file, and a current copy of the 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 please silence or turn off all electronic devices.

Reminder you will have three minutes to speak on an agenda item.

We ask that a please stay on topic.

For those not providing in-person testimony and would like your comments entered into the public record.

Councilmember, you can email the city clerk's office at City Clerk at City of Omaha.org.

Council members, we receive these 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 and so the audience members in attendance can hear them.

And the same thing is asked of anybody from the audience coming up, make sure those microphones are right in front of you so everybody can hear you speaking.

Thank you.

Item six to consider a classy liquor license for Bucky Dexter's located at 4213 South 84th Street.

Public hearing is now open on item number six.

Applicant, good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Get your name and address for the record, please.

Nathan Barges, 4713 B Street.

Thank you.

And what might have some questions for you?

Thank you.

Okay.

Are there any proponents here on item number six?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Seeing none, public hearing is closed.

Got a motion and a second roll call.

Hug.

Melton.

Rowe.

Fasterson.

Yes.

Good one.

Harding.

Yes.

Mr.

President.

Yes.

Motion passed.

7 to 0.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Item 7 to consider a classly liquor license for base camp located at 320 of Farnham Street, suite 2105.

Public hearing is now open on item number seven.

Applicant here today.

Good afternoon.

Mike Mahallock, 2429 South 186 Circle.

Might have some questions for you.

Thanks for being here today.

Are there any proponents on item number seven?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Couple quick questions for you.

Um welcome to Midtown.

And what are your hours going to be of your business there?

Uh nine to nine.

Nine to nine Monday through Sunday.

Yes.

And when do you open it up?

Two and a half, three weeks.

All right.

Wish you the best of luck.

This is in my district.

I'll certainly be supporting this today.

Appreciate that.

Got a motion and a second roll call.

Hug.

Melton.

Row.

Festerson.

Yes.

Good one.

Harding.

Yes.

Mr.

President.

Yes.

Motion passed seven to zero.

Item eight to consider a class I liquor license for red door wood fired grill located at 6680 Center Street.

Public hearing is now open on item number eight.

Applicant.

Good afternoon.

Hi, Colin Kozel, uh, attorney for the applicant.

Uh 8216, City Center Drive.

Uh Apartment 505, La Vista, Nebraska, 68128.

Um, thank you.

We'll have might have a few questions for you.

Thanks.

Are there any proponents here today on item number eight?

Uh I will say that uh one of our representatives, Josh Peterson is over Zoom.

Got it.

Okay.

Yep, I see him.

Is he on there?

Okay.

Thank you.

You want to give us your name and address, Mr.

Peterson?

If you can hear us.

Yeah, absolutely.

Um Josh Fedterson.

Address is 5514 West 101st Street, Overland Park, Kansas, 66207.

Thank you.

Are there any other proponents here today for item number eight?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

I got a couple questions for you, Mr.

Peterson, if you can still hear me.

Yes, sir.

What are your hours going to be?

And just tell us about your um your restaurant there going into exarban.

Yeah, absolutely.

We've uh we've got three locations in the Missouri area and three um on the Kansas side, so six all together, all in kind of the Kansas City, Kansas City area.

Hours are gonna be 11 a.m.

till about 10 or 11 on Monday through Thursday, 11 to 11 on Friday, and then we open for brunch on Saturday, Sunday.

So we'll be open from nine or 10 a.m.

until 11 on Saturday, and 10 a.m.

until 10 p.m.

on Sunday.

Okay, and what what kind of food are you gonna have there?

We do kind of all over the map, but everything typically touches our wood fire grill.

So we've got an open wood fire grill, so anything from enchiladas to steak to burgers to uh a lot of seafood, a lot of nice salads.

So really all different cuisines, but just a nice smooth flavor.

We welcome you to Omaha and New Exarbans in the heart of my district, and I'll look forward to getting up there.

When when do you plan on opening?

I walk by there and I see you're hustling pretty good inside there.

What's your target date to open?

We are we're shooting for some time.

We're probably shooting for Cinco de Mayo, um, possibly middle of May.

Okay, I wish you the best of luck.

That's a great spot, and I'll certainly be supporting this here today.

All right, appreciate it.

Got a motion and a second roll call.

Hug, Melton, Rowe, Festerson, yes, Goodwin.

Yes, Harding?

Yes, Mr.

President.

Aye.

Motion passed seven to zero.

Item nine to consider a change of location, liquor license application for Mara VS Olga to be located at 2910 K Street Suite G.

Public hearing is now open on item number nine.

Applicant, good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Get your name and address for the record, please.

Olga Varrian 2910, K Street, suite G.

Omaha, Nebraska, 68107.

Thank you.

Are there any proponents here today for item number nine?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Motion to approve.

Got a motion and a second.

Roll call.

Hug.

Melton.

Row.

Festerson.

Yes.

Goodwin.

Harding?

Yes.

Mr.

President.

Aye.

Motion passed, seven to zero.

Items ten and eleven can be considered together for MPS 210 and Q campus.

Replant one.

Planning board and planning department recommend approval.

Item 10 is a resolution to approve the final plant.

Item 11, resolution to approve the subdivision agreement.

Public hearing is now open for items 10 and 11.

Applicant, good afternoon.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Caleb Ben Willden with Lampernarson, 147110 West Dodge Road.

You're on behalf of the applicant and available to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Are there any proponents here on items 10 and 11?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Got a motion and a second.

Roll call.

Hug.

Melton.

Row.

Festerson?

Yes.

Goodwin.

Harding?

Yes.

Mr.

President.

Aye.

Motion passed seven to zero.

Thank you.

Item 12, a resolution to rezone property located at 4734 and 4802, South 90th Street from R1 District and R3 District, R3 District.

Planning Board and Planning Department recommend approval.

Public hearing is now open on item number 12.

Applicant, good afternoon.

Mark Harold, 4802 South 90th Street, Omo, Nebraska, 68127.

Thanks for being here today.

Are there any proponents here on item number 12?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Got a motion and a second roll call.

Hug.

Melton.

Rowe.

Festerson?

Yes.

Goodwin.

Harding?

Yes.

Mr.

President.

Aye.

Motion passed.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Items 13 and 14 can be considered together for property located at 6404 South 60th Street.

Planning Board and Planning Department recommend approval.

Item 13, an ordinance to rezone this property from DR district to GI district.

Item 14, an ordinance to amend the future land use element of the city's master plan from civic and open space to industrial.

The public hearing is now open for items 13 and 14.

Is the applicant here today?

Are there any proponents for items 13 and 14?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Got a motion and a second roll call.

Hug.

Yes.

Melton.

Rowe.

Festerson.

Yes.

Good one.

Harding.

Yes.

Mr.

President.

Aye.

Motion passed seven to zero.

Items 15 and 16 can be considered together for property located at 620, North 30th Street, Planning Board and Planning Department recommend approval.

Item 15, an ordinance to rezone this property from R 4 district to R6 district.

Item 16, an ordinance to amend the boundaries of the MCC overlay district to incorporate this property into that district.

Public hearing is now open for items 15 and 16.

Applicant, good afternoon.

Hi.

My name is Brendan Findle with Lamper Nearson, 14710, West Dodge Road.

I'm here on behalf of the applicant.

And with me is Ryan Zeramas with uh with the as the developer.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Are there any proponents here on items 15 and 16?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Approved.

Second.

Motion and a second roll call.

Hug.

Melton.

Rowe.

Festerson.

Yes.

Goodwin.

Harding.

Yes.

Mr.

President.

Aye.

Motion passed.

7 to 0.

Items 17 and 18 can be considered together for property located at 2808 Ames Avenue.

Planning board and planning department.

Recommend approval.

Item 17, an ordinance to rezone this property from R5 district and GC district to CC district.

Item 18, an ordinance to amend the boundaries of the ACI2 overlay district to incorporate this property into that district.

Public hearing is now open on items 17 and 18.

Before I call for proponents, is the applicant here today.

Are there any proponents for items 17 and 18?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is up.

Public hearing is closed.

Councilmember Goodwin, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Um I just wanted to, I guess, put on the public record that this property is within the inland port authority boundaries.

And so I'll be reaching out to the owner just to ensure that they understand the overall plans and are in communication and coordination with the inland port authority.

Thank you.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Got a motion and a second.

Roll call.

No further rights.

Hug.

Melton.

Rowe.

Festerson.

Yes.

Goodwin.

Harding.

Yes.

Mr.

President.

Aye.

Melissa pass seven to zero.

Items 19 and 20 can be considered together for property located at 330 at North 117th Street.

Planning Board and Planning Department recommend approval.

Item 19, an ordinance to rezone this property from LO district to C C District.

Item 20, an ordinance to amend the boundaries of the ACI 3 overlay district to incorporate this property into that district.

Public hearing is now open for items 19 and 20.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Mark Sanford, architect, representative for the applicant.

12509 Reed Street, Omaha, Nebraska, 68142.

Thank you.

Are there any proponents here today?

Items 19 and 20.

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Got a motion and a second.

Roll call.

Hug.

Yes.

Melton.

Rowe.

Festerson.

Yes.

Goodwin.

Harding.

Yes.

Mr.

President.

Aye.

Motion passed.

7 to 0.

Thank you.

Consent agenda.

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

Items removed from the consent agenda shall be taken up by the city council.

Immediately following the consent agenda and the order in which they were removed unless otherwise provided by the city council rules of order.

The public hearing on agenda items 21 and 22 were held on February 24th, 2026.

Any discussion?

Got a motion and a second.

Roll call.

Hug.

Yes.

Melton.

Rowe.

Festerson.

Yes.

Goodwin.

Harding.

Yes.

Mr.

President.

Aye.

Motion passed.

7 to 0.

The public hearings and agenda items 23 through 49 are today.

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

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 23 through 49?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Approved.

Second.

Got a motion and a second roll call.

Hug.

Yes.

Melton.

Roe.

Fasterson.

Yes.

Good one.

Hardy.

Yes.

Mr.

President.

Aye.

Motion passed.

7 to 0.

Item 50, an ordinance authorizing and approving a lease purchase agreement to provide funds for a parking garage at the crossroads redevelopment site and an amount not to exceed 65 million dollars.

Lease revenue refunding bonds, Series 2026 C A is amendment of the Hull requested by the Finance Department.

Got a motion and a second.

No lights, roll call.

Hug.

Melton.

Roe.

Festerson.

Yes.

Good one.

Harding.

Yes.

Mr.

President.

Aye.

Motion passed.

Seven to zero.

One public hearing can be held for items 51 and 52 for the Papillion Creek Water Resource Recovery Facility Secondary Expansion Project.

A is communication in opposition.

Item 51, an ordinance to approve amendment number one to the construction manager at risk agreement with McCarthy Building Companies Inc.

Item 52, and an or in ordinance to approve an agreement with Aqua Aerobic Systems Inc.

Public Hearings now open on items 51 and 52.

Are there proponents here today?

Mr.

Tyler, good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Jim Tyler, City of Omaha Public Works.

Um on behalf of the um city.

Um going to try to say a few words about the project.

Uh we have someone from McCarthy to say a few words about their company, and um so let me start with getting this because he's a presenter.

Yeah, I assume this.

Thank you very much.

So before I talk about the project, we always like to try to re-educate the public on what we do here with the city of Omaha with our regional wastewater collection and treatment system.

So we have two facilities, our Papillion Creek plant at which this project is going in, and our Missouri River wastewater treatment plant.

Those two facilities treat about a hundred million gallons of wastewater every day.

One thing that a lot of people don't realize is that we are a regional wastewater provider.

We provide wastewater service for most of Douglas and Sarpe County, pretty much everything east of the Elkhorn River.

