[14:45] All right, meeting called to order. Time
[14:47] is now 7 o'clock. We'll start with the
[14:48] pledge of allegiance.
[14:53] I pledge algiance to the flag of the
[14:55] United States of America to the republic
[14:59] for which it stands. One nation under
[15:02] God, indivisible, with liberty and
[15:05] justice for all.
[15:15] The open meeting act is available on the
[15:18] public inspection on the table in the
[15:19] front of the room and a copy of the
[15:21] complete agenda and backup is available
[15:23] on the table in the center of the room.
[15:25] We'll go to roll call.
[15:33] Eight members are present. Mayor,
[15:36] >> thank you.
[15:40] Motion to adopt the current agenda for
[15:42] August 11th, 2026 regular city council
[15:45] meeting.
[15:52] » Councilman Vaughn.
[15:53] >> So moved.
[15:54] >> Councilman Jensen
[15:56] >> and seconded.
[16:02] » That motion carries 8 to zero.
[16:04] Okay,
[16:06] we got some appointments tonight. Item
[16:08] number two, motion to consent. Mayor's a
[16:10] reappointment to the creative council.
[16:13] Um, everybody's got a year
[16:17] term. Uh, it'll be Lindy Gen Genoix,
[16:20] Molly Payeyton, Laney Pquet, Katon
[16:23] Krakamire, Brenda Wilbering, Jennifer
[16:25] Dam, Lee Meyer, and Monica Ebie.
[16:29] There any questions or anything from
[16:31] council? If not, I'll take a motion.
[16:39] » Councilman her. Uh,
[16:40] >> yes. I'll make a motion to um um approve
[16:44] the um mayor's reappoints to the
[16:47] creative council.
[16:49] >> Councilman or Councilwoman Gana.
[16:52] >> I second.
[16:59] » That motion carries 8 to zero. Mayor
[17:02] Thank you. Item number three, motion to
[17:05] confirm appointment of Garrett Jensen to
[17:06] the police sergeants per mayor's
[17:08] recommendation.
[17:09] Uh the civil service commission provided
[17:11] a qualified candidates for us. There
[17:12] were three of them and came down to car
[17:15] to Garrett Jensen.
[17:18] Staff
[17:21] >> Jennifer, deputy chief of police. Thank
[17:23] you again for the opportunity to be here
[17:26] and speak to you tonight about the
[17:28] promotion or potential promotion of here
[17:30] at Jensen. The promotional process can
[17:33] be lengthy and stressful for every
[17:34] officer involved. Yet, it consistently
[17:36] highlights the strength and dedication
[17:38] with within our department. This most
[17:40] recent process produced an outstanding
[17:42] list of officers who are ready and
[17:44] willing to help lead the city of Fremont
[17:46] and our department into the future.
[17:48] Currently, at the top of that list is
[17:50] Officer Jensen. As you consider
[17:52] promoting him, we'd like to take a
[17:54] moment to help you get to know him a
[17:55] little better. Officer Jensen joined the
[17:57] Fremont Police Department in October of
[17:59] 2019. As an officer in the patrol
[18:01] division, he worked night shift
[18:03] throughout his career. In 2022, Officer
[18:06] Jensen joined the emergency response
[18:08] unit and is now a team sniper for the
[18:10] unit. In 2024, he became a field
[18:13] training officer. He recently completed
[18:15] an instructor level course in police
[18:17] response to active shooter uh to assist
[18:20] the department in training officers in
[18:22] tactics and proper response to these
[18:24] situations. Officer Jensen graduated
[18:26] from Lions Dear Northeast High School in
[18:28] 2007 and in 2012 he earned his
[18:31] bachelor's degree in business
[18:32] administration from UNL. During his
[18:35] service at the Fremont Police
[18:36] Department, Officer Jensen has earned
[18:38] multiple recognitions for outstanding
[18:40] performance. One such commendation
[18:42] stemmed from an attempted robbery in
[18:44] which employees had been locked inside a
[18:46] freezer. Demonstrating bravery, Officer
[18:50] Jensen and Sergeant and his sergeant
[18:52] entered the restaurant through the
[18:54] drive-through window. I'm sorry,
[18:56] conducted a search for suspects and
[18:59] safely freed the employees. Officer
[19:01] Jensen is most proud of his service on
[19:04] the ERU and being appointed as the team
[19:06] sniper. He is also proud of becoming a
[19:08] response active shooter instructor and
[19:10] field training officer. Joining Officer
[19:13] Jensen today for the pinning ceremony
[19:15] are his wife Taylor and his son Maddox.
[19:19] Questions from council.
[19:24] » Okay. Thank you.
[19:27] I'll take a motion.
[19:32] » Councilman Jensen.
[19:33] >> I'll make the motion to confirm him. And
[19:35] I will just state for the record that
[19:37] offer Jensen and myself are not related
[19:39] in any way.
[19:42] >> Councilman Horner,
[19:43] >> I'll second.
[19:56] » That motion carries eight to zero.
[19:57] Mayor.
[19:58] >> All right. Thank you.
[20:04] that you have voted. Uh joining officer
[20:07] Jensen today for the pinning ceremony
[20:09] are his wife Taylor and his son Maddox.
[20:11] His parents Stephen and Lori and his
[20:12] father and mother-in-law Richard and
[20:14] Denise are also present. Pinning his
[20:17] badge will be his wife Taylor.
[21:37] Okay, on to public hearings. Item number
[21:38] four, resolution 2026-199,
[21:42] making a recommendation for a class D
[21:44] liquor license application of Casey's
[21:46] Retail Company, DBA Casey's number 4670
[21:50] located at 730 Boulevard. Staff,
[21:54] >> thank you, Mayor. Michael Chhaterson,
[21:56] city clerk. Uh this is a new uh liquor
[21:58] license application for the Casey's that
[22:00] is going in uh there off Morningside
[22:02] Road off the uh 275 bypass. Um this will
[22:06] be for a class D liquor license. Uh
[22:08] council can
[22:10] effectively do one of three things. They
[22:12] can make a recommendation of approval,
[22:14] no recommendation, or make a
[22:15] recommendation to deny to the liquor
[22:17] control commission. Um at which point
[22:20] the control the liquor control
[22:21] commission will do whatever council kind
[22:23] of effectuates from that regard. Um, so
[22:25] I can take any questions, from council.
[22:32] Okay, seeing none, I'll go to uh open
[22:34] the public hearing.
[22:39] » Seeing none, I'll close the public
[22:40] hearing. Come down to council for a
[22:42] motion or any discussion.
[22:46] Councilman Vaughn,
[22:47] >> I've received assurances that they will
[22:49] have the pizza that I love. So, I will
[22:51] make that recommendation approved.
[22:53] Councilman her
[22:55] >> and I'll second that with the pizza
[22:57] especially.
[23:04] » That motion carries 8 to zero. Mayor.
[23:07] >> Okay. Thank you. On the consent agenda,
[23:09] all items on the consent agenda are
[23:10] considered to be routine by the city
[23:12] council and will be acted by enacted by
[23:15] one motion. There will be no separate
[23:16] discussion of these items less a C
[23:18] council member or staff so request in
[23:20] which the item will be removed from the
[23:22] consent agenda and considered
[23:23] separately.
[23:26] >> Anything on consent to be removed?
[23:28] Counciloman Le.
[23:29] >> I'd like to remove number 17, please
[23:43] » number seven.
[23:53] Can we remove item 11, please, mayor?
[24:00] » Anybody else?
[24:08] If not, I'll take a motion uh pass the
[24:10] consent agenda minus items 7, 11,
[24:14] and 17.
[24:17] >> Councilman her.
[24:19] >> I'll make the motion to approve the
[24:21] consent agenda minus 7, items 7, 11, and
[24:24] 17.
[24:27] >> Councilman Jensen, and I'll second.
[24:34] That motion carries 8 to zero, mayor.
[24:38] >> Okay, thank you.
[24:41] Item seven, motion to receive the report of the treasury,
[24:52] » honorable council,
[24:54] honorable mayor, Jennifer Nab, finance
[24:56] director. Um, we have for you the report
[25:00] of the treasury. This is the report that
[25:02] shows the change in our balances for all
[25:04] of our different accounts and
[25:06] investments. And I am available for any
[25:09] questions you may have.
[25:12] >> Questions from councel.
[25:17] » It's such an important item that it's
[25:20] good to hear a summary if you would give
[25:22] a summary for that. And I know we've
[25:25] read the report. It's just good to have
[25:28] it public as well. Thank you. Any
[25:34] other questions from council?
[25:41] » I'll take comments from the public.
[25:47] Seeing none, I'll close the public
[25:48] comment and go back to council for a
[25:51] motion or any other discussion.
[25:56] Councilwoman
[26:01] Gan
[26:02] >> I move we [clears throat] excuse me I
[26:05] make a motion to receive the treasury
[26:08] report
[26:10] >> second
[26:24] that motion carries 8 to zero mayor
[26:31] Okay. Item number 11, resolution
[26:34] 2026-197,
[26:36] authorizing the renewal of all existing
[26:37] class C liquor license through October
[26:39] 31st, 2027.
[26:42] >> Yeah.
[26:43] >> Thank you, Mayor Michael Chatterson,
[26:44] city clerk. This is the resolution to
[26:46] approve all existing uh liquor license
[26:48] class C's. Um, the reason I wanted to
[26:52] discuss further was we I was uh I I was
[26:56] aware that we made a mistake on one of
[26:58] the addresses for Renita's. We still
[27:00] have them listed at 343 North Main.
[27:01] They've since moved in the last few
[27:03] weeks. Um, so we'll need to amend that.
[27:05] So, if I could get a motion to amend
[27:06] that um address on our resolution, we'll
[27:10] get that. We should be good to go
[27:12] otherwise.
[27:14] >> Okay.
[27:16] Question or council? Uh, Councilman
[27:20] Jensen,
[27:21] >> I'll I'll make the motion to amend as as
[27:23] needed.
[27:24] >> Councilman Hero,
[27:25] >> I'll second the motion to amend.
[27:41] » That motion carries 8 to zero. Mayor,
[27:45] » uh, any comments from
[27:48] the public.
[27:53] Seeing none, I'll close it. I'll take a
[27:55] motion as amended.
[27:59] » Councilman Vaughn,
[28:00] >> make motion to approve as amended.
[28:03] >> Councilman Marsh.
[28:05] >> Second.
[28:15] That motion carries 8 to zero.
[28:19] Okay, thank you.
[28:22] >> Item 17, resolution 2026-204,
[28:26] awarding the funding for downtown
[28:28] project for downtown revital
[28:29] revitalization community development
[28:31] block grant at 311 North Main Street in
[28:34] the amount of 22,938.75.
[28:44] Good evening, honorable mayor, city
[28:46] council, Angie Olsen, grant coordinator.
[28:48] We've received an application for the
[28:51] downtown facade improvements program
[28:53] from the address of 311 North Main
[28:56] Street that's owned by Todd Hoppy and
[28:58] Trisha Dorfmeer who are in attendance
[29:01] with us tonight. Uh their project
[29:04] estimate is just over $30,000. There is
[29:07] a 25% match requirement for this
[29:10] program. So that brings their request to
[29:12] right around um $23,000.
[29:15] Their project is um for the front of 311
[29:19] Maine. Originally, they wanted to have a
[29:22] recessed interior which would take it
[29:24] back to um the uh historical look of the
[29:28] building. However, that was very
[29:29] complicated process. And um their your
[29:32] packet includes a letter from an
[29:34] engineer stating um that will be a a a
[29:38] difficult task and they did reach out to
[29:40] multiple contracts contractors who were
[29:43] not willing to take that on. However, um
[29:46] they are going to restore the front um
[29:49] as is kind of flat uh to Main Street and
[29:53] I'm here to answer any questions you
[29:54] might have.
[29:57] Uh, Councilwoman Lethra,
[29:59] >> I don't have any questions, but I I just
[30:02] wanted to say that it's wonderful that
[30:05] they're taking advantage of this great
[30:07] opportunity. Um, restoring the downtown.
[30:10] They are doing a fabulous job on that
[30:13] building down there and I want to thank
[30:15] them for that. Um, I also would like to
[30:18] say that there are additional funds
[30:21] available in this program and maybe
[30:25] Angie could expand on that just a little
[30:27] bit.
[30:27] >> Yeah, sure. So, we um have about
[30:29] $200,000 left in this program. As uh you
[30:33] might remember, we did extend it um
[30:35] originally was set to expire in May of
[30:38] 2026. So, we've extended it to May of
[30:40] 2027. And um we are having some internal
[30:43] discussions of if um we don't have
[30:45] applicants come forward what we might
[30:47] use those funds for. Uh we would need to
[30:49] work with the state and make sure that
[30:51] um our projects are uh eligible and
[30:54] within um their standards. Uh but it
[30:57] might look like some street sidewalk
[30:59] improvements, ADA accessibility,
[31:01] something like that in the downtown
[31:02] area. But if there are any applicants
[31:04] interested, um it's a great time to
[31:07] apply. Um the applicants tonight
[31:10] actually also received funding for 307
[31:12] North Main Street and um they've been
[31:14] working hard on that one as well.
[31:18] >> Thank you.
[31:21] >> Any other questions from council?
[31:24] Okay.
[31:26] >> Uh comments from the public?
[31:31] Seeing none, I'll close that and come
[31:32] back for Oh, come on up.
[31:45] Todd, 1225 County Road Y. Um, no real
[31:49] comments. I handed out two packets of uh
[31:52] pictures. Uh, I wanted to let you see
[31:55] when I bought it is on the front and if
[31:58] you go through you see the stages on the
[32:01] front windows on the top story they're
[32:04] in and the bottom is boarded up and
[32:06] tomorrow they're measuring to put the
[32:09] first ones in at 309. Once we get that
[32:11] then we'll move our boards to the north
[32:14] and do the 311 you guys are doing
[32:16] tonight. I also included the backside
[32:19] which your grant didn't have, but you
[32:22] can see what ugly we had. We've removed
[32:26] all that. Uh it's coming along great.
[32:28] We'll have uh six apartments rented out
[32:31] by the end of the year. Um
[32:34] couldn't go any better. This grant
[32:36] helped us a lot. Otherwise, we're doing
[32:38] it out of our front pocket. It's a lot
[32:40] easier when we have funds allotted to us
[32:43] then uh we pay it off because the banks
[32:46] are a lot easier to look at a finished
[32:49] product instead of
[32:51] putting money behind us. Will the
[32:54] project get done? So, thank you for what
[32:56] you guys are doing. That's all I got.
[32:58] >> Thank you.
[32:59] >> We need a motion to receive
[33:03] information. Councilman her
[33:04] >> I'll make a motion to receive.
[33:08] I want to lay through a second.
[33:14] That motion carries 8 to zero. Mayor
[33:35] Councilman
[34:00] Jensen, you have something?
[34:02] >> Yes. If there's no further discussion,
[34:04] then make the motion to approve the
[34:05] resolution.
[34:07] >> I still got to go to public.
[34:12] » All right. I'll take any comments from
[34:13] the public.
[34:16] >> Seeing none, I'll come back to council
[34:17] for a motion.
[34:22] Councilman Jensen,
[34:23] >> I'll make the motion to approve
[34:25] resolution 2026-204.
[34:28] Councilman
[34:29] >> Vaughn, I will second.
[34:36] That motion carries 8 to zero, mayor.
[34:40] [clears throat] Okay, thank you. On to
[34:42] new business, item 18, ordinance 57 to
[34:45] 53 for approval of utilities salary
[34:47] ordinance. First reading.
[34:55] Good evening, mayor and city council.
[34:56] Jennifer McDuffy, director of human
[34:58] resources. Um we are getting looking at
[35:01] starting the new fiscal year. So that
[35:03] means when we have to take a look at
[35:05] wages um this is the proposed salary
[35:07] ordinance for the utility side of the
[35:10] organization. Um it would take effect
[35:13] the pay period that includes October 1st
[35:15] and has a 2 and a half% increase across
[35:18] the board which matches the IBW
[35:21] collective bargaining agreement was
[35:23] approved. That was last year.
[35:28] » Any questions from council?
[35:33] » Councilman Jensen. This is by contract.
[35:36] Is that not correct? I mean, we've got
[35:37] to match this up. This is this is funds
[35:39] that were already been been uh allocated
[35:42] and and this is our path forward.
[35:45] Correct.
