2026-09-29 - City Council

[music] [music] [music] [music] [music] Hey. [music] Hey. Hey. >> [music] [music] >> Hey, hey, hey. >> [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] >> with you. Hey, [music] >>

[music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] >> Hey, [music] >> [music] >> Everything. [music] [music] >> [music] [music] [music] >> Heat. Heat. Hey >> [music] >> people. >> [music] [music] [music]

[music] [music] >> I'm [music] [music] >> [music] >> I got you. >> [music] [music] [music] [music] >> Heat. Heat. >> [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] >> feel. >> [music] [music] [music] [music]

[music] [music] [music] [music] >> Number [music] >> [music] [music] >> here. >> Melton >> here. >> Row >> here. >> Fester here. >> Goodwin >> here. >> Harding >> here. >> Mr. President is absor

[laughter] >> please stand for the pledge of allegiance and remain standing by opening remarks by council member Fesserson. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America to the

stands one nation andice for all. Be seated. I just wanted to recognize two things before we start here today. Uh and first and foremost, I want to recognize Marilyn Row and celebrate her life. As you

all may know, uh Marilyn died last week, September 23rd, at the age of 90. She was a great advocate for Omaha and Lincoln and the state of Nebraska. And most importantly, she was mother to our

colleague Donroe. Uh, so our thoughts and prayers are with you, Don, and your family. I understand that Marilyn enjoyed the occasional margarita at her favorite uh Mexican restaurant in Lincoln, and

the family had a chance to get together and celebrate her um last week. So, we're glad you had that time with the family, and we're glad you're back with us today. >> You bet. And then secondly, I

wanted to recognize Omaha by Design. had a chance to attend its um 25th anniversary last week and it occurs to me I've been involved with them for about 25 years uh with their former director and

founding director County Spellelman who is a dear friend. Um I know we have Kenny with us here today. I appreciate him now as the new director of Omaha by Design. As you may know, it's an organization

that recognizes urban design principles and public spaces throughout the city. I was pleased to have one of my projects recognized that night. uh North Saddle Creek streetscape project, but I also

recognized that all the projects that were recognized that night were really great and almost all of them came through the city council or had some kind of city council involvement. So, I just wanted

to uh recognize the winners that night for everyone's um general knowledge. Uh for the access and mobility award, the winner was the H Heartland bike share free rides program. For the environment and

open space award, it was the new Pina Gardens down by the old market. The neighborhood revitalization award went to the South Omaha Mural Project. The Young Urbanist Award went to Kelly Bellow,

director of Joslyn Castle. And the Laurels award went to the Central Library Project, a major effort that came through the city council, of course. And then finally, uh, the annual and highest civic

award that it announces, uh, which is the county Spellman civic award went to the former planning director of the city of Omaha, Marty Schukert. So, I was really pleased to see Marty recognized. He's

a fountain of knowledge and Omaha history. And it was really great to see his career and his experiences recognized that night. So, thanks Kenny for organizing that event. It went really well. >>

Thank you. >> Thank you. An 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. >> Good afternoon.

Welcome to this meeting of the Omaha City Council as a courtesy to those in attendance and to facilitate the conduct of our business. We ask that you please silence or turn off all electronic devices.

A reminder that you will have three minutes to speak on an agenda item. Please stay on topic. For those not providing in-person testimony and would like [clears throat] your comments entered into the

public record, you can email the city clerk's office at city clerk at city of omaha.org. Council members receive these emails and read them. Finally, council members may ask members of the audience

back up for clarifying questions, but not for extra time to speak. I would also like to remind council members to speak clearly into their microphones. So audience members in attendance and at home

can hear. And if you come to the podium up here to speak, please make sure you're between the two microphone so we can hear you for the same as well. Thank you. We have a proclamation now by Council

Member Goodwin for Black Maternal Health Month. Council Member Goodwin, you're recognized. Thank you, >> Mr. President. And we have the members of Ivy Black Girl here in the audience today. if you can

come down. We appreciate as the council always having the opportunity to recognize October as the black maternal health awareness month and uh it really outlines the disparities between um black

maternal health regardless of uh black women's demographics. And so we appreciate the work that uh Senator Spivey and IB Black Girl do to bring the awareness and to support um all women in their uh

maternal journeys. Uh the proclamation reads, "Whereas the city council of the city the city council of the city of Omaha officially recognizes October 2026 as black maternal health month. our

traditions, our future, because families in Omaha deserve to have a positive birth outcome through health, safety, culturally relevant care, and autonomy. And whereas October 26 is an opportunity to

highlight the wisdom and traditional practices of black community birth workers that is deeply rooted in the collectivism, trust, holistic care, which hold the answers for improving maternal health

outcomes. And whereas the maternal mortality rate of black women is two times the rate of white women in Nebraska, amplifying the need to prioritize and sustain awareness and specific strategies and

interventions designed to certain black women, babies, and families. And whereas maternal health outcomes are not influenced by individual factors alone, systematic factors such as access to care,

quality of care, education, and social and community barriers impact maternal health outcomes especi especially for black women and babies. Thus causing and calling for the interventions and guided by

community members wisdom and experience. And whereas we can deepen the conversation about black maternal health in our community and amplify communitydriven research, policy, and care solutions while

centering the voices of black mothers, women, and families. And whereas this is the fifth annual observance of black maternal health month powered by IB Black Girl as a part of IB Black Girl's

maternal health initiative strategy which aims to catalyze a movement for positive birth outcomes by disrupting the systems that perpetuate the incident of maternal death, near-death and traumatic

care experience using strategies to center the voices, experiences and leadership and underserved populations. And therefore, we, the city council of the city of Omaha, do by here proclaim the month

of October 26 as Black Maternal Health Month and encourage the community to engage in educational events and activities throughout the month of October that uplift and share approaches to embedded

community-led care and evidence-driven solutions to improve maternal health outcomes. and witnessed thereof, we have set our hands and caused the official seal of the city of Omaha to be affixed on

the 29th day of September, 2026. Thank you. And I'd like to take a u give you a moment to speak and then come up and take a picture with you. Thank you. >> Thank you so much. We're so thankful to the

city council for recognizing Black Maternal Health Month. and we invite uh members of our community to come to our midwiffery exhibit at the Anara Center off 24th Street where you'll be able to learn

more about how what midwiffery care has looked like in the US both um pre-colonially and uh presently. So we are incredibly thankful for this recognition. >> Thank you. And I just want to highlight

last year I was at a an event uh with Senator Spivey and uh Tatiana Ali and you might remember her as Ashley uh the fresh prince of bar bell error and somewhat of her status and reach and access also

uh experienced maternal trauma during her birth experience. uh Serena Williams is another prominent black woman. And so oftentimes we think of um you know uh the de demographics u the income um but

this is a wide reaching issue that still needs to be elevated. So thank you for your service in this if you if I might have a moment. >> Thank you sir. >> Can we also get your name and address for the

record for us? Thanks. >> Uh yes my name is Joy Katherima. Address is 5660 South 96 Court apartment 14. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> [clears throat] >> I don't know which one is. I can't remember.

Item six, to consider a class C liquor license for El Castillo Lounge located at 1802 Vinton Street. >> Public hearing is now open on item number six, applicant. Good afternoon. >> Good afternoon,

city council. Um, my name is Pang Lee. Uh, I'm an attorney. I represent uh this restaurant. It's a sale uh of the existing business. I'm here to answer any of your questions. Thank you. >> Thank you.

