Good one.

Harding is absent.

Hug.

Melton.

Roe.

Festerson.

Mr.

President.

Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance and remain standing by opening remarks from Councilmember Pete Fesserson.

Can I all be seated?

Thank you, Mr.

President.

I just had uh two items I wanted to note before we started our meeting here today.

Uh both related to my district.

And the first one is we do have some visitors in the back there that I was just talking with, who are recently uh won the state championship little league in Kearney, Nebraska.

So these are the guys from Memorial Little League.

Uh the minors team are state champions, and the majors team were a runner-ups in the state championship tournament.

We have coaches with us here, including the president of the Memorial Little League, who uh also was a former player, and also the coach of the state champion team, uh, John O'Bradford.

So clap for him too.

I got my hat here, guys.

I'll put it in my office.

Thanks.

Thanks for coming down here.

Thank you.

And then secondly, I wanted to bring our brother's attention.

Um, this weekend, Saturday, is the 50th anniversary of the A.

V.

Sorenson Library.

So we'll be there on Saturday from about 10 until two.

I think a formal program at eleven.

But welcome you all to join us to celebrate that facility that's had such a big impact in that neighborhood, as most of our neighborhood libraries do, and celebrate its fiftyth anniversary.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Council members receive these emails and read them.

Item six to consider a class C liquor license for Amara Vathi's located at 12317 West Maple Road.

Public hearing is now open on item number six.

Is the applicant here today?

Good afternoon.

Hi, my name is Nick Bryant.

I'm a law clerk here with uh Almiratis and with Partial Legal Services, PCLO.

Uh Amaratis Could we get your address as well?

Oh, yes, naturally at uh 808 P Street, suite 300, Lincoln, Nebraska 68508.

Thank you.

Of course.

Uh just an opening statement in behalf of Almirati's Kitchen Limited Liability Company doing business at Amarati's.

Uh they will be requesting a Class C license, will allow the restaurant to offer beer, wine, and distilled spirits responsible in connection with food services.

Alcohol will be secondary to the restaurant operations.

We understand the city's good neighbor expectations are committed to operating a safe, clean, respectful manner for the customers, nearby businesses, and surrounding community.

That is all.

Thank you.

Are there any other 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.

Good one.

Yes.

Hug.

Melton.

Row.

Festerson.

Yes.

Mr.

President.

Aye.

Motion passed.

Six to zero.

Item seven through nine.

Item seven through nine can be considered together for the hill located east of 165th and Bonneton Streets.

Planning Board and Planning Department recommend approval.

Item seven, an ordinance to rezone this property from E.G.

District, DR district in our four district, our four district.

Item eight, a resolution to approve the final plat.

Item nine, a resolution to approve the subdivision agreement.

The public hearing is now open for item seven through nine.

Is the applicant in attendance today?

Are there any proponents on item seven through nine?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Got a motion and a second roll call.

Goodwin.

Yes.

Hug.

Melton.

Row.

Festerson.

Yes.

Mr.

President.

Aye.

Motion passed six to zero.

Item 10, an ordinance to rezone property located at 4617 Davenport Street from R 435 district to TOD4 SFA Transit District.

Planning Board and Planning Department recommend approval.

Public hearing is now open on item 10.

Applicant here today.

Good afternoon.

Hello.

Johnny Dugan, uh 13526 Grover Street, Omaha, Nebraska.

Um just prepared a short note on this.

Um good afternoon, Council members.

Thank you for your time.

Here today requests approval for rezoning application of 4617 Davenport Street, a vacant lot that has remained undeveloped for more than 50 years.

Our request would be to rezone the property from R4 to TOD SFA4, allowing us to build two owner-occupant town homes instead of one single family home.

We believe this is exactly a type of thoughtful infill development the city has been encouraging.

Omaha's 2025 affordable housing report identifies the need for nearly 30,000 additional housing units by 2030 and specifically encourages zoning uh reforms to allow more missile missing middle housing.

And this project would do just that.

Uh adding two quality homes on historically a vacant lot while fitting naturally into the existing neighborhood.

Um this street you'll find single family homes, duplexes, triplexes, and small apartment buildings of coexisted for more than a century.

Uh these will be market rate for sale townhomes to expand home ownership opportunities in midtown.

Um we're looking a new construction homes in this area are extremely limited.

Uh and we believe this project uh helps provide a desirable uh type of housing for a segment of today's buyer pool, uh, some of which are not interested in a hundred-year-old house with deferred maintenance.

Uh the location is well positioned to serve uh Omaha's fastest growing employment centers.

Uh, like or the site sits four blocks from UNMC's campus, uh, which is vastly expanding with uh project next and is expected to bring 8700 permanent jobs, further increasing the demand for housing close to where people work.

Um, equally as important, we wanted to be good neighbors throughout the process immediately after our rezoning application to the city.

We mailed letters to the nearby property owners and hosted a neighborhood meeting at Panera Bread.

Uh we spoke with several neighbors uh that were previously opposed to the rezoning uh and listened to their main concerns, uh, which included parking, but we're largely related to the already existing townhome project nearby uh that exudes a more modern architectural appearance.

Uh we took their feedback into consideration, designed and designed our build with the traditional pitched roof uh type appearance that complements the surrounding structures.

Uh, we're grateful for the three neighbors who participated in conversations uh and signed letters of support for this project.

Uh our request to simple transform a vacant lot into two high quality homes instead of only one while complementing the neighborhood and providing additional homeownership opportunities in midtown.

Thanks for your consideration.

Happy to answer questions or comments.

Thank you.

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

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Motion to approve.

Got a motion and a second roll call.

Good one.

Hug.

Melton.

Row.

Yes.

Festerson.

Yes.

Mr.

President.

Yes.

Motion passed six to zero.

Item 11, an ordinance to rezone property located at 2924 North 24th Street and 2411 Half Benny Street from R5 District and R7 District to R5 District.

Planning Board and Planning Department recommend approval.

Public hearing is now open on item number 11.

Applicant, good afternoon.

Hello, Natsa Dominguez, Habitat for Humanity 1229 Millwork Av.

Um, we are taking two previously platted lots that have mismatched zoning.

So it was the planning department's recommendation to make them the same zoning.

So that's what we're applying here today.

Thank you.

Are there any proponents on item 11?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Councilmember Goodwin, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

If I can have the representative of Habitat come back up.

And so this is right here on North 24th Street.

I'm assuming assuming Catacorner from the Hart Ministry Center laundromat?

Yes.

Yes.

And so do you have any renderings or anything you can share with us about uh what the plans are for the property?

Um yeah, I believe I attached the site plan on um to the application.

It's just a regular single family home.

I gotcha.

So they're combining the lots, taking them from two to one and rezoning them.

Yeah, so it was two lots that were owned by the same person, and one doesn't have a frontage.

So we were unable to build the second lot.

Um so we were trying to work with the city without um it's like the center of a block without isolating it, having someone not able to access it.

We just combined it with the lot, the home that will face 24th Street.

So that land is usable as someone's backyard.

Okay, and we I did see some attachments where there were uh commentary just around neighbors understanding what's happening there.

Has there been any community engagement or outreach, whether it's been by mail or otherwise to the adjacent neighbors?

Sorry, didn't mean to cut you off.

Uh yeah, we met with her.

She thought we were um replotting her backyard, um, but we walked out there with and showed the um our where our property line is, and it's not gonna affect her at all, and she understands now.

So thank you.

No further questions, move to approve.

And a motion and a second roll call.

Goodwin.

Yes, hug, Melton, yeah, row, faster.

Yes, Mr.

President.

Aye.

Motion pass six to zero.

Thank you.

Item 12, an ordinance to approve a major amendment to a PUR overlay district located at 3204 North 16th Street, planning board and planning department.

Recommend denial.

Public hearing is now open on item number 12.

Applicant, good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Don Curry, 3204 North 16th Street.

And I am the general contractor and the developer for this site.

And it's got one question just to kind of save everyone's time.

Have you have you all already decided how you're going to vote in favor of this project?

This amendment.

We don't you can present your case, and then the council can ask questions of you or others, but we don't make our vote until the public hearing is over.

I just asked a very straightforward question, sir.

Have you all already decided how you're going to vote in favor of council does not answer questions?

This is your time to present.

So this is what I'm going to say is just strictly for the people in the gallery.

So I'm a general contractor and a developer, and this is my second project located off the 16th Street corridor.

This is 3204 North 16th Street.

It's a stacked triplex, three bedrooms, two baths, each story, truly affordable rent, $1,600 per unit, 1,500 square feet per unit, two bathrooms, three bathrooms, two beds.

So I had to go through the plan unit redevelopment, which was based on the setback.

The city has a requirement that I've been told is antiquated by people in the planning department, about 25 feet.

You go through the PUR, you can get a 10 foot setback, and you also get some on street parking, which reduces the amount of spaces that you need to have on the site.

With the PUR comes the mandate that if you tell them that you're going to use a certain product or the building is going to have a certain look, that's what you have to do unless you file an amendment.

And uh few months after the new administration gets into office, I receive a letter telling me that my funding was pretty much suspended.

So I'm at 150,000 loss.

Which I did.

So here I am now, probably about three years in on a two-year construction loan.

So the clock's ticking for front porch in reference to me closing this project and getting it occupied.

So I admittedly moved much more expeditiously as I should have by taking some value engineering upon myself and saying that I can't afford to put up brick and mortar thin brick, which was supposed to go from this section, this section on the fronts and the sides.

And I was advised when we were at three fourths of the way through that hey, did you reach out to the planning department in reference to this?

And I'm like, oh no, I did not.

Let me get on that immediately.

I run the option of using the the the vinyl pet the vinyl thin brick or just going with total vinyl siding.

I was told no, take it down.

