Senator Brad von Gillern

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
I've got a great guest with us today and we're
going to dive right in because Senator Brad von Gillern
is here with us today. Welcome, good morning, Thank good you.

Speaker 2 (00:08):
Bet.

Speaker 1 (00:09):
He represents District four and the Nebraska Legislature. That's a
lot in the Elkhorn area. I would say some Douglas County.

Speaker 2 (00:15):
Correct boys found out to the women's hospital, both sides
of Dodge Streets.

Speaker 1 (00:19):
It's a big it's a big area. And he's been
elected in since twenty twenty two. Used to be the
president and CEO of Leader Construction, which I know you
see there signs all over the place. But now you
are chair of the Revenue Committee, and boy, have you
had a job on your hands. So I just want
to start out because I think it's so confusing what

(00:39):
has been going on. Back in January, just for a
little recap, the governor was saying that you were facing
a four hundred and seventy one million dollars shortfall. They
were giving reasons of lower revenues than you originally predicted
from the forecasting board and coming up with ways that
you were going to balance that budget. Just recently, the

(01:02):
Examiner wrote that it was A two. You turned a
two billion dollar surplus into a six hundred and forty
six million dollar deficit. Gave some reasons why they thought
it was going on. So now it's your turn, because
it is hard to follow. First of all, I want
to congratulate you. It looks like you've got the main
budget bill yesterday to move forward. You could talk about that.

(01:26):
I know that there was some great roadblocks that you
were dealing with to get that through. You had this
was the third attempt to get that through. So if
you could just explain to our listeners, first of all,
why we had such a big deficit, why it went
from a billion two billion dollar surplus to a deficit,

(01:46):
What was in the bill that was passed yesterday, and
what were those roadblocks that you were really really dealing
with that caused, you know, this to last so long
and for this budget approval to take as long as
it did. I know that there were several things in
that bill about school of choice, So I'm just gonna

(02:07):
let you take it over.

Speaker 2 (02:08):
Well, that was about nine questions you just laid out
for me.

Speaker 1 (02:10):
I'll be back up to the first.

Speaker 2 (02:13):
How did we get there? The budget deficit? You know,
and I'll start with the how did we get from
a two billion dollar surplus to a six hundred and
forty six million dollar deficit. The bulk of that was
tax reductions, and in the anytime that comes up, it's
brought up like it was a malfeasance issue or it
was poor judgment on the part of the legislature. And

(02:34):
I will I will say that there were during that
times of surplus that there were certainly new programs that
were generated, and there was new spending that was generated.
A lot of that was COVID money. A lot of
that two billion was COVID money that had specific earmarks
to it and specific places that it needed to go
and so on. So so it's it's it's a little
bit you know, misleading to compare those those two numbers.

(02:56):
But as we came into this this calendar year, a
couple things that contributed to the deficit, again the tax reductions.
We had the income tax rollback from almost seven percent
we're heading down to three point ninety nine next year.
We had additional property tax relief. As of this last budget,
the state funds about one point two billion dollars in

(03:16):
property tax relief towards I think last year there was
five point three billion dollars in property tax collected across
the state. So the state now funds about twenty percent
of the property tax debt for property owners. So those
were two major contributors. And then the one big beautiful
bill passed and that resulted in some additional tax reductions,

(03:39):
some income tax reductions that roll from the federal level
down to the state level, and the estimate on that
was about a two hundred million dollar hit from that.
Lastly was some dramatic increases in Medicare, Medicaid expenses and
some of the health and human services expenses. So all
of that adds up the good news. As you said,
we passed a budget yesterday and that was was a

(04:01):
LB ten seventy one sounds right, Okay, We had eleven
hundred bill numbers running through my head.

Speaker 1 (04:07):
I don't remember, right, So the budget bill was passed, yes.
So we got that passed year on the third attempt, right, correct, Okay, Okay.

Speaker 2 (04:15):
The good news in that is that budget represents about
a quarter billion dollars in reduction in spending by the states.
So so in all the in all of the ringing
of hands and in the challenges that we that we
faced and all of the negative things that are said
about this. We cut government by two hundred and fifty
million dollars last year, and primarily through efficiencies. There were

(04:37):
no eliminations of services. You know, all of the statutory requirements,
all of the agency requirements are still being met. This
is through cash funds that were idle, and three efficiencies
that the agencies agreed that they could that they could implement.

