Fremont council hears utilities financial update and considers land cooperation agreement

City finance staff and the Fremont Department of Utilities briefed the council on the department’s 2025 financial report and a staff request to sign a cooperation agreement that would clear an option on property north of town so the city can pursue future utility projects.

Jennifer Nab, identified in the packet as the finance director, presented the Department of Utilities report (FY25 vs FY24), saying overall financial condition is sound but noting pressures from higher gas prices and a temporary outage of Unit 8 that will increase fuel consumption. Nab said the city aims to rebuild reserves toward a target of roughly eight months of fund reserves; the sewer fund used reserves for prior capital work and is being replenished gradually rather than by a single rate spike. She described planned capital work — including a proposed 'horizontal well' project — and noted that additional bonding is expected.

Council members asked technical questions about coal‑pile density testing and measurement methodology; Nab described multiple checks and balances (core/density tests compared to scales measuring coal in and burned). She estimated it would take roughly four to five years to rebuild the sewer fund reserves to the eight‑month target under current projections and said the city’s bond rating (double‑A negative) was reaffirmed during a recent reissuance.

Separately, Jeff Shanahan, Utilities General Manager, described a cooperation agreement (Resolution 2026‑030) tied to a property the utilities have identified for future electric/gas/water infrastructure. Shanahan said the city must have the option on the land released by a private option-holder before moving forward with a purchase agreement; the cooperation agreement is described by staff as a limited, good‑faith commitment to treat a future developer comparably in land‑use process and does not include a purchase price or a binding purchase obligation.

Council sought clarification about the scope of the agreement and what the city was committing to; staff replied the agreement obligates only to 'work with' the option-holder and to consider future proposals consistent with how other developers are treated, and that no tangible monetary commitment is included in the cooperation agreement. Staff said the site is attractive for utilities because of proximity to a substation, an existing natural gas line, and an existing 12‑inch water line that could support future generation facilities or water storage/boosting to improve west‑side pressure.

The transcript records motions to receive the utilities financial report and to approve the cooperation agreement (motions moved and seconded) but does not include a roll‑call vote tally in the public transcript.

Why it matters: The utilities' reserve levels, capital projects and access to suitable land will shape future utility reliability, generation and water system capacity. The cooperation agreement is an early procedural step to clear an option on a parcel the city believes will support future system improvements.

What’s next: Staff indicated further steps — removal of the option, purchase negotiations and project-specific approvals through council and planning processes. Council did not record detailed vote tallies in the meeting transcript for the cooperation agreement motion.

Quoted speakers are from council staff and utilities: Jennifer Nab (Finance Director), Jeff Shanahan (Utilities General Manager).