Regular Meeting
August 2, 2011
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 2nd day of August 2011, 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.
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 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 July 19, 2011.
2.
Approval of claims.
3.
Approval of the resignation of
Steve Kotschwar as Part Time Police Officer.
4.
Approval of the resignation of
Richard Kapke from the Museum Board.
Bender 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
concerning obligating further funding into the “Downtown Design Challenge
Grant” for the Economic Development (LB840) Program. City Administrator
Joseph Parker addressed the Council. Parker stated the Downtown Design
Challenge Grant has been a very successful LB840 program for the downtown
area and would like to see the program continue. Council member Shirley
Bender asked if the LB840 fund has enough money designated in the right
category since the City Council approved a budget for the LB840 fund with
money divided up in four different categories. Parker stated the categories
are currently a little lopsided. Parker stated the budget for the LB840
fund includes four categories – so certainly have dollars available but
could go over in one area and under in another area – it’s a ten year
program from when it was last past by the voters in 2010. Parker stated the
LB840 fund has adequate dollars to continue the LB840 Downtown Design
Challenge Grant program in the amount of $29,000.00. No one else addressed
the Council during the public hearing. Mayor Ward declared the hearing
closed.
Mayor Ward read from the agenda “consider
recommendation from the Public Safety Committee concerning the request from
Greg Trimm regarding the City of Fairbury honoring Don Trimm’s community
service and commitment to public safety by naming the shooting range in his
memory.” Public Safety member Doug Brown stated the Public Safety Committee
was on board with renaming the shooting range and putting up signage
honoring Don Trimm if the City Attorney gives approval. City Attorney David
Bargen stated he was unaware of a legal obstacle to rename the shooting
range and to putting up signs. Greg Trimm addressed the Council. Trimm
stated his dad, Don, had lived in Fairbury his entire adult life and was a
respected community figure through his positions at KGMT, as the Director of
the Jefferson County Ambulance Service, and as a committed law enforcement
officer for nearly thirty years as a Jefferson County Deputy Sheriff and a
Sergeant with the Fairbury Police Department. Don also served two terms on
the Fairbury City Council, first in the late 1960’s and also elected in
2006; and was also a member of the Park & Recreation Board. Greg stated Don
had served for many years as the weapons and safety trainer for the Fairbury
Police Department. Don had spent long hours at the shooting range working
to improve his skills and train other officers always insuring that the
range was operated safely and was properly maintained. Greg stated family
and friends would like to have the City of Fairbury honor Don’s community
service and commitment to public safety by naming the shooting range in his
memory – “Donald D Trimm Law Enforcement Shooting Range.”
Greg stated, with guidance from Police
Chief Chad Sprunk and Sheriff Nels Sorensen, they will provide signage and
also want to donate the memorial funds to make needed improvements for the
shooting range. Greg stated two of Don’s closest friends came this evening,
Tom and Connie Schmidt from Kansas City. Greg stated the Schmidt’s came up
with the idea of naming the shooting range after Don. Connie addressed the
Council. Schmidt stated Don & Tom grew up together – lifelong friends from
childhood. Both Tom and Don ended up with careers in law enforcement.
Brown moved to approve honoring Don Trimm’s community service and commitment
to public safety by naming the shooting range in his memory “Donald D. Trimm
Law Enforcement Shooting Range” and putting up signage. Motion seconded by
Bailey. 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 Maryann Willis regarding the Fairbury City Museum.” Maryann
Willis addressed the Council. Willis
thanked the Mayor and City Council for appointing her to the Museum Board.