And so, you know, Sarpe County is a customer, Douglas County's a customer, La Vista's a customer, Papillion's a customer.

Those municipalities, those government entities are customers that we serve by our regional wastewater treatment plant, and so they all help pay for the sewer rates and capital improvements and the operation of the facilities that we own and operate.

One more before I get into the project, but just wanted to so these projects are paid for our sewer revenue fund.

Okay, and so you'll uh for the city of Omaha that comes in on your MUD bill, and a typical resident pays about sixty dollars a month for the wastewater service that we provide.

Uh we have a current rate ordinance on the book that you approved a few years back, and that sets rates through 2028, and that included revenue increases of about two and a half percent per year, but of those rev revenue increases, the residence portion increases only about 1.4% a year.

So we periodically do what's called the cost of service study to determine the appropriate rates to pass on to the different customers, like those outside cities that we serve, like large industries industries that we serve, and that um forecast revenue for 2026 is right about 231 million dollars.

We're big, you know.

So we there's this pie chart here, a little hard to read, um, but the large proportion is residential, uh large commercial, the uh 10% is that wholesale satellite, other government entities.

These are where our revenues come from, according to that pie chart.

So that's just a little education on you know the wastewater utility that we provide to the metro area.

And I want to try to make sure that that's important and just something we like to re-educate the public on every once in a while.

So as far as the as the project, and um I want to talk a little bit about you know um why is this project important?

And so the project was authorized, and let me make sure I get my yeah.

So uh what is the project?

Okay, the project is according to our CIP, um has a budget of 565 million dollars overall.

Okay, and this includes the construction of a new um OPPD substation, the relocation of the city's omagrobe compost facility, um, and uh direct equipment purchases, including item 52 that you're considering today, uh, which is 88 million dollars.

Those things, along with this um contract that we would ask you to approve with McCarthy uh for for their uh guaranteed maximum price.

Uh this little timeline, the project itself.

The project has a timeline of about six years to complete.

So while we say that's a huge dollar amount, that 560 million dollars, um, that's um broken down by year, you know, it's closer to about 80, 90 million dollars a year.

And and the ways we support that cash flow during that time is we work closely with our finance department.

They look at the cash we have in the bank, the forecast capital projects we are have to get completed, and our operations and maintenance personnel, all those costs, we look at that with our cash flow with our finance department.

Every once in a while they decide we're gonna need to sell bonds to support the capital programs, and that's work done closely with our finance deport department that makes those decisions on the management of that sewer revenue fund.

I'm gonna go back to why we're doing the project a little bit, but again, just let me talk a little bit again about the project.

I got a little bit off course of what I was going to talk in order, but this is a lot of money.

Uh when we put projects in front of you like this, we understand that's a lot of money for you to consider.

Um, and and we understand the there's a lot of work that goes into understanding what the right way for you to vote on this is.

Um, just to put it into context, you know, this is a massive project.

That's Memorial Stadium.

That's the footprint of Memorial Stadium.

That's the size of the tanks that we're building at our Papio wastewater treatment plant.

That's about 6,000 trucks of concrete that are going to go into that project.

We like to give you a little context of how big is this.

This is massive.

This is a cutout of these are these uh activated granular sludge tanks.

Um they have to be supported, they are very, very heavy.

The way we support these is we drive pile down to bedrock.

Okay, we have 35 miles of pilings to construct for this project.

You know, I'm just trying to give you a sense of why are we spending money on this project?

It's big, it's a really big project, it's important for the city of Omaha.

A lot of pipe on the project.

Um piping inside the tanks, piping across, like we call the yard piping, a lot of pipe to get the water, the wastewater where it needs to go.

Uh it says enough pipe to go from here to Waverly.

I'll just like to say almost Lincoln.

Okay, so it's it's a lot of pipes, so there's a lot of work going into this project.

It's a massive project, and um we're gonna uh talk a little bit more about why we um have this contract in front of you with McCarthy.

I guess I have one more of these why slides, and it's just um it's um electrical work, enough energy for 7500 households.

That's how much energy we need to run this treatment plan.

OPPD is building a substation just for us to run this treatment plan.

So I wanted to throw some of those things on to you to help understand.

Here's the context, here's the magnitude, here's the size of what we're doing.

I'm gonna go back to a little bit of why we're doing it.

And so the current um permit with the state of Nebraska is requiring us to meet stricter requirements.

Okay.

Um there's something called ammonia requirements, and there's something called nutrient requirements.

The ammonia requirements are current within the regulations of the state of Nebraska that our plant does not meet the nutrient requirements, are something we believe we will have to meet here in the future.

So we knew that our existing technology would not meet those current and future requirements.

The infrastructure that we have in place right now is 50 years old.

It's been running and churning and going since they built that plant and turned it on in 1977.

It's aging.

We've been our plant managers, our plant staff, they do a great job of keeping the stuff, things going, but we know it's time to replace that infrastructure.

We can't have any more sunk cost into that infrastructure that's just kind of limping along.

That's the best way to explain it.

We had a major failure here about three years ago, where we were down to the current technology is called trickling filters.

There are two at the plant, one was down, and we got dumped on by an industry that sent us something we could not handle.

Eight months, we were basically limping along out of service, barely meeting compliance with the state, and the stench of the plant was disgusting.

And that's what we deal with, not meeting our permit limits, not having a treatment plant that can serve the city if we don't do this project.

We need to get this project done.

Um, so and again, community growth, absolutely community growth is needed.

This uh design of what's going in at this plant, we're looking out till 2050.

We need to meet the needs of future growth in Omaha and the surrounding community.

So I'm I think I'm kind of done with what I wanted to talk to about slides, but it's significant that um we're we're here in front of you to talk about this guaranteed maximum price with McCarthy, uh, which we um followed strict state law and um uh a legal process to award the project to McCarthy, developed the project with McCarthy, HDR, and a third party um that looked at all the work we were doing.

We did choose, and I'll go back here.

I think I have one more slide.

We chose the construction manager at risk methodology for a number of reasons.

Okay, and that's a risk decision that the city made to best manage this project.

Uh the complexity of the project was needed to provide um we did the CMAR because of the complexity, the schedules, um, how difficult the project was, and we understood that at this price point we were not gonna get competition.

That was very important because the last large project that we did at our wastewater treatment plant, which was a very, very good project, and it's getting finished right now, and we're gonna um that project is gonna um go live here this year, and that's Hawkins.

Um but we did that project with a single bidder.

Uh we we put the project out for bid, we got a single builder, a single bidder, that single bidder was Hawkins.

We've put the project back out for bid, we got a single builder, that single bidder was Hawkins.

We knew we understood by talking to the contractors that work in this cost price point in this type of of work that we would not get competition unless if we used this uh methodology.

And so that was another reason why we chose the CMAR.

Okay.

And you know, from that point on, we followed the legal process.

We chose McCarthy through a legal process.

We developed all the work that was going on, working in collaboration with McCarthy with HDR and with a third party uh Jacobs that did a third party estimate and that we're bringing on for construction observation.

So that's really what I wanted to say.

Uh be here.

I'll be happy to answer questions.

McCarthy has someone that just wants to say a few words about their company, and I'll remain close to the podium.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Council.

My name is Jaron Murphy.

I'm the business unit leader for McCarthy's water and wastewater business.

Address is 4201 South 130th Street in Omaha, Nebraska, 68137.

So a little bit about McCarthy in Omaha.

We started business here in 2001.

Um we've been here for about 25 years.

We started an office in 2017.

Um I'm standing here in front of you to represent over 150 partners in Omaha and Nebraska that have built over $2 billion worth of projects across the state and in Omaha.

Some of those key projects you may recognize.

Omaha VA Ambulatory Care Center, the UNMC Core Building, UNO's Durham Science Center, and other critical infrastructure projects across the state and in Omaha, Nebraska.

Um for the past 25 years, we've worked really hard to be a community builder, um, not just a contractor to make sure that we are of Omaha and not just working in Omaha.

Um, our water experience in the Midwest, we have completed five similar projects in neighboring states that are very similar in technology, very similar in size.

Um, and we have brought price certainty, timely um construction schedules, and making sure that everyone has a great experience on these projects as they are often very long and often very complex and phased.

Um our commitment to Omaha, we have partnered closely with Omaha over the last couple of years and the Department of Human Rights and Relationships or Equitable Opportunities for SEBs on this project and across other projects.

Um, our local team uh gives back monetary and kind donations to local charities and organizations, including the American Heart Association, um, Open Door Mission, Food Bank for the Heartland and Casa for Douglas County.

We have active workforce development programs, including ACE mentorship and STEM programs to support the future build-out of construction and also the trades here in Omaha, Nebraska.

I want to thank the opportunity to work collaboratively with the city and everything that we're going to do on this project, and we're excited to work together for a successful project.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any other proponents here in items 51 and 52?

My name's Dan Ruskowski, uh 5307 P Street, Omaha, Nebraska, 68117.

Uh, so once again, my name is Dan Riskowski, and I serve as a uh business agent for the Mid-America Carpenters Regional Council.

I am here to express my support for the selection of McCarthy Building Companies as the construction manager slash general contractor for the second phase expansion of the Pavilion Creek Water Resource Recovery Facility.

We strongly support the use of construction manager at risk or CMAR delivery method for a project of this scale.

Under CMAR, the construction manager is required to present the full design and scope of work alongside a guaranteed maximum price or GMP, uh, which encompasses consulting fees, design costs, and total construction costs for large-scale projects.

This approach also allows the general contractor to self-perform many scopes of work, reducing dependence on subcontractors who may pay skilled tradespeople off the books in cash below area wage standards and without proper deductions for payroll taxes, unemployment insurance, or workers' comp that every trade person deserves.

This bidding process gives the city clear upfront cost certainty.

The GMP shields Omaha taxpayers from cost overturns caused by excessive change orders, missed scopes of work, incorrect materials, or other mistakes.

Because any such additional costs fall on the contractor, not the public.

CMAR is simply the most effective way for the city to lock in project costs and prevent expenses, expenses from spray uh spiring over time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any other proponents here?

Items 51 and 52.

Good afternoon.

I'm Halloween City Council.

Donnie R.

Johnson, the Johnson Aquestion Foundation, Northam Hall Conservative Central Foundation, 4928 No 52nd.

Mr.

Hutter, I think you were right about this World War III.

But this I'm going to support Brian because Brian, and I told Mr.

Jim Bocal, who is on the city council at one time.

1981, I flew into Nigeria and I was putting a deal together for Enron and MUD.

And I believe it was Enron and MUD, one of them had a ship to buy propane to come out of Nigeria.

So I flew in and did that.

Then on the Senate Dave Carn program, I flew into Egypt to take aero photos of bridges.

So on any we need to stay on topic here, okay.

Yeah, but I'm trying to tell these young guys here.

You may want to look at this part here.

My teacher told us about this part about here.

Back in the 1800s, you might want to live upstream versus downstream.

Thank you.

Are there any other proponents here today?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Good afternoon, President Bagley, members of the City Council.

My name is Jim Volcole, and I'm the CEO of the Platte Institute located at 6910 Pacific Street here in Omaha.

Here today is both the Omaha taxpayer constituent of Councilman Festerson's and the leader of a public policy organization advocating for taxpayers across the state to speak in opposition to this ordinance granting an amendment to the construction manager at risk agreement.

I've not spoken this chamber uh since I left the city council in 2009, so for an issue to bring me out of retirement must be significant.

Back in September of 2024, a binding contract between the City of Omaha and McCarthy building companies, an out of state contractor, was executed for the Papio Secondary Treatment Design Project.

Within that contract, it explicitly states that the CMAR McCarthy will solicit competitive bids for all the work.

