Omaha council hears hours of testimony on restoring $15 minimum wage, votes to delay final decision to July 14

The Omaha City Council on Tuesday heard more than two hours of public testimony on a proposed ordinance to restore a $15 minimum wage with annual cost-of-living adjustments and voted unanimously to postpone a final vote until July 14.

Supporters from youth-led groups, unions and nonprofits told the council the change would honor the 2022 voter-approved measure (Initiative 433) and protect young workers. "If young people are doing the same work, they deserve to be paid fairly for that work," said Owen Fusil of New Voices, who testified in favor of the ordinance. Several speakers cited recent state action — LB 258 — that capped cost-of-living increases and created a lower youth wage, which they said undercuts voters' intent.

Advocates included Voices for Children, Nebraska Appleseed, AFSCME Local 251, the ACLU of Nebraska, the League of Women Voters of Greater Omaha and the Women's Fund of Omaha. Jason Whitmer of the ACLU told the council the vote was about respecting the will of voters: "The initiative process exists because Nebraskans reserve for themselves the power to shape public policy directly," he said.

Opponents raised concerns about business impacts and youth hiring. Andrew Sullivan, who spoke in opposition, argued that lower starting wages can be justified by differences in experience and predicted some entry-level positions would disappear. Council members also flagged legal questions about preemption by state law.

Council members used the hearing to seek operational details from Caitlin Dehelios, director of the city's Human Rights and Relations Department, and Matt Cuzzy of the Law Department. Dehelios said tipped-worker calculations would continue to allow the standard $2.13 hourly base plus gratuities, with employers making up the difference if tips and base pay do not meet the minimum. "The calculations for tipped workers would account for that $2.13 per hour plus the gratuities," she said.

Dehelios also described the planned implementation approach if the ordinance is adopted: the department would hire a human relations representative to run education and enforcement, with an estimated initial cost of about $50,000 this year and roughly $135,000 next year for staffing and outreach. She said the director could take a softer enforcement posture at rollout, notifying employers and giving them an opportunity to remedy issues before assessing penalties.

Council discussion focused on exemptions that mirror state law (agriculture, bona fide apprenticeships, certain volunteers and federal/state employees), how to verify vocational or student-learner classifications, and the ordinance's $500-per-violation penalty (waivable if an employer pays full remedy within 10 days). Councilmember Roe said she was "conflicted" and wanted additional legal review on the question of state preemption; Councilmember Melton asked how many workers would be affected and was told data on 14- and 15-year-olds specifically was not available.

Councilmember Festersen moved, and the council seconded, to lay the ordinance over for final action on July 14 to allow additional study; the motion passed on a 7–0 roll call.

What happens next: The council will revisit the ordinance on July 14. If adopted, the Human Rights and Relations Department would publish implementing rules, conduct outreach to employers and employees, and begin enforcement under the ordinance's penalty provisions.