Roe, Festerson, good one.

Harding.

Here.

Hug.

Melton.

Mr.

President.

Here.

Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance and remain standing for opening remarks by Councilmember Brinker Harding.

Please be seated.

Before I start, I I've got a little history lesson for today, but before we get to that, I just wanted to take a moment to recognize the passing of Senator Lindsay Graham.

Um just about 30 minutes ago.

His sister was actually sworn in to the Senate to serve out his unexpired term.

So here's the uh here's the history lesson for today.

So happy Bastille Day.

Today, July 14th and 1789 mark that event.

And it's akin to our fourth of July.

And there are connections to the two events that I thought worthy of mentioning.

In fact, the American Revolution was influenced or influenced the French Revolution, and the two revolutions shared ideas of liberty and representative government.

And these ideas are reflected in both the Declaration of Independence in the U.S.

and in France, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.

They provided, among other things, military forces, weapons, financial support, and naval support.

And in fact, the French fleet had a major role in the Battle of Yorktown, helping to trap General Cornwallis, who surrendered and which effectively ended the war.

So again, happy Best Steel Day.

Council members receive these emails and read them.

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

I would like to remind council members to speak directly into their microphones, so audience members at home and attendance can hear them.

And also anybody that's coming up to the mic to say make sure you're between those two microphones so people hearing and um at home can hear you.

Thank you.

Item six to consider a class I liquor license for Apple Nails and SPAL located at 1205 West Center Road, suites 97 through 98, Ace Communications and Opposition.

Public hearing is now open on item number six.

Is the applicant here today?

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

My name is Duke Tran.

My address is 9910, North 48 Street, suite 103B, Omaha, Nebraska, 68152.

Um here to appeal on behalf of the uh applicant and the manager application.

Thank you.

Are there any proponents here today on item number six?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Got a motion and a second, roll call.

Row Festerson, good one, Harding?

Yes.

Hug.

Melton.

Mr.

President.

Aye.

Motion passed, seven to zero.

Item seven to consider a class D liquor license for Bees Liquor located at 3022 at North 90th Street.

Public hearing is now open on item 7.

Is the applicant here today?

Hi, my name is Bayal Rigby, and I'm applying for liquor license at 302 to North 98th Street.

And what's your address?

Oh, my address is uh 17652 Scott Street, Bennington, Nebraska.

Thank you.

We might have some questions for you.

Thanks for being here today.

Are there any proponents on item 7?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Councilmember Fesserson, you're recognized.

Mr.

President, just a couple of questions for you.

Um this is in my district at about 90th and Maple.

Um it's a commercial area for sure, uh, right there with a number of different buildings.

We did receive a letter of concern from a surrounding uh apartment building that uh granted is about four or five blocks away, but uh they were concerned about the proliferation of liquor licenses in the area, which I generally agree with and sympathize with.

Um but I will say this is a liquor store, so off-sale only right, class D.

Correct.

And it's a new new location, new business for you?

Yeah, new business for us, yep.

Do you own any other liquor establishments?

No, I uh we do not, but I've worked in a liquor business for 10 years before my current courier.

Okay.

And so you've experience and you've taken the classes and will be a responsible owner.

Yes.

Okay.

I would just encourage you maybe to reach out to them too and uh maintain that relationship.

Sounds good available.

Okay.

Thank you.

Motion to approve.

Got a motion and a second roll call.

Row.

Fasterson, good one.

Harding, hug.

Melton.

Mr.

President.

Aye.

Motion passed, seven to zero.

Item eight to consider a class D liquor license for El Deposito located at 3952 Q Street.

Public hearing is now open on item eight.

Is the applicant here today?

Applicant for item number eight.

My name is Yadis and Hadges 3952 Q Street, Omaha, Nebraska.

Thank you.

Are there any proponents here on item eight to wish to speak?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Got a motion, I'll second, motion and a second roll call.

Row.

Fasterson.

Yes.

Good one.

Harding.

Yes.

Hug.

Melton.

Mr.

President.

Aye.

Motion passed, seven to zero.

Item nine to consider a Class D liquor license for Easy Mart located at 6818 South 13th Street.

Public hearing is now open on item nine.

Applicants, good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Members of the council.

Charles Hidley appearing for the applicant.

Address is 16924 Francis Street, Omaha.

And uh Deepak Yadoff is the uh managing partner of Preson, who has at least the premises and uh from SAPCOTA who enterprises who previously had a liquor license.

So to continue the business, I would ask you to vote in favor of approval of the liquor license.

Thank you.

Do you have any questions?

We'd be happy to answer.

Thanks.

Are there any other proponents here today on item nine?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Got a motion and a second.

Roll call.

Row.

Faster son.

Good one.

Harding.

Yes.

Hug.

Melton.

Mr.

President.

Aye.

Motion passed seven to zero.

Item 10 to consider a class A liquor license for Lanski's located at 4601 at South 50th Street.

Suite 200.

Public hearing is now open on item 10.

Applicant, good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

My name is Melissa Mullen, and I'm applying for a Class A license for 4601 South 50th Street, Lansky's.

Can we get your address for the record as well?

Yes, it's 16271 Rolling Ridge Road, Omaha, Nebraska, 68135.

Thank you.

We might have some questions for you.

Thanks for being here today.

Are there any proponents on item 10 that wish to speak?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Councilmember Hug, you're recognized.

Afternoon.

Good afternoon.

How are you?

Are you gonna change the uh pizza recipe?

No.

Okay.

Motion to approve.

Okay.

Got a motion and a second roll call.

Thank you.

Roe.

Professorson.

Yes.

Good one.

Harding.

Yes.

Hug.

Melton.

Mr.

President.

Aye.

Motion passed, seven to zero.

Thank you.

Item 11 to consider a class A liquor license for Warehouse Comedy Theater located at 1419 at South 13th Street, suite 102.

A is communication and support.

B is communication and opposition.

Public hearing is now open on item 11.

I believe the applicant, Miss Ware, is on Zoom.

Are we moved in on our side or hers?

She's talking.

I think you're muted on your side.

Hello.

There we go.

We got you.

Yes.

My name is Rachel Ware, uh, representing Warehouse Comedy Theater.

Uh my address is 3310 7th Avenue, Council Buffs, Iowa.

Thank you.

We might have some questions for you.

Is there any proponents here today on item 11?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Just a couple questions, Miss Ware.

Um, your hours are stated.

Um you want to just kind of walk us through what you're it's a comedy club, so tell us about why you picked Little Bohemia and what we can expect when we show up to go get some laughs.

Well, uh, thank you for assuming that there will be laughs there.

That is our hope as well.

Uh so we are just a startup.

Uh, it is me and my husband and our bar manager, Aaron Clough, who's also on the Zoom.

Um we are maybe at 25 seat theater.

You would show up on a Friday or Saturday night at either 7.30 p.m.

or 9 p.m.

to witness either an improv or stand-up show.

Uh tickets range from $10 up to $15.

We um do not plan to sell anything uh that we handle.

So everything is pre-packaged and canned.

Uh I offer classes during the week.

Uh alcohol sales would not be open during that time.

So the only time we plan on selling alcohol is when we have a show either at 7 30 p.m.

or 9 p.m.

on a Friday or Saturday.

And then we also have an open mic on Wednesday nights and Sunday nights at 7.30 or 9 o'clock.

Okay, maybe some council members will show up for that for the open mic.

We'll see if I can get any of them down there.

It's open to everyone.

No experience or a lot of experience is welcomed.

Well, I wish you the best of luck, and I can't make a motion to support this, but I certainly will be supporting it, and I look forward to getting down there when you're in a great growing spot down in Little Bohemia.

I know they're happy to have you down there.

Great.

Thank you so much.

Got a motion and a second, and council member hugged, you're recognized.

Um the only question I have is you obviously looked at the parking situation on South 13th Street.

Yes.

Do you see any hurdles, obstacles, or issues related to parking?

Uh no, we do not.

Um, we have our parking all around South 13th Street.

Our 730 shows only last one hour.

There's also a full um Omaha Park parking lot that uh has I've never seen it full during one of our shows yet, close to full.

There's also the Dundee Bank that has told us parking is allowed in their parking lot when it is not during their hours.

Um we also think little Bohemia is a really walkable flat path for people, uh especially since we're not a food establishment.

We have food establishments across the street that have parking lots as well that have said uh most of it paid parking.

Um but we haven't had any complaints yet.

Okay, thank you.

Of course, thank you.

No further lights.

We had a motion and a second.

Roe, Festerson, yes, good one, Harding, yes, hug, Melton, Mr.

President.

Aye, motion passed, seven to zero.

Items twelve and thirteen can be considered together for Rainwood, located southwest of 138th Street and Bennington Road.

Planning board and planning department recommend approval.

Item 12, a resolution to approve the preliminary plat.

Item 13, a resolution to approve a waiver to the PDZ boundary of the urban development element of the city's master plan.

I'll open the public hearings for items 12 and 13.

Applicant here today, Mr.

Levy.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Council members.

David Levy, Baron Home Law Firm 1700 Farnham Street here on behalf of the applicant.

Happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any proponents here for items 12 and 13?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Seeing none, public hearing is closed.

Move approved.

Got a motion and second, roll call.

Row, Festerson, good one.

Harding, yes, hug, Melton, Mr.

President.

Aye.

Motion passed, seven to zero.

Items 14 through 16 can be considered together for Webster Corner, located southeast of 33rd and Webster Streets.

Planning Board and Planning Department recommend approval.

Item 14, an ordinance to rezone this property from GC district to R7 district.

Items 15 and 16 are resolutions to approve the preliminary plat and final plat.

The public hearing for items 14 through 16 are now open.

Applicant, good afternoon.

Kyle Housey with ENA Consulting Group 10909 Mill Valley Road representing the applicant.

Make myself available for any questions.

Uh council may have.

Thank you.

Are there any proponents here?

Items 14 through 16.

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Just a couple quick questions.

Can you walk us through what the purpose of this?

I know they want to put a driveway in there as part of it.

So we get this pulled up.

There are this platinum rezone affects uh essentially three existing lots right now.

We have this lot here, one on the corner, and lot uh six one nine.

Um the corner lot is too small to really build anything on it.

So our goal is to our we're replatting to create one lot out of those two and then move this south property line to the north to allow a driveway on this house to take some of the stress um off the street parking.

Uh here's an example of what that would look like.

And we've uh met with city staff, uh public works, and also got approved through ZBA for any setback requirements that were needed to make this happen.

Thanks.

Got a motion, L second, got a motion and a second roll call.

Row Festerson, good one, Harding, yes, hug, Melton.

Mr.

President.

Aye.

Motion passed, seven to zero.

Item 17 through 20 can be considered together for Indian Ridge, located southeast of 204th in Ida Street's planning board and planning department recommend approval.

Item 17 and 18 ordinances to rezone this property from AG district to DR district in our four district.

Item 19, a resolution to approve the final plant.

Item 20, a resolution to approve the subdivision agreement.

The public hearing is now open for item 17 through 20.

Applicant, good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Uh Kyle Vole with ENA Consultant Group 10909 Mill Valley Road here on behalf of the applicant, Charleston Holmes.

Uh here for questions today on this uh single family subdivision located northeast of 204th in Kansas.

Thank you.

