East Central Reporter

City of Olney City Council met May 23.

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, Belinda Henton, Morgan Fehrenbacher, and Greg Eyer. John McLaughlin was absent. Also present were City Manager Allen Barker, 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 May 9, 2022”

4-B “Approve and Authorize Payment of Accounts Payable May 24, 2022” Pooled Cash $271,909.35, Manual Pooled Cash $6,303.83, Utility Refunds $1,596.18, Adjustments $35.90, Liability Insurance $181.00, Tourism $3,425.00, Route 130 TIF $66.00

4-C “Re-Appointment: Tony Zuber to Board of Appeals”

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 “Request/Possible Action: Lien Release for 1126 E. Butler Street” This item was removed from the agenda.

8-B “Discussion/Possible Action: Business District” The Council was provided with a proposed resolution that would authorize the execution of a professional and consulting services agreement with Moran Economic Development, LLC. The Council was also provided with a copy of the proposed agreement and a copy of an overview on Business District establishment. Keith Moran was present to speak with the Council.

Mr. Moran gave the Council the same type of overview of a Business District as he did at the March 28, 2022, Council meeting. Essentially, if the City chose to authorize a Business District, they could assess anywhere from an additional .25% to 1% on sales tax for eligible retail items. At the additional 1% tax rate, the City’s Business District could generate about $920,000.00 in its first year. Such a district would have a life of 20 years. The revenue could then be used to make a variety of improvements within the Business District.

The soonest that the City could start collecting the additional revenue would be in April of 2023. In order to start collecting then, the City would need to have their Business District established by October of 2022. Timelines would vary after that.

Councilwoman Henton moved to approve 2022-R-44, seconded by Councilman Eyer. A majority affirmative voice vote was received.

8-C “Ordinance: Amend Section 5.12.070 (Restriction on Number of Licenses Authorized) of the City of Olney Municipal Code” The Council was provided with a proposed ordinance that would amend Section 5.12.070 (Restriction on number of licenses.) of the City of Olney Municipal Code.

Mrs. Sterchi told the Council that El Rancherito had sent correspondence that they would not be renewing their Class C liquor license for the 2022-2023 year. Because of this, the amount of allowable Class C liquor licenses should be reduced.

Councilwoman Henton moved to approve Ordinance 2022-18, seconded by Councilwoman Fehrenbacher. A majority affirmative voice vote was received.

8-D “Resolution: Authorize Execution of a Five-Year Subscription Agreement for the Implementation of Body Cams for the Police Department” The Council was provided with a proposed resolution that would authorize the execution of a five-year subscription agreement for the implementation of body cams for the Police Department. The Council was also provided with a copy of a quote from Digital-Ally of Lenexa, Kansas.

Deputy Chief Bloomer was present to speak with the Council. He reminded the Council that within a few years, body cams would be mandated for the Police Department. He recommended starting the process of implementation now and as such, costs of implementation were planned for this fiscal year.

A quote was received from Digital-Ally for 13 body cams and 2 in-car system kits. The subscription would be for 5 years and total $59,450.80. The cost for the first year itself would be $14,466.16 and would include hardware, user licenses, and freight. The cost for licenses in years 2 through 5 would be $11,246.16 each year.

In this year’s budget, the Department had budgeted $8,800.00 for body cams and $8,000.00 for in-car cameras. This total of $16,800.00 would be more than enough for the first year payment and would satisfy the purposes of each line item. Additionally, the Investigative Special Operations account currently had a balance of $23,292.00, and the Cannabis Fund had a balance of $23,099.00. The purchase of the equipment and subscription would be appropriate uses of those funds.

After 18 months in the subscription, the Department would have free battery replacements. After 30 months, the Department would have free body cam replacement. The subscription would also allow access to a shared portal that could be very useful in case development and prosecution, and the subscription would have product support for the entire time. After the 5 years, the body cams would become sole property of the Department. After the 5-year subscription service ended, the Department would have the option to renew or cut ties with Digital-Ally.

Deputy Chief Bloomer was very much in favor of this implementation. He believed the body cams would help protect officers and bring stronger backing to written reports. Additionally, the body cams would allow for officer accountability.

Councilwoman Fehrenbacher was aware that a body cam grant had been applied for, and she wondered if such a grant was still available. Deputy Chief Bloomer replied that the grant application had been denied. The City could re-apply, but there would be no guarantee that the grant would be awarded. Mrs. Guinn added that the purchase could also not be made until if or when a grant was awarded. This would delay the process considerably, and the City would be subject to price increases. The grant could not be applied for after the purchase.

