All right, meeting called to order. Time
is now 7 o'clock. We'll start with the
pledge of allegiance.
I pledge algiance to the flag of the
United States of America to the republic
for which it stands. One nation under
God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all.
The open meeting act is available on the
public inspection on the table in the
front of the room and a copy of the
complete agenda and backup is available
on the table in the center of the room.
We'll go to roll call.
Eight members are present. Mayor,
>> thank you.
Motion to adopt the current agenda for
August 11th, 2026 regular city council
meeting.
» Councilman Vaughn.
>> So moved.
>> Councilman Jensen
>> and seconded.
» That motion carries 8 to zero.
Okay,
we got some appointments tonight. Item
number two, motion to consent. Mayor's a
reappointment to the creative council.
Um, everybody's got a year
term. Uh, it'll be Lindy Gen Genoix,
Molly Payeyton, Laney Pquet, Katon
Krakamire, Brenda Wilbering, Jennifer
Dam, Lee Meyer, and Monica Ebie.
There any questions or anything from
council? If not, I'll take a motion.
» Councilman her. Uh,
>> yes. I'll make a motion to um um approve
the um mayor's reappoints to the
creative council.
>> Councilman or Councilwoman Gana.
>> I second.
» That motion carries 8 to zero. Mayor
Thank you. Item number three, motion to
confirm appointment of Garrett Jensen to
the police sergeants per mayor's
recommendation.
Uh the civil service commission provided
a qualified candidates for us. There
were three of them and came down to car
to Garrett Jensen.
Staff
>> Jennifer, deputy chief of police. Thank
you again for the opportunity to be here
and speak to you tonight about the
promotion or potential promotion of here
at Jensen. The promotional process can
be lengthy and stressful for every
officer involved. Yet, it consistently
highlights the strength and dedication
with within our department. This most
recent process produced an outstanding
list of officers who are ready and
willing to help lead the city of Fremont
and our department into the future.
Currently, at the top of that list is
Officer Jensen. As you consider
promoting him, we'd like to take a
moment to help you get to know him a
little better. Officer Jensen joined the
Fremont Police Department in October of
2019. As an officer in the patrol
division, he worked night shift
throughout his career. In 2022, Officer
Jensen joined the emergency response
unit and is now a team sniper for the
unit. In 2024, he became a field
training officer. He recently completed
an instructor level course in police
response to active shooter uh to assist
the department in training officers in
tactics and proper response to these
situations. Officer Jensen graduated
from Lions Dear Northeast High School in
2007 and in 2012 he earned his
bachelor's degree in business
administration from UNL. During his
service at the Fremont Police
Department, Officer Jensen has earned
multiple recognitions for outstanding
performance. One such commendation
stemmed from an attempted robbery in
which employees had been locked inside a
freezer. Demonstrating bravery, Officer
Jensen and Sergeant and his sergeant
entered the restaurant through the
drive-through window. I'm sorry,
conducted a search for suspects and
safely freed the employees. Officer
Jensen is most proud of his service on
the ERU and being appointed as the team
sniper. He is also proud of becoming a
response active shooter instructor and
field training officer. Joining Officer
Jensen today for the pinning ceremony
are his wife Taylor and his son Maddox.
Questions from council.
» Okay. Thank you.
I'll take a motion.
» Councilman Jensen.
>> I'll make the motion to confirm him. And
I will just state for the record that
offer Jensen and myself are not related
in any way.
>> Councilman Horner,
>> I'll second.
» That motion carries eight to zero.
Mayor.
>> All right. Thank you.
that you have voted. Uh joining officer
Jensen today for the pinning ceremony
are his wife Taylor and his son Maddox.
His parents Stephen and Lori and his
father and mother-in-law Richard and
Denise are also present. Pinning his
badge will be his wife Taylor.
Okay, on to public hearings. Item number
four, resolution 2026-199,
making a recommendation for a class D
liquor license application of Casey's
Retail Company, DBA Casey's number 4670
located at 730 Boulevard. Staff,
>> thank you, Mayor. Michael Chhaterson,
city clerk. Uh this is a new uh liquor
license application for the Casey's that
is going in uh there off Morningside
Road off the uh 275 bypass. Um this will
be for a class D liquor license. Uh
council can
effectively do one of three things. They
can make a recommendation of approval,
no recommendation, or make a
recommendation to deny to the liquor
control commission. Um at which point
the control the liquor control
commission will do whatever council kind
of effectuates from that regard. Um, so
I can take any questions, from council.
Okay, seeing none, I'll go to uh open
the public hearing.
» Seeing none, I'll close the public
hearing. Come down to council for a
motion or any discussion.
Councilman Vaughn,
>> I've received assurances that they will
have the pizza that I love. So, I will
make that recommendation approved.
Councilman her
>> and I'll second that with the pizza
especially.
» That motion carries 8 to zero. Mayor.
>> Okay. Thank you. On the consent agenda,
all items on the consent agenda are
considered to be routine by the city
council and will be acted by enacted by
one motion. There will be no separate
discussion of these items less a C
council member or staff so request in
which the item will be removed from the
consent agenda and considered
separately.
>> Anything on consent to be removed?
Counciloman Le.
>> I'd like to remove number 17, please
» number seven.
Can we remove item 11, please, mayor?
» Anybody else?
If not, I'll take a motion uh pass the
consent agenda minus items 7, 11,
and 17.
>> Councilman her.
>> I'll make the motion to approve the
consent agenda minus 7, items 7, 11, and
17.
>> Councilman Jensen, and I'll second.
That motion carries 8 to zero, mayor.
>> Okay, thank you.
Item seven, motion to receive the report of the treasury,
» honorable council,
honorable mayor, Jennifer Nab, finance
director. Um, we have for you the report
of the treasury. This is the report that
shows the change in our balances for all
of our different accounts and
investments. And I am available for any
questions you may have.
>> Questions from councel.
» It's such an important item that it's
good to hear a summary if you would give
a summary for that. And I know we've
read the report. It's just good to have
it public as well. Thank you. Any
other questions from council?
» I'll take comments from the public.
Seeing none, I'll close the public
comment and go back to council for a
motion or any other discussion.
Councilwoman
Gan
>> I move we [clears throat] excuse me I
make a motion to receive the treasury
report
>> second
that motion carries 8 to zero mayor
Okay. Item number 11, resolution
2026-197,
authorizing the renewal of all existing
class C liquor license through October
31st, 2027.
>> Yeah.
>> Thank you, Mayor Michael Chatterson,
city clerk. This is the resolution to
approve all existing uh liquor license
class C's. Um, the reason I wanted to
discuss further was we I was uh I I was
aware that we made a mistake on one of
the addresses for Renita's. We still
have them listed at 343 North Main.
They've since moved in the last few
weeks. Um, so we'll need to amend that.
So, if I could get a motion to amend
that um address on our resolution, we'll
get that. We should be good to go
otherwise.
>> Okay.
Question or council? Uh, Councilman
Jensen,
>> I'll I'll make the motion to amend as as
needed.
>> Councilman Hero,
>> I'll second the motion to amend.
» That motion carries 8 to zero. Mayor,
» uh, any comments from
the public.
Seeing none, I'll close it. I'll take a
motion as amended.
» Councilman Vaughn,
>> make motion to approve as amended.
>> Councilman Marsh.
>> Second.
That motion carries 8 to zero.
Okay, thank you.
>> Item 17, resolution 2026-204,
awarding the funding for downtown
project for downtown revital
revitalization community development
block grant at 311 North Main Street in
the amount of 22,938.75.
Good evening, honorable mayor, city
council, Angie Olsen, grant coordinator.
We've received an application for the
downtown facade improvements program
from the address of 311 North Main
Street that's owned by Todd Hoppy and
Trisha Dorfmeer who are in attendance
with us tonight. Uh their project
estimate is just over $30,000. There is
a 25% match requirement for this
program. So that brings their request to
right around um $23,000.
Their project is um for the front of 311
Maine. Originally, they wanted to have a
recessed interior which would take it
back to um the uh historical look of the
building. However, that was very
complicated process. And um their your
packet includes a letter from an
engineer stating um that will be a a a
difficult task and they did reach out to
multiple contracts contractors who were
not willing to take that on. However, um
they are going to restore the front um
as is kind of flat uh to Main Street and
I'm here to answer any questions you
might have.
Uh, Councilwoman Lethra,
>> I don't have any questions, but I I just
wanted to say that it's wonderful that
they're taking advantage of this great
opportunity. Um, restoring the downtown.
They are doing a fabulous job on that
building down there and I want to thank
them for that. Um, I also would like to
say that there are additional funds
available in this program and maybe
Angie could expand on that just a little
bit.
>> Yeah, sure. So, we um have about
$200,000 left in this program. As uh you
might remember, we did extend it um
originally was set to expire in May of
2026. So, we've extended it to May of
2027. And um we are having some internal
discussions of if um we don't have
applicants come forward what we might
use those funds for. Uh we would need to
work with the state and make sure that
um our projects are uh eligible and
within um their standards. Uh but it
might look like some street sidewalk
improvements, ADA accessibility,
something like that in the downtown
area. But if there are any applicants
interested, um it's a great time to
apply. Um the applicants tonight
actually also received funding for 307
North Main Street and um they've been
working hard on that one as well.
>> Thank you.
>> Any other questions from council?
Okay.
>> Uh comments from the public?
Seeing none, I'll close that and come
back for Oh, come on up.
Todd, 1225 County Road Y. Um, no real
comments. I handed out two packets of uh
pictures. Uh, I wanted to let you see
when I bought it is on the front and if
you go through you see the stages on the
front windows on the top story they're
in and the bottom is boarded up and
tomorrow they're measuring to put the
first ones in at 309. Once we get that
then we'll move our boards to the north
and do the 311 you guys are doing
tonight. I also included the backside
which your grant didn't have, but you
can see what ugly we had. We've removed
all that. Uh it's coming along great.
We'll have uh six apartments rented out
by the end of the year. Um
couldn't go any better. This grant
helped us a lot. Otherwise, we're doing
it out of our front pocket. It's a lot
easier when we have funds allotted to us
then uh we pay it off because the banks
are a lot easier to look at a finished
product instead of
putting money behind us. Will the
project get done? So, thank you for what
you guys are doing. That's all I got.
>> Thank you.
>> We need a motion to receive
information. Councilman her
>> I'll make a motion to receive.
I want to lay through a second.
That motion carries 8 to zero. Mayor
Councilman
Jensen, you have something?
>> Yes. If there's no further discussion,
then make the motion to approve the
resolution.
>> I still got to go to public.
» All right. I'll take any comments from
the public.
>> Seeing none, I'll come back to council
for a motion.