President aye motion passed seven to zero items 21 through 23 can be considered together for Ida Grove located southwest of 186 Sonida Streets Planning Board and Planning Department recommend approval item 21 an ordinance to rezone this property from AG district to R4 district item 22 a resolution to approve the final plates a resolution to approve the subdivision agreement public hearing is now open for items 21 through 23 applicant good afternoon uh Kyle Vole uh with ENA Consultant group 10909 Mill Valley Road the engineer on the project on behalf here on behalf of MDC Giles Point the applicant um I think the one thing that was in the staff report on this just for everyone's information was uh to require right away from the West side neighbor which has been uh come to an agreement on and then also to abandon a long driveway that comes off Ida a half mile south we've also come into an agreement with that neighbor on the east side uh after this plat works its way through we'll be back with a replat to vacate that old driveway strip uh with a replat of those lots incorporating that area into those lots but asking for your approval on this particular plat today and it can answer any other questions thank you are there any proponents on items 21 through 23 seeing none are there any opponents public hearing is closed to approve motion and a second row call row festerson goodwin harding yes hug melton mr president aye motion passed seven to zero item twenty four an ordinance to rezone property located at 5623 Grant Street from R 435 district to our 535 district planning board and planning department recommend approval public hearing is now open on item 24 applicant good afternoon good afternoon floor endowed one two two four three Williams Circle Omaha 6814 thank you are there any proponents on item 24 seeing none are there any opponents public hearing is closed councilmember Feterson you're recognized thanks Mr.

President uh Florien just a couple of questions for you thanks for reaching out we talked about this case a little bit in my district and out planning board there were some neighbors concerned what we have here is essentially a vacant lot in a single family uh context um it will become a duplex uh is that the proposition yeah that's the proposition yes so it's a build build new uh so it's kind of a blank canvas and there was some concerns expressed about design and materials and things like that at the time I think you have since uh made improvements on that and taking that into uh consideration you want to talk about that just a little bit that's correct after the planning board meeting I just uh spoke with the neighbors and listened to their feedback and they had some concerns about the appearance and those colors that were used and and just not it not fitting in with the older homes in the neighborhood uh so I've since then uh talked to my my drafter and we made some improvements to the plans uh I take the feet uh the feedback really seriously I want to build a beautiful home that fits in we added some more brick to the to the design uh we're considering removing the garages and add more windows to it and just a darker college scheme is what we're going for now okay and four bedrooms down to three it sounds like yes also going down in in size a little bit and it sounds like you intend to live there potentially too with your family uh that's the plan right now yes and one side okay good I appreciate you reaching out to them I I assume they welcomed that uh opportunity and to continue doing that as you um work on the overall design and actual construction for sure thank you very much and I would agree with the planning department's analysis that we do need additional housing options uh throughout the city and this is this is a good example of that I think thank you I appreciate it thank you motion to approve second motion and a second no further lights roll call row festerson yes goodwin Harding yes hug Melton Mr.

President aye motion passed seven to zero item twenty five a resolution to approve a special use permit to allow daycare services in the R5 district located at 8345 Crown Point Avenue planning board and planning department recommend approval the public hearing is now open on item 25 applicant good afternoon good afternoon hi Joe Zadina Zadina Consulting 17516 Rig Street here on behalf of the applicant to answer any questions thank you are there any proponents here on item 25 that wish to speak seeing none are there any opponents public hearing is closed council member Fesserson you're recognized president I would just say I'm supporting with a special use permit I saw you had a nice event uh this week um with this new 60 uh slot um quality early childhood care center at the church there um I think that'll be welcomed by the neighborhood and it's certainly something we need throughout the city and for our workforce needs in the future and for families and needs so thanks for doing that and I wish you success.

With a special use permit.

I saw you had a nice event uh this week with this new 60 uh slots um quality early childhood care center at the church there.

Um I think that'll be welcomed by the neighborhood, and it's certainly something we need throughout the city and for our workforce needs in the future and for families and needs.

So thanks for doing that, and I wish you success.

Yes, thank you, sir.

Motion to approve.

Got a motion and a second roll call.

Roe, Fasterson, good one.

Harding.

Yes, hug, Melton.

Mr.

President.

Aye.

Motion passed seven to zero.

Consent agenda.

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

Items removed from the consent agenda 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 hearings on agenda items 26 through 30 were held on June 30th, 2026.

Any council discussion?

Got a motion and a second roll call.

Rowe.

Fasterson.

Yes.

Good one.

Harding.

Yes.

Hug.

Melton.

Mr.

President.

Aye.

Motion passed seven to zero.

I would like to remove items 47, 49, 52, and 53 from the consent agenda.

The public hearings on agenda items 31 through 46, 48, 50, 51, 54, and 55 are today.

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

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

Are there any proponents?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Northern Hawkins Citizen Foundation.

We have a uh disagreement here.

We had children of the corn kids here with us today, a young folk, young adults.

We have the flower children here with us today.

Can we get some more taxes on liquor so we can start growing this medical marijuana?

Thank you.

Are there any other proponents here that wish to speak on items?

31 through 46, 48, 50, 51, 54, and 55.

Greetings, I'm here to address item number 51 on your agenda.

I am Ken K E N Corco, K O R K O W, 1905 South 113 Avenue.

The executive director of the ranch ministries under President Biden, the Secretary of Defense.

Uh Robert Gates approved our faith-based approach to deal with combat stress.

So we do work with people on a national level for that.

We take individuals up to our ranch and we work with them life on life.

Last year we had 1,220 overnights, fed over 6,000 meals, never charged anybody anything.

Christ never charged people, he just changed them.

So I'm very grateful to the fire department and the mayor and uh to you folks for offering this fire truck.

It's an old item for you, but it'll be an incredible blessing.

Nebraskans know fire is a real big deal.

And uh for us up in uh at the ranch, it's a huge deal.

So this fire truck is very, very important to us.

Any questions?

Thank you for being here today.

Thank you.

Are there any other proponents that wish to speak?

Pardon me.

Item 50.

Christian Espinoza, 1819, South 58, Umha Nebraska, 68106.

Um here from item 50 about uh Paco Fuentes, uh street name.

And I want to introduce Daniel Ibarra, who's gonna give some remarks about that.

Okay.

Hello, uh Daniel Ibarra, 14705 South 23rd Street, Valve View 68123.

Um I have a letter here that I'm gonna read on behalf of my wife, Paco Fuentes' daughter.

Um to the honorable mayor and members of the city council.

I am writing to express my deepest support for the resolution to name a street in honor of my father, Francisco Paco Fuentes.

While I'm writing as his daughter, I hope you will consider his request not only through the eyes of family member, but through the countless lives he impacted throughout our community.

My father was raised in South Omaha, a community that shaped the man he became as a young boy.

He attended the South Omaha Boys and Girls Club of the Midlands, where he found encouragement, friendships, and opportunities that left a lasting impression on him.

He proudly served our country for 20 years in the United States Air Force.

His military service reflected the values that defined his life, integrity, humility, dedication, and service to others.

When he retired from the Air Force, he returned home from a desire to continue serving, this time uh in the community that had given him so much.

He joined the South Omaha Boys and Girls Club of the Midlands, the very same club he attended as a child, and he eventually became the unit director.

For years, he dedicated himself to creating a safe, welcoming place where young people could learn, grow, and believe in themselves.

He wasn't he wasn't simply a director, he was a mentor, a role model, and a trusted adult to generations of youth.

He celebrated their success, encouraged them through challenges, and reminded them that they can that they mattered.

Even after retiring as a unit direct director, uh my dad wasn't ready to leave the children uh or the club behind.

He returned as a bus driver because he simply wanted to continue being a part of their lives.

That speaks volumes about the kind of person he was.

The Boys and Girls Club wasn't just where he worked, it was his second home.

The children, family, staff, and community became an extension of our family, and serving them was never just a job to him, it was his life of purpose.

Growing up, I watched firsthand how deeply he cared for others.

He believed every child deserves someone who believed in them.

He led with compassion, patience, and kindness, and he treated every person with dignity and respect.

His legacy lives on in the in many adults who still rem still remember the encouragement, guidance, and love they received from Mr.

Paco.

Naming a street in honor of Francisco Paco Fuentes would be more than recognizing one individual.

It would honor a lifetime of service to his country, to the South Omaha, and to generations of young people whose lives were forever changed because he chose to invest in them.

It would mean so much to our family and to many people whose lives he touched to see his life.

It's a beautiful tribute.

I gotta shut you off in three minutes, but it was on the record if any of you want to finish reading that.

It's a beautiful tribute to Mr.

Fuentes.

So thank you for being here today.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Here in support of and to answer any questions on agenda item 51.

Thank you.

Any other proponents here today.

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Oops.

Proponents, sorry.

Um hello, my name is Jonathan Returilla, uh 4334, South 30, uh, South 26th Street.

Sorry, I got a little emotional there.

I wasn't expecting to speak today.

Uh I was here honestly to make sure you guys voted the right way on the minimum wage ordinance.

That's we're not on that yet.

I understand.

Uh but I actually knew Paco personally.

Um when my family first moved to Omaha, my mom had a hard time finally finding child care to take care of three young boys.

Um so she was looking in South Omaha, and the Boys and Girls Club was an option that came up, but they didn't necessarily have the space for us at the time.

Uh Paco made sure that they found the space for us.

Um so I'm just gonna testify in support and um hope that you guys uh do this in the long run.

Thank you.

Thanks for being here today.

Any other proponents, and I miss it.

Seeing no proponents, are there any opponents?

We're on items 47, 49, 52.

I'm sorry.

We're on 31 through 46, 4850, 51, 54, and 55.

Are there any opponents that wishes to speak on those items?

Seeing none.

Public hearing is closed.

Got a second motion and a second roll call.

Row.

Yes.

Festerson.

Yes.

Good one.

Harding.

Yes.

Hug.

Melton.

Mr.

President.

Aye.

Motion passed.

Seven to zero.

Item 47, a resolution to approve the nomination of Jean Stothert Street as a commemorative street name on 13th Street from Douglas Street to Harney Street.

Public hearing is now open on item 47.

Are there any proponents here today?

Mr.

Pate, good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Hello.

Mike Pate, 15706 Westchester Circle.

I am the individual who filed the application for the renaming of the street in honor of Mayor Jean Stothard.

I'm here to answer any questions that you might have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any other proponents on item 47?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

I know we have one by Zoom, Mr.

Turner.

Yes.

I think renaming the uh street, Jean Stothard Street is an insult to the residents of Blackstone whose businesses and livelihoods are still being harmed by the streetcar construction, which by any metric that you look at from compared to construction in like Kansas City, which adjusted for inflation, cost about 400 million dollars less than this and did not go on for as long.

I don't think we should honor this person when that streetcar is still doing the damage that it's doing.

Thank you.

Can we can we get your address for the record, Mr.

Turner?

3564 Howard Street, apartment 28.

I live right by the Blackstone Hotel, so this is basically my neighborhood.

Thank you.

Thanks for zooming in today.

Are there any other opponents that wish to speak on item 47?

Public hearing is closed.

Councilmember Harding, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

I obviously am in support of this.

I think uh the mayor's service to our city and our community, not only um as mayor for 12 years, but also on her uh time on the uh city council as well as the millard school board.

Uh it's uh it's in in my estimation it's it's uh actually not recognition enough.

This is just a commemorative street naming, but in an area that she was very focused on uh revitalizing uh the downtown area and in front of the the new mutual of Omaha Tower.

So again, I very much in support of this and uh I wish it was actually more and and maybe someday it will it will be uh greater recognition.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Melton, you're recognized.