Willis invited everyone to visit the Museum so they could show them what
they’ve all done and what they want to do – as things have been neglected
for such a long time that the Museum needs lots of repairs. Willis stated
they have been trying to do something different every month to attract
people to come to the museum. Willis stated in July they had 38 people that
visited the museum compared to only six last July. Willis stated they have
also extended the hours for the museum – it was 1:00 – 4:00 p.m. on Saturday
and Sunday – now members of the Museum Board have been volunteering and
trying to also have it open on Friday evenings during August from 4:00 –
8:00 p.m. Willis stated the Museum is about out of money – they need paint
but don’t have any money for paint, they need a new furnace – have two in
one room – the estimate for the new furnace is $3,000.00. They’ve had to
shut down the school house as the floor is bad and doesn’t want anyone to
get hurt. Willis stated they would like to have $6,000.00 from the Keno
Fund to get them through the rest of this budget year to pay utilities,
etc. City Administrator Parker stated the current budget is real bare bones
- $11,932.00 as at the time they didn’t know if they would have a curator
hired; but they do now so the budget should have been $18,000.00. Bender
asked how they’re keeping track of the money being spent. Parker stated
they’re keeping track of the volunteer hours. Parker stated he and his wife
have been painting. Parker stated the curator is getting six to nine hours
a week – the rest is volunteer. Council member Kelly Davis asked if the
request for $6,000.00 includes the new furnace. Parker stated no it is just
for regular operating expenses. Parker stated he will put the money for at
least one new furnace in this next year’s budget. Davis asked if it has a
boiler system. Parker stated no, it has six to seven furnaces. Council
member Joshua Vossler asked if they had a long term goal that they could
generate revenue from the Museum so that the Museum could be self
sustaining. Parker stated by ordinance we can not charge admission. Bender
asked if enough money was in the Keno Fund to transfer to the Museum.
Parker stated he would recommend the Council transfer the $6,000.00 out of
the General Fund for this year and maybe look at Keno Funds for next year
for a new furnace. Bailey moved to approve transferring $6,000.00 out of the
General Fund to the Museum Fund. Motion seconded by Carmichael.
On roll call, Polson, Bailey, Carmichael,
Brown, Vossler, Bender, Kuzelka, and Davis voted “yes.” Motion carried.
Mayor Ward read from the agenda “consider
Fairbury Airport Authority’s Tax Request of $33,000.00 for Fiscal Year
2011-2012.” Parker stated $33,000.00 is the same amount the Airport
Authority had asked for last year, but the City Council only approved
$30,000.00. Bender stated we haven’t had any budget meetings yet with the
Finance Committee – so doesn’t feel they can make a decision regarding the
airport tax request until we know what the city budget will be. Bender
moved to table the Fairbury Airport Authority’s Tax Request of $33,000.00
for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 until the Finance Committee has budget meetings.
Motion seconded by Brown. Parker stated he’s just finished with the budgets
and discussing the budget with the department heads so Finance meetings can
be scheduled at any time. On roll call, Polson, Bailey, Carmichael, Brown,
Vossler, Bender, Kuzelka, and Davis voted “yes.” Motion carried.
Bender moved to adopt Resolution No. 824
obligating an additional $29,000.00 into the “Downtown Design Challenge
Grant Program” for the Economic Development (LB840) Program. Motion
seconded by Carmichael. On roll call, Polson, Bailey, Carmichael, Brown,
Vossler, Bender, Kuzelka, and Davis voted “yes.” Motion carried.
Davis moved to postpone Agenda Items 2 – 8
under Resolutions and Ordinances until we get a better distinctive
clarification of each store front:
Resolution No. 825
obligating LB840 funds to Ron Southwick
at 425 D Street for a “Downtown
Design Challenge Grant” in the amount of $3,000.00
Resolution No. 826
obligating LB840 funds to Ron Southwick
at 328 5th Street
for a “Downtown Design Challenge Grant” in the amount of $3,000.00
Resolution No. 827
obligating LB840 funds to Ron Southwick
at 320 5th Street
for a “Downtown Design Challenge Grant” in the amount of $3,000.00
Resolution No. 828
obligating LB840 funds to Ron Southwick
at 318 5th Street
for a “Downtown Design Challenge Grant” in the amount of $3,000.00
Resolution No. 829
obligating LB840 funds to Ron Southwick
at 316 5th Street
for a “Downtown Design Challenge Grant” in the amount of $3,000.00
Resolution No. 830
obligating LB840 funds to Ron Southwick
at 312 5th Street
for a “Downtown Design Challenge Grant” in the amount of $3,000.00
Resolution No. 831
obligating LB840 funds to Ron Southwick at
312½ 5th Street for
a “Downtown Design Challenge Grant” in the amount of $3,000.00.