The agreement further states that McCarthy may prepare bid packages for the construction work the CMAR may wish to self-perform, so as long as doing so will not limit bidding by competitive bidders.

CMAR will award the construction work to the responsible bidder submitting the lowest responsive bid.

It's my understanding that McCarthy did not bid out the construction work and their cost for the construction work on this project will cost Omaha 411 million dollars, including some significant fees.

It's also my understanding that this is approximately 130 million dollars over the initial cost estimates by the city.

By the council approving this amendment, which eliminates the requirement of competitive bidding, Omaha tax and ratepayers are not afforded the assurances of policy guardrails with the lowest and best bid practices.

And to illustrate that point, a local contractor submitted a cost estimate of their work on this project for 75 million dollars less, yet it will not be considered by the city.

My question is how is not abiding by the contract to bid out work deemed reasonable and legal?

We pay the fourth highest property taxes in the country in Nebraska.

We have significant infrastructure needs in Omaha.

Think about how that 75 million dollars could impact both property tax landscape as well as the other infrastructure needs of the city, and I understand the sewer fees are paying for this project.

This is bad policy, not only because it's costly to Omaha taxpayers, but it's not transparent.

Considering the lack of competitive bidding that has hit recent state news cycles, I urge you to reconsider the approach of the city and reject this amendment and competitively bid out the construction work.

Thank you for your time today as well as your service to the community.

Thanks for being here today.

Are there any other opponents?

Good afternoon, Council.

My name is Chris Hawkins, president and CEO of Hawkins Construction Company, address 2516 Deer Park Boulevard, and I live in uh council district three.

Thank you for your service, President Bagley.

Uh first I want to be abundantly clear.

I am not here as a business dispute, and I am not asking the city to write a construction contract to Hawkins Construction.

I am here as an issue of good governance and transparency, and my objection is based on a failure to follow process and the resultant exorbitant costs that came as a result.

As to costs, you will note the original published estimate in the RFP for this project was 270 million dollars for construction, and you are now being asked to approve a construction GMP of 400 million dollars, which, when considering scope reductions in comparison to those two numbers, is an increase of almost 60 percent.

That cannot be explained by inflation.

Uh the only reasonable answer and explanation is because of the failure of process.

I will also testify to you as a subject matter expert.

I don't have time in my three minutes to tell you all that Hawkins has built or all we have done from the city, but I will tell you that we have built the vast majority of wastewater work since 1960 here.

And as such, we know very accurately what this project should cost.

We have provided an independent estimate, and I can tell you with absolute certainty, this project you're asking, you are being asked to approve today is tens of millions of dollars more expensive than it should be.

And the reason is because of failure process.

Specifically within pre-construction in the CMAR process, competitive bidding is a standard critical element of the CMAR's role.

And that is industry standard, and it was explicitly and clearly required in the pre-construction contract council approved in September 2024.

However, that process was not followed.

In the ordinance you're presented with, the city admits that they allowed McCarthy to forego this element for over two-thirds of the work.

Doing so was a violation of the contract.

It was a violation of the expectations that this council had, and what was in the best interest of the taxpayers of Omaha.

That error was a fatal flaw and grounds for you to reject the GMP amendment now in front of you.

To this point, the city argues that they were independent cost estimators.

I don't question their intent or their commitment to their client, but I do question the true independent nature.

Within the uh ordinance in front of you, it clearly spells out this was a collaborative process.

The estimators saw McCarthy's number in multiple rounds and were clearly influenced by it.

I would describe their role less as independent and more frankly as negotiators.

Within that negotiation, it further produced very favorable and very out of the ordinary fee modifications along with the number of other contract modifications to McCarthy.

Those fees in themselves produced $30 million more for McCarthy than the pre-construction contract allowed.

All of these raise serious issues.

Ms.

Hawkins, your three minutes is up, and I'm sure council members might have questions for you, so stay close.

Thank you.

Other opponents.

Seeing none, public hearing is closed.

Councilmember Fesserson, you're recognized.

Thanks, Mr.

President.

I think contractual issues like this are always difficult for a city council to handle because none of us are experts in the details we're talking about here, and it's very difficult to summarize those details in a three-minute commentary for anybody, even someone who does this every day.

But the dollar figures we're talking about here certainly gets your attention.

It gets all of our attention when we have a disagreement about uh a contractual issue and how that went and what those implications may be.

So I just have a few follow-up questions from what we heard today, and we've all had briefings on the on these issues too, in depth, and uh also memos from both um proponents and opponents today, so I might want to just clarify a few things that we've talked about in that respect too.

And I want to be clear that I'm not um questioning anybody's motives here or anybody's ethics.

I think everyone is trying to do the right thing for the project and for the citizens and for the taxpayers here.

But as Mr.

Tyler appropriately recognized, this is a major project for our city.

You don't always think about the importance of our sewer and sewer treatments, but that is that it is in fact one of the most important things the city does.

Uh and this is a massive project, so I think it's important to just kind of walk through a few of these issues.

So I was actually a member of the CMAR committee, representing the council.

Uh, this is a fairly new process the city has adopted.

And every time there is a CMAR process, there's a member of the city council on that committee, and and this time it was me.

It was my first time.

Um, I believe that selection process was fair and above board and handled well.

Um, but the results were very close.

Um I think both contractors we have here today are very capable and have shown they can do most any city project, and they were the two top um to top uh bidders that day uh by mile.

Um said that, uh my experience with the CMAR process I feel has been a little squishy, just to get my arms around it and how it works as compared to um a low bidding process, lowest and best bid as we typically see.

Um I will say at the conclusion of that process, I was aware uh that unsuccessful bidders were communicated to that um the results of the process, of course, but then um that this was a major project that would likely uh include additional participation from local contractors uh and additional work possibly to be bid along the way.

I think that's part of the angst we're hearing about today that maybe that maybe that hasn't happened so far.

So um the first issue that kind of gets my interest is this ordinance for being asked to approve next week uh amends the original CMAR agreement, the city city council adopted for this project.

And I think it does in fact change a section that originally said when we get to this point, additional work would be would be bid, not just self-performed.

And I think it that original language even said um it must be bid, but if the self-performer um was lower, that that could be chosen.

Um there's been some disagreement, I think, whether this language has deletes it or modifies it, but the fact is it does change it to say that that doesn't have doesn't have to happen and it can be self-performed.

So I think that is accurate uh to express that concern.

I will say, though, in talking with public works, I I think they feel strongly that um in working with the self-performance contractor that they feel that's going to produce a better results and may produce um better savings or better timeliness.

Um I also think we don't know that.

Um Mr.

Tyler, I don't know if you might be available for a question in that respect.

I know you engaged a third party to review those, review that um scenario, and you felt that was the best outcome you could uh present to the city.

Yes, so um we we go into these things fully aware that if we do not feel it's going the way it should be going with the contractor we're working with, that's McCarthy, that we have an off-ramp.

You know, so um we were comfortable with how things were going with McCarthy.

We felt they were working in a very collaborative manner, but even with that, um without it being required as part of this contract, we engaged a third party to come in and look at the costs for the city.

HDR at a cost, McCarthy had a cost, we engaged that third party to look at that cost.

If they would have came in and said, you're nuts, this cost does not look good, we would have taken an off-ramp, but that's not the result that we got.

We got a third-party verification that these costs are appropriate and reasonable for the city.

So we relied on that third party um to validate the approach we were doing and the cost that we were we're getting as part of this uh GMP.

I think you might have some legal questions, and I'm gonna refer those to Ryan.

Okay.

That answered my my question on that for now.

But um there's no doubt what we're being asked to vote on next week does modify that language to allow that to occur, right?

Yeah, and I'm gonna again how how we are able to do that, I will defer those questions to Ryan.

Okay.

One more question for you while you're while you're up there, um, because I think this is more your territory than than anything legal.

Um the RFP, I think originally estimated a $350 million cost for the project, and we're now looking at $411 million.

And there's been some uh assertions that it could be done for uh you know $70 million less or you know, whatever that number number might be.

Um that's a lot of money.

Um I believe you you would say uh going the route you're suggesting with self-performance is the best route for taxpayers.

So that could decide.

I don't want to say self-performance is the best route.

Okay.

What I want to say is we chose a methodology for this project to manage risk up front.

Okay, so there's a number of things built into our guaranteed mass uh maximum price that would not normally be included in a bid price.

For example, um the guaranteed maximum price with McCarthy includes over 24 million dollars of contingencies up front that can be used if needed, okay, by us.

Okay, by the by the contractor, if he's things see some things outside of scope by the city if we see the need to, hey, here's something not included in the original scope, but let's take advantage and then let's do this thing now.

So those things always happen along a project.

When they happen along a design bid-build project, um, those are complete unknowns that we're gonna have to pay for with the change order.

So we're trying to get as much of that change management that occurs during a project understood up front and managed by the risks that we understood and are included in the guaranteed maximum price.

Okay, I think it's important that this is a guaranteed maximum price.

We intend to come in below that.

Okay.

On a low bid, you're going to grant you're going to have a tendency to go up because you pay for change orders after the fact.

And I'm not saying one's right or one's wrong.

Both both types of alternative delivery or design bid build have their place.

We believe that managing the risk was important enough on this project to do the CMAR project.

I'm kind of, I don't know if I'm answering your question.

I think I'm kind of rambling a little bit more.

No, I think that's apologizes.

You see it as a way to control risk, it's risk mitigation.

But I think we also can't say this is this is definitely cheaper for taxpayers.

The only way to know that would be to go to market, right?

Um one thing I'm going to say is we went to market with a vast majority of the work that's in this project.

Okay.

I'm gonna I'm gonna I'll name a local contractor that's doing 40 million dollars.

Commonwealth.

Been doing work for a long time in this city.

Um their bid um submitted to McCarthy, was evaluated against other electrical contractor bids.

We picked Commonwealth as our electrical contractor that will perform work at this treatment plant.

Um there's a big list of scopes of work that are bid out to the local community, to the regional community if that's where we have to go.

But there are a number of scopes of work that are some within McCarthy's um self-perform work.

They have subcontractors that they bid out within their own work that's under self-perform.

There's a large number of subcontractors working on this project for the city that had a process of are you interested in the project, are you interested in submitting a bid?

Here's how we're going to solicit those bids.

I'm going to use an example just because it's an easy one, but um masonry bricklayers, four of them submitted bids on the project, the low bidder was chosen.

That's just an example.

That's the easy one because it sticks in my head.

But electrical, mechanical, there's a number of different scopes of work within this project, including scopes of work that were specific to SEBs that are being done by contractors within this community, and contractors were part of a bidding process inside of the CMAR process.

Okay.

I know that's hard to understand, but that's that's what's been going on for the past few months.

I appreciate that.

And that's actually uh good segue into my next uh series of questions here.

Because that is that was definitely communicated to all bidders that um regardless of who was the word of the major contract, there would be local work for uh embidding for lots of other folks who may be interested.

Um I guess my first question is to your last remark.

Do you know you have a percentage of what that local work is outside of the outside of McCarthy that you want to describe?

Um I'm not gonna have that.

It's something that I'm sure I can get.

Okay.

Okay, but I just don't have that off the top of my head.

I do know the number of uh the dollar value of SEBs, it's gonna sound like a small number, but it's 1.8 million dollars.

And it's uh it was a list of work packages that were looked at with our HR and R department of here's the type of work we have going on in the project, here's our local SEB contractor base, let's reach out to them, let's try to get as many as we can involved, and we bid specific packages, excuse me, McCarthy bid specific packages that were um given, given to the SEBs as low bidders on certain portions of the work.