[35:46] >> So, it's it's two and a half% for
[35:48] everyone. That includes those that are
[35:50] in the in the bargaining unit and those
[35:52] that are not the bargaining
[35:54] Um the bargaining unit has been
[35:56] contracted. The non-bargaining unit
[35:58] funds were budgeted with the budget. So
[36:00] we did include that
[36:03] budget.
[36:06] Any other questions from council?
[36:12] Okay. I'll take public comment.
[36:17] Seeing none, I'll come back to council
[36:19] for a motion or any other discussion.
[36:21] Councilman Horner.
[36:23] >> If there's no further discussion, I
[36:24] would make the motion that we approve
[36:26] the first reading for ordinance 5753.
[36:30] >> Councilwoman Le and I'll second.
[36:38] » That motion carries 8 to zero.
[36:41] Ordinance number 5753, an ordinance of
[36:43] the city of Fremont, Nebraska,
[36:45] pertaining to pay plan for officers and
[36:46] employees, repealing ordinance number
[36:47] 5740 and all other ordinances and parts
[36:49] of ordinances in conflict with providing
[36:51] for publication plan form providing for
[36:53] an effect and providing for an effective
[36:55] date first reading.
[37:03] Councilman Horner.
[37:04] >> Um, if there's no reason for us not to
[37:07] do this and since it's a contractual
[37:09] matter and we've already decided that, I
[37:12] would like to make the motion that we
[37:13] suspend the rules and move this to third
[37:16] and final reading.
[37:19] >> Councilman uh gentleman
[37:22] >> and I second that.
[37:30] » That motion carries 8 to zero. Mayor
[37:33] Ordinance number 5753, an ordinance of
[37:35] the city of Fremont, Nebraska pertaining
[37:37] to pay plan for officers and employees
[37:38] appealing ordinance number 5740 and all
[37:40] other ordinances parts of ordinance is
[37:41] in conflict here with providing for
[37:42] publication plan performance providing
[37:44] for an effect. Final reading
[37:48] cast final vote.
[37:54] [clears throat]
[37:54] >> That motion carries 8 to zero. Mayor,
[37:56] ordinance number 5753 is approved.
[38:00] >> Thank you.
[38:04] Item 19, ordinance 5754 for approval of
[38:07] government salary ordinance. First
[38:08] reading.
[38:15] » Jennifer McDuffy, director of human
[38:17] resources. Um, this is the salary for
[38:20] the city side of the house. Um, again,
[38:23] two and a half%. This covers the
[38:24] non-bargaining unit and what was
[38:26] contractually agreed upon in the FOPF.
[38:30] asked me collective bargaining
[38:31] agreements last year. Same effective
[38:33] date.
[38:36] » Any questions from council?
[38:42] » Any comments from the public?
[38:45] >> I'll come back to council for a motion.
[38:51] Councilman vaugh.
[38:52] >> Motion to approve.
[38:55] Councilman
[38:56] >> her. I'll second.
[39:02] That motion carries 8 to zero. Mayor,
[39:05] ordinance number 5754, an ordinance of
[39:07] the city of Fremont, Nebraska,
[39:08] pertaining to pay plan for officers and
[39:10] employees repealing ordinance number
[39:11] 5725 and all of their ordinances or
[39:13] parts of ordinances conflict here with
[39:15] writing for publication and performed
[39:16] writing for an effective date first
[39:18] reading.
[39:25] Uh, Councilman Vaughn,
[39:26] >> any reason not to move this third and
[39:28] final as well?
[39:29] >> Not to my knowledge.
[39:30] >> I'll make that motion.
[39:33] >> Councilman Johnson,
[39:34] >> and I will second.
[39:43] » The motion carries 8 to zero. Mayor
[39:45] Ordinance number 5754 and ordinance of
[39:47] the city of Fremont, Nebraska pertaining
[39:48] to pay plan for officers and employees
[39:50] appealing ordinance number 5725 and all
[39:52] other ordinances and parts of ordinances
[39:53] in conflict with providing for
[39:54] publication form providing for an effect
[39:56] to date final reading.
[40:02] Cash final vote.
[40:09] » That motion carries 8 to zero. Mayor
[40:10] ordinance number 5754 is approved.
[40:14] Thank you.
[40:16] Uh item 20, ordinance 575, revising FMC
[40:21] 2-103 and eliminating an open public
[40:23] comment period to comply with the
[40:24] openness meeting act. First reading.
[40:28] Yeah.
[40:29] >> Thank you, mayor, members of city
[40:30] council. Travis Jott, city attorney. Um
[40:33] this was brought up following our last
[40:35] meeting. There was a complaint filed by
[40:37] a citizen alleging that our open
[40:39] meetings act as it is currently set up
[40:43] violates the open meetings act. Um
[40:47] we took a look at it and we've been
[40:49] advising now that having a comment
[40:52] period where items are not noticed on
[40:54] the agenda could be a violation of open.
[40:57] So really when you look at the analysis
[41:00] um there are three steps. We got to
[41:01] determine whether a meeting has taken
[41:03] place and when there's a more than a
[41:05] quorum of the council present and we're
[41:08] discussing city business being briefed
[41:11] on anything taking city action that
[41:14] would constitute a meeting. So I think
[41:16] there's no doubt that having the council
[41:18] here listening to comment would
[41:20] constitute a meeting. The second thing
[41:23] we want to look at is whether there was
[41:25] advanced publicized notice of that
[41:27] meeting. And we currently let the public
[41:29] know that we are having a public comment
[41:32] period at 6:30. Um but we don't let them
[41:35] know what is going to be discussed. And
[41:37] that's really the third element is we
[41:38] have to have advanced publicized notice
[41:40] of the topics for discussion. Um and
[41:43] that would be a description on an
[41:44] agenda. Um this issue has come up in the
[41:48] past with Fremont. Um there's been some
[41:51] previous attorney general disposition
[41:53] letters that has discussed this issue
[41:56] following complaints that were filed by
[41:58] citizens on various issues. Um, there
[42:01] was one disposition letter in particular
[42:04] that dealt with our utility and
[42:06] infrastructure board where the attorney
[42:09] general, assistant attorney general that
[42:11] worked on that complaint said that it
[42:13] was not a violation to have the when the
[42:15] public comments on items not on the
[42:17] agenda.
[42:19] That to me does not protect the city
[42:21] completely from any potential liability
[42:23] for a violation under the act.
[42:26] A disposition letter handles a
[42:28] complaint. There's still an attorney
[42:30] general opinion that could also be
[42:32] provided, which we haven't sought for
[42:34] this issue. Typically, that would be
[42:36] provided when there's multiple
[42:38] municipalities and public bodies that
[42:40] face the same issue. The attorney
[42:42] general will come out with a with an
[42:43] opinion on that. And none of the
[42:46] previous dispositions have discussed the
[42:48] particular issue of advanced publicized
[42:50] notice of public comments from the
[42:53] public. So this is really the start of
[42:56] what I would like to do is discuss
[42:59] different methods of permitting public
[43:01] comment that would comply with the act
[43:04] as it's written right now. We believe it
[43:05] violates the open meetings act. I know
[43:07] when you go down to talk to members of
[43:09] the league municipal municipalities they
[43:11] would agree. Um
[43:13] so we've come up with this first step is
[43:16] to eliminate it as it stands right now.
[43:19] The second step would be to come up with
[43:22] a new format. And what I've proposed in
[43:24] the past is members of the public are
[43:27] permitted to add items to the agenda for
[43:30] anything that they would want to
[43:31] discuss. And that would actually, I
[43:34] think, benefit the council and members
[43:36] of the public in multiple ways. One is
[43:38] the council would be able to engage in a
[43:41] discussion with that member of the
[43:42] public on whatever that topic is because
[43:44] it has been properly noticed. and number
[43:46] two, the other members of the public
[43:49] would know what is going to be briefed
[43:51] or discussed in front of the council.
[43:53] So, we think that would be a much better
[43:55] approach. We think that would comply
[43:57] with the open meetings act there. The
[43:59] current public comment period that isn't
[44:02] properly noticed where uh with the
[44:04] description of what's going to be
[44:05] discussed, there's no action taken right
[44:07] now. So, it would be difficult for any
[44:10] claimant to try to undo an action that
[44:13] was done, but we still want to make sure
[44:15] we're complying with the act. And I
[44:17] think allowing members of the public to
[44:19] submit items ahead of time would uh
[44:22] still fulfill the spirit of allowing the
[44:24] public to speak.
[44:27] >> With that, I'm here to answer any
[44:28] questions. I know there's a lot of
[44:29] interested people here to speak on this.
[44:31] >> Councilman Councilman her.
[44:34] >> Uh, thank you, Mayor. Um, Travis, I know
[44:37] you and I have talked about this a
[44:38] little bit and I really appreciate you
[44:40] bringing it forward. I honestly do. Um,
[44:42] I think it's time we have had these
[44:44] discussions and I think it's time we do
[44:46] move this to the public arena so that we
[44:49] can we can hash it out and and hopefully
[44:52] get it right. Um, I I agree with you
[44:55] that I from from what I've been able to
[44:58] the short time I've had this and been
[45:00] able to consider it, I agree with you
[45:01] that we are under the present format. I
[45:04] think we are probably in violation
[45:06] because of the way we do it. Um, I have
[45:09] found about five other communities that
[45:13] seem to be doing
[45:15] what we were doing with one caveat. I'll
[45:18] get to that in a second, but Lincoln has
[45:21] a um they call it something
[45:26] different, but they have a basically a
[45:27] public comment period. Um, so does L
[45:30] Vista, so does Pilion.
[45:33] um Arie, Norfolk,
[45:36] and those were just the five that I
[45:38] found real quick. Um you know, doing my keyboard warrior routine. Um
[45:45] but anyways, you know, the one striking
[45:47] difference in what they're doing versus
[45:49] what we're not is that theirs are an
[45:53] official part of the agenda
[45:55] >> as public comments and theirs um um
[45:59] comes after the meeting's been called to
[46:01] order. um hours. That's the one striking
[46:04] difference is that it's before we call
[46:08] the meeting to order. And you know, as
[46:11] if it's not part of the meeting,
[46:12] although it it it it actually is part of
[46:14] the meeting. It's just before we call
[46:17] the meeting to order. Um and and I think
[46:19] that's a bit of a technicality um that
[46:22] we can fix. I would rather do that than
[46:25] I would see to strike and kill this. I
[46:27] think it's just too important um to the
[46:31] citizens of Fremont to um have the Now, the one thing I do want to make
[46:37] clear too is that this is not killing
[46:39] access. If we were to do this, if for
[46:41] some reason, guys, we were to do this.
[46:43] doesn't kill access.
[46:45] You can go out on our website and you
[46:47] can find eight phone numbers to call
[46:48] these people right here. You can find
[46:50] the mayor's phone number. You can find
[46:52] Jod's. You can find Travis yours. You
[46:54] can find everybody's phone number.
[46:56] There's access all over the place. Okay.
[46:59] The difference though in this, and this
[47:01] is where I think it's key, the
[47:03] difference is it's face toface. You can
[47:05] come and you can orally present your
[47:07] case and sometimes people just feel they
[47:10] need to do that. And I think we need to
[47:13] continue to provide that outlet. We have
[47:16] to comply. So, we've got to figure that
[47:18] piece out. So, I'm gonna I do have some
[47:21] thoughts on that, but I'm going to stop
[47:23] because I know there's a lot of other
[47:25] people talking.
[47:27] Councilwoman,
[47:31] » okay, I get to talk second. That's
[47:33] great. Uh, we need to be finding ways
[47:37] for our bosses, which are our taxpayers,
[47:39] which are you, the opportunity to share
[47:42] their thoughts with us. And so, it's
[47:45] important that we find opportunities as
[47:48] our councilman her projected and I had
[47:52] found the same thing. I did go out and
[47:55] check and yes, Lincoln is at the very
[47:58] end public comment. Anyone wishing to
[48:01] address the council on items that are on
[48:04] the agenda or not on the agenda and may
[48:08] not appear on future agendas can do an
[48:10] open mic session is what they call it,
[48:13] but at least they're allowed total of
[48:15] five minutes. So there's a time frame
[48:17] again. And so for the month of August,
[48:20] they it was August 10th and August 31st
[48:23] this year. I also found a couple others.
[48:25] You probably found the same two. Nor
[48:30] has it. And again, it was uh August 3rd
[48:34] meeting of Norfork City Council. Item
[48:37] number five says public comment period.
[48:41] So on August 4th, Gretna City Council
[48:44] meeting, item number three is public
[48:46] comment.
[48:48] And Councilman her pointed out the main
[48:50] difference it's on their agenda. It's
[48:54] not a it's not before our official
[48:58] meeting. So when we have all of us
[49:00] together that's constitutes a meeting
[49:04] and we are not abiding by that. I think
[49:07] we need to I do believe we need to abide
[49:09] by it. But before we do, we need to find
[49:13] ways and opportunities to have public
[49:16] have their their thoughts and speech
[49:20] heard by all of us. So, we need to
[49:23] continue finding ways to have public comment.
[49:33] » Okay.
[49:36] Councilman Jensen,
[49:38] >> um I agree with most of what's been
[49:40] said. So far, I guess I'll say I'm the
[49:43] only one sitting here on council was
[49:45] actually on this council when this when
[49:47] this ordinance was brought forward. And
[49:50] uh I'll be honest, I've been a little
[49:52] disappointed in what it's evolved into.
[49:55] I I think we can do it better. I think
[49:57] we need to do something, but we need to
[49:58] do better than what we're doing right
[49:59] now.
[50:02] >> Councilman von Baron. Yeah, this is I
[50:05] know we've all invested a lot of time in
[50:07] this one because it's a this this one
[50:10] has a long tail. It probably actually
[50:13] goes back to somewhere around 2008.
[50:15] That's [snorts] there's a lot of history
[50:17] behind that. But I think what's
[50:20] sensitive here is there have been
[50:21] multiple attempts to eliminate public
[50:24] comment. And I think what's even been
[50:28] more frustrating, there have been
[50:31] multiple requests, multiple suggestions
[50:34] as to how to improve public comment. And
[50:37] I think we as a city have to admit that
[50:40] we have done nothing to improve the
[50:42] process. We've done nothing to provide a
[50:44] response. We've let people come and sit
[50:46] and feel like they've been ignored and
[50:49] then we've made attempts to get rid of
[50:51] this process. I think we need to be
[50:53] sensitive to the fact that that has
[50:55] presented a very bad image of what we
[50:58] are and what we're trying to accomplish.
[51:00] Two years ago, Travis, I brought your
[51:03] suggestion to the council that we let
[51:05] the public put items on the agenda. I
[51:08] think that was a 7 to1 vote. That didn't
[51:11] see the light of day. I could not
[51:13] understand why the public couldn't bring
[51:15] forth an item, but we brought we brought
[51:16] that almost that exact motion and it got
[51:19] voted down soundly. So, I think one of
[51:22] the lessons here, and I'm glad this is
[51:25] coming up again, but this is not a new
[51:27] issue, and at some point, if we're going
[51:30] to look at abolishing this, we better
[51:33] come up with something that's
[51:35] acceptable, that's at least as good,
[51:37] where the public is not restricted as
[51:39] proposed right now. One of the
[51:41] consequences, if we're not careful, all
[51:43] they're going to comment on is what we
[51:45] want to talk about, what's on the
[51:47] agenda. And we need to be very cons care
[51:50] careful of that. And I I don't I
[51:54] understand our intent and this precedes
[51:56] any of us here, but I also understand
[51:58] the skepticism. So, thank you,
[52:02] >> Councilman Marsh.
[52:04] >> You pretty much stole the words right
[52:06] out of my mouth for everything you said
[52:07] there. And I guess I would like to
[52:08] anytime you read something that says
[52:10] taking away someone's voice, if they
[52:13] have never been to one of those public
[52:14] comments sections, it's it's very
[52:16] awkward. Someone else mentioned that is
[52:19] um maybe get here late or didn't realize
[52:21] that that we cannot respond and they
[52:23] come up and and plead their case and we
[52:24] sit there and nod our head and make our
[52:26] notes and they walk away and they have
[52:27] no idea if we even agree or or we're
[52:30] accepting what they're saying and
[52:32] there's no worse feeling than not being
[52:33] heard and uh so we certainly need to
[52:35] look at this that's for sure.