Motion seconded by Bailey. Bailey stated
that the recommendations from the Historic Preservation Committee and
project applications summaries are all the same for each address – if this
is the case it looks like Southwick would be installing 28 doors on the
outside of this building. Bailey stated Southwick’s building has five store
fronts and two entrances to the apartments on the second floor. Bailey
stated he didn’t see any double hung windows on the store fronts – but were
on the apartments up above. Zoning Administrator Laura Bedlan addressed
the Council. Bedlan stated this question was also brought up at the Historic
Preservation Committee meeting so she requested more information from Craig
Eberle with SENDD. Bedlan stated the Downtown Design Challenge Grant
Program Plan (DDCG) states the language regarding storefronts. Bedlan read
from Eberle’s email: “storefront shall be defined as having its own unique
entrance, interior space, and display window. In cases where more than one
storefront exists within the same façade, each storefront can receive its
own grant for eligible grant activities. Property owners with multiple
properties must submit separate grant applications for each property owned.
This definition of a storefront is subject to interpretation by the
Historical Preservation Committee. The guidelines in the plan are somewhat
specific, yet also broad in order to allow for some flexibility. In order
to set some parameters for applicants with multiple properties/storefronts
we have required that they have an official address for that storefront.
Having an official address is not a specified requirement in the DDCG
program plan. The address is a way we can distinguish one storefront from
another if they are along the same façade. The Historical Preservation
Committee has the authority to interpret these guidelines as they see fit,
based on each individual application. If they deem that an application for
a specific address is not an official storefront, they may choose to not
recommend that application for approval. They should only recommend
storefront applications for approval that can be justified based on the
definitions stated in the plan, as well as meeting all other criteria of the
plan.” Bender stated SENDD needs to do a better job so the Council can
understand – not take short cuts on the forms – needs to be specific. On
roll call, Polson, Bailey, Carmichael, Brown, Vossler, Bender, Kuzelka, and
Davis voted “yes.” Motion carried.
Bailey moved to approve Agenda Items 9, 10,
and 11 under Resolutions and Ordinances by adopting:
Resolution No. 832 obligating
LB840 funds to Oregon Trail
Development, LLC – Geri Katz at 506 E
Street for a “Downtown Design
Challenge Grant” in the amount of
$1,601.11,
Resolution No. 833 obligating
LB840 funds to Oregon Trail
Development, LLC – Geri Katz at 508 E
Street for a “Downtown Design
Challenge Grant” in the amount of
$1,601.12, and
Resolution No. 834 obligating
LB840 funds to Oregon Trail
Development, LLC – Geri Katz at 512 E
Street for a “Downtown Design
Challenge Grant” in the amount of
$1,601.12.
Motion seconded by Kuzelka. Bailey stated
this is the entire store front which has three different addresses on three
doors. On roll call, Polson, Bailey, Carmichael, Brown, Vossler, Bender,
Kuzelka, and Davis voted “yes.” Motion carried.
Brown moved to adopt Resolution No. 835
obligating LB840 funds to Pure Serenite Spa, LLC – Chris Stewart at 411 5th
Street for a “Downtown Design Challenge Grant” in the amount of $3,000.00.
Motion seconded by Davis. On roll call, Polson, Bailey, Carmichael, Brown,
Vossler, Bender, Kuzelka, and Davis voted “yes.” Motion carried.
Mayor Ward read by title Ordinance No.
3011: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
FAIRBURY MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 32.010 REGARDING CREATION OF A COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO THE NEBRASKA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LAW
AND CONSTITUTING THE MEMBERS OF THE AUTHORITY; TO REPEAL CONFLICTING
ORDINANCES AND CODE PROVISIONS; AND TO PROVIDE FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE
THEREOF. Polson moved to give 3rd reading to Ordinance No.