And I expressed that this was a ten thousand dollar outlay on my end, and that if I use the thin brick, it's gonna be thirty thousand dollars, which I do not have.

I don't have it.

I do not have it.

No, no, no lender is gonna give me thirty thousand or forty thousand after seeing that I've taken a ten thousand dollar loss.

So here we are today.

I'm two months in again with the clock ticking because I had to wait from the the planning board meeting to now to have this meeting, only to be told no, which I know that I I've been told that pretty much I'm not gonna get up the votes needed.

I was told that this before the meeting that this was gonna happen.

Which, you know, I I I thought last time I checked, this is supposed to be a system set up to where you hear both sides of the story and then you make your decision.

So having said that, here we are, and I just wanted to go and go on the record just for the sake of my financing folks, just so they can see that I at least tried.

And as I said, I uh I apologize to the planning department for not reaching out to them prior to putting up the the vinyl siding and the faux brick.

But you know, sometimes I ask that you all put yourselves in my shoes.

I I am 1.5 million dollars invested between 3324 and 3204 North 16th Street on my own.

I don't have a team, I don't have a group of investors around me, it's just myself.

So, based on what's about to happen right now, gallery.

I'm gonna take a $10,000 loss, and I'm gonna have to go out now and find $30,000, $40,000 maybe, 50, just based on the weather, in order to finish this project that is 99% complete.

We've passed the plumbing inspection on the final, we've passed the HVAC on the final.

We've passed the electrical on the final, we've passed the pressure as far as the fire goes, the sprinkler systems in.

There's only two inspections that are left, which is one for the uh the monitoring inspection, the building inspection, and then the third one would be the planning department coming out based on the PUR.

Which out of those three, we we're here because one's not gonna go, and I would I won't be granted an occupancy certificate.

So I'm gonna sit down now, because I I mean there's nothing that any at this point, there's nothing that can be said.

I I know you all agreed on how you were going to vote.

And this is just semantics, and it's not right.

You you all are in office to help, not to hinder.

Now repeat that.

You all are in office to help, not to hinder.

This is a hindrance.

This is a major, and you all in the gallery track this, track what happens.

And as I said, I I apologize.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any proponents that wish to speak on item number 12?

Thanks.

Cheryl Weston, 1822 Emmett Street, Omaha, Nebraska, 68110.

I stand before you today, members of the Omaha City Council in support of this project.

This project is approximately 99% complete and has passed all the other city permits and inspections.

This demonstrates that the building complies with this large percentage of the city's applicable safety and construction requirements that is ready to provide much needed, affordable quality housing within the North Omaha community.

Why is this developer being asked to remove this siding?

Which is attractive, functional, and appropriate for my neighborhood.

Yes, my neighborhood, because I live in that area, and I'm one block away.

You're asking this developer, a young developer who's already invested 1.5 million dollars into this to provide returnable quality, affordable housing accommodations to our community.

I live in the community, and I would have no hesitation about living in this development.

I have been through that development.

I drive by that development.

I'm also unaware of any complaints or objections from residents living in or near the surrounding neighborhoods.

And I would say to you, Councilman Bagley, Councilman Federson, and Councilman Goodwin.

When you visited the area, yes, you did.

Did you take time to have community engagement with any of the neighbors to see if they were unhappy with the way it looks?

North Omaha needs responsible developers who are willing to invest in the neighborhood, restore underused properties, and create housing quality housing, and this is inside and out.

City regulation should protect safety, public safety, and neighborhood character, but they should not create unnecessary barriers when a project is safe, attractive, compatible with the surrounding, which one is right down on the corner on Emmett Street, supported by the community, which it is, and consistent with the city's broader planning goals, requiring the removal and replacement of acceptable siding at this late stage after the project has passed all the other required city permits and inspections would impose an unnecessary financial burden without improving the safety, stability, or compatibility of the development.

And I ask that you would have support in helping this young gentleman to be able to finish this project.

Ask yourselves.

With that, thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Are there any other proponents on item 12?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Good afternoon, Larry Storer, 5015 Lafayette Avenue.

Omaha 68132.

I need to ask first, is this a presentation or just a public hearing item?

Because most of these people are doing a presentation.

I have never been allowed to get slightly off the wording of the paragraph.

Thank you.

And if he interrupts me again right now, I expect one of you people to object to it.

Larry.

I get to make comments.

Just to clarify what you said.

The developer said was able to present, and that's why he got to present.

Excuse me.

But this is not a presentation.

This is an item, and you're not a liver of the case.

I was just clarifying what you said.

They were, and you are not doing your job right.

I expect somebody else to uh contest him on this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any other opponents on item number 12?

Seeing none public hearing is closed, council member Goodwin, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Uh we have director of planning, David Fanslaw.

I just have a few questions for you, um, Mr.

Fanslaw.

First of all, what is the process for uh essentially the PUR process and then the amendment process?

Can you walk us through that, please?

Sure.

Yep.

Dave Fanslaw City Planning.

Um I'll try to be short.

I mean, the process is um somebody obviously makes an application in my department to go to a planning board, it goes through those cases go through just like all the other cases through the planning board approval process and then on the city council.

Um PRs specifically um are much like our PUD overlay, it's I've said throughout the years it's what you see is what you get.

So when a planning board and city council vote on something, I'm to assume that they have voted on what they saw.

So um minor amendments can be administratively approved by my department if and there's a wide variety of things that might be asked for in those amendment processes.

Um but when amendments are proposed that I use the word radically, but when they change the any setbacks that were granted, any parking requirements, any building elevations, which is the case in this point, when when they stray far enough away from what a planning board and city council had the opportunity to see and vote on.

When they stray too far away from those requirements, um we ask people to come back so those two boards can review the project and vote accordingly.

Okay.

And so in the process of the property and which is on item number 12 3204 North 16th Street, what was the purpose for the planning board and the planning department to recommend denial?

We felt that the changes that were made without our ability to review them.

Um I guess that really doesn't matter because if we would have seen the changes beforehand, we would have recommended denial either way.

I want to be clear, we didn't recommend denial because we didn't know the changes that happened beforehand, before they applied.

Um the reason for our denial is the the PUR as written and in the code states that the building should meet a certain standard if the PUR is going to be applied and allow for the for those variances from other parts of the zoning code.

So when we take a look around the area when we when we look at other buildings, um, and it's been radically changed to strip away the brick that again planning board and city council were able to see and vote on.

Um and that what was presented to us, and we didn't have uh the ability to change the developer's mind on presenting what is before you today, but you know, dial it back and and and go back to what um was previously approved when it's when it's that different from the original in this case we recommended denial and the planning board um agreed with us.

Okay, and so there's really two bodies here.

You have planning board and the planning department that's recommended denial.

Um how many PUR redevelopment projects do you see come through planning board?

Now I'm asking you to just give an estimate.

Is this pretty much uh standard where we see these types of um projects come through?

You do.

You see them on a regular basis.

I I I can't we you've seen dozens of them come through City Council after Planning Board has approved them.

So over the last handful of years, dozens.

I don't have an exact number for you, but it's it's very frequent.

If if today the denial is voted upon, um what would be the developer's next course of action?

Um as far as the planning department goes, we couldn't sign off.

I mean, I no, let me back up.

I heard that many of the final permits or approvals were given as far as code inspection goes.

But until if it's denied, we could not issue a certificate to occupy the building until it met the PR that was previously approved by City Council.

And what would the steps be for the developer to get into a place of what I'll call compliance or to meet the standards of the PR?

Well, we have those PR plans on file, so he would have to meet what was approved with that original PR plan or the amended one.

And and is this is there a is there a list or a standard or a policy that the essentially the planning department and planning board follows to make these recommendations?

It's yes, it I believe the code says something about minor amendments and major amendments.

So we do have a little bit of administrative flexibility on what we can consider minor and and major amendments.

I'm always very aware of the relationship between my department and the planning board and my department and the city council and what those expectations are when you all see plans.

So what I don't want to do, and and what I've never advocated for is administratively approving plans that stray so far away from the original plan that you all have voted on.

So we do have a little bit of flexibility.

Um I will say that all the minor amendments that we approve that are done administratively on my floor are just that very minor.

But again, when something strays uh far enough away from what was originally approved, we require a major amendment.

Thank you for that.

So you know, one, I appreciate uh not only the the public support, but also Mr.

Curry coming down to to advocate for his project.

I want to first clarify a few things.

One, um, I'm also a uh resident in in the neighborhood.

Uh I drive past these projects every day, uh whether I'm taking uh 16th Street home or or taking 16th Street to work.

And um I want nothing more to see positive projects uh in field development happen uh within district two.

And most of the time these PR uh redevelopment uh issues, they're just votes that we move through pretty quickly because often there they're most of the time they're actually recommended for approval by the planning board and the planning department.

But I also want to clarify what our role is here.

Um as a council, I I believe all of us sit here to help the districts that we serve.

But it also means that we're looking at the information permitted to us, uh submitted to us, then working with the various departments that to make sound decisions about a number of things uh as you see listed within this agenda.

And so uh helping oftentimes means following the standard and the policy and the process that's set before us.

And yet I think many of you who uh work with me very closely have seen me advocate for when I see process go awry when I believe that internally we need to uh make adjustments.

Um and and a lot of these things are on my plate.

It's really one of the reasons why we were on 16th Street about a week ago.

It was a ride-along.

Um I do want to clarify that council member Begley was not there.

Uh but I did take uh council member Rowe and Councilmember Festerson on a ride-along.

Primarily the focus of that ride-along was to see the vacant and abandoned properties and to show how general uh industrial and industrial parcels need to be um you know have different standards.

So I'm constantly looking at how we raised the bar, and it's something that's on our planning committee agenda.

Now, within that ride-along, um, one of the council members said, hey, here's a project that's been uh that's coming up on the uh the docket um and it's been talked about in planning committee, let's stop by.

