Regular Meeting
December 7, 2010
The Mayor and Council
of the City of Fairbury met in regular session in the Council Chambers
located at 612 D Street, Fairbury, Nebraska, on the 7th day of
December 2010, at 7:30 p.m. Mayor Homer L. Ward called the meeting to
order.
Notice of meeting was
given in advance thereof by publication in the Fairbury Journal News,
Fairbury, Nebraska, the designated method of giving notice, as shown by
affidavit of publication. The Open Meetings Act was posted in the meeting
room and pointed out by Mayor Ward as required by law.
City Attorney David
Bargen administered the Oath of Office to newly elected City Council
members: Timothy Polson – Ward I, Bradley Kuzelka – Ward II, Rick L.
Carmichael – Ward III, and Joshua Vossler – Ward IV.
Roll call found the
following Council Members present: Doug Brown, Rick Carmichael, Roger
Bailey, Tim Polson, Joshua Vossler, Shirley Bender, Brad Kuzelka, and Kelly
Davis.
Mayor Ward called for
nominations for the office of City Council President. Polson nominated
Douglas Brown. Nomination seconded by Roger Bailey. There being no further
nominations, Mayor Ward declared the nominations closed. The vote was cast
by secret ballot. City Clerk Sharyl Preston read the ballots.
Final tally:
Brown – 7; Yes – 1. Council President will be Douglas Brown.
Council member Kelly
Davis asked Mayor Ward for an explanation why the police chief appointment
is not on the City Council agenda with the other appointments. Davis stated
he had been asked by several people why the police chief was not listed with
the other appointments. Mayor Ward stated he had City Attorney David Bargen
look at the municipal code and the state statutes regarding this matter.
Bargen stated he researched how the municipal code and the state statutes on
the matter are to be read together. As a starting point, the organizational
meeting, held the first regular meeting in December, is not set by state
statute; it is set by various city codes and each city has their own
ordinance regarding the procedures of this meeting. The City of Fairbury’s
ordinance states “that at the organizational meeting the Council elects the
Council President and the Mayor shall nominate candidates for the appointive
offices”. The state statute, that governs the appointment and dismissal of
police officers and police chief, treats the police differently than the
other non-police municipal appointed officials. The removal of a police
officer or police chief is also treated very differently – have to follow a
specific procedure to remove a police officer including the chief of police;
have to have a hearing before the City Council, etc. Bargen stated the
appointment of police officers by Nebraska Revised State Statute
§ 17-107 (1) provides, “The
mayor, by and with the consent of the council, shall appoint such a number
of regular police officers as may be necessary.” City Code
§ 31.01 (2) provides for the
same. This is different, and very specific, language than what is provided
for the other non-police appointments of the Mayor. If you read these
provisions all together, “the Mayor is to appoint only that number of police
officers that may be necessary to be appointed at the time of appointment.
If there are no vacancies in any police position, then no appointments are
necessary, and the Mayor has no authority under the code or state statute to
make additional police appointments at that time.” If a police position is
created by the removal of a police officer or chief of police by the Mayor,
then whether at an organizational meeting or at any other time, the Mayor
may make an appointment of a police officer to fill the position, which is
subject to the City Council’s “advice and consent”. Therefore, according to
the plain language of Neb. Rev. Stat. 17-107, where there is no vacancy in
the chief of police position or other police officer positions, the Mayor
may not make a police appointment, at the organizational meeting or
otherwise. With both the police positions and non-police positions, state
statute provides only the Mayor has the authority to remove appointed
positions. Bargen stated for example if the Mayor re-appointed an existing
police officer, police chief or city clerk, and the City Council did not
give it’s advice and consent – did not vote to approve that re-appointment,
then by definition the City Council has removed that person from that
position - that is directly contrary to state statute that gives only the
Mayor the authority to remove an appointee from a position whether police or
non-police appointments. The City Council’s role of advice and consent only
comes into play when the Mayor appoints a new person or a person to an open
position; that could occur if the Mayor wants to appoint someone different
from the person currently holding a position – which would be a simultaneous
removal and appointment of a new person to the position. As Bargen
interprets the plain language of the statute, according to state statute,
the Mayor does not have the authority to appoint new police officers or
chief of police when there are no open positions at that time. Council
member Kelly Davis stated Bargen had referenced State Statute
§
17-107 three or four times, wants to know why he didn’t reference
§ 17-107 (3) which states that this section
does not apply to an officer that is on their probation period – isn’t Mr.