Speaker 1 (04:54):
So that's what I was going to ask you when
you were first saying that is so, I think the
average listener like me would sit there and think, how
could you have had this much inefficiencies that you were
able to cut that much out of the budget and
at the same time not reduce any of your important
services that state government is expected to do, and then

(05:16):
go ahead and answer that, well.

Speaker 2 (05:18):
I mean, and you're closer to this than most people
that I can talk to on this topic. Dollars don't
necessarily correlate to the quantity or quality of services. Just
because you're spending more on meeting and need does not
mean that you're doing it better. Doesn't mean that you're
providing more of that service. So the Appropriations Committee really

(05:40):
did the heavy lifting on this. They challenged each and
every agency, each and every line item, and said, can
you do this same job for less money? And then
they looked at all the cash funds and they said, Okay,
you've got x amount of cash sitting in your department
and all of that. It's really odd because none of
that money is fungible. I it's if it's in one
department's budget, it can't be used for anything else. So

(06:02):
they challenged those agencies and said, what are you going
to use this money for? And if you don't have
a good use for it in the future, can you
still provide the same level of services for less money?
And that's that's how they arrived at the cash flowns
that they swept.

Speaker 1 (06:16):
So what were the major stumbling blocks? So why do
you think that this it took three attempts to get
this bill passed. I know there were some issues in
there about school vouchers to attend private schools. Talk a
little bit about what you think the main stumbling blocks
were and how you resolved though.

Speaker 2 (06:34):
So the two big issues were the gap funding and
that was for one year. It was a three point
five million dollar budget that was in and actually, the
governor's budget allowed seven million dollars for gap funding, and
that was to fill a one year hold in funding
for scholarships to kids or families that are one hundred
and eighty percent of the poverty level. So these were

(06:55):
kids that were getting scholarships before to attend the school
of their choice. The once the one Big Beautiful Bill
kicks in this next year, there is funding at the
federal level that will provide that funding, but there's a
gap year in between, and so the Appropriations Committee said
we're going to allow for three point five million dollars
for that. So that was a stumbling block to those
on the left. The stumbling block to many on the

(07:17):
right was an eleven million dollar appropriation for childcare and
that was that, again was a pre COVID rate for
providing childcare to working families. And and frankly, that one's
not a left right issue. Those of us that are
that consider our sales fiscal conservatives would much rather help

(07:39):
working families get to work, and that's what that money does.
So so anyway, so those were the two issues that
were the stumbling blocks, and the budget, the budget that
we ended up passing, had neither one of those issues
in them. The gap funding is not going to come back.
The childcare will come back. And I'm and I'm working
with Wendy to board's her bill LB three or four.
Winnie and I are working very closely to make sure

(07:59):
that we get plenty of votes to get that across
the line.

Speaker 1 (08:02):
I want to ask you a question. I don't really
want to put you on the spot, but I hear
that I'm going to anyway, no, because I have I
have a little comment about this too. I hear the
governor say, and I hear a lot of your colleagues say,
we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.
Do you agree with that statement? I mean, is that
is that? Is that where you think you are at

(08:23):
that we are just spending too much? Well, because it's
in my opinion, it's a little of both.

Speaker 2 (08:29):
Sure, because certainly it's certainly it's.

Speaker 3 (08:31):
Some of both.

Speaker 2 (08:32):
I mean, we intentionally cut our revenue, so I don't
say we have a revenue problem. We made a decision
to cut our revenue. And as a fiscal conservative, I'm
I'm you're gonna it's gonna take a lot for me
to apologize for giving people back their own tax money exactly.
So so if we can do more with less, if
we can work smarter and get the same the same
things done for less money, boy, we ought to be

(08:54):
doing it. And when I ran four years ago, we
had this huge surplus that you mentioned earlier, and people
would ask me, what's what's your number one priority when
you get down the link, and I said, my number
one priority is getting that state money back in your pockets.
And we accomplished that. So I think I think anytime
we don't think, whether you're a business, whether you're a government,

(09:15):
it doesn't matter what. Anytime you don't think you have
a spending problem, you're probably getting lazy, right, And you
better look at it pretty pretty closely now.

Speaker 1 (09:22):
For years and years, I think really Governor Heineman dug
in with this too when he was governor. But there
was the issue of the sales tax exemption. Sales tax
is a big source of revenue. Was that a big
discussion this year too, and looking at those exemptions, not
to remove all of them, but maybe even to reduce
some of those exemptions. Is that still a big discussion

(09:43):
in the legislature.