Thank you.

I I concur with uh Councilman Harding.

I think this is a good first step.

I appreciate you taking the time and spending the money um on the application in order to have this street named after Mayor Stothert.

She was our first female mayor um of the city of Omaha and the first three-term mayor um for the city of Omaha.

And in addition to her service as mayor, again, sitting on the Omaha City Council, and then the number of years that she was on the Millard School Board, she definitely was a dedicated public servant.

And I think that this commemorative street name um is appropriate, and I think the location is excellent because she spent so much time and was responsible for revitalizing really the entire mall downtown.

Um that's really changed our our downtown.

So um I'm obviously voting in support of this.

I'll make a move to approve.

Second.

Got a motion and a second, no further lights.

Roll call.

Row.

Festerson.

Yes.

Good one.

Harding.

Yes.

Hug.

Yes.

Melton.

Yes.

Mr.

President.

Aye.

Motion passed seven to zero.

Item 49, a resolution to approve the nomination of Robert Faulkner Way as a commemorative street name on 26th Street from Hamilton Street to Caldwell Street.

Public hearing is now open on item 49.

Are there any proponents here today?

Mr.

President, members of council, good afternoon, Keith Station, Mayor's office.

Here in my uh personal and professional capacity to speak as a proponent for the naming of the street.

Um Mr.

Faulkner was uh an amazing asset to the city as an educator, as a friend, as an uncle as a uh father figure, as a public servant to many.

There are so many people whose uh lives were were changed uh because of his effort and care, um including myself and my brothers.

Um honor to be here to speak uh and and encourage our your positive vote toward this.

I'd like to acknowledge his amazing wife, Brenda and his daughters.

I don't think the family's here today, but I'm just glad that they decided to petition this opportunity.

Robert was a was a great human being and uh was a blessing to this community.

So uh thank you for considering thank you, Councilmember Goodwin, for your support uh on this, and uh would just encourage your your green vote.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any other proponents here on item 49 that wish to speak seeing none are there any opponents public hearing is closed?

Councilmember Goodwin, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

I just wanted to echo uh Mr.

Station's um thoughts about uh I knew him as principal uh Faulkner uh as he led uh Flanagan High School, which is now uh Beverly Blackburn High, uh, where he you know was a mentor and a coach to many, and so uh I think that this is indeed a um a well-deserving honor for uh Mr.

Faulkner uh to be uh to be commemorated uh as Robert Faulkner Way on 26th uh from Hamilton to Caldwell Street.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And I'll add some comments as a kid that went to Cathedral High School in the mid-80s.

We had baseball practice on Flanning in the high school's field, and I got to know just from afar we compete against Flanagan.

Cathedral did back in those days, and Mr.

Faulkner was a uh just a revered, I knew that as a kid, you can tell that that he commanded respect.

Um a friend of mine, the cathedral, his mom, Miss LeJure worked at Flanagan helping assist the kids there.

My dad was a male carrier down there in the 80s, so when I'd see Mr.

Faulkner, he really did command respect.

And I'll I'll just read a couple quick Father Gild, the retired priests and principal of Flanagan.

He said, I owe him an enormous enormous debt.

He taught me and others how to nurture and empower troubled youth, even as they experience consequences of misbehavior and personal hardships.

Flanagan had kids that needed a father figure, and Mr.

Faulkner certainly lived that through his life as a a role model and a mentor.

So I when I saw this come on our agenda, it made me think back to those days, and it's a great honor that I'm glad to support here today.

No further lights.

Second, we have a motion and a second roll call.

Room Festerson, good one.

Harding, hug, Melton, Mr.

President.

Aye.

Motion passed seven to zero.

Item 52, a resolution to approve the reappointment of Reginald Gillisby to the Board of Examiners.

Public hearing is now open on item 52.

Are there any proponents?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Got a motion as second roll call.

Roe.

Fasterson.

Yes.

Good one.

Harding.

Yes.

Hug.

Melton.

Mr.

President.

No.

Motion passed.

6 to 1.

Item 53, a resolution to approve the reappointment of Brian Halsey to the board building board of review.

Public hearings now open on item 53.

Are there any proponents?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Got a motion.

And a second, sorry.

Thank you.

We've got a motion and second roll call.

Roe.

Festerson.

Yes.

Goodwin.

Harding.

Yes.

Hug?

Yes.

Melton.

Mr.

President.

No.

Motion passed.

6 to 1.

Item 56, an ordinance to create a new chapter of the Omaha Municipal Code to establish a minimum wage in the City of Omaha.

A is communications and support.

B is communications in opposition.

C is documentation from the human rights and relations department.

D is an amendment of the whole requested by Councilmember Goodwin.

Just a reminder to Council members: if a vote is taken on the original or on the ordinance in its original form, no votes can be taken on other motions related to the items.

Okay.

There's failed from a motion.

There was no second on the amendment of the whole.

For the lack of a second.

Okay.

We have a motion to place on file.

Roll call.

I'm sorry.

I beg your pardon.

Uh, Councilmember Melton, you're recognized.

Uh thank you, Mr.

President.

Um, I just want to state that this vote today isn't about minimum wage.

It has nothing to do with minimum wage.

It has to do with whether Omaha has the authority to pass a minimum wage ordinance.

The city of Omaha operates under a home charter, home charter rule.

When we're authorized to do that on matters of local concern, matters of local concern.

I want to be clear about what the charter is and what it isn't.

It is not a general grant of power allowing the council to legislate on any subject it wishes.

We can't do that.

The Nebraska Constitution is explicit.

A home charter must remain consistent with and subordinate to the Nebraska Constitution and the laws of the state.

Charter cities may act with real independence on matters of strictly local concern.

But on matters of statewide concern, state law controls.

And the charter must yield to that.

That means state law preempts anything that the local government can do.

It's called preemption.

We have federal preemption.

There's lots of things that the federal government can do and the state government can't.

Immigration under the U.S.

Constitution.

That is federal.

So the city can't pass anything in regards to that.

The state can't pass anything in regards to that.

When it comes to labor and employment and wages, that's a matter of statewide concern.

So whether you support minimum wage or don't support minimum wage, we need to take that up with the legislature.

It can't be done by the city council.

We don't have the power and we don't have the authority.

And to just say I'm going to do it anyway because it'll get me a pat on the back and a big rob rough from people who are supporting minimum wage, that's not how government works.

We took an oath of office.

I took an oath of office as a council member that I will uphold the laws of the state of Nebraska.

Well, the U.S.

Constitution, Article 11, does not allow the City of Omaha to be passing these laws.

If we don't like something that the state is doing, we need to lobby our state senators.

We need to lobby our legislature.

We actually hired a lobbyist to represent the city of Omaha.

It's no different.

You want to say, oh, the city of Omaha voters passed it.

Yes, the minimum wage was passed by the voters of the state of Nebraska.

And in that petition, and what was on the ballot was to have a minimum wage set for the state of Nebraska.

It did not anywhere state that cities can set their own minimum wage.

Didn't give the cities that power.

Nor did the legislature give the cities that power.

In order for us to have the power, the legislature must explicitly give the city the power to do so.

So this is a legal issue.

And I know a lot of people don't like it.

And if you don't like it, you can't just throw the constitution out the window because you don't like it.

This is our system of government.

We have the U.S.

Constitution.

We have the state constitution.

And as elected officials, we're required to follow the law, regardless of whether we like it or not.

And we do have the power.

We do have the power to go lobby our our state senators and tell them what we want.

On that same ballot, I believe, as when we passed medical marijuana, which, as of right now, I think we're almost there, but it's been a long time, and I know there are people that were frustrated because they voted for it, and it took the legislature and the committee and everybody else involved a really long time.

But the city of Omaha couldn't come in and say, hey, the voters passed it, therefore we're gonna do ordinances allowing medical marijuana in the city of Omaha.

We can't.

We don't have that power.

It's not a local issue, it's a state issue.

I think that this distinction is not just theoretical.

I talked about Article 11 of our state constitution, which specifically identifies labor relations and labor practices as matters of statewide concern.

Not roads, not zoning, not local parks, labor practices by name.

Wages are labor practices.

The Nebraska Supreme Court has already told this city, the city of Omaha, more than once, what it means in this practice.

In the case Midwest Employers Council versus the City of Omaha, the court held that Omaha lacked the authority, express or implied to legislate unfair employment practices because labor relations belong to the state.

Fourteen years later, in City of Omaha Human Relations Department versus Citywide Rock, the court said it again.

Omaha cannot regulate labor practices without express authorization from the legislature.

And then again, in Philcent versus City of Omaha, the court struck down an Omaha ordinance requiring a wage scale for contractors on public projects.

A far narrower measure than a citywide minimum wage because it exceeded the charter's limits.

That's exactly what we're doing today.

We are exceeding the charter limits.

Three times our own courts have drawn the same line.

A citywide minimum wage ordinance does not sit near that line.

It sits squarely on the wrong side of it.

It would set a compensation floor for private employers across this entire city, which is not a narrow, narrower version of what was struck down in those prior cases.

It's a broader one.

I recognize the impulse behind this ordinance.

Members of this council want to help working families.

That's that's what they say.

They want to help working families in Omaha.

I believe that impulse is a good one.

And I think everyone sitting up here supports that.

But good intentions do not confer legal authority that the charter does not grant, and that the legislature has not authorized us to do.

If this council passes this ordinance, it will very likely be challenged in court.

And under the precedence that I've just described in the prior cases, the city is likely to lose.

Not only are we going to lose that legal argument, uh, we're gonna lose the taxpayer dollars that it's gonna cost to fight it.

So we are literally just throwing good taxpayer money down the drain when I'm telling you this doesn't pass legal muster.

It just feels good.

Well, I'm not gonna pass something because it feels good.

I'm not gonna pass something because it gets me a pat on the back, and I say, who cares?

I'll just blame the courts later for not upholding it.

When I know very well what case precedence says.

Um, and I doubt he has this in it, so it's going to, it's gonna create some budgetary difficulties for Mayor Ewing.

And again, if we pass this today, I believe, since Lincoln was sued, Omaha will be sued as well.

So I've put together my own legal memo that I'd like to put on the record that goes into further detail on the cases that I just described.

Could you pass that down to the clerk?

And I would like to submit that.

I'll send it to the attorney general as well in the event that the Attorney General sues that because I don't believe that we are on good legal grounds.

And again, I took an oath of office.

I am required to uphold the law, and the law is clear.

We're not allowed to do it.

We don't have the authority.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Goodwin, you're recognized.

I just wanted to provide some clarity about my amendment, although I do do know that we didn't get a second on it.

And it really was to consider a few things.

One, uh to make it a good policy.

You know, as we look at the complexity of the state we're in with the minimum wage.

You know, we do have to consider implementation.

Um that runway would have allowed uh our human rights and relations team to form employers.

Um not only that, but uh create a strong standard of practice for implementation.

Um but I also want to say that there is an urgency for the voters' voices to be heard, and and that's also what's in question.

Um the minimum wage was on the ballot, and in 2022, it was passed, and then it was overturned.

And so people want to know that their vote matters, and that's where the complexity of of where we sit today as a council really lies.

Um we do have a home rule charter, but I've talked to many uh very sound lawmakers who who sometimes believe you need to push back.

Um what like uh what Brinker Harding talked about in Visteel Day, right?

Uh you have a law in place, uh, but you're you're you're considering whether that law is just and is fair.