Sprunk on probation. Bargen stated that when considering the plain language
of the statute, that exception may apply to the removal process discussed in
the previous section of the statute; however, it would not apply to the
initial language that says “the Mayor shall appoint such a number of regular
police officers as may be necessary”. Bargen stated the provision that says
this section doesn’t apply to officers on probation, applies such that an
officer on probation may not get the full hearing, etc. before the City
Council; but regardless, it does not modify the provision that states the
Mayor appoints a number necessary for police officers; nor would it modify
the language that only the Mayor can remove a police officer. Council
member Shirley Bender stated that the other appointments, all positions are
open positions until the City Council approves the appointments that night
as they are to be approved every two years. Bender stated if this isn’t
true, then it is a waste of time and paper to do this every two years.
Bargen stated the organizational meeting ordinance should probably be
amended to say “may” instead of “shall”, that the Mayor “may” make
appointments, to allow for the situation when the Mayor desires not to
change persons in any positions already filled. If there are people in
positions that are continuing on, only the Mayor can remove persons from
those positions, and if the Mayor makes appointments of the same people to
the same position – the Mayor has made his choice to have that person in
that position so obviously the Mayor would not want to remove that person –
but again, if the City Council were not to approve such continuing
appointments, then effectively the City Council has removed that person and
the state statute does not provide for that. Another issue, is most City
employees in Fairbury are covered by three collective bargaining agreements
(CBA), so in order for them to be
disciplined or terminated – there is also a specific procedure to follow for
that provided by the CBA’s. On top of that because CBA’s apply, there are
also federal and state constitutional due process considerations that have
to be followed. Bargen stated Fairbury is unique in that the CBA’s apply.
In reading the code and state statute together – only the Mayor can remove
someone – so the City Councils position is to approve the nominations made
for open positions; the reason non-police personnel still have to be
“nominated” by the Mayor at this meeting, while police personnel do not, is
because of the code that Fairbury has that says “the Mayor shall nominate
candidates at this meeting”. To maintain fidelity with that Code provision,
until it is amended, some nominations must be made. Bender stated she is
not referring to the police appointments she is referring to the other
appointments. Bargen stated with state statutes you do not make nominations
for non-open police positions; so if you read those two together we have to
go through the motion of nominating officers who are in non-police positions
and then the City Council approves that, at least until the Code provision
is amended. If the City Council does not approve the appointment, and is
tantamount to removal of that person in that position, then we have an
issue. That vote essentially can only be advisory to the Mayor until such
time he wants to remove that person himself. Bender stated like with the
City Administrator, he has a contract; so the Mayor could remove him at the
time the contract is over; we do not have to wait for the two year time
period to be up. Bargen stated that is correct. Bargen stated the contract
for the City Administrator is at will, so the Mayor can terminate him at any
time. Bender went over the appointments stating the City Attorney and
Deputy City Attorney are not union so they could be terminated, Building
Inspector is the Fire Chief so that doesn’t really count either, the
Plumbing Inspector, the State of Nebraska as Electrical Inspector, and City
Physician do not have contracts with the City or unions – these are things
that we can change – so Bender wants to know why we are even doing this if
it really isn’t necessary. Bargen stated it is because of the code that
states, “the Mayor shall nominate candidates”. Bargen stated that one word
causes the issue – if that one word was changed to “may” this would not be
an issue. Bender just wants to get this all clarified, as many people are
concerned about the whole situation. Bender said basically the only choice
the City Council has is to say yes or if they disagree then it really
doesn’t matter. Bargen stated it would matter if there was an open
position, the Mayor appoints someone new for that position – then the City
Council gives its advice and consent and if it is turned down by the City
Council – they vote no – then the Mayor has to find someone else. The City
Council can give their advice and consent when it is not tantamount to
removing someone from office; otherwise we violate state statute where it
states only the Mayor has the authority to remove someone. It is a division
of power – it is intended to be that way because the City Council has to be
on board with a new person – they have to approve that appointment;
however, the Legislature gives only the Mayor the power to remove someone.