[52:43] Um, so I've spoken with all of the
[52:46] members of the council and um,
[52:50] generally we all agree that we don't
[52:53] want to take anyone's voice away. It's
[52:56] just a different format that we are
[52:59] having to present it, give you the
[53:02] opportunity to speak. So it's not taking
[53:05] it away. Um there's been stuff all over
[53:09] social media saying that we wanted to
[53:12] quiet the constituents. That is so not
[53:15] true. Um we want to hear from people. Um
[53:20] we do however want it done in a way that
[53:25] the staff, the council are not being
[53:28] attacked. Um there's there's just really
[53:32] no room for that. I think people can
[53:34] make their point without attacking
[53:37] anybody up here or anybody on the staff.
[53:40] So I think we all need to be, you know,
[53:44] conscious of that.
[53:51] Marin, did you have Okay.
[53:56] Anybody else?
[54:00] I'll take public comment.
[54:06] I got five for this.
[54:12] » All right, Scott Preston, 1717 East 12th
[54:14] Street. I'm going to go just a hair off
[54:15] my script because I do have the five
[54:16] minutes. First of all, um about the the
[54:19] comment regarding uh city employees and attacking. I agree with you. City of
[54:23] Lexington solves that by saying in the agenda that public comment is
[54:28] allowed but uh you may not attack any
[54:31] city employee. They cover that. They do
[54:33] it in that way. So it can be done on the
[54:35] regular agenda. Now so the staff report
[54:37] was clear in its reasoning for ordinance
[54:40] 5755 to directly quote the council. Uh
[54:43] we would need advanced publicized notice
[54:45] of the topics to be discussed as
[54:47] required by 84-1411E.
[54:50] This does not happen under the format
[54:51] described in FM FMC2-103
[54:54] and the same should be eliminated to
[54:56] comply with Nebraska law. Now, he
[54:58] referenced and I have right here with me
[55:00] and sent to your emails today a scan
[55:02] copy of a letter that the attorney
[55:04] general and assistant attorney general
[55:06] wrote to Susan Jacobus on November 19th,
[55:08] 2018. At that time, M. Jacobus was
[55:11] concerned that a member of the public
[55:12] was permitted to comment during a
[55:14] utility and infrastructure board meeting
[55:15] on a topic without that item or public
[55:18] comment being on the agenda. And the
[55:20] response that uh that that he gave was was lengthy and there were several
[55:24] other issues involved. But the key point
[55:26] uh has very very clear language. It says
[55:29] we understand that the board allows
[55:31] public comment at each of its meetings.
[55:33] Its agendas should so reflect. We would
[55:36] instruct the board to add an agenda item
[55:38] to its meetings for public comment to
[55:40] properly alert members of the public
[55:42] that they will be permitted to address
[55:43] the board at its meetings. The board,
[55:45] however, may allow members of the public
[55:47] to address it on any topic and is not
[55:50] required to limit public comment only to
[55:52] items found on the agenda, provided that
[55:54] the public comment period itself is on
[55:57] the agenda. I want to repeat that last
[55:58] line. It's very clear. The board,
[56:01] however, may allow members of the public
[56:03] to address it on any topic and is not
[56:06] required to limit public comment only to
[56:09] items found on the agenda, provided that
[56:11] the public comment period itself is not
[56:14] or is on the agenda. And when it comes
[56:16] to the staff report, it seems to be
[56:18] heavily leaning on this excerpt from
[56:20] 84-1411E.
[56:23] quote, "Agenda items shall be
[56:25] sufficiently descriptive to give the
[56:26] public reasonable notice of the matters
[56:29] to be considered at the meeting." And I
[56:31] want you to know that that particular
[56:33] passage was added to the Open Meetings
[56:35] Act in 2006, 12 years prior to the
[56:39] Attorney General's letter. The AG's
[56:41] office would have been well aware of
[56:42] that change and didn't view it as an
[56:45] impediment to open public comment
[56:47] properly put on the agenda. I'd like to
[56:50] add that I'd like to thank you for
[56:51] mentioning Lincoln uh in in this
[56:53] discussion because I reached out to the
[56:56] Lincoln City Attorney's Office and I did
[56:58] hear from Chris Connelly, the assistant
[57:00] city attorney. I asked if they had any
[57:02] concerns about the legality of having
[57:05] open public comment and and I did get
[57:07] here was his quote. He said that he was
[57:09] not aware of any complaints to our
[57:12] office or concerns from anyone that our
[57:16] open public comment sessions are
[57:18] illegal. And also I'd note that the
[57:20] views of Adams and Sullivan here are not
[57:21] shared by all Nebraska attorneys. The
[57:24] Nebraska law firm Rimol Luki wrote in
[57:26] 2024 that to comply with the open
[57:29] meetings act as amended, public bodies
[57:31] should include an open mic public
[57:33] comment period at every public meeting.
[57:35] Now, I don't necessarily agree with that
[57:37] interpretation 100%. But you guys should
[57:40] know that there are other
[57:41] interpretations of this statute out
[57:43] there. And now, usually I come before
[57:46] you to complain. But tonight, I think
[57:49] there's a relatively simple solution. We
[57:51] need to bring public comment onto the
[57:53] regular agenda in the way that Lincoln
[57:55] does and and Scotsluff and all the other
[57:57] cities that you mentioned. Set a three
[57:59] minute per person rule. Cap the time at
[58:01] 30 minutes, and during most meetings,
[58:02] you'll be able to move on in less than
[58:04] 10 minutes. I've been here for the
[58:05] public comment period before. Sometimes
[58:07] only two or three folks. And you know,
[58:10] the law can be followed, the public can
[58:12] be heard, and we're going to save you
[58:14] some time in the process because if
[58:16] nobody's here, nobody signs up, just
[58:17] move on, and you don't have to look at
[58:19] each other for a half an hour. Um, it's a win all around. So, I think you
[58:23] need to vote no on this ordinance
[58:24] tonight. Take it back to the drawing
[58:26] board because we can and certainly
[58:27] should do better. Thank you.
[58:30] >> Thank you. [clears throat] Anybody
[58:34] else?
[58:39] Please state your name and address,
[58:40] please.
[58:42] >> Jonathan Shahan, 1205, County Roadex,
[58:45] Fremont, Nebraska. Earlier today, my
[58:47] signed written objection to ordinance
[58:49] number 5755 was provided by email to
[58:52] every member of the city council, the
[58:53] mayor, and the city clerk. Before this
[58:55] meeting began, I also delivered a paper
[58:57] copy directly to the city clerk. I am
[58:59] now presenting that written objection in
[59:01] connection with this agenda item and ask
[59:03] that it be retained as part of the
[59:05] record and reflected in the minutes. The
[59:07] central point of that objection is
[59:09] simple. Eliminating Fremont's regular
[59:11] public comment period is not required by
[59:13] the Nebraska Open Meetings Act. At the
[59:16] last city council meeting, a citizen
[59:17] objected to the way Fremont was
[59:19] conducting public comment. That
[59:21] procedural problem can be fixed.
[59:23] Instead, the city is using that
[59:25] procedural issue as justification to
[59:27] eliminate Fremont's regular public
[59:29] comment period altogether. Those are two
[59:31] completely different things. The city
[59:33] can comply with the open meetings act
[59:35] without taking away the public's regular
[59:38] opportunity to address the council. If
[59:40] this ordinance passes, it will not be
[59:42] because state law required it. It will
[59:44] be because the city council chose to
[59:46] silence the constituents who elected
[59:47] them. Make no mistake, this is a policy
[59:50] decision. The question is simple. Should
[59:52] citizens continue to have a regular
[59:54] opport to have a regular opportunity to
[59:56] come before their elected
[59:57] representatives and be heard or will the
[59:59] members of the city council based on
[1:00:01] legal advice that misstates what the
[1:00:04] open meetings act requires decide that
[1:00:06] access to your elected officials should
[1:00:08] be taken away. Do not let the
[1:00:11] elimination of Fremont's regular public
[1:00:13] comment period be sold to the public as
[1:00:15] something required by the Nebraska Open
[1:00:17] Meetings Act. It isn't. Thank you.
[1:00:20] >> Thank you.
[1:00:22] Anybody else?
[1:00:30] » Your name and address, please.
[1:00:32] >> Don Atwell, 1650 North Broad Street,
[1:00:36] Fremont, Nebraska. Thank you for hearing
[1:00:38] my concern, council. Mr. Mayor, uh, I do
[1:00:42] not pretend to know, I'm not a lawyer. I
[1:00:44] don't pretend to know all the rules and
[1:00:46] laws concerning public meetings.
[1:00:48] understand that local laws uh must be in
[1:00:51] compliance with state laws and higher
[1:00:52] authorities. That's understandable.
[1:00:54] However, I find it difficult to believe
[1:00:56] that the Open Meetings Act would have
[1:00:58] language that would discourage a
[1:01:01] community's voice on issues that concern
[1:01:03] them. I understand that public comments
[1:01:06] can be uncomfortable.
[1:01:08] Common commentators can be at times
[1:01:11] rude, untruthful,
[1:01:14] ill-informed,
[1:01:16] uh, self-serving, etc. He probably could
[1:01:18] add to the list considerably. I commend
[1:01:21] this council's patience in in hearing
[1:01:23] those and listening those. A
[1:01:25] representative form of government is
[1:01:27] fundamental to a free society. A
[1:01:30] government left to the hands of
[1:01:31] unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats is
[1:01:34] another step away from a free society
[1:01:37] and toward totalitarianism.
[1:01:40] Public comment on matters that affect
[1:01:42] community is not only necessary for
[1:01:44] gaining perspective on how potential
[1:01:47] decisions may affect the community, but
[1:01:49] can also yield useful suggestions and
[1:01:51] information to assist in the
[1:01:53] decision-making process.
[1:01:56] Therefore, I ask the council's continued
[1:01:58] patience. I'm sure that the same lawyers
[1:02:00] that are pushing for the elimination of
[1:02:03] the public comment section of the
[1:02:04] meetings can find a way to legally
[1:02:07] preserve the public's voice in local
[1:02:10] affairs if they are directed to do so by
[1:02:13] those to whom they are accountable. The
[1:02:16] thing that makes me most suspicious of
[1:02:18] this is we're in a sounds like we're in
[1:02:20] a big hurry to eliminate it with nothing
[1:02:22] to take his place. And I understand you
[1:02:24] Mr. Von Baron, this has been an issue
[1:02:26] since 2008.
[1:02:28] Two 18 years. 18 years we've had an
[1:02:31] opportunity to come up with a solution.
[1:02:34] It seems like we're in a big hurry to to
[1:02:36] end it. That's what makes me suspicious.
[1:02:37] I don't know about anybody else, but uh
[1:02:40] thank you very much for attention.
[1:02:43] >> Thank you.
[1:02:46] Anybody else on this?
[1:02:55] Please state your name and address,
[1:02:56] please.
[1:02:59] [clears throat]
[1:03:00] My name is Teresa McGrander at 1825
[1:03:03] North Keen Avenue, Fremont, Nebraska.
[1:03:06] Um, good evening. This issue isn't about
[1:03:09] one person or one organization.
[1:03:12] It's about every resident here in
[1:03:14] Fremont, Dodge County. Someday each of
[1:03:17] us have a concern that isn't already on
[1:03:19] the council's agenda. Plus, you guys can
[1:03:23] remove what is on the agenda. I just saw
[1:03:26] you do three of them tonight. So, if we
[1:03:30] put something on your agenda, who's
[1:03:32] going to say you're not going to vote to
[1:03:34] remove it?
[1:03:37] I don't know. So, do we ensure our local
[1:03:42] um officials to hear us. The public
[1:03:45] comment isn't always comfortable and
[1:03:47] sometimes citizens praise the government
[1:03:49] and sometimes they criticize them. Both
[1:03:52] are a healthy democracy.
[1:03:55] Please do not
[1:03:57] reduce the opportunity for the public
[1:04:00] participation.
[1:04:02] For years, there's been repeated
[1:04:06] attempts to eliminate the public
[1:04:08] comments and addresses. I don't even
[1:04:11] know who represents my ward.
[1:04:14] I've never spoke to her anybody. Deb
[1:04:19] represented my ward because I voted for
[1:04:21] him. Now he's a mayor. Who represents
[1:04:24] me? Who represents my ward? I don't know
[1:04:29] why.
[1:04:31] You all say that he's going to make it
[1:04:34] public. How in the Fremont Tribune where
[1:04:37] you have to pay to read it and it it's
[1:04:39] all online.
[1:04:42] I've got the Tribune forever, but I will
[1:04:44] not read it on the computer.
[1:04:47] So, where is the trust? You guys need to
[1:04:50] get this community's trust. There was an
[1:04:53] event last week. None of you knew about
[1:04:56] [clears throat] it.
[1:04:58] Somebody did because they ordered to
[1:05:00] have it done.
[1:05:02] They going to be accountable for it.
[1:05:04] Y'all know what I'm talking about. I
[1:05:07] have a voice. It's the first amendment
[1:05:10] and I'm going to exercise it. Either
[1:05:14] please vote no because we have a lot to
[1:05:17] say. Like I said, sometimes we're not
[1:05:20] comfortable coming up here. Sometimes we
[1:05:24] don't know if you guys even listen to us
[1:05:26] because we walk away and you do just the
[1:05:28] opposite of of what we argued about.
[1:05:31] There's another defeat of the citizens.
[1:05:34] You guys all said good speeches. You
[1:05:37] represent the citizens of Fremont.
[1:05:40] Please do and vote no. Thank you.
[1:05:55] » Please state your name and address.
[1:06:00] Good evening, mayor and members of the
[1:06:02] council. My name is Dylan Martinez,
[1:06:04] residing at 1435 East 12th Street here
[1:06:06] in Fremont. I stand before you tonight
[1:06:08] specifically regarding ordinance 5755.
[1:06:12] Um, I prepared this before a lot of the
[1:06:14] transparency that described here. So,
[1:06:16] I'm just going to say this real quick
[1:06:17] because it does still pertain and then
[1:06:19] I'm going to make a couple comments
[1:06:20] regarding everything that has also been
[1:06:22] said. So, at the last meeting, Mr. coats
[1:06:25] raised concerns about a potential
[1:06:26] violation occurring during the public
[1:06:28] comment period. I watched the video. I
[1:06:30] rewatched the video. However, he was
[1:06:33] never specific in with the public as to
[1:06:35] what the alleged violation actually was.
[1:06:37] That lack of clarity led left the
[1:06:39] community in the dark and now we are
[1:06:41] faced with this potential ordinance
[1:06:43] removal. Um, which suffers from the same
[1:06:45] lack of ambiguity. So, I do appreciate a
[1:06:48] lot of, you know, being transparent of
[1:06:50] what we're trying to do here, but that
[1:06:52] essentially has left the language
[1:06:54] surrounding this ordinance as vague and
[1:06:55] citizens rightly asking what is the
[1:06:57] ultimate goal here. So, we want to be
[1:06:59] very clear and draw a line. Um, if the
[1:07:01] goal of this is just a simple minor
[1:07:03] technicality, which it seems like it's
[1:07:04] starting to point towards to formally
[1:07:06] establish a designated structured time
[1:07:08] block on the official agenda for open
[1:07:10] public comment to ensure full procedural
[1:07:13] compliance. That is fine. In fact, that
[1:07:16] is a standard administrative practice
[1:07:17] that should have been established years
[1:07:18] ago. Just as the first speaker had
[1:07:20] mentioned, let's just put a thing on the
[1:07:22] docket that says open public comment 30
[1:07:25] period. Nobody rests a spot, we can make
[1:07:27] a motion to move past it. um you know
[1:07:30] assuming that everybody has a time to
[1:07:32] speak
[1:07:34] in in
[1:07:36] however if the ultimate goal of this
[1:07:38] ordinance is to eliminate the 30-inut
[1:07:40] open public comment period in its
[1:07:42] entirety or to create a process where
[1:07:44] officials can pre-screen gatekeep and
[1:07:46] cherrypick questions or citizens get um
[1:07:49] cherrypick questions which that
[1:07:53] cherrypick which questions or citizens
[1:07:56] that get heard and that is a massive
[1:07:58] problem. Open public comment is not a
[1:08:00] courtesy granted at the council's
[1:08:01] discretion. It is a community's primary
[1:08:03] window for unscripted accountability.
[1:08:05] When public officials face uncomfortable
[1:08:07] questions, the solution is better
[1:08:08] governance, not transparency, not
[1:08:10] removing the microphone. If the concern
[1:08:12] of the council members might
[1:08:13] accidentally debate non-aggenda items
[1:08:15] and trigger an open meetings act issue.
