East Central Reporter

City of Olney City Council met March 14.

Here are the minutes provided by the council:

AGENDA #1 “CALL TO ORDER” The meeting of the Olney City Council was called to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Olney City Hall located at 300 S. Whittle Avenue, Olney, Illinois, with Mayor Mark Lambird presiding.

AGENDA #2 “PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG-PRAYER” Council members and visitors joined in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. Steve Wingert led the group in prayer.

AGENDA #3 “ROLL CALL” The following Council members were present: Mark Lambird, John McLaughlin, Belinda Henton, Morgan Fehrenbacher, and Greg Eyer. Also present were City Manager Allen Barker, City Treasurer Jane Guinn, City Engineer Mike Bridges, City Attorney Bart Zuber, and City Clerk Kelsie Sterchi.

AGENDA #4 “PRESENTATION OF CONSENT AGENDA”

4-A “Approve Minutes of the Council Meeting on February 28, 2022”

4-B “Approve and Authorize Payment of Accounts Payable March 15, 2022” Pooled Cash $179,971.62, Manual Pooled Cash $107,780.34, Petty Cash $207.41, MFT $38,797.92, IMRF $25,351.67, Tourism $5,248.39

4-C “Raffle License: Olney Memorial VFW Post #4226”

4-D “Raffle License: ERFAE”

AGENDA #5 “REMOVAL OF ITEMS FROM CONSENT AGENDA” No items were requested for removal from the consent agenda.

AGENDA #6 “CONSIDERATION OF CONSENT AGENDA” Councilwoman Fehrenbacher moved to approve the items on the consent agenda, seconded by Councilman Eyer. A majority affirmative voice vote was received.

AGENDA #7 “CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA” No items were requested for removal from the consent agenda.

AGENDA #8 “PRESENTATION OF ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS, ETC.” 8-A “Possible Action: Boat Dock Variance for Vacant Land on N. Lakewood Road with Property Index Number 06-23-400-053” The Council was provided with a memo from the City Clerk, a boat dock variance application for vacant land with Property Index Number 06-23-400- 053, a site plan of the proposed dock, a satellite image of the parcel and surrounding area, a letter of objection from Brett Fehrenbacher, measurements of the adjoining lake channel, and a notice of this evening’s meeting.

The topic being placed on this evening’s agenda was atypical. An issue had come up with this particular variance request and the Board of Appeals to where the March 7th meeting could not be held. On advice of the City Manager and the City Attorney, the issue was coming before the Council this evening. State statute did allow for the corporate authorities to hear the variance request due to the circumstance, but the Council did also have the option to send the request back to the Board of Appeals.

Tyler O’Brien, Cody Gayer, Travis Paddock, and Kevin Brinkley were the applicants for the boat dock variance. Mr. O’Brien wished to address the Council. Mr. O’Brien first disbursed a closer image of the lake channel with different types of measurements, and then explained that the variances requested were for the dock distance from the shoreline to allow for a 32-foot

distance rather than the 25-foot limit, and in the boat deck area to allow for a 480-square foot deck rather than the 375-square foot deck area limit.

The proposed dock would not have a walkway, but would include a 4-foot head pier on the sea wall. The boat slips themselves would be 28-feet long.

Mr. O’Brien was aware that boat dock variances had been granted in the past by the Board of Appeals where greater boat dock variances were requested. Two more dock variance requests were also already on the docket for the Board’s April 4th meeting.

The proposed dock would allow for their boats to be secured inside of the dock instead of sticking out into the thoroughfare. It was the desire of the applicants to handle the request in the proper way and not be deceitful.

Mr. O’Brien then reported that Code Enforcement Officer Dallas Colwell and Water/Park Department Supervisor Frank Bradley had both inspected the area and they saw no problem with the request.

Mr. O’Brien pointed out that the area directly south of the proposed dock was shallow and full of cattails. There would be no boat traffic coming directly towards the dock from that direction due to those facts. After reviewing several ideas, the applicants believed that the presented plan was best.