Are there any proponents here on item number six? >> Seeing none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is closed. M >> excuse. >> Uh we had a motion and a second. [snorts] Councilman Hug, you're

recognized. >> Hi. Um, this location has been a bar for at least a hundred years. Am I Am I correct? >> It's been a bar for very, very long. That building was built to be a bar. I think that building

was built in like 8 19 10 or 12, >> something like that. So that location is kind of a a kingpin for that Venton Street strip from 20th up to uh well from 16th up to 24th. So the bar has always been

wellkept and uh always been looked after. Are you are you renting the building or have you bought the building? >> Renting the building, sir. >> Okay. Well, I wish you good luck. I I hope that you can

be successful and be a valuable component of the Vent Street business [clears throat] area. Good luck to you. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. We have no further lights and we had a motion and a

second. Roll call. >> Hug. >> Yes. >> Melton, >> yes. >> Row, yes. >> Fester, yes. >> Goodwin, >> yes. >> Harding, >> yes. >> Mr. President, >> I. >> Motion pass seven to zero. >> Thank you. Abby,

excuse. Thank you. Item seven to consider a class C liquor license for bottles and brews located at 10745 Mockingbird Drive. >> Public hearing is now open on item number seven. I believe our

applicant, Miss Vera, is on Zoom. >> Yes. >> Hi, we can hear you. Can we get your name and address for the record, please? >> Sylvia Vera, 10745 Mockingbird Drive. Thank you. Do we have any proponents

here today on item number seven? Seeing none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is closed. >> Got a motion and a second. Roll call. >> Hug. >> Melton. >> Yes. >> Row. >> Fester. >> Yes. >>

Goodwin. >> Hardin. >> Yes. >> Mr. President, >> I. >> Motion pass seven to zero. Item eight to consider a class I liquor license for Hunan Fusion located at 2405 South 132nd Street. >> Public hearing

is now open on item number eight. Is the applicant here today? >> Good afternoon. >> Hi. >> Get your name and address for the record, please. >> Okay. My name's Jinza Ling and address 2405 South 132nd

Street Huna Fusion. >> Thank you. We may have some questions for you, so sit close by. Thanks for coming down today. Are there any proponents on item eight? Seeing none, are there any opponents?

Public hearing is closed. >> Got a motion and a second. Roll call. >> Hug. >> Yes. >> Melton. >> Row. >> Fester. Yes. >> Goodwin. >> Yes. >> Harding. >> Yes. >> Mr. President. >> I. >> Motion pass 7

to zero. >> Item nine to consider a classy liquor license for Azure Cocktail Bar located at 11732-11736 West Dodge Road. >> Public hearing is now open on item number nine. Applicant, Mr. Hton. Good

afternoon. >> Good afternoon, Mr. President, members of the council. David Hton, 2804 South 87th A. Here on behalf of the applicant, NUM Consulting LLC doing business as Azure Cocktail Bar located at

11732 to 11736 West Dodge Road for their class I liquor license. Um Azure Cocktail Bar, uh if you're familiar, was in Councilwoman Melton's district. It's in the old Jericho's location. The idea here

is to have an upscale cocktail bar um that's meant to serve um a more uh mature constituency. I'll say if you if you uh have any questions, my clients Marcus and Tabitha Williams are both here today.

Um I can answer any questions you may have as well. Thank you. >> Thanks. Are there any proponents here on item number nine? >> Seeing [clears throat] none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is

closed. >> Second. >> Got a motion and a second. Roll call. >> Hug. Yes. >> Milton. >> Row. >> Fester. >> Yes. >> Goodwin. >> Yes. >> Hardin. >> Yes. >> Mr. President. >> I. >> Motion pass seven to

zero. >> Item 10 to consider a liquor license addition application for Pison's Pizzeria located at 15605 West Center Road to add a party room and an outdoor area. >> Public hearing is now open on item

number 10. applicant. Good afternoon. >> Sydney Grad here on behalf of the applicant. The address is 10250 Regency Circle 300. Here to answer any questions you may have. >> Thank you. Are there any

other proponents here on item 10? Seeing none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is closed. >> Got a motion and a second. Roll call. >> Hug. >> Yes. >> Melton, >> yes. >> Row, >> Fester, yes. >>

Goodwin, >> yes. Harding. >> Yes. >> Mr. President, >> I. >> Motion passed seven to zero. Thank you. >> Item 11, an ordinance to reszone property located at 3460 3462 and 3464 Ruggle Street from R435

district to R5 district. >> Public hearing is now open on item number 11. Applicant. >> Good afternoon. My name is Joseph Sanuk, AO4610 Dodge Street. I'm the applicant and uh owner representative. I'm

here for any questions you may have. >> Thank you. Are there any proponents here on item 11? Seeing none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is closed. >> Second. >> Got a motion and a second.

Roll call. >> Hug. >> Melton. >> Row. Fester. >> Yes. >> Goodwin. >> Yes. >> Hardin. >> Yes. >> Mr. President >> I >> motion pass 7 to zero. >> Items 12 and 13 can be considered together for property

located at 2646 Y Street. Planning board and planning department recommend approval. Item 12, an ordinance to reszone this property from HI [clears throat] District to R seven district. Item 13 is an

ordinance to approve a PUR overlay district. >> Public hearing is now open on items 12 and 13. Applicant. Good afternoon. >> Good afternoon, Mr. President, council members. I'm Mark Sanford, the

architect for the project. My address is 12509 Reed Street, Omaha, Nebraska. Here for any questions you may have. Thank you. Are there any proponents here on items 12 and 13? >> Come on down. >> Good

afternoon, council. My name is Hugh Murphy. I'm a employee at Barnhart Crane and Riggy. We're just across the street from from this property. We have no problem with it. Not that that might make a

difference. We just want everyone to know that there's a lot of heavy industrial there. We've got large trucks, trailers, and construction equipment. To the north of us is another trucking company. Uh

there's a cold storage there. And so there's a lot of busyiness there. There are people already living right with us there. And so we have no challenge. We just wanted to say those words. >> Thanks.

Can we also get your address for the record? >> Yeah. Uh 14504 Jefferson Street in Omaha, Nebraska. >> Thanks. >> Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other proponents here on items 12 and 13? Seeing

none, are there any opponents? >> Public hearing is closed. >> Second. >> Motion and a second. Roll call. >> Hug. >> Yes. >> Milton. >> Row. Yes. >> Fester. Yes. >> Goodwin. >> Yes. >> Hardin. >> Yes.

>> Mr. President. >> I. >> Motion pass seven to zero. >> Thank you very much. >> Consent agenda. Any member of the city council may cause any item placed on the consent agenda to be removed. Items

removed from the consent agenda shall be taken up by the city council immediately following the consent agenda in the order in which they were removed unless otherwise provided by the city council

rules of order. >> The public hearing on agenda items 14 through 19 were held on September 22nd, 2026. Any discussion? >> Got a motion and a second. Roll call. >> Hug. >> Melton. Yes. >> Row. Yes. >>

Fester. >> Yes. >> Goodwin. >> Yes. >> Hardin. >> Yes. >> Mr. President. >> I. >> Motion pass 7 to zero. [clears throat] >> The public hearings on agenda items 20 through 33 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. The public hearing is now open. Are there any proponents on items 20 through 33? By Zoom. Miss Barrett by Zoom. >> You're on mute, Holly. >> Okay, that's better. >> We

got you. >> Sorry. Uh Holly Barrett, executive director, Omaha Downtown Improvement District, 1403 Farnum Street, number 802. I am here uh to support item 20. It was a complicated project that

involved cooperation from the um business owner of the carriage business, the adjacent property owners, the landmark commission in city planning, and then a whole bunch of friends in public works

also. So I am here just to say thank you. Um, and I think that this is going to be a really wonderful addition to downtown. This is a business that has been in in Old Market for close to 50 years, and

I cannot believe that we haven't had this improvement. So, I'm here to answer any questions. >> Thanks for zooming in today. Are there any other proponents on items 20 through 33? Seeing none, are

there any opponents? Public hearing is closed. >> Got a motion and a second. Roll call. >> Hug. >> Yes. >> Melton. >> Yes. >> Row. >> Fester. >> Yes. >> Goodwin. >> Harding. >> Yes. >> Mr. President.