Councilman Jensen,
>> I'll make the motion to approve
resolution 2026-204.
Councilman
>> Vaughn, I will second.
That motion carries 8 to zero, mayor.
[clears throat] Okay, thank you. On to
new business, item 18, ordinance 57 to
53 for approval of utilities salary
ordinance. First reading.
Good evening, mayor and city council.
Jennifer McDuffy, director of human
resources. Um we are getting looking at
starting the new fiscal year. So that
means when we have to take a look at
wages um this is the proposed salary
ordinance for the utility side of the
organization. Um it would take effect
the pay period that includes October 1st
and has a 2 and a half% increase across
the board which matches the IBW
collective bargaining agreement was
approved. That was last year.
» Any questions from council?
» Councilman Jensen. This is by contract.
Is that not correct? I mean, we've got
to match this up. This is this is funds
that were already been been uh allocated
and and this is our path forward.
Correct.
>> So, it's it's two and a half% for
everyone. That includes those that are
in the in the bargaining unit and those
that are not the bargaining
Um the bargaining unit has been
contracted. The non-bargaining unit
funds were budgeted with the budget. So
we did include that
budget.
Any other questions from council?
Okay. I'll take public comment.
Seeing none, I'll come back to council
for a motion or any other discussion.
Councilman Horner.
>> If there's no further discussion, I
would make the motion that we approve
the first reading for ordinance 5753.
>> Councilwoman Le and I'll second.
» That motion carries 8 to zero.
Ordinance number 5753, an ordinance of
the city of Fremont, Nebraska,
pertaining to pay plan for officers and
employees, repealing ordinance number
5740 and all other ordinances and parts
of ordinances in conflict with providing
for publication plan form providing for
an effect and providing for an effective
date first reading.
Councilman Horner.
>> Um, if there's no reason for us not to
do this and since it's a contractual
matter and we've already decided that, I
would like to make the motion that we
suspend the rules and move this to third
and final reading.
>> Councilman uh gentleman
>> and I second that.
» That motion carries 8 to zero. Mayor
Ordinance number 5753, an ordinance of
the city of Fremont, Nebraska pertaining
to pay plan for officers and employees
appealing ordinance number 5740 and all
other ordinances parts of ordinance is
in conflict here with providing for
publication plan performance providing
for an effect. Final reading
cast final vote.
[clears throat]
>> That motion carries 8 to zero. Mayor,
ordinance number 5753 is approved.
>> Thank you.
Item 19, ordinance 5754 for approval of
government salary ordinance. First
reading.
» Jennifer McDuffy, director of human
resources. Um, this is the salary for
the city side of the house. Um, again,
two and a half%. This covers the
non-bargaining unit and what was
contractually agreed upon in the FOPF.
asked me collective bargaining
agreements last year. Same effective
date.
» Any questions from council?
» Any comments from the public?
>> I'll come back to council for a motion.
Councilman vaugh.
>> Motion to approve.
Councilman
>> her. I'll second.
That motion carries 8 to zero. Mayor,
ordinance number 5754, an ordinance of
the city of Fremont, Nebraska,
pertaining to pay plan for officers and
employees repealing ordinance number
5725 and all of their ordinances or
parts of ordinances conflict here with
writing for publication and performed
writing for an effective date first
reading.
Uh, Councilman Vaughn,
>> any reason not to move this third and
final as well?
>> Not to my knowledge.
>> I'll make that motion.
>> Councilman Johnson,
>> and I will second.
» The motion carries 8 to zero. Mayor
Ordinance number 5754 and ordinance of
the city of Fremont, Nebraska pertaining
to pay plan for officers and employees
appealing ordinance number 5725 and all
other ordinances and parts of ordinances
in conflict with providing for
publication form providing for an effect
to date final reading.
Cash final vote.
» That motion carries 8 to zero. Mayor
ordinance number 5754 is approved.
Thank you.
Uh item 20, ordinance 575, revising FMC
2-103 and eliminating an open public
comment period to comply with the
openness meeting act. First reading.
Yeah.
>> Thank you, mayor, members of city
council. Travis Jott, city attorney. Um
this was brought up following our last
meeting. There was a complaint filed by
a citizen alleging that our open
meetings act as it is currently set up
violates the open meetings act. Um
we took a look at it and we've been
advising now that having a comment
period where items are not noticed on
the agenda could be a violation of open.
So really when you look at the analysis
um there are three steps. We got to
determine whether a meeting has taken
place and when there's a more than a
quorum of the council present and we're
discussing city business being briefed
on anything taking city action that
would constitute a meeting. So I think
there's no doubt that having the council
here listening to comment would
constitute a meeting. The second thing
we want to look at is whether there was
advanced publicized notice of that
meeting. And we currently let the public
know that we are having a public comment
period at 6:30. Um but we don't let them
know what is going to be discussed. And
that's really the third element is we
have to have advanced publicized notice
of the topics for discussion. Um and
that would be a description on an
agenda. Um this issue has come up in the
past with Fremont. Um there's been some
previous attorney general disposition
letters that has discussed this issue
following complaints that were filed by
citizens on various issues. Um, there
was one disposition letter in particular
that dealt with our utility and
infrastructure board where the attorney
general, assistant attorney general that
worked on that complaint said that it
was not a violation to have the when the
public comments on items not on the
agenda.
That to me does not protect the city
completely from any potential liability
for a violation under the act.
A disposition letter handles a
complaint. There's still an attorney
general opinion that could also be
provided, which we haven't sought for
this issue. Typically, that would be
provided when there's multiple
municipalities and public bodies that
face the same issue. The attorney
general will come out with a with an
opinion on that. And none of the
previous dispositions have discussed the
particular issue of advanced publicized
notice of public comments from the
public. So this is really the start of
what I would like to do is discuss
different methods of permitting public
comment that would comply with the act
as it's written right now. We believe it
violates the open meetings act. I know
when you go down to talk to members of
the league municipal municipalities they
would agree. Um
so we've come up with this first step is
to eliminate it as it stands right now.
The second step would be to come up with
a new format. And what I've proposed in
the past is members of the public are
permitted to add items to the agenda for
anything that they would want to
discuss. And that would actually, I
think, benefit the council and members
of the public in multiple ways. One is
the council would be able to engage in a
discussion with that member of the
public on whatever that topic is because
it has been properly noticed. and number
two, the other members of the public
would know what is going to be briefed
or discussed in front of the council.
So, we think that would be a much better
approach. We think that would comply
with the open meetings act there. The
current public comment period that isn't
properly noticed where uh with the
description of what's going to be
discussed, there's no action taken right
now. So, it would be difficult for any
claimant to try to undo an action that
was done, but we still want to make sure
we're complying with the act. And I
think allowing members of the public to
submit items ahead of time would uh
still fulfill the spirit of allowing the
public to speak.
>> With that, I'm here to answer any
questions. I know there's a lot of
interested people here to speak on this.
>> Councilman Councilman her.
>> Uh, thank you, Mayor. Um, Travis, I know
you and I have talked about this a
little bit and I really appreciate you
bringing it forward. I honestly do. Um,
I think it's time we have had these
discussions and I think it's time we do
move this to the public arena so that we
can we can hash it out and and hopefully
get it right. Um, I I agree with you
that I from from what I've been able to
the short time I've had this and been
able to consider it, I agree with you
that we are under the present format. I
think we are probably in violation
because of the way we do it. Um, I have
found about five other communities that
seem to be doing
what we were doing with one caveat. I'll
get to that in a second, but Lincoln has
a um they call it something
different, but they have a basically a
public comment period. Um, so does L
Vista, so does Pilion.
um Arie, Norfolk,
and those were just the five that I
found real quick. Um you know, doing my keyboard warrior routine. Um
but anyways, you know, the one striking
difference in what they're doing versus
what we're not is that theirs are an
official part of the agenda
>> as public comments and theirs um um
comes after the meeting's been called to
order. um hours. That's the one striking
difference is that it's before we call
the meeting to order. And you know, as
if it's not part of the meeting,
although it it it it actually is part of
the meeting. It's just before we call
the meeting to order. Um and and I think
that's a bit of a technicality um that
we can fix. I would rather do that than
I would see to strike and kill this. I
think it's just too important um to the
citizens of Fremont to um have the Now, the one thing I do want to make
clear too is that this is not killing
access. If we were to do this, if for
some reason, guys, we were to do this.
doesn't kill access.
You can go out on our website and you
can find eight phone numbers to call
these people right here. You can find
the mayor's phone number. You can find
Jod's. You can find Travis yours. You
can find everybody's phone number.
There's access all over the place. Okay.
The difference though in this, and this
is where I think it's key, the
difference is it's face toface. You can
come and you can orally present your
case and sometimes people just feel they
need to do that. And I think we need to
continue to provide that outlet. We have
to comply. So, we've got to figure that
piece out. So, I'm gonna I do have some
thoughts on that, but I'm going to stop
because I know there's a lot of other
people talking.
Councilwoman,
» okay, I get to talk second. That's
great. Uh, we need to be finding ways
for our bosses, which are our taxpayers,
which are you, the opportunity to share
their thoughts with us. And so, it's
important that we find opportunities as
our councilman her projected and I had
found the same thing. I did go out and
check and yes, Lincoln is at the very
end public comment. Anyone wishing to
address the council on items that are on
the agenda or not on the agenda and may
not appear on future agendas can do an
open mic session is what they call it,
but at least they're allowed total of
five minutes. So there's a time frame
again. And so for the month of August,
they it was August 10th and August 31st
this year. I also found a couple others.
You probably found the same two. Nor
has it. And again, it was uh August 3rd
meeting of Norfork City Council. Item
number five says public comment period.
So on August 4th, Gretna City Council
meeting, item number three is public
comment.
And Councilman her pointed out the main
difference it's on their agenda. It's
not a it's not before our official
meeting. So when we have all of us
together that's constitutes a meeting
and we are not abiding by that. I think
we need to I do believe we need to abide
by it. But before we do, we need to find
ways and opportunities to have public
have their their thoughts and speech
heard by all of us. So, we need to
continue finding ways to have public comment.
» Okay.
Councilman Jensen,
>> um I agree with most of what's been
said. So far, I guess I'll say I'm the
only one sitting here on council was
actually on this council when this when
this ordinance was brought forward. And
uh I'll be honest, I've been a little
disappointed in what it's evolved into.
I I think we can do it better. I think
we need to do something, but we need to
do better than what we're doing right
now.
>> Councilman von Baron. Yeah, this is I
know we've all invested a lot of time in
this one because it's a this this one
has a long tail. It probably actually
goes back to somewhere around 2008.