So I can that's a number that I know and I can mention, and there was a lot of work that went into that process.

But again, there's that's small contractors, there's a lot of other contractors working on this project.

I would be interested in the overall subcontractor number, but I I was going to talk about SEBs too.

Um the 1.8 million, that's out of out of what out of how much.

What's the larger number that that represents?

1.8 million out of 411.

Yeah.

So that's a concern of mine.

Um as a member of that committee, a big factor for me was um the bidders that talked about engaging SEB work uh in the city for this major project.

I know this is a project, the nature of this project may be difficult in that respect to really reach the 14 percent or 18 or 20 percent we like to get to with SABs.

Um, but clearly 1.8 million dollars out of 411 million dollars uh is concerning to me.

And all all bidders talked a lot about engaging SEBs um and McCarthy did especially, I would say.

Uh but I have to say that's a pretty disappointing number.

I I think if you talk to our HR and R department about the process that we went through working with them, um McCarthy, our engineers working with HR and R, and what's the available contractor base within that SEB contractor base, what scopes of work are available?

How many of these small contractors want to lock in their prices over the next six years?

All those were factors into okay, let's do the best we can do to engage these small local contractors.

And so talk to our other departments on how the process was followed and how much work we went into trying to engage as much as possible.

Okay.

And then uh to the comments uh made by the carpenters, we do of course care about responsible subcontractors.

Um from the city's perspective, we we would check any subcontractor in that respect, right?

Or are have the contractor themselves guarantee they are engaging responsible subcontractors, not folks that are doing 1099s and things like that, right?

Um and that uh again, you know, those are things that on any contract we have, you know, we're gonna we're gonna look to make sure that that we're working with um that our contractors are working with um uh staff they should be working with.

Yeah.

That's I understood the comment, my comment on that is no matter what the contract is, we're gonna be watching out for that.

Yeah, regardless if it's CMAR or lowest investment.

Absolutely.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

And then uh maybe just two last things.

I see others have lights on too.

Um if this uh contract was approved next week, obviously you would go to um notice to proceed, it sounds like maybe as soon as April.

Uh but as you know, it's a very long project, about six years.

Um if it was not approved, um, I suppose what you'd have to do is consider bidding the work.

Would that be the logical plan B.

I'm not exactly sure what the logical plan B is.

We would have to go back as a department and evaluate things.

Um I would talk to my boss Bob Stuby, and we'll have an answer for you on that.

And under either scenario, as was noted, the the um revenue that pays for this large project is not it's not property tax and it's not federal funds.

It's sewer use funds.

Correct.

So regardless, there's no funding at jeopardy here, whether we had a notice proceed in April or some some later time, right?

No, no funding.

So um no.

And and I know Mr.

Vokel did say, you know, he's here to watch out for taxpayer funds, and he did make the correction that these aren't property taxes or sales taxes, but the um the jeopardy, and I'll I'll just go back to is that um I'm not sure how fast we would be able to gear up if and go back out to um getting a contractor on board after a bidding process or some other way to go back into CMAR.

I'm not sure.

I'm just gonna say that there would be a process that we would go have to go back into.

Um that wouldn't be just as easy as putting plans out for bidding.

That would be contractors going back in and renegotiating subcontracts.

That would be a lot of work involved in order to just get the project back out to where it could be um back to the market to appropriately get that back out to a way to um deliver the construction side.

Okay.

You know, some products we see have a lot of federal funds involved, and oftentimes if you're changing a timeline or changing a plan, sometimes you risk that federal funding, but that's not the case here.

We're not risking federal funding.

Uh I'll point back to again the equipment.

We we were going to do the work at our Missouri River treatment plant first.

Um after some of the issues we were having with the current secondary treatment at our Papillon Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant, we saw the necessity to where we just really need to get this project going.

And I know six years sounds like a long time, but it is critical to get that current infrastructure offline and get new infrastructure online.

Yeah.

And realize our thoughts of moving parts here too with the Omagoro facility and other things that are that this uh see these improvements entail, as well as your many customers in the region, not just the City of Omaha.

Yeah.

Um lastly for me, I I spent my whole time talking about number 51 here, uh, but this is the same public hearing for number 52, which is also a major uh expenditure of about 88 million dollars.

Um but the aqua aerobics system is a procurement contract, right?

So it's purchasing granular sludge treatments.

So it's basically so so this process we're using, and and I'll I'll I'll try to simplify it, but basically um the equipment we're buying is proprietary.

Okay, it it is it is patented.

We are working with a system that only they can provide.

Um so um we selected a methodology to purchase that basically outside of the uh GMP and purchase that ourselves to take on some of that risk as a city and and basically uh pay a little bit of oversight on that part that we take on ourselves.

But it is an extremely important, it's the biggest part of what uh the proprietary um new technology that we're using.

And when I say new, it's been around the world for I don't know, maybe a decade, maybe.

Probably not.

Um we're gonna be the biggest one in the world.

Um but the technology activated sludge has been around for decades.

Treatment plants all over the world use it.

Their technology allows that process to be built at a much smaller footprint at a greatly reduced cost.

Okay, that's that's the technology we're using.

That's why we're doing a procurement of $88 million with that company.

That comp that $88 million price includes procurement and services of delivery during that project, their staff be on site to help us with the installation and how to work that project.

So it's $88 million equipment plus services during the installation process and making sure we can get it up and running properly.

Yeah.

And for anyone who hasn't taken that tour yet, it's a pretty interesting tour to see how the sludge and the cake works.

I recommend it.

Yeah.

All right.

I would say on that on that part of what we're talking about, though.

Um I think all parties would agree that's a procurement contract that should proceed regardless of what happens next week.

I believe so.

I agree.

Yeah.

Okay.

That's my last question for now.

I'll yield the floor to others.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Harding, your recognize.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Um I'll start out at the at the top by saying, and Jim, you can take a seat if you'd like.

Um I'm not here to question anyone's ethics or motives.

Um, I think McCarthy does great work.

Um, not only have we seen that as evidenced by the projects in the city, but all you know, in the other markets that they're in as well.

Um Hawkins, you can say the same thing certainly about um the work that they do and the reputation that they have.

And I I certainly don't dispute the uh uh the city or public works ethics or intentions.

Um they always work in the interests of the taxpayers and and in this case really the users, because some of those are outside of the jurisdiction of the city of Omaha.

But I think I'll start off by saying I think if the methodology of the original agreement was followed, and we arrived at 411 million dollars, we would not be having this conversation.

But that's where I have that's where I I jump off the train, I guess, is I don't know that what was originally agreed to in the um the original agreement in 2024, especially with the I'll get into a couple different areas, but the one that I really hang my hat on on this uh or get caught up on the process that was agreed to in the original agreement as it relates to cell performance of work and what was actually done, and now we're having an agreement come to us today that for consideration that we're gonna potentially vote on next week that actually reset the rules and and the processes to get to this point.

Um so with that I'll ask Mr.

Hawkins to to come up if if you would please.

So as as I understand it, and I've had plenty of conversations with uh with public works as well as with with Hawkins.

Um but in the the 2024 agreement, um one of the one of the areas originally agreed to was that the the process for cell performance of work.

Could you walk through your understanding of how that read and maybe what is changed in the agreement that we're to consider next week?

Sure.

Yeah.

Bear with me, these are long documents, so if I want to reference something, it'll take me a second to pull out.

But this one's easy to know.

In the ordinance uh or in the the pre-construction contract approved in September 2024, the primary uh bid element was defined in Article 10 of that contract.

And then you would know the change is very straightforward in the proposed ordinance in front of you.

Article 10 is suggested to be deleted in its entirety and replaced instead with language indicating that the CMAR may self may choose their own self-perform work subject to third-party review of pricing.

Okay.

By the way, in fairness, if I can, uh I appreciate the disclaimer that everyone else has made, and I I should make the same.

I'm not questioning that that was done by any nefarious motive.

I'm not questioning anybody's ethics uh or motivations here.

The reality is good smart people can still make mistakes.

Okay.

Okay.

So the the other thing, um, and again, with in conversations with with the city, too.

I you know, I I it's been said that things were done legally in a and in an ethical manner.

Um I would say yes if it was done so with the original language.

But we're it's yeah, the answer is really yes if we adopt the new language.

If we're doing it open book with McCarthy, which is the process I'm told actually kind of was followed for the self-performing performance work.

That would if that original if that would have been included in the original document, then that would have been a proper or an acceptable way to do it.

But it wasn't in the original document that way.

So in my estimation, it looks like what we're really trying to do is have corrective language in what we're to uh to vote on next week that kind of sets the clock backwards so that that process could be followed.

Would that be kind of a fair way to say it?

Yeah, I think that there's a couple yes, that's a fair way to say it.

And I think you're correct in terms of the the characterization of this being done, this process being legal, legal is not the same as best interest of the city, uh, and legal in terms of complying with city ordinance, which I think is a little arguable, but state law maybe that's not the same as being in compliance with contract terms.

This process was not in compliance with contract terms.

I understand your point that it would have been if the language now in front of you for approval was in the original contract.

It wasn't in that contract, and it wasn't for a reason.

That language would be very atypical uh for this sort of contract nationwide in our industry.

I would agree.

And so walk me through, and I I think I had talked with council member Fesserson and it was said that you know there there is an ability to sell perform, or I'm sorry, the some of the work would be bid out.

And I I think in my conversations with you, um, it's your understanding that maybe that ability was not offered up.

That that's correct.

Um we tried, um, and we have documentation of our effort to to reach out and have the opportunity to submit a bid, at least on specific packages of work, such as concrete, such as site work, the things that we normally do, and that offer was not made available to us.

Okay.

Which, you know, again, it's pretty surprising.

I think Mr.

Tyler noted clearly that in the previous project they received one bid, rebid it, received one bid.

Uh it was us both times.

We've bid on pretty much every project to think that it was in the best interest of the city or the best way to manage risk or the best way to manage cost to exclude the one entity that regularly bids on this work is uh at best I would say a head scratcher.

Okay.

Um let me ask a couple of questions about some other parts of the uh this agreement too.

I know we we we talked a little bit about the fees and and kind of the if you will, fees on top of fees as it appears in this agreement to allow for something like that to happen.

So tell me your understanding um of how that's happening, and it seems to me that's not kind of a uh a standard or customary way to or to collect fees.

Uh again, that would run very afoul of normal expected terms.

So what you're talking about, and again, it's worth referencing the two documents here, that being the preconstruction contract approved in 2024, and now the ordinance in front of you.

The pre-construction contract very clearly describes how fees shall be applied and how it shall be calculated.

Um and if you'll bear with me to pull out the uh spec section so that you can have it.

Fee is determined by Article 7 of the pre-construction contract, uh, which very clearly, if you follow it all the way through, applies to direct cost of work.

So that would be the permanent in-place construction work, not indirect cost, not overhead.

So not soft cost.

Very clearly in the contract includes uh on-site management, et cetera.

Right.

That's what the pre-construction contract says.

The proposed ordinance in front of you allows fee to be applied to the entire project, including uh she's nearly 90 million dollars of indirect cost.

That's that's pretty significant.

Um I think that there's another fee element you're you're getting right into, and this one I think should be extremely concerning.

It's concerning to me.

Uh, and if you'll bear with me and we could do some math here.

Um I think you mentioned fee on fee.

I did.

Okay.

If you get into the middle of your uh proposed ordinance, and I I apologize there aren't page references I can get to here.

Um, but thank you.

You can use the the Elmo too if you need.

Oh put it up on there.

There you go.

The sign says don't touch equipment, so no one's I listen.

I listened to rules very carefully.

Uh how do I zoom in?

Uh there's a little there you go.

Which uh the scroll.