Bargen stated the City Council can not be part of removing a person from a
position through a vote to not confirm an existing appointee; the City
Council can advise the Mayor, have discussions, encourage the Mayor, but can
not be part of the removal of a person from a position in that manner. Once
a person is in a position, only the Mayor has the power to remove that
person. Bargen stated you have to read the code and the state statutes
together as a whole for the appointments and the removal. If they conflict,
the state statute governs. Council member Joshua Vossler stated the way he
read the memo regarding the removal of police chief is basically due to any
disciplinary reason; is the non reappointment of a chief considered
removal? Bargen stated that may come into play with the collective
bargaining agreements because those tend to be written in terms of
discipline first, then termination – but state statutes differ – though they
also allow for removal for disciplinary reasons, removal does not
necessarily have to be based on discipline, it can just be removal. There
is a procedure that the police officer can appeal to the City Council and
have them look at the situation; but Bargen doesn’t think it is limited to
the situation of discipline or bad behavior under state statute, whereas
that likely is the case with the union agreements. Vossler asked Bargen
when he uses the term removal in the memo, if it’s including basically there
was a non reappointment if that would be considered a removal. Bargen
stated that a non reappointment would be a continuation of the office – the
Mayor can remove the police chief without necessarily having a disciplinary
reason for a need to do that; it can be based on other things other than
discipline under state statute which speaks in terms of removal or
discipline. Vossler stated it is his understanding that precedence has been
set how things were done before since re-appointment of police positions was
done on a regular basis – were they doing it wrong before with the
inconsistencies in the code and state statute? Would it have been illegal
every time a reappointment of the police chief was made by the City Council
was that wrong, was it illegal? Bargen stated no it was not illegal –
perhaps a different interpretation of the state statute, or maybe it wasn’t
looked at in detail before; maybe it was based on an older city code or
state statute – not for sure why it has been done differently in the past.
Bargen stated inconsistencies are often found in municipality ordinances and
statutes where they are based on older codes, ordinances and statutes; often
code books are not updated to remain current with changing statute. Bargen
stated the way he reads the code and state statute together for the
appointments of police officers, the Mayor does not do that unless there is
an opening available. Council member Rick Carmichael stated, when he was
police chief, the police officers did not have to come before the City
Council for appointments during the organizational meeting; however, the
police chief and other appointments were appointed every four years when the
Mayor took office – in the early 2000’s it was changed to every two years –
to the election year of council persons. Carmichael asked if the
appointments will be consistent now. Bargen stated the way statutes are
written and the way the code provisions are written – the apparent intent
was to allow new appointments when a new Mayor takes office. We have to do
the appointments now because of the code provision which says the Mayor
“shall” nominate appointments. Bargen stated if the Legislature makes
changes again to this statute – then things could change again. Bender
stated our ordinances are in conflict with state statute – so going forward
we should amend our ordinance to reflect state statute. Council member
Roger Bailey asked Bargen if Bargen could amend the ordinance. Bargen
stated he will draft a new ordinance for the next council meeting. Bargen
stated Fairbury shifted from a first class city to a second class city about
fifteen years ago or so, and so some of the codes maybe needed to be changed
at that time to be brought up to date with the state statutes. Bargen
stated Nebraska has often-times confusing and inconsistent municipal
statutes that can take time to harmonize them. Vossler asked if the City
Council can be part of the appointments. Bargen stated the City Council can
not take part in the removal of appointments; on the other hand, by statute,
it unquestionably has the power to give its advice and consent for new
appointments. That hasn’t changed and can’t change, unless the Legislature
changes the process.
The Mayor asked the
Council to approve the following appointments:
City
Attorney...................................................................
David Bargen
Deputy City
Attorney....................................................... Mark
Fahleson
City
Administrator............................................................
Joseph Parker
City
Clerk/Treasurer.........................................................
Sharyl Preston
Street & Sanitation Supt/Parks & Recreation
Director..... Howard (Mick) Hynek
Fire
Chief.........................................................................
Eric Voss
Superintendent of
Utilities................................................ Michael Beachler
Building
Inspector............................................................ Eric
Voss
Plumbing
Inspector.......................................................... Jeffery
Sweetser
Electrical
Inspector........................................................... State
of Nebraska
City
Physician..................................................................
Dr. Craig Shumard
Bailey moved to
approve the appointments made by Mayor Ward. Motion seconded by Polson. On
roll call, Polson, Bailey, Carmichael, Brown, Vossler, Bender, Kuzelka, and
Davis voted “yes.” Motion carried.
Mayor Ward
administered the Oath of Office to City Attorney David Bargen. Deputy City
Attorney Mark Fahleson was not present, and Bargen said he would have
Fahleson fulfill the oath in their office.