[1:08:17] The fix is simple. Enforce a strict
[1:08:19] listen only rule for the council members
[1:08:21] during open comment. You do not need to
[1:08:23] silence the public to keep the council
[1:08:24] compliant with state law. I urge the
[1:08:26] council to clarify the extent um the
[1:08:28] exact intent of the ordinance 5755 on
[1:08:31] record tonight. If this ordinance strips
[1:08:33] away or restricts our 30-minut open
[1:08:34] public comment period, I strongly urge
[1:08:36] you to vote no. Thank you. Now, with
[1:08:38] that in mind, um the last couple things
[1:08:40] that I just want to comment on, you
[1:08:42] know, the whole open meetings act is
[1:08:44] supposed to be set up as a listenon
[1:08:46] rule. It's something for people to come
[1:08:48] here unscripted to present communities
[1:08:50] and um you know, issues with you. just
[1:08:52] as uh you know the gentleman last week
[1:08:55] about um tree removal services that
[1:08:58] potentially was still in effect you know
[1:09:01] 50 some years ago and that we've shifted
[1:09:02] away from that as a society. There are
[1:09:04] things that we need to bring to you for
[1:09:07] you guys to talk about. But at the same
[1:09:08] light, if there are um specific
[1:09:11] articulated
[1:09:13] public forums where we can talk to you
[1:09:15] as representatives and get answers back,
[1:09:18] that also is very nice too because it's
[1:09:20] nice to know that you're heard. But at
[1:09:21] the same time, we need to make sure that
[1:09:23] we can be heard as citizens um of our
[1:09:26] country. And also to the comment
[1:09:28] definitely, you know, when we're in open
[1:09:29] public comment, we need to speak about
[1:09:32] people in an objective manner, not a
[1:09:34] subjective manner. So definitely be
[1:09:36] friendly to your citizens. We're all
[1:09:38] humans here at the end of the day,
[1:09:39] right? So, thank you so much and hope
[1:09:41] you have a great day.
[1:09:42] >> Thank you.
[1:09:44] >> Anybody else on this?
[1:10:01] » State your name and address, please.
[1:10:04] >> Street. Uh before I get on to this uh my
[1:10:08] what I was going to talk about uh I'm
[1:10:10] looking at item 20 here and uh you know
[1:10:13] everybody talked about we need to revise
[1:10:15] it and make it better for people allow
[1:10:18] it but this definitely states that uh
[1:10:21] the intent is to elim eliminate the open
[1:10:24] public comment period is what it says
[1:10:26] right here. So you have to be careful on
[1:10:28] what you say and what this says.
[1:10:33] That being said, uh, mayor and council
[1:10:35] members, I want to thank you for letting
[1:10:37] me speak tonight.
[1:10:39] Um,
[1:10:44] Nebraska law says the citizens have the
[1:10:46] right to speak in public bodies and are
[1:10:49] given the opportunity to speak at each
[1:10:51] meeting.
[1:10:52] If the city council eliminates a public
[1:10:56] uh uh comment section, citizens are not
[1:10:59] allowed to speak about subjects that are
[1:11:02] already in the agenda.
[1:11:04] I would like to ask the city council,
[1:11:06] how is an ordinary um citizen supposed
[1:11:09] to publicly bring new issues to the
[1:11:13] council if that isn't or that isn't
[1:11:16] already on the agenda.
[1:11:19] You control the agenda and we don't.
[1:11:24] What's uh and and that's why the open
[1:11:29] public comment is important. It gives
[1:11:32] citizens an opportunity to come before
[1:11:34] their elected officials to say there's
[1:11:36] something wrong here in Fremont that you
[1:11:38] need to know about.
[1:11:40] Maybe it's a problem with the street, a
[1:11:44] safety concern,
[1:11:46] how tax money is being spent,
[1:11:49] or something the city doesn't even know
[1:11:50] about.
[1:11:52] If it's not on the agenda without a
[1:11:54] public comment,
[1:11:56] when do the when do the citizens get an
[1:12:00] opportunity to stand here and bring
[1:12:01] these issues to the entire council in
[1:12:05] public? Now, you talked about doing uh emails and stuff like that.
[1:12:10] That's that's good. But I I still think
[1:12:12] people need to be do needs to be done in
[1:12:14] public so everybody including the public
[1:12:17] knows what's going on.
[1:12:20] There is a difference between allowing
[1:12:21] citizens to comment on what the city
[1:12:23] council has decided to discuss and
[1:12:25] allowing citizens tell the city
[1:12:30] what they believe needs to be discussed.
[1:12:32] The open
[1:12:35] uh comment provides that opportunity and
[1:12:37] it's important. The council shouldn't be
[1:12:40] the one deciding which issues are
[1:12:43] important enough to talk about at in
[1:12:46] public. Taking away the open public
[1:12:48] comment might make it make the meeting
[1:12:51] shorter, might make it easier to manage,
[1:12:54] but convenience should not become an
[1:12:56] expense of
[1:12:58] communicating between the citizens and
[1:13:00] people elected to present represent
[1:13:03] them. You may not like you may not agree
[1:13:07] what is said on the microphone.
[1:13:09] You may hear criticism. I'm sorry, but
[1:13:11] that's public service.
[1:13:15] It's about giving citizens a voice.
[1:13:18] If this is a problem with an open public
[1:13:21] comment currently works, then fix it
[1:13:24] fairly. And we've talked about some
[1:13:26] things tonight. But don't eliminate that
[1:13:29] opportunity because once a citizen can
[1:13:32] only because once citizens can only
[1:13:35] publicly discuss what the government
[1:13:37] puts on the agenda,
[1:13:39] the government is controlling the
[1:13:40] meeting. is controlling the
[1:13:43] conversation. Please don't take away the
[1:13:45] voice of the citizens of Fremont. Thank
[1:13:48] you.
[1:13:53] Anybody else on this?
[1:14:03] Jerry Delaney, 2940 Lever Street, Mont.
[1:14:07] Uh, I understand from the discussion
[1:14:09] earlier tonight that this all came about
[1:14:11] because one person complained and didn't
[1:14:13] want public comment any longer. It
[1:14:16] sounds to me like there's considerably
[1:14:17] more people that would disagree with
[1:14:19] that and do want it. Uh, no decisions
[1:14:22] are ever made public comment. So, what I
[1:14:26] have read in the Open Meetings Act, I
[1:14:29] don't see how you're violating the Open
[1:14:31] Meetings Act in any way. I I think we
[1:14:34] need to see a definite solution to the
[1:14:37] problem. And I agree with what
[1:14:38] Councilman Van Beern and a couple others
[1:14:40] of you said earlier. Yeah, what we're
[1:14:42] doing now isn't working, but you don't
[1:14:45] get rid of it without first having
[1:14:48] something put in place to replace it. We
[1:14:52] already have a very limited amount of
[1:14:54] time and a very limited format in which
[1:14:57] the public can address the council on
[1:14:59] concerns.
[1:15:00] Why take away this last little piece of
[1:15:03] open discussion that exists between the
[1:15:04] public and yourselves without first
[1:15:07] enacting a definite and a better
[1:15:10] solution?
[1:15:11] I understand that I'm free to reach out
[1:15:14] to my council person, to the mayor, or
[1:15:16] whoever anytime I want, but if I want to
[1:15:19] address an issue to not just my council
[1:15:22] person, but to all of you, as well as to
[1:15:24] the mayor and city administrators and
[1:15:28] the city attorneys and the public in
[1:15:30] general.
[1:15:31] And I want to be sure that I've conveyed
[1:15:34] the same messages accurately and equally
[1:15:36] to all of you at the same time. I can't
[1:15:39] do that with a bunch of different phone
[1:15:41] calls or a bunch of different meetings.
[1:15:43] That's just not possible.
[1:15:47] There already exists a feeling of
[1:15:49] mistrust between the public and all
[1:15:51] those government. This lack of trust
[1:15:54] that exists is more often than not
[1:15:57] unfounded.
[1:15:58] But nonetheless, it does exist. Why
[1:16:02] would you want to increase this level of
[1:16:04] animosity?
[1:16:06] I urge you to vote this ordinance down
[1:16:08] until you have something better to
[1:16:10] replace it. I urge you to clearly show
[1:16:12] the voters of Fremont that you want to
[1:16:15] hear from them in some manner. And I beg
[1:16:19] to not put up a wall between our
[1:16:22] community and those of you that serve.
[1:16:24] Thank you for your time.
[1:16:28] Anybody
[1:16:30] else on this?
[1:16:55] » State your name and address, please.
[1:16:56] Brad Jüger, 2318 East Fifth Street,
[1:16:59] former city council member for Ward 4.
[1:17:04] [clears throat]
[1:17:05] I'd like to start my discussion tonight
[1:17:06] with a little background in history. Uh
[1:17:09] so that those of you that weren't here
[1:17:10] when this all went about uh understand
[1:17:12] where we're coming from. Back in
[1:17:14] December 2018, the mayor gets appointed
[1:17:17] to the mayor's committee to look into
[1:17:19] open public comment. They they
[1:17:22] commissioned uh assistance from McGrath
[1:17:24] North Omaha based law firm who was the
[1:17:26] county city attorney at the time. They
[1:17:29] went about um drafting this ordinance
[1:17:32] that you have in front of you today uh
[1:17:34] with McGrath's North Oversight all the
[1:17:36] way through. They had to decide what
[1:17:39] type of forum would be considered. And
[1:17:40] it was discussed that the act defines
[1:17:42] meetings quote as regular, special, or
[1:17:45] called meetings, formal or informal,
[1:17:47] that require discussion of public
[1:17:49] business, formation of policies, or the
[1:17:51] taking of action by the public body as
[1:17:54] discussion 841409.
[1:17:56] An open mic session that we have today
[1:17:59] doesn't require any of that.
[1:18:02] It is a forum for presentation by the
[1:18:05] public. There is no action, no public
[1:18:07] business. The committee was advised by
[1:18:10] legal that the open mic session would
[1:18:13] not be a meeting of council, nor would
[1:18:15] it invoke the meeting definitions and
[1:18:17] standards defined by the open meetings
[1:18:19] act if not any part of the meeting was
[1:18:22] defined where only the so the the public
[1:18:25] could speak and council members could
[1:18:28] attend voluntarily. They weren't
[1:18:30] required to. There was no roll call.
[1:18:32] They only listened so that the public
[1:18:34] could get their information out into the
[1:18:36] hands of the public. Therefore, McGrath
[1:18:39] Nor said, contrary to current advice,
[1:18:42] this was not a meeting. This was a forum
[1:18:44] for the public to provide public
[1:18:46] comment.
[1:18:48] They also recommended that the city not
[1:18:50] make it part of a open public comment
[1:18:53] part of a regular meeting. And why?
[1:18:56] because that would make it u subject to
[1:18:59] open meetings act rules because now you
[1:19:01] have a published agenda. Now you would
[1:19:03] have to have all of this other um
[1:19:06] activity with regards to what are you
[1:19:07] going to speak to etc. It was not an
[1:19:09] open mic. It was registration only. That
[1:19:13] would be a bad idea. We want to have
[1:19:15] more transparency and opportunity. So
[1:19:17] they took the matter under advisement
[1:19:20] and they developed the policy that we
[1:19:21] had. They had the first reading in
[1:19:23] January of 29, January 29th of 19,
[1:19:26] second reading on February 29th, final
[1:19:28] reading on February 26, and it became
[1:19:30] city ordinance after that. They had the
[1:19:32] first meeting of open public comment on
[1:19:34] March 2019. It's been in effect ever
[1:19:37] since. Now, the critical part of what I
[1:19:40] think is important here is you need to
[1:19:42] define really what is a meeting. Your
[1:19:45] city legal council says that that is a
[1:19:47] meeting. I'm telling you, McGrath North
[1:19:50] told us emphatically it was not a
[1:19:52] meeting for the reasons I just gave you.
[1:19:55] Therefore, if it's not a meeting, you're
[1:19:56] not bound by those kinds of uh arguments
[1:19:59] that are being made currently. And and
[1:20:01] more importantly, the trust and
[1:20:02] transparency that have been mentioned
[1:20:04] tonight are critical. That's why this
[1:20:06] was started in the first place. Three
[1:20:07] council members and and a fourth that
[1:20:10] was appointed to this committee are
[1:20:11] adamant we needed to do something about
[1:20:14] transparency in Fremont. This was the
[1:20:16] result.
[1:20:19] Since this was passed, multiple
[1:20:22] occasions have occurred when the present
[1:20:25] law firm has attempted to get rid of
[1:20:27] public comment
[1:20:28] altogether.
[1:20:31] The uh lead person, lead lawyer at the
[1:20:34] firm even wrote city code to eliminate
[1:20:36] all public comment. Fortunately, the
[1:20:39] council rebuffed that. I ask that you
[1:20:41] not rebuff the the public this time
[1:20:44] round requiring us to put things on the
[1:20:47] agenda. Just this is not appropriate.
[1:20:50] Please discontinue this discussion alto
[1:20:53] together. Thank you.
[1:20:54] >> Thank you.
[1:20:57] >> That's it.
[1:21:09] Right. Tough 1537 Brewer Drive. Good
[1:21:13] evening, Mayor and Council. The
[1:21:15] ordinance is being presented as a
[1:21:17] measure to comply with Nebraska Open
[1:21:18] Meetings Act, but after reading the city
[1:21:20] attorney's memo and reviewing the law
[1:21:22] myself, I have serious questions about
[1:21:24] whether eliminating open public comment
[1:21:26] is actually required. The memo argues
[1:21:28] that because citizens may not may speak
[1:21:30] on topics that are not known in advance,
[1:21:32] the city must eliminate the public
[1:21:34] comment period altogether. Yet Nebraska
[1:21:36] law also states that the public public
[1:21:39] bodies shall allow members to speak
[1:21:43] and have an opportunity to speak at each
[1:21:45] meeting meeting. So my first question is
[1:21:47] simple. Travis, can you tell us what
[1:21:50] Nebraska Supreme Court case or attorney
[1:21:52] general opinion specifically says that
[1:21:54] allowing citizens to speak on matters
[1:21:56] not listed on the agenda violates the
[1:21:57] Open Meetings Act? If such authority
[1:22:00] exists, please share it with the public.
[1:22:02] If it does not, then this appears to be
[1:22:04] legal in interpretation, not a legal
[1:22:07] mandate. Across Nebraska, city councils,
[1:22:10] boards, school boards, and other public
[1:22:12] bodies continue to provide opportunities
[1:22:14] for public comment. Many do so by
[1:22:16] allowing citizens to speak while
[1:22:17] limiting limiting discussion by elect
[1:22:20] officials on matters that are not on the
[1:22:22] agenda. So, basically,
[1:22:27] hopefully all of you guys have
[1:22:28] understood and read that you're supposed
[1:22:30] to be following Robert's rules. Um, and
[1:22:34] we've provided copies to the council
[1:22:36] before, we'd be happy to do it again.
[1:22:38] But, um, if you can't see that, it's the
[1:22:41] lack in trust for our government. So, I
[1:22:44] urge you not to vote for this tonight,
[1:22:46] um, until you guys can put something
[1:22:48] else in place, um, and try to get the,
[1:22:52] you know, trust back into our, you know,
[1:22:58] public officials because I tell you
[1:23:00] what, just last week, I emailed each one
[1:23:02] of you guys. There was one who emailed
[1:23:05] me back.
[1:23:07] One of you guys. And you guys can't
[1:23:10] forget that. We put you guys in your
[1:23:12] positions. You work for us. Those two
[1:23:15] work for us, too. For you guys. You guys
[1:23:19] are supposed to be in charge of them.
[1:23:22] And they're the ones that keep trying to
[1:23:24] pull this kind of stuff. And it's all
[1:23:26] because they know that there's stuff
[1:23:28] coming, you know, where people want to
[1:23:29] use the open public comment period. So,
[1:23:32] please continue to listen to your
[1:23:33] constituents. Don't try to rely I hope
[1:23:36] the citizens don't try to rely on just
[1:23:38] using your email addresses because it
[1:23:41] doesn't work. Only one of you replied
[1:23:43] back to me and can't even get a meeting
[1:23:46] with city attorney or city
[1:23:48] administrator. So, thank you.
[1:24:04] » Please state your name and address.