Yeah.

Scroll down.

Thank you.

There you go.

All right.

Perfect.

Um so as noted.

You might want to slide that over just a little too, if you could, so we can see the other way.

So we can see the how about here.

These are the main numbers you need to see here.

Okay.

Okay.

So subtotal cost of work, that's the 278.7 uh million dollars.

That would be by your pre-construction contract, the amount fee should be applied to.

Then you have your indirect cost down here, 121.8 million.

That's how you get to your and that I'm sorry, includes the 30 million of fee.

So indirect, general conditions, contingency, etc., that's 90 million dollars, right?

Fee was applied to the entirety of this project, not allowed under the original pre-construction contract.

Back to my previous point, there was some level of negotiation here, which makes me question a little bit true authenticity of the the independence.

But here's my biggest problem, and you have to do the math backwards as we talk about fee.

If you calculate this total number right here, this is the 400 million dollars of construction cost, which includes 30 million dollars of fee.

That would imply that the total cost of direct work and indirect work is 370 million, right?

Anybody everybody with me there?

Okay.

If you take 370 million times the revised fee of seven and a half percent, the total fee amount you get should be 27 and a half million dollars.

But instead, it's 30 million dollars.

Why the answer is because this fee was included in the total calculation and feed again.

You have a seven and a half percent fee applied to 27 and a half million of initial fee.

That's a two and a half million dollar fee.

I I don't know how to describe it as anything but a giveaway.

This math is really concerning to me, and it should be to you.

Um beyond failure to follow process, having that kind of unaccounted for dollar amount, two and a half million dollars is a lot of money.

It's a lot, I get it, it seems small in the size of this project.

That's a lot of money to anybody in the city of Omaha.

I think a no-bit two and a half million dollar contract caused a lot of consternation at the state level.

And that's what we're talking about is kind of a throwaway here.

I don't know how you can describe that that number.

It's uh I will know that I think it's interesting that in the original agreement.

I think the fee was actually eight percent.

And now it's seven, it it's it's a reduction in fee.

Yeah, the fees actually increased.

That's that's correct.

It's it's like an interesting thing to note, I thought.

Well, and again, you could run the math.

If you apply to 8.75% to 278 million dollars, you end up with 20 some million, not 30, which by the way is not inclusive of the self-performed fee, which was also added in the proposed ordinance in front of you.

There was no consideration of a self-performed fee in the pre-construction contract.

Nonetheless, there is one in here, and it amounts to about 15% or another 30 million dollars.

That was the point I was trying to make in my initial introduction.

Again, without alleging anything uh untowards here, it's just bad math.

The pre-construction contract at the agreed to fee would have produced a fee of about 20 million dollars.

After a year and a half of negotiations, the fee in this thing is nearly 50 million dollars.

That should raise a lot of red flags.

At a bare minimum questions from you.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um again, I kind of know I the one that I really caught my attention really was the really the change in the language of of what we're to consider next week as it relates to the bidding of some of the work or how the self-performance would be dealt with.

And to me, it seems um it seems clear that that that original process was not followed.

I mean, and then when you start we start talking about you know, maybe the potential of tens of millions and multiples of tens of millions of dollars of savings that could be realized, I think that that's something that we really seriously need to consider.

I know uh you were kind of limited in in your your time to go over a lot of these things.

I appreciate you letting me bring some of them up, but um I know there are some other issues that you um you had some concerns with, and I guess I'll give you the opportunity to um close out with some of those.

No, I appreciate that.

I think I think we've hit the the main headline items.

I would I'd note a little bit too, you've made the point that if this language and if this process was more clearly spelled out in the pre-construction contract were spelled out in the RFP, we might be in a different place today.

I agree with that.

Uh but I would also take it even a little further back in the timeline and say if this process was clearly identified in the RFP, I think you would have seen a different approach from Hawkins.

You would have seen a different approach from Kiwit, the other two proposers on this project.

And so there is a point about precedence here, and there is a point about if the city is going to put proposals out in the open market and expect apples to apples responses, they darn well better stick with the process that they outline in the RFP.

Otherwise, you aren't getting a comparative result between different different bidders.

I think that's a pretty poor precedent to set.

And that is another point I would leave you with in terms of my strong recommendation to reject the amendment in front of you.

If you don't, there is a precedent set, right?

And there is a precedent that a contract this well thought through, this thick, with this many prescriptive terms that the council approved and expected to be followed, that they don't have to be.

What does that really mean for good governance?

What's what's next for you after that?

Yeah.

I'll just uh quickly if I could close with maybe the the timeline issue.

Uh council member Fesserson brought this up too.

Um, and I think Mr.

Tyler addressed a little bit of it too.

I mean, this we're not at risk of any federal funds that would be lost if we weren't uh proceeding within a certain time frame.

Um I think if if if this doesn't get agreed to, and I I suppose there are two things that could happen.

One, it could go back to the original agreement that was done in 24 with with those terms.

Um, or two, it could go out as uh we could take the option of a hard bid process too.

So and then that would probably add maybe uh let's say three, four months, maybe somewhere in that time frame.

I think that's probably a better question directly for Mr.

Tyler and public works.

I will tell you by experience, we've been through multiple projects before where they have been relet for whatever reason.

Um we we've seen this type of situation happen before.

The general time frame would be three months, four months.

Um, I would note it took almost two years to get a GMP together, which uh that that took a little while, so I I don't know that there's been a demonstration of a real sense of urgency already at this point uh in the project.

Uh I would think that it could be bid pretty quickly.

Now, there was a point made that uh it takes a while to get contractors to go renegotiate contracts.

None of that would be relevant if this project is hard bid or competitively led out of the traditional design bid build process, that which is what I would I would be encouraging.

You bid the job as a general contractor and then you move on.

Uh for what it's worth, we were able to obtain the plans once they were at 100% design in late November, and that's when we produced an unsolicited proposal to the city.

It took us six weeks to do it.

Uh, and we were able to bid out the entire project.

Um Frankly, as a side note, we also identified in our proposal, which Public Works and the Mayor's Office has, uh, approximately four and a half million dollars of SEB potential.

Uh so there were packages uh in a six-week span that we were able to identify and put forward um versus the sub $2 million that's presented to you here.

Uh a little unsure about the level of it, but that is pretty concerning to us as well.

Well, and I'd say that four four and a half or whatever million is on top of a uh a much smaller denominator as well.

That's that's correct.

But my point was a larger percentage of the work.

Yeah, that was four and a half that we found with only a very short period of time, uh, I think with a longer period of time and when what I would have expected in a CMAR process is to be able to be more creative.

That's part of the appeal to CR.

Um, and and I don't refute, by the way, the value of the CMAR process.

It certainly can have its applications if the processes within it are followed correctly.

Um I I think that this job is unfortunately a lost opportunity in that sense to have that period of time to help develop um potential SEBs, folks who maybe maybe don't have back office type support where really this type of process allows support of SEBs.

Um that's a I'll admit a little bit of an editorializing comment, but it is a concern.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you, Councilmember Melton, you're recognized.

Thank you.

And you know, I'm gonna ask uh Mr.

Vocal a couple questions.

Okay.

I'm happy to stay close.

Uh Ms.

Rogel, thank you, thank you for coming down.

So um we haven't changed much since 2008.

A lot more technology is the same.

A lot less hair for me.

Um you had mentioned I I understand what the Platt Institute, they're always looking out for what we heard are taxpayers taxpayers, and it was kind of mentioned, well, these are sewer fees, not taxes.

These are this is money that residents are required to pay for essential city services, correct?

Sure, these are outlays from constituents and taxpayers, not necessarily in the form of property taxes, but other fees, fees and taxes are generally um I I lump them in the same same category.

Yeah, revenues that the the city government government is collecting from the residents.

From taxpayers, yeah.

Yeah, and I mean these fees are substantial.

I I think you probably remember you had to pass these fees.

We've been paying these sewer fees for a couple decades now, um, in order to pay for not only the CSO, but our our current sewer and current infrastructure, which by the way, I think is extremely important.

And we when you talk about essential services, sewer and water, you you can't get much more essential than that.

Uh, but if I could just ask you a couple questions in regards to now that you've kind of listened to to both sides, what's your biggest concern about this?

I mean, we there's the money, it sounds like we're gonna have to spend quite a bit of money, but um what in your opinion are best practices and what's most concerning here?

I think the the and I I hope my my comments alluded to this.

I think what is most concerning is that there it's very clear, and I'm not an attorney.

The the contract that was approved previously between the city and McCarthy states that any future construction work must be bid out if they want to perform the job.

It was not.

And this amendment that's before you today is trying to correct that.

And that is not in the best interest of taxpayers who are looking and expecting government officials and government leaders to, especially when the contract says it, to have the lowest and best bid process.

And generally, that is not transparent.

It does not give taxpayers and rate pay ratepayers the confidence that the political subdivision, in this case the city of Omaha, is acting in their best interest.

And I look at the cumulative effect of sewer fees, property taxes that we pay, inheritance tax, taxes on licensing here in Nebraska is some of the toughest landscape that we have across the whole country.

And so by not competitively bidding, I think that's a slap in the face to rate and taxpayers that we are not as a city as a political organization taking that contract seriously, but we're not putting the ratepayer first either.

Well, and and I think you make a good point on transparency.

There was a comment made that amending the contract and using and having the self-bid was going to be more transparent.

Um I guess I was confused by that because I think that what you're saying, the open bidding process is actually the most transparent thing to do for a political subdivision.

Yeah, if I'm a taxpayer, I'm only going to speak for myself today, but I hear from a lot of them across the state.

If a project for subsequent construction work is supposed to be bid out, and it is not.

And and because it was in the original contract, it requires it requires a bid.

Have you, in your experience, either at the Platt Institute or as a former council member in your time before my time, um, have you ever seen a contract this large?

It's been a no-bid contract.

Absolutely not.

That's why I'm here today.

Even in the state.

No.

I mean, because I know you do statewide.

Right.

Right.

Um to me, that's what's giving me probably the biggest problem as a lawyer going back and saying, hey, we're gonna be in violation of the contract, so let's agree to go back and change the contract.

I find that very problematic because it wasn't just a contract between the city and another business, other businesses were relying on that language for because they they were expecting to be able to have a chance at a future bid on the project.

And and I think that's that's maybe the problem I have as an elected official is that we that's what we presented to the public.

It was mentioned, and I think Mr.

Hawkins and maybe a question by a council member alluded to this.

I'm not saying that state law shouldn't be recognized and looked at, but to me, the underlying legal case here is that an agreement was signed that says that bidding would happen.

It did not.

And you are being asked next week to vote on an amendment to wipe that off the contract.

But it's an amendment to basically void the requirement to have bids.

I mean, which is correct.

I I mean, they're and that does not give taxpayers the assurance that U 7 and the City of Omaha are acting in their best interests.

I hate to be that blunt.

I've been in your seat for eight years.

No, I know.

This job for 13 years watching political subdivisions all across the state.

And and I would agree, I I'm not, I think I think it was stated by by Councilman Festerson, Councilman Harding.

This isn't I'm not saying that our public works, anybody in our public works department has acted or our legal department has acted with anything but integrity.

I think they they got into this and saw maybe an opportunity and then figured out how to make it happen with the honest belief that it may be saving us money.

And so I'm not questioning necessarily the integrity of our public works department, and I want Mr.

Tyler to know that.

And I'm saying it publicly, because I would have to say that Jim Tyler might be one of the hardest working public servants that I've ever met and that the city of Omaha will ever have.

Um my concern is again down to the process, the legality of it as well to change an agreement that was relied upon, I think, by others, and to the public.