3011. Motion seconded by Bailey. Citizen James Frager addressed the
Council stating he came to Fairbury in 2001 and was the director of the
Jefferson County Economic Development Corporation (JCEDC). Frager stated
JCEDC was advised at that time by Nebraska Department of Economic
Development (NDED) if JCEDC wanted to get into economic development, tax
increment financing, etc., a Community Redevelopment Authority which is the
CRA should be created and NDED recommended having the City Council act as
the CRA to help with local economic development – the idea was that no one
knows more about what is going on in the City than the City Council. Frager
stated the CRA is directly involved with blight and substandard studies, tax
increment financing which is TIF, property purchasing, etc. The CRA also
meets with any new potential companies interested in coming to Fairbury.
Frager stated because of state law the Council can do things as the CRA that
they can not do just as a City Council. Frager stated the City Council is
elected by the public, so they’re the right ones to be the CRA. Frager
stated he feels this ordinance should be turned down and the CRA should stay
like it is now with the City Council being the CRA – if it ain’t broke,
don’t fix it; others would not be as informed as the City Council. Frager
stated even though he doesn’t live in Fairbury, he’s very interested in
Fairbury’s development for the future. City Attorney David Bargen stated he
prepared the amendment up for consideration at this meeting per the
Council’s direction at the last Council meeting to include provisions of the
state statute. Brown moved to approve Amendment No. 1 to Ordinance No.
3011. Motion seconded by Bailey. Bargen did a PowerPoint presentation for
the City Council regarding the main points of the amendment. Bargen stated
the Community Development Law (CDL) provides for two entities the city can
form under this statute. One is called the Community Redevelopment
Authority (CRA) and the other is called a Community Development Agency (CDA).
Bargen stated, under state statute, if the City creates a CRA, the
membership is to be appointed by the Mayor with approval of the City
Council. Bargen stated the current ordinance automatically designates the
CRA as the City Council and the Mayor (that is not by state statute), and
thus what the City really has is a CDA by statute. Bargen stated since
there is an inconsistency with state statute, at least that should be
addressed in some manner to make it fit state statute – the Council should
at least consider cleaning up the ordinance that it now has. Bargen stated
both entities may exercise the same powers under statute. Bargen stated it
is a policy decision whether the City Council and Mayor want to do either a
CRA or a CDA. Bargen stated he understood that one of the concerns from the
last Council meeting was what authority is granted to a CRA. Bargen stated
there are valid policy points to be considered – Amendment No. 1 lays out
the state statute – as a reminder, whatever ordinance that is passed by a
City is overlaid by state statute; the state statute is the governing law
for all cities. Bargen stated our current code has essentially a misuse of
language. We either have a CRA which is a separate body corporate and
politic – a separate entity that has members appointed by the Mayor and
confirmed by the City Council or you have a CDA which is the Mayor and City
Council. Bargen stated the Community Development Law was passed back in the
1970’s – it governs fully these groups. Bargen stated in the amendment to
the ordinance it has 50 – 60 subsections – they all parallel a statutory
provision. Subsection 13 of the Amendment defines the powers of the
Authority. Bargen stated that under the language of the Community
Development Law, all the powers the Authority can do is governed by the
redevelopment plan or the redevelopment contract. The powers the Authority
can do are limited by that law, essentially by the redevelopment plan which
has to be approved by the City Council. Bargen stated the powers of the CRA
– Subsection 13 (a) to sue and to be sued; to have a seal and to alter the
same at pleasure; to have perpetual succession; to make and execute
