When small numbers get scrutinized, and big ones get ignored

Dear, Editor

At the City of Grant’s recent budget workshop, the Council spent considerable time debating whether the City’s tax request would exceed the threshold requiring a postcard and joint hearing. The figure at issue? $12,163.12. Council members weighed the implications, eventually leaning toward an option that avoided sending the postcard.

During that same meeting, they also revisited the library’s already-approved budget — quibbling over a $4,859 change — and discussed employee raises that fall outside of their direct authority. In other words, hours of discussion were given to thousands, while tens of thousands in other areas have been quietly overlooked.

Specifically, the City Attorney’s Professional Services line item was already far over budget as of July 31, 2025. All the following numbers come directly from lawful Nebraska public records requests:

• 2023–2024 Fiscal Year Actual: $43,665.00

• 2024–2025 Fiscal Year Total: $109,498.75

• Per Capita (based on 1,128 residents): $38.71 in FY23–24 vs. $97.07 in FY24–25

That means legal spending more than doubled in a single year, with no clear explanation from the Council that approves these bills. The comparison gets even starker when you look just down the road. The City of Ogallala, with a population of 4,751, spent only $19,909.20 on legal services in the same fiscal year — all while overseeing the opening of a new casino. Their per capita legal cost was $4.19, compared to Grant’s $97.07.

And Ogallala is not an isolated example. I compiled the same information from 20 different towns across Nebraska — covering two fiscal years of legal service spending alongside their populations — all gathered through lawful public records requests. That chart, included below, shows just how far outside the norm Grant’s legal expenses really are.

In late June, the Mayor publicly announced during Communications that there had been a discrepancy in the City Attorney’s billing and that the city was prepared to be fully transparent. Yet that does not appear to be the case. On July 8, a council agenda item sought approval for an increase to $275 per hour outside the retainer — but invoices at that rate had already been approved for nearly 10 months without any formal Council action. At the July 8 council meeting the mayor stated on record: “Mistakes were made, Errors were made, but one mistake does not identify a problem.” Two council members stated during the same council meeting they were not aware of the rate increase until recently — even though they had been approving the City Attorney’s bills at the higher rate each month.

Still, when working on the new budget, the Council never once openly discussed the fact that “Professional Services” was already far beyond its $55,000 line-item budget. Instead, they simply proposed raising it to $80,000. What is the purpose of increasing the budget line if there is no intention of adhering to it? How can the Council raise concerns over $12,163 for postcards or $4,859 for the library, yet fail to hold any public discussion on legal services that more than doubled from one year to the next?

When asked if $275 per hour was the “going rate,” the City Attorney answered yes. While costs are certainly higher today, the Council failed to do the same homework they required of every other city employee wage study. They collected numbers statewide to compare staff salaries, yet never once compared legal services costs. Because of this, I personally submitted public records requests to the same Nebraska towns Grant used for wage studies — and a few closer to home — to see how our legal expenses compared. Frankly, I was shocked by the differences.

Even more telling: nearly every town I contacted responded well within the timeframe set by Nebraska’s Public Records Statutes, some from clear across the state. In fact, I nearly had all of their records in hand before the City of Grant produced its own numbers. While I acknowledge some requests are more complex than others, Grant consistently takes the full four days allowed by law to respond to even the simplest requests. When other towns can fulfill similar requests in a matter of hours or days, it makes one wonder what is really going on here.

Ten years ago, then-Mayor Mike Wyatt said: “There is no reason why the city would withhold information from you. There is a process when requesting information.” That concern about withholding information was real then, and it is just as real today.

Grant’s citizens deserve more than selective scrutiny. If small numbers matter, then large ones must matter too. The next City Council meeting is Tuesday, October 14. If these numbers bother us as taxpayers, we need to hold the Council accountable and demand they explain how this happened — and how it will be prevented going forward.

Respectfully,

Marlin Wendell 

Grant, Nebraska