>> I. >> Motion pass 7 to zero. >> Item 34. An ordinance to approve an interlocal agreement with the [clears throat] city of Rston for the cost of improvements to the rston interceptor sewer system.

>> Public hearing is now open on item number 34. Are there any proponents? Seeing none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is closed. >> Item 35, an ordinance to amend various sections of chapter

55 of the Omaha Municipal Code regarding residential parking regulations and setback adjustments. Planning board and planning department recommend approval. >> Public hearing is now open on item 35.

Mr. England, good afternoon. >> Good afternoon, Mr. President, other members of the council. Eric England, Planning Department. We're here to ask for your support in this zoning code amendment which

has several components. Um [laughter] the primary item being a reduction of residential parking ratio from one parking stall per one residential unit. As you're aware, this is um a parking ratio that

we have utilized um probably a couple hundred times, probably over 100 times within PUR uh overlay districts, which as you know can modify zoning codes and and the vast majority of those projects, we

have a reduction in parking. So for many of the infill projects you've seen for over the past 15 years, uh we have used this ratio of 1:1 parking. What I put up here, this is one of the um

recommendations from the housing affordability action plan which was approved a few years ago um to evaluate and modify parking requirements as it relates to all residential um districts and potential

um zoning districts. This here is an exhibit that um looks at parking reform nationally. Um there's a there's a lot of information going on here on this text. I just want to point out that there are

um over 170 cities that have removed parking requirements um required minimum parking requirements citywide. That's not what we're proposing here, but those um some of those example cities are

Minneapolis, St. Paul, Duth, Buffalo, Baltimore, and so on. There's over 250 cities that have enacted maximum parking requirements, which is not also what we are proposing here. Um, several of those

around the country. The last line item talks about 3,100 cities have some parking reform. Omaha would be included in that. That's a wide range of categories, whether it's reductions in certain

districts or other uh parameters. Focusing more locally on a few cities in the Midwest, uh De Mo De Moine has a similar parking ratio citywide of one parking stall per residential unit. That's been in

place since 2019 when they updated their zoning code. Kansas City, Missouri has the same ratio, one space per dwelling unit. Uh the other text talks about they go lower in certain areas that uh do

create affordable housing. and even duth Minnesota has uh removed minimum parking requirements across the city. Reducing parking can be one of the ways that can help achieve affordable housing. It

doesn't necessarily create affordable housing, but um you know I mentioned it's a recommendation in the HAP. It's also a recommendation of the mayor's housing task force as well as the conversations

taking place with the we make Omaha comprehensive plan. We think it's um you know we think it's worked really well across projects um you know not only that utilize the PUR tool but there's dozens of

others that have gone to the zoning board of appeals that we've supported the reduction in parking. This would just basically take that ratio citywide and allow it for all [clears throat] parts of the

city. There is not um a maximum. So if a developer feels they need to provide more parking they can absolutely do that. So, um, just like it is now, if there's projects with a PUR that they don't feel

the 1:1 is adequate for what their needs are, they have that option and ability to go above and beyond. Other amendments included in this zoning code amendment, and I'll keep it brief, and I can get

into any of these if you have follow-up questions, um, would be that we would be able to count parking within the front yard. So this usually would apply to single family um residential when you have

a driveway. Currently we don't count that parking space towards the parking regulations. We think this will be really beneficial for small infill projects or smaller lot developments so that we can

get creative. Um also reduce setback for parking lots along arterial streets. This would apply usually for uh multifamily churches, schools. Right now they currently have larger setbacks. Um and this

zoning code amendment would allow those to be placed those parking lots to be placed co closer when on an arterial arterial street similar to office and commercial development. There's a small change

in bicycle parking adding uh certain requirements within ACI overlay districts as well as some setback adjustments that are more unique. So I know that we've received four or five letters of support.

I believe there's a few individuals here to testify in support. So, if you have any questions, I'm here. But otherwise, asking for your support. We think that this is a great and um beneficial change

that can help, you know, housing across the city. Thank you. >> Thank you. Are there any proponents here to speak on item 35? >> Yeah, good afternoon, council members. Glad to be out of the rain for a

little bit. Um my name is Zeke Ralph. I'm a policy analyst for Spark, 111 North 13th Street, Sweet 311. Uh we are a nonprofit working to revitalize disinvested communities across the Omaha Metro. I

did testify in support of this at the planning board back in May, so I'm delighted to see it on your agenda today. Um brief with a little math. Um Strong Towns put out some numbers that a single

parking requirement can add anywhere between$10,000 and $50,000 per space. Um, and that cost is most generally passed on to the renter and or homeowner. Um, and that's not how we get affordable

housing in Omaha. Um, what's great about this, as uh, previous speaker mentioned is it's not getting rid of parking. It's just reducing the minimum requirement. Developers can still build all the

parking that they think their tenants and buyers want. This just puts that decision back with the people who know their neighborhoods best. Um, and the city, as mentioned, is already doing this with

waiverss and PURs. This just streamlines the process, which means faster approvals and more homes. And we need both to keep up with the demand for housing. It also fits where Omaha is headed with

walkable neighborhoods. In March, under Mayor Euing's leadership and with a proclamation from this council, Omaha joins the AARP network of age friendly communities. Walkable neighborhoods where

homes, shops, and services sit close together, are how we keep that promise. Every acre of asphalt is an acre where a grocery store, a duplex, or a front porch could have been. As mentioned, major

cities close to us have also taken similar steps. Those um not mentioned also include Chicago and Denver. And so we believe that anyone who cares about housing and livable neighborhoods that this is a

common sense policy and Spark urges your support. Thank you. >> Thank you. Are there any other proponents? Good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity. Uh my name is Kenyoko, executive director

of Omaha by Design. Uh thank you for the kind remarks earlier as well. Uh I on behalf of the organization, I just [clears throat] wanted to note that we are in support of reducing the residential

parking minimum to one space per home. As Eric mentioned earlier, uh OMA's allowed this ratio in many redevelopment projects. uh making it available citywide can help uh housing fit on constrained

sites while allowing developers to provide uh more parking where it is needed. As we investigated affordable housing solutions, specifically working with Front Porch and with the Omaha Municipal Land