contracts and other instruments necessary or convenient to the exercise of
the powers of the Authority; and to make and from time to time amend and
repeal bylaws, rules, and regulations not inconsistent with the Community
Development Law; (b) to prepare or cause to be prepared and recommend
redevelopment plans to the City Council and to undertake and carry out
redevelopment projects within its area of operation; (c) to arrange or
contract for the furnishing or repair, by any person or agency, public or
private, of services, privileges, works, streets, roads, public utilities,
or other facilities for or in connection with a redevelopment project; and,
notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Community
Development Law or any other provision of law, to agree to any conditions
that it may deem reasonable and appropriate attached to federal financial
assistance and imposed pursuant to federal law relating to the determination
of prevailing salaries or wages or compliance with labor standards, in the
undertaking or carrying out of a redevelopment project, and to include in
any contract let in connection with such a project provisions to fulfill
such federally imposed conditions as it may deem reasonable and appropriate;
(e) to invest any funds held in reserves or sinking funds; (f) to borrow
money for purposes of the Community Development Law for a redevelopment
project; (g) to conduct examinations and investigations; (h) within its area
of operation, to make or have made all surveys, appraisals, studies, and
plans, but not including the preparation of a Comprehensive Plan for the
community, necessary to carrying out of the purposes of the Community
Development Law; (j) to make such expenditures as may be necessary to carry
out the purposes of the Community Development Law; and to make expenditures
from funds obtained from the federal government without regard to any other
laws pertaining to the making and approval of appropriations and
expenditures. Subsection 14 of the Amendment defines the limitation on
acquiring real property. An Authority shall not acquire real property for a
redevelopment project unless the City Council has approved the redevelopment
plan, as prescribed in the Community Development Law. Subsection 15 of the
Amendment defines the declaration of blight and substandard conditions
required prior to redevelopment plan. Bargen stated this is the first step
that has to be done before the process can continue. “An Authority shall
not prepare a redevelopment plan for a redevelopment project area unless the
City Council has, by resolution adopted after a public hearing with notice
provided as specified in the Community Development Law, declared such area
to be a substandard and blighted area in need of redevelopment.” Subsection
16 of the Amendment states an Authority shall not recommend a redevelopment
plan to the City Council until a comprehensive plan for the development of
the city has been prepared. Subsection 20 of the Amendment states the
recommendation of a redevelopment plan by the Authority to the City Council
shall be accompanied by the recommendations, if any, of the Planning
Commission concerning the redevelopment plan; a statement of the proposed
method and estimated cost of the acquisition and preparation for
redevelopment of the redevelopment project area and the estimated proceeds
or revenue from its disposal to redevelopers; a statement of the proposed
method of financing the redevelopment project; and a statement of a feasible
method proposed for the relocation of families to be displaced from the
redevelopment project area. Bargen stated the Planning Commission is the
first to look at the plan, then the Authority, then the City Council. The
City Council can then approve the redevelopment plan; if the City Council
does not approve the redevelopment plan – then the process does not
continue. Bargen stated Neb. Rev. Stat. 18-2116 states the governing body
may approve a redevelopment plan after the public hearing – they don’t have
to - if the City Council does not approve the redevelopment plan – then
nothing happens. The City Council can suggest changes to the plan – if they
do, then it goes back to the Authority and then back to the City Council.