City Attorney David
Bargen administered the Oath of Office to the appointments, as a group, with
the exception of City Administrator and City Physician as Joseph Parker and
Dr. Craig Shumard were not present.
Mayor Ward called for
the submittal of forms to request future agenda items. No forms were
submitted during the meeting.
Mayor Ward read the
Consent Agenda:
1.
Approval of the minutes of the
regular meeting of November 16, 2010.
2.
Approval of claims.
3.
Approval of the appointment of
Jill Brueggemann to the Museum Board. Term to expire July 2014.
Polson moved to approve
the Consent Agenda. Motion seconded by Carmichael On roll call, Polson,
Bailey, Carmichael, Brown, Vossler, Bender, Kuzelka, and Davis voted “yes.”
Motion carried.
Mayor Ward opened the
Public Hearing regarding the request for changes to Section 5.18 – HD of the
City of Fairbury Zoning Regulations – 2005 Edition (Historic District –
Overlay). Laura Bedlan, Zoning Administrator, addressed the Council.
Bedlan stated the Historic Preservation Committee, the Planning & Zoning
Commission, and the Zoning Administrator recommend the City Council approve
the changes to Section 5.18 – HD Historic District – Overlay of the City of
Fairbury Zoning Regulations – 2005 Edition as suggested in the Draft
Comments 3 from the Nebraska State Historical Society to update the current
ordinance to be able to apply to become a Certified Local Government. Bob
Puschendorf, Associate Director and the Deputy State Historic Preservation
Officer, with the Nebraska State Historical Society addressed the Council.
Puschendorf stated over the last few months he has worked with Bedlan, City
Attorney David Bargen, and the Historic Preservation Committee regarding the
ordinance to have consistency in terminology and procedures to comply with
the state and federal government certifications regarding historic
preservation. Puschendorf stated he feels the process of reviewing
landmarks/landmark districts should be changed somewhat. Currently the
first step is the Planning Commission, then Historic Preservation Committee,
and then Council. Puschendorf feels it would be best to apply the expertise
of the Preservation Committee in the first step of reviewing
landmarks/landmark districts. Puschendorf has proposed the Preservation
Committee would be the first step in reviewing applications, then go to the
Planning Commission and then to the City Council. Puschendorf stated in
Item 2 – Definitions some were added per Bargen for consistent terminology;
in Item 4 – added “the City Administrator shall designate a City staff
member to serve as Secretary to the Committee, without the right to vote”;
Item 12 – Procedure for Certificate rests with the Preservation Committee
for their review; Items 17 & 18 – Puschendorf suggests these be deleted
entirely – as they are simply the text of the Secretary of the Interiors
Standards and Guidelines which are already cited in the text of the
ordinance. No one else addressed
the Council during the public hearing. Mayor Ward declared the hearing
closed.
Mayor Ward read from
the agenda “consider Waste Water Treatment Plant Blower Replacement/Rod
Kirkland, Olsson Associates”. Mike Beachler, Superintendent of Utilities,
addressed the Council. Beachler stated the Waste Water Treatment Plant is
built to handle a million gallons of sludge per day. We are aerobic, which
means in order for us to grow the bugs that eat the sludge that comes into
our plant; we need a lot of air to stir to make sure there is growth of the
particular bacteria that it takes to eat the sludge. The problems started
this summer when they weren’t able to keep up with the air and were losing
bugs. Beachler stated they have worked with Olsson’s before; they helped
back in 1996 redoing the plant to get it where it is today – so they’ve
called Olsson’s to help with the blowers. Rod Kirkland with Olsson
Associates addressed the Council. Kirkland stated we were in an emergency
situation where we only have one blower in operation and it wasn’t able to
keep up. We weren’t getting any air to the aeration basins so we were not
getting any treatment. Kirkland stated the Waste Water Plant has a
discharge permit that you have to abide by with the Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ). You have to maintain a certain limit of
biological oxygen demand, certain limit of ammonia, and disinfection.
Without the air we weren’t getting the ammonia removal or the BOD removal
that is now on the permit – this is a new requirement that has been added to
the permit. Kirkland stated the old blowers were undersized to begin with
for the new ammonia requirement. We didn’t have a blower that was working,
so they rigged up a couple blowers to try to get as much air moving as
possible; but these blowers were also too small – they couldn’t keep up.
