Over budget and under review: City Attorney billing raises eyebrows in Grant

Dear Editor:

This has been building for several months — and it is time for the truth to come out.

On March 24, 2025, I submitted a public records request to the City of Grant asking for the legal services agreement with the City Attorney. The city responded with a one-page agreement dated December 13, 2023. But the hourly rate listed — $250 per hour — did not match billing statements beginning in August 2024. When I followed up and asked whether there were any amendments, the city responded that no amendments exist.

Then on June 24, 2025, during a public City Council meeting, Mayor Lisa Schmitt in communications acknowledged a billing discrepancy between the City and the City Attorney and assured the public that it would be addressed with “full transparency.”

However, on July 8, 2025, I submitted another formal records request, asking for any written notice from the City Attorney to the City of Grant regarding a rate increase. Just two days later, the City’s official response stated that “No record exists.”

Yet, on July 11, 2025, the Nebraska Auditor of Public Accounts informed me in writing that the City of Grant had told their office it was notified of the rate increase in July 2024 — and had been billed at the higher rate since August. The Auditor confirmed that the invoice rate “does not agree to the rate of $250 per hour set in the contract,” and recommended that the City formally amend the agreement going forward — clarifying that their conclusions came from an auditing standpoint, not a legal review.

If such a notice was provided in 2024, why wasn’t it disclosed in response to two public records requests?

Why wasn’t a new agreement presented in an open meeting and voted on at the time?

Notably, on July 8, 2025, the Council’s meeting agenda included “Action and Discussion on Amended City Attorney Agreement” — a sign that the City of Grant was only now attempting to retroactively approve the rate change. That same evening, after an executive session, the mayor publicly stated that “mistakes were made,” and two City Council Members admitted they were unaware of any rate change. The City Council also stated that the overcharges had been refunded to the City of Grant. The full meeting video is available on the “Inside the City of Grant” YouTube page.

Billing records also show two different hourly rates applied across three days at the beginning of August, and again, two different rates applied to four separate invoice entries on a single day at the end of August. These inconsistencies raise serious concerns about how billing was calculated, reviewed, and approved.

As of the May 31, 2025, financial publication in the official City Council packet, the line item “Professional Services” is already over budget by more than $40,000, and the fiscal year has 4 months to go. Despite this, the City Council approved a new contract at the    July 8, 2025, meeting that formalizes the same increased rate that had allegedly been applied without formal approval since August 2024. 

This raises some fundamental questions:

Th City was already drastically over budget for legal services, why approve a retroactive raise rather than investigate how the overages occurred in the first place?

If the original agreement was still active, and no formal amendment had been disclosed or presented publicly, how does the City justify locking in a higher rate mid-contract, after already exceeding the budget?

These actions suggest a reactive rather than proactive approach to fiscal management, and they undercut the City’s Claim that the situation is being handled with transparency and accountability. 

Yes, the City Council did vote to approve monthly claims — including payments to the City Attorney — but it remains a mystery if the City of Grant was ever formally notified of a rate increase at all, and when such notice might have occurred, if ever. No documentation has been produced to confirm this, despite multiple formal public records requests.

Even more concerning is that the Council ultimately approved a new contract reflecting the higher rate that had already been charged for nearly a year — yet there appears to have been no formal disclosure, public discussion, or proper authorization of that increase when it began. How does a governing body retroactively validate a billing rate it never knowingly approved?

And finally, one must ask: why would a rate increase even be necessary for just seven months into a three-year agreement? One would reasonably expect better forecasting and planning before entering any long-term contract funded by public tax dollars.

This is not about pointing fingers. It is about protecting taxpayer dollars, ensuring contract compliance, and restoring trust in how city business is conducted. When the contract, the billing, and the public explanations all tell different stories, the people of Grant have every right — and responsibility — to demand answers.

This process is still ongoing. The public must stay informed, engaged, and continue asking the hard but necessary questions.

Respectfully,

Marlin Wendell

Grant, Nebraska