|
 McMurtrey said the Bureau had received the city’s request to do
an independent audit and rather than return the Bureau’s response by
mail; she chose to appear before the council. She said that she had
handed out a letter that was the Bureau’s official response to the
city’s request.
McMurtrey said this had been discussed by the Tourism Council at the
April meeting. The council had authorized her to compose a letter
saying that for the time being, the Bureau would deny the request
for the audit.
McMurtrey explained the bureau's position saying that she had
included with her handouts the completed audit for the fiscal year
starting July 1, 2012, and ending June 30, 2013. The auditors, she
said are expected to soon turn over the final documents for the
fiscal 2013-14 year as well as a half-audit for the period from July
1, 2014, through December 31, 2014. She said those audit documents
would be delivered to the city as soon as they are final.
McMurtrey told the council that the bureau wanted the city to hold
off on asking for another audit until the current audit work was
finished, and the city had an opportunity to review the documents.
She said at that time, if the city still wants to do yet another
audit of the Tourism books, the bureau would comply.
 She did qualify the statement, saying that the Bureau Council would
comply, but has agreed that if the city wants the audit, the cost
should come out of the city’s general fund account, and not out of
the tourism dollars allocated to the Bureau through the Hotel/Motel
tax.
McMurtrey said that for the second audit to come out of tourism
funding would be a hardship considering that the original audit has
already cost twice what was estimated because of the complexity of
the work done.
When McMurtrey finished her statement, there were no questions or
comments from the city council members.
City discusses purchase of Jefferson School
City Administrator Clay Johnson spoke about the council’s
consideration in the purchase of Jefferson School for a new police
department. What is needed from the council would be the passage of
an ordinance to authorize the purchase. This ordinance would be on
the agenda at the May 2nd voting meeting of the Lincoln City
Council.
The building and land adjacent to Fifth Street, as well as an
additional small parcel on the north side of Sixth Street would be
included in the purchase at a cost of $75,000.
FGM Architects has been to the building and said that it was a
facility in good condition, had been reasonably well maintained over
the years, and would meet the space requirements for a proper police
department headquarters for the city.
There would be a need for some modifications and FGM would put
together a recommendation for needed upgrades.
Johnson also told the council that City Attorney Blinn Bates was a
member of the District 27 School Board. Because of this, Bates had
recused himself from the negotiations for the purchase of the
property. Attorney Thomas Van Hook had been retained to represent
the city and was on hand on Tuesday night if the council had any
questions about the agreement.
When the floor was opened for discussion, Todd Mourning said he’d
heard comments that needed to be clarified. He asked City Treasurer
Chuck Conzo to weigh in. Mourning said that some believe that the
City has already paid for the school once through tax dollars earned
on property taxes.
 Conzo said that there are misconceptions about how the property
taxes work, but the fact is District 27 is its own taxing body that
has no connection to the city. Property tax dollars paid to the
schools are from separate levies that are in no way connected to the
city of Lincoln tax earnings.
Tracy Welch said that since the story about the purchase of the
school had broken, he had heard questions about the jail portion of
the department. He wanted to understand how the jailing system
worked and asked that Deputy Chief of Police Matt Vlahovich explain.
Vlahovich was in attendance representing Chief Paul Adams.
Vlahovich said that the official jail for local law enforcement was
the property and responsibility of the county. Suspects who are
officially arrested with the intention to detain until they bail out
or appear before a judge would be housed at the Logan County Safety
Complex in the Logan County Jail.
Vlahovich said what the new building would have, are holding cells.
He explained that by law, a suspect can only be held at the city
department for six hours before a decision must be made to jail or
release the suspect. He said that would take place at the new
department building. He added that while being held, suspects or
potential prisoners would be treated the same as if they were in
jail, with the provision of food and other acceptable amenities to
make their stay comfortable. When the decision is made to arrest and
detain the suspect for more than six hours, the person would then be
transported to the Logan County Jail.
As the discussion on this topic came to a close, Johnson talked
about the money invested in the purchase. He said that currently the
city is paying $36,000 per year to the county for its space
occupancy at the Logan County Safety Complex. He said taking that
into consideration, the cost of the Fifth Street property is equal
to approximately two years of rent paid to the county.
Police department asks to create its own shooting range at no
cost to the city
On the committee agenda was a request for the police department to
create its shooting range.
Vlahovich explained the request. He said a suggestion had come from
Walt Landers of the city Street and Alley Department that the police
department could create its own shooting range at the Landscape
Waste Facility at the south edge of town. Vlahovich said that there
was a good space at the facility that would work for the shooting
range, and the department would like to follow through with the
suggestion.