And and so I think that's the position where this council is, it is to say, what about the vote of the people?

Uh again, my amendment was to say the vote of the people does matter, but let's also uh create the path uh uh of of strong implementation, which I also think it makes for good policy.

Um, we do see other municipalities uh uh across uh the nation that do pass uh a separate minimum wage as a uh you know a home rule charter uh cities.

And so I think that's where we are.

I do agree with councilmember Melton in that, that um it's really about where does the strength of home rule charter live.

And so that's what's really in in question today.

And um, and so I just wanted to bring that clarity around why my amendment, uh the real amendment of the whole there was just to see this through uh to June 1st, 2027 of implementation, and clearly um that's not what uh what's proposed at this point, but I did want to provide that clarity.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Fesserson, you're recognized.

Thanks, Mr.

President.

Uh I support a living wage for all workers, um, including our young people.

I thought the testimony we had here a few weeks ago was very compelling amongst our young people who otherwise would not be treated the same way under what's been proposed by the legislature unless uh that is changed or we take action as Lincoln has taken action.

The remarks were about keeping young people here, uh, and in many cases young people are helping to win um our breadwinners in their family and helping their family make ends meet.

Uh and I think that's something we have to take into account.

I think $15 with a cost of living adjustment in 2027 is reasonable.

Um it's consistent with over 70 percent of the voters that voted that way in the city of Omaha.

And I think it's also consistent with the mayor's poverty elimination plan and would be the first true thing we've adopted under the auspices of that plan that I hope will have many more things coming.

I understand there's potential concern about the legal aspects of the ordinance, um, and that is debatable, and certainly um there are things that sometimes we don't agree with our colleagues in Lincoln about that sometimes need to get resolution in some way.

And I think that's what this will do.

Um I want to give a recent example along these lines that was similar in nature.

Um the legislature recently adopted concealed carry legislation, and it forced the city to then repeal about 20 sections of code related to um gun safety and and firearms in the city.

We then introduced ordinances around um eliminating or making ghost guns and bump stocks illegal in the city.

Same thing.

The Attorney General said you can't possibly do that.

We'll sue you if you do.

Our interpretation was different.

We did, to this council's credit, pass those ordinances.

We did get sued, uh, but we prevailed.

And those two laws are law now, city law.

Um so public safety certain right certainly rises to that occasion for me.

And minimum wage rises to that occasion for me, fighting for both.

So I'm not gonna um support the file, don't uh the motion to place on file, but I will support the underlying ordinance as proposed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Melton, you're recognized.

Oh, sorry, I just wanted to address that other cities may have done this, but we have to operate under the Nebraska Constitution.

So if cities and other states um are doing things, they're not operating under the Nebraska Constitution, and this clearly violates the Nebraska Constitution, Article 11.

Whether we like it or not, um, we're in violation of Nebraska Constitution by passing this today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Rowe, you're recognized.

Thank you.

Mr.

President, I too wanted to uh um express my opinion that we should place this on file.

We should allow the process to work and see what happens in Lincoln rather than invest what could be close to four or five hundred thousand dollars, not knowing which way it's gonna go.

I I have a pretty good idea that that uh based on Amy's comments, we would be in violation of the state law.

And and we really I mean it it is a not a question of minimum wage.

That is not the question.

The question is is Omaha or Lincoln or any other city of a similar class allowed to become like a super state.

And we can over overturn a state law if we deem that that that's what we want to do.

And I don't believe that we can do that.

I think that we serve at the pleasure of the state.

I mentioned that a few weeks ago.

We serve at the pleasure of the state, and for us to pass this puts us in direct violation of state law, in my opinion.

And I don't want to do that.

I don't want to vote, uh, make a vote to put us in direct violation of state law.

And to to council members, council member um Goodwin's motion to just put an effective date out there, in my view, I mean that that's we would be voting today for the for the ordinance.

And just by putting an implammation date later, that's still gonna trigger a response from the state of Nebraska that we're not gonna like.

And uh that's why I did not uh follow through on a second there.

So I I think we if we put it on file, it gives us some time to to see what happens at the state at that in Lincoln, and then we can make a decision on that, you know, then.

Um I think that's the best way to go.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Harding, you're recognized.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Cousy, if this were to pass today, what and then it was determined with the if if the Lincoln and Omaha cases would be similar, assuming that uh Omaha would be sued as well.

If this were to pass today and the decision was made by the courts that we did not have the authority to do this action, what how would how would that then be resolved?

Matt Cusy Law Department.

I'll give you a classic lawyer answer, which will be somewhat more lengthy than what you're asking for.

If if the city of Omaha were to be sued in a similar way to Lincoln, the first step that would be would be a request for a preliminary injunction, which is what happened in the Lincoln case, the state asked the court for a preliminary injunction to prevent Lincoln from enforcing its ordinance, and that's what's currently before the court and being considered.

So I would suspect a similar thing would happen here in Omaha if this ordinance were to pass that there would be a request for a preliminary injunction and the judge would have to rule on that.

And what that means is until the case is finally finally disposed of, depending on how the Douglas County District Court judge would rule, we could be enjoying from enforcing it, which would mean we couldn't do anything to enforce this, including any CPIU increases, HR and R wouldn't be able to, you know, be notifying employers and employees of what their rights were and what the changes are would be to their potential wages.

If the court didn't grant a preliminary injunction, we would be free to still operate under the ordinance, but it would still kind of be hanging over us, waiting some final disposition from the district court in terms of whether it should be permanently enjoined, and obviously after any decision from in our hypothetical lawsuit, a discussion about an appeal, whether the city would appeal an adverse ruling or whether the state would appeal an adverse ruling up to the appellate courts to most likely the Nebraska Supreme Court.

So I know that was a probably a longer answer than what you were looking for, but I wanted to frame what could possibly happen as it would as it's mirroring um Lincoln.

Actually, that was not longer than I was hoping because you you covered some of the areas that I wanted to follow up on.

But first, before I get there, if this were to pass today, and since it's an ordinance, it would take 15 days before it's in effect.

Um depending on when the mayor's office signs it or doesn't sign it or vetoes it maybe, um how how soon would the efforts begin to that uh to start putting your defense or and I think you've put a memo out to say that it that the city would have to hire outside legal counsel to take this up.

How soon would that action start?

One cor sorry, MacCousie Law Department.

One correction I want to make to your to your question is the effective date of the proposed ordinance is October 1st of 2023.

I'm sorry, that's right.

Um just to clarify the 15-day issue.

Um the law department, based on my assessment of the current workload, caseload, and management level of the law department, I've made the decision to engage outside counsel.

I have already engaged outside counsel and spoken with them about it, and I guess just being prepared in case that there is a lawsuit filed by the state of Nebraska against it.

So that effort is already underway in preparation of that possibly happening, and if it doesn't happen, then that's fine.

But if it does happen, I've already gotten our lawyers lined up, situated, aware of aware of the arguments, um, and they're ready to move forward in the event of a lawsuit.

Okay.

So things would start pretty quickly.

If not already.

Sure.

If you're asking about kind of what the attorney general would be, obviously, no, actually I was more on on what the what the city would be doing and and the expenses we would be incurring.

We would be anticipating if passed as prologue with regards to the Lincoln lawsuit, I would expect um to be sued prior to that October first date, so you know, but well before that, so probably sometime the next couple weeks or a couple months, um, I would anticipate a you know lawsuit being filed if that's the route that the attorney general um desires to take.

If this were placed on file, what would the process be to bring it back for consideration?

If I remember correctly, and then looking at the clerk, I think if it's placed on file, in order to bring something back up, I think it's 60 days from that.

So if you put it on file today, it's 60 days from today is the earliest it could be reconsidered.

Obviously, it can go past that 60 days, but 60 days is the earliest that it could be reconsidered by the council.

And then it would still require three readings.

I think so.

I think we start all the way back at the beginning as if none of this, what has happened so far has happened.

So there would be a first, second, and third reading.

So in maybe a I'll say kind of best case scenario, I mean, we would be back here potentially if it were put on file in October.

Yes.

Which is about the same time as the effective date you have in there, and if we did place it on file in that scenario, uh we could save not only the money, but also not have the legal challenge of whether or not we're violating uh state statute by passing this.

That correct, assuming that we do have some sort of I guess legal certainty from the courts.

Part of the consternation that the law department would have is this ordinance is not like Lincoln's.

Similar but different.

The second part of the problem is a ruling from a Lancaster County district court judge, while interesting and persuasive, would not be binding on us.

Then we have the issue of an appeal.

If the attorney generals does not prevail in Lancaster County, I would suspect he would appeal.

If Lincoln doesn't prevail, it's possible that they would appeal.

So a ruling from a trial court judge, while respected, isn't necessarily binding on any of us.

That's compounded by the fact that the Attorney General's opinion makes specific reference to a proposed legislative bill that would specifically, because we're not specifically preempted in the statute that would specifically preempt us from doing that.

So that's an extra wrinkle to the problem.

Okay.

And you know how much I love hypotheticals, but I'm going to give you a hypothetical.

Wouldn't hypothetically, wouldn't you think if the attorney general were to sue and this were passed, that the injunction would be granted in Omaha as it was in Lincoln?

I don't necessarily agree with that.

Okay.

Judges are judges, they are different.

They range.

I'm only focusing on the district court, not on the county court.

So judges can vary, you know, a equally hypothetical situation which would not be beneficial, quite frankly, to anybody, would be one ruling in Lancaster County District Court on this, and a different ruling here in Douglas County District Court on this, which can happen.

There are two competing legal theories here on this issue.

Each argument has levels of merit to it.

So I could I would not presume that the Douglas, a Douglas County District Court judge would just do whatever a land counting county district court judge did.

And to go back to Councilman Festerson's example about the gun lawsuit, which the state didn't sue us an entity did, uh an advocacy group did.

But in that very situation, the ruling here in Douglas County District Court was different than the ruling in Lancaster County District Court.

So that's compounding your hypothetical, I know.

Okay.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

I I guess I'll I'll just conclude by I I've read um Council Wilman Melton's uh legal memo memo and and listened to her testimony, which I thought was very thorough and convincing.

Um but also I again we took an oath of office uh when we sat as a body here, and uh part of that was to uphold this the Constitution of the State of Nebraska.

And I I think it's pretty clear that this flies in the face of it.

And again, this is not about the minimum wage.

I think this is a legal issue.

And I think until it's resolved, uh I don't think we have the authority to be passing this.

So I would I would certainly support the placing it on file because I think it gives us that flexibility to be able to bring it back in a in an orderly fashion if and when this this is resolved at the state level.

Thank you.

Councilmember Goodwin, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Um I'd like to ask Mr.

Cousy a question about the constitutionality of this ordinance.

Um passing this ordinance today, uh, I believe you said there um there really is no preemption specifically, but can you clarify that?

Sure, Mattie Law Department.

There are different types of preemption.

Um, the one that I've referred to as a specific preemption, which does not exist um currently in the statute.

And the fact that there's been the inference that a state senator is going to pursue that proves the point.

Um, as city attorney, my position is that there are two competing arguments here.

I don't think that it is as clear as council member Melton feels that it is on this issue.

The issue of this is whether the state covers the field, so field present preemption being another type of preemption, and I think that's the argument that the attorney general is pursuing that we've covered the fields on this, so therefore it's preempted.

Whereas the other argument, which I think that the city is the one pursuing that with regards to this ordinance, is that as a home rule charter city, we are in power to deal with these issues that the statute just set out the floor, not the ceiling, similar to the federal minimum wage.