And just taking this action of you're asking the city council to vote to remove a bidding requirement so that we can have a no-bid contract.

It just almost kind of it's too much, I think, for me to be able to process or defend.

It doesn't pass a smell test, it's not transparent.

And and I am sincere about this.

If McCarthy came to me and the shoe was on the other foot, I would still be standing here today.

That it's yeah, it's not a good thing.

So it's about processing.

This is not about companies or quality of work, it's about the confidence the taxpayers can have after um this project is complete.

And and I think the amount of money that we're talking about is substantial.

It's tons of millions.

Well, thank you.

I appreciate the fact that that um you came down um to actually give us your opinion and and based on your experience with other cities and the rest of the state, I think it's helpful for us to thank you very much.

Thank you.

Councilmember Goodwin, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Um, and this discourse has been very informative.

We appreciate everyone speaking today.

Um we had our briefing uh from Jim today, one of the things he uh kept saying was ask Ryan.

When we had our briefing from Jim today, one of the things he kept saying was ask Ryan.

And so I'm going to ask the city's legal counsel to come up and maybe just wrap this up for us in a way.

One of the questions that came up was why were the changes made?

My understanding is that this started with the committee.

But then by the time there was a decision to say, let's just go with McCarthy, and I'm making that very simplified.

Was the committee still utilized for that decision?

Ryan Weeson, Deputy City Attorney, if I'm understanding your question correctly, I believe it was.

This process is set forth in Nebraska statute under the Political Subdivisions Construction Alternatives Act.

And that act specifies that CMAR projects can be used for wastewater, sewer, sewer treatment type product projects like that.

And it sets forth kind of an open competitive evaluation and proposal process where when the CMAR uh process was initially identified, a number of um entities uh to include McCarthy and Hawkins were evaluated by that uh committee that you just spoke.

And that is how the uh CMAR contract was originally awarded to McCarthy.

And could you move your microphone up maybe just a little bit?

Okay, so you're saying that the committee uh was utilized even to then make the decision to go with McCarthy.

There was a statement that was made that the Hawkins and that was made in our briefing today, so I'm alluding to something that may have not been said in today's public hearing.

The Hawkins guaranteed minimum, McCarthy guaranteed maximum, but they were more qualified.

Was that a decision that the committee made?

And I can see Jim saying, let me clarify that.

So Jim.

The committee, when they when we had interviews, when we made a clip selection, they were done.

The committee was done at that time.

At that point, the committee's done with their work.

The city starts to negotiate a contract with who the committee chooses.

Yes.

Okay.

So I I I think I may have not quite explained that, but that's exactly the committee's done at that point.

We don't go back to that committee at any time.

Okay.

I think what I think what you're referring to is that you know the guaranteed maximum price that we have, McCarthy, is a result of the CMAR process that we went through.

Okay.

And I I think the statement you're referring to is that in a guaranteed maximum price, uh, if done right, the price, ultimate price to the city should have a tendency to go down in a low bid price.

You're going to have a tendency for those costs to go up through change orders that happen.

So I think that's what you're referring to, but out of clarity, the committee's done when that uh selection of McCarthy was made.

Is that helping?

Yes, it does help.

Thank you.

And I also wanted, though, to ask about the open book process, because I also, again, in my notes have it that it was stated that the open books process is actually more transparent.

Am I getting that right?

Well, we believe that by allowing the open book process, and and this will this is happening, it happened during the development of the GMP, and it will be utilized throughout the construction of the project, is that that open book basically allowed us to look inside of the cost that the contractors don't like to let us know.

Okay, how much productivity are they going to be able to achieve along the way?

Because the contractor is going to tell you we we don't like to tell people that because we can hide some profit there.

Okay, but we opened our we we said you're gonna open your books, we're gonna agree to your productivity.

Um you're not gonna hide any profit there.

We're gonna have a transparent process to say this is how much this equipment cost.

Um this is how much these type of laborers are going to get paid.

This is your productivity rate to achieve the work you need to achieve.

All those costs were looked at openly, agreed to with McCarthy, the city, an engineer and a third party.

We believe that's very transparent on a design bid bill, you get a lump sum number that you compare against other lump sum numbers, and you hopefully you take that lowest one and think that's the best one for the city, but there's a lot of things hidden inside that lump sum number that are outside of our control.

I'm not saying there's anything that a contract is trying to hide, but that's just the reality of a of a difference that we believe that open book process gave us transparency that's beyond what we usually have in a design bid build contract.

Thank you for that.

And so, Jim, you mentioned referring to our legal counsel multiple times in our briefing today.

Is there anything else you felt Ryan could clarify for us today or through this discussion has it come out?

I think there's some questions being asked about, and I know some people are saying whether it's legal or not, that doesn't necessarily mean it's right, but I I think Ryan is who I would refer to if there's any questions on the legality of what we did.

Okay, we worked with our law department entirely along this process to make sure that the legality of the process that we followed was in accordance with state law, and then everything that we did in making the changes we felt was within the best interest of the city, but as it has to do with the legality of state law, that's where I deferred it, Ryan.

Ryan Weeson, deputy city attorney.

Um just it's a very broad question, and so I'll try to give it just a very generalized, um, hopefully concise answer.

And I'm gonna try to focus it on my understanding of what at least I think I have heard of the main kind of objection is, and that is the change in contract terms essentially from uh provisions that said there will be this kind of bidding process to this open book process for certain self-perform uh functions.

And I think that is before you today because not to avoid that bidding process like it has been suggested by some individuals, but because that process has already been done, at least that's my understanding from what public works has stated to me.

And so if my that understanding is incorrect, I'd encourage them and request them to clarify that.

But it's my understanding that during this year and a half process where they have evaluated this project and how it's supposed to be manufactured and designed and constructed, that McCarthy did go through a bidding process where they did solicit bids from other entities for performance of certain scopes of work for performance of subcontracts, and that an analysis was then done to compare certain of those bids with the self-perform open book protocol to determine what was the best for this project and what was the best for the the city's rate payers and for the city, and that what is before you is the result of that process.

So it's not that this provision is being removed to avoid it, it's it's being amended because it's been done and to reflect the final conclusion to reflect that the contractors have been selected and that an analysis has been done and that it has been determined that the open book protocol is the best for this contract for the CMAR and this project.

And if my understanding of that is incorrect, I'd request that public works let me know.

But that is at least my understanding of of what has occurred.

And to specifically address your question, I'm gonna point to Nebraska revised statute, section 13-2912.

And it states that a construction management at risk contract may be conditioned upon later refinements in scope and price and may permit the political subdivision in agreement with the construction manager to make changes in the project without invalidating the contract.

And that is what has occurred here today.

Or it has occurred over the past year and a half, I should say.

Thank you.

I believe just want to go through my notes because I have a lot of them.

Yes, thank you.

I think Ryan and I just need to go back and make sure I understand what he said and what because um there was a self-perform process that was allowed with changes made in the contract, and I want to make sure that I'm on the same page with what Ryan just said because I don't know if I exactly followed that.

So fair enough.

Um I don't have any further questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Melton, you're recognized.

Thank you.

And I just kind of wanted to clarify something that in the in the CMAR, you're you're choosing the contractor, uh, general contractor that is going to do the design and then try and work with coming up with the cost of that design and then determining who the contractor will be to perform that.

And there are provisions for a self-performance.

I have to tell you in my experience doing the Tranquility CMAR seems to me that that's one that I did that also took a couple years and seemed to delay the project, but uh I will stay on topic.

Um I'm just curious.

Um Ryan, maybe I'll call you up because here's the problem I have.

You were I get that you're providing that the statute allows changes to be made to the contract.

Okay, that the statute says that we can make changes.

Here's the deal.

What I think the city did though is they went ahead and did an open book self performing analysis of McCarthy, which would be in violation of the current contract, and saying basically we'll go ahead and do this, and then we'll we'll ask the city to change the contract after we've already done this open book no bidding process.

Do you see the problem that I have?

And that although the state statute says you can make changes to the contract, I think what the city is.

I think what you're asking us to do is we've already done the work, so now change the contract to approve what we've already done, because it actually specifically says that it should be bid.

The fact that they've bid out some janitorial, some electrical, some other things that you know anybody else would have to bid out.

The vast majority of this self-performing work did not get bid as the original contract required.

So how how does how do you justify that legally, other than you're saying, well, that's why you have to vote yes on that.

I mean, isn't that kind of what you're saying?

Ryan Weeson Deputy City Attorney.

I I don't believe that's what I'm saying precisely.

Uh in part because I don't think that any that will construction work hasn't been done.

I think as you phrased it, um you've implied that the work has been done, and so we're asking you to approve it now and end the the work of the open book, the no bid work.

None of the construction work has been done.

Right.

Correct.

And that's what the my understanding, and I'm not the technical expert here, is that that's what the open book pertains to is cost incurred in the construction of the project, and that construction of the project has not started yet.

So it's it's not that that work has started or been done, it's that it it hasn't been done yet.

The work hasn't been done.

So why don't we just leave the contract as is and have it bid?

Because if we don't vote to change the contract, the work is gonna have to be a bit an RP, it's gonna have to go to bid, correct?

Under the current contract.

I'd have to look at the specific terms, but that's uh, you know, I think a political uh consideration, not a legal consideration.

You said it's a did you just say it's a political consideration?

Whether or not to amend the contract.

Yeah.

It's up to the members elected officials of the city council to approve it or not.

Well, I understand that.

So I guess my question is is there's a provision in Article 10 that requires it to be bid.

That requires the work to go to a bid.

So legally, the city would need to put this out for a bid if we don't amend the contract.

I'm happy to sit down with you.

Is that correct?

And uh uh look at specific sections.

I don't have the specific provision in front of me right now, but I'm happy to sit down with you in a privileged setting and answer that question.

But absent absent the contract amendment, the open book protocol wouldn't apply, is my understanding.

Okay, thanks.

Um I'm gonna call it Mr.

Hawkins.

Mr.

Hawkins, I actually I I saw it.

I don't have it in front of me.

I believe it's Article 10, and you referenced it.

So could you please state what article do you have that?

Would you like me to read it to you?

Yeah, that would be great.

Yep.

Thank you.

I meant to bring it with me.

But since Mr.

Wieson didn't have it, I thought it might be important to to actually read that article of that's be that we are asked to to delete.

Yeah.

Article 10 of the pre-construction contract.

So this is page 12.

Um, and I should note this contract is on a uh EJ C D C.

It's an industry standard form.

So original contract was very standardized contract.

Uh Article 10.01, uh performance of the authorized work.

A CMAR will solicit will solicit competitive bids on all the work included in each work authorization, including purchase of materials and equipment.

All bids will be submitted to the city directly to the city.

And uh I'll pause there and note that's an important element because it allows a safeguard and ensure the CMAR doesn't have the opportunity to modify their numbers based on what's what's coming in from other entities, and you have a clear view of it.

Uh skipping forward a little bit.

There is an opportunity, as I think was noted for CMAR's self-perform, uh, so long as doing so will not limit bidding by competing bidders.

CMAR must submit its bid in advance of receiving other bids and in the same manner that other bids are to be submitted.

Bids are to be opened in the presence of the owner's project team.

Uh lastly, CMAR will award the subcontract for the work under the work authorization to the responsible bidder submitting the lowest responsive bid for the portion of the work for which bids are received.

CMAR may self-perform if CMAR is the low bidder.

So the original contract, and that and that's the article that I'm looking at what we're to vote on.

That language has been removed on what we're being asked to vote on here.

That language is very specifically being removed.

The proposed ordinance you have states delete all of 10.01A in its entirety, and then replace with, and I'll summarize replace with CMAR essentially may self-perform if analyzed by a third party.