And so as a result, we not only stopped by that property, we drove by some other developments, as we also looked at various again issues within District 2 that I'm working very diligently to solve uh along with this council and the the respective departments.

And so I just wanted to clarify uh how we actually happen to uh uh drive past this property.

Now I have a question for Mr.

Fans login.

Is it am I accurate in saying that Mr.

Curry has a project that's on the same block that has been approved by the planning board and planning department?

Uh Dave Dave Fanslow City Planning.

Is your question, does he have another project in the area?

Yes, that's correct.

That is correct.

And has it been approved by the planning board and planning department?

Not that I'm aware of.

Okay.

So there's two projects, but this is the one that we're considering too.

Correct.

Okay, just wanted to be clear.

Uh what I did observe, though, when we looked at both properties was there was a visible difference between the brick facade and the faux facade.

There were also other visible discrepancies that were actually listed as the purpose of a denial.

Um now, I've gone through developer academy, I've owned my own personal property, uh, so I'm not an expert, but it was very apparent.

And so that's really what the case is today.

We do have to uphold the process and policy as it is outlined by the various departments.

Um I am quick to, again, you saw me a couple weeks ago, uh, kind of push back with one of our departments when I said, okay, are we following the same standard?

But in this case, I do believe that the help here is to say this is the standard for this neighborhood.

And I believe that that's something that the developer can arise to.

Uh, but for my purposes today, uh I'm gonna go with the planning board and planning department and um and recommend uh a denial.

Um so I'll I know there's other uh lights on, and I will um yield my time.

Thank you.

Councilmember Rowe, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Yes, I wanted to clarify that uh it wasn't Mr.

Begley, but um that I was on that trip uh last week.

We got uh an email from Mr.

Curry, I think it was on uh the 22nd, detailed a lot of the details about the what you brought up today.

And so it's not something that's just uh been taken lightly.

It's something that we've all been actively considering for the last couple of weeks.

And if you want to go way back, I mean, I re I recall uh sitting at a planning committee meeting talking about this project and the one I think it's on Emmett Street.

It might be the one that Miss Weston talked about on Emmett Street, just down the street on 16th, very similar, but a little bit different.

The the properties are a little bit different, but very similar in appearance.

And um, and you could tell um quite a bit of difference in how they look from the street, the street appeal.

The thing that I I wanted to bring up is I mean, we have zoning codes and we have building codes.

Uh well, we have building codes for safety purposes, but it also gives clarity and certainty to our development community.

It gives clarity to our builders.

Here's what the rules are, here's what we want it, we want you to do, here's how you can comply, here's how that you're gonna receive a certificate of occupancy if you meet all of these stipulations.

And it could be the geometry of the stairs, it could be the size of the windows, it can be whatever.

In this case, on a PUR, a lot of times it has to do with aesthetics.

It has to do with the street appeal and how is that property going to look when you're driving down 16th Street.

And so I think it's important that you know the expectation was laid out there.

And certainly we do have uh appeal processes.

There's a zoning board of appeals, you know, there is a building board of review, there's opportunities to make changes in your plan, but those are typically asked for before you do the work.

It's not done after the fact, it's done before you do the work, and you get that approval and then move forward with your process with your project.

And if you are uh not approved for the for that, then you figure out a different process or a different opportunity to make it work.

I think that's where the that's where the problem I have is that the project moved forward without that approval, knowing that there was a PUR on this on that property that needed to be met and was not being met.

And um we did have uh communication with one of the neighbors.

I was kind of impressed.

We were out there wandering around.

We didn't go inside the building, but we were just wandered around the outside on the lot, and a neighbor from across the street who was a lifelong resident that lived was living in, I think his parents' house.

Um so it'd been in the neighborhood a long time.

He came over and said, What are you guys doing?

You know, I'm and I mean he was really looking out for your project on.

He was what do you you know what's your purpose here?

And uh we kind of explained it, and he was very complimentary.

I'll be honest, he was complimentary.

Um, not necessarily about the exterior.

We didn't talk specifically, I don't remember that conversation, but he said, I wish you guys could get inside and see the quality of the of the workmanship on the interior.

I think you'd be impressed.

It's a place that somebody's gonna enjoy living.

And so we did talk, and it it wasn't something that we initiated, but a neighbor came across the street and and uh just inquired as to you know what was our purpose in being uh on that lot.

So he was probably an unpaid security for you, Mr.

Curry.

So anyway, I I think it's important that we have certainty.

I think we have it's important we have consistency, I think it's important that we have clarity, and that's what the planning department tries to do, and that's and that's why uh they recommended denial um on this uh major amendment.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Thank you.

Council member Melton, you're recognized.

Oh, thank you.

And yes, I think everybody here on the council wants to help people when we can and not hinder development.

But part of how we promote development is we set codes and rules that we expect everyone to follow.

And when we do that, we're treating everyone equally and fairly.

Um that's the most important thing to me, is that we're not picking and choosing winners, we're not allowing certain people to do things outside the code and then forcing the code upon other people.

Um, because if we were to do that, we would be treating people unfairly.

That would be inequitable.

And so if you're in a position where you you've already gotten the PUR, you've agreed to the rules, and then you choose to break the rules and then come back and say, hey, you need to just give me a pass on this.

Well, then we should give it to every developer.

And we would be stating to every developer, you don't have to follow the rules as long as you build it and you spend the money, then don't worry about it.

We're not gonna enforce the rules.

Because we can't just pick one person and say, we'll allow you to break the rules, but not others.

It's always important to me to treat everyone fairly.

And since there was a PUR process, there were requirements in place.

This isn't a last minute unnecessary requirement.

The requirement was in place before the before this was done.

Um and so I I do understand um wanting to make some of those value engineering changes, but if you're gonna do the value engineering changes, you need to come and make an and request that from the planning board.

I don't know that the planning board would have would have granted it under the PUR.

But you got the benefit of having the PUR, and now you're not fulfilling with the requirements of of getting it.

So that's the reason I want to be consistent and I want everybody to be treated the same.

And I've done that in in lots of other um issues that have come before this council.

Sometimes these votes are very hard.

Um when we have appeals on bid appeals that we feel somebody made a mistake, and we would like to just say, yeah, people make mistakes, so we should just let this one go.

But when we set rules and codes and ordinances, it is our job to follow it as hard as it may be on our heart.

Um that's that is our job, and that is how we help all the people of Omaha is by following the codes that we've put in place and making it consistent so all developers and people who are building the houses and getting the PURs and getting the different zoning, know that you have to follow that zoning that was approved.

And so that's that's the reason um that I'll be supporting the denial today.

We have a motion and a second.

I a couple of comments I'll make.

Mr.

Curry, um, I did get your email, and I didn't take you up on doing a walkthrough, but I have I couldn't go with my three colleagues because that's a issue in violation of or you can't have more than three council members in a meeting or in the field doing something.

So I have driven by that for since we voted on it.

I think was it in 2022 or when that was in my job at OPPD?

I'm we covered 13 counties, so I I've been by that, and I drove by after I got your email.

So I I see the lay of the land there in the two projects you had, and I know it's I was supportive of it because I thought it was a great project, and I still think it is.

That aesthetically it's got to do this or that because we wanted to blend in with the neighborhood, and maybe five neighbors don't like it and the other five do, and it's always a balance with developers to make sure you get a project that fits in with the neighborhood.

So I I wanted to know I did see your emails and and I've been by your site there, but I I don't want to stray from what the expectation is for any developer on if you're changing something.

Um there's reasons that the approvals were made, and if something's changed, and then I I feel obligated to be consistent with what is required for any developer, whether it's you or anybody that comes before this council.

So I'll be voting for the denial, and I I I am glad you came down to at least try to make your case, but um I those are the reasons that I I'll be supporting the denial.

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

Good one.

Yes, hug, yes, Melton, row, festerson.

Yes, Mr.

President.

Aye.

Motion passed, six to zero.

Items thirteen through fifteen can be considered together for property located at one zero five nine park avenue.

The planning board and planning department recommend approval.

Item 13, an ordinance to rezone this property from R7 district to MBD district.

Item 14, an ordinance to amend the boundaries of the ACI district to incorporate this property into that district.

Item 15, an ordinance to approve an amendment to the future land use element of the city's master plan from high density residential to office commercial.

The public hearing is now open on items 13 through 15.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Council.

Rob Woodling Foundation's development 1886 South 126th Street, uh Omaha, Nebraska 68144.

Uh, this is a a rezoning and a replat of uh the TIFF project that was approved last week.

Uh this is a 50-unit affordable housing project for seniors on the northeast corner of Park Avenue and Pacific.

I'd be more than happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Are there any other proponents?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

I'll certainly be supportive of this today, Mr.

Woodling, and appreciate all your efforts in senior affordable housing and affordable housing that you've done in the city since I've been on the council, and this is a great location for I think that's been a long time vacant lot there for quite a number of years.

Is that right?

It was actually it was a 12plex that was torn down uh demo city a couple years ago.

I think we're so, yes.

Yeah, okay.

Yeah.

So this is I I know that long time, even going back years at redevelopments on Park Ave that this is uh a welcome project, and I'll certainly be supportive today.

Thank you.

Good one.

Yes hug.

Melton, row, faster.

Yes, Mr.

President.

Aye.

Motion passed six to zero.

Thank you.

Item 16 through 18 can be considered together for property located at 7630 Pacific Street, Planning Board and Planning Department recommend approval.

B is communication and opposition.

Item 16, an ordinance to rezone this property from R1 district to LO district.

Item 17, an ordinance to amend the boundaries of the ACI2 overlay district to incorporate this property into that district.

Item 18, an ordinance to approve a PUR overlay district.