Kirkland stated we were in an emergency situation and also out of compliance
when we were not getting the treatment. We had two blowers that were not
able to put out enough air at the required pressure to get it out into the
aeration basin. They have gotten the air back up, so have some time to get
a blower, but still need a blower to keep up. They tried to find somewhere
where we could lease a blower – but that isn’t available. We need to double
the size of the blower that we now have, per the new regulations to get the
treatment that we need – it will not fit where the blower is now, it will
have to be relocated by the aeration basin. The new blowers will also be
coupled together with new VFD’s allowing for more energy savings. We also
plan to replace the dissolved oxygen sensors located on the existing
aeration basin, and to complete the project there will be clean up, removal,
and renovation done to the old electrical system. Kirkland stated they want
to go out for bids – advertise on December 15 with bid opening of January 5
and to get a contractor to install the blowers. Council member Tim Polson
asked if they had any idea what the cost would be. Kirkland stated he’s
estimating between $175,000.00 - $185,000.00. Council member Brad Kuzelka
asked what the life expectancy is of a new blower. Kirkland stated if you
maintain blowers every five years – they last a long time – it depends on
how much you use them; we have a maintenance schedule they go by. Kirkland
stated the blowers we have now lasted 30 years. Council member Roger Bailey
asked Beachler if the blowers are a budgeted item. Beachler stated it is
not. Beachler stated the way the interest rates are on cd’s right now – we
will be able to fund this ourselves and then pay ourselves back. Council
member Shirley Bender stated she hopes the City will not have to raise
rates. Beachler stated we will not have to raise rates – not for this
project anyway. Kuzelka moved to approve the plans submitted by Olsson
Associates for the Waste Water Treatment Plant Blower Replacement, set up
the advertisement date of December 15, and submit the plans to DEQ for their
approval. Motion seconded by Bender.
On roll call, Polson, Bailey, Carmichael,
Brown, Vossler, Bender, Kuzelka, and Davis voted “yes.” Motion carried.
Mayor Ward read from
the agenda “consider request from Patricia Welke regarding pet incident.”
Patricia Welke addressed the Council. Welke stated the reason she has to
come before the City Council for this request – she is requesting that the
family that resides at 1025 8th Street, Dennis Steele family,
they have three dogs – one being a jack russell which should be listed as a
dangerous dog; that way they would have to adhere to some of the state
statutes and city codes that have been established to protect against
dangerous dogs. Welke has had several incidents with the dog killing her
cats. Dogs are a threat to humans and to other domestic animals. Welke
stated pets are a product of their environment – they know what they learn;
her animals have always been taught to get along – she’s never had a
problem. Welke stated the last situation was October 26, 2010 – the
Steele’s jack russell was out loose – her tabby cat got attacked in her back
yard – Welke went out to the situation and kicked and yelled so she was able
to get her cat away and called the police. The cat was bleeding. The police
chief came – looked at her cat and also talked to the Steele’s. Welke feels
the system has failed her and others like her. Welke stated there is
confusion regarding if the County Attorney or the City Attorney send letters
to the pet owner regarding a dangerous animal with the animal being
registered as a dangerous animal. Welke stated she has visited with other
people that have had personal problems or damages as a result of this jack
russell – Donna Starr, 1017 I Street, two of Steele’s dogs were running at
large and killed one of her pet cats which was witnessed by another neighbor
that had gone to court regarding this matter – but Mr. Steele did not get
cited or fined over the matter. Welke stated she has talked to Officer
Wentz – he also relayed information to her although he couldn’t give her
details – but stated the dog had bit someone that was trying to rescue a cat
from its attack. Welke stated she also talked to Teri Deger, who reads
meters for Black Hills Energy; she won’t go in Steele’s back yard because of
the extreme behavior of the dog. Welke has observed several times they let
this dog loose in the front yard. Welke would like to know if the letters
regarding a dangerous dog have been sent to the dog owner that they have
been declared potentially dangerous; if so the dog should be restrained –
should never be allowed to be out loose. Welke stated she has done
everything she can to be a responsible pet owner – she has built a six foot
wood privacy fence, has established motion lights, she finances the mercury
light in the alley so it is lighted, always keeps her cats in at night, and
if she leaves she puts them in a cat house that she can close off. Welke
stated she does have a couple openings in her fence, small enough so the
cats can get in and out – in case they are attacked in her yard she wants
them to have an escape because sometimes that happens. Welke stated she has
sent letters to the Mayor, City Attorney, her City Council rep, and the City
Administrator – she is requesting they investigate, examine the past records
of the dog because at this point there is no signage in their yard of a
dangerous dog, and see if the owner has ever been served papers regarding
the dog. Council member Tim Polson asked Police Chief Sprunk if he has any
reports regarding this situation. Police Chief Chad Sprunk stated they have
nine reports of dog incidents regarding Mr. Steele – out of the nine reports
- three were for a dog attacking a person or a cat; however he did speak
with Mr. Steele and the dog that bit the person – Steele does not have that
dog any more, the one that attacked the cat – Sprunk doesn’t have a
description of that dog. Sprunk stated that in the past Steele has had four
jack russell terriers – the report does not state which animal. Sprunk
stated with this last incident – the report specifies which dog – the other
report did not. Sprunk stated Steele was issued a potentially dangerous dog
letter. Council member Brad Kuzelka asked if all of the dogs are licensed.