Speaker 2 (09:44):
There were some bills that would have accomplished that that
did not have traction. And the reason they didn't not
have traction is because that concept has failed three times.
It failed my first in twenty twenty three, it failed
in twenty four, and it failed in the special session
of twenty four. So to bring that back in twenty five,
and oh well it failed in twenty five too, So

(10:06):
it's been, it's been, it's been tried. It gets blocked
from those on the left that that their their argument
is that sales tax is regressive in that people who
make less money pay more of their ratio of their
income and sales taxes than people who make more money.
That's a that's an argument that goes back to the

(10:26):
beginning of time. Ernie Gost I've heard him say every
tax is regressive, so it just depends on how you
want to collect the money and what you want to
do with it. But no, that got no traction this year,
purely from a pragmatic standpoint in that we knew it
was going nowhere.

Speaker 1 (10:40):
I knew there were there's probably a ton of studies.
But does Nebraska have more sales tax exemptions? Are you
aware than than the average of other states?

Speaker 4 (10:49):
Yes?

Speaker 1 (10:49):
And they do.

Speaker 2 (10:50):
Yeah, Uh, so every every state's got to get money
from somewhere. South Dakota doesn't have an income tax, but
they sales tax everything, the sales tax services. So I mean,
you name it if it's not I mean, even if
it is nailed down or you can move, they sales
tax everything.

Speaker 1 (11:06):
I remember when I lived in Texas back in the
in the eighties. You know, they didn't have a state
income tax either, but they had about nine percent sales
tax back then. And of course they had oil too,
so that made a big difference. But yeah, you have
to get your revenue one way or another. And I
brought this up the other day on the air because
the City of Omaha's primary source of revenue is sales tax,

(11:28):
followed by property tax, followed by the restaurant tax. And
a lot of people when they look at their tax bill,
they just think that that governments are funded with just
property tax. The other thing I have to point out
is property tax levy is not set by you at
all in the state legislature. Property tax levee is local.
It's set by your school boards, it's set by your cities,

(11:49):
it's set by you know, in Omaha, it's the school
districts are about sixty two percent, the City of Omaha
twenty two. Douglas County is about twelve and a half percent.
And then there's all those other taxes entities like Metro
community College, Metro Transit, nrds, all of them have taxing
authority and they all set their own levees and so

(12:10):
you know, it doesn't all come from the state. A
lot of that is local. Now there, I have to
bring this up because there was an op ed the
other day in the World Herald that I did disagree
with because in this op ed it said, I'm trying
to educate people about how the leving authority is done,
and it said here's how it's done, and it's cities
were included, and that you create this great, big budget

(12:33):
and then you say, Okay, now, how much taxes do
I need to fund this budget. That's not how I
did the City of Omaha's budget for the last twelve years.
I would look at our estimated revenues coming in. I
would look at the sales tax, property tax, the restaurant tax.
We get an estimate, and then I would develop the
city's budget based on how much money I thought I
had with the goal always in mind to reduce the levee.

Speaker 2 (12:55):
Right, and I know the levey in City of Omaha
was reduced a number of times. Let me share some
really good news with you, some work that we did
in twenty twenty three and twenty twenty four. I'll be
thirty four. In the special session twenty twenty three, we
put some soft caps on schools as far as how
much their spending could increase. Twenty twenty four, in the
special session, we put caps on local taxing authorities. The

(13:18):
result of that, we just got a Property Assessment Division
annual report here about a week or two ago. It
showed that state wide valuations went up nine point five
to nine percent, but taxes levied only went up five
point three nine percent. And the goal of what we
did in those bills over the past couple of years
was to try and disconnect the windfall from the from

(13:39):
these high increases in valuations from passing directly through to
the taxing authorities. So there were entities, there were taxing authorities.
It said, hey, property values won up ten percent, We're
just going to increase our budget ten percent. And frankly,
the public didn't take notice for a long time until
those numbers got way out of hand. So what we did,

(13:59):
what we did at the state level was effectively disconnect
those two numbers.

Speaker 1 (14:04):
And that's important, I think for people to know, because
I would get a lot as mayor of Omaha, people saying, well,
my valuation of my property went up ten percent this year,
so you need to lower my taxes by ten percent.

Speaker 5 (14:16):
But it was so.

Speaker 1 (14:19):
It happened so haphazardly in Douglas County, and I would say,
but some people went up ten percent, some didn't go
up at all, and some actually went down. So then
you have to look at just the average. If we
would be more consistent with how Douglas County was valuing
the property, I think it would give a lot more
stability to people and not just get whacked like after

(14:40):
a ten year period and all of a sudden their
taxes went up this huge amount.