The public hearing is now open on item 16 through 18.

Applicant, Mr.

Spelman, good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Ryan Spellman Parkway Development Company 9951 Harney Parkway North.

Um I'm the owner and developer of this project.

I'm here to answer any of your questions today and to respond to any um concerns from neighbors that may uh wish to speak.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And I know we will have some things to talk about on this.

All right.

Uh Johnny Dugan, uh 13526, Grover Street, Omaha Nebraska 6A, 144.

Uh yeah, I reviewed the um proposal for I believe it's 34 units at this location.

Um I think that the corridors commercial in nature, uh, several of the surrounding buildings are between three and four stories.

Uh and I think looking back on what I've done and or looked at uh midtown Omaha, a lot of those neighborhoods were built on small apartment buildings like this that weren't conglomerates.

So I think this is a great neighborhood project.

Um I think redevelopment is supported in this area uh with the investment of the library and proximity to other employment centers and the university.

So I'm very much in favor of redevelopment of a single family home into a higher density product that's still manageable within the middle of the city.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Are there any other proponents on items 16 through 18?

Are there any opponents on items 16 through 18?

My name is Connie Wentz.

I live at 801 South 78th Street, which is less than a block from the current project named.

And uh I was not included in the original information.

No information was sent to my home.

Apparently, there's a 300 foot radius that they do.

And so I didn't know anything about this until just recently.

Otherwise, I would have been here a lot sooner to uh voice my uh dismay that you would want to put a five story building on less than half an acre lot in a really a residential area which butts right up to that area.

There's only two buildings on that block that are commercial, and they've been there for years.

And uh we all believe in highest and best use, and we are looking forward to that lot uh being uh used properly.

But I think that the five story is a little bit much.

Uh 34 people trying to get in and out of that area on Pacific Street.

It's going to be uh tricky and dangerous, and I don't think that you know, 34 parking spaces is going to be enough for that kind of project.

Also, there's hardly any green space, and we really don't have uh a buffer between the residential and the commercial.

So I would like to ask the board to reconsider five stories and maybe make this more like the rest of the area.

It's saturated with apartments, and I don't see why it has to be five stories.

Why couldn't we make it four stories?

Maybe fewer units will help with the traffic situation and the parking situation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any other O-ponents?

Louis Dirks, 620 Beverly Drive, Omaha 68114.

My thing is, you know, that whole area is half acre lots with one residence.

Now we're trying to cram 34 residents onto a half acre.

It doesn't fit.

You know, as we drove down here, we drove by all kinds of other apartment projects that have happened.

All of them have an entrance to the side or to the back, not out onto a busy street busy street, Pacific Street.

You know, so you know, the garage door for this is 26 foot off the street.

You have room for one car.

So it's gonna get plugged up.

It's gonna be a mess.

The Amazon driver is gonna have nowhere to go.

And uh, you know, it's just it's not a good fit for that lot.

You know, I'm surprised that the planning department would let it get this far because it's just it's not a good fit.

You know, I know a buzzword right now is affordable housing.

At 2200 and on up, that's not affordable housing.

You know, it's not market rate housing as it represents in the TIFF paperwork.

It's a higher end housing.

Um, you know, the parking, you know, every pretty much every dimension is asking for a variance, whether it be your setback on the front, your sides, or your back, every one of those has a variance.

Your height has a variance.

You know, there are 10 bulletin bullet points in your paperwork of variances that are needed in order to fit the parking in, had to narrow it down to 22 foot lanes so that you could pull in.

And it's gonna be awful tough for somebody to pull in there and do a right hand turn and get into a parking slot.

It's gonna be all mini cars, little clown cars or something because it's not gonna fit.

Your handicapped slots are right inside the door.

So how are you gonna pull right inside the door and turn?

And meanwhile, traffic's starting to back up on Pacific Street.

You know, I'm not looking forward to a year of construction where a lanes closed because there's no spot around for storage, a crane, nothing.

There's no room on that lot.

Um, I don't know how I'm doing on my time.

You're good, you got a 104, you're doing green.

All right.

Uh you know, the driveway's 26 foot, but the doors at 16 foot.

It's a bottleneck.

It's just it's not a good fit.

You know, there's two units there that they have it on two levels, but not on the other two levels.

What happens to those?

You know, it shows on the front southwest corner.

There's two little units there on two of the levels, but not on two of the other levels, according to the typical drawing.

Uh no place for deliveries, no place for parking, no place for visitors.

It's just it does not fit in a neighborhood where everybody is living single residents, one lot.

Yes, the building on each side are commercial, so maybe a good commercial purpose could be found, but that's that's not it trying to cram 34 people in there and uh make it work.

Uh, you know, I I heard a couple little talks in our previous thing on how the zoning is to protect us.

Well, the zoning should not have let this get this far.

And I'm at one second.

Thanks.

No, you did great.

Thanks for coming down today.

Are there any other opponents that wish to speak today?

Larry's store, 5015 Lafayette Avenue, 6132.

I'm against this for some of the same reasons, but one thing that always happens with these you cannot predict how many cars the people that rent an apartment are going to have.

They might have three.

Most of these you've done are based on one car, and maybe more than there are spaces or uh vacancies underground and on outside.

And so you take parking away from the people that are already live there.

This also happens to the businesses.

I've heard it quite a few times, and I've been going here listening for about eight years.

It's time to put your foot down on this one and say this will not work.

This will not stand.

The citizens are s are sovereign.

You work for us, not the developers who are also construction companies, and realtors.

They're they're often all three in one.

It's time to say no.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any other opponents that wish to speak on items 16 through 18?

Hi, I'm Mary Dirk's at 620 Beverly Drive.

And I just wanted to be clear, because it says in this paper that you're voting on this today, but we understood that we're actually not voting on it today until next week, correct?

Yes.

Okay, because I know there's a lot of people that have that want to share, but they're kind of waiting because they want to talk to you at the time that you're gonna vote.

So I'm donating my time here so that to just make sure that we aren't gonna cut ourselves out of that.

So um it's too big of a project for too small of a space, it's gonna cause all kinds of problems, and it does concern me that the planning department is making all of these exceptions, you know, to ordinances, these variances there's like 10 or more of them.

For a project that is not benefiting the community like affordable housing that some of these other projects we're talking about.

This is not affordable housing.

They are charging 2200 and more for 1,000 square foot, one bedroom unit, and each unit gets a one parking spot.

So I don't think there's very many people who live alone on a single income that can afford that.

So you're gonna have probably two people in most of these units.

Probably each person has a car, and there's no place for them to park.

It's ridiculous.

It's completely ridiculous.

Where's the garbage truck gonna go?

Where is the garbage bin gonna be?

There's no space for it.

If they decrease the size and back it up a little bit, um, then you can at least have one of those little drive-through things.

There's no place.

The other thing is the garage door needs to be bigger so that they can have in and out going on rather than just there's not space for two cars to pass each other in there.

My husband made the argument also that handicapped parking should be accessible, and it is not accessible the way they have it.

And the the parking stripes are straight on, they're not angled.

So it's gonna be ridiculous.

It is not high end, so uh, it is so not high end because if I was gonna pay 2200, I'm not gonna cram myself into a tiny little space, tiny little parking, not be able to have visitors, and there's not a pool, there's really no amenities that I can see.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any other opponents that wish to speak on items 16 through 18?

So a couple of things uh I appreciate the folks of goodwill that I had corresponded with in the last week on this in order to get clarification on the record.

So it and I spoke to a few of you, I appreciate you coming down.

So I'll start with Mr.

Coozie if I can.

Matt Housey Law Department.

Matt, so I had corresponded with our city clerk about my desire after last Tuesday's vote that I wanted to lay over these items in order to enable the constituents of goodwill that wanted more time to learn about the project.

And Mr.

Spellman pledged me after last Tuesday's meeting that he absolutely would meet.

And he's had several meetings, and again, there's going to be support and opposition, but I wanted there to be transparency.

So when we had our pre-council meeting today, I thought I was all set following the rules and the procedures.

So I'm not closing this public hearing on these items that I wanted to lay over to next week.

Can you explain in your great legalese why the public hearing isn't closed and what that means for next week, if I can get a motion to lay it over for next week?

Sure.

Matt Husie Law Department.

It's it's my position that since the agenda which had been published indicates that we are having a public hearing today, that whether or not it gets laid over for a vote, or whether the vote happens today or whether it happens next week or whenever it gets laid over to, we should still have a public hearing since members of the public could show up in anticipation of it being a public hearing, which obviously several people did appear for that.

But that if there is a desire to lay over this matter to another day next week, the next week, or whenever the date you want to ask to move it over to, that the public hearing doesn't have to be closed, that the public hope hearing can remain open with one caveat.

Those who have testified today will not have a second chance to come up to the microphone and address the council on this matter unless a council member calls them up to answer a specific question, which is the requirement under our rule.

So that I think that kind of summarizes both what my thought process was about why we should have the public hearing today and two what expectations should be for the layover date for those here and those not here.

Okay, and that when I learned that this morning, this isn't something that's been out there a long time that we followed.

Is that correct?

This is as far as was there something that caused at least a change in are we gonna close a public hearing or can I lay it over?

Your counsel was to have the public hearing because the faithful people of goodwill came down today not knowing that I wanted to lay it over and they wouldn't have the ability to speak today.

Was there something with the county that happened that we have to follow at least as far as the rules and the um the laws we got to follow as far as open meetings acts.

I think all I'm willing to state publicly on that, and I can certainly speak more detailed to the council in private, but I think all I'm willing to say openly about that is um I'm taking a more conservative view of the open meetings act than perhaps we had observed in the past.

We are complying with the open meetings act since I'm not closing the public hearing, and you explained very eloquently that people can speak to it next week if they haven't spoken on it today, correct?

Correct.