Because there seemed to be some controversy regarding the request, Councilman Eyer moved to table the topic until the next Council meeting. The motion died due to lack of a second.

Councilman McLaughlin felt that the Council could vote this evening. He was aware of some other boat dock variances being approved in the past, and he felt the April request would also probably be approved. He was not sure what the big issue was in approving this particular request.

Councilman Eyer told everyone that he had been on the Board of Appeals in the past for a total of 18 years. His issue with voting for variance approvals in the past was because many requests were not true hardships.

Councilman Eyer moved to discuss agenda items 8-H and 8-I, and to circle back around to 8-A later in the meeting, seconded by Councilwoman Henton. A majority affirmative voice vote was received.

8-H “Discussion: Boat Docks and Lake Regulations” The Council was provided with Section 12.16.150 (Boat ramps, piers and docks.) of the City of Olney Municipal Code, a summary of Olney’s lake rules and regulations, and information regarding Lake Sara.

Councilwoman Henton expressed being torn on whether or not to approve the variance. If the variance was not granted, a 29-foot boat would be protruding out into the lake. She wondered if the Council should consider regulating boat size, especially if dock distance was only allowed to be 25-foot. Additionally, she recalled that the City has had issue in the past with obtrusions in the lake with items such as inflatables, fountains, and ropes.

Councilwoman Henton also noted that Effingham only allowed two docks per lot. She felt that perhaps the Council would also be interested in discussing a limitation on the amount of docks per lot.

Continuing down her list, the Councilwoman also felt that the Council should give consideration to dock permit and shoreline alteration fees. As part of that discussion, she wanted to determine whether or not City of Olney property owners should receive the less expensive “resident” rate if they did not actually live inside of City limits.

Councilman Eyer agreed with all of the Councilwoman’s concerns and felt that they should be discussed in-depth at a future Council meeting.

Regarding obtrusions, Councilman Eyer asked if there were any regulations on how far an object could go into the lake. Code Enforcement Officer Dallas Colwell replied that the only such regulations were in regards to boat docks.

Councilman Eyer then described a few reasons for which this evening’s variance request could present problems in berthing.

Councilman Eyer then spoke about how several other property owners made modifications in order to comply with the City Code. Councilman McLaughlin pointed out that any of those owners could have also requested a variance.

As stated earlier, Brett Fehrenbacher, 5443 N. Lakewood Road, had submitted a letter of opposition to the variance request. Mr. Fehrenbacher was present at this meeting and wished to address the Council.

Mr. Fehrenbacher stated that at first, he did have concerns regarding the variance request and had submitted the letter. Since that time, he changed his stance. The applicants came to Mr. Fehrenbacher to discuss his concerns and their plans. The applicants also took Mr. Fehrenbacher out on the lake to show him how their proposal would not be a problem. The only potential problem Mr. Fehrenbacher could now see would be if two pontoon boats were needing to pass each other at the same time in that channel.

While Mr. Fehrenbacher told the Council he no longer had any big issue with the variance request, he understood that the Council could have a problem with setting precedent.

Cody Gayer reiterated that the problem area regarding space and depth would actually be about 50-feet south of where their proposed dock would be placed. Two boats should never pass one another in that area for obvious safety reasons.

Mr. Gayer went further to explain that he and the other applicants would also be navigating that channel. If they believed there was a safety issue or if they had concerns with grounding their boats, they would not propose such a plan.

Councilwoman Fehrenbacher wondered if the Council should change some ordinances if boats were only getting larger. Bigger boats would need bigger docks. If dock variances were being discussed so often, then perhaps the City’s ordinances were not up to date.

Councilman Eyer felt that the variance would negatively impact public safety.

Councilman McLaughlin pointed out that the applicants could place 3 docks at 25-foot distances and still be in compliance with the City Code. He felt such a situation would actually be much less safe.

Councilman Eyer agreed and felt that number of docks per lot should be regulated. The Council would discuss boat docks and lake regulations at a future meeting.