This is the part of the State Statute that has the language for the “but
for” test. Subsection 21 of the Amendment states a redevelopment plan which
has not been approved by the City Council when recommended by the Authority
may again be recommended to the City Council with any modifications deemed
advisable. A redevelopment plan may be modified at any time by the
Authority. But where the proposed modification will substantially change
the redevelopment plan as previously approved by the City Council the
modification must similarly be approved by the City Council. Subsection 22
of the Amendment states the Authority may transfer real property or any
interest therein in a redevelopment project area to any redeveloper for
residential, recreational, commercial, industrial, or other uses to carry
out the purposes of the Community Development Law. Subsection 23 of the
Amendment is in regards to the redevelopment contract. The Authority does
not have to get approval from the City Council to approve the redevelopment
contract; but have to notify the City Council which redevelopment contract
they’re going to approve and what they’re going to do. However, because the
statute requires notification to the Council before the Authority enters
into a redevelopment contract, the implication is that the City Council can
veto the redevelopment contract. Subsection 26 of the Amendment states the
Authority shall have the right to acquire by the exercise of the power of
eminent domain any real property which it may deem necessary for a
redevelopment project or for its purposes under the provisions of the
Community Development Law. Council member Shirley Bender stated the CRA can
take property they feel is necessary for a redevelopment project – but it is
the elected officials that will get into trouble for taking the property –
they’re the ones that’ll be on the line regarding the property. Bender
stated they as a Council are giving up a lot with not being the ones on the
CRA – they have been elected to do this job – they are the ones that are
responsible. Bender feels they’re passing the buck. Bargen stated these
are all valid policy considerations, and noted that the City Council has the
ultimate authority to appoint the members to the CRA – they have to approve
the Mayor’s appointments. Bargen stated the City Council has to approve the
people that are appointed to the CRA, have to approve the redevelopment
plan, and they have the veto over the redevelopment contract. Bender stated
the more the City Council is involved in the process – the more they will
know what is going on in our community. Bargen stated it is a policy
decision of the City Council of what is best for the City to do, whether to
have a CDA or CRA. Bargen stated the Community Development Law authorizes a
city to create by ordinance a CRA for the purpose of defining and acquiring
substandard or blighted areas and redeveloping them in accordance with the
approved redevelopment plan. A CRA is not authorized to prepare a
redevelopment plan for a redevelopment project area unless the governing
body of the city first enacts a resolution declaring such area to be a
substandard or blighted area in need of redevelopment. After such a
declaration has been made and a redevelopment plan has been prepared and
approved, a CRA is authorized to act in accordance with the Community
Development Law. The Community Development Law specifically authorizes a
CRA to enter into any contracts necessary to effectuate the purposes of the
law and to provide grants, loans, or other means of financing to public or
private parties in order to accomplish the rehabilitation or redevelopment
in accordance with a redevelopment plan. Bargen stated the CDA and the CRA
by statute have the same powers. Bargen stated the current ordinance the
City has states the City Council and Mayor are the CRA, but the City
actually has a CDA. The CDA members are the City Council and Mayor and for
a CRA the members are appointed. Bargen stated it would at least be a good
idea to bring the City’s ordinance to the standards of the state statute by
changing it to a CDA where the members are the City Council and Mayor, or
leave it as a CRA and provide that the members would be appointed per state
statute. Bender asked if the CRA owns any property. Bargen stated it is
his understanding that the CRA does own some property. Bender stated if the
City Council turns this authority over to the CRA, the CRA has the right to
sell, lease, etc. they don’t have to come before the City Council as long as
it is in the redevelopment plan. Bargen stated those powers would have to
be stated in the redevelopment plan, which the City Council approves, so the
CRA wouldn’t have to come before the City Council at the time they want to
sell property – but it would have to have been pre-approved when the City
Council approved the redevelopment plan. Bender stated the property the CRA
owns was purchased with tax dollars – LB840 money and feels it all has to do
with the City Council’s accountability to the people that elected them.
Bargen agreed, and stated that using TIF financing is very different from
using LB840 money. Bargen stated with the CRA, the City Council oversees
what someone else is doing. Citizen Pam Schroeder addressed the Council.
Schroeder stated she had been on the City Council when the City Council was
the CRA. Schroeder agrees with Bender and Vossler that they should stay
like they are now with the City Council being the members – but need to
clean up the ordinance we have so it is in accordance with state statute –
with a CDA instead of a CRA. Schroeder stated she can only see problems
down the line with other members being the CRA. Schroeder didn’t think a
committee should have already been chosen before this ordinance is
approved. Frager asked regarding how liability insurance works, if the
Mayor appoints a committee, if they could get sued. Bargen stated it is a
City entity so his assumption would be that the City’s insurer would cover
the liability or need to expand coverage. Bargen stated the statute
provides for the authorities the CRA or the CDA has to hire persons, hire a
director, make contracts, etc. – all the powers are within the realm of the
redevelopment plan. Bargen feels the City’s insurance company would need to
be asked, but may either expand coverage or coverage may fall under the
current plan. Citizen Ed Friesen addressed the Council. Friesen stated he
is speaking in support of establishing a CRA – feels they would have more
time to give to the CRA. Council member Rick Carmichael asked Friesen about
missed opportunities that Friesen has talked about at a couple Council
meetings. Carmichael stated he wasn’t on the City Council then – wants to
know if any opportunities were brought before the City Council as a CRA.