Sprunk stated that yes they are all licensed. Kuzelka stated he thought
that all dogs had to be spayed or neutered if they were licensed. Bender
stated they do no have to be spayed or neutered – but it does cost more to
get a license if they are not. Welke stated the incidences she has talked
about happened within the last four years. The dog, Welke is concerned
about, the Steele’s got it about four years ago; when they got that dog they
already had three dogs – they did eliminate two dogs when they decided to
keep the puppy this last year which is from the litter of this dog that
she’s talking about – they do have three dogs now. Council member Roger
Bailey asked how many dogs a person can have in the city limits. Police
Chief Sprunk stated three. Council member Kelly Davis stated three unless
they have a kennel permit. Dennis Steele addressed the Council. Steele
apologized for having this situation come before the City Council as it is a
civil matter – it happened on private property. Steele stated he admits his
dog, Maggie, did slip out the front door. Steele stated Welke’s cat was in
the neighbor’s yard and his dog did chase the cat. Steele stated the cat ran
back through her fence, which has a six inch opening in the gate, into her
yard – the cat is bigger than the dog – the dog followed. Steele stated he
went and caught his dog; she said their will be a vet bill and he offered to
pay the vet bill. Welke stated he did not offer to pay the vet bill.
Steele stated this is the first incident this dog has had with her cat.
Steele stated the dogs she had mentioned on I Street were not his dogs –
they were dogs from a couple streets down. Steele stated Officer Wentz and
Officer Jordan came up – it ended up being two dogs down the block that
looked exactly like his dogs. Steele stated when they went to court for
this, the reason it was thrown out was because it was not his dogs. Steele
stated he was at court for dogs running at large – nothing was said or
nothing was on the ticket about killing the cat of which he is innocent.
Steele stated he does use his dogs to hunt coons at night and they do know
how to kill. Steele stated they do not let the dogs loose to kill cats –
they have had dead cats in the back yard – if the cats are loose and they
get in the back yard. Steele stated they have received the potentially
dangerous dog letter. Steele stated the dog has been neutered and spayed
and has had all the shots. Steele stated he has tried to talk to Welke – he
has called – she won’t answer the phone and he has knocked on her door and
she won’t answer the door. Council member Roger Bailey stated he is also a
pet owner; he has a very large dog. Bailey stated he has his dog trained so
it will not go out of the house or yard or chase a cat or do anything unless
he says it is okay. Bailey stated you have to be a responsible pet owner,
also owners of cats – if cats get out, they are fair game. Steele stated
this dog is hyper – they never let her loose – if she is in the front yard
she is on a cable; she is not on a collar – she is on a harness. Bailey
stated a new dog ordinance is being worked on, the police chief will have
more to work with – things will change a little and hopefully everyone will
be on the same page as far as being responsible pet owners. Council member
Kelly Davis stated we do have a lot of problems in town with dogs and cats –
we need to get it under control. Davis stated he would like to also get an
ordinance to deal with cats. Davis stated the City of Beatrice does have a
cat ordinance. Council member Rick Carmichael stated from his many years of
experience, thirty-two years in law enforcement – it is hard to chase cats,
they go up a tree, dogs don’t. Carmichael stated he thought it would be
difficult to get an ordinance for stray cats but he does feel that everyone
should be responsible for their own pet. Council member Joshua Vossler
stated it would be difficult to enforce a cat ordinance. Carmichael stated
it may be a good idea to have a collar for the cat and have them licensed –
then they could be identified. Mayor Ward stated the dog ordinance is being
worked on and we will proceed from that and move forward.