The federal minimum wage sets a floor, not a ceiling on it.

You can't go beneath what's been established, but you are free to go above it.

So those are the two competing issues out there.

I don't think it's as clear-cut as has been put out there.

I think there are two legal arguments that can be made with regards to the preemption.

Obviously, the Attorney General feels strongly that they've covered the field that relying on that this is a uh labor employment issue.

The counter to that is, you know, there's case law that says, hey, just because this legislature passes a statute, that doesn't just mean that they've preempted or taken control over a topic.

So I can't sit here and tell you today, right here and now whether it's preempted or not.

I will tell you that the city is free to make the argument, a legitimate argument that the home rule charter allows for that.

But there is that legal uncertainty out there where it doesn't matter what I say or what I think, it doesn't matter what the attorney general says or what he thinks.

Ultimately, a court, most likely, if this keeps working its way through, the Nebraska Supreme Court is going to have to tell us unless the legislature short circuits the whole thing and passes a statute expressly preempting us from doing that.

But that's a year or so from now, knowing whether the legislature will actually go forward and do that.

Right.

And I think I really appreciate you just really laying that out for all of us because I think that's what we've all been working through, at least this uh in these past few weeks, because it's not as simple as it may be.

The principle might be uh on the side of minimum wage, but the actuality of where we what we can do as a home rule charter city is not that clear.

And so I really appreciate you just laying that out uh from your legal perspective.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Hugg, you'll recognize.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Um my peers have spoken quite eloquently eloquently about the oath of office that we take.

Uh, an oath of office every time somebody is elected to take office, which I have taken more times than any one of my peers.

But that's secondary to how we get here.

We get here because our constituents send us here.

We get here because our constituents believe we will carry out their wishes.

Now, my constituents have spoken quite clearly on how they feel about minimum wage.

With that being said, I think my constituents are at least entitled to their day in court, if so need be.

So I will be in full support of this.

And uh I I wish I had a crystal ball in front of me to say what a judge may do or it may not do, but I don't think there's a an attorney sitting in this room right now that would ever could honestly say they have ever been surprised by a judge's decision.

I'm not willing to second guess a judge, I'm not willing to guess on what a judge may or may not do.

What I am willing to do is to give my constituents their day in court.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Thank you.

Appreciate the comments made by council members.

I have some I want to read into the record as well, and I'll have a couple of comments.

After a great public hearing last month with lots of diverse support and minimal opposition, there are a few points that council members discuss, and there have been some external events that I would like to address on my time here as clearly as I can today.

First, I want to say how pride I am of the young people and everyday citizens that represent working people who took time to come down here and engage their government.

In fact, I got multiple handwritten cards from students, young people that came down, their handwritten cards.

We get opposition and supportive things all the time.

But that shows what this means to young people coming down three weeks ago when they did.

And I want them to know I appreciated those cards.

We hear politicians of all stripes talk about how important it is to increase citizen engagement and to get more young people involved in civic life.

Those who vote in support of this ordinance will honor the will of the people who voted to increase wages in this manner at the ballot box, and will honor those who came to testify on the record.

Politicians who only give lip service to getting more people and more young people involved, but use their power to vote against their citizens and young people's best interests, show the actions don't match the words and their words ring hollow.

In respect to the opposition, the primary question before us in discussions raised by members of this council and the attorney general can be summed up with the following question.

Can Omaha do this?

And should Omaha do this?

The answer to both is yes.

Here's what Omaha can do on this.

We have unique local economic conditions and concerns in the city of Omaha, including a higher cost of living than the rest of the state of Nebraska.

This local ordinance helps address it because it is well established that minimum wage policy on the federal and state levels acts as a floor, not a ceiling.

I think our city attorney kind of referenced that in his comments briefly before me here.

Nothing in this ordinance changes minimum wage policy on the federal level or the state level.

Those remain in place.

The federal minimum wage has been stuck at $725 an hour for almost 20 years, and since that time, 68 cities, counties, and states raised pay in January of 2026, and 26 more will lift the wage floor later this year to address this unique local need.

Our city attorney, the attorney general opinion, state law experts, and everyone agrees and concedes that the legislature has not expressly preempted this action by local governments.

In fact, such efforts to preempt local governments on matters such as this have been rejected by the legislature in the past.

The Attorney General's opinion is just his opinion.

It does not have the force of a final court order.

In fact, the legislature repealed the ability of the Attorney General to sue to enforce his opinions recently, and it is unclear if he has legal standing to bring these matters forward.

Furthermore, it is an admission from our opponents that we do have this authority when Senator Ballard stated publicly in the Nebraska Examiner on May 8, 2026 that he plans to introduce preemption legislation in 2027.

The Attorney General concedes that legislature has not expressly preempted this action by local governments to address their own local needs.

For example, the City of Lincoln has a living wage ordinance on the books for over 20 years, and it has been implemented successfully, and the Attorney General never challenged it.

Omaha has had a local ordinance to protect LGBTQ employees from job discrimination on the books for about 14 years, and it has been successfully implemented, and the Attorney General never sued over it.

In 2022, the City of Omaha, District 1, Councilmember Fesserson, 75% yes.

District 4, Councilman Hug, 74%.

District 7, Councilmember Melton was 67%.

Overall, in the City of Omaha, 70.2 percent of voters said yes to this.

It is undeniable that the City of Omaha and Lincoln, for that matter, have different labor market considerations and far higher cost of living than rural Nebraska towns.

The cost of living in Omaha is higher than the rest of the state.

The cost of living is about 8 to 12 percent higher in Omaha than other cities due to higher housing costs and higher grocery and transportation costs due to urban pricing and demand.

Here's a few quick clear examples of higher costs in Omaha versus the rest of the state of Nebraska.

According to the Economic Research Institute, updated in June of 26, Omaha is the most expensive city in Nebraska and has about a 9% higher cost of living than the state.

In June of 26, First Five Nebraska published a child care calculator showing that the cost of care for the same family type and size is more expensive in Omaha than, for example, Adams County.

Care for one infant and one preschooler in Adams County is about 1,473 per month and about $1,777 per month in Omaha in our community.

Rent in Omaha is more expensive than the rest of the state of Nebraska, with an overall average rent of 1,271 to $13.37 per month, compared to the statewide average of 1223 to $13.51 per month.

State rents have climbed significantly over the last several years.

Omaha price alone increased roughly three to four percent year over year.

In 2025, former Mayor Stothert, the City of Omaha drafted an anti-poverty plan, which details our unique local problems with poverty and specifically points to increase minimum wages as a solution to address this unique concentration of poverty and working poor families in our community.

The plan was adopted by Mayor Ewing in this city council.

Lincoln has a similar action plan.

Finally, as a claim, this is a burden, it's burdensome to businesses.

It is not hard, confusing, or burdensome for businesses to comply with fair working conditions and wages.

Businesses in Omaha have already have payroll and HR systems in place to comply with existing federal, state, and local employment laws, just like they do for different sales tax rates and other matters handled complementary in the federal, state, and local governments they operate within.

Who supports upholding the will of the voters?

I look forward to having a record vote on who is working to bring solutions to the affordability crisis hitting our citizens in Omaha harder than the rest of the state.

No matter what happens with the politics being played, I'm proud to keep my word to my constituents and fight for and with working families in Omaha, so everyone has an opportunity for fair wages.

And I had a lot of other remarks.

Being Irish, I always like to tell quick stories, and Martin Sheen's my favorite actor.

Josiah Bartlett on the West Wing.

He was in the departed.

It didn't work well for him in that movie.

But he was given a commencement speech years ago.

And here's what Martin Sheen said in that commencement speech.

He said, the Irish tell the story of a man who arrives at the gates of heaven and he asked to be let in.

St.

Peter responds, of course, just show me your scars.

The man replies to St.

Peter, I have no scars.

St.

Peter looks back at the man and replies, shaking his head.

What a pity.

Was there nothing in life worth fighting for?

When I see 70.2 percent of people in Omaha that went to the ballot box, there is about $3.5 million spent to get it passed.

And we're uphold we're undercutting the will of the voters.

I want the voters to listen clearly to me.

I am fighting for you, not for a pat on the back, because I heard you what you said.

78% of my district, 70.2% in Omaha.

All seven districts said yes.

I'm saying yes to you that I want to fight for you, and that's why I brought this ordinance forward today.

And that's why I'm not gonna respectfully support Councilman Rose's motion of place and on file, and I hope all seven of my colleagues support my original ordinance today.

I believe we had a motion and a second to place on file, correct?

Correct.

We have no further lights.

Motion to and second a place on file, roll call.

Rowe.

Festerson.

Good one.

No.

Harding.

Yes.

Hug.

No.

Melton.

Yes.

Mr.

President.

No.

Motion failed.

Three to four.

Second.

Roll call.

Row.

No.

Festerson.

Yes.

Goodwin.

Yes.

Harding.

No.

Hug?

Yes.

Melton.

No.

Mr.

President.

Yes.

Motion passed.

Four to three.

Item 57.

A resolution to approve the declaration of use for city owned property at 4101 North 24th Street for use as permanent public sidewalk and utility easements.

Public hearing is now open on item 57.

Are there any proponents here today?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Got a motion and a second row call.

Rowe.

Festerson.

Goodwin.

Harding.

Yes.

Hug.

Melton.

Yes.

Mr.

President.

Aye.

Motion passed.

6-0.

Goodwin abstains.

Item 58, an ordinance to approve the contract with Gilson Software Solutions, LLC for the after hours answering service for public works.

Public hearing is now open on item 58.

Are there any proponents here today?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Item 59, an ordinance to approve the Novella Senior Living Redevelopment and Tax Increment Financing Redevelopment Agreement.

The public hearing is now open on item 59.

Ms.

Hadley, good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Bridget Hadley City Planning here to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Proponents?

Melvin said back with the developer for Novella here to answer any questions.

Did you give your address?

16255 Woodland Drive, Omaha.

Thanks.

Any other proponents on item 59?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Item 60, an ordinance to accept the bid of Abe's Trash Service Inc.

in the amount of 123,172 to provide a rubbish container service for the City of Omaha Parks.

Public hearing is now open on item 60.

Are there any proponents?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

One public hearing can be held for items 61 and 62.

Item 61 is an ordinance to amend certain portions, a special levy ordinance number 10404 for litter group 2026-04.

Item 62 is an ordinance to amend certain portions, a special levy ordinance number 10405 for weeds group 2026-05.

Okay.

Public hearing is now open on item 61 and 62.

Are there any pro opponents?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Larry Store 5015 Lafayette Avenue.

Omaha 68132.

I am against them.

It depends on who these are applied to.

It involves two different districts, but along the Northwest Radio, particularly right about Hamilton Street.

Well, there's one long stretch of Saddle Creek Road that goes almost up to the peanut that is never really been enforced.

It's never been cleaned up.

It's owned most of that property, particularly to about 48, is owned by one person in Omaha.

He also is now a advisor on a city council.

But that person has never been forced to clean up his property.

Larry, that location you're talking about is not in these two ordinances.

You're talking about cleaning up Omaha, correct?

We're talking specific about item 61.

You haven't been 62.

Why do you do this to me?

Larry, I'm just trying to have you stay on topic.

This is not a good question.

You can stay here if you're going to be on top of it.

You have not assessed Mr.

Please have him remove cut to my.

Mr.

Festerson knows that.