That's [snorts] there's a lot of history
behind that. But I think what's
sensitive here is there have been
multiple attempts to eliminate public
comment. And I think what's even been
more frustrating, there have been
multiple requests, multiple suggestions
as to how to improve public comment. And
I think we as a city have to admit that
we have done nothing to improve the
process. We've done nothing to provide a
response. We've let people come and sit
and feel like they've been ignored and
then we've made attempts to get rid of
this process. I think we need to be
sensitive to the fact that that has
presented a very bad image of what we
are and what we're trying to accomplish.
Two years ago, Travis, I brought your
suggestion to the council that we let
the public put items on the agenda. I
think that was a 7 to1 vote. That didn't
see the light of day. I could not
understand why the public couldn't bring
forth an item, but we brought we brought
that almost that exact motion and it got
voted down soundly. So, I think one of
the lessons here, and I'm glad this is
coming up again, but this is not a new
issue, and at some point, if we're going
to look at abolishing this, we better
come up with something that's
acceptable, that's at least as good,
where the public is not restricted as
proposed right now. One of the
consequences, if we're not careful, all
they're going to comment on is what we
want to talk about, what's on the
agenda. And we need to be very cons care
careful of that. And I I don't I
understand our intent and this precedes
any of us here, but I also understand
the skepticism. So, thank you,
>> Councilman Marsh.
>> You pretty much stole the words right
out of my mouth for everything you said
there. And I guess I would like to
anytime you read something that says
taking away someone's voice, if they
have never been to one of those public
comments sections, it's it's very
awkward. Someone else mentioned that is
um maybe get here late or didn't realize
that that we cannot respond and they
come up and and plead their case and we
sit there and nod our head and make our
notes and they walk away and they have
no idea if we even agree or or we're
accepting what they're saying and
there's no worse feeling than not being
heard and uh so we certainly need to
look at this that's for sure.
Um, so I've spoken with all of the
members of the council and um,
generally we all agree that we don't
want to take anyone's voice away. It's
just a different format that we are
having to present it, give you the
opportunity to speak. So it's not taking
it away. Um there's been stuff all over
social media saying that we wanted to
quiet the constituents. That is so not
true. Um we want to hear from people. Um
we do however want it done in a way that
the staff, the council are not being
attacked. Um there's there's just really
no room for that. I think people can
make their point without attacking
anybody up here or anybody on the staff.
So I think we all need to be, you know,
conscious of that.
Marin, did you have Okay.
Anybody else?
I'll take public comment.
I got five for this.
» All right, Scott Preston, 1717 East 12th
Street. I'm going to go just a hair off
my script because I do have the five
minutes. First of all, um about the the
comment regarding uh city employees and attacking. I agree with you. City of
Lexington solves that by saying in the agenda that public comment is
allowed but uh you may not attack any
city employee. They cover that. They do
it in that way. So it can be done on the
regular agenda. Now so the staff report
was clear in its reasoning for ordinance
5755 to directly quote the council. Uh
we would need advanced publicized notice
of the topics to be discussed as
required by 84-1411E.
This does not happen under the format
described in FM FMC2-103
and the same should be eliminated to
comply with Nebraska law. Now, he
referenced and I have right here with me
and sent to your emails today a scan
copy of a letter that the attorney
general and assistant attorney general
wrote to Susan Jacobus on November 19th,
2018. At that time, M. Jacobus was
concerned that a member of the public
was permitted to comment during a
utility and infrastructure board meeting
on a topic without that item or public
comment being on the agenda. And the
response that uh that that he gave was was lengthy and there were several
other issues involved. But the key point
uh has very very clear language. It says
we understand that the board allows
public comment at each of its meetings.
Its agendas should so reflect. We would
instruct the board to add an agenda item
to its meetings for public comment to
properly alert members of the public
that they will be permitted to address
the board at its meetings. The board,
however, may allow members of the public
to address it on any topic and is not
required to limit public comment only to
items found on the agenda, provided that
the public comment period itself is on
the agenda. I want to repeat that last
line. It's very clear. The board,
however, may allow members of the public
to address it on any topic and is not
required to limit public comment only to
items found on the agenda, provided that
the public comment period itself is not
or is on the agenda. And when it comes
to the staff report, it seems to be
heavily leaning on this excerpt from
84-1411E.
quote, "Agenda items shall be
sufficiently descriptive to give the
public reasonable notice of the matters
to be considered at the meeting." And I
want you to know that that particular
passage was added to the Open Meetings
Act in 2006, 12 years prior to the
Attorney General's letter. The AG's
office would have been well aware of
that change and didn't view it as an
impediment to open public comment
properly put on the agenda. I'd like to
add that I'd like to thank you for
mentioning Lincoln uh in in this
discussion because I reached out to the
Lincoln City Attorney's Office and I did
hear from Chris Connelly, the assistant
city attorney. I asked if they had any
concerns about the legality of having
open public comment and and I did get
here was his quote. He said that he was
not aware of any complaints to our
office or concerns from anyone that our
open public comment sessions are
illegal. And also I'd note that the
views of Adams and Sullivan here are not
shared by all Nebraska attorneys. The
Nebraska law firm Rimol Luki wrote in
2024 that to comply with the open
meetings act as amended, public bodies
should include an open mic public
comment period at every public meeting.
Now, I don't necessarily agree with that
interpretation 100%. But you guys should
know that there are other
interpretations of this statute out
there. And now, usually I come before
you to complain. But tonight, I think
there's a relatively simple solution. We
need to bring public comment onto the
regular agenda in the way that Lincoln
does and and Scotsluff and all the other
cities that you mentioned. Set a three
minute per person rule. Cap the time at
30 minutes, and during most meetings,
you'll be able to move on in less than
10 minutes. I've been here for the
public comment period before. Sometimes
only two or three folks. And you know,
the law can be followed, the public can
be heard, and we're going to save you
some time in the process because if
nobody's here, nobody signs up, just
move on, and you don't have to look at
each other for a half an hour. Um, it's a win all around. So, I think you
need to vote no on this ordinance
tonight. Take it back to the drawing
board because we can and certainly
should do better. Thank you.
>> Thank you. [clears throat] Anybody
else?
Please state your name and address,
please.
>> Jonathan Shahan, 1205, County Roadex,
Fremont, Nebraska. Earlier today, my
signed written objection to ordinance
number 5755 was provided by email to
every member of the city council, the
mayor, and the city clerk. Before this
meeting began, I also delivered a paper
copy directly to the city clerk. I am
now presenting that written objection in
connection with this agenda item and ask
that it be retained as part of the
record and reflected in the minutes. The
central point of that objection is
simple. Eliminating Fremont's regular
public comment period is not required by
the Nebraska Open Meetings Act. At the
last city council meeting, a citizen
objected to the way Fremont was
conducting public comment. That
procedural problem can be fixed.
Instead, the city is using that
procedural issue as justification to
eliminate Fremont's regular public
comment period altogether. Those are two
completely different things. The city
can comply with the open meetings act
without taking away the public's regular
opportunity to address the council. If
this ordinance passes, it will not be
because state law required it. It will
be because the city council chose to
silence the constituents who elected
them. Make no mistake, this is a policy
decision. The question is simple. Should
citizens continue to have a regular
opport to have a regular opportunity to
come before their elected
representatives and be heard or will the
members of the city council based on
legal advice that misstates what the
open meetings act requires decide that
access to your elected officials should
be taken away. Do not let the
elimination of Fremont's regular public
comment period be sold to the public as
something required by the Nebraska Open
Meetings Act. It isn't. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
Anybody else?
» Your name and address, please.
>> Don Atwell, 1650 North Broad Street,
Fremont, Nebraska. Thank you for hearing
my concern, council. Mr. Mayor, uh, I do
not pretend to know, I'm not a lawyer. I
don't pretend to know all the rules and
laws concerning public meetings.
understand that local laws uh must be in
compliance with state laws and higher
authorities. That's understandable.
However, I find it difficult to believe
that the Open Meetings Act would have
language that would discourage a
community's voice on issues that concern
them. I understand that public comments
can be uncomfortable.
Common commentators can be at times
rude, untruthful,
ill-informed,
uh, self-serving, etc. He probably could
add to the list considerably. I commend
this council's patience in in hearing
those and listening those. A
representative form of government is
fundamental to a free society. A
government left to the hands of
unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats is
another step away from a free society
and toward totalitarianism.
Public comment on matters that affect
community is not only necessary for
gaining perspective on how potential
decisions may affect the community, but
can also yield useful suggestions and
information to assist in the
decision-making process.
Therefore, I ask the council's continued
patience. I'm sure that the same lawyers
that are pushing for the elimination of
the public comment section of the
meetings can find a way to legally
preserve the public's voice in local
affairs if they are directed to do so by
those to whom they are accountable. The
thing that makes me most suspicious of
this is we're in a sounds like we're in
a big hurry to eliminate it with nothing
to take his place. And I understand you
Mr. Von Baron, this has been an issue
since 2008.
Two 18 years. 18 years we've had an
opportunity to come up with a solution.
It seems like we're in a big hurry to to
end it. That's what makes me suspicious.
I don't know about anybody else, but uh
thank you very much for attention.
>> Thank you.
Anybody else on this?
Please state your name and address,
please.
[clears throat]
My name is Teresa McGrander at 1825
North Keen Avenue, Fremont, Nebraska.
Um, good evening. This issue isn't about
one person or one organization.
It's about every resident here in
Fremont, Dodge County. Someday each of
us have a concern that isn't already on
the council's agenda. Plus, you guys can
remove what is on the agenda. I just saw
you do three of them tonight. So, if we
put something on your agenda, who's
going to say you're not going to vote to
remove it?
I don't know. So, do we ensure our local
um officials to hear us. The public
comment isn't always comfortable and
sometimes citizens praise the government
and sometimes they criticize them. Both
are a healthy democracy.
Please do not
reduce the opportunity for the public
participation.
For years, there's been repeated
attempts to eliminate the public
comments and addresses. I don't even
know who represents my ward.
I've never spoke to her anybody. Deb
represented my ward because I voted for
him. Now he's a mayor. Who represents
me? Who represents my ward? I don't know
why.
You all say that he's going to make it
public. How in the Fremont Tribune where
you have to pay to read it and it it's
all online.
I've got the Tribune forever, but I will
not read it on the computer.
So, where is the trust? You guys need to
get this community's trust. There was an
event last week. None of you knew about
[clears throat] it.
Somebody did because they ordered to
have it done.
They going to be accountable for it.
Y'all know what I'm talking about. I
have a voice. It's the first amendment
and I'm going to exercise it. Either
please vote no because we have a lot to
say. Like I said, sometimes we're not
comfortable coming up here. Sometimes we
don't know if you guys even listen to us
because we walk away and you do just the
opposite of of what we argued about.
There's another defeat of the citizens.