Bank, uh one of the items that rose to the top of the constraints list, making projects infeasible, was uh how they are able to fit on these constraint sites. parking being one of those levers where

if alleviated could allow for more affordable housing throughout the community. Uh the ordinance also allows for certain parking lots closer to arterial roads. Um what I'd also like to bring forward

is uh reminding us of Omaha's complete streets policy which calls for streets that work safely for everyone and that commitment should guide how this provision is applied. So, sidewalks, as uh our

friends with Spark have noted, uh thoughtful landscaping and driveway access that limits conflicts where people and biking are are interacting with with vehicles. Uh the urban design review board can

also help uh evaluate these choices on uh projects and reviews on the projects that it reviews. uh the forthcoming universal development code uh is an opportunity to establish clear consistent

standards for all of the projects using this flexibility. Uh so the summarized version of this is in support of of uh this initiative number one recognizing that this is a piece in a broader strategy

that uh it's exciting to see Omaha take the first steps of enacting with work to come. Thank you so much. >> Thanks. Thanks for being here. Are there any other proponents on item 35? [clears throat]

>> Um, hello city of Omaha city council members. My name is Jonathan Spelman, principal of MX Development Group located at 1901 Howard Street. I am in favor of this ordinance for the following. I

believe it can lower housing costs. uh requiring fewer spaces can reduce land and construction costs, making more room for affordable housing. I also believe that it'll make smaller projects easier to

build. Um Omaha has a very narrow lots and with less required, it gives more flexibility to add homes there as well as it'll help new homes fit in existing neighborhoods better. um setback changes,

allow new constructions to match the distance of the neighboring houses, um allowing more vacant lots um to be utilized and used. I think these are reasonable changes to make um housing and housing

choice easier while building and keeping these standards of parking, landscape, and public space. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. Are there any other proponents on item 35? Hi, Sher Arst in

Common Housing, 1340 Park Avenue. Uh to add to those comments, I'm in favor of this ordinance. Uh like many uh for-profit developers, um well, I guess as a nonprofit developer, we look at mission. We

look at mission towards the goal for a project. And like private developers, we are looking at risk and how to mitigate risk, how to um uh avoid risk altogether. and parking is part of that uh risk

assessment. Um so just to acknowledge that we are not going to do any development that is going to hurt the project goals and make it a successful project. Our investors also hold us to quite the

standard um other government agencies for funders to make sure this is successful with appropriate market studies and analysis. Um and then also just to testify um our first project again was with

clarity development at Hanscom Georgia Apartments in 2023. Many of you have toured that that project. Uh think about if you received many complaints from the neighborhood after that project because

that is a 75 unit uh rehab that only has 14 parking spots. Um and it is um at a healthy uh occupancy. So um you know in the affordable housing world there's um we are seeing some empty lots and empty

garages and a very high cost that makes us uncompetitive at some of those lite-ch applications. So um you know just something to consider. Forton East you know we have 51 units uh that is having 40

stalls indoors and 17 supplemental for 57 spots. For Palpatin West that's 70 units uh 61 total. There's 49 indoor spots and 12 supplemental. And when I joined the organization in uh 2023, I increased

those indoor spots uh by 24 because the neighborhood was asking for a little bit more buffer, you know, so then they have a parking spot when they're home and they have accepted this ratio. So um I do

think there's a healthy balance, you know, with this and the one to one can work and save us time and money in um in some of the approvals approximately six to eight months. So, thank you. >> Thank

you. Are there any other proponents on item 35? >> Hello. My name is Todd Nichols. I live at 5119 Underwood Avenue, Omaha, Nebraska. I'm in favor of item 35. While I prefer no parking requ minimums uh

citywide, but this ordinance is definitely a step in the right direction, our current requirements don't match how much parking new housing actually are needed. According to the planning department's

own memo, the city's approved over 100 planned uh unit uh redevelopment overlays for infill project and the vast majority def needed the parking requirement reduced. That extra approval process though

cost time and money and which a big developer can uh spread across hundreds of units while a small developer building a town home cannot. Uh without minimums, builders still [clears throat] provide

parking though uh but only as much as the residents actually need. Since Minneapolis ended parking minimums in 2021, new apartments there have averaged fewer than 75 parking spaces per unit based on

the city's planning data. Another effect of parking minimums is that they act as a uh what we call a hidden density cap which can cascade into fiscal problems for a city. The planning department says

allowing one space per unit on those infill projects mentioned earlier help build hundreds if not thousands more homes than the current code would have allowed. Our current system makes it easier for

developers to keep building new single family neighborhoods on the edges of the city. However, these type of developments have a cost. New streets and new and new sewers have to be built that will

have to be maintained by the city in the future. In fact, this ever growing maintenance bill is already too much for Omaha. in 2020 and 2022 and 2024. We've had bond issues on the ballot to pay for

infrastructure projects and upkeep. If we don't do something to stop this development pattern, uh we're likely to see more rounds of street bonds that our city won't be able to afford. According to

the city's 2024 annual comprehensive financial report, we paid 34 million in interest on our outstanding long-term debt. I'm not claiming that this parking reform is the silver bullet for a

financially healthy city, but it can help us increase our density. This new density will make our land more productive. We can get more tax revenue without having to build infrastructure to get it.

that revenue can then go down to paying out down our debt which will allow us to do projects that will actually help our city grow in a sustainable manner. Thank you. >> Thank you. Are there any other

proponents here today? Uh good afternoon. Marshall Marshall, policy and advocacy manager for Front Porch Investments, 3906 Farnum Street. Earlier this month, I spoke in support of TIFF reforms

designed to protect and increase affordable housing supplies. Today's ordinance addresses another part of that work, zoning and rules that affect what can be built and at what cost. Current parking

requirements and setbacks do not determine affordability on their own, but they do influence economics of housing development. They require scarce land to be used for parking rather than housing,

reducing the number of homes that fit on a site and adding development costs to ultimately increase cost per home. The American Planning Association estimates that a single surface parking spot costs

roughly $5,000. Reducing required parking can lower the overall cost of developing housing, helping make projects financially feasible and reducing costs that would ultimately be passed on to the end

user. Parking requirements also affect how much housing can fit on a site. Less parking can allow more homes on the same parcel, increasing housing supply and spreading land and development costs

across more units. Reduced parking minimums also give builders more flexibility, allowing them to determine the optimal number of parking spaces based on market demand. Nothing in this ordinance

prevents builders from choosing to provide additional parking when that project calls for it. The setback amendment matters, too. It would allow a new home to follow the existing building line on the

residential block rather than requiring a waiver simply to line up with neighborhood homes. Together, these changes would allow small and infill sites to accommodate housing that fits naturally within

the surrounding neighborhood. The ordinance reflects recommendations contained in a number of recent studies and reports. Both the city's own housing affordability action plan and the urban land

institute's technical assistance panel convened with front porch recommended reevaluating parking minimums. More homes by design, Omaha by Design's recent report on housing barriers goes further and

recommends removing parking minimums altogether. Front Porch urges the council to pass this ordinance and consider eliminating residential parking minimums to maximize the impacts described above. In

the TIFF hearing earlier this month, there was shared recognition that TIF is one tool within a larger housing ecosystem. The parking and setback changes before you today are important levers that the

city can pull to create an environment that make it easier to build the housing Omaha needs and wants. Thank you. >> Thank you. Are there other proponents? Oh, good afternoon. Uh, my name is Albert

Pizokei, uh, joint agency liaison for the Metro Omaha Builders Association. Address is 2637 South 158 Plaza, sweet 250, Omaha, Nebraska. Uh, Mobot represents more than 400 homebuilders and residential

construction professionals across the Omaha metro area. and we are here today in support of the proposed changes to residential parking and setback requirements. Um, from the home building

perspective, one of the biggest benefits of these uh changes is flexibility. Every residential project is different. Uh, the appropriate amount of parking can depend on a number of different things.