People who didn't testify as opponents or proponents today can certainly come next week, but cannot be asked.

They will not have an opportunity to speak unless a council member calls them up to answer a specific question.

And just as a reminder, a specific question is is there anything else that you would like to tell the council about this project?

That is not a specific question.

That is a general broad statement that poses a narrative response.

Okay.

I appreciate you walk me through that because I learned that at our pre-council meeting at 10 30.

So I as I see the folks here that are at least not that I got a chance to talk to a little bit before the meeting.

I hope that at least helps you understand where we're at.

I I wanted to make sure this was as transparent as possible, understanding there's going to be support and opposition for this project, but I think I'll commend Mr.

Spellman.

At least he took the the time to meet and explain and answer questions the best he could.

And that's all we can ask, at least from my perspective, and I think the council would agree that you want developers that will explain what their what their project is and include the neighborhood in it that people didn't feel included at the beginning.

So I'm glad that at least um hopefully one of my colleagues will lay this over for a week.

Council member Melton, you're recognized.

Thanks.

I will make the motion.

I do want to remind you, Mr.

Spelman, though.

Um I haven't made the motion yet.

Um I want to remind you that you are under a PUR.

And so what you're presenting and what's been approved, you need to follow through with.

So you can't, you know, I need to come up.

I just want to make sure you know we're not going to allow you to cut corners either.

I mean, just like I've said before, when when we put this in place, you're making basically promises not just to the council, but whether it be opponents that aren't aren't favorable of the project or the ones that are in favor, um, you have an obligation then to um deliver a product that you've basically agreed to and promised with that PYR.

If if you would if you would like to respond to that comment, I'll allow you to, just for that to that comment.

And I and I would like to, and I'm glad that you brought that up because that's something that I shared with the neighborhood and the neighbors.

Um this is my seventh project, I believe, urban infill type project here in Omaha.

And I encourage them to call down to City Planning Department.

I believe I have a reputation for doing what I say I'm going to do.

Just about every project I've done has been a PUR, never had any issues, never had any problems.

So I think it's important to point that out, and I appreciate the sentiment.

No, thank you.

With that, I am going to move to lay over the public hearing and vote on items 16 through 18.

Second.

Got a motion and a second.

Thanks, Councilmember Melton.

Uh Councilmember Goodwin, you're recognized.

Thank you, uh, Mr.

President.

I do have some questions.

Um, and I'm not certain if this is a public works or a planning question.

Um, some of the concerns that were elevated.

Um essentially just looking at the project, and it is uh essentially located right off of Pacific Street.

Um, and there are concerns about that driveway being you know really adjacent to Pacific Street.

Um would that be our public works department?

Can you speak to um just the positioning of that uh of the sincerely the driveway right into the the building link?

Bob's to be public works.

I'll have Austin kind of uh add to this, but Pacific Street is a uh a major arterial, and so obviously it's it's capable of handling any additional traffic in Austin can kind of add to that.

Yeah, us in the rouser public works, the the property does have the right of access off of Pacific Street.

Uh the layout of the property has the garage coming in directly off of Pacific Street.

Our staff has worked with the planning department and the applicant to make sure that they meet the applicable driveway codes so that cars can properly get in and out.

So are there other buildings along this um you know, immediate with maybe the few blocks radius that have a similar design?

I'm not aware of any with a garage setup like this, but but certainly the the width of the throat of the driveway and the access and the approach is similar to any other private property that would access from Pacific Street.

Okay, thank you.

And I have another question.

Thank you, Mr.

Rouser.

I have a question.

I believe this is a planning department question about the parking uh with there being uh 34 units planned.

Uh is it requirement, Mr.

Fanslaw, that there the parking be one to one, or what's the thought around this particular uh project?

So yeah, Dave Fanslow City Planning.

Um, when this originally came in, the developer asked for the one-to-one, so I think it's 34 units, 34 parking stalls, as you may recall.

We are moving towards a uh a parking amendment to our in our zoning code that allows for this type of uh use and the parking ratio that's been presented today.

Okay, thank you.

I don't have any further questions.

Thank you.

I can I ask uh public works.

It was brought up from folks about various things like deliveries for an Amazon or UPS or postal service.

Mr.

Stuby, I guess I'll ask you, and I we kind of talked about this a little bit last week.

When public works or planning are presented a project like this, can you just walk through Bob, not in great depths, but when you look at traffic, you mentioned Pacific Street.

What do you look at for a project of 34 35 units with a street like Pacific on parking and traffic coming in and out, whether it's a delivery driver or a trash truck going in and out?

How do you take that into account for safety before a project would even come forward?

So, Bob should be public work.

So, first of all, when we look at uh traffic generated by a particular development, uh in this particular situation when it's an apartment complex like this with 34 units, uh, we don't look at this as having uh an impact from the standpoint of peak hours.

So nothing in the morning, nothing in the afternoon, because traditionally uh when you look at an apartment complex, is that not everybody is going to work or uh coming home at the same time.

Where you're looking at an office building that might have uh multiple offices, uh obviously a majority of the people are probably going to work at the same time and leaving at the same time.

So typically apartment complexes like this, and this is a small one when you look at 34 units, is not necessarily an issue from a peak hour standpoint.

Uh obviously, this is not the first time that we have situations where um uh buildings are located on major streets.

We have it all over the place, and obviously it is public right-of-way, it is use, but but uh there's no question that we would have concerns with regard to uh delivery trucks blocking uh streets for a certain period of time.

This is what would we consider as a five-way five-lane street because it's got two uh lanes going each direction plus a center turn lane.

So um there would be concerns with regard to our staff and and long um uh uh stoppages of traffic, but again, it's something that uh we deal with all the time within the city of Omaha.

Thanks.

And and also it was brought up about handicap parking.

How does that factor in when these projects are presented to the planning board and ultimately to the council?

Dave Fanslow City Planning, uh, Councilmember Bigley, that's my department.

So yeah, uh there's we have a parking code and handicapped spaces.

Um there's a requirement depending on how many regular spaces are provided, then we back into a required ADA count.

And they have to I believe the zoning code says something like they have to be the most accessible.

And so we look at that at this point, but we will also review it if this gets if this gets approved at the building permit stage.

Okay.

Thanks.

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

Good one.

Yes.

Hug, Melton, row.

Pesterson.

Yes.

Mr.

President.

Aye.

Motion passed six to zero.

Item 19, a resolution to approve a special use permit to allow indoor sports and recreation in the GI district.

Located at 7405 Irvington Road Planning Board and Planning Department recommend approval.

Public hearing is now open on item 19.

Applicants.

Good afternoon.

Hello, uh Brian Ackert, 119 uh South 49th Avenue.

Um I am here on behalf of Exarbon Curling.

Uh so what we are doing is needing a special use permit to use a uh indoor sports and recreation facility within a uh general industrial district.

Uh if we can get there, we go.

Um so uh exercise and curling's actually been around in Omaha since 1958, um, been a nonprofit here uh in the community for quite a bit of time.

We currently uh do our curling leagues at Baxter Arena uh on the community ice there.

Uh but being a what's called an arena club, uh we do not have uh a lot of open ice time, um, and therefore it's kind of hindering some of our uh membership growth.

Uh that being said, we are the largest arena club in the entire nation at 325 members, roughly, active members.

Um, and by getting our own dedicated facility with an indoor uh sports and recreation use within a general industrial district, can actually double that capacity.

Um, mainly with the some of the ice time uh components to that.

Uh it helps open up some different leagues for juniors as well as senior curling, wheelchair curling leagues, uh helps open up different regional and national uh competitions and different events that actually get hosted right here in Omaha.

Um so it's really uh kind of an exciting time uh for our club and the growth and progress progression of uh uh where we've come since 1958.

So I'm also joined with uh Nick Sworsek here.

Um he's the current club president as well as the chair of our dedicated ICE committee.

Um but I did want to uh walk through some of the building plans that we have put together so far, um, just kind of to talk a little bit about the facility and and what the use is.

So um on the screen here you see there's a uh fairly large existing warehouse uh located here.

This area here is a small addition that's currently under construction.

It should be wrapped up here in the next couple weeks.

Uh but we would be on the end bay here where you can see on this uh site plan uh there's quite a bit of uh space that's dedicated to the actual curling sheets themselves.

Um additionally, uh with a special use permit, um we are uh relatively uh less intensive use than what a general industrial district would uh typically entail.

Um there's parking all the way around the perimeter.

Um we've got uh a pretty significant surplus of parking stalls that are currently on site, so we wouldn't necessarily have to build any more.

So this entire project is uh completely an interior renovation uh of an existing warehouse shell.

So if I go to one more drawing here, you can kind of see what the uh kind of an exonometric of the zoom out a little bit here.

There we go.

Of kind of what this facility looks like.

Um again, this is a little bit of a bird's eye, you know, if you take off the roof kind of what you're looking down into here.

Um the curling facility itself, it's a very specific kind of ice that's only for curling, uh dedicated for for that use, uh and then has what's adjacent to it uh called a warm room with some windows along this wall here so members can actually watch a little bit of curling going on and interact after the game.

It's a very uh uh very social sport where uh curlers like to get together with the opposing team and you know discuss kind of how the match went.

So I'm happy to answer any other questions that uh the council has.

Uh and again, I've also got Nick Swersick here as well.

So thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Are there any proponents here on item 19?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

I'm gonna go to our in-house expert on curling, Councilmember Fesserson.

You're recognized.

Thanks, Mr.

Bagley.

Uh thanks for that overview, guys, and uh welcome to City Council.

I'm glad you're here.

I know this has been a long time coming for both of you, something you've worked very hard on.

Um ever since Exarbin closed and the curling facilities there uh terminated.