You guys all said good speeches. You
represent the citizens of Fremont.
Please do and vote no. Thank you.
» Please state your name and address.
Good evening, mayor and members of the
council. My name is Dylan Martinez,
residing at 1435 East 12th Street here
in Fremont. I stand before you tonight
specifically regarding ordinance 5755.
Um, I prepared this before a lot of the
transparency that described here. So,
I'm just going to say this real quick
because it does still pertain and then
I'm going to make a couple comments
regarding everything that has also been
said. So, at the last meeting, Mr. coats
raised concerns about a potential
violation occurring during the public
comment period. I watched the video. I
rewatched the video. However, he was
never specific in with the public as to
what the alleged violation actually was.
That lack of clarity led left the
community in the dark and now we are
faced with this potential ordinance
removal. Um, which suffers from the same
lack of ambiguity. So, I do appreciate a
lot of, you know, being transparent of
what we're trying to do here, but that
essentially has left the language
surrounding this ordinance as vague and
citizens rightly asking what is the
ultimate goal here. So, we want to be
very clear and draw a line. Um, if the
goal of this is just a simple minor
technicality, which it seems like it's
starting to point towards to formally
establish a designated structured time
block on the official agenda for open
public comment to ensure full procedural
compliance. That is fine. In fact, that
is a standard administrative practice
that should have been established years
ago. Just as the first speaker had
mentioned, let's just put a thing on the
docket that says open public comment 30
period. Nobody rests a spot, we can make
a motion to move past it. um you know
assuming that everybody has a time to
speak
in in
however if the ultimate goal of this
ordinance is to eliminate the 30-inut
open public comment period in its
entirety or to create a process where
officials can pre-screen gatekeep and
cherrypick questions or citizens get um
cherrypick questions which that
cherrypick which questions or citizens
that get heard and that is a massive
problem. Open public comment is not a
courtesy granted at the council's
discretion. It is a community's primary
window for unscripted accountability.
When public officials face uncomfortable
questions, the solution is better
governance, not transparency, not
removing the microphone. If the concern
of the council members might
accidentally debate non-aggenda items
and trigger an open meetings act issue.
The fix is simple. Enforce a strict
listen only rule for the council members
during open comment. You do not need to
silence the public to keep the council
compliant with state law. I urge the
council to clarify the extent um the
exact intent of the ordinance 5755 on
record tonight. If this ordinance strips
away or restricts our 30-minut open
public comment period, I strongly urge
you to vote no. Thank you. Now, with
that in mind, um the last couple things
that I just want to comment on, you
know, the whole open meetings act is
supposed to be set up as a listenon
rule. It's something for people to come
here unscripted to present communities
and um you know, issues with you. just
as uh you know the gentleman last week
about um tree removal services that
potentially was still in effect you know
50 some years ago and that we've shifted
away from that as a society. There are
things that we need to bring to you for
you guys to talk about. But at the same
light, if there are um specific
articulated
public forums where we can talk to you
as representatives and get answers back,
that also is very nice too because it's
nice to know that you're heard. But at
the same time, we need to make sure that
we can be heard as citizens um of our
country. And also to the comment
definitely, you know, when we're in open
public comment, we need to speak about
people in an objective manner, not a
subjective manner. So definitely be
friendly to your citizens. We're all
humans here at the end of the day,
right? So, thank you so much and hope
you have a great day.
>> Thank you.
>> Anybody else on this?
» State your name and address, please.
>> Street. Uh before I get on to this uh my
what I was going to talk about uh I'm
looking at item 20 here and uh you know
everybody talked about we need to revise
it and make it better for people allow
it but this definitely states that uh
the intent is to elim eliminate the open
public comment period is what it says
right here. So you have to be careful on
what you say and what this says.
That being said, uh, mayor and council
members, I want to thank you for letting
me speak tonight.
Um,
Nebraska law says the citizens have the
right to speak in public bodies and are
given the opportunity to speak at each
meeting.
If the city council eliminates a public
uh uh comment section, citizens are not
allowed to speak about subjects that are
already in the agenda.
I would like to ask the city council,
how is an ordinary um citizen supposed
to publicly bring new issues to the
council if that isn't or that isn't
already on the agenda.
You control the agenda and we don't.
What's uh and and that's why the open
public comment is important. It gives
citizens an opportunity to come before
their elected officials to say there's
something wrong here in Fremont that you
need to know about.
Maybe it's a problem with the street, a
safety concern,
how tax money is being spent,
or something the city doesn't even know
about.
If it's not on the agenda without a
public comment,
when do the when do the citizens get an
opportunity to stand here and bring
these issues to the entire council in
public? Now, you talked about doing uh emails and stuff like that.
That's that's good. But I I still think
people need to be do needs to be done in
public so everybody including the public
knows what's going on.
There is a difference between allowing
citizens to comment on what the city
council has decided to discuss and
allowing citizens tell the city
what they believe needs to be discussed.
The open
uh comment provides that opportunity and
it's important. The council shouldn't be
the one deciding which issues are
important enough to talk about at in
public. Taking away the open public
comment might make it make the meeting
shorter, might make it easier to manage,
but convenience should not become an
expense of
communicating between the citizens and
people elected to present represent
them. You may not like you may not agree
what is said on the microphone.
You may hear criticism. I'm sorry, but
that's public service.
It's about giving citizens a voice.
If this is a problem with an open public
comment currently works, then fix it
fairly. And we've talked about some
things tonight. But don't eliminate that
opportunity because once a citizen can
only because once citizens can only
publicly discuss what the government
puts on the agenda,
the government is controlling the
meeting. is controlling the
conversation. Please don't take away the
voice of the citizens of Fremont. Thank
you.
Anybody else on this?
Jerry Delaney, 2940 Lever Street, Mont.
Uh, I understand from the discussion
earlier tonight that this all came about
because one person complained and didn't
want public comment any longer. It
sounds to me like there's considerably
more people that would disagree with
that and do want it. Uh, no decisions
are ever made public comment. So, what I
have read in the Open Meetings Act, I
don't see how you're violating the Open
Meetings Act in any way. I I think we
need to see a definite solution to the
problem. And I agree with what
Councilman Van Beern and a couple others
of you said earlier. Yeah, what we're
doing now isn't working, but you don't
get rid of it without first having
something put in place to replace it. We
already have a very limited amount of
time and a very limited format in which
the public can address the council on
concerns.
Why take away this last little piece of
open discussion that exists between the
public and yourselves without first
enacting a definite and a better
solution?
I understand that I'm free to reach out
to my council person, to the mayor, or
whoever anytime I want, but if I want to
address an issue to not just my council
person, but to all of you, as well as to
the mayor and city administrators and
the city attorneys and the public in
general.
And I want to be sure that I've conveyed
the same messages accurately and equally
to all of you at the same time. I can't
do that with a bunch of different phone
calls or a bunch of different meetings.
That's just not possible.
There already exists a feeling of
mistrust between the public and all
those government. This lack of trust
that exists is more often than not
unfounded.
But nonetheless, it does exist. Why
would you want to increase this level of
animosity?
I urge you to vote this ordinance down
until you have something better to
replace it. I urge you to clearly show
the voters of Fremont that you want to
hear from them in some manner. And I beg
to not put up a wall between our
community and those of you that serve.
Thank you for your time.
Anybody
else on this?
» State your name and address, please.
Brad Jüger, 2318 East Fifth Street,
former city council member for Ward 4.
[clears throat]
I'd like to start my discussion tonight
with a little background in history. Uh
so that those of you that weren't here
when this all went about uh understand
where we're coming from. Back in
December 2018, the mayor gets appointed
to the mayor's committee to look into
open public comment. They they
commissioned uh assistance from McGrath
North Omaha based law firm who was the
county city attorney at the time. They
went about um drafting this ordinance
that you have in front of you today uh
with McGrath's North Oversight all the
way through. They had to decide what
type of forum would be considered. And
it was discussed that the act defines
meetings quote as regular, special, or
called meetings, formal or informal,
that require discussion of public
business, formation of policies, or the
taking of action by the public body as
discussion 841409.
An open mic session that we have today
doesn't require any of that.
It is a forum for presentation by the
public. There is no action, no public
business. The committee was advised by
legal that the open mic session would
not be a meeting of council, nor would
it invoke the meeting definitions and
standards defined by the open meetings
act if not any part of the meeting was
defined where only the so the the public
could speak and council members could
attend voluntarily. They weren't
required to. There was no roll call.
They only listened so that the public
could get their information out into the
hands of the public. Therefore, McGrath
Nor said, contrary to current advice,
this was not a meeting. This was a forum
for the public to provide public
comment.
They also recommended that the city not
make it part of a open public comment
part of a regular meeting. And why?
because that would make it u subject to
open meetings act rules because now you
have a published agenda. Now you would
have to have all of this other um
activity with regards to what are you
going to speak to etc. It was not an
open mic. It was registration only. That
would be a bad idea. We want to have
more transparency and opportunity. So
they took the matter under advisement
and they developed the policy that we
had. They had the first reading in
January of 29, January 29th of 19,
second reading on February 29th, final
reading on February 26, and it became
city ordinance after that. They had the
first meeting of open public comment on
March 2019. It's been in effect ever
since. Now, the critical part of what I
think is important here is you need to
define really what is a meeting. Your
city legal council says that that is a
meeting. I'm telling you, McGrath North
told us emphatically it was not a
meeting for the reasons I just gave you.
Therefore, if it's not a meeting, you're
not bound by those kinds of uh arguments
that are being made currently. And and
more importantly, the trust and
transparency that have been mentioned
tonight are critical. That's why this
was started in the first place. Three
council members and and a fourth that
was appointed to this committee are
adamant we needed to do something about
transparency in Fremont. This was the
result.
Since this was passed, multiple
occasions have occurred when the present
law firm has attempted to get rid of
public comment
altogether.
The uh lead person, lead lawyer at the
firm even wrote city code to eliminate
all public comment. Fortunately, the
council rebuffed that. I ask that you
not rebuff the the public this time
round requiring us to put things on the
agenda. Just this is not appropriate.
Please discontinue this discussion alto
together. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> That's it.
Right. Tough 1537 Brewer Drive. Good
evening, Mayor and Council. The
ordinance is being presented as a
measure to comply with Nebraska Open
Meetings Act, but after reading the city
attorney's memo and reviewing the law
myself, I have serious questions about
whether eliminating open public comment
is actually required. The memo argues
that because citizens may not may speak
on topics that are not known in advance,
the city must eliminate the public
comment period altogether. Yet Nebraska
law also states that the public public
bodies shall allow members to speak
and have an opportunity to speak at each
meeting meeting. So my first question is
simple. Travis, can you tell us what
Nebraska Supreme Court case or attorney
general opinion specifically says that
allowing citizens to speak on matters
not listed on the agenda violates the
Open Meetings Act? If such authority
exists, please share it with the public.
