Papillion City Council Ward 4 · Nov 3, 2026
Tom
Mumgaard
Tom Mumgaard, the incumbent, is running for Papillion City Council Ward 4 in the Nov 3, 2026 election, unopposed.
Not sure who to vote for? Answer a few questions and see which Papillion candidates agree with you, and why.
No sign-in. Your answers stay on your device. We never endorse anyone. Report an error
Background
- About
Tom Mumgaard is the only candidate listed for Papillion City Council Ward 4. Sarpy County
On the record: Tom Mumgaard
5 sourced01Bonds1 sourced position
Voted yes on ORD. 2097, Tax Supported Recreational Facilities Bonds, Series 2026 (passed 8-0, Aug 2026).
Council votePapillion City Council minutes, Aug. 18, 2026 · Aug 18, 2026LinkHow the council voted
02Housing types1 sourced position
Voted yes on tabling ORD. 2093, the 'Missing Middle' housing zoning amendment, for six weeks to go to the Affordable Housing Plan Ad Hoc Committee (passed 7-1, Aug 2026).
Council votePapillion City Council minutes, Aug. 18, 2026 · Aug 18, 2026LinkHow the council voted
03Budget and property tax1 sourced position
Voted yes on ORD. 2096, the FY2026-2027 budget, and on RES. R26-0178 setting the 2026-2027 property tax request (both passed 8-0, Sept 2026).
Council votePapillion City Council minutes, Sept. 15, 2026 · Sep 15, 2026LinkHow the council voted
04Meeting rules1 sourced position
Voted no on ORD. 2090, amending the municipal code on rules of conduct at meetings (passed 5-1, June 2026).
Council votePapillion City Council minutes, June 2, 2026 · Jun 2, 2026LinkHow the council voted
05Animal care rules1 sourced position
Moved an amendment to ORD. 2095, on the care and keeping of animals, and voted yes on it (passed 8-0, Sept 2026).
Council votePapillion City Council minutes, Sept. 15, 2026 · Sep 15, 2026Link
Every claim links to its source and was checked against it before publishing. How this guide works
Match quiz · 2 minutes · no sign-in
See which Papillion candidates match you
Also on your Papillion ballot
See something wrong? Report an error
Something wrong or missing? Tell us what and where, with a link to a source if you have one. Reports feed the next verification run.