The Department had also received notice that in June of 2022, the subscription contract price for years 2 through 5 would increase by 6%.

Councilwoman Henton moved to approve 2022-R-45, seconded by Councilwoman Fehrenbacher. A majority affirmative voice vote was received.

8-E “Discussion: Permitting Process for Boring of Water and Sewer Lines” Mr. Barker told the Council that in years past, the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) had issued permits for the boring and installation of water and sewer utility lines under State highways to the plumber contracted to do the work. Recently, IDOT regulations changed to require the City to get the permits in its name and be responsible for the plumber. Currently, plumbers are responsible for the extension of lateral connections from the main line.

Councilwoman Henton asked if the City had any choice in refusing to accept the new IDOT regulations. Mr. Barker replied that the City had no choice, but he wanted the Council to be aware of the issue.

Councilwoman Henton moved to acknowledge the permitting process for the boring of water and sewer lines, seconded by Councilwoman Fehrenbacher. A majority affirmative voice vote was received.

8-F “Resolution: Amend the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Budget for the Main & Route 130 Sewer Repair” The Council was provided with a proposed resolution that would amend the 2022-2023 budget for the Main & Route 130 sewer repair.

Mr. Barker explained that the sewer line correction work at the intersection of Main Street and Route 130 had been completed. The total for the project came in $1,807.00 more than what had been budgeted for this year. Funds were available from the Sewer Line Replacement/Lining line item to cover the cost.

Councilwoman Henton moved to approve 2022-R-46, seconded by Councilman Eyer. A majority affirmative voice vote was received.

8-G “Resolution: Approve Change Order with Kieffer Bros. Construction Co., Inc., for the Elliott Street Bridge Approach Roadway Improvements & Various Resurfacing Projects Contract” The Council was provided with a proposed resolution that would approve a change order with Kieffer Bros. Construction Co., Inc., for the Elliott Street Bridge Approach Roadway Improvements & Various Resurfacing Projects contract and a copy of the proposed change order.

Mr. Barker told the Council that with the completion of the City Hall parking lot, it was time to wrap up the Elliott Street Bridge Approach Roadway Improvements & Various Resurfacing Projects contract with Kieffer Bros. The actual price on the parking lot portion ended up coming in at a decreased amount of ($581.35). The resolution would need to be passed to reflect the reduction in price.

Councilwoman Henton moved to approve 2022-R-47, seconded by Councilwoman Fehrenbacher. A majority affirmative voice vote was received.

8-H “Discussion/Possible Action: State Bid Opening & Project Status of the Route 130 Sidewalk Project” Mr. Barker reminded the Council that the State letting for the Route 130 Sidewalk Project took place on April 29, 2022. Due to the bid, the City’s match for the project would be increasing to $374,753.60. Earlier in the month, Mr. Barker made a request to IDOT for additional funds to be used for the project. At this time, Mr. Barker had not received approval or denial of the request from IDOT.

Mr. Bridges told the Council that he had received an e-mail from IDOT’s Tom Kreke stating that formal approval on additional funding would be forthcoming. Mr. Bridges was optimistic on receipt of additional funds, but did not know anything for certain at this point.

Mayor Lambird asked how long the City had before they needed to take action on the bids. Mr. Bridges said that the City should take action as soon as possible. Mr. Barker added that the Council could approve the bid contingent upon receipt of additional funding.

Councilman Eyer felt that the City was past the point to where it could cut its losses. He felt it was time to move forward.

Councilman Eyer moved to approve the Route 130 Sidewalk Project bid in the amount of $1,214,675.00, seconded by Mayor Lambird.

Councilwoman Henton asked if the City could change the scope of the project. Mr. Bridges replied that the City could not do so without re-bidding.

A majority affirmative voice vote was received.

8-I “Discussion/Possible Action: Sign Ordinance” The Council was provided with a copy of Chapter 15.48 (Signs) of the City of Olney Municipal Code.

Councilman Eyer had noticed that every couple of years, political signs became an issue. The Councilman was aware that the Code did not allow for political signs to exceed four square feet in area in residential zoning districts and thirty-two square feet in area in all other zoning districts. He felt that the provision was straightforward.