Speaker 2 (14:44):
And as you pointed out, the biggest piece of your
property tax goes to goes to the school. So you're
in a different school district, it's really tough to compare
with somebody Crosstown as in a different school district.

Speaker 1 (14:56):
And you know this this I'll go back to this
op ed to the other statement it made is if
we don't have enough money, then we go to the
state for state aid. Now to talk about real state aid,
the school districts get it, and it's so hard to understand.

Speaker 2 (15:11):
I think is like the quadratic equation.

Speaker 1 (15:14):
Yes, camera, it's so easy, but the city of Omaha
hasn't had state aid in decades unless you consider sales tax.

Speaker 2 (15:22):
There's the Municipal Equalization Fund, but Omah didn't get any
of that. That goes to mostly cities of the first class,
which are I'm throwing this out Grand Island, Carney, Lexington
is a big one, and there was actually one of
there was a budget line item to reduce that municipal
equalization fund this last year and I'm looking down at
the impact of that, and when I saw Lexington was

(15:43):
going to lose one point four million dollars, I said,
I don't think this is a good idea right now.
So absolutely, something that we did not did not advance.

Speaker 1 (15:51):
So you're pretty pleased where you are now that you
got Well.

Speaker 2 (15:54):
I'm pleased we passed a budget. I'm pleased that we
cut government by a quarter billion dollars. Amazing, and please
that in about two weeks we're going to be wrapped
up with the session because we're getting tired and grumpy
down there. So I can imagine we're bringing things to
a finish.

Speaker 1 (16:09):
Right, right, Let's talk about a couple of your other
bills if I could. I'm eleven sixty five and that's
kind of referred to as the up meaning Union Pacific
merger bill. Talk a little bit about that so people
understand what that bill is and what you're trying to
achieve with that bill.

Speaker 2 (16:26):
Sure, so eleven sixty five is my personal priority bill.
It actually does things for far more than Union Pacific.
But that is one of the primary benefits that comes
from that is that it has been broadly agreed upon
that that if we're able to do these things, Union
Pacific headquarters will stay in Nebraska. It's a couple of

(16:46):
really key points. It's a pay for performance. The state says,
if you employer do these things, six years later, we
will provide these benefits. We will provide these tax credit benefits. So,
and I'll just use the Union Pacific piece for my example.
They're required to hire five hundred new employees. They're required
to retain three thousand employees. Those new employees are required

(17:09):
to pay an average of one hundred thousand dollars salary.

Speaker 5 (17:12):
Too.

Speaker 2 (17:13):
They're required to provide a whole suite of benefits, including childcare, healthcare,
all of these kinds of things. So and then there's
there's a there's a broad expansion in the bill that
expands and this is all through the Imagine Act, which
is an incentive program that's used statewide. There's a broader
piece of that that says that childcare can be provided

(17:35):
by an employer and that credit can be directly passed
on to the employee. Used to be used to be
the only time an employer could do that is if
they had a facility on site. This has been expanded
to I think there were one hundred and twelve applicants
in the Imagined program that could now provide childcare tax
credits directly to their employees. There's an enhancement to the

(17:57):
Rural Manufacturing Tax Credit and the Urban Manufacturing Tax Credit.
So and then lastly, there's a there's a we're able
to work in a grant from the Building in Side
Development Fund, which is funded by doc stamp money. For
the City of Lexington. There were two two and a
half million dollar grants for them to do infrastructure, to

(18:17):
do design and infrastructure improvement for a site that's adjacent
to Tyson, to bring in to bring in a new employer.
So it does some really important stuff. It's super important
for the state of Nebraska that we retain literally one
of the absolute best corporate citizens that we could ever
have here, and then we can do some great things

(18:38):
for other employers also.

Speaker 1 (18:39):
Absolutely, and you know, I think it's it's worth saying,
is we have four fortune five hundred companies in Omaha
now we used to have five. The four we have
now our Union Pacific Key with Mutual of Omaha, and
Berkshire Hathaway. We lost ConAgra, And I know one of
the main senators that was a posed this bill was

(19:00):
quoted in the newspaper of saying that these companies make
their decisions whether they're going to relocate or not despite
economic incentives. I would not agree with that at all.
And she brings up ConAgra left despite Nebraska actively working
to keep the food company here in Omaha. I remember
that so distinctly. I was Mayor Pete rickets with Governor

(19:23):
they made their mind up with a new CEO president
CEO that they were going to move up to Chicago
their main headquarters before they ever talked to us, And
I know they gave both Governor Ricketts and I very
little time to spend with them. In fact, I remember
the day I was allowed to talk to the new
CEO and president and he gave me thirty minutes and

(19:45):
then he stood up and ushered me out of his office.
The decision had been made. So I think that that
decision was made because he lived up in Chicago. But
I think that if we offer these types of incentives,
this is not what we want to do. Is see
somebody like Union Pacific leave. You know, they think everybody
knows that they have a merger with the Atlanta based

(20:08):
Norfolk Southern Railroad, and there is always that fear that
are they going to move to Atlanta. We don't want
that to happen again. We want these fortune five hundred
companies that we have four left to stay here in Omaha.
So eleven sixty five Senator, is that passed or is it.