Uh, the type of housing, the location, the size of the property, uh, and ultimately what the market demands. Uh reducing minimum parking requirements gives builders and developers more ability to make

those decisions on a project by project basis while still allowing them to provide additional parking when it makes sense. Um at a time when the city and the homebuilding industry are both looking for

ways to expand housing opportunities in the city, uh we believe it is important to examine regulations that can expand residential development of all types. Uh these are practical changes that give

the industry more flexibility while still allowing individ individual projects the ability to respond to their specific circumstances. For those reasons, uh MOBA supports the proposed changes and we

respectfully ask for your support as well. Thank you. >> Thank you. Other proponents Lucas Thor North 108 Street. Uh this is this ordinance coming for you is the first is a step maybe the first maybe

not the first but and definitely not the last but a step on our journey as a city to building places for people instead of anthropomorphic cars. Because the more parking you have to stuff into a

place, the less people stuff you can fit in there. It's just a matter of use of space. In fact, there was a pop there have been pop-up demos done every now and again where someone will take a section

of two parking stalls and aisle section and furnish them out as a studio just to show you how much that trade-off matters. And furthermore, the proposed amendments also synergize with our TOD [clears

throat] parking reductions that are already in our current zoning to allow us to build housing at one in TOD areas at 1/ half parking space per stall or one per apartment, one parking space to two

apartments, which allows builders to build housing that is actually transitoriented instead of more transit adjacent and actually help thicken up our ridership base in our transit system so that we

can start we can focus on expanding it to meet the needs of the city instead of having to basically try to instead of having to just weave metroriting for scraps and for those reasons I support this

parking memos reduction. Thank you. >> Thank you. other proponents. >> Hi, council. My name is Noah Malberg. My address is 501 Park A. I think reducing parking requirements overall is a great way to

promote density, especially for the more affordable housing because it gives developers a little bit more wiggle room to and opportunity to build more dwelling units on that specific parcel of land.

But more dwelling units also means more profit for developers specifically for at market value rates. I think a portion of that profit should be unconsidered to go to places for like metro to pro to

to promote more transit alternatives and to develop our roads for alternatives to cars. Because of less parking, more people will look for alternatives to get around the city that aren't driving. It

will also pay off for the in the long run. And having more a more reliable robust transit system is vital to a growing city like Omaha. If people don't have to worry about maintaining an overhead cost

of one of one less car, that could be over $7,000 a year. And that promotes affordability in itself. About 23% of downtown Omaha Omaha's land use is the parking lots. According to the parking reform

network, 23% of the densest part of the city seems significant significantly high to me. really really makes you think what the percentage is for the rest of the city. Parking lots are a negative land

use in my opinion because they make distances longer between destinations and are often unused. I think parking minimums for the commercial zoning needs to be heavily looked at next because I think

there's there are more areas in the city that can be used for more than just a fireworks stand for the 4th of July. Thank you. >> Thank you. Other proponents seeing none. Are there any opponents on

item 30? >> Sorry. Are you opponent? >> No. Yeah, I'm on. >> Okay. Opponents, the microphone's yours. >> I just didn't want to. >> I have a [clears throat] second. Just set up. >> Sure. >> Thank you.

Okay. >> My name is Jerry Johnson. Address 17534 V Street, Home, Nebraska. Uh, two things. I'm back. I'm back again. Uh, listen to some of these comments. I like I before I get into this, I'll still

be under three minutes and I'm not com I'm not commenting on anybody's talking before me. All I'm saying is Omaha is a car town and one units. There's going to be one person there, probably two

people. They're going to have cars. Somebody else is going to have cars. Omaha is a car town. When I came down here today, I had to park in a parking lot. There's no way I could get down here. Even in

my neighborhood, we got people parking in the streets because they can't even uh they got too much stuff in the garage. Okay. Passing this ordinance would be a big mistake. The ordinance is based on

affordable housing. The truth is, in my opinion, affordable housing is a myth. No one No one has affordable housing. All our housing is expensive. A couple in Bennington just had their property taxes

raised $1,000 per year. Also with high inflation, high property taxes, high labor costs, high utilities, high interest rates, and infl uh inflated housing and rental rates. Again, no one has

affordable housing. Lowering the building code from 1.5 or two per unit to only one parking lot per unit parking space per unit will permanently turn our neighborhoods into multiplex apartment parking

lots. You're going to turn the streets into parking lots. Look at look at the old neighborhoods in Omaha before there was cars. There's cars all I mean they're they're parked in the streets for good

reason. Now you're talking about uh starting new and cutting parking. Where's those cars going to go? They're going to go in the neighborhoods. That's where they're going. I know you said that you

have restrictions. Oh jeez, I'm close. Restrictions. Well, we're going to turn the police and parking attendants. People park in the streets. I am wasting my time here. I predict a 70 to zero vote in

favor of this ordinance. The only reason for this public meeting is required by state law. The developer, city planner, the mayor, and a city council join at the hip. And I don't mean anything bad by

that to just join at the hip. Thank you for your time. Thanks for coming down today. Are there any other opponents here on item 35? >> And I was under three minutes. Can I shake his hand? >> Larry

store 5015 Omaha 68132. Well, when the smoke [clears throat] and mirror closed, excuse me, sir. There is no affordable housing. It's all market rate housing. It depends on who you're talking about.

The builders of course get tiff and it's afford affordable housing for them but it's not affording a h housing for me or my daughter or my grandkids. And who the hell can park two or three cars with

one and a partial second parking space there. There are hardly ever enough parking with the buildings that you put up with TIFF. And they're generally always put up in small current residential

neighborhoods where all of those cars were there so many apartment units that are affordable are driving the residents that they live there out of the out of the area. So you can develop more. Most of

those streets are very thin, very narrow. And then along 46th Street, for example, you allow people to park multiple cars in their yard, work on their cars in their yard. And there's one auto dealer

that's very high volume, and he's always parking more than three or four cars plus his trailer on 46 Street. It's never enforced. So, why waste the time and money when it doesn't get enforced to start

with? Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Oh, yes. in a partial car parking spot. Does it make any sense? When I read that or uh last night I Who the hell has one in a parked car? One and 116th of a car or

one and one half of a car? Nobody. Thank you. >> Thank you. Are there any other opponents here on item 35? Public hearing is closed. Council member Goodwin, you're recognized. >> Thank you, Mr.