8-I “Discussion/Possible Action: Board of Appeals Requirement for City of Olney” According to State statute, the City of Olney was not required to have a Board of Appeals since its population was less than 500,000. Councilwoman Henton did not believe that the City needed to have a Board of Appeals nor a Plan Commission.

Councilman McLaughlin noted that would mean that the City Council would have to hear all such requests that would be heard by the Board of Appeals or Plan Commission. Even so, Councilwoman Henton did not believe that having the Council hear the requests would take that much more time, and it would also give the Council more control.

Like Councilman Eyer, Councilwoman Henton was concerned with requests being granted that were not hardships.

Mayor Lambird could not recall a time where any variance was approved when there was an outcry of opposition from neighboring property owners. He understood that ordinances were in place to protect those property owners, but he felt that the Board of Appeals had done a good job over time in keeping that protection. He felt that such issues would continue to be presented as the City continued to grow.

Mr. Gayer believed that the variance request certainly addressed safety issues. The issue of a hardship was more grey although safety hazards could be considered a hardship.

From the audience, Ashley Paddock told the Council that all of the applicants had children. They bought the property as a place to gather with their families and friends to make great memories at the lake. She did not want her kids to have to leap onto the back of a slick boat and face the consequences of that safety issue. The proposed dock would prevent this problem.

Councilwoman Henton was aware that the Board of Appeals did not necessarily work with the Council on each issue that came their way. She wondered if maybe the Board did not understand the Council’s vision.

Mayor Lambird noted that everyone on the Council alone did not have the same vision. He feared that if the Board of Appeals was eliminated, then that action could stifle future development. He felt that some variances would be needed for future commercial and/or industrial development.

While Councilman Eyer appreciated the Board of Appeals’ civic duty, he had concern with the fact that their vote held more power than that of the elected members of Council.

Speaking from an RCDC standpoint, RCDC Executive Director Lauren McClain asked Councilman Eyer if he saw a problem with approved variances when he served on the Board of Appeals. Councilman Eyer confirmed.

Mrs. McClain had a hard time believing that the Councilman could not have addressed those concerns over his 18 years on the Board. Councilwoman Henton pointed out that Councilman Eyer would have only been one vote of the entire Board.

Councilman Eyer moved to dissolve the Board of Appeals.

Mayor Lambird asked Mr. Zuber if a simple majority vote would be needed to dissolve the Board of Appeals. Mr. Zuber confirmed.

The Council then discussed how the seven-member Board of Appeals needed four votes in order to pass a variance. They discussed circumstances where that could be difficult if only four or five members attended a Board of Appeals meeting.

Councilwoman Fehrenbacher asked Mrs. Sterchi what Board attendance was like at Board of Appeals meetings. Mrs. Sterchi replied that it was rare for the full Board to be in attendance, and there was currently one vacancy.

Councilwoman Fehrenbacher asked the City Manager if he had an opinion on the matter. Mr. Barker admitted it was difficult to form one. He did note that the Board of Appeals was used to discuss more than boats and lakes. The Board also heard matters concerning construction, codes, setbacks, etc.

Councilman Eyer asked if dissolved, whether or not the Board of Appeals could be re instated at a later time. While that would be legal to do, Mr. Zuber believed it would be difficult to find people to serve after such action.

Councilwoman Fehrenbacher asked for the Code Enforcement Officer’s opinion. Mr. Colwell replied that he liked having the Board of Appeals in place.

Councilwoman Fehrenbacher then asked for the City Attorney’s opinion. Mr. Zuber replied that he could not give legal advice on this issue. The issue was strictly regarding policy.

Councilwoman Henton seconded the motion to dissolve the Board of Appeals. Councilman Eyer and Councilwoman Henton voted yes. Councilman McLaughlin, Mayor Lambird, and Councilwoman Fehrenbacher voted no. The motion failed.

The Council then went back to discussing agenda item 8-A.

If the variance request was approved, Councilman Eyer wondered what would happen if ownership nearby also wanted variances that would complicate the channel further. Mr. O’Brien reminded the Councilman that Mr. Colwell and Mr. Bradley inspected the area to see if proposed docks were appropriate or not.