You're removed, Larry.

That's why you haven't claimed it up.

You're removed.

You're removed.

Are we on opponents?

Oh, correct.

Are there any other opponents here on item 61 and 62?

Seeing none, public hearing is closed.

Got a motion to lay over till August 4th, and we had a second roll call.

Ro.

Pasterson.

Yes.

Good one.

Harding.

Yes.

Hug.

Melton.

Mr.

President.

Aye.

Motion passed, seven to zero.

Item 63, live in it or Lavinity appeals rejection of their bid from June 3rd, 2026 for City of Omaha Medical Administrative Services Organization, Third Party Administration and Pharmacy Benefit Manager.

This is not a public hearing.

Tyler.

Good afternoon.

Shall I pick up city law department?

And is there anybody from He's on Zoom?

Oh, he's on Zoom.

I'm sorry.

What's his name?

Yeah.

How do you say his name?

Yes.

Is it Gus or which one?

Raj, can you hear me?

Yes, I can.

Sorry.

Thanks for your patience.

Go ahead and uh you can speak.

Okay, perfect.

Good afternoon, my next.

Oh, sorry.

No, you're good.

Please.

The floor is yours.

Good afternoon.

My name is Rod Schremangle on behalf of Labinity at 411 Bienville Street in Maccadish, Louisiana, 71457.

Just want to take this moment to thank you for the opportunity to speak to the distinguished members of the Omaha City Council today.

Lavinity respectfully requests reconsideration of the decision to reject its proposal for the City of Omaha pharmacy benefit management bid.

The key point is that it's not a late proposal case.

Rather, Lavinity submitted its proposal on time and before the June 3rd, 2026 submission deadline, the issue arose after the city determined that the bond needed to be a wet signed original and requested a corrected version.

Which we corrected in good faith, but was received after the new deadline provided.

We are not submitting a new proposal, so I want to be clear.

We're not changing our pricing or modifying any aspect of our response.

We are just providing a corrected version of the same bid bond in response to the city's request.

No competitive advantage was gained, no proposal terms were changed.

And so for those reasons, we respectfully ask the council to reconsider the rejection and allow Lavinity's proposals to be evaluated on its merits.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes, this is another uh bid bond case that we have.

Uh there was a correctable error here.

Uh we do require the wet signatures on on the bid bonds.

Um when you have a correctable error, you're given seven days from notice of that error to get us the new corrected copy.

Um we have the requirement for the rec the wet signature.

They were given seven days to get us a copy with the West signature.

Uh it did not arrive in time at that point in time.

Um, we rejected the bid, allowing the department to move on with the bidding process um with the the bid bonds that and and valid bids that we had received.

Can we get your name and address?

Yeah, Tyler Heepika, City of Omaha.

I know who you are, but thanks for getting that in comments, council members.

Uh sorry, Amy.

Councilmember Melton, you recognize.

Thank you.

Uh well, and I just want to say this is actually one where you gave the bidder the opportunity to correct it.

So many times we have these appeals where I I think there was one case where they were like 10 cents.

I want to say it was 10 cents off on their bond, and we rejected it because it was the wrong bond amount.

It was 10 cents less.

And they couldn't correct it.

Yeah, that was that's not a good thing.

And they couldn't even correct it.

It was a 10 cent error.

Um, and I mean that was hard for me to deny that appeal because it seemed so minimal, but in our ordinance, we have specific things that have to be there when you open the the bid, and we have to reject them if they're not there.

Yes.

And in most of these appeals, it's always for most of the people that appeal, they are innocent mistakes.

They are mistakes that could have been corrected easily, but they weren't able to because they had to be there at the time of the bid opening.

And we this council has to remain fair to everybody, and so we've always denied those appeals.

This is one where we they actually were able to correct it, but it didn't come in in the time frame required, and they had the seven days.

So I think the precedence that we've set with other appellants in this process, we need to maintain the same rules.

We have to follow our own rules.

And this one's really unfortunate because unlike other appellants who didn't get seven days to correct and were denied their appeals.

This one was one where they did have the opportunity, and I know mistakes happen, but it's in our bidding process, we have to be able to move on, and we have to follow the rules that are laid out in our ordinance.

So that so um I and the reason I'm I'm saying this is we feel for you.

I think everybody on the council, any time we have appellants on bids come down, especially when it's a kind of like the honest mistake, we have these all the time, and I know we all feel bad, but we do have to follow the same rules for everyone so that everyone's treated fairly.

Um so um Raj, I just want to say I'm sorry that I'm gonna have to vote no because I feel bad, but I gotta follow, I gotta follow our ordinances, and I gotta treat every appellant fairly and in the same in the same manner.

So that's why I'm I'm gonna have to vote no.

But we we appreciate it, and we hope you take the opportunity to bid again with the city in the future.

I don't think so.

That'll leave you denied yet.

Second have a motion and a second, no further lights, roll call.

Row Festerson, good one, Harding, yes, hug, Melton, yes, Mr.

President.

Aye.

Motion passed seven to zero.

Item 64, Mark 7 Enterprises Inc.

appeals the rejection of their bid from June 3rd, 2026 for OPW 55169, PCW RRF administration and operations building roof replacement.

This is not a public hearing.

Is uh you're a representative of the company from Mark 7?

Yes.

Yes.

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

Yes, my name is Mark Santo.

Uh I live in District 6 at 1107 South 99th Circle.

My business is in District 2 at 4028 Hamilton Street.

Okay.

You can certainly make your and basically um we're a general contractor.

We do a lot of work for the city of Omaha.

We're grateful for that.

We've been uh first job that our company was ever awarded was for the city of Omaha, and we have uh worked perpetually for the city of Omaha since that day back in October of 2010.

We've never failed to complete a project on time or out of budget, and um we recently bid on a roof replacement at the Papio Creek wastewater treatment facility.

Um that bid must have apparently been the apparent low technical bid when it was reviewed, but it was then rejected on the grounds that uh we failed to submit a copy of our general contractor's license in the class of the specification.

In this instance, it had to be a class B license.

Um what we did was I don't know how Elmo works, but yeah, okay.

Button right on the top.

There you go.

Okay.

Let's see, I need to do some more adjustment here with Elmo.

I'm not quite gonna get there.

What I'm gonna do is I'm gonna kind of hold this thing so that I condense the middle piece out of my exhibit that doesn't fit on Elmo.

And what I'm really wanting to point out is the bid was rejected for failure.

Can you just keep the whole paper?

Uh because Elma will be zoomed in on what one is okay.

It's first time I apologize for that.

No, you're doing fine.

We're older with older eyes, and I need new glasses, I think.

So okay, yeah.

So essentially the bid was rejected because we did not uh submit a copy of our class B general contractor's license.

Um what we did, but what we did do is in accordance with this is what they call instructions to bidders, okay, in strict accordance with instruction to bidders, which is part of the contract manual.

It just gives us step-by-step instructions on the process of bidding this project.

We followed those step-by-step instructions, crossed our T's and dotted our I's.

Explicitly, bidders must include with their bid a copy of the City of Omaha general contractor's license.

City of Omaha general contractor's license.

Okay, of the class required.

The class required is B.

We submitted that license with our application or bid offer.

This is a copy of our license that was in good standing at the time that we submitted.

And we just feel a rejection of our bid that was uh the lowest price technically qualified, would be not only disservice to Mark Seven Enterprises, but to the taxpayers.

We just don't understand how we could be uh rejected for noncompliance based on us submitting our contractor's license in strict accordance with the stated information that came out of this specification manual.

And I guess I would have to, I mean, just really just say, is there anybody on our distinguished panel that would that Mark 7 failed to submit our general contractors license license in accordance with the city of Omaha's manual and instructions explicitly?

That's my argument, respectfully.

Okay, thank you.

We'll have the city respond.

Just you can sit nearby.

We don't get to talk about it or get any gratification.

No, did did you have any other thing to say?

I didn't mean to cut you off.

I thought you were done with your I just didn't know how the process worked.

I just thought we'd talk about it and come up with a kind of a consensus.

You okay agree that I I did it in strict accordance with or what we're gonna do now is have the city present the city side.

So that's why I said just have a seat if you were done.

Yeah, you're fine, you're doing fine.

Good afternoon, Heather Tippy Pierce, Public Works.

The City of Omaha uh Public Works Department has rejected this bid based on failure to comply with the general contractor license requirement.

Um Mr.

Santo did show um in the instruction bidders there was a typo.

It said City of Omaha General Contractor License, but if you continue on and read the rest of the sentence, then a little bit of the class required and specifications section 004113 bid form.

This is boilerplate language, it is not specific to any given project.

We refer them back to the bid form itself for that information.

So in Article 4 of the bid form, which is the specified section, it denotes copy of the city of Bellevue contractor license, general contractor license A or B license to be provided by the bidder.

We also refer all of our vendors for a and you've heard me say this before, bid day checklist.

So we include a second article in the bid form attachments to this bid.

These are the things that thou must have for your bid to be compliant, including a copy of the city of Bellevue contractor license class A or Class B.

This is because the Papio treatment plant, though it is owned and operated by the City of Omaha, is in the jurisdiction of the city of Bellevue.

Their rules apply.

We have sought reciposity from Bellevue in the past for our general contractor's license.

Bellevue has declined to enable that process to happen.

So this, like any other permit or requirement, is not actually subject to our jurisdiction.

It's subject to Bellevue's.

We wanted to be sure bidders were clear about that.

So we also included a list at the end of the bid form, indicating that they needed to have a city of Bellevue license.

And we asked the purchasing department to post it on IonWAVE as a mandatory response attachment, class A or B for the City of Bellevue.

The only place in the documents, it was in the boilerplate language that we missed that even mentioned the City of Omaha.

In every other representation for this bid, we clarified to the vendors that this was required to be subject to the jurisdiction of Bellevue.

Um to assert that we as the City of Omaha could override Bellevue's jurisdiction and allow our own general contracting practice to circumvent their process is presumptuous.

And we have not in past projects superseded our requirements for Bellevue's.

We've always honored Bellevue's, and we believe that that is appropriate in this case as well.

It's also a question of parity.

We did have vendors, more than one vendor submit on this, and all vendors that did not submit their Bellevue license were rejected.

There was one vendor that did submit their Bellevue license.

So obviously, given the fact that vendors could ask questions about this through Iron Wave and didn't that vendors had the opportunity to submit um this and one did.

We feel that this rejection is in order, and we recommend that the appeal be denied.

Thank you.

Tyler Hebica Law Department.

I'm here if you have any questions of uh legal questions.

Thank you.

Councilmember Rowe, you're recognized.

Thank you, sir.

Um Tyler, just so what would constitute a correctable bid?

What could I mean it would this would this be a correctable error?

Based on the fact that it did say the City of Omaha license would be required in that in that one piece of language.

Uh correctable error is a specific thing.

It's actually defined in Omaha municipal ordinances, it applies to bid bonds only.

So there's certain mistakes.

Um when you submit a bid bond, like if it's for the wrong amount or you don't have it at all, that is not a correctable error, and we're required to reject your bid without even opening it.

Um if you have other mistakes on your bid bond, like you don't you have a uh a scanned copy and it doesn't look like there's a wet signature on it, or you forgot to include a power of attorney, or you do a personal check instead of a cashier's check as is required by the code.

Those are correctable errors.

We send you a notice saying, hey, you have seven days to cure those.

But all the correctable errors, they deal with the bid bonds.