And then no mention, and obviously there's no mention of requirement to bid.

That's correct.

Okay.

So is it your understanding, which is what I was asking, Mr.

Weeson?

So if I can, Mr.

Wieson, if I call you back up.

Thank you.

Oh, sorry.

Yep.

Brian Weeson, deputy city attorney.

Thank you.

So that that's the amendment, and I read it before, I just didn't bring it with me.

So we're being asked to remove that article that requires um bidding, even by the even if McCarthy's gonna self-perform, it would require them to submit a competitive bid.

And that's what we're being asked to remove it today in this public hearing.

Ryan Weeson, deputy city attorney.

Um I was trying to listen to two things at the same time, including Mr.

Tyler and Mr.

Tyler informing that um that is the process that McCarthy used for the subcontractor, subcontracting things that were set forth in this amendment.

So I don't think that's the way that's a good idea.

Then why do we need to then why do we need to remove it?

I think because the process had been completed and the current amendment reflects the finalized terms.

Mr.

Weeson, you know what?

I'll we'll have this conversation later.

I I have a lot of respect for you.

I just I'm having a hard time with you telling me.

I mean, there's that specific language in Article 10 that specifically says the CMAR needs to bid the project.

If they're gonna have self-performing work, they need to submit a bid.

They haven't submitted any bid, and you're asking us to remove this, and you're standing there in front of me telling me, oh, it's because the process is complete.

That doesn't that doesn't make sense.

You wouldn't, if the process is complete, you would not need us to remove Article 10 out of the contract.

The only reason you would need us to remove Article 10 out of the contract is so that we can avoid the bidding process for self-performing work by the CIMAR.

Is there any other reason that we would remove Article 10 from the contract?

I Ryan Weeson, Deputy City Attorney.

Um I don't agree necessarily with that statement.

I have to do that.

Wait, what part of the statement that we're removing Article 10?

To to amend the contract to reflect the finalized terms.

And again, I'm I've requested from public works that they provide the uh bid documents that they've received uh from McCarthy for this for the subcontracting work and that we can get that to you.

No, I'm not sure.

I'm talking about the bid for the self-performing work that McCarthy's gonna do at a cost of somewhere, I mean 200 and I don't know, close to three hundred million dollars.

That you know, excluding the subcontracting work for 1.8 million and maybe the you know 30 or 40 million for electrical work.

I'm talking about the work that McCarthy's actually doing that did not go out to bid pursuant to Article 10.

And we are now being asked to delete Article 10 from the contract.

And I think you may be being put in a difficult position because you may be having to give legal advice to both the council and public works, and I I think it might be difficult because your honest answer may be something that public works doesn't want to hear.

I and so I think you're being put, in my opinion, as a lawyer, you're being put in a very difficult position, which is why I said maybe you and I can talk about this off the record, but this is the public hearing, and for purposes of transparency, that's what we're being asked to do.

We're being asked to remove Article 10 that requires the CMAR to bid on the work that they're being given through the open book process.

I would agree that the amendment would remove this term, current terms in Article 10.

I think from my understanding of what has occurred over the past year and a half, that the reason for that request is not to avoid that process, is what I think I'm trying to articulate and explain.

But it is avoiding the pro it's avoid that's exactly what it's doing.

It's avoiding the bidding process.

Again, my understanding uh and perhaps public works or McCarthy can further elaborate this is there was an extensive review process that did include solicitation of bids uh and an analysis with uh a third party in HDR to determine that the open book protocol was the uh most uh efficient and best for the city of Omaha.

Again, I'm not the subject matter expert in that, so I defer to that determination that analysis from public works, but I'm happy to have uh but the original contract did not contemplate that.

And there's specific language that requires bidding.

I think now we're being asked to remove it.

I mean, it's that simple.

Article 10 was in the original contract, and we're being asked to approve a contract that has amended that out and deleted Article 10 in its entirety.

I mean, it's as simple as that.

And Article 10 specifically requires that this go to bid.

The contract amendment does change that.

Yeah.

As permitted by state statute.

I'm sorry, I I'm done.

Thank you.

Councilmember Harding, you're recognized.

Uh I'm gonna pick up on that too, Amy, because I I had written down 10.01B.

Um let me let me start by asking this question, and I I'll ask Ryan because it's a legal question.

Is the open book process the same as the bid process?

Ryan Wieson Deputy City Attorney, no.

Okay, thank you.

That's all I I need for that.

So 10.0B, 10.01B of the uh 24 agreement states that CMAR may prepare bid packages for work.

The CMAR may wish to self-perform so long as doing so will not limit bidding by competitive bidders.

And then that's the end of A.

And then B says CMAR must submit bids in advance of receiving other bids.

This is kind of interesting, I think, is because regardless of whether or not they that the CMAR might or might not anticipate other bids coming in prior to those coming in were anticipated to be coming in, they have to submit their bid prior to any of that.

So my question is, was that done?

So, Mr.

Tyler, I I I think that question is probably posed to you.

Was that done?

Can I um and I'm sorry, let me I let me clarify further by saying I understand that bids were solicited for other work, but I'm specifically talking about that work that was to be self-performed.

They may have solicited uh bids on on other parts of the the contract and and receive those.

But again, if they were to self-perform, they had to submit a bid prior to any other bid coming in for that same work.

Was that done?

That that's something that I would have to go back and make sure I asked my staff about that.

I I would like if you would allow to let McCarthy come up and respond to some of these questions about what they did to make sure appropriate work was bid out.

Uh you know, I I I'll I'll I'm gonna ask some questions.

I have some more questions.

Okay.

Um, if someone else wants to ask some questions of McCarthy, that's that's their prerogative.

But again, I think it's very important to note that okay.

First of all, the answer was open book process is not the same as a bid process.

In the original agreement, it clearly states that it has to be bid, and again prior to receiving any other bids, CMAR, and I'm saying CMAR, not McCarthy, I'm saying CMAR.

Because I'm not this is not directed at McCarthy.

But the process that prior to receiving any other bids, the same manner that other bids are to be submitted, um the CMAR has to do that.

Okay.

That's that's what's in the original agreement.

Now when you come to the one that we are to consider, again, so 10 point article 10.01 in its entirety was to be removed, but it has replacement language for 10.01.

So I'll know I'll note that.

So but in there, it now says CMAR may prepare bid packages for work the CMAR wish to sell perform in an open book, non-compete approach.

As I understand the open book approach, is basically uh it's and I'm gonna simplify it.

Is that you basically sit down, you say here's the work that we're gonna perform, here are the basics, you know, probably industry standards.

Um, and and it's it's kind of you have a third party look at it who may also be one of the the either Jacobs or HDR or someone like that, and they say, Yeah, that's about right.

That's probably within industry standards, but it doesn't give it doesn't go through the process that they were originally told that they had to follow.

And that's the that's the portion, and again, I I I know Ryan said, you know, it gives us the ability to change uh contract terms.

Absolutely.

I pointed out one we we did change.

We changed the percentage on the fees from eight percent to seven and a half percent, which on the surface looked good, but in when you look at the math, it actually didn't turn out so good.

But what we're doing is we're retroactively trying to change the process, and that's what I have the problem with.

I think a lot of us have again there are other items in here that we've talked about that I think are problematic, but we keep coming back to this.

And it's the open book process is not the same as the bid process, which was what was originally intended in the in the agreement, and what's been deleted and replaced with an entirely different process going forward.

May I respond?

Or or not?

Yeah, yeah, you're gonna respond.

I'll just go ahead and say this.

Okay.

Um, I have answered questions prior to today, and in my briefings and in the uh information I've provided to the best of my abilities.

I understand there are questions that I just don't remember the minute details you're asking.

Uh, by the time you have to vote, I will make sure you have every answer to every question you're asking.

Not only do I appreciate that, but I I know you, you're a man of your word, and you will do that.

And I I do appreciate that, Jim.

Thank you.

Thank you.

No further lights.

Yeah.

Item 53, an ordinance to acquire private property for the construction of the North Ridge Drive 5B projects.

Public hearing is now open on item 53.

Are there any proponents?

Uh good afternoon.

I'm Hall City Council, Don A.

R.

Johnson, the Johnson Equestion Foundation, and North Hall Concerned Citizen Foundation, 4928 North 52nd Street.

As I was mentioning earlier to as I talked to Mr.

Hutt.

When I flew into Nigeria, all I have to do is give them American Express.

That's all I did, and we'd be none that anyway's in the propane.

Thank you.

Are there any proponents?

Seeing none, are there any opponents on item 53?

Public hearing is closed.

Council member Fesserson, you're recognized.

Thanks, Mr.

President.

Then just a quick note on this project, that's one we've been working on for quite some time.

Um this represents just an ordinance of necessity for a major street project in the Florence area that finally improves an unimproved road.

Um I'm told the bids have gone well on this project, which we're lowest in best bid uh for 2.8 million dollars, we believe, and that's coming next.

Uh, but that will allow this project to finally start, we believe, in March or April.

So I know the Florence community and the Marman Trail Museum and many others are excited to get this going.

And I thank Public Works for sticking to it and uh be happy to support this next week.

Thank you.

Thank you.

No further lights.

Item 54, an ordinance to approve the Conestoga collection redevelopment agreement.

Public hearing is now open on item 54.

Proponents, Mr.

Seaton, good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Don Feeton City Planning.

I'm here for any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Any other proponents thank you, Mr.

President.

Um just in case you need to remember this is kind of a visual.

Four tone house four town homes, uh, three bed, two bath, 2200 square feet apiece.

Um 60 to 100 percent AMI, so there's affordable component to them.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other proponents?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

I am generally always against TIFF financing because I don't believe in the concept of without it, it would not get built.

We don't elect people to go around making money for the rich guys who already are a construction company, a real estate developer and a real estate company in most times.

You're giving the big boys the break while taxing the little guys.

The school districts lose money on the value of the property that you blight.

That means for the people that aren't that are listening that you reduce the value of that property way down so somebody can buy it for next to nothing.

Come to you to ask for a 2025 year loan on the cost of acquiring that, but you continue to tax the citizens in that area.

On the promise that hey, if you give me uh banana today, I'll pay you for it 25 years from now.

Because you'll get the value out of that increase in value if you sell your house 25 years from now.

But as with people like Conagra, they got some benefits and then they run out of town.

So who's left holding the bag but the taxpayers?

And that's wrong.

Thank you.

Are there any other opponents here on item 54 yes, sir?

Imaha City Council, Donnie R.

Johnson, the John City Question Foundation, North Maw Conservative Citizen Foundation, 4928, North 52nd.

As I mentioned today, council before.

The small business administration, SBA, and score, they give us all the money we need if we go over C and buy what we need.

Thank you.

Are there any other opponents here today?

Public hearing is closed.

Councilmember Fesserson, you're recognized.

Sorry.

Yeah.

Councilmember Goodwin, you're recognized.

Is that a new light?

Yep.

All right.

There we go.

I've been uh council member uh Harding and Vesterson today.

Um this is a development in my district, and I think uh for me, the reason why I like it is one, it it's a mix.

It has the new single family component, but it also has an affordable component.

And and as we look at at all the housing that we need uh to really meet the housing crisis that we're in, it's going to take this type of mix in order for us to get there.

Um I also think the fact that TIFF is involved and there is an affordable component is what we're also working toward on the council.

So I I appreciate this project and look forward to others that are coming down the pipeline.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Item 55 in ordinance to approve a major amendment to the Copperfields mixed use district development agreement.

Public hearing is now open on item number 55.

Proponents, Mr.

Jobin.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Mr.

President.

Members of the councilary joven, 1140 Western Road appearing on behalf of the applicant, the developer.