President. and Eric, if you don't mind coming up. Um, I just want to clarify a few things, but first wanted to thank the plane department for taking another step in the right direction toward

affordable housing. Um, again, I think the average parking stall is what upwards 35 to uh almost $45,000 just to build. And so when you start reducing uh that clearly you're going to make housing more

affordable. But I had a question about one um the minimums really the m the red you're reducing the minimums but essentially does not prevent a developer for building more parking with this change. Is

that correct? >> Yeah. Eric England planning department that is correct. There um there are no maximums that are set. Um so a developer can can choose to exceed the minimum. They would need to meet

the minimum of course. Um so yes you are correct. >> Okay. And then you mentioned parking and driveways. I think this might be a little known fact to the general public but with this ordinance uh

essentially there is now the allowing of parking in driveways. So, does that change the ordinance that makes it illegal? Parking and driveway is illegal. >> If I could get the overhead up, sir. Thank

you. Um, so here here's an example. So, this is um blue stem. So, a recent Habitat for Humanity project. That's not the important detail, of course. With our current code, we are not allowed to count

the driveway space as a parking stall. So these houses have because of a onecar garage currently only have one parking stall as defined by the zoning code. This developer needed to go to the zoning

board of appeals to receive a waiver for all 150ome lots to reduce that requirement from two stalls to one stall. With the new code change, we're allowing one parking stall to be counted in the front

yard, provided that it meets um a space that's 12 feet in width by 18 feet in length. They can't cross over into the sidewalk or the rightway. Um so now technically this lot would actually meet two

parking requirements even though moving forward if this is passed only one stall would be required. Now I guess your question about I I didn't completely follow. So, if you could say the second part

again about the compliance. >> My understanding, and maybe I'm misinformed, is that to leave that car parked overnight is technically a violation of city code. Is that correct? >> Um, I don't I don't

know. That's nothing that's never been enforced. That's not something the planning department has ever even asked the law department. We interpret it more as not being able to count that as a [clears

throat] parking stall for the county. >> Thank you for that clarity then. >> Yes. >> You know, the last thing I want to just say is that although you know, listen, I'm Gen X, so we drive cars, but

when you start looking at millennials and you start looking at Gen Z and and further, they are not as married to their cars in the way that that other generations are. I also think as people are

living uh uh in different ways uh navigating jobs to home to work in different ways this this parking uh minimum ordinance also makes a whole lot of sense. So thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Thank

thank you council member Feserson. You're recognized. >> Thanks Mr. President. Yeah, I would also just say thank you for bringing this um revision to the city council. I know it's been a long time in

the making. You've developed a good consensus around it from all the uh testifiers that were here today that have that have been working on the housing action plan uh that has numerous recommendations

in it. Um, so when we have consensus from folks like the doubleARP and Spark and Omaha by Design and the Met Metropolitan Omaha Builders Association, I think that's um a sign that you've done some

good work on this and thanks for providing the context that there's thousands of cities that have already done this. uh and we we're joining joining those cities and encouraging more density in our

urban core in particular, but in um uh all areas in the city to address this issue of affordable housing that we know is a big challenge. So, I look forward to supporting this next week. Thank you. >>

Thanks. I couple questions for planning. Um and appreciate the folks that came down in support of this. I had some neighbors of Goodwill in Elmwood that sent me an email and I apologize to them. I

haven't responded to it, but I did read it in between meetings today. Um, Mr. England, I I think Council Member Goodwin, I want to just have you reiterate it again. One of the points was that the new

code amendment does not set a maximum parking amount a developer wants to provide more parking for a project. Correct. >> Eric England, Planning Department. Correct. >> Okay. and the planning staff.

You evaluated this with other cities when we went through the zoning code. >> Absolutely. There's there's been there's dozens of articles and and parking and and that staff keeps up on. We've

researched other cities what what they've done, you know, what the current trends are and absolutely. And part of the appeals that waivers were granted for was this kind of the process. They mentioned

the mayor's task force and the housing affordable action plan amongst other things. When planning looked at this, they looked at the waiverss that came in. Is this like a tweak, if you will, that kind

of will streamline things a little bit more with this if this were to pass today? >> Yeah. So, absolutely. So parking is is one of the most uh soughtafter waivers that we experience both through the

PURs and just straight through the zoning board of appeals process. Um the vast majority I would I would say probably at least 95% of the PURs have have involved a parking reduction, but there's

dozens of other cases um that you know maybe aren't a substantial infill project or they don't need any other entitlement processes that have gone straight to the zoning board of appeals um both for

parking and a few of the other items in the amendment. >> Okay. Okay. And I I know this is just a public hearing, not a vote today, but one of the other things when when you looked into this, you

know, the neighbors talk about certainly understanding in the district I represent, everybody's got great characters in their neighborhood, characters of those neighborhoods. when when we analyze this

and the parking congestion certainly um one of our speakers did some developments on Park Avenue and talked about the parking ratios down there with some great developments we've had. We certainly

took that in account and and the neighborhoods some of them are congested but is this a balance that we arrived at when we reduced this that's before us today looking at all those factors when we when

we brought this? >> Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. And you know absolutely there are neighborhoods in you know in the city that that do have a lot of units and that you know there is more street parking. Um

you know so it's finding that balancing act I think is important. Um some of those do have MBD zoning which doesn't require any uh number of parking stalls and so sometimes you um both CBD zoning and

and MBD zoning. Of course, CBD is downtown and there's a lot of um you know, parking garages, but certain neighborhoods with MBD and it can be a challenge and we recognize that. And so, you know, we

always try to work with developers um in those situations. Um but we we find the the 1:1 parking, you know, ratio is a has worked really well. Obviously, we have a lot of experience over the past 15

years. Um I I do just want to take a quick mention if I could get the overhead because I know that um some of the conversations earlier that you had um this is just an example of one of the other

changes with the um you know regarding the setbacks in a block phase. So this doesn't come up very often but it is something we deal with you know on a monthly basis in the planning department. So

this is just an example of an existing neighborhood and you have you have houses that have different setbacks um you know up and down the block. And so one of the provisions is reducing the amount of

just the calculation and the factor of let's say somebody wants to build a new house here on this empty lot and just being able to fit that in seamlessly with with the neighborhood. And so some of the

amendments touch on things like that. Um of course you know as well as the parking. >> Thanks. Uh we have uh Councilman Row, you're recognized. >> Thank you, sir. Uh just one question. I'm glad you

brought that up on the setbacks because I just want to make sure that I understood that that that this um amendment doesn't um affect our zoning code per se in in new developments, does it? Like if we

have a setback in R4, a certain setback or R seven or whatever. >> It does not impact setbacks for for new developments. Um so there's this provision on block faces where you know there's already

development and it's it's basically the percentage of that already are non-conforming regarding the setback and then there's this other provision for R435 or R535 which I could show you as well but

those are limited in eastern portions of the city um but dealing with setback but it's we are not changing any setbacks um beyond those two items. I'm assuming that might be contemplated when we do

take a look at the overall zoning code in the next couple of years. There might be some might be some adjustments made then. >> Absolutely. That is something that we will be looking at with a

consultant that we bring on board to assist. >> Just see this just seems like a common sense approach here to allow that to happen. Yep. Thanks for pulling me. >> Thanks. >> Next item. >> Close.

Public hearing. >> Oh, public hearing is closed. Sorry. >> Item 36. An ordinance to approve the workforce housing three round two Fort Circle tax increment financing redevelopment agreement. >> Public

hearing is now open on item number 36. Miss Hadley, good afternoon. Good afternoon. Bridget Hadley, city planning. Um, normally wouldn't have much to say, but but in light of the previous item you

just heard, and in addition to that previous item, if I could get the overhead, there we go. I just want to emphasize this is I know the agreement for this tiff redevelopment project plan, but this is

just an example of how this incentive does allow for different housing sty uh styles and types. Um and this particular developer that the city is partnering with to [clears throat] produce um a

housing type that is a smaller footprint, smaller square footage um only one car garage. We may be used to seeing twocar garages, but this is a onecar garage. So there um of course developing in the

inner city part um and so there's a lot of infill lots we're talking about. their smaller lots. But again, this tool, TIFF, has allowed the city to produce the variety of housing types that we need.