Um, when you have specifications that are missed, um those specifications uh once the bid is closed and you've submitted your bid, that's it.

Um we don't allow uh back and forth and and and and changing your specifications of that contract, whether it be the price of the contract, the number of units that you have with that contract, or the contractor's licenses.

Like once you submit your bid, it's it's closed to to further amendments.

Um this would have been one of those where we required a Bellevue license, and we needed to have that Bellevue license when we opened the bid.

Okay.

Question for Mr.

Pancel.

Uh is would you characterize a license required by the city of Bellevue to be stricter enforcement of a code or less restricted than the code of than Omaha's?

Oh, yeah, Dave Fanslow City Planning, I'm not familiar with what Bellevue's codes are or what they require.

I just I mean, I'm I'm I'm pretty familiar with what we require for contractors, but I'm not versed on what Bellevue requires.

Okay.

I I guess based on some of the comments from the um bidder, it appeared to me that maybe the Omaha license actually was more strict than the one required by Bellevue.

But I I see your point.

I mean, it does it does say Bellevue, but it also says Omaha.

I I'll call up the bidder as well.

Come on up, make a comment.

Sorry, I just wanted to speak on that.

Uh Eric Ritz, the general manager for Mark 7 Enterprises.

Uh and your address.

1402 Hancock Street, Bellevue, Nebraska.

Thanks.

As it stands right now, this the requirements to get a City of Bellevue contractor's B license is exactly the same as a contractor B license for the City of Omaha.

It's the same test you take.

You can literally go take the test, come to Omaha, get your license, take that same test result, exact same, down to Bellevue, get it.

You just fill out the different forms, fill out the different insurance requirements.

But it's the same test, I believe same code, everything like that.

Just wanted to offer that up for your question.

So do you do work in Bellevue?

We do, and on a non-regular basis, I believe we've done probably half a dozen projects there in the last 10 years.

So you have a Bellevue license?

Yeah, we are.

At the time of the bid, we had an active license of the City of Bellevue.

We got to get some paperwork filled out to renew it as of January July 1st.

So I'm just being very blunt with you.

But yes, we are able to pull a permit with the City of Bellevue without any issue at all.

I called them earlier today to verify.

Okay.

But it was it really wasn't active at the time you made the bid?

It was active.

Yes.

Okay.

I have to get them an updated piece of paper.

Every year you re renew your license with all the different requirements.

They updated to an online format that we just have to get them a new piece of paper.

So would was your when you was your opinion when you read through the bid documents that you didn't really need to follow that?

I mean, did you just What was your rationale for not submitting that if you had it in place?

There was no there was no rationale when we uh as the one that uploaded it, saw City of Omaha on the first one where Mark referenced right there.

Did not look any further.

We bid a City of Omaha roofing project for the other wastewater treatment facility the same day.

There was no decision to do one or the other.

We saw City of Omaha, and for the fact that I believe there was five bidders for that project, if what Heather said, four of them gave the City of Omaha one and one gave City of Bellevue.

It sounds to me like we weren't the only ones that provided or read it the same way.

So we and we with full adherence tried to be completely complete with all of our bid, everything.

Um notarized copies of things.

We hand delivered a wet signature a wet signed raised seal bid two days later per the requirements in there.

We try to do every single possible thing that we needed to do in order to be in compliance and to check every box to make sure that we could do this project.

So I don't have any further questions.

Thank you.

Councilmember Goodwin, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

If we can have our staff come back up, I do want to clarify.

Heather Tippy Pierce, Public Works.

So Heather, how many bids were submitted for this actual contract?

There were four bids for this contract.

So there were four bids and only one had both licenses?

Correct.

Are those were those other bidders regular contractors with the city of Omaha?

Only Mark 7.

Okay.

Um you're saying that essentially it was a technical oversight or a mistake of public works department to not include the City of Omaha and Bellevue in that first line.

Um it was it was an oversight to omit city of Omaha.

Um as I mentioned, it's it's boilerplate language that we usually don't touch from project to project.

Um so the focus of my staff was to make sure that the areas that are project specific were clear that it was requiring a Bellevue license, right?

It was an oversight.

And you know, actually that's where I call the process into question because we're asking our bidders to not make one mistake to not leave out any item to provide the wet signatures, et cetera.

And now this cost a bidder, you know, a contract due to our mistake.

Is there precedent for rectifying something of the that nature?

Has it happened before?

Can you clarify the question for me?

We made a mistake.

The city of Omaha made a mistake.

Well well, I do.

And I know we're not talking to between one another, but we call our contractors for every last item to be accurate and specific.

Granted, it was in the rest of the language, but it was not consistent.

And I I'm just trying to determine if we've had a situation in the city before where are we made an error.

And it cost a contractor a bid.

And how and if we have, how have we rectified that?

I, you know, in in the entire history, bidding history of the city of Omaha, it probably has happened.

I know that we are in the process currently in the public works department of rolling out a new set of these front-end specifications.

I think they're going to be much more clear to the vendors.

You know, you won't have the crossover between project-specific information and boilerplate, like we do in this version.

So moving forward, absolutely, we can make sure that there's even a more stark line.

Um it's one of the reasons why in the boiler point, it does refer back to specification sections that are project-specific, as it did in the instruction to bidders.

If if the vendor had read through the entire sentence and referenced the specification section that that was calling out, they would have clearly seen Bellevue is referenced.

But public works didn't read through and did not proofread before we said admitted it out.

I'm not I'm just saying.

And so I'm simply acknowledging different standard.

Um and that that we need to move forward and clear up because we're saying we can make a mistake, but our vendors can't.

Um and so I just wanted to bring that forward.

Um that we have to have our stuff together as a city.

Um as we and as a resident, I see this happen all the time.

And that's also a uh the way that citizens lose faith in our process.

And so I do think that we need to ensure that we're sending out accurate information to our bidders.

That's all I'm saying here.

So I appreciate you answering my questions.

Thank you.

Councilmember Goodwin.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Harding, you're recognized.

Uh Heather, if you could.

Sorry.

I'm gonna pick up a little bit on that too.

Because I I made notes when that was first said.

So back when I think uh Mr.

Santo was giving his side of the the issue.

So there are four respondents, correct?

That is correct.

And three of the four submitted Omaha class B licenses, correct?

No.

One Mark 7 submitted City of Omaha, two vendors submitted nothing, and the fourth vendor submitted the correct City of Bellevue license.

Did they also include an Omaha?

Did the fourth one include both?

Or just Bellevue?

I did not verify that.

I saw that they did have the Bellevue one.

I'm fairly certain they do hold um the City of Omaha, but that wasn't referred to to my attention.

I mean, I I understand what Councilmember Goodwin is saying too, and I have some empathy for that side.

But I also heard, I'm sorry, Mark, your partner's name was Eric.

I think I heard Eric say they looked at the first page and then really didn't look any further.

And that also concerns me.

I I I mean, I think there's fault on both both sides here, but so I'm not quite sure how I'm gonna resolve this in my mind, but um I'll listen to the rest of the comments.

Thank you, Councilmember Melton, you're recognized.

Yes, just don't move, Heather.

Okay.

I think you showed us um there were three different places that require that stated it was Bellevue that was required for correct four different places in that bid.

There is three um attached to the project manual and then the Ion Wave platform itself called out the City of Bellevue license.

Yeah, and if we if you could put that back up, I believe it it showed City of Bellevue license, and then next to it it said yes.

Is that what the bidder puts in?

They go through the checklist and put check yes or no.

No.

So this is kind of the best version of that's what I was talking about.

Yeah.

So this is is it required?

So this is a list of all of the response attachments that a vendor could possibly submit.

Oh, I see.

And here is is it required for the bid?

Okay.

So that's one of the times when it shows whether it's required or not.

So that's one checklist of things that needed to be submitted with the bid.

Correct.

And then there were there were I think two other checklists, and then the bid itself, which four different places.

Um yes, so there was um the specification section article four um of the bid form that was referenced in the instruction to bidders.

So this article.

Sorry, this article is what is referenced by that article three that um mark seven showed in their appeal, it refers right back to this list of requirements.

We gave it again in the attachments, and then at the very end of the bid form.

This is basically the list of fly sheets.

Um, and we put a placeholder in for them to submit.

Okay.

Yeah.

And and Bellevue's even it was bolded on there in exhibit E.

I know that I know it on there.

Okay.

Because although it says City of Omaha in one boilerplate, I guess if it also says City of Bellevue four different times, uh, you know, if you're submitting, you could submit, could you have submitted both City of Omaha and City of Bellevue if you wanted?

Yes, the vendors also could have posted that as a question on the Ion Wave platform during the bid period.

Um there was uh I think two or three-week period that this was on the streets that vendors could post questions.

Um and the purchasing department would have had that clarified.

We would have clarified that via addendum.

Um the question was not posed by any vendors, so we did not address it there.

Okay.

And at this point in time, I I think that this bidder did not necessarily have a current Bellevue license, or do you just not know?

That wasn't a part of our verification process.

We asked for it to be submitted with the bid because we don't have access to their their planning department or their licensing department.

So I'll ask the bid, I'll ask the bidder that.

Thank you, Heather.

And so if you want to come back up, I I wasn't clear whether you actually had one or whether you needed to renew it by getting another piece of paper.

So did did you actually have a current Bellevue license at the time you submitted the bid?

On the bid day and time, uh Mark 7 Enterprises was eligible and in compliance with polling building permits in the city of Bellevue.

Okay.

And they will verify that.

So is there some reason you didn't look at the the three other checklists in the bid process that that was provided by the city?

I think that um I think that it apparently from the other information that Heather has provided to us, it may have been a confusing, you know.

Uh you indicate four to one.

Okay, four times Bellevue, one time Omaha.

Shouldn't be confusing.

We had four bidders, okay.

They're all uh licensed professional contractors.

Well, we don't know that two of them didn't submit a license.

And of the four bidders, 75% of the bidding group of professional contractors did not submit a contract.

Well, Michael, well, actually that's that's untrue because the two of the bidders didn't submit a contract license, so we don't know whether they actually are certified or not.

They didn't submit it.

I guess what I'm saying is I mean, to use the okay, I don't have any I don't have any further questions.

Thank you.

Sorry, I don't have any further questions, thank you.

Thanks, Councilmember Melton.

Council member Rowe, you're recognized.

Well, sorry, I I don't have any further questions for the bidder.

I have a question for law.

Sorry.

Take all the time you need your I apologize.

You're fine.

I was can't I was being confusing.

Tyler, you pick a city law department.

Uh and and Tyler, I think you had stated previously there are correctable errors, but those are in the the that's in the um bid bond process.

So if we follow this bid required a city of Bellevue license because the work is being done in Bellevue.

So if the contractor did not have a City of Bellevue license, they couldn't do the bid, correct?

Correct.

They would not be able to do the bid.

Okay.

And we can't do anything about that because Mayor Hike has his own rules and he wants to enforce his own rules, right?

And he has actually your local agreement as well that specifically spells it out, uh City of Bellevue building rules apply.

And if we follow the precedence that this council has always followed for other bidders and other appeals, we have to follow our own rules.

And if this bid requires, granted, it may have said City of Omaha once and it said City of Bellevue four times.

I guess that would mean I better submit both City of Omaha and City of Bellevue because both were listed in the bid as required.

So you could have listed both.

But because of that, since there was no City of Bellevue at the time the bid was open, in order to treat all bidders fairly, the bid had to be rejected, correct?