Councilwoman Henton did not believe that a boat dock application could be refused if it met Code requirements. Mr. Colwell disagreed. He had to refuse an application fairly recently because the area was too narrow to be safe.

As far as concerns around the word “hardship,” Mr. O’Brien did not believe that was the best word for the ordinance. He did not believe that any variance would cause severe suffering or present lack of human need. Councilman Eyer disagreed and gave a scenario where a setback requirement could prevent someone from installing a wheelchair ramp. He felt that would certainly be a hardship.

Mr. Gayer asked what would happen if the applicants’ children jumped to the boat unsuccessfully and ended up in a wheelchair. Would he then need a variance for wheelchair accessibility caused by being denied a variance for dock length that would have prevented the entire situation?

Councilwoman Henton stated that what complicated things further was that the area was zoned as single-family residential. That meant that the City had planned only for single families in that area, and here the applicants were four families with four boats. Regardless, Mr. Gayer pointed out that one family alone had a 32-foot boat. Councilwoman Henton still felt that was not a hardship.

Mrs. Paddock then stated how appalled and alarmed she was that the applicants were at this Council meeting instead of the originally scheduled meeting of the Board of Appeals.

Mayor Lambird asked Mr. Zuber what kind of vote the Council would need to approve the variance request. Mr. Zuber admitted that the statute was somewhat grey. Overall, he believed a two-thirds vote would be needed. In the case of this Council, that would total four affirmative votes.

Mayor Lambird then asked Mr. Zuber’s opinion on how to handle the matter. Since the Council had just voted to keep the Board of Appeals, one of the requirements on variance requests through the Board of Appeals was that the request should be addressed in a reasonable time frame. If the applicants felt that waiting until the Board of Appeals’ May meeting was a reasonable time frame, then the request should go to the Board of Appeals.

Mr. O’Brien noted that he had not seen a denial of any boat dock variance request. None of those applicants showed any greater hardship than in this case. Mr. O’Brien had spent a considerable amount of time and money so far on this endeavor.

The Council then discussed further the idea of amending the ordinance on dock size requirements. Councilman McLaughlin felt that it would take the Council quite some time to come to an agreement, and did not feel it was fair to the applicants to wait that long.

The applicants’ property currently had a swimming dock. Councilman Eyer asked how that got placed. Mrs. Paddock replied that they had gone through the proper channels to get the dock permit approved. She then stated that this meeting was insanity and discriminatory.

Councilman McLaughlin moved to approve the variance requests for a dock distance of 32-feet from the shoreline and a boat deck area of 480-square feet at vacant land off of N. Lakewood Road with Property Index Number 06-23-400-053, seconded by Mayor Lambird.

Councilman Eyer asked if the variance would change the ordinance. The Council replied that the ordinance would not be changed. The variance would grant an exception.

Councilman Eyer asked if the City would be liable if someone struck the dock if a variance on size had been granted. Mr. Zuber indicated that the granting of the variance would not be an issue. If the City wanted no liability at all, then the Council should not allow any boats on the lake.

Mr. O’Brien told the Council he felt there was no reason to deny the request and that the applicants felt that they had been strung out.

For clarification, Mayor Lambird asked again if there were any further disagreements from neighbors. Mr. Fehrenbacher confirmed he had no issue with the request.

Mayor Lambird, Councilwoman Fehrenbacher, and Councilman McLaughlin voted yes. Councilman Eyer and Councilwoman Henton voted no. The motion failed due to lack of a two thirds vote.

Mr. O’Brien asked if there was anything further they could do to contest the Council’s vote. Councilwoman Henton replied that the applicants could try and have the Board of Appeals hear the request.

Councilman McLaughlin moved to adjourn to a short recess, seconded by Councilman Eyer. A majority affirmative voice vote was received. The meeting went into recess at 6:56 p.m.

The Council meeting reconvened from its recess at 7:02 p.m.

8-B “Resolution: Accept Bid for Orchard Dive Culvert Project” This item was tabled.