Speaker 2 (20:25):
It passed on general file? So we've got two more
rounds of debate. We've got select file and then final reading. Okay,
it passed overwhelmingly on general file I presume that the
select file debate will probably be similar, similar, similar resistance,
similar commentary from those that don't understand the concept of

(20:46):
return on investment. And that's really what it comes down to.
We're investing money. It comes back, literally, I've done the calculations.
It comes back twenty and thirtyfold back to us as
a state and as an economy.

Speaker 1 (20:57):
So great to have you here today, and you have
to have all of this wrapped up by when.

Speaker 2 (21:03):
Well we kind of the last day we do really
passing bills and anything. It will be the tenth, which
is I think a week from next Friday, and then
we come back on the seventeenth just for some formalities
the governor veto's anything we have to come back and override,
and so that that's kind of a weird formality day.

Speaker 1 (21:21):
But and this is considered a short session, right, yeah.

Speaker 2 (21:25):
Short only in that it's less than the long session.

Speaker 1 (21:27):
Well, I got to hand it to you, there's a
lot of work. But I appreciate everything you've done, and
I appreciate you being here and explaining this because it
is difficult to understand, like you said, with over a
thousand bills to try to keep track of things, but
the most important one I think is getting the state
budgets passed.

Speaker 2 (21:43):
I know, and that's one thing that we are constitutionally
required to do, and I'm glad we got that done.

Speaker 1 (21:47):
That and as chair Revenue Committee, you have your hands full, yes, ma'am,
thanks for being here. We really appreciate it. Senator von
Gilleran did a great job of trying to guide us
through what was going on down in Lincoln. Boy, what
a big job they had, those forty nine state legislature
legislators to get this state budget balanced in and it's

(22:08):
a lot of work down there. So I'm glad he
tried to lay it out and let us really understand
what was going on a little bit more than I
think we do. But there was what I wanted to
bring up first, Peyton is there was a public pulse
letter that came to the World Herald the other day,
that was yesterday actually, that I wanted to address. And

(22:28):
this writer says, I called Pete Rickett's office to let
him know, but I'm going to answer him, okay. And
what his letter said was the streetcar project shouldn't get
more funding. And then he said no federal, state or
city money should go towards the street car. This was
first Mayor Jean stoths and now Mayor John Ewing's puppy.

(22:51):
And why do you think Jean Stothert wasn't reelected. It
was because she didn't allow the public to vote on
the project, even though the vast majority of Omahn's were
against it. Now, I don't know whether he was doing
his own polling or what. And he also said and
they should have been manufactured in the United States. The
city spent unknown amounts of money tearing up the streetcar

(23:12):
reels back in the fifties sixties. Let people who came
up with this new plan figure out how to pay
for it. I called Pete Rickett's office and let him
know I don't want any money going to this project. So,
mister Ostergard, who wrote the article, I will answer you
right now, and that is there is no federal there
is no state, and there is no city money already

(23:35):
going into the streetcar. The streetcar is being paid for
by the tiff that is awarded to the developers along
the streetcar corrider. That's it. And you know is was
Geene Stothert not re elected because of the streetcar? I
think that was part of it. I think there was
quite a few other reasons why also, But I think

(23:55):
that the issue about where the streetcars were manufactured, he says.
Mister oster Guard says, they should have been manufactured in
the United States. We wanted the lowest bid and the
lowest cost for the street cars that we could get.
There is one manufacturer in the United States that makes streetcars,

(24:16):
and we got a much better bid from this company.
The name of them is calf Their headquarters is in Spain,
but they do have a manufacturing plant in the United States.
I said, these are the same cars that are being
used in Kansas City. Kansas City's cars were manufactured in
the United States by this Spanish company. We got such

(24:38):
a good bid on the company, the same company, and
they wanted to manufacture ours in Spain because then they
were able to give us a much lower bid and
a much lower cost. That's why we are using this
company out of Spain, and because they want to manufacture
them in Spain itself. We got a much better bid