And um even working with this developer to approach more affordable by looking at a smaller footprint and this is just a onecar garage, which is still important to a lot of folks to have a onecar

garage. It allows for card storage. It allows for um can allow for storm shelter um in many cases as well as for storage of the many things that we keep in our household. So just wanted to point that

out. So thank you for your time. >> Thank you. Are there any other proponents on item 36? >> Good afternoon. Lacia Goodwin with Holy Name Housing 4324 Fort Street here as a proponent for the project.

I may use the Elmo if you all can see this. Maybe not. We'll just go ahead with this visual. I just wanted to underscore what Miss Bridget shared about the project that Holy Name is developing. We've

come before the council numerous times to share our narrow ranch housing typology that we use for our workforce housing development. This particular project at 24th and Fort Streets will introduce six

new units, new construction units to a lot that has been partially vacant uh for quite some time. We did have to demolish two houses that were in substandard condition for this project. But to um

underscore what we talked about whether it is parking minimums and then access to housing. While this is not um lowercase a affordable housing, it does introduce a typology that is a genuine starter

home. I think sometimes um when we're having conversations about um housing even for your moderate income um income thresholds, I think sometimes you we um have ideas of what what that house looks

like, but in practice it looks like this. It looks like three bedrooms, two bathrooms, and a onecar garage. This also fits in seamlessly with um the narrow ranch or the narrow lot um that is common in

East Omaha. So these are typically anywhere between 40 and 50 foot lots which are pretty small. We typically do go to the zoning board of appeals for um setback and sideyard waivers as well as parking

waivers. So I'm happy to answer any questions that there might be about this project. Thank you. >> Thank you. Are there any other proponents? Item 36. >> Seeing none, are there any opponents? >>

Public hearing is closed. >> Item 37, an ordinance to approve a dispersement from Omaha [clears throat] Parks Foundation in the amount of $4,529,600 to support the renovation work on the Jerry Parks

Youth Football Complex located in Levi Carter Park. >> Public hearings. [clears throat] [cough] Excuse me. The public hearing is now open on item number 37. Are there any proponents? Seeing none, are

there any opponents? [clears throat] >> Public hearing is closed. >> Item 38, an ordinance to approve change order number eight, establishment of binding guaranteed maximum price from Hosman

Construction, Inc. for the construction of Levi Carter Park Activity and Sports Complex. >> Public hearing is now open on item number 38. Are there any proponents? Seeing none, are there any

opponents? Public hearing is closed. >> One public hearing can be held for items 39 through 46. Ordinances levying a special tax and assessment on properties within the Benson Business Improvement

District number 6875. Blackstone Business Improvement District number 6877. Dundee Business Improvement District number 6876. Alorn business improvement district number 6878. Little Bohemia business

improvement district number 6882, North 24th Street business Improvement District number 6879. North Saddle Creek business improvement district number 6881. And South Omaha business improvement

district number 6880. >> The public hearing is now open on items 39 through 46. Are there any proponents? Seeing none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is closed. >> Item 47, an ordinance to

amend section 23-177 of the Omaha Municipal Code by changing the title of general services manager to administrative services manager. Personnel board recommends approval. >> The public hearing is now

open on item 47. Good afternoon. >> Good afternoon. Chelsea Ship, human resources uh department. I'm just here to answer any questions if you have any. >> Thank you. Are there any other proponents?

Item 47. Seeing none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is closed. >> Item 48, an ordinance to accept an authorized dispersement from the US Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration

in the amount of 191,158 to be utilized by the Omaha Police Department to reimburse for overtime. >> Public hearing is now open on item 48. Are there any proponents? Seeing none, are there any

opponents? Public hearing is closed. >> Item 49, an ordinance to accept the bid from Solid Surface Care, Inc. to provide carpet, rug, and upholstery cleaning services for all designated Omaha Public

Library facilities. >> Public hearing is now open on item 49. Are there any proponents? Seeing none, are there any opponents? Public hearing is closed. >> Non-action items. I believe there was

discussion to postpone the public hearing and vote for item 50 to the December 8th, 2026 meeting. >> We have a motion and a second to lay over item 50 to December 8th, 2026. Council member Harding,

you're recognized. >> Yeah, I apologize. I wasn't at pre-consil today, but I had some discussions with some of the other members of council. Um I I'm not sure it's um needed at this point in time to

delay the um uh public hearing and vote until what what is it? December something. >> December 8th. >> December 8th. Um couple reasons. One, I I still think we could keep this on schedule um at least

for now. We could have the public hearing still on u October 6th as it's currently on our agenda. If there's a reason to lay it over at that point, uh, we certainly could do that. I understand the

public hearing is on that day. We've had situations like that prior uh where the public hearing and vote are on that day but what and have laid it over but we continued the public hearing until that

next or till the meeting it was laid over till understanding that whoever had testified at that um public hearing would then be precluded from test retestifying or testifying again um at the

continuation of the public hearing. The reason for this um is as I think as much as we can probably talk about at this point is we do have a willing buyer and seller willing buyer and seller of

property uh that being the the center mall. It is under contract. um delaying it till December 8th, potentially delaying it till December 8th if this motion were to um pass, would therefore add an

additional um over two months to this process, which has already been um delayed by over two months really at this point. And time is money. Um I and I think if we keep it on the same path that way if

if the property if nothing changes between now and October 6th or later that it would be uh the project could move forward if um if there is a need to lay it over at that point or have that discussion

on October 6 I think would be more appropriate. But uh again, there's a willing buyer and seller who have a purchase agreement. Uh there is uh if we're adding needlessly to timelines, uh for

development projects, that adds time. And I think we want to make sure that we're open to to good business and inviting for business in the city to expand existing businesses, but also be uh looking

for uh opportunities for new businesses to move [cough] here. And by needlessly adding that extra time to it and adding additional cost to it um really in my mind doesn't accomplish what I think is is

being attempted here. So, I would um hope that we could keep it on for the October 6th meeting. We could continue the public hearing if if need be at that point in time. And that's the the reason why

I'm going to um respectfully not be voting for the the layover at this point because again, I think we can do that on October 6 if needed. >> Thank you. Council member Meltton, you're recognized. >>

Well, I've always maintained that if a council member asks for a layover that I'll grant one. And I'm not going to change my mind just because my other council members haven't afforded me the same. Um

I just have one question. Who's requesting the layover? I was >> I mean it but I I just meant is the owner requesting layover because I think council member Harding has a good point that I don't want

this council to interfere with some kind of buy sell agreement between a property owner seller and a buyer that I don't want this council to be responsible for somehow creating an interference with

that sale and I I don't know if I mean and council member Begley or President Begley if you want to decline to answer that's that's fine. I I'm just if it's just your motion that would be my concern.