[1:24:06] >> Name is George Nadomo. I live at 2332
[1:24:09] East Third Street. Hello, council
[1:24:12] members and mayor. Um, just listening to
[1:24:16] everybody today here, uh, I just want to
[1:24:18] encourage the council to vote against
[1:24:21] this. It seems to me like all these
[1:24:24] people over here that vote for everybody
[1:24:27] up here, I haven't heard a single one
[1:24:29] come up here and say, "Yeah, let's go
[1:24:31] for it." They're all confi either
[1:24:34] they're against it or maybe there's even
[1:24:37] some confusion. And that tells me that
[1:24:39] you guys need to go back and take
[1:24:41] another look at this. And you got to
[1:24:44] remember, you're representing these
[1:24:46] people. You want to have the best for
[1:24:48] them. And their comments are very
[1:24:51] important. So I encourage you vote
[1:24:54] against them.
[1:25:07] Please state your name and address
[1:25:09] >> at 2550 Deerfield Avenue. I do
[1:25:12] appreciate this open discussion over
[1:25:14] this and yes, public comment is
[1:25:17] important for you guys to have the open
[1:25:20] ears to listen and understand different
[1:25:22] situations that are going around town.
[1:25:25] Um, I did hear the mayor this morning
[1:25:28] say
[1:25:30] everything is open as far as make a
[1:25:32] phone call or email your
[1:25:34] representatives. I've done both. I heard
[1:25:37] back from one on the situation this last
[1:25:40] week and I've left voicemails and I've
[1:25:44] never heard back. I've contacted
[1:25:47] uh street department over a concern in
[1:25:50] our neighborhood probably two three
[1:25:52] weeks ago which in the
[1:25:56] explanation of what the street
[1:25:59] department does hesitate to you know
[1:26:02] email them and tell them your concerns
[1:26:04] and I have not heard back. So, it's kind
[1:26:07] of hard to feel. I mean, and it's the
[1:26:09] technology world that it is that nobody
[1:26:12] picks up the phone to talk on the phone,
[1:26:14] but when you offer to have either the
[1:26:18] emails or leave a voicemail and don't
[1:26:22] hear back, it just leaves everybody
[1:26:24] hanging and wondering and concerned. So,
[1:26:27] I'd appreciate I appreciate all the
[1:26:30] discussion that has been going on
[1:26:31] tonight. Hope you can get this all
[1:26:34] figured out.
[1:26:35] Thank you.
[1:26:37] Anybody else on this?
[1:26:49] » Please state your name and address.
[1:26:51] >> My name is Stan Hart. I live in 1535
[1:26:54] North Logan. I've been in this town for
[1:26:57] 72 years. I've seen a lot of things
[1:27:01] going on in this town since I've been
[1:27:03] here. Can't say everything has been the
[1:27:06] best, but sometimes it hasn't been the
[1:27:09] worst. My wife Cindy and I came here
[1:27:12] tonight to find out what was going on
[1:27:13] with this discussion about our first
[1:27:15] amendment rights of city council
[1:27:18] meeting. And I know through the years,
[1:27:20] having been to some previously in the
[1:27:22] past, that through the years, it seems
[1:27:25] like the open meeting supposedly for us
[1:27:28] people of the town has been infringed
[1:27:31] upon and changed and limited in
[1:27:34] different ways.
[1:27:36] Tonight, I'm listening to you talk about
[1:27:38] that and the admission that yeah, the
[1:27:41] system of the open meeting hasn't been
[1:27:44] exactly right. Well, okay. And it's been
[1:27:47] carried on that way for seemingly a very
[1:27:49] long time.
[1:27:51] But so far, all I've heard is smoke in
[1:27:54] the wind. I hear, "Yeah, we need to
[1:27:57] change it. Yeah, we need to change it."
[1:27:59] Well, I can tell my wife that when she
[1:28:00] has ideas about what to do around the
[1:28:02] house, but that doesn't get the job
[1:28:05] done. Commitment gets the job done.
[1:28:09] Saying there's going to be action taken
[1:28:11] and it's going to be done gets the job
[1:28:14] done. That's a confirmation to us the
[1:28:16] people you're going to do something
[1:28:18] about it and not just talk about.
[1:28:21] So if you want to get something done,
[1:28:24] commit to it and get it done. Don't just
[1:28:26] tell it. Okay. Thank you.
[1:28:28] >> Thank you.
[1:28:32] Anybody else on this?
[1:28:44] » State your name and address, please.
[1:28:49] » Good evening. I'm Susan Jacobus. I live
[1:28:51] at 1805 Northeast Street here in
[1:28:54] Fremont. I've lived here for 10 years.
[1:28:58] I was one of three including Glenn Ellis
[1:29:01] and Linda Mlan that pushed this forward
[1:29:05] with the full support of our city
[1:29:06] council at the time. It was vetted and
[1:29:10] beat up again and again through our
[1:29:12] attorneys draft and north.
[1:29:16] Mark Enbach lent his expertise on it and
[1:29:20] this started to come about because there
[1:29:22] was restrictions. There was a lot of
[1:29:24] foregoing of the three reading rule
[1:29:26] which I see has ended. But my concern is
[1:29:30] removing this is also going to continue
[1:29:34] to remove the ability for the public to
[1:29:38] comment or to reach out to you. I would
[1:29:40] agree there's often been times that the
[1:29:44] derogatory comments directed towards
[1:29:46] councilmen,
[1:29:48] council women, mayor as well as
[1:29:50] administrative staff is unwarranted.
[1:29:54] It gets petty and then having been in
[1:29:57] the seat that you are, your ears start
[1:30:00] to close and I understand that.
[1:30:05] But it has not always been supported by
[1:30:07] all of you to have open comment nor was
[1:30:10] it all always allowed to have the
[1:30:13] citizens right to speak and I speak from
[1:30:15] personal issue. I was attempted to be
[1:30:19] taken to task during executive session
[1:30:21] because I spoke at a planning commission
[1:30:22] meeting as a citizen and identified
[1:30:26] myself as such because I was against
[1:30:29] development of a commercial quick shop
[1:30:32] style or 7-Eleven style gas station
[1:30:36] at the area right across from the Lucen
[1:30:38] church
[1:30:39] off military there by the swimming pool.
[1:30:43] And I I believe Mr. remembers the letter
[1:30:45] that he wrote to his planning commission
[1:30:47] to have me removed and to have the mayor
[1:30:50] have me removed as councilman. I was
[1:30:52] then taken into an executive session and
[1:30:55] I there was an attempt to quash. I had
[1:30:58] already reached out to an independent
[1:31:00] attorney
[1:31:02] and was advised to stand my ground. So I
[1:31:05] refused to stay in an executive session
[1:31:09] in order to be ostracized or to remove
[1:31:12] which neither it did happen.
[1:31:16] There was multiple complaints from me to
[1:31:18] the attorney general for issues
[1:31:20] concerning the open meeting act that
[1:31:22] also helped push this forward.
[1:31:25] It didn't necessarily cure all of them,
[1:31:27] but it solved some of the issues we were
[1:31:29] having. sidebar discussions between the
[1:31:32] mayor and the city administrator at the
[1:31:34] time and decisions being made,
[1:31:37] comments and decisions being made out in
[1:31:40] the open between um councilmen.
[1:31:43] Those discussions are supposed to be
[1:31:45] public and you guys do behave better
[1:31:48] than our row did at first,
[1:31:51] but it still happens. Those sidebar
[1:31:53] discussions are not intended to make
[1:31:56] decisions or to gather enough votes so
[1:31:59] you have the guts to bring it to the
[1:32:00] table or the platform.
[1:32:03] And the reason why this was pushed
[1:32:05] forward and by the way was approved 8 to
[1:32:09] zero. We had the full support and we
[1:32:12] also had full legal support at the time
[1:32:14] and that hasn't changed. You're not
[1:32:16] making policy DNA's meeting when there's
[1:32:20] a open public comment period. you're not
[1:32:22] making policy. You may be given
[1:32:24] something to think about and perhaps
[1:32:27] maybe down the line it would warrant one
[1:32:29] of you, any of you to respond back to
[1:32:31] the citizen who stated the complaint.
[1:32:33] But that doesn't always happen. In fact,
[1:32:35] it seldom happens.
[1:32:38] It was the intent of the open
[1:32:42] public comment to either have something
[1:32:44] added to an agenda in a future date if
[1:32:46] it warranted or to have city staff
[1:32:48] whether it's street department, utility
[1:32:50] department, parks department, whatever
[1:32:52] it may be, address the issue if there
[1:32:54] was any issue of concern, but to bring
[1:32:56] it to the table for a full discussion at
[1:32:58] city council level if needed.
[1:33:01] And that doesn't typically happen, does
[1:33:03] it?
[1:33:06] I totally would not agree. I would be
[1:33:09] totally against removing public comment.
[1:33:11] Period. I think you need to have an open
[1:33:14] conversation and if it has to be
[1:33:16] included as part of your meeting agenda
[1:33:17] and nobody shows up, then move on with
[1:33:19] your meeting. Very simple solution. But
[1:33:23] as far as the opens meeting act, you've
[1:33:26] been in complian with it all along.
[1:33:28] There's not been an issue.
[1:33:30] You don't like it from the derogatory
[1:33:32] comments. you have the outline of
[1:33:34] behavior that's required at a meeting
[1:33:37] and also during a public comment period
[1:33:39] enforce it.
[1:33:42] Ask people to shut it down or shut the
[1:33:44] mic off. They start to get derogatory.
[1:33:47] You have all been victim or have been
[1:33:50] witnessed to some of the derogatory
[1:33:52] comments that happened when I was on
[1:33:53] council. It was way out of line. Was it
[1:33:56] controlled? No. Should it have been?
[1:33:58] Yes. Should it be with you at your level
[1:34:00] at your seats? Yes, it [clears throat]
[1:34:02] should. But please do not remove this.
[1:34:04] Just enhance it if you Thank you.
[1:34:07] >> Thank you.
[1:34:16] » State your name and address.
[1:34:18] [clears throat]
[1:34:20] Steve Ray, 1445 North Irving.
[1:34:23] Well, had different comments kind of
[1:34:25] lined up, but
[1:34:28] the agenda was kind of misleading. You
[1:34:30] said eliminate. You got a lot of people
[1:34:33] here thought you just going to vote get
[1:34:34] rid of it all together and that should
[1:34:37] have never sent that kind of signal out.
[1:34:39] Really
[1:34:40] should have had you want to say
[1:34:42] eliminate. You should have said we're
[1:34:43] going to have options or we're going to
[1:34:45] try and do something.
[1:34:47] I think that created a lot of problem
[1:34:51] right there.
[1:34:53] Uh, I've been reading the agenda, the
[1:34:58] statutes for a m open meeting. I'm not
[1:35:01] sure you guys are in violation of it
[1:35:04] because you don't discuss. We don't
[1:35:08] discuss. We just bring something forward
[1:35:10] and talk. You don't take any action now.
[1:35:14] Most of the time there's nothing brought
[1:35:15] up in the meeting that you take action
[1:35:17] on later. it. It's just a way for people
[1:35:21] to come and bring something up. And I
[1:35:23] wouldn't want to see it happen be put on
[1:35:25] the agenda. If you go to where you have
[1:35:30] it as part of your regular meeting, put
[1:35:33] it right on the agenda because there
[1:35:35] might be something come up today that oh
[1:35:37] yeah, I should bring that up at the
[1:35:39] meeting. What's going to be my
[1:35:41] alternative? I mean, you got to have it
[1:35:44] in the week before. Well, it comes up
[1:35:46] today. how are you going to speak to it?
[1:35:48] And it might be over with in a day or
[1:35:50] so. So, you you really can't put that
[1:35:53] down and have it on the agenda
[1:35:56] beforehand like your agenda for all your
[1:35:58] business. And u I know that I just don't
[1:36:05] know if you've been in violation really.
[1:36:07] And I do know the law firms that we have
[1:36:09] now, they've publicly in the meetings
[1:36:11] have said they would do away with public
[1:36:13] comment altogether. So, it's kind of a,
[1:36:17] you know, another way to say, they did
[1:36:20] say that we need to do something
[1:36:22] different. Well, if we do something
[1:36:24] different, I don't think it needs to be
[1:36:26] something where you have to put
[1:36:28] something in the agenda to have it
[1:36:31] spoken about so they everybody knows
[1:36:33] ahead of time. It should be an open mic
[1:36:35] type thing because that's what it was
[1:36:37] for, just for people to come and speak
[1:36:40] on something that's on their mind at the
[1:36:42] time, not well, let's see, the meeting's
[1:36:45] coming up, so I better get something on
[1:36:46] the agenda so they can speak about it.
[1:36:49] So, I'd encourage you to vote no to
[1:36:52] eliminate it and go back to the drawing
[1:36:54] board and try to come up with something.
[1:36:56] It sounds like some of the other cities
[1:36:58] have open mic and they haven't been a
[1:37:00] problem. Now, I don't know if we've had
[1:37:02] a problem with anybody challenging the
[1:37:04] way you do it now.
[1:37:08] Thank you. Anybody else on this?
[1:37:19] State your name and address, please. My
[1:37:22] name is Jean Schultz. I live at 2306
[1:37:24] Jean Drive, Fremont.
[1:37:27] Well, here we go again.
[1:37:30] Adams and Sullivan attorneys are
[1:37:31] attempting deni to deny Fremont citizens
[1:37:34] of their ability to give public comments
[1:37:37] during the last scheduled council
[1:37:39] meeting of the month by making it more
[1:37:41] difficult than it needs to be.
[1:37:45] Maybe I missed it, but I saw nothing in
[1:37:47] the Open Meetings Act requiring that
[1:37:50] topics to be discussed be included in
[1:37:54] reference to notices for public comment
[1:37:56] periods, as was stated in the staff
[1:37:58] report.
[1:38:01] There is another solution than the one
[1:38:03] proposed by Adams and Sullivan
[1:38:05] attorneys. You don't have to look far.
[1:38:09] Just follow the format of the Dodge
[1:38:11] County Board of Supervisors. They have
[1:38:14] public comments positioned before their
[1:38:17] public hearings on all of their
[1:38:19] published agendas.
[1:38:22] Just add an agenda item that asks the
[1:38:25] question.
[1:38:27] Any business brought by the public or
[1:38:29] discussion from the public. There you
[1:38:32] go. No must, no fuss.
[1:38:35] But you may want to use that agenda item
[1:38:38] only on the last meeting of the month
[1:38:40] like we do now.
[1:38:42] if it's helpful. Dodge County also has
[1:38:45] an agenda item that says any emergency
[1:38:47] items to the agenda.
[1:38:51] In closing,
[1:38:53] citizens should not have to jump through
[1:38:55] hoops like a trained circus seal to
[1:38:59] speak at a public comment period. This
[1:39:01] is America.
[1:39:03] We recently celebrated Independence Day.
[1:39:07] It commemorates the passage of the
[1:39:09] Declaration of Independence by the
[1:39:12] Continental Congress on July 4th, 1776.
[1:39:17] We are still in the midst of celebrating
[1:39:20] 250 years as a nation.
[1:39:23] Our Constitution defines the goals and
[1:39:26] framework of the government. But they
[1:39:28] weren't done there. Our founders added
[1:39:30] the Bill of Rights ratified in 1791
[1:39:34] that puts limits on government
[1:39:37] overreach. 10 amendments, the first of
[1:39:40] which includes freedom of speech.
[1:39:44] I'm anxious to observe which of you will
[1:39:46] be celebrating tonight on the side of
[1:39:49] free speech for Fremont citizens when
[1:39:52] you vote no on ordinance 5755.
[1:39:57] And of course watching which of you will
[1:39:59] be the party poopers voting yes. 5755
[1:40:04] is not a good solution. Thank you.
[1:40:08] >> Thank you.
[1:40:10] Anybody else on this?
[1:40:16] » State your name and address please.