If it does not, then this appears to be
legal in interpretation, not a legal
mandate. Across Nebraska, city councils,
boards, school boards, and other public
bodies continue to provide opportunities
for public comment. Many do so by
allowing citizens to speak while
limiting limiting discussion by elect
officials on matters that are not on the
agenda. So, basically,
hopefully all of you guys have
understood and read that you're supposed
to be following Robert's rules. Um, and
we've provided copies to the council
before, we'd be happy to do it again.
But, um, if you can't see that, it's the
lack in trust for our government. So, I
urge you not to vote for this tonight,
um, until you guys can put something
else in place, um, and try to get the,
you know, trust back into our, you know,
public officials because I tell you
what, just last week, I emailed each one
of you guys. There was one who emailed
me back.
One of you guys. And you guys can't
forget that. We put you guys in your
positions. You work for us. Those two
work for us, too. For you guys. You guys
are supposed to be in charge of them.
And they're the ones that keep trying to
pull this kind of stuff. And it's all
because they know that there's stuff
coming, you know, where people want to
use the open public comment period. So,
please continue to listen to your
constituents. Don't try to rely I hope
the citizens don't try to rely on just
using your email addresses because it
doesn't work. Only one of you replied
back to me and can't even get a meeting
with city attorney or city
administrator. So, thank you.
» Please state your name and address.
>> Name is George Nadomo. I live at 2332
East Third Street. Hello, council
members and mayor. Um, just listening to
everybody today here, uh, I just want to
encourage the council to vote against
this. It seems to me like all these
people over here that vote for everybody
up here, I haven't heard a single one
come up here and say, "Yeah, let's go
for it." They're all confi either
they're against it or maybe there's even
some confusion. And that tells me that
you guys need to go back and take
another look at this. And you got to
remember, you're representing these
people. You want to have the best for
them. And their comments are very
important. So I encourage you vote
against them.
Please state your name and address
>> at 2550 Deerfield Avenue. I do
appreciate this open discussion over
this and yes, public comment is
important for you guys to have the open
ears to listen and understand different
situations that are going around town.
Um, I did hear the mayor this morning
say
everything is open as far as make a
phone call or email your
representatives. I've done both. I heard
back from one on the situation this last
week and I've left voicemails and I've
never heard back. I've contacted
uh street department over a concern in
our neighborhood probably two three
weeks ago which in the
explanation of what the street
department does hesitate to you know
email them and tell them your concerns
and I have not heard back. So, it's kind
of hard to feel. I mean, and it's the
technology world that it is that nobody
picks up the phone to talk on the phone,
but when you offer to have either the
emails or leave a voicemail and don't
hear back, it just leaves everybody
hanging and wondering and concerned. So,
I'd appreciate I appreciate all the
discussion that has been going on
tonight. Hope you can get this all
figured out.
Thank you.
Anybody else on this?
» Please state your name and address.
>> My name is Stan Hart. I live in 1535
North Logan. I've been in this town for
72 years. I've seen a lot of things
going on in this town since I've been
here. Can't say everything has been the
best, but sometimes it hasn't been the
worst. My wife Cindy and I came here
tonight to find out what was going on
with this discussion about our first
amendment rights of city council
meeting. And I know through the years,
having been to some previously in the
past, that through the years, it seems
like the open meeting supposedly for us
people of the town has been infringed
upon and changed and limited in
different ways.
Tonight, I'm listening to you talk about
that and the admission that yeah, the
system of the open meeting hasn't been
exactly right. Well, okay. And it's been
carried on that way for seemingly a very
long time.
But so far, all I've heard is smoke in
the wind. I hear, "Yeah, we need to
change it. Yeah, we need to change it."
Well, I can tell my wife that when she
has ideas about what to do around the
house, but that doesn't get the job
done. Commitment gets the job done.
Saying there's going to be action taken
and it's going to be done gets the job
done. That's a confirmation to us the
people you're going to do something
about it and not just talk about.
So if you want to get something done,
commit to it and get it done. Don't just
tell it. Okay. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
Anybody else on this?
» State your name and address, please.
» Good evening. I'm Susan Jacobus. I live
at 1805 Northeast Street here in
Fremont. I've lived here for 10 years.
I was one of three including Glenn Ellis
and Linda Mlan that pushed this forward
with the full support of our city
council at the time. It was vetted and
beat up again and again through our
attorneys draft and north.
Mark Enbach lent his expertise on it and
this started to come about because there
was restrictions. There was a lot of
foregoing of the three reading rule
which I see has ended. But my concern is
removing this is also going to continue
to remove the ability for the public to
comment or to reach out to you. I would
agree there's often been times that the
derogatory comments directed towards
councilmen,
council women, mayor as well as
administrative staff is unwarranted.
It gets petty and then having been in
the seat that you are, your ears start
to close and I understand that.
But it has not always been supported by
all of you to have open comment nor was
it all always allowed to have the
citizens right to speak and I speak from
personal issue. I was attempted to be
taken to task during executive session
because I spoke at a planning commission
meeting as a citizen and identified
myself as such because I was against
development of a commercial quick shop
style or 7-Eleven style gas station
at the area right across from the Lucen
church
off military there by the swimming pool.
And I I believe Mr. remembers the letter
that he wrote to his planning commission
to have me removed and to have the mayor
have me removed as councilman. I was
then taken into an executive session and
I there was an attempt to quash. I had
already reached out to an independent
attorney
and was advised to stand my ground. So I
refused to stay in an executive session
in order to be ostracized or to remove
which neither it did happen.
There was multiple complaints from me to
the attorney general for issues
concerning the open meeting act that
also helped push this forward.
It didn't necessarily cure all of them,
but it solved some of the issues we were
having. sidebar discussions between the
mayor and the city administrator at the
time and decisions being made,
comments and decisions being made out in
the open between um councilmen.
Those discussions are supposed to be
public and you guys do behave better
than our row did at first,
but it still happens. Those sidebar
discussions are not intended to make
decisions or to gather enough votes so
you have the guts to bring it to the
table or the platform.
And the reason why this was pushed
forward and by the way was approved 8 to
zero. We had the full support and we
also had full legal support at the time
and that hasn't changed. You're not
making policy DNA's meeting when there's
a open public comment period. you're not
making policy. You may be given
something to think about and perhaps
maybe down the line it would warrant one
of you, any of you to respond back to
the citizen who stated the complaint.
But that doesn't always happen. In fact,
it seldom happens.
It was the intent of the open
public comment to either have something
added to an agenda in a future date if
it warranted or to have city staff
whether it's street department, utility
department, parks department, whatever
it may be, address the issue if there
was any issue of concern, but to bring
it to the table for a full discussion at
city council level if needed.
And that doesn't typically happen, does
it?
I totally would not agree. I would be
totally against removing public comment.
Period. I think you need to have an open
conversation and if it has to be
included as part of your meeting agenda
and nobody shows up, then move on with
your meeting. Very simple solution. But
as far as the opens meeting act, you've
been in complian with it all along.
There's not been an issue.
You don't like it from the derogatory
comments. you have the outline of
behavior that's required at a meeting
and also during a public comment period
enforce it.
Ask people to shut it down or shut the
mic off. They start to get derogatory.
You have all been victim or have been
witnessed to some of the derogatory
comments that happened when I was on
council. It was way out of line. Was it
controlled? No. Should it have been?
Yes. Should it be with you at your level
at your seats? Yes, it [clears throat]
should. But please do not remove this.
Just enhance it if you Thank you.
>> Thank you.
» State your name and address.
[clears throat]
Steve Ray, 1445 North Irving.
Well, had different comments kind of
lined up, but
the agenda was kind of misleading. You
said eliminate. You got a lot of people
here thought you just going to vote get
rid of it all together and that should
have never sent that kind of signal out.
Really
should have had you want to say
eliminate. You should have said we're
going to have options or we're going to
try and do something.
I think that created a lot of problem
right there.
Uh, I've been reading the agenda, the
statutes for a m open meeting. I'm not
sure you guys are in violation of it
because you don't discuss. We don't
discuss. We just bring something forward
and talk. You don't take any action now.
Most of the time there's nothing brought
up in the meeting that you take action
on later. it. It's just a way for people
to come and bring something up. And I
wouldn't want to see it happen be put on
the agenda. If you go to where you have
it as part of your regular meeting, put
it right on the agenda because there
might be something come up today that oh
yeah, I should bring that up at the
meeting. What's going to be my
alternative? I mean, you got to have it
in the week before. Well, it comes up
today. how are you going to speak to it?
And it might be over with in a day or
so. So, you you really can't put that
down and have it on the agenda
beforehand like your agenda for all your
business. And u I know that I just don't
know if you've been in violation really.
And I do know the law firms that we have
now, they've publicly in the meetings
have said they would do away with public
comment altogether. So, it's kind of a,
you know, another way to say, they did
say that we need to do something
different. Well, if we do something
different, I don't think it needs to be
something where you have to put
something in the agenda to have it
spoken about so they everybody knows
ahead of time. It should be an open mic
type thing because that's what it was
for, just for people to come and speak
on something that's on their mind at the
time, not well, let's see, the meeting's
coming up, so I better get something on
the agenda so they can speak about it.
So, I'd encourage you to vote no to
eliminate it and go back to the drawing
board and try to come up with something.
It sounds like some of the other cities
have open mic and they haven't been a
problem. Now, I don't know if we've had
a problem with anybody challenging the
way you do it now.
Thank you. Anybody else on this?
State your name and address, please. My
name is Jean Schultz. I live at 2306
Jean Drive, Fremont.
Well, here we go again.
Adams and Sullivan attorneys are
attempting deni to deny Fremont citizens
of their ability to give public comments
during the last scheduled council
meeting of the month by making it more
difficult than it needs to be.
Maybe I missed it, but I saw nothing in
the Open Meetings Act requiring that
topics to be discussed be included in
reference to notices for public comment
periods, as was stated in the staff
report.
There is another solution than the one
proposed by Adams and Sullivan
attorneys. You don't have to look far.
Just follow the format of the Dodge
County Board of Supervisors. They have
public comments positioned before their
public hearings on all of their
published agendas.
Just add an agenda item that asks the
question.
Any business brought by the public or
discussion from the public. There you
go. No must, no fuss.
But you may want to use that agenda item
only on the last meeting of the month
like we do now.
if it's helpful. Dodge County also has
an agenda item that says any emergency
items to the agenda.
In closing,
citizens should not have to jump through
hoops like a trained circus seal to
speak at a public comment period. This
is America.