I know it's been uh an attempt to have a facility at Tranquility and also Ralston Arena and now Baxter Arena, which has been appreciated and has continued the sport in our city, but as Brian noted, uh you have to have your own dedicated ice facility for this really to be a sport that can grow and uh be competitive in the future.

So I know you kind of give us an overview there of where it's gonna be located.

It's actually uh just outside the city, closest to Councilmember Melton's district, pretty close to mine.

Uh but that's why you're here for a special use permit.

I know you've uh engaged the neighbors and have the blessing of the planning department planning board on this already.

Um I just wanted to also emphasize that this would allow a sport to continue in Omaha that um expands upon our recreation offerings for people of all ages.

People of all ages can play this sport.

Uh you're a nonprofit, and you do intend to engage uh the schools, uh nonprofit entities, corporate entities in the expansion of their interests and involvement, I think, in this project.

I don't know if Brian or Nick, do you want to talk about that a little bit more too?

Yeah, Nick Swersek uh 6179 Walnut Street.

Um things that's really neat about our sport is we have kids as young as six, people well into their 80s, folks in wheelchairs, and people who have competed in Olympic trials we could play on the same team.

Um so it's really inclusive, adaptive, and intergenerational.

We have teams of two and three generations playing together.

So we're really excited to be able to partner more with nonprofits.

We turn down requests from different nonprofits or corporations for team building events, probably about 10 or 12 events every month, just because ice time is so limited at Baxter Arena today.

So yeah, we as Brian said, we're able to we would be able to double our membership, and we do have offers from USA Curling to be able to host a national championship at this event.

You know, it's not something the size of you would have it at Baxter Arena.

This would be really appropriate for a smaller event.

We would like to be able to host college nationals, and we think we have a good opportunity to do that here if we were to open.

Yeah, thank you.

So attracting additional tournaments to the city and that economic um development and impact, I think is part of this too.

And of course, we already have hosted a Olympic trials previously at Baxter Arena, but you have to have a home club, I think, to be able to do that in the future.

So that'd be great to have that possibility going forward as well.

I know to do this retrofit, you need to raise over a million dollars, and you're getting close to that mark.

Uh, and you have a lot of great partners, including the county already, and and some philanthropy.

So I think you're gonna get there.

The last thing I'll say, and then I'll yield the floor to Councilmember Melton, is uh um it came to my attention just in the last few days that um with Nick's work on this project over the last year and a half and hours upon hours of time he has spent to get here.

Uh he has been recognized with an award that was named after my mom, who was also a curler.

Uh so he is the recent recipient of the Sigurd Festerson Award for volunteer service to the curling club.

I think she was the secretary and treasurer for like 30 years.

So uh congratulations on that, it's well deserved.

Thank you.

Yeah, motion to approve.

Got a motion and a second, Councilmember Melton, you're recognized.

No, thanks.

I just want to quickly, since we kind of lost the original project, I was so disappointed.

And I'm just so grateful that you continued to move on, find another place.

This looks great.

And and you're still you're not really in my district, you're kind of between our two districts outside, but you know, Pete and I can fight over who can claim you.

I think he might win on this one since it's curling.

Um, but I you know what?

I learned so much from you about curling and what you're doing in this community and how many people participate in it.

And so I just I just want to say that although the first project didn't come to fruition, this looks fabulous.

And and I'm very proud of you, and I'm very grateful that you continued the work and now you're finally gonna make it happen.

So I would love to come visit.

I don't want to be out on the ice, I'll end up falling on my face, but I would be more than happy to come out and watch other people do it.

It's very easy to do a step-by-step.

We'd be happy to show you how we do it safely.

All right, thank you.

Thanks, Dick.

Congrats on the award.

Thank you.

Thanks.

And comments briefly.

I Councilmember Fasserson took me down to Baxter a couple years ago, and it's really impressive.

And the hard work you guys have put in trying to get momentum for this.

And I'm with Councilmember Melton.

Don't get me on that ice because my hard Irish head wouldn't work out well.

But I wish you the best, and I'm glad to be supportive of this today.

We had a motion in a second, correct?

No further lights, roll call.

Good one.

Yeah, hug.

Melton.

Yeah.

Row.

Fasterson.

Yes.

Mr.

President.

Aye.

Motion passed six to zero.

Item 20, a resolution to approve the 2501 center tax increment financing redevelopment project plan located at 2501 Center Street in an amount up to 3,613,528 dollars.

I will note there's a request from the applicant to postpone this item to the August 25th meeting.

Public hearing is now open on item number 20.

Ms.

Hadley, good afternoon.

Good afternoon, members of the council, Bridget Hadley, City Planning.

What we have before you is a project that is an affordable housing development at 25th and center.

Um it will encompass two large vacant industrial buildings that will be dismal demolished and replaced with two apartment buildings containing 180 units.

So this is the site.

And just to orient 480.

This is Hickory Street.

This is South 26th Street.

So the 180 unit apartment building will be located here, and then the uh 18 row house structure will be built there.

Um all of the units will be for income qualified households using low-income housing tax credits, and they will be that is a substantial uh part of the capital stack.

The developer is 2501 center owner, LLC, and that's managed by near age agriwald.

He wasn't able to be here, but his brother is here to represent.

Total investment in this uh neighborhood project is about 56, almost uh 57 million.

The TIFF support is about 3.6 million.

The project does meet the criteria uh required for TIFF.

It is an appropriate land use for this location and complies with the city's master plan.

Let me just show you flip through to give you another view.

This is uh one of the biggest ISOs at that site.

Um, and I would say this has been a part of the South Omaha development project plan that uh the council reviewed about 2011.

So this has been a site that has been maybe on the radar to be redeveloped for a very long time.

So this is part of that site that will be redeveloped, so one of the buildings that will be demolished.

Um turn it this way.

This rendering uh represents where the row homes will be.

Um and this area in yellow is uh representative of the public improvements that will be a part of the project, and then the orange are some additional public improvements that the project owner was able to talk with public works and use their street improvement district.

Um the city will share about 50 percent of that cost to complete this section of the of the um of the project of the public improvements, and then here are some renderings.

There we go.

Of the row homes.

It's another view, and then here's a rendering of um the apartments, and I will take my seat.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any proponents here on item number 20?

Hi, uh all like we'll on behalf of 2501 center owner LLC, uh 1901 Howard Street, Suite 200.

Uh, just kind of excited about getting the product to move along.

Obviously, like Richard mentioned, it's been an eyesore for several years, and I'm sure you've seen in the news and recently there's been a lot of kind of vandalism and just kind of safety issues there.

Um, so we're excited to kind of push forward with the product the project and in the coming months and kind of make better use of that land and bring much needed affordable housing.

Thank you.

Are there any other proponents on item 20?

Seeing none, are there any opponents seeing none?

There was I can't make a motion on this, it's in my district, but um a motion uh to lay over the public hearing and the vote on this second, got a motion and a second roll call.

Good one, yes, hug, Melton, row, faster.

Yes, Mr.

President.

I motion passed six to zero consent agenda.

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

I'm removed from the consent agenda shall be taken out by the city council immediately following the consent agenda and the order in which they were removed unless otherwise provided by the city council rules of order.

The public hearing and agenda item 21 was held on July 21st, 2026.

Any council discussion?

Got a motion and a second roll call.

Good one.

Hug, Melton, row, Faster Son.

Mr.

President.

Aye.

Motion passed six to zero.

I'll note that item 25 is being removed.

The public hearings and agenda items 22 through 24 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 are a proponent or opponent.

Public hearing is now open.

Are there any proponents?

Good afternoon.

Uh Dan Weberg, Santa Francis House, 1111 North 17th Street.

I am definitely a proponent.

Um Sienna Francis House is Oma's low barrier shelter.

Last year we provided shelter to more than 2500 people, but more than 3200 people received our services.

We provided 145,000 bed nights in the shelter and served almost half a million meals.

Right now, we are bursting at the seam to do the heat.

So we just wanted to say thank you to the city for his commitment to helping our homeless neighbors.

Thank you.

Thanks for all you do.

Any other proponents?

Uh Tim Noonan.

Tim Noonan, I'm also with Sienna Francis House, a proponent of resolution uh 23 or item number 23.

Um and just want to emphasize what my colleagues said.

We appreciate the city's investment into uh serving the homeless population here with dignity.

Um that's a big emphasis for us, and the city's partnership with us uh is very very meaningful and as a lifelong Omaha appreciate the investment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any other proponents?

Good afternoon.

Vicki Quaits Ferris, African American Empowerment Network, 2401 Lake Street.

Um speaking on behalf of resolution 24 for the Step Up Omaha job and training program.

Um just wanted to say thank you to the City of Omaha.

We currently have approximately 27 of our interns that are serving at the city in internship programs, and 17 of those individuals would like to remain uh on the work site.

So again, thank you for all that you're doing for the Step Up Omaha program.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any other proponents?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Councilmember Fesserson, you're recognized.

Thanks, Mr.

President.

Just wanted to say briefly, um, I'm supportive of these items and appreciate the empowerment network here today and all the work they do with the step up program.

Pleased to see you're in the 2027 budget as well that we'll talk about here in coming weeks.

And then also to Sienna Francis, thanks for all you're doing too, especially during a week like this week with all the heat and helping our homelessness uh situation.

And we had the Stevens Center here just last week as well with an expansion project.

Um so I know you guys partner on everything we're doing and are part of the threshold effort that I think is making a difference.

So thank you for being here too.

Thank you.

Councilmember Goodwin, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

I just wanted to echo Councilmember Festerson's uh support of these items.

Uh with Step Up Program, we realize that you're working with our youth to give them valuable uh job exposure and skills.

Glad to see that we're looking now looking to support a year-round program.

I think that just helps us with our goal as a city for for brain gain and to retain our our our young and and bright uh students and adults, and also as I work on the subcommittee of the homeless uh you know uh committee.

