[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.

August 11, 2026 Regular City Council Meeting

Transcript