We recently celebrated Independence Day.
It commemorates the passage of the
Declaration of Independence by the
Continental Congress on July 4th, 1776.
We are still in the midst of celebrating
250 years as a nation.
Our Constitution defines the goals and
framework of the government. But they
weren't done there. Our founders added
the Bill of Rights ratified in 1791
that puts limits on government
overreach. 10 amendments, the first of
which includes freedom of speech.
I'm anxious to observe which of you will
be celebrating tonight on the side of
free speech for Fremont citizens when
you vote no on ordinance 5755.
And of course watching which of you will
be the party poopers voting yes. 5755
is not a good solution. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
Anybody else on this?
» State your name and address please.
>> My name is Scott Thomas 2403 Estus Lane
Fremont Nebraska. I'm a candidate in the
first ward city council right now. Uh
man, I'm grateful. I just want to say
that first. I'm grateful for all the
people in this room and all the people
that got up and spoke. People that take
their country to heart, take their
duties and responsibilities as Americans
to heart. Don't take that
uh
that birthight for granted. I appreciate
that. I appreciate everybody in this
room. I appreciate you guys for your
service. Seriously. Uh,
but I am the director for the US
Institute of Diplomacy and Human Rights
for the region of Nebraska. And we don't
have an Iowa director. We don't have a
Kansas director. We don't have a
Missouri director. So, I handle those
regions, too. Um, our AG is publicly
picking fights with Trump's
administration right now. We want to
hang my hat on necessarily all the
advice that you get from killers.
Uh, and we've heard a lot of mentions of
the Constitution and the Bill of Rights,
particularly the First Amendment. So, I
want to give you guys an example of
something that would not be on the
agenda because everything that's not on
the agenda, you know, these are outlier
issues and how would you know to put
something on there if it's if it's not
on there if it's not your issue? So,
um, one of my jobs necessarily is making
sure that people have access to physical
documents
that represent your rights here in this
country. And so, the declaration, not
just not just the declaration, but the
rights of man, also very historical
documents that go all the way back to
Carta. Uh,
and
I tried to inquire into a booth at the
John C. Fremont days where we could pass
copies of the Constitution because I
think that people are right. One of the
reasons that we have some of the
problems that we have in this country is
because people don't make it their
business to know what it means to be an
American or what your duties and
responsibilities are to this country or
what those amendments mean or what these
men fought and died for that built the
country. And so I think that we should
pass it out. I think we should read it.
I think we should have it in our
schools. I think we should hang it on
the walls.
And I I called and I said, "What if I
just want to pass out copies of the
Constitution?" I didn't want to set a
high bar. What if we just want to pass
out free copies of the Constitution to
the public? And I was told, "You are not
allowed to bring the Constitution to our
event. We will have you arrested."
And so I'm an American. So I went to the
edge of their event, passed out the
Constitution to all my fellow Americans.
So they went to an officer. He looked
like that Jensen guy and they asked him
to arrest me and he told them no. Which
might be why he made sergeant if it's
the same guy. Hey, I'm telling you, man.
Everybody doesn't think about this
stuff, but I don't want these people in
this room right now who I just said took
the due diligence to come up here and make it their duty to defend their
country and their birthright as American
citizens. I don't want to make them put
my kids to trade school or give them
money to start businesses once they
graduate. But if you arrest me for
passing out the Constitution in the city
where I live in the United States of
America, I would sue everybody on this
council personally except my councilman
because I know he wouldn't have been
party in that. But whoever made that
contract with John Fremont days, you
guys should vet people a little bit more
thoroughly what kind of beliefs they
bring when they broker alliances and
contracts to do business with the people
of the city of Fremont.
Thank you all for your attention. Any
kind of questions you guys have, I'd be
happy to answer them. I see the clerk is
looking very confused right now. This is
the first you've heard of any of this.
Okay, fair enough. I appreciate you guys
time.
Anybody else on this?
State your name and address, please.
Roger Brimmerman, 921 North Clarson
Street, lifelong resident of Fremont.
And um you know, my dad was alive and we
used to get full tribune.
He used to complain about a lot of
things that the city council did. I have
said or I I I have to say that we've
come a long ways from the 60s and 70s on
how we handled meetings and and
businesses and even the 80s, but I don't
think we've gone far enough.
And you need to vote no on this. You
really need to look at your option, you
know, better options doing this during a
city council meeting and not a half hour
before on the fourth Tuesday that
everybody has to wrangle around and
everything. You also have another
audience that's at your deficit and that
is social media and that's what brought
me here tonight
because in the two posts that I read and
had responses they were commenting on
the eliminating the open public comment
period and that's where it ended not to comply with the open meetings act.
So your word smithing or how you do
things is very very important. Public
perception right now is not very good.
Especially with our younger citizens of
this city,
you should see all the comments on the
utilities rate hike.
It's not good. People are not happy with
that. And I understand as running
businesses in this town or or being a
part of managing organizations, you do
have to ask for a little bit more to do
a little bit more. But I really would
encourage you first of all to vote no on
this. Second of all to really really
think about your perception and you
can't rely on the Tribune. I used to
take it when it was a newspaper and it
went online and I did that and I thought
I' I've got better things to, you know,
and I and I rely on social media. But
now I found out that coming here based
on what I read was kind of a falsehood
in a way too. So you need to find other
ways to publicize things to the media.
We are in the 21st century. We are
digital. I know you can go on the city
website and get all the past agendas and
all the minutes and all that, but people
that's work and people don't want to do
that kind of research work. You know,
they just they want it put right in
front of them. So, I don't know as a
governing body what you can do, but you
really really I encourage you to really
start thinking about this because it's
issues like this and this isn't going to
be the first issue. There's
living here my whole life and a sixth
generation person of this county.
This isn't the first issue and it won't
be the last, but we improvement could
certainly certainly take place. Thank
you.
>> Thank you.
Anybody else on this?
I'll close the public comment period.
Coming back to council. Mayor, if I may
just give a brief uh followup to my
comments.
>> Go ahead.
>> The concern here is if a member of a
complaint about an action in district
court, then we'd be dealing with strict
statutory interpretation. There aren't
any cases on this because there hasn't
been an action brought before. I don't
want our city to be the test case. But
under the open meetings act, a meeting
is either or four things. A briefing,
which I think this constitutes a
briefing, any public comment, discussion
of public business. I think anyone who's
married has had a discussion where only
one site said something formation of
tenative policy or the taking of action
of body public body. So there's at least
two matters in there where public
comment would constitute would fit into
the definition of a meeting. And
therefore the matters at the meeting
that will be discussed need to be
publicized to the public. And I think
tonight is a great example when we put
items on the agenda that the public
cares about they'll come here and speak
about it. So, I just want the council to
know that if this is based strictly on
statutory interpretation, I'm not
comfortable relying solely on the
disposition of the attorney general from
a complaint that was filed in 2018. It
didn't address all the issues that we're
talking.
» Yeah, please.
Is that all you have left?
>> All right, Councilman her. Thank you,
mayor. Um I I want to clear up one um
misunderstanding in the meeting tonight.
Um someone said that we removed items
from the agenda and and that is not the
case. We did remove three items from the
consent agenda and the consent agenda
and I know this is probably review for
many of you, but I'm just going to say
it anyways. Consent agenda are routine
items considered routine. We don't need
to discuss every one of them. So we vote
on them as a block without discussion.
Some of those items you as citizens,
council members, the mayor, clerk, staff
can request they be removed so we can
discuss them and then we can vote on.
Three of those were done tonight. We
discussed them. We voted. Nothing was
removed from the agenda. It was
repositioned from the consent agenda to
the main pain main agenda. So we can
discuss them. So I just want to make
sure that everybody understands that.
The other one is um and maybe I'm a
little premature here because I see a
list of other council members that want
to speak. I do have a recommended
amendment for tonight. Um I I I have
been reading myself and I do believe
that I have read a couple of um um newer
um
articles and etc that have expressed
concern about similar formats to what
we've been doing and that they might be
violating the opens meeting act. my
amendment to this because I do believe
if we are in violation, we sure should
correct it. And my amendment hopefully
will do that and preserve the parts we
like and get it into the part that or
get it into compliance so that it would
be a little bit harder for someone to
come and beat us up legally, I guess.
So, I can do that now or I can wait
until everybody else had a chance to
talk.
>> What would you do? Um, what I would
propose for the amendment to 5755
is that we modify FMC2-103
to move the public comment period to
begin after the regular meeting is
called to order and its placement would
be after the consent agenda.
It would have all the features that
currently exist.
Public can come in and talk about what's
on their mind. they don't have to call
in ahead of time and then what they
would be able and we would not be able
to like we can't now we would not be
able to engage because then it becomes
business and if we're not able to engage
it's a listening session I don't even
care if you change it and call it a
listening session um you can call it
whatever you want some of the other
count cities are calling it different
things um I like to keep it simple
comments from the floor public comments
whatever
and and make it a regular agenda item
subject to all the same rules that now
apply to our current public comment
period. And then um we keep it on the
last Tuesday of each month.
And I think that would be a very simple
amendment to this. We would take care of
our city attorney's concern. I think at
least the main point of it and that is
that it's outside of the official
meeting and it is um it comes now after
we've called the official meeting to
order. It's going to fall after the the
um the um consent agenda items and then
we can sit and listen to folks talk
about what's on their mind. And I do
believe that it has and I think one of
the speakers brought this up. I I
thought about the fact that if we do
that, it does have kind of a benefit
that if there's nobody here to talk,
we're just going to move on. We're not
going to sit here for 30 minutes um
waiting on that to occur. And if there
are people, we would still cap it at 30
minutes so that we can get on with the
business of people and we wouldn't be
here um an exorbitant amount of time. So
that's my amendment. I would recommend
that. I would move that we make that
amendment and I would hope someone could
support that.
Councilwoman Ganon,
>> I was going to speak, but I also want to
sec I will second that because that's
what I found in our in my surveys as
well and it it is included in several
other cities. It's part of the agenda
and each one handles it differently a
little bit and we can probably work out
on the details as far as what to call
it.
» Council member Horner, would you just
want to propose these general terms and
then I'll incorporate them into an
amended ordinance for the second
reading?
No, we just vote on the amendment then
rather than typing it up now.
>> Me, too. Yes, absolutely.
» All right. So, I have a motion and a
second for amendment.
>> We have quick discussion
>> and Paul, I was just going to come to
you.
>> No, just traditionally there's
discussion following a second. Just like
to be clear. What does that do to
tonight's action?
Does that replace tonight's action?
Because what we're doing is tacking an
amendment on a proposal to modify. It
seems like that has the potential to get
muddy.
>> Well, we're not going to eliminate it.
That's the modification is instead of
eliminate it, we're going to modify it.