8-C “Resolution: Transfer Money from Tourism Fund to General Corporate Fund” The Council was provided with proposed resolution that would transfer $10,000.00 from the Tourism Fund to the General Fund. Mrs. Guinn explained this was a yearly action that reimbursed the General Fund for time spent by the City Clerk on tourism.

Councilwoman Henton moved to approve 2022-R-14, seconded by Councilwoman Fehrenbacher. A majority affirmative voice vote was received.

8-D “Resolution: Amend the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Budget for Pickleball Court Donations” The Council was presented with a proposed resolution that would amend the 2021- 2022 budget for pickleball court donations.

Mrs. Guinn told the Council that the City was still in receipt of donations for the Pickleball Complex. A budget amendment would be needed to reflect receipt of these funds.

Councilman McLaughlin moved to approve 2022-R-15.

Councilwoman Fehrenbacher asked if the $66,000.00 in donations included the $50,000.00 contribution from the City. Mrs. Guinn replied that the $66,000.00 did not include the City’s contribution.

Councilwoman Fehrenbacher asked if anyone knew about the status of the White Squirrel Pickleball Association’s 501(c)(3) application. No one present knew, but Councilwoman Henton said she would probably find out more information later in the week.

Councilman Eyer seconded the motion to approve the resolution. A majority affirmative voice vote was received.

8-E “Resolution: Amend the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Budget for Multi-Purpose Trail Lighting” The Council was provided with a proposed resolution that would amend the 2021- 2022 budget for lighting at the Multi-Purpose Trail.

Mrs. Guinn told the Council that a $10,000.00 donation had been received for lighting at the new Multi-Purpose Trail. A budget amendment was needed in order to reflect receipt of those funds.

Councilman Eyer moved to approve 2022-R-16, seconded by Councilwoman Fehrenbacher. A majority affirmative voice vote was received.

8-F “Resolution: Amend the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Budget for Sewer Plant Dimminutor” The Council was provided with a proposed resolution that would amend the 2021- 2022 budget for the Sewer Plant’s dimminutor.

Mrs. Guinn explained that the dimminutor project at the Sewer Plant was complete. A budget amendment was needed to increase that line item from $60,000.00 to $60,513.00.

Councilwoman Henton moved to approve 2022-R-17, seconded by Councilwoman Fehrenbacher. A majority affirmative voice vote was received.

8-G “Resolution: Authorize Execution of Standard Agreement Provisions for Joint Improvement Projects on the State Highway System” The Council was provided with a proposed resolution that would authorize execution of standard agreement provisions for joint improvement projects on the State highway system. The Council was also provided with a copy of the proposed agreement provisions.

Mr. Barker told the Council that right-of-way acquisition for the Route 130 Sidewalk Project was complete. In order to close out this part of the process, the Council would need to approve the agreement provisions. The document would confirm that the City would be paying for all needs related to the right-of-way acquisition.

Councilman Eyer moved to approve 2022-R-18, seconded by Councilwoman Fehrenbacher. A majority affirmative voice vote was received.

8-H “Discussion: Boat Docks and Lake Regulations” This item was discussed under agenda item 8-A.

8-I “Discussion/Possible Action: Board of Appeals Requirement for City of Olney” This item was discussed and voted on under agenda item 8-A.

AGENDA #9 “REPORTS FROM ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS” 

9-A “Status Report-City Manager” The Council was provided with a Status Report from the City Manager.

The only additional item that Mr. Barker had to report was that the IEPA loan for the UV disinfection at the Sewer Plant had been approved. An amount of $225,000.00 would be forgiven off of that loan, and the interest rate was at 0.83%.

9-B “RCDC Report” There was no report.

9-C “Chamber of Commerce Report” Councilwoman Fehrenbacher reported that the Ladies Night Out event held on March 10th had been a success. More vendors attended this year’s event than any year before.

9-D “Parks & Recreation Board Report” There was no report.

9-E “Tourism Board Report” Councilwoman Henton said that she was working with the St. Louis Post Dispatch on an article about the white squirrels.