Yeah, the department did not have discretion here to to reject this.

They had to reject it when they didn't get the City of Bellevue license.

It would be the same thing as if they didn't bid the right amount of units, or they bid for a plant in papilion or one in Omaha or the complete Ron plant, they they had to reject this bid without the Bellevue license.

And that's why in all bids, you may have boilerplate language that would go for all bids, but then every bid is going to have specific specifications because all bids are different and require different things.

And so whenever a bidder is bidding, they can't just rely on boilerplate because they have to look at the specific bid that they're bidding on.

Yes, the general procedure is the instructions to bidders, it's just a general document that they post.

I'm assuming 99.999999% of all bill roofs we repair are in the city of Omaha, so the boilerplate said Omaha, but then the specific specifications to this project where you'd go to see other stuff like what type of roofing materials you need to use, uh it said you had to have a Bellevue license.

And the specifications are actually the important part of the bid because it's the specifics of what you're bidding on.

It's how you get to your price because you have to follow the specifics of the project were in the specification.

So it's not like it's just a s some document with that says just Bellevue license required.

It's all of the other requirements for the project are in those specifications.

And the bidder would have had to look at all of those other requirements.

Okay.

Um and in order to treat everyone fairly, I mean, that's always my goal is to make sure we're not picking and choosing, but we're remaining consistent.

Um so because of that, do you do you believe that this should be rejected because the the City of Bellevue permit was required at the time the bid was opened?

I sometimes we we don't like the results personally, but uh when it comes to procurement, we generally do um recommend that you take bright line rules just like we have for bid bonds, and just like we have here for this, our recommendation would be that this appeal be denied.

Okay, thank you very much.

I one more question.

Yes.

Even if we uphold the appeal, does that necessarily mean that the bidder gets the contract?

Uh they would just they would then we would then have two bids on this contract.

They would look at them and it would go to the um lowest and best.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

And nothing further.

That's it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Rowe, you're recognized.

Thank you.

One more question, Heather.

So on the bidding process, we some time ago, several years ago, we went to all electronic bidding, right?

Heather Tippy Pierce Public Works, that's correct.

So this this bid was submitted electronically.

Yes.

So when they when they get to that line item F, it says upload City of Bellevue building uh license.

That would have been that would have been on the line and they would have uploaded and checked that box.

Or if they hadn't checked that box, would it just kick out the bid and not let them go forward?

Unfortunately, IonWave is not that specific.

Um as long as they uploaded something to that box, it would have accepted the bid.

So something was uh uploaded, uploaded to that box.

City of Omaha.

Okay.

So I own we have saw a document was uploaded, it moved it forward, which is why we have the secondary review processes that we do.

Okay.

I I guess my point was it wasn't something they needed to remember two days after they read the specs.

It was required at the time of the at the time of bid.

Okay, that that clears it up for me.

Thanks.

Thank you, Councilmember Melton, you're recognized.

I'm sorry, I thought mine was off.

I think you're you were on the top.

I want to make sure I didn't miss you again.

Thanks.

Councilmember Goodwin, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

So, you know, as I'm listening to this, I honestly think that not only is our public works department, if I can lightly use the word guilty of going through the motions.

But but so is the bidder here.

Um they also said they had submitted a successful bid in the same day.

And that of the four bidders, they're the only repeat bidder or vendor with the city of Omaha in the in this process here.

And so, you know, this wouldn't even be in question had the city of Omaha not made an error.

Um and that's that's just where I can't move from here.

Um if it was simply error of their own omission, um, then I don't know that it would be in question, but both parties were going through the motions because it's a routine process.

Public works was going through the motions and did not change the wording, did not proofread that document and ensure that City of Bellevue was written on all of the necessary areas, and then this regular uh um contractor with the City of Omaha said, Oh, I got this and uploaded what they normally upload, everything else in in in compliance.

And so I just want to that that's how I'm hearing this today.

Um, and I just wanted to make that clear clarity that I think that when you talk about fairness, you know, if there's a standard for us, but a separate standard for our bidders, then that's not fair.

And you essentially both parties made the same mistake.

So that that's where I'm at with this current uh you know item here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Harding, you're recognized.

A couple things to belabor the the conversation.

Um Mark or Eric, either one.

If you could what I want to go back to the the license.

Did you have you you showed a picture of the license that you had with the city of Omaha?

I think it even said it had a January 27 or maybe it was December 27 expiration date.

Do you have anything like that for the City of Bellevue for the Class B?

Um I do not have a copy of that license with me.

We called Eric called today.

I said, hey, let's get some paperwork together for this hearing.

Yeah.

And um, you know, Elmo.

And uh I said we should probably illustrate that at the time of the bid that we were uh eligible, we were recognized.

What is eligible?

What is eligible?

We were a Class B license recognized by the City of Bellevue.

So you had a valid class B license with the City of Bell.

In that process, we learned that our contractor, our Class B contractor's license that we've held since June of 2015, went into suspension.

So you didn't have valid class B.

We asked when our license is in suspension, what are the repercussions?

They said the repercussions are that if you bid a project that you needed to bond in Bellevue, you would have to pay a 1,000 dollar fee for Bellevue to submit that bond because you are a historical Class B general contractor in Bellevue, but you know, inadvertently let your license go into a period of suspension.

It does not mean that we are not at the time of bid eligible as a Class B general contractor in the City of Bellevue with the uh ability to poll building permits and the ability to execute as a Class B general contractor.

Okay, but bottom line is you did I sounds like you did not have a certificate that you could submit that said you had a valid Class B license that you were in suspension.

No.

Um sorry, I just want to clarify because I was the one that called the city today.

Our license was good and valid.

I failed to file to pay the renewal fee that was due.

So our thing went into suspension as of July 1st, 2026.

So that's why we could not print off one for today because it's now in suspension.

And when I talked about having to file the piece of paper, it's because now I have to file out the form to get it out of suspension because it went too long without filing the renewal fee.

So that was the only reason that it is now in suspension is I did not file the renewal fee because the automatic renewal went to a bank account that we can't closed out because of fraud issues.

I'm going to take ownership of that, it did not get paid.

But I just want to clarify it did not go into suspension until July 1st of 2026.

Had I made that phone call on June 30th, I would have made the payment on the phone with all the late fees.

It would be fine.

No issue.

But because it was July 1st, it's now in suspension, so now I have to get it out of suspension.

The City of Bellevue will still give us a permit for any project that we have because we have shown competency, we have had a permit, we are in good, we are in good standing with them.

We would have to pay an extra fee.

Now obviously that would be on us, but yes.

As of July 1st, 2026, it's in suspension because I didn't pay a fee.

So let me let me ask something else then.

When you're going through this document, and you said earlier that you didn't look at how can I not understand how you can submit the document or the respond to the bid when there are specific items on on the the uh especially the last page that I think Ms.

uh Tippy Pierce showed that had like four or five different items.

Did you submit all those items?

Yeah, as I'm actually glad that you brought that up.

Heather, can I see the copy of the Ion Wave screenshot?

We bid two projects that day, very similar projects.

These are the one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine things that are required on that project that we had to go through and make sure that are filled out, completed.

Matter of fact, we were recently rejected for a bid because of a not having a notarized copy of one of these items.

So what I'm trying to say is we did do uh diligence of looking through all of these different items, filling out something for every single one in compliance, all right, for both projects, and to talk to uh Miss Melton's um comment about the specs earlier.

We we live and breathe by the specifications of the project.

If I don't know if Heather's got a screenshot of the questions that were asked, hold on, hold on, Narc.

So you you just said that you went through this list and you you checked everyone off.

Is that right?

I went through the list and I um looked through every single one.

Does it not say Bellevue right there?

It does.

And I'm gonna say that this is what Ms.

Goodwin said exactly earlier, which is I bid a lot of things for the city of Omaha.

When I see that they need a contractor's license, I already have my files set up to grab that one.

Same thing with our certificate of insurance, same thing with our certificate uh other things.

So it does say Bellevue.

I'm not arguing that.

I will say that when we first got the project.

I opened it up.

Okay, Eric, I'm sorry to interrupt, but Heather, can I have you come up and show that I think it was the last page too?

So I'm I'm will as as you're doing that, Heather.

I'll just finish off what to uh Eric, I'm sorry, I don't remember your last name, so I'll just say Eric.

But you originally said that you looked at the first page and you just went on, and then I thought to myself, that's impossible to fill out a bid document without seeing the first page.

And then if you're going through each one of these and it says it clearly says Bellview on these, I'm still having a little trouble on on the license.

So this here's an attachment that this is at the end of the package, Heather, somewhere in the package.

That's the end of the bid form.

And so you you saw this page too, correct?

Yes.

Yes, and it says Bellevue.

Yes.

And I'm gonna say that I'm guilty of seeing exhibit E license.

Reading through it and saying exhibit A S E B form Certificate exhibit B certificate of compliance, exhibit C responsible contractor, exhibit D affidavit, exhibit E, Class A license.

That's how I read through these because I've read them so many.

But that's not what that's not what it says, though.

I understand.

I'm not gonna pretend it's thank you.

Thank you.

Council member Hug, you're recognized.

Don't go away.

Okay.

You yeah.

Stay right there.

All right.

Um there's only one set of bid documents, right?

There's one project manual for this project.

There's but there's not like two or three four generations of bid documents.

The bid documents were not reissued, they were not altered, they were not changed.

Correct.

We're looking at the first generation of bid documents, no sequence, no changes, addition, errors, or anything to them.

Correct.

You didn't make any once the bid documents were issued, you did not make any changes with them after they were issued.

Uh to to the bid form, I don't believe so.

There was an addendum.

There was, yes.

There was an addendum, but it did not change the bid requirements.

Okay, and what was the addendum?

Oh, I'm sorry, did not mean to do that.

Um I do not have the full manual.

These guys probably might know.

Yeah, I don't know if we have a copy of the addendum, but that's what I was mentioning earlier.

Is the addendum one was created when we asked the question through Ion Wave about the specifications.

The specifications were calling out for a TPO roof, whereas there's a ballasted roof there.

And so we had done our diligence, we had gone to the pre-bid, saw that the specs and the documents did not match, so we asked that question through ION WAVE to make sure that we were bidding the correct apples to apples on what we needed to bid.

Okay, so the addendum was to the specifications of the requirements.

Was to change the specifications on the type of roofing, yes.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um thank you.

Tippy.

Eric, I'm sorry, sir, I don't remember your name.

Mark.

Guys, I believe in swinging for the fences, and I think you guys did a stellar job today up here trying to swing for the fences.

But to me, um, it's it's pretty black and white.

All the documents say you have to have the the city of Bellevue license.

Believe me, nothing would make me happier than to disagree with public works, so to say public works is wrong.

But that's not the case today.

So with that being said, I apologize, guy, but guys, but I have to make a motion to deny the appeal.

No further lights, roll call.

Row.

Yes, Festerson, yes, good one.

Harding, yes, hug.

Yes, Melton, yeah, Mr.

President.

I motion passed six to one.

Not an action items, item 65 through 97.

Do not require public hearing or city council consideration at this meeting, but will be placed on a future agenda for public hearing and or vote.

The reason for non-action is noted after the item on the agenda, as well as the date the item is expected to appear on an agenda for consideration.

Got a motion to adjourn in a second roll call.

Row.

Professorson, good one.

Harding, hug, Melton, Mr.

President.

I motion passed, seven to zero.

Meeting is adjourned at 427.