We're going to continue it, but we're
going to do it in the meeting instead of
out of the meeting.
basically
» and so the basic format public is still
free to speak. Come and speak.
>> It stays the same.
>> Thank you.
>> And I will be happy to work with anybody
else on the council to make sure we get
the leg language right. And we have two
more readings that it's got to come
before these guys to make sure we're
getting it right. Two more readings and
we will not fasttrack this one.
>> I'd love to help.
I have a motion.
>> Go ahead.
» No, go ahead. It's been moved and
seconded.
>> Then you will be coming back as a
modified with that amendment. So then we
would need to just for clarifications, I
know we've all been encouraged to say
no, we would in fact vote for this first
time and then at the second reading it
will be modified.
So what happens clarification? [snorts]
Correct.
>> What what would happen then to August
public comment?
» Okay. So we're we're going to continue
the end of August. We'll do normal
public comment. Third reading. We'll
roll it back into the council agenda.
» Right.
Would it make any more sense to just
continue this item as opposed to holding
the first reading tonight?
You want to Well, we have a motion on a
second.
I have a motion and a second. Now you
have to cast your vote.
The motion carries 8 to zero. Mayor
All right. Thank you.
Yep.
» Well, we have to vote it as amended
first, don't we?
Yes, we need a we need a motion for the
first reading as amended.
» Do I have that?
Councilman Jensen,
>> I will make the motion to hold first
reading war 5755 as amended.
>> Councilman Marsh,
>> I'll second that.
» That motion carries 8 to zero.
Ordinance number 5755, an ordinance of
the city of Fremont, Nebraska, repealing
and replacing chapter 2, article 1
section of the Fremont Municipal Code
regarding open public comment periods
and formal council study sessions and
all other ordinances or parts of
ordinances in conflict with this
ordinance, providing for severability
and providing when this ordinance shall
be in full force in effect first
reading.
» Thank you.
Okay. On item number 21, resolution
2026-205
amending master fee schedule to support
changes to the ordinance 5749 approved
at the July 28 26th meeting
council members von Baron and Gano item.
>> Now this is just a followup to what we
approved at the last meeting as we were
working through the animal control
ordinances. Uh we've obviously times
change. Uh we've one of the things that
we found is Fremont has proportionally
per population probably a larger animal
control challenge than most cities of
comparable size. And so we visited with
officer Steamer. She had a heavy hand in
the advice, a very good constructive
heavy hand in the advice, advising us
what she felt would be required to
change some behaviors to discourage, to
enable enforcement, that kind of thing.
So that's what you see in front of you.
It's you can see what the uh fees have
been in the past. We added a couple of
new categories and tried to no modify
the system references so those were more
clear. So, it's fairly straightforward
matter. It's just an updated version of
fees and assessments for offenses.
» Okay, Councilman her.
>> Um, thanks, Mayor. I have no questions
really. Um, and I just want to thank
Paul and Sally for the hard work and all
the other folks that who were part of
this. And um I I'm not good at the
Golden Globe stuff because I never
remember who all to thank. But um um you
guys did a lot of work. We appreciate
it. My only comment is one word of
caution and I shared this with you guys
earlier. What's a colony? Um you know,
where does that definition begin? Um you
know, is it five, is it eight, you know,
etc. Um just a word of caution, that
could be an issue at some point in the
future I could see arising is what is a
colony? And I don't know how you get at
that, but we just have to be mindful of
that.
Well noted.
» Any other questions?
» Just a general answer to your question.
Fremont does have specific limits on
numbers of dogs and cats that can be
housed. And so if somebody's maybe
[clears throat] has a couple cats that
they're feeding on the back porch and
they're over the limit, that may not be
a colony. Uh if they've got 15 or 20,
which is not uncommon, that becomes a
colony. So there's some officer
discretion involved.
I'll take uh comments from the public.
state your name and address.
>> Right, 1537 Brewer Drive. Um, I just
wanted to make sure that you guys
understand what you're doing here with
this increase to the master fee
schedule. Um, so the colonies that are
in question, the cat colony that are in
question here, let's not forget that
most of the people that feed the stray
cats are ones that are lower income.
They have no no, you know, like
interaction really with the outside
world much except for those cats. And so
they're already low income. And now
we're going to raise not only are we
going to make them get a permit so that
you know where all the cats are when we
don't even have a program in place right
now to control the cats that we already
have and you guys are only seeing the
public only sees 20% of what is actually
out there. So the rest lives in you know
underground and all that stuff. So I
mean I really don't think that this is
the right option to go. The colony kept
caretaker permits should have never been
in place to begin with, but just keep in
mind that those guys, they're usually
the lower income people and now we're
going to find them for trying to feed an
animal. It's not very nice.
If
>> I could just comment on that briefly.
>> Yes.
>> Respond to that.
>> We got another
>> Oh, I'm I'm sorry. Excuse me.
Having been here for a couple years,
might as well make it good. I'm Susan
Shikovas, 1805 North D Street here in
Fremont. Um, somebody please correct me
after I'm finished or whoever wants to
speak after, but there's no fee attached
to that. Um, some of us have then been
part of the spay and neuter release
program and have ear tipped cats and I I
can't control the raccoon that comes and
sleeps underneath the porch or the
possums that kind of hibernate
underneath the other porch in somewhat
of a heated box. But um, a colony is
permitted and all the person has to do
is go get the permit. according to what
was printed in the agenda tonight. I'm
not aware that this any charge, but
again, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
Anybody else on this?
>> Close the public comment.
>> Um, I would like to comment.
>> Please,
>> just uh because Susan Jacobus uh pointed
it out, the colony caretaker caretaker
permit fee was $150. That's the current
and we're recommending zero for the very
same reasons that you brought up because
they care for those cats. They love
them. They provide food for them. So,
it's gone down to zero.
» Paul, did you have a comment?
>> And that's I think that's the point
because we didn't want to discourage
people from it. The only penalty now
will be if that becomes a nuisance. the
first time it becomes a nuisance then
they do issue a permit and then it goes
from there. So that's
councilwoman is exactly right. The other
thing is we noticed uh last year we
brought a discussion item regarding
feral cat control and it is a problem in
some areas of Fremont. uh we realized
that we approved the concept but there
was no formal vote on the control
project or the formal control parameters
the things that would have to be done so
we will be bringing that to the next
meeting to formalize that asking your
support I will tell you it's changed
going into it I thought what in the
world we're staying and neutering cats
and then turning them back out makes no
sense once you think through it it's
worth doing So, we'll be bringing that
to the next meeting.
>> Thank you.
>> Any other discussion from councel?
» If not, I'll take a motion.
» Councilman Vaughn,
>> I'll make a motion to approve.
Councilman
>> Her, I'll second.
That motion carries 8 to zero. Mayor.
» All right. Thank you. Item number 22,
ordinance 5756, amending the food and
beverage occupation tax. First reading.
Staff.
>> Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of
council. Jody Sanders, city
administrator. Um what you have before
you is the first reading of an ordinance
that would amend the uh food and
beverage occupation tax rate. Um
previously um it had been it when this
was first passed in 2015 the rate was
1.75 and that was established so that we
would not go over the $700,000 limit
that had been placed by uh the
legislature.
Um since that time we've had to bring
back to council requests to reduce it to
stay with underneath the 700,000 limit.
Um in 2025 uh the as part of uh kind of
an omnimous bill there was a section
that took out the um the lid on of
$700,000 on new occupation taxes. And so
without that lid in place,
um the the city could choose to raise
the rate back closer to where it was
originally. Um most communities that
have this are at least at a 1.5 if
Omaha's is actually at a 2.5
um tax rate. Um, one of the reasons why
we wanted to bring this uh to the
council for consideration is um we've
been visiting with uh council members
talking with them about the 2027 budget
and the deficit that we're in right
heading into 2027.
And we recognize that it's u not fair to
put the complete burden of of of
the cost of running the city on uh
property taxpayers
where a food and beverage tax is not
only paid by citizens, but it's paid by
anyone that is eating in our community.
Meaning the folks that come for um the
tournaments on the weekends and those
kinds of things. they're purchasing food
and um likely paying either they're
paying the tax or the restaurant is
paying the tax on their behalf. Um so it
kind of spreads the the burden a little
bit. Um as well as uh you know just
looking for ways so that we don't have
to have such reliance on property taxes
because in visiting with all of you
you've all expressed uh concern that we
don't
tax people out of their homes. you know,
the the city receives um a small portion
of the overall property tax levy of only
we only receive 16% of what's levied,
but still you were all clear you wanted
to do your part. This is one way that we
can get to the point where um perhaps we
won't have to go um quite so high on uh
our property tax request um because we'd
be receiving uh the the revenue from
this. We're currently at 1% and we are
collecting
slightly over $700,000. Now,
we have not been strictly enforcing it
uh the the tax because we really
shouldn't be collecting more than is uh
more than that $700,000 cap. That was
why we had not been um res, you know,
being very strict about our enforcement.
We have started the enforcement process.
Um the city staff has started the
enforcement process which will yes bring
in additional revenue but not to the
extent that if you change the uh tax
rate it would uh bring in at a bare
minimum we know $700,000. And that's
essentially $700,000 in property tax
relief. And that's why we felt being
good stewards of the public finances,
this was something that that we should
bring to your attention and um offer as your for your consideration tonight.
>> Questions from council. Councilman
Jensen.
>> Yeah, thank you. I just wanted to want
to touch on a couple things and yes, we
have all had these private meetings. We
all know what we're facing in 27 and as
you said this is part of
kind of spreading out the pain so
everybody gets gets a little taste of it
I guess. Uh my question was and you kind
of brought touched on that how uh how
compliant food trucks and been with this
tax and that and I was going to ask also
about the uh uh hotel rooms. I know
municipalities like to tax hotel rooms
because there ain't anybody that lives
here that's in them.
So we currently do tax hotel rooms. I
believe the rate is 4% isn't it Jen for
hotel tax. So we are receiving uh the benefit from those uh lodging taxes
as well. Um and the one of the one of
the ways that we're bringing um
enforcement action is simply by having a
kind of a
cross matching
what we have for mobile food vendors
versus who's paying the tax because the
food the mobile food vendors are subject
to the tax as well. So, that's that's
one of the ways that we're reaching out
to folks and saying maybe you're not
aware, but you need to be collecting and uh remitting this pro this uh
occupation tax.
» Councilman Marsh,
>> so what you're saying is there's
restaurants out there probably that are
collecting it but not paying in, right?