Friesen stated no opportunities were brought before the CRA that he was
aware of – but when he was on the Council he didn’t go out and seek any.
Carmichael asked how they can say they missed opportunities if none were
brought forth. Friesen stated there has been redevelopment the last few
years – areas that have been blighted and substandard that has had things
built on them that could have used funding. Friesen said they could have
had the developers present a plan to the CRA to see if they would be
eligible for TIF. Friesen said they have to have the time to see it and
chase the people down – to be proactive and get the word out. Carmichael
asked if the Council could be more proactive and why hasn’t it been.
Council member Joshua Vossler asked isn’t that the role of an economic
developer to get that information out to people of what opportunities they
can take advantage of – be more proactive. Schroeder asked if the City is
paying SENDD to do something like this. Bender stated the City
Administrator – one of his job duties is economic development. Bender
stated they deal with LB840, TIF, blight studies, etc. Bender stated the
downtown area was done with LB840 dollars. Vossler stated he is in favor of
a CDA/CRA – has to do with the flow of information – they are overseeing
this. The flow of information goes through the CRA, the City Council would
still lose bits and pieces of information; but if they were the CDA then
they wouldn’t miss that. Friesen stated it takes time to do city business –
and he is willing to take the time to be part of the CRA. Carmichael stated
they have to develop a plan and it has to be brought to the Council and
approved. Bender stated we already have one. Bargen stated per the
statutory process, there is not yet an approved redevelopment plan for the
current project. Bender stated she meant the comprehensive plan. Bargen
stated there are three levels of plans – the comprehensive plan for the City
which the Authority has no part in creating – it is the Planning Commission
and the City Council which have to ensure there is a comprehensive plan in
place first before there can be a redevelopment plan. Bargen stated there
are also provisions in the state statute that allow for a “workable program”
(it’s a may, you don’t have to have this) – a plan of plans of how you’re
going to declare areas blighted and substandard, how you broadly apply the
statute to the City. Bargen stated then there is the redevelopment plan
once you have declared an area blighted and substandard. The statute states
the City Council has to first declare the blight (that has been done here),
then a redevelopment plan has to be approved by the Authority, and they
first give it to the Planning Commission to look it over, then the Planning
Commission gives it back to the Authority (these two bodies can not stop
it), and the Authority then recommends to City Council. The City Council
then has the authority to approve, stop, and amend -- whatever the City
Council wants to do. Bargen stated when you have a Council that acts as the
CDA which happens in small villages – first you convene as a CDA, and then
you do something as a CDA, then adjourn, then convene as the City Council.
Bargen stated all of this is intended to be a tool to help cities with this
process. Bargen stated the City Council has the final authority on the
plan. With the CRA the Council would be granting authority for all of the
powers that you want it to have in the plan ~ so when the plan comes to the
City Council it should spell out what you’re allowing them to do with each
particular project. Every project has to have a plan; there is essentially
no authority without a plan. Bargen stated if the Council wants more time
to think about this they could move to postpone – it comes down to a policy
decision of what the Council wants. Carmichael stated this should have all
been discussed months ago. Vossler stated the job has to be done – both
ways are good – just a different way of doing it. Bargen stated both the
CDA and the CRA have the same authority under statute. Bargen stated the
statute has been amended recently to allow for a five or seven member CRA;
so this amendment could also be amended to change the CRA to seven members,
if the Council wishes. On roll call of Amendment No. 1 to Ordinance No.