Uh supporting Sienna Francis House and our local shelter uh initiatives is essential.

Um I think we learned some valuable lessons with the pilot and and part of it is how do we uh better expand our services to reach our most vulnerable population?

So thank you all for your your service to our community motion to approve items 22 through 24.

Second.

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

Good one, yes.

Hug, yes, Melton, yeah, row, faster son.

Mr.

President.

Aye.

Motion passed six to zero.

Item 25, a resolution to approve the third amendment to the operating agreement of a dockless shared scooter program to extend the agreement until December 31st, 2026.

Public hearing is now open on item 25.

Are there any proponents?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Councilmember Goodwin, you're recognized.

I'm sorry I didn't hit my light.

Okay.

Councilmember Fesserson, you're recognized.

Thanks, Mr.

President.

I know we discussed this uh item this morning, and what we have before us is just a simple extension of the current agreement with Lyme scooters uh so that it can maintain uh to be an opportunity for folks throughout the rest of this year as we consider a RFP for future years.

Uh I just wanted to observe that um when we think about this next R RFP that uh we all have public safety in mind too.

We've had some very concerning incidents in the community, most recently in Bennington, around youth on some scooters that uh resulted in a fatality.

Uh I know we have some concerns with law enforcement around the new e-motorcycles and e-motorbikes we're seeing um throughout the city that are illegal on city streets.

Uh so I just urge everyone to take a step back and make sure you're thinking about the usage of these um of these vehicles, uh the rules around them that the city has laid out, basic safety elements around using helmets, which are suggested.

And then certainly as it applies to the e-motorcycles, something I think we need to look at in the future as to how we handle those as technology evolves.

And I'm pleased to see we do have uh groups such as MAPA and Bikewalk Nebraska taking a look at that in the next few months.

And we'll have some policy recommendations, I think, for the state and also surrounding cities as to how those can be regulated safely and may have some applicability to how we consider our RFP as it applies to scooters going forward too.

So just wanted to say that today before we um uh handled this item.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Hannah, a quick question for you.

We talked in pre-council this morning.

Just I won't go over everything that I want to talk to you about, but just a couple of questions for you.

Hannah DePunnu Public Works.

Hannah, so this extends it through December 31st, and that's to look, as Councilmember Fasterson said, to do an RFP if other companies are interested, then we can review it at that time.

Yeah, the RFP would include anybody that wants to propose on it as a um shared micromobility scooter provider.

Okay, and do you anticipate that there would be a lot of applicants for that RFP?

Uh I would consider probably maybe two or three in addition to Lyme, uh, but we don't know if they will be interested in our specific RFP or not.

Okay, and if it if it's two or three that apply in it, if it is Lyme that ultimately is selected.

Is the contract that's before us that we had when it was approved back in 21?

Can we renegotiate the terms of that?

That's what the RFP will do.

Okay.

Certainly, yes.

So this is a question, thanks, Hannah.

For count um Mr.

Cousy.

Councilmember Fesserson mentioned in the agreement, it reads that helmet use is encouraged when using a shared scooter.

And Councilmember Fezerson mentioned a terrible tragic accident of a young man in Bennington.

Nebraska a couple years ago, they repealed the helmet law.

Would that apply to scooters if an RFP was put out in the terms and conditions of it?

Is that something that the city could even look at if it was an option?

MacCousie Law Department, there's a specific code provision that was adopted a while back regulating scooters in terms of a criminalslash traffic offense in terms of what you can and cannot do with the scooter that could subject you to a criminal citation for it.

And helmets were not included as a requirement.

There are many requirements in terms of how the scooters are supposed to be operated, but helmets were not included in that regulation because of how the state law was treating helmets.

You correctly state that the legislature got rid of a helmet requirement for motorcycles, and this was kind of contemporaneous with when the scooter ordinance was being developed and ultimately passed.

So there is no requirement in there.

Could you do it?

Perhaps, but it would be a situation where it would conflict with state law, so that could present a problem by requiring helmets for scooter operators.

There is a provision in the code, because I looked at it over lunch, and there is a provision in the code, again as it relates to scooters, that if you are a child under 18 and wear a helmet, there were particular parts of the requirements that you were exempt from if you did that.

So by inference, the council is encouraging people, especially youth, to wear a helmet when operating scooters.

Okay.

And that's something certainly I appreciate you at least given your accounts on that.

I I don't want to conflict with the state on certainly on everything, but I I appreciate you explaining what at least our options were, and if that's something that can even be looked at, we certainly encourage that.

But with the next RFP that goes out, there's and I'll have discussion with Hannah here in the in the weeks ahead, just what that could look like.

In the overall, not just that, I just picked that out because it's one of the things that was highlighted when I was going through it.

But that's something we can certainly in the next six months digest, and maybe there's things we can do better with with Lyme.

Certainly, we've learned in the last four or five years.

Um there's other data that you can share that shows on how we're responding to when these things are left.

If somebody leaves it in the middle of the sidewalk, is that person not able to use one of the scooters again because they're not a good operator of it.

So those are things, at least it's not ending today, it goes to the end of the year, but those are things we can certainly get a better understanding of going forward if if it's Lyme or the next RFP we get.

So I will yield to Councilmember Goodwin, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

I I think I just wanted to say that's this discussion is the reason we pulled this all item off, because you know, we had uh concerns uh that I think we've all not only witnessed publicly uh but various uh news, you know, articles, stories on how these various types of um forms of transportation are uh being utilized uh inappropriately, um, even uh complaints within neighborhoods and at worst, you know, tragic accidents and death.

Um we even had one in my district recently.

And so um I think elevating this uh as a point of public safety is really what we're all saying here.

Um and it may mean that this council looks at how uh we ensure that the use of these um these various types of modes of transportation.

Number one, people understand how they should be shared with the road.

Uh we understand the age limits and most importantly, we understand how to present prevent uh fatal accidents.

So I think this is the a good dialogue that I hope we can continue prior to uh the new RFP so that we can make sure that next vendor uh you know uh I won't say is compliant, but it helps us to address some of these legitimate concerns today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Rowe, you're recognized.

Thank you, sir.

I just wanted to reiterate what um Mr.

Pesterson said.

I serve on the board of uh directors at MAPA.

We did recently receive a grant um that's gonna allow us to do a uh study on uh the use of these types of vehicles because there is confusion amongst the jurisdiction.

I believe even this morning the county board was uh contemplating approval of a request from an SID to allow golf carts to be used on their public streets on their streets.

And we we just think that that creates confusion at MAPA and there needs to be some clarity and some consistency on that, and we're using that word uh more than once today, but um is a group that looks at the transportation needs in our as a region, and so we hopefully we'll have you know Bellevue and Bennington and Omaha and Papillion and other um member cities uh uh sign on this on this proposal so that we do have consistency so that people that are using the scooters and they're using the e-bikes, they'll know what's allowed and what's not allowed in our uh metropolitan area.

So if you get an opportunity to be a part of a community engagement on that, I'm sure there'll be some communication that'll be coming out the next months.

Uh I would encourage you to to be a part of that and make sure that your uh wishes are expressed.

I think that's important.

So just want to thank you for that.

Thank you.

Got a motion and a second roll call.

Good one.

Hug.

Melton, row.

Festerson, Mr.

President.

I motion passed six to zero.

Item 26, an ordinance to authorize the issuance of a purchase order to FBG Service Corporation for janitorial services to be utilized by the street maintenance division.

Public hearing is now open on item 26.

Are there any proponents?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Item 27, an ordinance to vacate State Street from Raven Oaks Drive to Willett Street, Planning Board and Planning Department recommend approval.

Public hearing is now open on item 27.

Good afternoon.

Brian Hiskey, resolute law 10177, South 168th Avenue, suite 103, Omaha, Nebraska, 68136, representing the applicants, uh Ron and Joyce Nordell.

Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Are there any other proponents here today in item 27?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Item 28, an ordinance to accept an authorized disbursement from the University of Nebraska in the amount of 54,488 for beat the heat trees for streets.

Public hearing is now open on item 28.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Kelly Johnston-Dorsey, Planning Department.

Um a few years ago, through the Urban Heat Watch Program, which is a national program, we learned through UNMC that Southside Terrace Indian Hill neighborhood can be nine degrees hotter than other neighborhoods within our metro area.

So we started an overall beat the heat initiative.

So when we learned of these grant opportunities, we applied for them.

This trees for streets program specifically will fund trees for the streetscaping along Q Street and South 30th Street in this neighborhood in effort to bring down the temperature in the neighborhood.

Here to answer any other questions you may have.

Thank you.

Are there any proponents?

Item 28.

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Item 29, in order to accept an authorized disbursement from the University of Nebraska in the amount of 127,376 for Beat the Heat Trees for Neighbors.

Public hearing is now open on item 29.

Good afternoon, Kelly Johnston Dorsey, Planning Department.

Similar to item number 28.

Um this program is structured for residents and property owners within this neighborhood, where they can have dead or dying or sick trees removed, stumps ground, and then replacement trees planted and cared for for that first year.

They can have up to two trees planted, and if you have one removed, you need to have one replanted.

Um we've shared this news through our quarterly newsletter.

Already have a couple of phone calls of interested people, so excited to get this program rolling as well.

Here to answer any of the questions.

Thank you.

Any proponents on item 29?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Item 30, an ordinance to approve the agreement with local artists, local art for public art improvements at four city-owned downtown parking garages.

Public hearing is now open on item 30.

Proponents for item 30.

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Item 31, an ordinance to approve the 7630 Pacific Apartments Tax Increment Financing Redevelopment Agreement.

Public hearing is now open on item 31.

Ms.

Hadley, good afternoon.

Uh good afternoon, Bridget Hadley, City Planning, here to answer questions you may have.