Mayor Ward read from
the agenda “consider request from the Fairbury Public Library Board of
Trustees for additional funding from the City of Fairbury for repair of the
roof and gutters of the 1988 addition to the Fairbury Public Library.”
Library Director Karen Fox addressed the Council. Fox stated the Fairbury
Public Library Board of Trustees passed a resolution on December 1. Council
member Tim Polson stated he had a question regarding the estimates she
received from EBS Construction for $4,880.00 and Siebe’s for $1,625.00 –
what the difference is in the estimates. Fox stated Siebe’s would simply
wrap the existing structure and cover up the problem and EBS will take all
the damaged wood off and replace with new. Fox stated the Library Board
felt Siebe’s would not address the issue; they would still have a problem.
Fox stated you can also see quite a difference between the estimate received
from Weathercraft and the one received from Scarborough. Fox stated
Weathercraft would completely remove everything and start over from scratch
whereas, Scarborough will repair what is necessary with the roof with
whatever structural damage they find and then basically cover over the
existing material on the flat areas and reseal all of that again. Polson
stated the Library Board approved Scarborough Construction out of Grand
Island in the amount of $17,870.00 and EBS Construction in the amount of
$4,880.00 which totals $22,750.00. Fox stated that is the estimates that
they have – Fox stated there are a couple noticeable soft spots on the roof
above the door – which could be an additional $600.00 from Scarborough –
hopefully they will come close to the estimate – but it could be more as
they could find more extensive repair when they take the shingles off. Fox
stated with the Weathercraft estimate they did not include a cost for
repairing the structural damage. Council member Doug Brown stated the
Library Foundation will provide $5,000.00 towards the repair and $2,500.00
will come out of the library budget – leaving $15,250.00 that needs to be
covered. Fox stated she had visited with City Administrator Joe Parker and
he had suggested that some could come from the keno fund and general fund.
Polson asked the City Clerk the balance of the keno fund. City Clerk Sharyl
Preston stated it is around $33,000.00. Vossler stated that fund raising
was also mentioned in the library minutes; he wanted to know if any of that
has taken place. Fox stated they have been working on this since April –
she did talk to the USDA the Rural Economic Development Corporation –
explored the possibility of fund raising and grant money through them. Fox
stated that when Scarborough starts working, he would like half of the money
up front at the beginning of the work. Davis stated he also likes
Scarborough’s warranty better – which guarantees all the material and labor
– 100% for fifteen years where the other is just fifteen years on the
material and two years on the labor. Fox stated she had gotten
Scarborough’s name from the Crete Public Library – he had done work for them
and they were very happy with the result. Davis asked if there was any
reason why there were no estimates from the local roofer. Fox stated she
had tried to contact him several times and left messages and he never
returned her calls. Brown stated we need to get something done before the
roof does leak – then we won’t have anything. Fox stated they do not have
any interior damage yet. Brown stated he had visited with Parker regarding
the Keno money – it has been used before for repairs at the swimming pool –
Parker had told Brown that is taken care of – so shouldn’t need any keno
money for that. Brown moved to approve the library going ahead with the
construction work for the roof and gutter repairs. Motion seconded by
Carmichael. Bender stated to clarify - $15,250.00 will be used out of the
Keno Fund for the repairs at the library. Fox stated hopefully that will be
all they will need for the repairs – but it could be more. Polson stated if
it ends up costing more, we will be able to cover the cost.
On roll call, Polson, Bailey, Carmichael,
Brown, Vossler, Bender, Kuzelka, and Davis voted “yes.” Motion carried.
Bender moved to
approve the Right-of-Way Construction/Use Permit Application from the First
Baptist Church for a curb cut for a parking lot located at 902 F Street.
Motion seconded by Bailey. Council member Roger Bailey asked Assistant
Street Superintendent Laura Bedlan if she had any problems with the request
from the First Baptist Church for a curb cut. Bedlan stated she had no
problems with the request for the curb cut.
On roll call, Polson, Bailey, Carmichael,
Brown, Vossler, Bender, Kuzelka, and Davis voted “yes.” Motion carried.