3011 as proposed, Polson, Bailey, Carmichael, Brown, Vossler, Bender,
Kuzelka, and Davis voted “yes.” Motion carried. On roll call of giving 3rd
reading to Ordinance No. 3011 as amended,
Polson, Bailey, Brown, and Kuzelka voted
“yes.” Carmichael, Vossler, Bender, and Davis voted “no.” Tied vote. Mayor
Ward voted “yes” to break the tie. Motion carried. Kuzelka moved for the
final passage of Ordinance No. 3011 as amended by Amendment No. 1. Motion
seconded by Bailey. On roll call, Polson, Bailey, Brown, and Kuzelka voted
“yes.” Carmichael, Vossler, Bender, and Davis voted “no.” Tied vote. Mayor
Ward voted “yes” to break the tie. Motion carried.
Bailey moved to approve the appointments to
the Community Redevelopment Authority: J’Nan Ensz – One Year Term; Glen
Tedrow – Two Year Term; Ed Friesen – Four Year Term; and Julie Katz-Lambert
– Five Year Term. Bailey removed his name from the appointments at this
time and wants it to be voted on separately. Motion seconded by Polson.
Council member Doug Brown asked if they could go back and add two more names
to the CRA if they like. Bargen stated that could be done at any time by
amending the ordinance. Citizen Pam Schroeder addressed the Council.
Schroeder stated she has concerns about having the names of the committee
already decided before the first reading of the ordinance. Schroeder stated
she doesn’t approve of J’Nan Ensz being on the committee since she lives in
Beatrice – she shouldn’t be telling us what to do. Mayor Ward stated Ensz
has a business in Fairbury and is an accountant. Schroeder stated we have
accountants in town. Mayor Ward stated you have to be able to get them to
serve on a committee. Schroeder stated that two on the committee have had
dealings with Fairbury before and they have their own agendas doesn’t feel
they should be allowed to serve on this committee. J’Nan Ensz addressed the
Council. Ensz stated she pays personal property tax in Fairbury. Ensz
stated she moved her business to Fairbury in 2009 from Beatrice. Ensz feels
she would add something to this committee because she would be extremely
objective she would be coming as a financial expertise and able to look at
numbers and say if it would or would not make sense financially. Ensz has a
vested interest in how the tax dollars are being spent. On roll call,
Polson, Bailey, Carmichael, Brown, Vossler, Bender, Kuzelka, and Davis voted
“yes.” Motion carried. Polson moved to approve the appointment of Roger
Bailey to the Community Redevelopment Authority for a Three Year Term.
Motion seconded by Vossler. On roll call, Polson, Bailey, Carmichael,
Brown, Vossler, Bender, Kuzelka, and Davis voted “yes.” Motion carried.
Within the Mayor’s report, Mayor Ward asked
the Council when they have a meeting regarding the rate increase with the
Board of Public Works if they would prefer to have it as a regular Council
meeting or have it has a separate meeting. It was decided to have it with a
regular Council meeting.
Within the Committee’s report, Bender
stated she would like to invite JEO to give a presentation on the City’s
dikes system. Bender stated within the next one to five years we could be
facing an expense of one million dollars – as all the dikes have to be
recertified – it is federally mandated. Bender wants the Council to
understand what is going on with the dikes. Bender stated it is City money
and the Council needs to know where the money is going and why. Assistant
Street Superintendent Laura Bedlan addressed the Council. Bedlan stated
they’re in the middle of the certification process. Bedlan stated there is
discussion between FEMA and the Corp right now as to what they will require
for recertification. Bedlan stated she could get together with Bender as
she has information as to where they are in the process and has to get more
information from other organizations as to what will all have to be done.
Bender stated she feels it would be a good presentation to explain to the
City Council what is going on and the City Council needs to be aware of
this. Bender requests this be on the next City Council agenda.
Bailey
moved to adjourn the meeting. Motion
seconded by Bender. On roll call, Polson, Bailey, Carmichael, Brown,
Vossler, Bender, Kuzelka, and Davis voted “yes.” Motion carried. Meeting
adjourned at 9:18 p.m.
Homer L. Ward, Mayor
ATTEST: Sharyl Preston, City Clerk