Uh with me today is Randy Kusack of uh Lamperd Nearson, the consulting engineers on this particular project.

This is really just a simple amendment to the mixed use of development agreement that was approved some time ago that reduces the buffer yard on the east side of the property line from 30 feet to 25 feet and also flips the curbside landscaping with the sidewalk just to make it more aesthetically pleasing along that side of the development.

I think it's important to note that the original redevelopment original mixed use development agreement uh actually showed the covered patios, and that's what this um waiver is or change of uh site regulators from 30 foot to 25 feet.

The original mixed use development agreement actually showed the covered patios, showed them encroaching into the 25 feet, but it wasn't caught by the consulting engineers as far as the actual um movement from the 30 foot to the 25 feet and under the mixed-use um zoning um site regulators.

There was um a question at uh planning board about the post-construction stormwater management and what was going on with that that has now been approved by the city, so we're in compliance with all the post-construction stormwater management uh plan that's uh in place today.

Uh, I think the neighbor might be here, and I know that uh Randy Kusack has met with her on a number of occasions to to make sure that uh the landscaping and and some of the other post-construction stormwater management uh items are taken care of.

So, with that, we're here to answer any questions that you might have.

Thank you.

Thanks, Larry.

Any other proponents here today?

Item 55.

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Item 56, an ordinance to approve and accept the bid award of Panga Lawn and Snow Services for maintenance along Abbott Drive.

The public hearing is now open on item 56.

Any proponents here?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Item 57, an ordinance to approve payment to Axon Enterprises for the purchase of Axon safety packages for the police department training academy unit.

Public hearing is now open on item 57.

Any proponents seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Item 58, an ordinance to approve the professional services contract with public consulting group LLC to assist the fire department in participating in the ground emergency medical transport program.

Public hearing is now open on item number 58.

Good afternoon.

Andreas Bierborough, Oma Fire Department, 11409 South 47th Street, Bellevue, Nebraska.

Thank you.

Are there any other proponents here today?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Thanks for hanging around.

Item 59 in ordinance to accept and authorize the disbursement from the Department of Justice, United States Marshals Service, Joint Law Enforcement Operations Task Force to support overtime operations for the police department.

Public hearing is now open on item 59.

Are there any proponents?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Item 60 in ordinance to approve the Omaha Police Officers Association collective bargaining agreement.

Public hearing is now open on item number 60.

Proponents, Mr.

Andon Bosch.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

I feel like everybody's already left.

We waited for you, Bernard.

Thank you.

Bernard Inabosch, Deputy City Attorney.

And I'm here on behalf of the city's negotiating team, which includes labor relations director Andy Matthews and uh assistant city attorney Tyler Hibica.

What you have before you, and I will do a short presentation, obviously happy to answer any questions if you have any.

It's a two-year contract.

Unlike most contracts that we've negotiated in the past, the wages were already established by the ordinance that the city council adopted last April.

Uh so that made other than discussing discussing potentially changing that, that was really kind of off the table to discuss.

So just as far as highlights as far as health insurance, we matched the HSAs that we made for the other civilian groups, and we intend hopefully to make for the last of the civilian groups that's upcoming.

There was a slight decrease in premiums, though premiums for police officers are still quite a bit higher than what you're seeing for uh civilian employees.

Um as far as pension, we did make some changes that affect the tier three employees.

Those are the police officers that are hired after January 1st of 2010.

Uh those the cost of those was uh 0.38% of the pension system, and the parties agreed to split those.

Um we also, much to my thing, I've been most been working on for probably 15 years, agreed to remove the sunset provision on 1.5% of contribution split equally between the city and the union that expired at the end of the 2025 payroll year, and for the last three contracts expired at the end of each contract.

Now it is no longer expire as it remains and would have to be negotiated out by the parties.

The most significant increase as far as compensation, there's an increase in longevity pay for 2026.

Uh that was spurred on, frankly, by a tremendous increase that we saw in Lincoln in their contract.

This is a portion of that, but that increase does go into effect in 2026.

Um, and is roughly 0.78% of uh percent of payroll.

We did do a shift differential increase that goes into effect uh in 2027.

Added specialty pay for school resource officers, mounted patrol, and for drone operators as drone operation has become that's a significant change uh over the last even two or three years, certainly before the last contract was adopted.

And then the other financial thing I want to discuss is we did increase the uniform vouchers and allow people to use those over multiple years.

Um those are the first time those have been increased since 2008.

Um, and um the increase in multiple years is in fact because we have a lot of officers who are wanting to use those for rifles or other significant things, and we've as a department have put an emphasis on making sure more of our officers are trained, and as many of you probably know, officers are all responsible for purchasing all their own weapons.

They owe the the department does not purchase those.

As far as other benefits, we match the benefits that we did for civilians for dental, parental leave, and family sick leave.

And then the last item I'll hit on.

Um you recall last April when they kind of well, we had the discussions with the Omah police union.

We spent a lot of time talking about recruiting and trying to get people started in the academy.

The focus of this discussions was frequently on retention, and that's why you see a little bit of increase in longevity pay um and some of the specialty pays.

But the other the last piece of that was uh city employees get leave sick and annual leave paid off when they leave at different percentages.

Uh we added uh an additional change to allow for some sale of some additional sick leave at the that is contingent upon reaching a certain longevity parameters.

So at 26 years, you're able to sell a little more up to 30 years, uh, with the hope that that would increase or encourage people to stay a few years longer and uh increase staffing uh by increasing retention.

So that's uh uh my description of what it is.

I'm happy to answer questions about any specifics or if there's other stuff that you have questions about, I'll obviously be here next week to answer questions as well.

Thank you.

Are there any other proponents here today in item 60?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed, council member Fesserson, you're recognized.

Thanks, Mr.

President.

There was a time not too long ago when a police contract would uh fill the room with testifiers, but uh not today I remember, but I continue to think it's pretty important.

So I I said a few felt questions for you, Bernard.

Um obviously with the two-year contract, like we have presented to us with comparatively large salary or wage increases over the next two years.

The emphasis is staffing, and and that is the major issue here.

Um we talked with uh police chief on our public safety committee meeting this week.

And I think it's accurate to say we're making progress in that uh they hired about 113 new hires in 2025, that there's 813 now, if you include the Academy.

Um, and we're planning a June class and a December class.

Um I don't suspect you have these numbers.

I don't know if the class is gonna be December or January, but certainly a class right about that time period.

Okay.

And I don't know if you have these numbers off the top of your head, but if you don't, um next week's fine.

Um I'd be interested in the end of 2026 projection of how many officers we'll have, you know, December of 2026.

I I don't have it off the top of my head, but I I part partially, I mean, I know they have an estimate on how many people they are hopeful will be in the June class.

Uh frankly, I think they've been encouraged by the people who have applied.

So they actually originally they were when I was hearing conversations that class is a little bit smaller.

It seems like it's increasing a little bit in size.

Um, but yeah, I'll I'll try to get an estimate.

We have a weekly meeting where I can have that discussion.

I would also point out because people seem to forget this.

Whenever our staffing number always was intended to include people who are in training classes and people who are on limited duty and people who are on military leave and people who are on FMLA leave or or whatever else.

So, but but I I don't I do agree with you that ultimately we obviously want to get that number uh close to the to the 906 number that that's that's been budgeted for a number of years.

Yeah, I agree.

It's just that ultimately what matters is how many are actually on the street.

Yeah.

Um I think I do think we're planning on a large class in June.

So um yeah, just that number for next year.

And I think it's actually going to be in July.

It's gonna be there to start the Monday after the fourth.

All right, thanks for that.

And then to the financials on it, as you note, we we knew the 5.58% in 2026 was gonna be what it was gonna be.

And so that is currently provided for in the 2026 budget, right?

It is the 2027 number in this contract is 6.4%, but it's possible that goes higher at some point if if something occurs before March, right?

All right thanks for that and then to the financials on it as you note we we knew the 5.58% in 2026 was going to be what it was going to be and so that is currently provided for in the 2026 budget right it is the 2027 number in this contract is 6.4 percent but it's possible that goes higher at some point if if something occurs before March right correct we have uh 20 28 days if another agency would have approve an agreement that was higher than I think the Lincoln police department which is what ours is currently based on it could potentially move up that obviously is with every passing week the risk of that goes down so something we'd have to keep our eyes on as we can create future budgets.

All right thank you just that information for next week could be would be helpful thank you thank you no further lights item 61 an ordinance to amend various sections of chapter 23 of the Omaha municipal code to reflect changes negotiated with the Omaha police managers association public hearing is now open on item 61 Bernard inbosh deputy city attorney on behalf of the city's negotiating team which included Annie Matthews the labor relations director and Tyler Hebica um miss Matthews was intending I should have said this before intending to be here but was uh is under the weather so much like for the police bargaining group the police management is a two year contract uh though they are not contingent to the contract the ordinance that was adopted in April they didn't get the increase that that ordinance in April got either but we agreed to match the wages um and with no no ability for them to go up the 6.4 that's the max that will be for police management and the main reason for that is trying to keep the gap between your captain and your deputy police chief your captain is a non-exempt position who receives overtime deputy police chief stone so the gap has already gotten narrow enough that some of the more active captains are reluctant to to seek promotions because it ends up being a decrease in pay maybe not a decrease in hours work but maybe also not a decrease in pay but so that was important to to continue to match that so as far as the health insurance changes again we matched uh what we did with civilians including the benefits for dental benefits and family sick leave and parental leave the one health insurance thing that's a little bit different um we match the opoas provision for gap insurance gap insurance is the ability for people who uh have the number of years but haven't don't have uh the age to yet retire they can uh pay for insurance for a period of time in order to be eligible to get it when they retire uh we'd made changes to the OPOA contract a number of years ago did not make those changes to police management so we squared up the language so they're they're now the same again trying to reduce impediments to people wanting to take promotions um we did increase master's degree pay uh we did allow for one more year of increased annual leave sellback uh the reason we've done that in the past and the reason we did this year is we still have police management carrying relatively significantly leave balances as a result of what occurred in 2020 and 2021 when they weren't able to take vacation uh due to um some of the our additional hours that people had to work relative to COVID and some of the George Floyd protests as well so this will be we're phasing that out and their balances at this point should be back to where they need to be so that doesn't have to be an issue in the future and then we did match the same this thing I talked about for as far as retention as far as the sick leave salad again felt important to match because we don't want to make it a disincentive for people to take promotional opportunities we want to make sure we can get the best people and deputy chief and chief positions and then there's a couple couple other relatively minor cleanup changes um one of them was in the pension provision doesn't change anything but what it did was it cleaned up some language that had uh caused some confusion when people were looking at alternatives again when they were considering promotion so uh happy to answer any questions if you have any obviously far fewer uh a relatively lot long ordinance but uh far fewer things that are actually changed thank you are there any other proponents here on item 61 seeing none are there any opponents public hearing is closed council member fesserson is that your line one last question sure Bernard is having a change sometimes I'm just curious will this be your last contract had to uh been involved with um I I ultimately that's gonna be Mr.

Cousy's decision I my expectation is that I'll be around long enough that I could be involved in other contracts but in a different capacity all right good I heard him say no from behind the standard and I did not say no I just want to say we appreciate your involvement you've been at this for a long time thank you thanks thank you non-action items item 62 through 75 did not require public hearing or city council consideration at this meeting but will be placed on a future agenda for public hearing andor vote the reason for non-action is noted after the item on the agenda as well as the date the item is expected to appear on an agenda for consideration motion is second roll call hug Melton Rowe Festerson goodwin Harding yes Mr.

Harding.

Yes.

Motion passed seven to zero.

Meeting is adjourned at five oh four.