Thank you.

Are there any proponents on item 31?

Good afternoon, Ryan Spellman, Parkway Development Company 9951, Harney Parkway North.

Again, here to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any other proponents?

Item 31.

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Hello, my name is Mary Dirk, 620 Beverly Drive.

And again, I just feel like um putting the city council's rubber stamp on all of the variances needed for this property to go through.

That would be giving this um this tax agreement would be a mistake because I feel like it's letting the train out of the station.

And once the train's out of the station, I think it's hard to put it back in.

Um they're saying 34 units that are at the market rate, which actually in our neighborhood.

And their rent is about a thousand to fourteen hundred dollars.

And the lowest rent in this proposed building is $2200.

So I just think it's a mistake.

And I don't think that we should rubber stamp it.

You're our city council.

It just seems like a lot of changes are being made in the ordinances in order to make this go through.

So it's almost like you're pounding a square peg into a round hole.

And I don't understand who's benefiting from that.

I don't think it's the neighborhood or even the people who would be living in this in this building.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any other opponents that wish to speak on item 31?

Larry, Larry Store 5015 Lafayette Avenue.

Uh, to be consistent, I'm opposed to this.

As it was in the earlier version of it.

Uh it's time to stop chasing residents out in favor of the real estate developers who are also real estate people and construction companies.

All in one.

Thank you.

Are there any other opponents?

Item 31.

Seeing none, public hearing is closed.

Item 32, an ordinance to approve the agreement with industrial organization solutions for employment testing for Omaha police and fire departments.

Public hearing is now open on item 32.

Ms.

Nunley, good afternoon, Ms.

Sander.

Good afternoon.

Rebecca Nunley, uh CDHR.

Just here to speak on uh IO solutions.

Uh an RFP was put out for police and fire testing for both you know incoming as well as uh promotional testing.

We had three responses for the RFP.

One of those responses was actually a very low cost response.

Um we did some digging on that and found that that um response to the RFP did not meet our very basic needs for our police and fire testing.

Um and the other two responses, the companies who responded had approximately very similar costs.

Um so we decided to go with IO Solutions, a company that we've worked with for several years on a couple different occasions.

We've had little to no issues with them.

Um they always produce valid tests.

They're very flexible to work with.

Um they've been great to work with as we have everyone knows that we are now going to um year-round testing for police.

They've been great to work with through that entire process as well.

Um so I'm just here to speak as a proponent on behalf of um going with IELTS solutions again for this contract this time around.

Um, and I'm here to answer any questions if you have any.

Thank you.

Any proponents?

Item 32, Ms.

Sander, good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Deb Sander Human Resources here to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Any other proponents?

Item 32.

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Item 33, in ordinance to accept an authorized disbursement from the Rockefeller Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors Youth Climate Action Fund grant program to partner with youth in developing and implementing solutions to local climate challenges.

Public hearing is now open on item 33.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Margaret Purdue, Mayor's Office.

Um I'm the grant manager in the mayor's office, so we applied for the Youth Climate Action Fund program in early this year and received notice of a war in mid-May.

The Youth Climate Action Fund program is a tenant for pro for projects that advance and align with the City of Omaha's Climate Action and Resilience Plan.

So this will offer many grants to youth ages 15 to 24 to engage in that process and put forth projects for funding.

I'm available for any questions.

Thank you.

Are there any other proponents on item 33?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Councilmember Fesserson, you're recognized.

Thanks, Mr.

President.

I'm supportive of this item, and I appreciate the administration's ongoing search for grant funds for these type of activities.

Um the previous items we had around uh beating the heat with tree planting, I think is part of our climate interests too, in addition to beautification of our city.

Um Margaret, just a few more questions on this one, just so folks kind of know how this might work.

It's um so it's it's $50,000 from the Rockefeller Philanthropic uh sources.

Yes, so the agreement is with Rockefeller Philanthropy, and it's uh Bloomberg that is um administering the award.

Okay.

And should we accept this next week?

Um, it can be used for microgrants, as you say, uh, for ages 15 to 24.

How would you see the time frame for that?

What might folks um look to expect out of that?

Yeah, so we have recently posted additional information on the mayor's website that has links to program eligibility requirements as well as the application information.

Um so youth 15 to 24 will lead the projects and partner with a sponsoring organization that can apply.

So that application period has opened and will be opened until September 8th.

We will be hosting some information sessions for partnering organizations as well as co-design sessions for youth that are interested in applying to support them with their um idea generation as well as the budget process to um look at that process and engage with the climate action resilience plan.

Okay.

And so that'll be on the website and then distributions.

Would you anticipate like this fall or into next year?

Yeah, so with the timeline, the um application cycles open until September 8th.

And then we are looking at distribution once the review committee has gathered all of the applications and looked at um the different scores and notified people.

We're looking at mid-November for notification and distribution of those awards with the timeline passed down with this award, those projects and funds for the mini grants need to be expended by mid-April.

Okay.

And that decision is made by the mayor's office?

It will be a review committee.

The mayor's office, the grants team will facilitate that review process, um, working with Bloomberg Philanthropy as well to um review and decide, but it will be a committee of different individuals related to the project.

Great.

Well, I had an opportunity to speak with the mayor's youth advisory commission a couple weeks ago in its first meeting.

Uh so did Councilmember Goodwin.

And this is one of the things I mentioned because uh when we did adopt the city's climate action plan, uh one of the best things about it was the involvement from young people.

So I think there's a strong audience to participate in something like this.

I think you'll get lots of applications.

When you look through the paperwork, just some examples for folks so they may know.

I I think it's not unusual that a grant might be for up to $5,000.

Um things like neighborhood park cleanups, things like uh preventing food waste, food rescue type things, certainly outreach to our schools, um, neighborhood gardens, um, food nutrition, things of that nature, I think all are good examples of what young people want might want to do.

But it's up to them, which is the whole point.

Uh they'll come up with the ideas and give them to us, and I think that's a great thing to do.

So uh I look forward to supporting this next week, as 300 300 other cities have already done.

Yeah.

Thank you.

All right, thanks for your work.

Thank you.

Item 34 in ordinance to approve an amendment to the master lease purchase agreement with the City of Omaha Public Facilities Corporation to provide funds for the lease purchase and financing for street car projects in an amount not to exceed 125 million dollars.

Public hearing is now open on item number 34.

Mr.

Jensen, good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Steve Jensen, interim executive director for the Omaha Street Car Authority and Deputy Chief of Staff for Economic Development for Mayor Ewing's office.

The item before you is for the approval of the latest in a series of lease purchase revenue bonds to finance the costs of acquiring constructing and equipping Omaha's modern streetcar.

The council has previously approved up to 440 million dollars in bonds for the streetcar.

As you aware are aware, the bonds are repaid uh with a portion of the tax revenue generated from the increased value of commercial and multifamily properties within six to seven blocks of the streetcar, an increased value that's created by the proximity of those properties to the streetcar.

Deputy City Attorney uh Jennifer Taylor sent an email late last week to City Council Chief of Staff Jim Dowding outlining the previous bonds that have been approved by the City Council.

So hopefully you receive that email.

The total, including this 125 million dollar bond is just under 319 million, well below the council's previously approved 440 million.

The email also included a copy of the June 2026 financial report to the Omaha Streetcar Authority, listing a total uh project expenditure to date of just under one uh 215 million.

Uh the authority anticipates approximately 75 million in additional expenses before the end of the year, uh, totaling roughly then 290 million, again, well below the 440 million approved by the council.

The project's on track as projected.

Happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any proponents here in item 34?

Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed.

Item 35.

In ordinance to approve a lease purchase agreement with the City of Omaha Public Facilities Corporation to provide funds for the lease purchase and financing of parking garages in an amount not to exceed 110 million dollars.

Public hearing is now open on item number 35.

Mr.

Curtis, good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Mr.

President Council.

Uh Steve Curtis, City Finance.

Uh the ordinance that you have in front of you is for 110 million in lease purchase bonds for the construction and equipment of parking facilities at both crossroads and the mutual tower.

The portion that's allocated to crossroads is 76 million, and the portion that's uh allocated to uh the mutual tower is 34 million.

Uh and in the case of crossroads, this will be sufficient to complete all three garages that are contemplated under agreements that you've previously approved.

And this remaining thirty-four million will provide all the funds necessary to complete the uh acquisition of the parking facility at the mutual tower, which was also previously approved by this council.

Um one thing to remember is that, and I think this is really for the public's benefit, not so not necessarily yours is that garage projects and everything in the parking and mobility fund is intended to fund itself uh through the fees of parking structures and that this is a a way to do this without any other uh public funds, nothing from the from property taxes or anything else.

This is all intended to be supported by the garages themselves.

So that I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Are there any proponents here in item thirty-five council members?

Good afternoon, David Levy Murray Home Law Firm Seventeen Hundred Farnham Street here on the crossroads portion of this representing the redeveloper Woodbury.

Um really uh Mr.

Curtis said it well.

I don't have a lot to add.

Um I do want to emphasize again that that this ordinance carries out uh the redevelopment agreement and the CMAR agreement that the council already approved, so this is in furtherance of of what the council approved and and moving this project along.

Um with that, I'm happy to answer any questions or give you any updates on the project that might be of interest.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any other proponents here in item thirty-five?

Seeing none are there any opponents.

Is there a motion to go into executive session to protect the public interest to discuss litigation?

So moving to go into executive section.

Got a motion and a second.

And I will state for the record that the purpose of the executive session is to only discuss litigation.

Executive session will include the following the city council, the city attorney, the city clerk, and the city council chief of staff.

We had a motion and a second roll call.

Good one.

Hug.

Melton.

Rowe.

Festerson.

Mr.

President.

Motion passed six to zero, four oh one.

Good one.