(24:59):
on them. Now, at that time time when the city
council approve that, we didn't know about the tariffs. Now
the tariffs are out there now and it's still questionable
whether there will be a tariff on moving those cars
once they're done, and we ordered six to the United States,
but we didn't know that then. And this is what
happens with budgets. You know, you have to be able

(25:19):
to deal with the unexpected. Just like in your home.
If you have some unexpected expense, whether your roof caves
in or there's a hailstorm or whatever happens, then you
have to deal with it and you have to manage
the budget accordingly. So we will, the City of Omaha
will manage the budget accordingly. The only thing that they
said they ask from Senator Ricketts, is there anything that

(25:41):
the federal government can do about these tariffs? But mister
ostro guard, there is no state, city, or federal money
going into the street car.

Speaker 4 (25:52):
We have some callers on the line that will bring
some new things to this conversation. I just wanted to
ask you really quick though, why didn't we the people
get to vote on the street car?

Speaker 1 (26:01):
And that's that's such a good question because there wasn't
anything to vote on, and that is the reason why
if the taxpayers were going to be paying for the streetcar,
and there perhaps was a levee increase because of the streetcar,
then the voters would get to vote on it. But
like with the Arena Convention Center, the levee did go up.

(26:21):
The taxpayers are paying for it. It's the City of
Omaha's property, and there was a vote for it. There
was no vote for the Riverfront parks. Think about that
four hundred million dollars. There was no vote for the
new ballpark downtown right. There was no vote for the
Dodge Expressway. And your elected leaders are able to make decisions.
Every vote that needed to occur to move the streetcar

(26:44):
forward was made by the Omaha City Council, and so
I did push it through to the council, but they
voted on it and it was moving forward, so there
was no reason to take it for a vote. You
don't put something on a ballot and have people vote
for it just to get their opinion when it's already
moving forward.

Speaker 4 (27:03):
That makes a lot of sense. We got Kevin on
the phone line here. You're on news radio eleven ten
KFAB with Gene Stoutht.

Speaker 5 (27:11):
Thank you for taking my call. Jean. When you were
as mayor, who were some of the companies you enjoyed
working with when they were bringing a new business into
O mall or expanding a business.

Speaker 1 (27:25):
You know, I mean there's a lot. I could name
a lot. I would say, you know, the first and
foremost that come into my mind, of course, are for
Fortune five hundred companies, which are Berkshire, Hathaway, Keywit. Oh goodness,
I have to say Mutual Mutual of Omaha, Union, Pacific, Berkshire, Hathaway,
and Keywit. Those are our first or or four Fortune

(27:46):
five hundred companies. They're all great to work with, and
they're local. Construction wise, I mean, I will I hate
to say because I'm leaving some people out, but I
will say I loved working with Hawkins Construction. Chris Hawkins
is CEO. They did a lot of our road work.
They are good, they come in under budget, they low
bid a lot. I mean, they're very, very good to

(28:07):
work with. I liked working with. I'll give you another example,
Applied Underwriters. They're doing that huge development at one hundred
and forty fourth in Dodge Hartwood Preserve. That huge building
on the south side of Pacific, south of Millard North.
That's their headquarter building, which is supposed to be opening
this fall. I could just name a lot a Lantaha

(28:30):
is great, Lanaha development is great. There's a lot of
great companies in Omaha that I really enjoyed working with.
Their presidents and CEO were always available, and you know,
they wanted to do what's best for the city of Omaha,
and that's what I enjoyed the most. Now, I left
a whole bunch out. Of course, they're probably going to
be mad about that, but there were so many.

Speaker 4 (28:52):
So now, which companies did you absolutely hate working with?

Speaker 1 (28:54):
No, I'm just kidding. Don ask that question. I'm not
gonna say that. The ones who left. Maybe I'll say
that you know, and I will say, you know, Kellogg,
I'm going to bring them up. You know, Kellogg is
another big employer that is leaving oh Maha. Now, I
had a good relationship with with Kellogg in the past.
They had new leadership. The new leadership didn't communicate too

(29:18):
much with me. I mean, just to be to be truthful.
The way I found out Kellogg was leaving, and so
people will say, well, why didn't you work harder to
keep him here? The way I found out Kellogg was
leaving is they called the Mayor's Hotline. They called the
Mayor's hotline one morning and they said, deliver a message
to the mayor. We're leaving. Basically, that's it.

Speaker 4 (29:38):
That was it.