[1:40:19] >> My name is Scott Thomas 2403 Estus Lane
[1:40:22] Fremont Nebraska. I'm a candidate in the
[1:40:25] first ward city council right now. Uh
[1:40:29] man, I'm grateful. I just want to say
[1:40:31] that first. I'm grateful for all the
[1:40:33] people in this room and all the people
[1:40:35] that got up and spoke. People that take
[1:40:38] their country to heart, take their
[1:40:41] duties and responsibilities as Americans
[1:40:43] to heart. Don't take that
[1:40:46] uh
[1:40:48] that birthight for granted. I appreciate
[1:40:51] that. I appreciate everybody in this
[1:40:52] room. I appreciate you guys for your
[1:40:53] service. Seriously. Uh,
[1:40:57] but I am the director for the US
[1:41:02] Institute of Diplomacy and Human Rights
[1:41:04] for the region of Nebraska. And we don't
[1:41:06] have an Iowa director. We don't have a
[1:41:07] Kansas director. We don't have a
[1:41:09] Missouri director. So, I handle those
[1:41:10] regions, too. Um, our AG is publicly
[1:41:14] picking fights with Trump's
[1:41:15] administration right now. We want to
[1:41:17] hang my hat on necessarily all the
[1:41:19] advice that you get from killers.
[1:41:22] Uh, and we've heard a lot of mentions of
[1:41:25] the Constitution and the Bill of Rights,
[1:41:26] particularly the First Amendment. So, I
[1:41:29] want to give you guys an example of
[1:41:30] something that would not be on the
[1:41:32] agenda because everything that's not on
[1:41:35] the agenda, you know, these are outlier
[1:41:37] issues and how would you know to put
[1:41:38] something on there if it's if it's not
[1:41:41] on there if it's not your issue? So,
[1:41:44] um, one of my jobs necessarily is making
[1:41:47] sure that people have access to physical
[1:41:50] documents
[1:41:52] that represent your rights here in this
[1:41:55] country. And so, the declaration, not
[1:41:58] just not just the declaration, but the
[1:42:00] rights of man, also very historical
[1:42:02] documents that go all the way back to
[1:42:04] Carta. Uh,
[1:42:07] and
[1:42:09] I tried to inquire into a booth at the
[1:42:12] John C. Fremont days where we could pass
[1:42:15] copies of the Constitution because I
[1:42:16] think that people are right. One of the
[1:42:18] reasons that we have some of the
[1:42:20] problems that we have in this country is
[1:42:21] because people don't make it their
[1:42:22] business to know what it means to be an
[1:42:23] American or what your duties and
[1:42:25] responsibilities are to this country or
[1:42:27] what those amendments mean or what these
[1:42:29] men fought and died for that built the
[1:42:32] country. And so I think that we should
[1:42:34] pass it out. I think we should read it.
[1:42:36] I think we should have it in our
[1:42:37] schools. I think we should hang it on
[1:42:39] the walls.
[1:42:41] And I I called and I said, "What if I
[1:42:43] just want to pass out copies of the
[1:42:45] Constitution?" I didn't want to set a
[1:42:46] high bar. What if we just want to pass
[1:42:47] out free copies of the Constitution to
[1:42:49] the public? And I was told, "You are not
[1:42:51] allowed to bring the Constitution to our
[1:42:54] event. We will have you arrested."
[1:42:57] And so I'm an American. So I went to the
[1:43:00] edge of their event, passed out the
[1:43:02] Constitution to all my fellow Americans.
[1:43:05] So they went to an officer. He looked
[1:43:07] like that Jensen guy and they asked him
[1:43:09] to arrest me and he told them no. Which
[1:43:12] might be why he made sergeant if it's
[1:43:14] the same guy. Hey, I'm telling you, man.
[1:43:17] Everybody doesn't think about this
[1:43:19] stuff, but I don't want these people in
[1:43:21] this room right now who I just said took
[1:43:24] the due diligence to come up here and make it their duty to defend their
[1:43:28] country and their birthright as American
[1:43:30] citizens. I don't want to make them put
[1:43:32] my kids to trade school or give them
[1:43:35] money to start businesses once they
[1:43:37] graduate. But if you arrest me for
[1:43:40] passing out the Constitution in the city
[1:43:42] where I live in the United States of
[1:43:43] America, I would sue everybody on this
[1:43:46] council personally except my councilman
[1:43:49] because I know he wouldn't have been
[1:43:50] party in that. But whoever made that
[1:43:52] contract with John Fremont days, you
[1:43:55] guys should vet people a little bit more
[1:43:56] thoroughly what kind of beliefs they
[1:44:00] bring when they broker alliances and
[1:44:03] contracts to do business with the people
[1:44:05] of the city of Fremont.
[1:44:07] Thank you all for your attention. Any
[1:44:09] kind of questions you guys have, I'd be
[1:44:11] happy to answer them. I see the clerk is
[1:44:13] looking very confused right now. This is
[1:44:16] the first you've heard of any of this.
[1:44:19] Okay, fair enough. I appreciate you guys
[1:44:21] time.
[1:44:26] Anybody else on this?
[1:44:34] State your name and address, please.
[1:44:36] Roger Brimmerman, 921 North Clarson
[1:44:39] Street, lifelong resident of Fremont.
[1:44:43] And um you know, my dad was alive and we
[1:44:48] used to get full tribune.
[1:44:51] He used to complain about a lot of
[1:44:52] things that the city council did. I have
[1:44:54] said or I I I have to say that we've
[1:44:58] come a long ways from the 60s and 70s on
[1:45:00] how we handled meetings and and
[1:45:02] businesses and even the 80s, but I don't
[1:45:05] think we've gone far enough.
[1:45:08] And you need to vote no on this. You
[1:45:11] really need to look at your option, you
[1:45:14] know, better options doing this during a
[1:45:17] city council meeting and not a half hour
[1:45:19] before on the fourth Tuesday that
[1:45:21] everybody has to wrangle around and
[1:45:24] everything. You also have another
[1:45:26] audience that's at your deficit and that
[1:45:29] is social media and that's what brought
[1:45:31] me here tonight
[1:45:32] because in the two posts that I read and
[1:45:36] had responses they were commenting on
[1:45:38] the eliminating the open public comment
[1:45:41] period and that's where it ended not to comply with the open meetings act.
[1:45:48] So your word smithing or how you do
[1:45:50] things is very very important. Public
[1:45:54] perception right now is not very good.
[1:45:57] Especially with our younger citizens of
[1:46:01] this city,
[1:46:03] you should see all the comments on the
[1:46:04] utilities rate hike.
[1:46:07] It's not good. People are not happy with
[1:46:10] that. And I understand as running
[1:46:12] businesses in this town or or being a
[1:46:15] part of managing organizations, you do
[1:46:18] have to ask for a little bit more to do
[1:46:20] a little bit more. But I really would
[1:46:24] encourage you first of all to vote no on
[1:46:27] this. Second of all to really really
[1:46:30] think about your perception and you
[1:46:33] can't rely on the Tribune. I used to
[1:46:35] take it when it was a newspaper and it
[1:46:36] went online and I did that and I thought
[1:46:40] I' I've got better things to, you know,
[1:46:42] and I and I rely on social media. But
[1:46:45] now I found out that coming here based
[1:46:49] on what I read was kind of a falsehood
[1:46:52] in a way too. So you need to find other
[1:46:56] ways to publicize things to the media.
[1:46:59] We are in the 21st century. We are
[1:47:02] digital. I know you can go on the city
[1:47:04] website and get all the past agendas and
[1:47:08] all the minutes and all that, but people
[1:47:11] that's work and people don't want to do
[1:47:14] that kind of research work. You know,
[1:47:16] they just they want it put right in
[1:47:18] front of them. So, I don't know as a
[1:47:20] governing body what you can do, but you
[1:47:22] really really I encourage you to really
[1:47:24] start thinking about this because it's
[1:47:27] issues like this and this isn't going to
[1:47:29] be the first issue. There's
[1:47:32] living here my whole life and a sixth
[1:47:34] generation person of this county.
[1:47:38] This isn't the first issue and it won't
[1:47:40] be the last, but we improvement could
[1:47:43] certainly certainly take place. Thank
[1:47:46] you.
[1:47:46] >> Thank you.
[1:47:49] Anybody else on this?
[1:47:52] I'll close the public comment period.
[1:47:55] Coming back to council. Mayor, if I may
[1:47:58] just give a brief uh followup to my
[1:48:00] comments.
[1:48:01] >> Go ahead.
[1:48:02] >> The concern here is if a member of a
[1:48:05] complaint about an action in district
[1:48:07] court, then we'd be dealing with strict
[1:48:09] statutory interpretation. There aren't
[1:48:11] any cases on this because there hasn't
[1:48:12] been an action brought before. I don't
[1:48:14] want our city to be the test case. But
[1:48:16] under the open meetings act, a meeting
[1:48:18] is either or four things. A briefing,
[1:48:20] which I think this constitutes a
[1:48:22] briefing, any public comment, discussion
[1:48:23] of public business. I think anyone who's
[1:48:26] married has had a discussion where only
[1:48:27] one site said something formation of
[1:48:30] tenative policy or the taking of action
[1:48:32] of body public body. So there's at least
[1:48:35] two matters in there where public
[1:48:37] comment would constitute would fit into
[1:48:39] the definition of a meeting. And
[1:48:40] therefore the matters at the meeting
[1:48:42] that will be discussed need to be
[1:48:44] publicized to the public. And I think
[1:48:46] tonight is a great example when we put
[1:48:47] items on the agenda that the public
[1:48:49] cares about they'll come here and speak
[1:48:51] about it. So, I just want the council to
[1:48:53] know that if this is based strictly on
[1:48:54] statutory interpretation, I'm not
[1:48:56] comfortable relying solely on the
[1:48:58] disposition of the attorney general from
[1:48:59] a complaint that was filed in 2018. It
[1:49:01] didn't address all the issues that we're
[1:49:03] talking.
[1:49:12] » Yeah, please.
[1:49:14] Is that all you have left?
[1:49:18] >> All right, Councilman her. Thank you,
[1:49:20] mayor. Um I I want to clear up one um
[1:49:23] misunderstanding in the meeting tonight.
[1:49:26] Um someone said that we removed items
[1:49:30] from the agenda and and that is not the
[1:49:34] case. We did remove three items from the
[1:49:37] consent agenda and the consent agenda
[1:49:39] and I know this is probably review for
[1:49:41] many of you, but I'm just going to say
[1:49:42] it anyways. Consent agenda are routine
[1:49:46] items considered routine. We don't need
[1:49:48] to discuss every one of them. So we vote
[1:49:50] on them as a block without discussion.
[1:49:52] Some of those items you as citizens,
[1:49:55] council members, the mayor, clerk, staff
[1:49:58] can request they be removed so we can
[1:50:00] discuss them and then we can vote on.
[1:50:03] Three of those were done tonight. We
[1:50:06] discussed them. We voted. Nothing was
[1:50:08] removed from the agenda. It was
[1:50:10] repositioned from the consent agenda to
[1:50:12] the main pain main agenda. So we can
[1:50:14] discuss them. So I just want to make
[1:50:15] sure that everybody understands that.
[1:50:18] The other one is um and maybe I'm a
[1:50:20] little premature here because I see a
[1:50:22] list of other council members that want
[1:50:24] to speak. I do have a recommended
[1:50:26] amendment for tonight. Um I I I have
[1:50:31] been reading myself and I do believe
[1:50:33] that I have read a couple of um um newer
[1:50:37] um
[1:50:41] articles and etc that have expressed
[1:50:43] concern about similar formats to what
[1:50:46] we've been doing and that they might be
[1:50:48] violating the opens meeting act. my
[1:50:51] amendment to this because I do believe
[1:50:53] if we are in violation, we sure should
[1:50:56] correct it. And my amendment hopefully
[1:50:59] will do that and preserve the parts we
[1:51:02] like and get it into the part that or
[1:51:05] get it into compliance so that it would
[1:51:07] be a little bit harder for someone to
[1:51:09] come and beat us up legally, I guess.
[1:51:11] So, I can do that now or I can wait
[1:51:14] until everybody else had a chance to
[1:51:15] talk.
[1:51:17] >> What would you do? Um, what I would
[1:51:19] propose for the amendment to 5755
[1:51:23] is that we modify FMC2-103
[1:51:28] to move the public comment period to
[1:51:30] begin after the regular meeting is
[1:51:32] called to order and its placement would
[1:51:34] be after the consent agenda.
[1:51:38] It would have all the features that
[1:51:39] currently exist.
[1:51:42] Public can come in and talk about what's
[1:51:44] on their mind. they don't have to call
[1:51:46] in ahead of time and then what they
[1:51:48] would be able and we would not be able
[1:51:50] to like we can't now we would not be
[1:51:52] able to engage because then it becomes
[1:51:54] business and if we're not able to engage
[1:51:57] it's a listening session I don't even
[1:51:59] care if you change it and call it a
[1:52:01] listening session um you can call it
[1:52:03] whatever you want some of the other
[1:52:05] count cities are calling it different
[1:52:07] things um I like to keep it simple
[1:52:10] comments from the floor public comments
[1:52:12] whatever
[1:52:14] and and make it a regular agenda item
[1:52:17] subject to all the same rules that now
[1:52:19] apply to our current public comment
[1:52:21] period. And then um we keep it on the
[1:52:24] last Tuesday of each month.
[1:52:27] And I think that would be a very simple
[1:52:29] amendment to this. We would take care of
[1:52:33] our city attorney's concern. I think at
[1:52:35] least the main point of it and that is
[1:52:37] that it's outside of the official
[1:52:40] meeting and it is um it comes now after
[1:52:44] we've called the official meeting to
[1:52:46] order. It's going to fall after the the
[1:52:49] um the um consent agenda items and then
[1:52:52] we can sit and listen to folks talk
[1:52:55] about what's on their mind. And I do
[1:52:58] believe that it has and I think one of
[1:53:00] the speakers brought this up. I I
[1:53:03] thought about the fact that if we do
[1:53:05] that, it does have kind of a benefit
[1:53:07] that if there's nobody here to talk,
[1:53:10] we're just going to move on. We're not
[1:53:11] going to sit here for 30 minutes um
[1:53:14] waiting on that to occur. And if there
[1:53:16] are people, we would still cap it at 30
[1:53:18] minutes so that we can get on with the
[1:53:20] business of people and we wouldn't be
[1:53:21] here um an exorbitant amount of time. So
[1:53:25] that's my amendment. I would recommend
[1:53:27] that. I would move that we make that
[1:53:28] amendment and I would hope someone could
[1:53:30] support that.
[1:53:37] Councilwoman Ganon,
[1:53:40] >> I was going to speak, but I also want to
[1:53:42] sec I will second that because that's
[1:53:44] what I found in our in my surveys as
[1:53:47] well and it it is included in several
[1:53:51] other cities. It's part of the agenda
[1:53:54] and each one handles it differently a
[1:53:56] little bit and we can probably work out
[1:53:58] on the details as far as what to call
[1:54:01] it.
[1:54:10] » Council member Horner, would you just
[1:54:11] want to propose these general terms and
[1:54:13] then I'll incorporate them into an
[1:54:16] amended ordinance for the second
[1:54:17] reading?
[1:54:20] No, we just vote on the amendment then
[1:54:22] rather than typing it up now.
[1:54:23] >> Me, too. Yes, absolutely.
[1:54:28] » All right. So, I have a motion and a
[1:54:29] second for amendment.
[1:54:31] >> We have quick discussion
[1:54:33] >> and Paul, I was just going to come to
[1:54:35] you.
[1:54:35] >> No, just traditionally there's
[1:54:38] discussion following a second. Just like
[1:54:40] to be clear. What does that do to
[1:54:42] tonight's action?
[1:54:44] Does that replace tonight's action?
[1:54:46] Because what we're doing is tacking an
[1:54:48] amendment on a proposal to modify. It
[1:54:52] seems like that has the potential to get
[1:54:54] muddy.
[1:54:56] >> Well, we're not going to eliminate it.
[1:54:59] That's the modification is instead of
[1:55:00] eliminate it, we're going to modify it.
[1:55:02] We're going to continue it, but we're
[1:55:04] going to do it in the meeting instead of
[1:55:07] out of the meeting.
[1:55:09] basically
[1:55:12] » and so the basic format public is still
[1:55:14] free to speak. Come and speak.
[1:55:18] >> It stays the same.
[1:55:19] >> Thank you.
[1:55:20] >> And I will be happy to work with anybody
[1:55:23] else on the council to make sure we get
[1:55:24] the leg language right. And we have two
[1:55:26] more readings that it's got to come
[1:55:28] before these guys to make sure we're
[1:55:31] getting it right. Two more readings and
[1:55:34] we will not fasttrack this one.
[1:55:36] >> I'd love to help.
[1:55:40] I have a motion.
[1:55:42] >> Go ahead.
[1:55:46] » No, go ahead. It's been moved and
[1:55:47] seconded.