AGENDA #10 “PUBLIC COMMENTS/PRESENTATIONS” No one from the public wished to speak, however Mayor Lambird had a written comment that was submitted earlier in the day from Rylan Thomas. Mr. Thomas wished for the comment to be read at this evening’s Council meeting.

Mayor Lambird read that Mr. Thomas wanted more police presence near the intersection of Mack Avenue and N. East Street, and also by Miller’s Grove. Mr. Thomas reported that too many trucks were revving their engines in that area.

AGENDA #11 “2022/2023 BUDGET DISCUSSIONS”

11-A “Water Fund” Mrs. Guinn told the Council that projected income for the Water Department in the 2021-2022 fiscal year should be about $2,366,694.00. Next fiscal year’s expected income would be about $1,916,263.00. The biggest difference between the two was that the grant for the Jasper/Lincoln Waterline Project had been received in the 2021-2022 year. Mr. Guinn also pointed out that the proposed Utility Rebate Program for 2022-2023 would also deduct an additional ($12,500.00).

Personnel Services for the Water Plant would be increasing by a small amount, and Contractual Services would also see an increase mainly due to electrical costs. Supplies would also be increasing due to the jump in pricing for chemicals and lab testing.

The only Capital items needed at the Water Plant would be the turbidimeter in the amount of $10,000.00 and an incubator in the amount of $6,000.00.

The Water Distribution Department’s Personnel Services would also be going up a bit for the next fiscal year. Part of that was due to a vacancy currently in that department. Contractual Services and Supplies were also increasing due to the rising costs seen everywhere.

Capital items for Water Distribution in the next fiscal year included Water Main Replacement at $100,000.00, a Pickup Truck for $25,000.00, and the Glenwood/Franklin Waterline Replacement Project at $200,000.00.

Mrs. Guinn pointed out that the City Engineer had recently advised that the listed $200,000.00 for the Glenwood/Franklin Waterline Replacement Project was likely no longer sufficient. He recommended increasing that line item by another $100,000.00.

As presented, the Water Fund looked to be $65,036.00 favorable for the 2022-2023 year. However, with Mr. Bridges’ recommendation to increase the waterline project cost, that would actually leave the Water Fund unfavorable for the next fiscal year. Mrs. Guinn then pointed out that about $95,000.00 remained from a waterline project in the current fiscal year that could be rolled over into the next year’s budget.

Councilman Eyer asked if the Glenwood/Franklin Waterline Replacement Project would take place in 2022. Mr. Bridges confirmed.

Because the cost of doing business was increasing so much, Councilwoman Fehrenbacher did not believe that the 2022-2023 year was the best year to begin the Utility Rebate Program. While she understood the Mayor’s intentions on that proposal, she did not believe this would be the best timing.

Mayor Lambird explained that his intention was for that program to be paid for from the additional gaming revenue that would be received in the future from Love’s Truck Stop. He did not intend to take the funds directly from the Water Fund.

Mrs. Guinn clarified that program funds should be provided from the Water Fund, but perhaps some funds could be transferred there from the General Fund.

Mayor Lambird was agreeable to delete the Utility Rebate Program from the budget until Love’s got their gaming up and running. He said that as soon as those revenue numbers were being reported, then he would ask for the Utility Rebate Program to begin.

Mrs. Guinn would adjust the proposed Water Fund budget by deleting the line item for the Utility Rebate Program, and increasing the Glenwood/Franklin Waterline Replacement Project by $100,000.00.

11-B “Sewer Fund” Mrs. Guinn told the Council that projected income for the Sewer Department in the 2021-2022 fiscal year should be about $1,588,496.00. Next fiscal year’s expected income would be about $2,288,050.00. The biggest difference between the two would be receipt of the EPA loan in 2022-2023 in the amount of $750,000.00.

All line items in the Sewer Department would be seeing increases. Some notable reasons were the cost of supplies and increased engineering fees.