Speaker 1 (29:38):
That's how I found out. So it's not always that
the mayor or the governor is the reason why. You know,
we couldn't convince these companies, say like ConAgra, to stay here.
A lot of times that decision was already made. But
that's how I honestly found out about Kellogg leaving, and
I thought, you know, we had a good relationship with them.

Speaker 4 (29:58):
That's very interesting. Thank you for the call, Kevin. We're
going to get to one more call here before we
take a break. This is Adam. Adam, you're on the
KFAB comment line with Jane Stoutht.

Speaker 5 (30:09):
Good thanks for.

Speaker 3 (30:10):
Taking my call morning. My call was about valuation for
property taxes. I always wondered how the government could keep
increasing our property taxes even though we've never sold our property.
So there I always felt like value is what whatever
you sold it at. That what an arbitrary number. And

(30:34):
I think there's a case.

Speaker 6 (30:35):
I do.

Speaker 3 (30:35):
The think is back in the early twentieth century, kimber
of the lady's name is against standard oil or anyways,
the case is about they were trying to evaluate her
stock and says she owed money, and she's like, well,
I never sold that stock. So the Supreme Court with her.
And I always wondered why we could use that same
argument with our property evaluations.

Speaker 1 (30:59):
Good question. And you know, it's a Douglas County assessor,
not the city of Omaha, that values the property. And
I always have to remind people of that because they
will come to me and they will say as mayor
not anymore, but they will say, you know, my value
went up on my property. You've got to do something
about it. That's Douglas County assessor that values the property. Now,
I understand what you're saying. It seems odd when you

(31:21):
say you haven't sold your property, but what they look
at is the whole area you live in, and they
look at other properties that are comparable to yours that
have sold, and that's how they get that number. So
if you are in an area that a lot of
houses have sold, and they have sold and they're comparable
to yours and they have sold for a real high price,

(31:43):
then the Douglas County comes out and the assessor will
revalue all that property and say the property and this
area is worth more.

Speaker 5 (31:51):
Now.

Speaker 1 (31:51):
I know, when your valuation goes up, your property taxes
will go up because the levy that the city sets
for the city of Omaha will be based on that
new valuation. And people will say, I don't want my
valuation going up, but because they don't want to pay
more taxes. But the thing of it is you don't
want the value of your property going down either, and

(32:15):
that's when cities get into problems when their value goes down.
And keep this in mind too, I always, I mean
the bright side of it, if there is a bright
side to paying more taxes. But when you go to
sell your house now, it will be worth a lot
more money. Some houses are selling twice as much is
what people bought them for originally, So I mean that's

(32:37):
important to keep in mind too. But that's the reason
why your value might be going up. It's because of
the comparable homes in your area that have been sold,
and that's what they used to base it on. There
was some discussion the other day with Scott Vorheeves about
this rare verdict with Meta and with YouTube, where a

(32:58):
twenty year old the plaintiff twenty year old was received
a like I said, a rare settlement of six million
dollars that blamed Meta and YouTube for her depression and
anxiety because she used and was addicted to social media
as a child. And even though Meta and YouTube are

(33:18):
worth literally trillions of dollars, a six million dollars settlement
probably wouldn't be that damaging to them.

Speaker 3 (33:26):
It.

Speaker 1 (33:27):
I think it's really worth a lot of conversation because
it's not just young kids that are addicted, I think,
to social media. I have to tell a story that
happened to me just the other day. My husband and
I went out to Village Point and saw a movie,
and then we walked across the parking lot to Firebirds.
Firebirds is huge, and I was on my phone for

(33:47):
a few seconds answering an email, and then I looked up,
and I bet you ninety five percent of the people
in that restaurant were just staring at their cell phones,
and they were mostly adults. I think it happens, and
I find myself going to face or my cell phone
a lot, because I would look at my emails, even
as mayor a lot of times on my cell phone.
But the one thing that I think that the younger

(34:09):
folks that are on cell phones a lot need to
also remember it is addictive to some of them, but
also the dangers of them are once you put something
out there on Facebook or on social media, it is
there forever and you can't take it back. And there
was an issue well I was in twenty sixteen, I

(34:32):
remember it so well. But the superintendent of Ralston Public Schools,
Mark Adler at the time, and this was very very
very public at the time, so I know he wouldn't
mind me saying anything about this, But he had a
fifteen year old son that was cyberbullied for a year.
He did something inappropriate with social media. He sent a

(34:53):
picture of himself that was a bit inappropriate to a
younger girl and she pretty much blackmailed him for a
good year and he ended up killing himself, dying by
suicide because of this, this cyber bullying. And she eventually
let this picture out and he could not take it anymore.
And that's the thing. For a year he was cyberbullied,

(35:16):
but it was a picture. It was a mistake. He
did not at the time, didn't even think about it.
But that picture's out there forever now and I think
that's one thing we have to keep in mind too,
once you say it, you can't take it back.