Councilman Eyer had recently seen a large political sign for Ben Bauman on Hall Street, and was aware that the non-compliant sign had been brought to the attention of the City Manager and the Code Enforcement Officer. While the Councilman understood that remediation would not happen overnight, he noted that the sign was still in place several weeks later. As of yesterday, the sign had also been placed on a trailer. As far as Councilman Eyer could tell, having the sign placed on a trailer was not a resolution because the sign was still placed on a residential property. The Councilman wanted clarification on the situation and noted that he expected better compliance from political candidates.

Councilwoman Henton agreed. One of her goals for the year that she had brought up during the January work session was re-evaluation of the sign ordinance. She felt that if there were provisions of the ordinance that the City did not want to enforce, then consideration should be given to making changes. She specifically remembered that the Code Enforcement Officer had said that he did not see any need to make changes and that he was fine with the ordinance as written.

Mayor Lambird did not feel comfortable in regulating political signs. He felt that political signs were a version of political speech and that local elections were especially of residential concern.

Regarding the Bauman political sign on Hall Street, Councilman Eyer asked if the sign was in violation of the written ordinance. Councilwoman Henton and Mr. Zuber agreed that it was a violation. Councilwoman Fehrenbacher asked if placing the sign on a trailer changed the violation. Mr. Zuber replied that the sign being on a trailer was still a violation. Councilman Eyer pointed out that the Code also said that mobile/portable signs could still not be any more than four square feet in area.

Nothing about the sign ordinance was changed. Mr. Barker would speak with the Code Enforcement Officer regarding the Hall Street sign.

8-J “Discussion/Possible Action: Weed Ordinances and Baling” The Council was provided with a copy of Chapters 8.28 (Weeds) and 17.24 (R-S, R-1 and R-2 Single-Family Residence Districts) of the City of Olney Municipal Code.

Councilwoman Henton reminded the Council that the Code clearly stated that the height restriction for any weeds or grass anywhere in the City was 12 inches. She was aware that some property owners had not been in compliance because they said they were baling the grass and weeds. The Councilwoman questioned why that was allowed when there was no such distinction for baling in the Code.

Mayor Lambird asked how many years the City had the fields at Musgrove Park baled. Councilwoman Henton replied that the City had done that for many years. Mayor Lambird felt it was hypocritical for the City to come down on people that baled inside of City limits when the City had done so itself. Councilwoman Henton felt it was hypocritical to say that she must mow her yard.

Councilwoman Fehrenbacher pointed out that baling a field was quite different than someone not mowing their front yard grass.

Councilwoman Henton clarified that the fields at Musgrove Park were sown alfalfa. She felt that some others were baling grasses that they just did not want to mow. She did not feel that was fair to neighbors that surrounded such areas. She reminded the Council that she brought up this issue each year and no resolution was ever found.

Councilwoman Henton wondered if people that mow for baling should re-zone to an A-1 (Agricultural District) area. She felt that doing so would make it clear that the land was used for farming. Mayor Lambird was not in favor of that idea and noted that many of such properties could end up in development.

Councilwoman Henton was still not satisfied. She felt that anyone inside of City limits could try and say that they would bale in order not to mow. She was frustrated that the living conditions of neighbors surrounding these areas consisted of the neighbors having to deal with weeds that were waist-deep. She wanted the City to either change its ordinance or enforce its ordinance.

Councilman Eyer felt that if a property was a field-by-nature, then it would be in violation. If a property had planted seed for harvest, then he felt that would be a crop and could be allowed due to the intent. From there, he felt that the Code Enforcement Officer could pursue discussion with the property owner to determine if the property was, in fact, a crop.

Mayor Lambird still did not agree. He felt that farming anything was still farming, and hay was a part of farming. Grass hay was farming as long as it got cut, raked, and baled.

From the audience, Tom Henton was recognized to speak before the Council. Mr. Henton was frustrated by overgrown areas that were currently at least four feet tall. In addition to the areas being unsightly, the overgrowth fostered animal nuisances such as snakes, rabbits, and deer. He asked why he should have to put up with those nuisances.

According to the residential zoning provisions, Mayor Lambird noted that farming and truck gardening were allowed. Councilwoman Henton felt that the provision had more to do with structures related to farming or truck gardening.

Mr. Zuber agreed that the sentence was confusing, but did agree with Mayor Lambird that farming was allowed in residential districts. However, Mr. Zuber did ask the Council if they wanted regular-sized residential lots to be, for example, planting fields of corn in such a district. Councilman Eyer did not believe that would be in the spirit of the ordinance. Mayor Lambird agreed that would not be appropriate, but a five-acre lot would be appropriate for harvesting.