[1:55:48] >> Then you will be coming back as a
[1:55:50] modified with that amendment. So then we
[1:55:53] would need to just for clarifications, I
[1:55:56] know we've all been encouraged to say
[1:55:58] no, we would in fact vote for this first
[1:56:01] time and then at the second reading it
[1:56:04] will be modified.
[1:56:06] So what happens clarification? [snorts]
[1:56:08] Correct.
[1:56:09] >> What what would happen then to August
[1:56:11] public comment?
[1:56:15] » Okay. So we're we're going to continue
[1:56:17] the end of August. We'll do normal
[1:56:19] public comment. Third reading. We'll
[1:56:21] roll it back into the council agenda.
[1:56:27] » Right.
[1:56:29] Would it make any more sense to just
[1:56:31] continue this item as opposed to holding
[1:56:33] the first reading tonight?
[1:56:36] You want to Well, we have a motion on a
[1:56:38] second.
[1:56:49] I have a motion and a second. Now you
[1:56:51] have to cast your vote.
[1:57:02] The motion carries 8 to zero. Mayor
[1:57:06] All right. Thank you.
[1:57:10] Yep.
[1:57:27] » Well, we have to vote it as amended
[1:57:28] first, don't we?
[1:57:46] Yes, we need a we need a motion for the
[1:57:49] first reading as amended.
[1:57:53] » Do I have that?
[1:57:56] Councilman Jensen,
[1:57:56] >> I will make the motion to hold first
[1:57:58] reading war 5755 as amended.
[1:58:02] >> Councilman Marsh,
[1:58:03] >> I'll second that.
[1:58:10] » That motion carries 8 to zero.
[1:58:15] Ordinance number 5755, an ordinance of
[1:58:17] the city of Fremont, Nebraska, repealing
[1:58:18] and replacing chapter 2, article 1
[1:58:20] section of the Fremont Municipal Code
[1:58:21] regarding open public comment periods
[1:58:22] and formal council study sessions and
[1:58:24] all other ordinances or parts of
[1:58:25] ordinances in conflict with this
[1:58:26] ordinance, providing for severability
[1:58:28] and providing when this ordinance shall
[1:58:29] be in full force in effect first
[1:58:30] reading.
[1:58:34] » Thank you.
[1:58:41] Okay. On item number 21, resolution
[1:58:44] 2026-205
[1:58:46] amending master fee schedule to support
[1:58:48] changes to the ordinance 5749 approved
[1:58:51] at the July 28 26th meeting
[1:58:55] council members von Baron and Gano item.
[1:59:00] >> Now this is just a followup to what we
[1:59:02] approved at the last meeting as we were
[1:59:04] working through the animal control
[1:59:05] ordinances. Uh we've obviously times
[1:59:09] change. Uh we've one of the things that
[1:59:12] we found is Fremont has proportionally
[1:59:16] per population probably a larger animal
[1:59:20] control challenge than most cities of
[1:59:22] comparable size. And so we visited with
[1:59:25] officer Steamer. She had a heavy hand in
[1:59:29] the advice, a very good constructive
[1:59:32] heavy hand in the advice, advising us
[1:59:34] what she felt would be required to
[1:59:37] change some behaviors to discourage, to
[1:59:39] enable enforcement, that kind of thing.
[1:59:41] So that's what you see in front of you.
[1:59:43] It's you can see what the uh fees have
[1:59:46] been in the past. We added a couple of
[1:59:48] new categories and tried to no modify
[1:59:52] the system references so those were more
[1:59:54] clear. So, it's fairly straightforward
[1:59:57] matter. It's just an updated version of
[2:00:00] fees and assessments for offenses.
[2:00:07] » Okay, Councilman her.
[2:00:08] >> Um, thanks, Mayor. I have no questions
[2:00:11] really. Um, and I just want to thank
[2:00:13] Paul and Sally for the hard work and all
[2:00:15] the other folks that who were part of
[2:00:17] this. And um I I'm not good at the
[2:00:20] Golden Globe stuff because I never
[2:00:21] remember who all to thank. But um um you
[2:00:24] guys did a lot of work. We appreciate
[2:00:26] it. My only comment is one word of
[2:00:28] caution and I shared this with you guys
[2:00:30] earlier. What's a colony? Um you know,
[2:00:33] where does that definition begin? Um you
[2:00:36] know, is it five, is it eight, you know,
[2:00:38] etc. Um just a word of caution, that
[2:00:41] could be an issue at some point in the
[2:00:44] future I could see arising is what is a
[2:00:46] colony? And I don't know how you get at
[2:00:48] that, but we just have to be mindful of
[2:00:50] that.
[2:00:53] Well noted.
[2:00:57] » Any other questions?
[2:01:02] » Just a general answer to your question.
[2:01:04] Fremont does have specific limits on
[2:01:06] numbers of dogs and cats that can be
[2:01:08] housed. And so if somebody's maybe
[2:01:11] [clears throat] has a couple cats that
[2:01:12] they're feeding on the back porch and
[2:01:14] they're over the limit, that may not be
[2:01:16] a colony. Uh if they've got 15 or 20,
[2:01:20] which is not uncommon, that becomes a
[2:01:22] colony. So there's some officer
[2:01:24] discretion involved.
[2:01:32] I'll take uh comments from the public.
[2:01:46] state your name and address.
[2:01:47] >> Right, 1537 Brewer Drive. Um, I just
[2:01:51] wanted to make sure that you guys
[2:01:52] understand what you're doing here with
[2:01:54] this increase to the master fee
[2:01:58] schedule. Um, so the colonies that are
[2:02:03] in question, the cat colony that are in
[2:02:06] question here, let's not forget that
[2:02:10] most of the people that feed the stray
[2:02:13] cats are ones that are lower income.
[2:02:18] They have no no, you know, like
[2:02:20] interaction really with the outside
[2:02:22] world much except for those cats. And so
[2:02:25] they're already low income. And now
[2:02:26] we're going to raise not only are we
[2:02:28] going to make them get a permit so that
[2:02:30] you know where all the cats are when we
[2:02:33] don't even have a program in place right
[2:02:34] now to control the cats that we already
[2:02:38] have and you guys are only seeing the
[2:02:40] public only sees 20% of what is actually
[2:02:43] out there. So the rest lives in you know
[2:02:46] underground and all that stuff. So I
[2:02:49] mean I really don't think that this is
[2:02:52] the right option to go. The colony kept
[2:02:54] caretaker permits should have never been
[2:02:56] in place to begin with, but just keep in
[2:02:58] mind that those guys, they're usually
[2:02:59] the lower income people and now we're
[2:03:01] going to find them for trying to feed an
[2:03:04] animal. It's not very nice.
[2:03:10] If
[2:03:10] >> I could just comment on that briefly.
[2:03:12] >> Yes.
[2:03:13] >> Respond to that.
[2:03:13] >> We got another
[2:03:14] >> Oh, I'm I'm sorry. Excuse me.
[2:03:21] Having been here for a couple years,
[2:03:22] might as well make it good. I'm Susan
[2:03:24] Shikovas, 1805 North D Street here in
[2:03:27] Fremont. Um, somebody please correct me
[2:03:30] after I'm finished or whoever wants to
[2:03:33] speak after, but there's no fee attached
[2:03:34] to that. Um, some of us have then been
[2:03:38] part of the spay and neuter release
[2:03:40] program and have ear tipped cats and I I
[2:03:45] can't control the raccoon that comes and
[2:03:47] sleeps underneath the porch or the
[2:03:48] possums that kind of hibernate
[2:03:50] underneath the other porch in somewhat
[2:03:52] of a heated box. But um, a colony is
[2:03:56] permitted and all the person has to do
[2:03:59] is go get the permit. according to what
[2:04:02] was printed in the agenda tonight. I'm
[2:04:04] not aware that this any charge, but
[2:04:05] again, please correct me if I'm wrong.
[2:04:08] Thank you.
[2:04:10] >> Thank you.
[2:04:12] Anybody else on this?
[2:04:15] >> Close the public comment.
[2:04:17] >> Um, I would like to comment.
[2:04:19] >> Please,
[2:04:19] >> just uh because Susan Jacobus uh pointed
[2:04:23] it out, the colony caretaker caretaker
[2:04:26] permit fee was $150. That's the current
[2:04:29] and we're recommending zero for the very
[2:04:32] same reasons that you brought up because
[2:04:35] they care for those cats. They love
[2:04:37] them. They provide food for them. So,
[2:04:40] it's gone down to zero.
[2:04:47] » Paul, did you have a comment?
[2:04:49] >> And that's I think that's the point
[2:04:51] because we didn't want to discourage
[2:04:52] people from it. The only penalty now
[2:04:55] will be if that becomes a nuisance. the
[2:04:57] first time it becomes a nuisance then
[2:04:58] they do issue a permit and then it goes
[2:05:01] from there. So that's
[2:05:04] councilwoman is exactly right. The other
[2:05:06] thing is we noticed uh last year we
[2:05:09] brought a discussion item regarding
[2:05:11] feral cat control and it is a problem in
[2:05:14] some areas of Fremont. uh we realized
[2:05:18] that we approved the concept but there
[2:05:20] was no formal vote on the control
[2:05:22] project or the formal control parameters
[2:05:26] the things that would have to be done so
[2:05:28] we will be bringing that to the next
[2:05:30] meeting to formalize that asking your
[2:05:32] support I will tell you it's changed
[2:05:36] going into it I thought what in the
[2:05:38] world we're staying and neutering cats
[2:05:40] and then turning them back out makes no
[2:05:42] sense once you think through it it's
[2:05:45] worth doing So, we'll be bringing that
[2:05:46] to the next meeting.
[2:05:49] >> Thank you.
[2:05:51] >> Any other discussion from councel?
[2:05:55] » If not, I'll take a motion.
[2:06:04] » Councilman Vaughn,
[2:06:05] >> I'll make a motion to approve.
[2:06:08] Councilman
[2:06:08] >> Her, I'll second.
[2:06:16] That motion carries 8 to zero. Mayor.
[2:06:28] » All right. Thank you. Item number 22,
[2:06:30] ordinance 5756, amending the food and
[2:06:32] beverage occupation tax. First reading.
[2:06:36] Staff.
[2:06:37] >> Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of
[2:06:39] council. Jody Sanders, city
[2:06:40] administrator. Um what you have before
[2:06:43] you is the first reading of an ordinance
[2:06:45] that would amend the uh food and
[2:06:47] beverage occupation tax rate. Um
[2:06:51] previously um it had been it when this
[2:06:54] was first passed in 2015 the rate was
[2:06:57] 1.75 and that was established so that we
[2:07:01] would not go over the $700,000 limit
[2:07:05] that had been placed by uh the
[2:07:08] legislature.
[2:07:10] Um since that time we've had to bring
[2:07:13] back to council requests to reduce it to
[2:07:16] stay with underneath the 700,000 limit.
[2:07:20] Um in 2025 uh the as part of uh kind of
[2:07:27] an omnimous bill there was a section
[2:07:29] that took out the um the lid on of
[2:07:33] $700,000 on new occupation taxes. And so
[2:07:37] without that lid in place,
[2:07:40] um the the city could choose to raise
[2:07:45] the rate back closer to where it was
[2:07:47] originally. Um most communities that
[2:07:51] have this are at least at a 1.5 if
[2:07:54] Omaha's is actually at a 2.5
[2:07:58] um tax rate. Um, one of the reasons why
[2:08:02] we wanted to bring this uh to the
[2:08:04] council for consideration is um we've
[2:08:08] been visiting with uh council members
[2:08:10] talking with them about the 2027 budget
[2:08:13] and the deficit that we're in right
[2:08:16] heading into 2027.
[2:08:19] And we recognize that it's u not fair to
[2:08:23] put the complete burden of of of
[2:08:27] the cost of running the city on uh
[2:08:31] property taxpayers
[2:08:33] where a food and beverage tax is not
[2:08:36] only paid by citizens, but it's paid by
[2:08:38] anyone that is eating in our community.
[2:08:42] Meaning the folks that come for um the
[2:08:45] tournaments on the weekends and those
[2:08:47] kinds of things. they're purchasing food
[2:08:49] and um likely paying either they're
[2:08:52] paying the tax or the restaurant is
[2:08:53] paying the tax on their behalf. Um so it
[2:08:56] kind of spreads the the burden a little
[2:08:59] bit. Um as well as uh you know just
[2:09:03] looking for ways so that we don't have
[2:09:06] to have such reliance on property taxes
[2:09:09] because in visiting with all of you
[2:09:12] you've all expressed uh concern that we
[2:09:16] don't
[2:09:18] tax people out of their homes. you know,
[2:09:20] the the city receives um a small portion
[2:09:24] of the overall property tax levy of only
[2:09:26] we only receive 16% of what's levied,
[2:09:29] but still you were all clear you wanted
[2:09:31] to do your part. This is one way that we
[2:09:34] can get to the point where um perhaps we
[2:09:37] won't have to go um quite so high on uh
[2:09:41] our property tax request um because we'd
[2:09:44] be receiving uh the the revenue from
[2:09:47] this. We're currently at 1% and we are
[2:09:50] collecting
[2:09:52] slightly over $700,000. Now,
[2:09:56] we have not been strictly enforcing it
[2:10:00] uh the the tax because we really
[2:10:02] shouldn't be collecting more than is uh
[2:10:06] more than that $700,000 cap. That was
[2:10:08] why we had not been um res, you know,
[2:10:12] being very strict about our enforcement.
[2:10:15] We have started the enforcement process.
[2:10:18] Um the city staff has started the
[2:10:20] enforcement process which will yes bring
[2:10:23] in additional revenue but not to the
[2:10:26] extent that if you change the uh tax
[2:10:29] rate it would uh bring in at a bare
[2:10:32] minimum we know $700,000. And that's
[2:10:36] essentially $700,000 in property tax
[2:10:38] relief. And that's why we felt being
[2:10:41] good stewards of the public finances,
[2:10:43] this was something that that we should
[2:10:44] bring to your attention and um offer as your for your consideration tonight.
[2:10:52] >> Questions from council. Councilman
[2:10:53] Jensen.
[2:10:55] >> Yeah, thank you. I just wanted to want
[2:10:57] to touch on a couple things and yes, we
[2:10:59] have all had these private meetings. We
[2:11:01] all know what we're facing in 27 and as
[2:11:04] you said this is part of
[2:11:06] kind of spreading out the pain so
[2:11:08] everybody gets gets a little taste of it
[2:11:10] I guess. Uh my question was and you kind
[2:11:13] of brought touched on that how uh how
[2:11:16] compliant food trucks and been with this
[2:11:19] tax and that and I was going to ask also
[2:11:22] about the uh uh hotel rooms. I know
[2:11:24] municipalities like to tax hotel rooms
[2:11:26] because there ain't anybody that lives
[2:11:27] here that's in them.
[2:11:30] So we currently do tax hotel rooms. I
[2:11:33] believe the rate is 4% isn't it Jen for
[2:11:37] hotel tax. So we are receiving uh the benefit from those uh lodging taxes
[2:11:43] as well. Um and the one of the one of
[2:11:47] the ways that we're bringing um
[2:11:50] enforcement action is simply by having a
[2:11:54] kind of a
[2:11:57] cross matching
[2:11:59] what we have for mobile food vendors
[2:12:02] versus who's paying the tax because the
[2:12:05] food the mobile food vendors are subject
[2:12:07] to the tax as well. So, that's that's
[2:12:10] one of the ways that we're reaching out
[2:12:12] to folks and saying maybe you're not
[2:12:14] aware, but you need to be collecting and uh remitting this pro this uh
[2:12:19] occupation tax.
[2:12:23] » Councilman Marsh,
[2:12:25] >> so what you're saying is there's
[2:12:26] restaurants out there probably that are
[2:12:28] collecting it but not paying in, right?
[2:12:31] >> Unfortunately, that's a possibility. Um,
[2:12:33] we would, you know, if if anybody has
[2:12:36] that suspicion, certainly please do let
[2:12:38] us know. Um, I think that that, um, as
[2:12:43] staff, I'm certainly paying much more
[2:12:46] attention to the receipt that I get. Um,
[2:12:49] one thing to note, you know, the the
[2:12:51] sales tax currently is at uh, should
[2:12:54] show up on your receipt as 7%. That's uh
[2:12:58] five and a half to the state and one and
[2:13:01] a half percent to the city. And then the
[2:13:04] occupation tax of 1% or um you know if
[2:13:07] this is passed then it would be 2%. But
[2:13:09] there's also the enhanced employment uh
[2:13:13] tax that's on at the mall um for and but
[2:13:17] that only applies to prepared food,
[2:13:21] right? Yes. As well. So that's where um
[2:13:27] Are you sure?
