Omaha council dismisses complaint against Pacific Convenient Food Mart over litter and loitering allegations

The Omaha City Council on March 11 voted 7–0 to dismiss a complaint filed under state law that alleged repeated violations of the Nebraska Liquor Control Act by Pacific Convenient Food Mart at 7444 Pacific Street.

Property managers who operate adjacent office and retail buildings told the council they had repeatedly found small liquor bottles, cigarette and hemp product waste and human debris on their properties and in alleys. “It has literally been a magnet drawing homeless people to the neighborhood,” said Mike Huber, owner of a nearby retail strip center, describing frequent litter and incidents that caused tenants to complain about patrons loitering and making employees and customers uneasy. Noah Huber, the property manager, said police had been called to move intoxicated people found passed out in the alley.

Attorney Michael Polk, representing the store’s owner Tesfaye Kenday (A Bay LLC), said the owner felt “ambushed” by the complaint and disputed that evidence tied the litter and loitering to his client’s establishment. Polk told the council there had been no prior formal complaints to the owner and urged a collaborative approach. Pacific Convenient’s owner testified that the store regularly cleans and monitors the site and has security cameras.

City Attorney Ryan Wiesen explained the procedure for complaints filed under Nebraska Revised Statute 53-134.04, noting the statute requires the council to set a hearing within ten days of a complaint and resolve the matter within 30 days of filing. Wiesen outlined the four options available to the council: dismiss, request a long-form application to the Liquor Control Commission, cancel the liquor license, or seek revocation. Council members said the complaint record presented at the hearing did not establish a preponderance of evidence tying the alleged litter and loitering exclusively to the Pacific Convenient store, especially given other nearby outlets that sell similar products.

After hearing testimony and questions from staff, the council voted unanimously to dismiss the complaint without prejudice. Councilmembers encouraged neighbors and the owner to meet and explore pragmatic steps — for example, shared cleanup agreements and improved reporting to police and homeless services — before pursuing further enforcement.

Outcome: Complaint dismissed 7–0; staff recommended neighborhood engagement and further reporting to code enforcement and the mayor’s homeless services coordinator if problems persist.