Citizen Portal
Sign In

Omaha council approves $310,000 settlement to demolish long‑vacant Millard property over objections about precedent

Omaha City Council · April 8, 2026

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After several council members warned the settlement could set a precedent of rewarding negligent owners, the council approved a $310,000 settlement and purchase order to demolish a longstanding nuisance property by a 4–3 vote to remove a chronic public‑safety and blight concern.

The City Council approved a $310,000 settlement and purchase order to demolish a long‑vacant, nuisance property in Millard after a contentious discussion about precedent, liens and public safety. The motion passed 4–3.

City attorney Tyler Heapika said litigation over an earlier temporary restraining order (TRO) presented risks and that pursuing immediate courtroom victory could be costly and time‑consuming. He recommended settlement to preserve a favorable demolition price and to allow the city to remove an ongoing public‑safety hazard quickly: “We made the recommendation to this council that we accept the settlement agreement…so we would be allowed to demolish it, and we would not be challenged on our decision to demolish it in the future,” Heapika said.

Supporters argued the property has been a persistent source of police and fire calls and a visual blight on a heavily traveled corridor. Councilmember Rowe said neighbors have asked for action for years and that quick demolition served the public interest. “The neighbors have been long suffering… I’m gonna be voting in the affirmative, to tear this building down,” he said.

Opponents, including Councilmember Harding, acknowledged the nuisance but objected to waiving the city’s ability to place a lien on the property; Harding said the arrangement risked rewarding an owner who profited from delay and litigation. “I’m not in favor of waiving the right to put a lien on it,” Harding said, adding concern that similar owners might attempt the same tactic in other cases.

Funding and implementation: councilmembers were told demolition funds would come from community betterment funds derived from airport operations fees; the project budget includes a $310,000 purchase order for demolition and the city has previously earmarked roughly $10,000,000 for remediation on similar UP‑owned parcels in downtown contexts. City staff said the demolition contractor has indicated willingness to honor the price if the city proceeds promptly; staff warned that delaying could increase costs and stretch the litigation timeline from months to a year or more.

Outcome: the measure passed 4–3; opponents urged the council to pursue longer-term tools (such as LB620 receivership legislation, referenced in the hearing) to avoid repeating the situation on other properties.