>> Unfortunately, that's a possibility. Um,
we would, you know, if if anybody has
that suspicion, certainly please do let
us know. Um, I think that that, um, as
staff, I'm certainly paying much more
attention to the receipt that I get. Um,
one thing to note, you know, the the
sales tax currently is at uh, should
show up on your receipt as 7%. That's uh
five and a half to the state and one and
a half percent to the city. And then the
occupation tax of 1% or um you know if
this is passed then it would be 2%. But
there's also the enhanced employment uh
tax that's on at the mall um for and but
that only applies to prepared food,
right? Yes. As well. So that's where um
Are you sure?
>> Come on up, Jen.
>> Hey, Jen, why don't you come on up?
>> Thank you, Jen.
Nab, finance director.
» Honorable mayor, city council, Jennifer
Nab, finance director. So, the mall
occupation tax uh is for businesses out
at the mall and it it's it's on the
Dunham receipts. It's on shoe sensation,
it's on um also prepared foods, but
there are some items excluded. So, it's
not at the gas station, it's not on
groceries, it's not on foods um anything
coming out of a vending machine or like
a candy bar or whatever. So there are
it's not liquor um but the majority of
what's being sold out the mall is
subject to the mall occupation tax
according to the ordinance that was
passed.
» Do you have a number of what you think
that we're not getting? I mean with the
percentage going up obviously that's
pretty easy but as far as like how many
are not
>> number of as far as dollars but we did
compare um restaurant licenses with
who's paying food and beverage and I've
got um 17 businesses that are behind or
not paying and then we've also got a
number of mobile food vendors as well
that will be um you know we still need
to reach out and
But it's there's some
>> revenue. Yeah. Thank you.
» Uh Councilman her.
>> Uh thanks, Mayor. Um
you know, we talked already a little bit
about this and and um the one thing that
I would say is that if there are folks
collect tax and not turning it in, we
have to address that obviously pretty um
pretty swiftly and pretty decisively is
what I would hope. Thank you.
» Anybody else?
» Okay. Comment from public.
Please state your name and address.
» Good evening, mayor and members of the
council. My member, my name is Dylan
Martinez, residing at 1435 East 12th
Street here in Fremont. I am standing
before you or sitting tonight. I'm used
to standing from previous formats that
we've had. Um really do like how
everything has changed. Uh timer right
there in front of us.
But uh I'm sitting here tonight before
you to address the proposed 1% food and
beverage tax increase. And I urge you to
vote no. We need to look closely at the
economic environment our residents are
navigating right now. Inflation has
squeezed household dollars to record
levels and working families in Fremont
are watching every single dollar. Fast
food prices have already risen to what
sitdown restaurants used to cost. When
basic dining out has become a luxury for
the average family, adding another tax
on top of their check is not going to
spur economic growth. In fact, it'll
likely have the opposite effect. It'll
dissuade actual residents from eating
out directly,
hurting our local restaurant owners,
server staff, and small business
community. It may have an unended side
effect of spurring extra business when
we have people coming into town, but the
people that actually know about this
will likely just try to buy at the
grocery store and make the $200 that
they have, you know, last a week for a
family of four. Um, you know, that used
to be a thing. But, um, now to be fair,
I do want to acknowledge that Fremont
has seen some serious positive
development over the last few years.
That progress is welcome. But, recent
development does not erase or make up
for the nearly two decades of wasteful
spending, questionable deals, and
administrative mismanagement by past
position holders. Taxpayers are tied.
Taxpayers are tired of being treated as
a bottomless piggy bank every time the
city needs to cover a budget gap after
years of fiscal red flags. Fremont needs
to demonstrate that it can manage its
existing revenue responsibly before
reaching deeper into the pockets of its
citizens.
If this council is unwilling to vote no
outright tonight, then I ask you to at
least lessen listen to the community and
amend this proposal down to a quarter
percent or half percent or some
incremental raise up to the 2%. Cut it
back and make that smaller figure work.
Show the taxpayers that you are willing
to compromise and exercise real fiscal
discipline. Fix internal spending
priorities, protect our local small
businesses, and do not place another
financial burden on the dining tables of
Fremont families. Alternatively,
if as I'm hearing on the comments
tonight that uh there seems to be issues
with enforcement and making sure that
these taxes are collected on a lot of
these business um food business owners,
which are a lot easier to get a food
business license, to get a truck, to do
a pop-up vendor on a corner and collect
every one of these taxes. Maybe
alternatively to this, we should look
into a tax on specifically alcoholic
beverages. We were talking tonight on
passing um you know renewing a lot of
these licenses. You know what's 1% onto
a bar for people going out and having a
pint? That's already $10. If they have
the money to go out to the bar, that's
way different than having the money to
go out to lunch on a break when you're
at work and you need a quick bite to eat
just to continue functioning from
day-to-day society. You know, obviously
fast food is a convenience. Um, but
there are ways that we can find
money without just putting on a tax
every single time or finding um, you
know, finding everyone. So, thank you so
much and hope you have a great day.
» Uh, anybody else in this?
Gary Delaney, 2940 Lever Street. Uh I
did not come here to speak on this item
tonight. So my knowledge of it is based
on what we've heard in the last few
minutes, but what I've heard is that we
have 17 businesses, which I consider a
large number, not properly paying this
tax. So our solution
is to increase the tax on those that are
doing their part in paying it rather
than figuring out a way to enforce it
and collect what is already due. Uh it
just seems like a more logical solution.
Let's come up with a way to make the
levy that's already there work. maybe
put some fines, stiff fines in place for
those that are not paying it properly as
opposed to raising another tax on the
law abiding taxpayer to the city. Thank
you. Thank you.
>> Bond.
Anybody else in
that I'll close public comment.
>> Um so just a couple of clarifications.
Uh first of all, as a reminder, we were
unable to enforce
um compliance because what we were
collecting was already up against the
cap. So now that that has been removed,
we are moving swiftly to enforce um the
uh budget deficit is uh very clearly in
my mind as finance director not because
of overspending or missspending. It is
very very simply we are required to do
comparables
um for our public safety as an example.
We also looked at market rates as far as
what it costs to pay our police and fire
as we're competing with Omaha and
Lincoln. Those salary increases were
millions of dollars. In addition,
unfunded
retirement mandates from the state. Uh
our police has a match on the retirement
of 9%.
Um on fire that uh this last year was uh
14%
that is going to 15%
match October 1st. Now remember FIRE
doesn't get social security. So you've
got six and a half there that others get
but that's still an additional 9%.
And uh in addition, our insurance costs
went up about 30% last year. It's and
from um IT costs, cyber and other
things. Uh it it's these costs that have
gone up. And that's really not decisions
you have made. It's not um it's it's
comparables. It's state unfunded items.
it is market rates on insurance and and
that's you know having costs go up
millions of dollars where our property
tax goes up by 600k it creates a gap and
this is a good way um to fill it people
do have a choice whether they eat out or
not um this is a way for us to collect
from folks coming into our community uh
because if we don't do it here our other
option is property
Councilman her.
>> Thank you, Mayor. Um, you know, we're
going to have a lot of opportunities to
talk about all this stuff coming up
because of the U budget um discussions
that we will be having in the future.
So, um I don't want to go into that. I
do want to um support some of what you
have said just from my discussions and
what I've been able to um kind of just
read between the lines here. Um, first
off, there was a lid. We were not
allowed to collect more than $700,000.
That's been removed and so we are now
going to see how much of that we can go
and get and we're going to try to get it
all obviously. Um, but there's also a
shortfall that's coming and we need to
make up for that. This is an elective
tax um, which I like rather than a tax
that we have no choice in which is our
property tax. And if I have to make a
decision one or the other. I'm going to
probably choose the elective tax every
day. Obviously, we're not going to have
the luxury of making the choice between
one or the other, but we can certainly
lessen the impact on one by choosing the
other. And I do think that that seems to
be a more prudent choice that is going
to lessen the overall impact that's
coming at us. Um the um inflation
affects everyone. It doesn't just affect
the private citizen. um it affects
everything and that's what we're still
facing. So, thank you
Councilwoman Ganon.
>> Well spoken and I I will just ask a
question because this is one of the
first times publicly we've been
addressing actually the upcoming budget
and saying we are going to experience a
shortfall. Can you give me a time frame
when we'll start being able to present
some of the same information to public?
Uh yeah. So, uh August 20th, we get the
valuation from the county assessor and
we also find out what the growth is. And
as a reminder, if we've got 10 houses in
town and we built two new houses, it's
those two new houses that are the
growth, not any valuation increases on
the existing houses. So, we'll we'll get
that information. We have gotten from
the state already that the inflation
factor that when they change the laws on
property tax, as an example, because I'm assuming that's really what you're
asking about, uh, is 5.26%. 26%. So we
then need the uh growth percentage so
that we can calculate um in the new
rules in the past for example if the
overall valuation of the city went up
20%
council could choose as long as we
didn't go above 45 cents you could take
it. Um the new rules say it is last
year's property tax and you can only
increase it by the growth and then
inflation. can't take um the extra
valuation increases on people's homes
that are existing. Um and so we'll be
calculating that uh this year once we
get that valuation and then we'll
hopefully be able to present it just as
soon as possible. Um after that the next
>> I like the old better but thank you for
explaining that.
>> Councilman Vaughn,
>> just a point of clarification if I
could. This does include not only food
services but drinking places.
All inclusive, correct?
>> Food and beverage.
>> Thank you.
Any other questions from council?
If not, I'll make a motion.
Councilman her. I'll make the motion to
approve the first reading ordinance 5756
a meeting amending the food and beverage
tax food and beverage occupation tax.
>> Councilman Jensen
>> and I will second.
» That motion carries 8 to zero.
Ordinance number 5756, an ordinance to
amend chapter 14 of the Fremont Nebraska
Municipal Code. Ordinance number 5604,
increasing the rate of city's food and
beverage occupation tax by amending
section 143- 14-302A
collection and repealing any parts of
ordinance to be conflicted with and to
provide for publication at the effective
date of this ordinance first reading.
» Thank you. I'll take a motion to
adjourn. Councilman Jensen. Well, I was
going to make a motion to suspend the
rules, move to third reading, but
there any discussion on that.
That's my motion.
>> I'll second her. Second,
that motion carries 8 to zero. Mayor,
Ordinance number 5756, an ordinance to
amend chapter 14 of the Fremont,
Nebraska Municipal Code, Ordinance
number 5604, increasing the rate of the
city's food and beverage occupation tax
by amending section 14-302A collection
and repealing any parts of ordinances in
conflict or within provided for
publication in the effective date of
this ordinance final rating.
Cast your final vote.
That motion carries 8 to zero. Mayor,
ordinance number 5756 is approved.
» I'll take a motion to adjurnn.
>> I'll make that motion.
>> Corner.
>> Council Jensen.
>> Second.
» That motion carries 8 to zero. Mayor,
>> we are
That's it.