>> Thanks. I I guess u I can't make the motion madame clerk. Correct. But yeah, we we've had a motion in a second. Um, and I for the statement I put out, I'm going to stand by that that I sent out to

the coalition and neighborhood groups and the media as well. So, >> yeah. And I'm sorry. I I >> It's Councilman Fester's motion. My apologies. Was that right? >> It did. So, are you at liberty to say

if the buyer who wanted the CRA also is in agreement with the layover? >> No. >> Um, Mr. Mr. [clears throat] Koozie, >> Matt Kuzi, Law Department. >> Um, you're our attorney. What What are we at

liberty to say and not say? >> I guess this is how I would phrase it. The request for a layover comes from the council. Whether that's at the request of a buyer or a developer, it doesn't matter. You

know, they don't necessarily get a say in this. It's in front of the council and the council decides what they want to do and when they want um to do it. And I think the prevailing information out

there now is the Veterans Administration, the federal government has expressed an interest in this property. Now, I'm not the federal government. I'm not the federal government's lawyer. I'm your

lawyer. I don't necessarily know how they operate. Not interested in knowing how they operate, but I doubt that this is the first time that at least the owner of the property ever ever heard that the

Veterans Administration had an interest in the property. But even if it wasn't, it's the law department's recommendation that given this um interest by the Veterans Administration that to hold off and

see what process or commitments that the VA is willing to engage in before voting on this matter. I understand that it's several months um over two months from now from it, but and not discounting the

time is money argument, which is perfectly valid, there's also the sense of engaging in things of futility. If the VA has an interest in it and they decide to pursue that interest, blighting the area

seems no to not be the best idea to go with. However, if no traction and nothing happens by December 8th, then this council should proceed with a public hearing and a vote. Um, because we cannot sit

here and give the federal government an infinite amount of time in which to make a decision on what they want to do with the interest that they've expressed. Long answer to a short question. That's

what lawyers do. >> Well, and I and I believe the floor is still mine even though we're kind of having discussions. I I haven't given it up yet. Um my question is for the clerk. Um is that going to be

a public hearing and vote on the same day or is December 8th just the public hearing? >> December 8th would be the public hearing and the vote. >> My request would be to either have it on November

24th because I'm not going to be here on December 8th. I'm going to be out of the country. So I would ask that this council move it potentially move it up to November 24th. Um, I know we have no

counsel on the 17th. I would ask that you at least move it up to the 24th so that there can be a full council vote. >> I'll be willing to amend my >> resolution to accommodate that. Um, but I think

the there was some rhymes the reason of December 8th. Would it make sense to move back one more week to December 15th? That just delays for the buyer and the seller. It just delays it more. So, >>

okay. >> I I think it's important. I would like council to be around. That's important. So, >> if if we are not going to move it up and we're going to delay it for the buyer and seller um of which I

haven't heard either one of them has asked for the layover. I don't think that would be fair to them. But if this council wants to move it to December 8th, um I guess I'll vote no for December 8th

because I would like November 24th. If you don't change the motion, then you know how my vote goes. Thanks. >> And Mr. Kuzie, um I don't know that I have the floor, but that's okay. Mr. Council member

Fesser >> just to address the uh the possibility of of amending [clears throat] that motion. Um I I believe in your recommendation to us was December 8th. Was there a rationale behind that date as

opposed to say the 24th? >> There was a rationale to December 8th. >> Okay. All right. Um thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member Hug. You're recognized. Well, I was going to ask Mr. Kooi the same

question you did, Mr. President, but if we we're potentially saving the the developer a lot of money and we're s not having to ask the city staff to waste their time on something that we may not need.

So, we have to lay it over. I I think it's prudent to do that. And if we need to lay it over to uh December 15th to accommodate Miss Felton, Miss Melton's schedule, I I think we laid over to the 15th

of December. >> So, we had a motion and a second for December 8th. Correct. >> Correct. to that to the 15th, but I don't think that that >> an interest that would help accommodate your concern or >>

Well, I mean, I I would think the 15th would be better than the 8 so that a count that the full council could be here. I I suppose the delay is you're delaying it for the buyer and the seller no

matter what if the VA doesn't step in. So, >> okay, I would amend my motion to the 15th. >> So, we have a motion and a second to amend from previously December 8th. Now, the amendment is for Tuesday,

December 15th. Correct. >> Okay. >> We had a motion in a second. We did. >> Thank you, council member Harding. You're recognized. Um, I'll try to answer a couple of questions that were kind of laid

out on the floor. Uh, the buyer and the seller both want to proceed. So, and the Veterans Administration um does not have a letter of intent. They have not uh had any formal negotiations about

acquiring the property. And I think my point is it doesn't matter who owns the property at the time the VA is interested or not interested in going forward with it. So to put the brakes on a

transaction between a willing buyer and seller who have a a purchase agreement to put the brakes on that waiting for someone else to make a decision which isn't even a party to the contract at this

point or any any contract. And so it it could be the current I'll say that the seller may end up still being the property owner at the time when the VA would want to proceed or not proceed or it could

be the seller and and by putting the CRA [clears throat] designation on this or having the conversation to put the CRA designation on this does not negatively encumber the land. So going forward, it

it's it's it doesn't matter who the VA if they're interested um would do so at at who they're negotiating negotiating with at that point. Now, I would also say I know it's a federal government and I'm

getting way over my skis on this one, but if this were a private party trying to interject themselves at this point, torturous interference. Exactly. So, so now as a federal the federal government

can't be held to that I understand but that's exactly what the if think of it think of this transaction in those terms because that's exactly what's happening and again it doesn't matter at the end of

the day who really ends up owning the property at the time when the VA may or may not want to proceed with it. Now I will paint a scenario where the seller is at great risk or exposure because if for

example buyer decides not to proceed because of what's happening because we're adding two and a half months and maybe now another week um to a a a process that's already been delayed for a number of

months. If that if that buyer walks and the VA has no interest, then the seller is in a position where now they have to try to remarket their property and knowing that you had a buyer walk away that

there's no way you're going to ever get that price again realistically. And you're going to add most likely and and I'm saying this maybe kind of from my commercial real estate world, it's going to be

at least a year and and maybe more because how long has this property sat in in the disrepair that it is and the potential of of the development that it could be? You you will have as seller a hard

time realizing the the price that you're looking at right now. So that's why I think it's important that we honor the agreement that the the buyer and seller have so that they can work through the

processes. They already have they have earnest money that's gone. A portion of that's already hard. So, um, that's why I think we should allow the process to continue and the VA whether or not they're

interested or not at whatever point in time could be a year from now they make the decision to do it. Then they could use eminent domain or be in negotiation with with the then owner of the property.

That's why I think we should keep this on the track that it is. Um because at the end of the day, I know I'm repeating myself, it doesn't matter who owns the property at the end of the day when the VA

may or may not be interested. >> Thank you, Council Member Hug, you're recognized. >> I don't know if anybody can can feel free to correct me if anybody in here is feels contrary, but I believe the

developer has stated that they're looking at like a four or five year buildout for this property. another 60 days in the grand scheme of things isn't going to change anything. I mean, it's my

understanding that there's tenants in there that still have years left on their lease. So, it's not like we're stopping them from starting construction today, tomorrow, or on December 8th. [cough] I

think we're being prudent. I think it's in the best interest of everybody involved to lay this over. I'm going to support laying it over. And Mr. Kusie, if you have anything else you would feel to

need to add, now would be the time. >> Nakuzi, law department. I'm good. >> Thank you, Mr. President. >> Thank you. We had a motion and a second. No further lights. Roll call. >> Hug. >> Yes. >>

Melton, >> Row, >> no. >> Fester, >> yes. >> Goodwin, >> yes. >> Harding, >> no. >> Mr. President, >> I. >> Motion passed 5 to2. Items 51 through 56 do not require public hearing or city council

consideration at this meeting, but will be placed on a future agenda for public hearing and or vote. The reason for non- action is noted after the item on the agenda, as well as the date the item is

expected to appear on an agenda for consideration. >> Motion to second. >> Motion is second. Roll call. >> Hug. >> Melton. Yes. Row. Fester. Goodwin. Yes. >> Harding. Yes. Mr. President. I. >> Motion

passed seven to zero. Meeting is adjourned at 3:27. >> [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] >> Hey, [music] hey, hey. >> [music] [music] [music] [music]