Mr. Zuber felt that making such distinctions would be up to the Code Enforcement Officer. He felt that the Code Enforcement Officer could look at each situation with common sense as to whether or not a property owner has the intention of baling. Councilman Eyer and Councilwoman Fehrenbacher agreed.

If this was going to continue, Councilwoman Henton made strong recommendations. If property owners were not going to be in violation because they would be baling the grass and weeds, she wanted to know who was going to be handling the baling and when that would be taking place. She felt that would provide a reference point for following up. If the baling was not handled as reported, then the neighbors should be given some relief at that point moving forward.

For the Council’s information, Mr. Barker pointed out that in the Code Enforcement Officer had cited 81 weed complaints. Fifty of those had been resolved with some others still in progress.

Before moving on, Mrs. Sterchi wished to address the Council. Mrs. Sterchi had been contacted by a resident that wanted the City’s Tree Board to consider a recommendation for No Mow May. Since the request did not fall in line with the Tree Board’s mission statement and would require an alteration of ordinance, she felt she would need the Council’s opinion on the matter.

No Mow May would be a program that would encourage and allow locals to not mow for the month of May to help support pollinators. Councilwoman Henton immediately indicated she was not in favor.

Mrs. Sterchi told the Council that she had told the resident that the request would likely be difficult due to the amount of complaints received from residents about people who already did not mow. Even so, the resident directed Mrs. Sterchi to the internet to take a look at ways some other communities helped that issue. Some suggestions included launching community campaigns, having people apply for the No Mow May program, and/or mowing borders around the overgrowth so that it would look intentional.

Overall, the Council was not interested at this time in allowing for or participating in No Mow May. Councilman Eyer indicated that he would be in favor of No Mow May in very specific, case-by-case scenarios as a way to help pollinators. Councilwoman Henton felt that flowers could be planted that would help do the job without cause for unsightly unmowed areas.

8-K “Discussion/Possible Action: Noises and Nuisances in the City of Olney” At the past 2 Council meetings, the Council heard public comment from Heather Yonaka regarding nuisances from 906 W. Mack Avenue. At that meeting, it appeared that the Council had interest in continuing discussions on noise, dust, chickens, etc.

Since the last meeting, Councilman Eyer had deliberated the situation. He felt that the Council was a legislative body that had done its duty and had ordinances in place regarding nuisances. While some of the enforcement required subjectivity, he felt that the City had responded to the complaints. If those involved were still not satisfied, he felt that at that point, it may be appropriate for the judicial system to then be involved where a judge could make a decision based on the ordinances provided.

Mr. Zuber indicated that the ordinances could be amended to be more objective, but still may not be the best solution. He had researched some ordinances from other communities and advised that the ordinance could be changed, for example, to say that noises heard 200-feet across a property line could be a violation if the noise was coming from certain devices.

Councilwoman Henton asked Deputy Chief Bloomer if such enforcement would be difficult. Deputy Chief Bloomer replied that the police officers would enforce ordinances however the Council saw fit. At this time, he did trust how his officers handled such complaints. He added that in his opinion, the current ordinance that would not allow for internal combustion engine noise nuisances between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. was very clear.

Mr. Zuber clarified that violations within those hours were “per se violations.” Combustion engine noises going off at 2:00 p.m. that were, in the mind of an officer, unreasonable would still be ticketed. Essentially, there would be subjectivity at 2:00 p.m. but not at 9:01 p.m.

From the audience, Ronda Easton wished to speak to the Council. Mrs. Easton reported that she had bought her son a new exhaust for his dirtbike that was much quieter, and they were having their property surveyed for a privacy fence. In addition, Mrs. Easton believed that the Yonakas had put their house on the market. She was still frustrated that the Yonakas never tried to speak with her family like adults.

Mrs. Easton and her husband had recently visited neighbors all down Mack Avenue to the end of City limits. They had spoken to each neighbor and none of them had any issues with the Eastons.

Mrs. Easton was also aware that the Yonakas were saying that Mrs. Easton had lied about the type of dirtbike her son rode. Mrs. Easton clarified that her son did also have a race bike, but that bike was not used on the property for normal recreation. Mrs. Easton explained that race bikes often got damaged during events. When returning home, sometimes the bike would need to be ridden to make sure it was damaged and/or to see if repairs had worked. Those types of rides did not last long, and those bikes were not for leisure.

Mrs. Easton reminded the Council that Olney was a community where UTVs could ride on roads and could be used in parades. She did not feel that using a dirtbike on private property should be an issue, and felt that changing the ordinance to prevent that use would affect the entire community. Mrs. Easton was interested in helping come up with solutions and was interested in providing the Council with any necessary information.