[to top of second column] |
He explained that currently the department is utilizing an area owned by a
private citizen. He said while this is working out for the department, there are
issues to consider, such as liability issues for the landowner and the thought
that the police could be denied access to the shooting area if the land changed
ownership.
Vlahovich said there is another shooting range nearby that is owned by a
Springfield firm called Adamax. He said it is a viable option, but the problem
the city often has is the availability of time at the range because it is well
utilized by clients of Adamax.
He went on to say, that if the department had its area, it could be used for
other training scenarios in addition to being a shooting range. He said that the
city would not be out any cost because the department could solicit volunteer
workers and hold fundraisers for what was needed at the range.
Mayor Marty Neitzel asked about the days of use for the shooting range as it
related to dumping days for the waste facility. Vlahovich said the department
would not permit shooting on days that the waste facility is open to the public.
Neitzel noted that right now the facility is on extended hours that mean the
gates are opened daily for spring cleanup time. She said, then, under those
circumstances, the police department would not be out there. Vlahovich said that
was correct.
City would amend rules of public participation
The Lincoln city council meets four times per month. At the beginning of each
meeting, there is time allotted in the agenda for public participation. There
are specific rules about citizens coming before the council during this period.
But over the last few months, some aldermen believe that the situation has
gotten a little out of hand and that the rules need to be enforced, but also
perhaps amended to facilitate better public participation.
Todd Mourning noted last week and again this week that the problem he sees is
that those coming before the council are spending a great deal more time than
the allowable five minutes per speaker. He noted that in recent meetings, public
participation has taken as long as one hour when the rules allow for only a
total of 20 minutes for this agenda item.
Under the current rules, a speaker must fill out a form requesting time before
the council. The rules say that a speaker should take less than five minutes to
deliver his or her comments.
Tuesday evening Johnson asked the council to advise him on what they want to do
about the public participation issue. Did they want to change the rules, or do
more to enforce existing rules? He said if there were to be changes, it would be
an item for the voting agenda. The council could give him direction on how the
rules should be amended and then vote on the drafted amendment at the May 2nd
meeting.
Rick Hoefle said he could go along with the rule of limiting speaker time, but
at the same time, he wondered if offering only five minutes was reasonable. He
suggested that rather than five minutes, a speaker should be given up to ten
minutes, with a limit of three speakers per evening.
Tracy Welch said he thought that was a reasonable suggestion. He noted that
currently the rules are five minutes each and no more than 20 minutes per night,
so that would equal four speakers. Reducing it to three and changing the time
would add another 10 minutes to the agenda, but he thought that was fair and
reasonable.
Hoefle also noted that if a speaker knows he or she is going to require more
time, then that should be an instance where the speaker contacts the City
Administrator or Mayor and request time on the agenda.
City Treasure Chuck Conzo noted that while there did need to be rules regarding
speakers, he would be hesitant to limit the number of speakers allowed in one
evening. He suggested that perhaps the city could incorporate a ruling where
that the Mayor and council could approve additional speakers under certain
circumstances.
He noted that when the city was considering the video gaming ordinance, there
were eight people who came to speak on the topic that was to be voted upon the
next week. He said, had four or five of those people been denied the right to
speak it would not have been fair. It was noted that on that particular
occasion, the mayor did allow the eight speakers, but also asked them to limit
their time to only three minutes instead of five.
Welch wondered about speakers coming wishing to use a PowerPoint presentation.
He said that setting up for such a presentation takes time. He thought that if a
PowerPoint was going to be used, the city should receive advance notice. City
Attorney Blinn Bates said that under law, the city is not obligated to provide
Audio/Visual assistance to a speaker at public participation. He said the city
may choose to do so, but in general, a speaker should come prepared with
handouts and not expect that the city would permit a PowerPoint.
At the end of the discussion, it appeared that the direction to Johnson was to
expand speaker time to 10 minutes, expand total time for public participation to
30 minutes per night, and add a provision that the mayor and council may extend
the time limits for specific situations.
There was also a question from Mourning about enforcement of the rules, which is
his real issue at the moment. He said that the policy states that the city clerk
or council secretary, Susan Gehlbach or Risa Riggs respectively, would monitor
the time per speaker. He asked the two how they would do that. Gehlbach said
they would figure that out, but assured the alderman that it can be done in the
future.
[Nila Smith] |