Council member Doug Brown asked if the City Council is required to approve
curb cuts. Bedlan stated the current city ordinance requires the City
Council approve curb cuts. Brown feels Bedlan and Street Superintendent
Mick Hynek know what is right and wrong with curb cuts and would appreciate
not having to come before the City Council every time they have a request
for a curb cut. Hynek stated it didn’t use to be required to go before the
City Council for a curb cut. Brown asked if City Attorney David Bargen
could amend the current city ordinance to reflect this change for the next
City Council meeting. Bargen will draft an ordinance to amend the city Code
regarding the curb cuts for the next City Council meeting.
Carmichael moved to
adopt Resolution No. 799 obligating LB840 funds to Livingston Enterprises,
Inc. – Bruce Livingston at 500 4th Street for a “Downtown Design
Challenge Grant” in the amount of $3,000.00. Motion seconded by Bailey.
Laura Bedlan, Zoning Administrator stated this is in the old Trailblazer
building and has three store fronts, three addresses – a downstairs,
upstairs (which will be potential residences), and the main level which will
be the business office. Bedlan stated something similar was done with
Brackle’s property and she had visited with SENDD about it at that time.
The requirement is they have to have a store front and they have to have an
address. Bedlan stated with this building, addresses were primarily given
for 911 reasons, as this building will have residences on the upper and
lower levels and a business on the main level. Bailey asked Bedlan if the
work has been done. Bedlan stated he had started some of the work but has
stopped the work and is waiting to see if the City Council approves the
work. Technically the work should not be started until the grant is
approved; they can start the work whenever they want, but the City Council
could refuse the money and the work would have been completed. Bedlan
stated in the application he is only requesting money for work that has not
been done yet. On roll call,
Polson, Bailey, Carmichael, Brown, Vossler,
Bender, Kuzelka, and Davis voted “yes.” Motion carried.
Bailey moved to adopt
Resolution No. 800 obligating LB840 funds to Livingston Enterprises, Inc. –
Bruce Livingston at 500 ½ 4th Street for a “Downtown Design Challenge Grant”
in the amount of $3,000.00. Motion seconded by Carmichael.
On roll call,
Polson, Bailey, Carmichael, Brown, Vossler,
Bender, Kuzelka, and Davis voted “yes.” Motion carried.
Bender moved to adopt
Resolution No. 801 obligating LB840 funds to Livingston Enterprises, Inc. –
Bruce Livingston at 502 4th Street for a “Downtown Design
Challenge Grant” in the amount of $3,000.00. Motion seconded by Vossler.
On roll call,
Polson, Bailey, Carmichael, Brown, Vossler,
Bender, Kuzelka, and Davis voted “yes.” Motion carried.
Polson moved to adopt
Resolution No. 802 obligating LB840 funds to Oregon Trail Development, LLC –
Geri Katz for a “Downtown Design Challenge Grant” in the amount of
$3,000.00. Motion seconded by Bailey. Bender asked if the work has been
done on this building. Bedlan stated no it has not – Lambert has secured
one of the panels to prevent it from coming off during a wind storm – but
the project has not been completed.
On roll call,
Polson, Bailey, Carmichael, Brown, Vossler,
Bender, Kuzelka, and Davis voted “yes.” Motion carried.
Mayor Ward read by
title Ordinance No. 3000: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING FAIRBURY ZONING REGULATIONS
– 2005 EDITION, SECTION 5.18 TO UPDATE THE CITY’S HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT
AND TO COMPLY WITH PARTICULAR FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENT CERTIFICATIONS
REGARDING HISTORIC PRESERVATION. Bender moved to introduce and give first
reading to Ordinance No. 3000. Motion seconded by Kuzelka. Bedlan asked if
the three readings could be waived. Bender stated she wants the public to
have a chance to come before the City Council if they wish; she hates
waiving the three readings unless it is an absolute emergency. Bedlan
stated the reason she was asking is because the application for Certified
Local Government (CLG) is due in January. Brown stated the second and third
readings could be done at the next council meeting if needed. On roll call,
Polson, Bailey, Carmichael, Brown, Vossler, Bender, Kuzelka, and Davis
voted “yes.” Motion carried.
Little Blue Area
Development Corporation member Tim Polson stated they will be meeting again
tomorrow evening to go over the LMI’s.
Bender
moved to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded by Bailey. On roll call,
Polson, Bailey, Carmichael, Brown, Vossler, Bender, Kuzelka, and Davis voted
“yes.” Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
Homer L. Ward, Mayor
ATTEST: Sharyl Preston, City Clerk