[2:13:29] >> Come on up, Jen.
[2:13:31] >> Hey, Jen, why don't you come on up?
[2:13:35] >> Thank you, Jen.
[2:13:37] Nab, finance director.
[2:13:46] » Honorable mayor, city council, Jennifer
[2:13:47] Nab, finance director. So, the mall
[2:13:50] occupation tax uh is for businesses out
[2:13:55] at the mall and it it's it's on the
[2:13:56] Dunham receipts. It's on shoe sensation,
[2:14:00] it's on um also prepared foods, but
[2:14:02] there are some items excluded. So, it's
[2:14:05] not at the gas station, it's not on
[2:14:07] groceries, it's not on foods um anything
[2:14:10] coming out of a vending machine or like
[2:14:13] a candy bar or whatever. So there are
[2:14:15] it's not liquor um but the majority of
[2:14:18] what's being sold out the mall is
[2:14:20] subject to the mall occupation tax
[2:14:24] according to the ordinance that was
[2:14:25] passed.
[2:14:29] » Do you have a number of what you think
[2:14:32] that we're not getting? I mean with the
[2:14:34] percentage going up obviously that's
[2:14:35] pretty easy but as far as like how many
[2:14:37] are not
[2:14:38] >> number of as far as dollars but we did
[2:14:41] compare um restaurant licenses with
[2:14:45] who's paying food and beverage and I've
[2:14:47] got um 17 businesses that are behind or
[2:14:52] not paying and then we've also got a
[2:14:53] number of mobile food vendors as well
[2:14:56] that will be um you know we still need
[2:14:58] to reach out and
[2:15:03] But it's there's some
[2:15:06] >> revenue. Yeah. Thank you.
[2:15:10] » Uh Councilman her.
[2:15:12] >> Uh thanks, Mayor. Um
[2:15:14] you know, we talked already a little bit
[2:15:16] about this and and um the one thing that
[2:15:19] I would say is that if there are folks
[2:15:22] collect tax and not turning it in, we
[2:15:25] have to address that obviously pretty um
[2:15:28] pretty swiftly and pretty decisively is
[2:15:30] what I would hope. Thank you.
[2:15:35] » Anybody else?
[2:15:41] » Okay. Comment from public.
[2:15:51] Please state your name and address.
[2:15:56] » Good evening, mayor and members of the
[2:15:58] council. My member, my name is Dylan
[2:16:00] Martinez, residing at 1435 East 12th
[2:16:03] Street here in Fremont. I am standing
[2:16:05] before you or sitting tonight. I'm used
[2:16:08] to standing from previous formats that
[2:16:10] we've had. Um really do like how
[2:16:13] everything has changed. Uh timer right
[2:16:15] there in front of us.
[2:16:17] But uh I'm sitting here tonight before
[2:16:19] you to address the proposed 1% food and
[2:16:22] beverage tax increase. And I urge you to
[2:16:24] vote no. We need to look closely at the
[2:16:26] economic environment our residents are
[2:16:28] navigating right now. Inflation has
[2:16:30] squeezed household dollars to record
[2:16:32] levels and working families in Fremont
[2:16:34] are watching every single dollar. Fast
[2:16:36] food prices have already risen to what
[2:16:38] sitdown restaurants used to cost. When
[2:16:41] basic dining out has become a luxury for
[2:16:43] the average family, adding another tax
[2:16:46] on top of their check is not going to
[2:16:47] spur economic growth. In fact, it'll
[2:16:50] likely have the opposite effect. It'll
[2:16:52] dissuade actual residents from eating
[2:16:54] out directly,
[2:16:56] hurting our local restaurant owners,
[2:16:58] server staff, and small business
[2:16:59] community. It may have an unended side
[2:17:02] effect of spurring extra business when
[2:17:05] we have people coming into town, but the
[2:17:07] people that actually know about this
[2:17:09] will likely just try to buy at the
[2:17:11] grocery store and make the $200 that
[2:17:13] they have, you know, last a week for a
[2:17:16] family of four. Um, you know, that used
[2:17:18] to be a thing. But, um, now to be fair,
[2:17:22] I do want to acknowledge that Fremont
[2:17:24] has seen some serious positive
[2:17:26] development over the last few years.
[2:17:28] That progress is welcome. But, recent
[2:17:30] development does not erase or make up
[2:17:32] for the nearly two decades of wasteful
[2:17:33] spending, questionable deals, and
[2:17:35] administrative mismanagement by past
[2:17:37] position holders. Taxpayers are tied.
[2:17:40] Taxpayers are tired of being treated as
[2:17:42] a bottomless piggy bank every time the
[2:17:44] city needs to cover a budget gap after
[2:17:46] years of fiscal red flags. Fremont needs
[2:17:49] to demonstrate that it can manage its
[2:17:50] existing revenue responsibly before
[2:17:52] reaching deeper into the pockets of its
[2:17:54] citizens.
[2:17:56] If this council is unwilling to vote no
[2:17:58] outright tonight, then I ask you to at
[2:18:00] least lessen listen to the community and
[2:18:03] amend this proposal down to a quarter
[2:18:05] percent or half percent or some
[2:18:06] incremental raise up to the 2%. Cut it
[2:18:10] back and make that smaller figure work.
[2:18:12] Show the taxpayers that you are willing
[2:18:14] to compromise and exercise real fiscal
[2:18:16] discipline. Fix internal spending
[2:18:18] priorities, protect our local small
[2:18:19] businesses, and do not place another
[2:18:21] financial burden on the dining tables of
[2:18:23] Fremont families. Alternatively,
[2:18:26] if as I'm hearing on the comments
[2:18:28] tonight that uh there seems to be issues
[2:18:31] with enforcement and making sure that
[2:18:33] these taxes are collected on a lot of
[2:18:35] these business um food business owners,
[2:18:37] which are a lot easier to get a food
[2:18:39] business license, to get a truck, to do
[2:18:41] a pop-up vendor on a corner and collect
[2:18:43] every one of these taxes. Maybe
[2:18:45] alternatively to this, we should look
[2:18:47] into a tax on specifically alcoholic
[2:18:51] beverages. We were talking tonight on
[2:18:52] passing um you know renewing a lot of
[2:18:55] these licenses. You know what's 1% onto
[2:18:58] a bar for people going out and having a
[2:19:00] pint? That's already $10. If they have
[2:19:02] the money to go out to the bar, that's
[2:19:04] way different than having the money to
[2:19:07] go out to lunch on a break when you're
[2:19:09] at work and you need a quick bite to eat
[2:19:12] just to continue functioning from
[2:19:13] day-to-day society. You know, obviously
[2:19:16] fast food is a convenience. Um, but
[2:19:19] there are ways that we can find
[2:19:23] money without just putting on a tax
[2:19:26] every single time or finding um, you
[2:19:29] know, finding everyone. So, thank you so
[2:19:31] much and hope you have a great day.
[2:19:36] » Uh, anybody else in this?
[2:19:46] Gary Delaney, 2940 Lever Street. Uh I
[2:19:49] did not come here to speak on this item
[2:19:51] tonight. So my knowledge of it is based
[2:19:53] on what we've heard in the last few
[2:19:54] minutes, but what I've heard is that we
[2:19:57] have 17 businesses, which I consider a
[2:20:00] large number, not properly paying this
[2:20:03] tax. So our solution
[2:20:06] is to increase the tax on those that are
[2:20:10] doing their part in paying it rather
[2:20:11] than figuring out a way to enforce it
[2:20:14] and collect what is already due. Uh it
[2:20:17] just seems like a more logical solution.
[2:20:19] Let's come up with a way to make the
[2:20:21] levy that's already there work. maybe
[2:20:23] put some fines, stiff fines in place for
[2:20:26] those that are not paying it properly as
[2:20:29] opposed to raising another tax on the
[2:20:32] law abiding taxpayer to the city. Thank
[2:20:35] you. Thank you.
[2:20:38] >> Bond.
[2:20:42] Anybody else in
[2:20:46] that I'll close public comment.
[2:20:49] >> Um so just a couple of clarifications.
[2:20:52] Uh first of all, as a reminder, we were
[2:20:54] unable to enforce
[2:20:56] um compliance because what we were
[2:20:59] collecting was already up against the
[2:21:01] cap. So now that that has been removed,
[2:21:04] we are moving swiftly to enforce um the
[2:21:09] uh budget deficit is uh very clearly in
[2:21:14] my mind as finance director not because
[2:21:16] of overspending or missspending. It is
[2:21:21] very very simply we are required to do
[2:21:24] comparables
[2:21:26] um for our public safety as an example.
[2:21:29] We also looked at market rates as far as
[2:21:31] what it costs to pay our police and fire
[2:21:35] as we're competing with Omaha and
[2:21:37] Lincoln. Those salary increases were
[2:21:40] millions of dollars. In addition,
[2:21:42] unfunded
[2:21:44] retirement mandates from the state. Uh
[2:21:47] our police has a match on the retirement
[2:21:52] of 9%.
[2:21:53] Um on fire that uh this last year was uh
[2:21:58] 14%
[2:21:59] that is going to 15%
[2:22:02] match October 1st. Now remember FIRE
[2:22:06] doesn't get social security. So you've
[2:22:08] got six and a half there that others get
[2:22:11] but that's still an additional 9%.
[2:22:15] And uh in addition, our insurance costs
[2:22:18] went up about 30% last year. It's and
[2:22:23] from um IT costs, cyber and other
[2:22:26] things. Uh it it's these costs that have
[2:22:30] gone up. And that's really not decisions
[2:22:32] you have made. It's not um it's it's
[2:22:37] comparables. It's state unfunded items.
[2:22:42] it is market rates on insurance and and
[2:22:45] that's you know having costs go up
[2:22:48] millions of dollars where our property
[2:22:50] tax goes up by 600k it creates a gap and
[2:22:54] this is a good way um to fill it people
[2:22:56] do have a choice whether they eat out or
[2:22:58] not um this is a way for us to collect
[2:23:01] from folks coming into our community uh
[2:23:04] because if we don't do it here our other
[2:23:07] option is property
[2:23:13] Councilman her.
[2:23:14] >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, you know, we're
[2:23:17] going to have a lot of opportunities to
[2:23:19] talk about all this stuff coming up
[2:23:21] because of the U budget um discussions
[2:23:25] that we will be having in the future.
[2:23:26] So, um I don't want to go into that. I
[2:23:29] do want to um support some of what you
[2:23:31] have said just from my discussions and
[2:23:33] what I've been able to um kind of just
[2:23:37] read between the lines here. Um, first
[2:23:40] off, there was a lid. We were not
[2:23:42] allowed to collect more than $700,000.
[2:23:45] That's been removed and so we are now
[2:23:47] going to see how much of that we can go
[2:23:50] and get and we're going to try to get it
[2:23:52] all obviously. Um, but there's also a
[2:23:55] shortfall that's coming and we need to
[2:23:57] make up for that. This is an elective
[2:23:59] tax um, which I like rather than a tax
[2:24:03] that we have no choice in which is our
[2:24:05] property tax. And if I have to make a
[2:24:08] decision one or the other. I'm going to
[2:24:10] probably choose the elective tax every
[2:24:11] day. Obviously, we're not going to have
[2:24:13] the luxury of making the choice between
[2:24:15] one or the other, but we can certainly
[2:24:17] lessen the impact on one by choosing the
[2:24:20] other. And I do think that that seems to
[2:24:23] be a more prudent choice that is going
[2:24:26] to lessen the overall impact that's
[2:24:29] coming at us. Um the um inflation
[2:24:33] affects everyone. It doesn't just affect
[2:24:35] the private citizen. um it affects
[2:24:38] everything and that's what we're still
[2:24:41] facing. So, thank you
[2:24:44] Councilwoman Ganon.
[2:24:46] >> Well spoken and I I will just ask a
[2:24:50] question because this is one of the
[2:24:51] first times publicly we've been
[2:24:53] addressing actually the upcoming budget
[2:24:56] and saying we are going to experience a
[2:24:59] shortfall. Can you give me a time frame
[2:25:02] when we'll start being able to present
[2:25:04] some of the same information to public?
[2:25:08] Uh yeah. So, uh August 20th, we get the
[2:25:13] valuation from the county assessor and
[2:25:16] we also find out what the growth is. And
[2:25:19] as a reminder, if we've got 10 houses in
[2:25:21] town and we built two new houses, it's
[2:25:24] those two new houses that are the
[2:25:26] growth, not any valuation increases on
[2:25:29] the existing houses. So, we'll we'll get
[2:25:32] that information. We have gotten from
[2:25:35] the state already that the inflation
[2:25:38] factor that when they change the laws on
[2:25:41] property tax, as an example, because I'm assuming that's really what you're
[2:25:44] asking about, uh, is 5.26%. 26%. So we
[2:25:49] then need the uh growth percentage so
[2:25:53] that we can calculate um in the new
[2:25:55] rules in the past for example if the
[2:25:58] overall valuation of the city went up
[2:26:00] 20%
[2:26:02] council could choose as long as we
[2:26:04] didn't go above 45 cents you could take
[2:26:06] it. Um the new rules say it is last
[2:26:09] year's property tax and you can only
[2:26:12] increase it by the growth and then
[2:26:14] inflation. can't take um the extra
[2:26:17] valuation increases on people's homes
[2:26:19] that are existing. Um and so we'll be
[2:26:22] calculating that uh this year once we
[2:26:25] get that valuation and then we'll
[2:26:27] hopefully be able to present it just as
[2:26:30] soon as possible. Um after that the next
[2:26:33] >> I like the old better but thank you for
[2:26:36] explaining that.
[2:26:38] >> Councilman Vaughn,
[2:26:39] >> just a point of clarification if I
[2:26:41] could. This does include not only food
[2:26:43] services but drinking places.
[2:26:47] All inclusive, correct?
[2:26:48] >> Food and beverage.
[2:26:50] >> Thank you.
[2:26:53] Any other questions from council?
[2:26:59] If not, I'll make a motion.
[2:27:03] Councilman her. I'll make the motion to
[2:27:05] approve the first reading ordinance 5756
[2:27:08] a meeting amending the food and beverage
[2:27:10] tax food and beverage occupation tax.
[2:27:15] >> Councilman Jensen
[2:27:16] >> and I will second.
[2:27:25] » That motion carries 8 to zero.
[2:27:27] Ordinance number 5756, an ordinance to
[2:27:30] amend chapter 14 of the Fremont Nebraska
[2:27:32] Municipal Code. Ordinance number 5604,
[2:27:34] increasing the rate of city's food and
[2:27:35] beverage occupation tax by amending
[2:27:36] section 143- 14-302A
[2:27:39] collection and repealing any parts of
[2:27:41] ordinance to be conflicted with and to
[2:27:42] provide for publication at the effective
[2:27:43] date of this ordinance first reading.
[2:27:49] » Thank you. I'll take a motion to
[2:27:50] adjourn. Councilman Jensen. Well, I was
[2:27:53] going to make a motion to suspend the
[2:27:54] rules, move to third reading, but
[2:27:59] there any discussion on that.
[2:28:02] That's my motion.
[2:28:06] >> I'll second her. Second,
[2:28:30] that motion carries 8 to zero. Mayor,
[2:28:33] Ordinance number 5756, an ordinance to
[2:28:35] amend chapter 14 of the Fremont,
[2:28:36] Nebraska Municipal Code, Ordinance
[2:28:38] number 5604, increasing the rate of the
[2:28:39] city's food and beverage occupation tax
[2:28:40] by amending section 14-302A collection
[2:28:43] and repealing any parts of ordinances in
[2:28:45] conflict or within provided for
[2:28:46] publication in the effective date of
[2:28:47] this ordinance final rating.
[2:28:52] Cast your final vote.
[2:29:01] That motion carries 8 to zero. Mayor,
[2:29:03] ordinance number 5756 is approved.
[2:29:08] » I'll take a motion to adjurnn.
[2:29:09] >> I'll make that motion.
[2:29:10] >> Corner.
[2:29:12] >> Council Jensen.
[2:29:13] >> Second.
[2:29:18] » That motion carries 8 to zero. Mayor,
[2:29:20] >> we are
[2:29:42] That's it.