Speaker 4 (35:28):
It's really a tragic story. I was in seventh grade
when this happened, and we had a significant amount of
intervention at the school. We had a couple different speakers
come in give their testimony, and we really dived deep
into online literacy, you know, being able to function online

(35:50):
and participate in social media and understand that they are
very real consequences. And you know, I grew up as
social media kind of developed and technology in general is
really dangerous and it's definitely a sense of dependency for
a lot of kids.

Speaker 1 (36:10):
It definitely is. And you know, I think I'm an adult,
Neil I had honestly had I had hate mail for
twelve years every day as mayor, and I think, you know,
I can take it. I mean, I just you know,
I'm an adult, and I think, okay, I'm the mayor.
You know, let me let me hear what you have
to say, whether it's positive or negative. But when you're

(36:31):
talking about a fifteen year old, a twelve year old,
a child, I mean, this can be really an issue,
and we are seeing the repercussions of that. The adlers.
I recall and you probably do too. They started a
movement called be Kind, and so many people had bumper
stickers about just be kind, and that was their message.
It wasn't to to really be rate anybody or or

(36:54):
scold anybody, but it was like, look, everybody, if we
just treat each other with kindness, then then I think
we would all be a lot better. So I hope
Mark Edler and his wife Joni are doing well these days,
but this is something I'm sure they will never forget,
and I'm sure they still one hundred percent agree with me.
There's so many dangers with social media.

Speaker 4 (37:12):
Just to wrap up the show, here, we're going to
go to a talk back. You're not going to have
too long to respond, but here we go.

Speaker 6 (37:18):
Good morning, love your new show. Mayor Jean, I wanted
to come up over the top about the street car
tip money is paid for, it's paid back by property taxes,
so yes, there is tax payer money going into it.
So I think if you would take a poll today,
it would never pass, and I don't think it would
have passed beforehand, so I would say, there's nothing we

(37:42):
can do about it now, but a vote would have
been nice. Have a good morning.

Speaker 4 (37:46):
That's a a talkback from David.

Speaker 1 (37:47):
Thanks for But like I said, there was really nothing
to vote on, because you don't put something on a
ballot that has already been approved by the city council
just to get people's opinion. I remember when I was
running for a mayor, there was a candidate in the primary,
Mike McDonald, that based his whole campaign, even on his
even on his yard sign stop the streetcar. And that

(38:08):
was just disingenuous because he couldn't stop the streetcar. But
people kind of like it. He could not stop the streetcar.
But I will say this, the tiff is awarded to
a developer and it is based on the increased value
of that property, and it would not happen unless that

(38:28):
developer developed the property. It's it's it's abiding by the
state law that said this would not happen. But for
the tiff, the developer continues to pay is paying property taxes,
and he will continue to pay increase property taxes for
the increased value of the development. And then part of that,

(38:52):
just part of that that he is paying the city
will return to him to help pay for the development.
So this is what is following state law to the
tee to do. So it is the developer, though, that
is paying those taxes, not you, not me, not the
average taxpayer. Your tax bill is not going to go

(39:14):
up because of the streetcar. And that's why. And I
understand what you're saying, because TIFF is really hard to understand.
But the developer is paying those increased taxes, and part
of those increased taxes goes back to the developer. It
wouldn't have happened without that development being there. So that's
how TIFF works.

Speaker 4 (39:33):
It's a wonderful friday here you tackling anything tonight, Jean,
or this weekend that you're looking forward to do.

Speaker 1 (39:39):
You know last week I was really really busy, I said.
We went to the Tanasca Center for Arts Engagement. I
had an event to go to. I went and saw
Bob Dylan. But after being mayor for twelve years, to
have an event almost every single night, you know, this
is my best kind of weekend. I don't have anything
to do.

Speaker 5 (39:55):
Love it.

Speaker 1 (39:56):
I love it too. I love it. That's very good.

Speaker 4 (39:58):
This is the kfabe comment line and your host of
the show jeans to author. My name is Peyton Highlock,
producer of the show. We will see you guys on Monday.

Speaker 1 (40:06):
Thanks for listening and thanks for being with us today.

Speaker 4 (40:09):
Have a good weekend.