The Sewer Department’s Capital Outlay was proposed to total $978,500.00 for the next fiscal year. That did include the installation of the UV disinfection at the Sewer Plant for which a loan was being received.

Overall, the Sewer Fund appeared to be favorable for the next fiscal year by $376,321.00.

Even though the Council had lowered debt service charges on the billing by $1.00, Councilman McLaughlin felt that the increase in sewer charges should offset that decrease by quite a bit. He did not see that obviously reflected in this proposed budget.

Mrs. Guinn admitted that she probably could increase some of the income, but she felt more comfortable in being conservative. She would take another look at some numbers and report back to the Councilman in the near future. Even so, the Sewer Department would still be favorable.

Mayor Lambird and Councilwoman Fehrenbacher also requested that Mrs. Guinn remove the $12,500.00 for the Utility Rebate Program from the Sewer Fund budget as well.

11-C “Tourism Fund” Mrs. Guinn told the Council that projected income for the Tourism Fund in the 2021-2022 fiscal year should be about $115,620.00. Next fiscal year’s expected income would be about $101,875.00.

This year’s hotel/motel tax revenue was fairly high at $112,109.00, but Mrs. Guinn could not predict that would be the case for the next fiscal year, so she budgeted an income in that category of $100,000.00.

Total Tourism expenses for the next fiscal year should total about $77,435.00.

Mrs. Guinn pointed out that the proposed budget for the next fiscal year still listed $2,000.00 for contribution to the fireworks show. At the last Council meeting, the Fair Board requested an increase in that contribution in order to hold the fireworks show due to large increases in the cost. Should the Council wish to increase this number, that could be done.

Mrs. Guinn then pointed out some changes for the upcoming fiscal year. A new line item had been created in the amount of $15,000.00 as a contribution towards the sign being placed at OCC that would also promote local events. Additionally, the Walldog line item would be removed since the project was now complete, and remaining funds would be finaled out by the end of this fiscal year.

Mrs. Guinn did not budget any funds in the 2022-2023 year for the theater project because she did not believe that the time frames would match up that quickly.

Overall, the Tourism budget should be $24,440.00 favorable in the next fiscal year.

The Council then debated how much the Fair Board had actually asked for as far as an increase in the fireworks contribution. Referencing the last meeting’s minutes, it appeared that the Fair Board President stated they would need an additional $3,200.00 more in order to do the show.

AGENDA #12 “CLOSED SESSION: SALE OR LEASE PRICE OF REAL PROPERTY; ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY; APPOINTMENT, EMPLOYMENT, COMPENSATION, AND PERFORMANCE OF SPECIFIC EMPLOYEES” Councilman McLaughlin moved to adjourn to closed session to discuss sale or lease price of real property; acquisition of real property; appointment, employment, compensation, and performance of specific employees, seconded by Councilwoman Fehrenbacher. A majority affirmative voice vote was received.

The meeting adjourned to closed session at 7:20 p.m.

AGENDA #13 “RECONVENE OPEN SESSION” Councilwoman Henton moved to enter back into open session, seconded by Councilwoman Fehrenbacher. A majority affirmative voice vote was received. Open session resumed at 7:42 p.m.

Going back to the topic of Board of Appeals, Councilwoman Henton stated that she wanted to start seeing official Findings of Fact recorded by the Board.

The Council then discussed proposed changes to dock regulations compared with docks that are being placed and requests for variation.

Mrs. Sterchi asked for clarification on moving forward after this meeting. She was unsure if it was her place to contact the Board of Appeals about this evening’s discussions or if someone like the Mayor or City Manager was more proper.

Mayor Lambird, Mr. Zuber, and Mrs. Sterchi would meet at a later time to discuss this further.

Councilwoman Henton also suggested that Board of Appeals members should go through an education class regarding their duties.

AGENDA #14 “ADJOURN” With no further business to discuss, Councilwoman Fehrenbacher moved to adjourn, seconded by Councilman Eyer. A majority affirmative voice vote was received.

The meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m.

https://cms2files.revize.com/olneynew/cc%20Mar%2014%202022.pdf