Councilwoman Henton felt that the changes that the Eastons were making seemed appropriate, and she hoped that would help to make a difference.

8-L “Adoption of a Resolution for Maintenance of Streets and Highways by Municipality Under the Illinois Highway Code” The Council was provided with a proposed IDOT resolution for maintenance of streets and highways by municipality under the Illinois Highway Code, a copy of estimated costs for the MFT program, a listing and map of streets to be maintained, engineering information, and proposed bid documents.

Mr. Bridges and the Street Department Supervisor had worked together to draft this year’s proposed MFT maintenance program. Mr. Barker explained that the proposed resolution was required to appropriate the necessary funds. This year, $175,000.00 would be appropriated for the program.

Councilwoman Fehrenbacher moved to approve 2022-R-48, seconded by Councilman Eyer. A majority affirmative voice vote was received.

8-M “Resolution: Authorize Execution of a Construction Agreement Between the City of Olney & CSX Transportation, Inc., for the Whittle Avenue Roadway/Crossing Surface Improvements” The Council was provided with a proposed resolution that would authorize the execution of a construction agreement with CSX Transportation, Inc., for the Whittle Avenue Roadway/Crossing Surface Improvements. The Council was also provided with a copy of the proposed construction agreement.

Mr. Barker told the Council that the City would need to authorize an advance deposit in the amount of $246,617.00. IDOT would then reimburse the City up to $235,247.00. A supplemental order may also be applied for to make up the $11,370.00 difference. The Council did not seem thrilled with this arrangement, but they were aware that the City did not have options. Mr. Bridges expected that the City’s money could be tied up for about 4 weeks but that the billing could take longer depending on receipt of statements.

Councilman Eyer moved to approve 2022-R-49, seconded by Councilwoman Fehrenbacher. A majority affirmative voice vote was received.

AGENDA #9 “REPORTS FROM ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS”

9-A “Status Report-City Manager” Mr. Barker reported that the construction of the new bathrooms in the City Park was coming along nicely, as was the Cherry/Morgan Street reconstruction. The City’s portion of work on the Orchard Drive culvert had also been completed.

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

9-B “Chamber of Commerce Report” Councilwoman Fehrenbacher told the Council that the Chamber would be hosting a Business After Hours event with the City on June 14, 2022, from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. More details would be available in the future.

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

9-E “Tourism Board Report” The Council was provided with a Digital Marketing Recap from the ILLINOISouth Tourism Bureau. Councilwoman Henton said that in addition to the information in the report, Mrs. Sterchi was working on some social media campaigns for Summer events. The Tourism Bureau was also working on the next edition of the Tourism Times.

AGENDA #10 “PUBLIC COMMENTS/PRESENTATIONS” No one from the public wished to speak.

AGENDA #11 “CLOSED SESSION: SALE OR LEASE PRICE OF REAL PROPERTY; ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY; APPOINTMENT, EMPLOYMENT, COMPENSATION, AND PERFORMANCE OF SPECIFIC EMPLOYEES; AND LITIGATION MATTERS” Councilwoman Henton moved to adjourn to closed session to discuss the sale or lease price of real property; acquisition of real property; appointment, employment, compensation, and performance of specific employees; and litigation matters, seconded by Councilwoman Fehrenbacher. A majority affirmative voice vote was received.

The meeting adjourned to closed session at 7:15 p.m.

AGENDA #12 “RECONVENE OPEN SESSION” Councilwoman Henton moved to enter back into open session, seconded by Councilman Eyer. A majority affirmative voice vote was received. Open session resumed at 7:30 p.m.

12-A “Resolution: Authorize Destruction of Closed Session Audio” The Council was provided with a proposed resolution that would authorize destruction of closed session audio.

Councilwoman Henton moved to approve 2022-R-50, seconded by Councilwoman Fehrenbacher. A majority affirmative voice vote was received.

12-B “Resolution: Authorize Release of Closed Session Minutes” The Council was provided with a proposed resolution that would authorize the release of some closed session minutes.

Councilwoman Henton moved to approve 2022-R-51, seconded by Councilwoman Fehrenbacher. A majority affirmative voice vote was received.

AGENDA #13 “ADJOURN” With no further business to discuss, Councilwoman Fehrenbacher moved to adjourn, seconded by Councilman Eyer. A majority affirmative voice vote was received.

https://cms2files.revize.com/olneynew/cc%20May%2023%202022.pdf