Lincoln Aldermen adopt a quick permit process for certain activities on city owned property

 

[January 20, 2022] 

Due to the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday on Monday, the Lincoln City Council met on Tuesday, January 18th for its regular voting meeting. Among the items on the agenda was a change to the permit process for use of city owned property for activities in town.

While amended and contested, the motion did pass at the end of the night with a vote of 7-0-1 with Kevin Bateman abstaining from the vote.

As a result, anyone wishing to use a city owned property, such as a downtown parking space for an activity may apply for a permit to do so and have it approved via the city clerk’s office without a vote from the city council.

The permit does have limitations. The activity shall not interfere with or halt the normal flow of traffic. In other words if a street closure is requested, it will still require council approval.

Over the past several years, there have been occasions when a business or organization would seek to utilize parking spaces for an event or activity. There have been times, when the organizers of those events did not file for the necessary permits in time for the council to vote. The typical practice has then been for the mayor to announce the request at a Committee of the Whole meeting and with a “nod of head,” aldermen have given their approval. Then the item would appear after the fact on the next voting agenda.

This has happened a couple of times in the last year, and as it occurred, the council has noted that approving items after the fact is not a good way to do business in the city of Lincoln. But at the same time, the members don’t want to deter local events and activities that serve to improve offerings in the downtown area and bring shoppers and visitors to Lincoln.

At the last meeting in December, Alderman Kevin Bateman suggested that the city consider a quick permitting process. It was not fully discussed at that time, but at the January 11th meeting, Bateman brought to the council a draft of a new permit that would allow event planners to request the permit a few days before an event and still receive proper approval from the city via the city clerk, mayor, and department heads.

According to Bateman’s plan, the city would have two “request to permit” forms. One would be for use with events that included street closures or a change in the flow of traffic. This permit would be similar to the document used currently and would require that the party seeking the permit file the request in ample time for the council to discuss and vote on the approval.
 

The second permit would be for activities that do not impact the flow of traffic. Throughout the discussion process, the example provided for what this would entail included the use of parking spaces for food trucks, though all aldermen agreed that it would not be limited to that type of activity.

With the new permit, the requester would fill out the form and present it to the city clerk. The clerk would notify the mayor and department heads and ask that they come into city hall, review the request and sign-off their approval. The clerk would then notify the requester that the permit had been approved and could be picked up at her office.

Bateman said the whole idea was to simplify the process for the requester and make sure that permits are issued prior to an activity instead of after the fact.

On January 11th, several of the aldermen said they liked the idea. City Attorney John Hoblit said that he had not had an opportunity to research the topic and thus determine if it is allowable for the city to make this kind of change. Because Bateman was hoping to get the motion on the next voting session, Hoblit said he would prioritize researching this and have solid answers for the council at the January 18th meeting.

Bateman’s rough draft form included a provision that the permit still needed to be requested at least four days prior to an event. Wanda Lee Rohlfs asked about why that timeline. Bateman said primarily it was to accommodate the mayor and department heads. While clerk Peggy Bateman had said that the department heads and the mayor were generally quick to respond when she called on them for something, there could still be occasions when they could not just drop everything and come to city hall. Bateman said if the time line was an issue, the wording could easily be changed to reflect that the permit had to be issued “prior to” the event, and leave it at that.
 

Rick Hoefle voiced the most strenuous of objections to the idea, saying that what Bateman was presenting was much too “generic.” He felt that it was leaving the city wide open to liability issues among other things. Bateman countered that he had sought ideas and feedback when he brought the topic up in December and no one had responded. Therefore he went forward with what he knew could work. He said he was open to suggestions on ways to improve the document.

Steve Parrot said he liked the idea, but he wondered if the form should include a time for use of the space and should the city limit the time, for example a closed by mid-night or a range such as from 5 p.m. to mid-night. Bateman said that could be added, but his original thought had been to leave that matter to the discretion of the department heads.

Mayor Tracy Welch said that because the city was considering splitting one permit into two, perhaps it would be good to put together a list of eligible uses for each permit. He also said that he had concerns about the word “discretion.” He felt that saying certain details could be left to the discretion of the department heads put those heads in a bad position.

Rohlfs said that though the topic came about from activities downtown, the permit should be for all city owned properties throughout town, not just downtown. She also thought that there should be an accompanying handout that the applicants could read and determine for themselves which permit they should apply for. In addition, she wondered if a third permit specifically for food trucks should be drawn up.

Tony Zurkammer also liked the proposed change and thought that the city could adopt the permit, then as time goes by with feedback from those using it adjust the form as needed.

He also asked about the time line. He said with changing to eliminate the line about approval within four days, how will the question be answered as to how long it will take to get the permit. Welch said the short answer would be “when approved.”

Hoefle said that he didn’t quite understand why this all had to be changed. He said that the request to permit should be filed 30 days prior to an event and that should allow the council time to review and approve. Bateman said that not everyone knows 30 days ahead of time they are going to be doing something.

Hoefle also wondered if downtown business concerns would be considered. He noted “What if some pizza wagon wants to set up in front of Sorrento's, is that okay?” Peggy Bateman said that perhaps the requester should be required to have permission from the business which it plans to park in front of before requesting the permit from the city. Hoefle said the issue with that suggestion is that the parking spaces do not belong to the business, therefore, the business cannot give any kind of permission for use.

Rohlf's said perhaps the word should not be “permission” but rather “awareness.”
 

Attorney Hoblit also noted by removing the request to permit from the council voting session, it eliminates the public’s right to object.

Rohlfs had indicated that she was in favor of making the changes suggested by Bateman. Hoefle drew on that and said he had concerns that the two aldermen of Ward three, that represent the heart of the city were pushing for something they didn’t even know if the downtown businesses wanted to see happen.

Bateman said that he had talked to downtown businesses and they are in favor of the change. However, Hoefle raised his voice several decibels to make his point, saying to Bateman, “No you haven’t, because I’ve talked to them and they are not in favor.”

Welch asked what the council wanted to do. Bateman said he wanted the changes on the next voting agenda. Hoefle said he wanted it tabled to another Committee of the Whole. Seeing a stalemate, Welch said the council should just go ahead and put it on the agenda, take the vote, and see what happens.

At the January 18th voting session, all but 15 minutes of the one hour, ten minute meeting was taken up with the topic of the new permitting process.

Again, all aldermen with the exception of Hoefle was in favor of the permit.

To open the discussion, Bateman said that while he had put together a very rough draft of the permit at first, in the last week, Rohlfs had taken his draft and fine-tuned it into a document that was very well done and very well suited to the quick permit process he had proposed.

On the agenda there were two permit forms in one motion. One for the use of property when it did not interfere with the flow of traffic (the quick permit) and one for use of city streets that involved street closures or changes in traffic flow.

Through the discussion to follow, the motion to approve both forms was amended to apply only to the quick permit form with the other to be addressed at a later date.

Aldermen went through the new form and offered some small changes to fine tune it further.

Hoefle continued to object strenuously saying that the city was opening doors to liability particularly in the arena of food service. He said that if the city permitted food trucks it was making itself liable for unsafe delivery of food to customers, and that it could come back to bite them. He said the city could be sued if it allowed a food truck to operate in city parking spaces. Bateman did not agree, and City Clerk Peggy Bateman said that the health and safety issues were covered by the business through food service certification and health department permits and inspections.

Bateman said he didn’t understand Hoefle’s objections because in the past, Hoefle has been willing to vote in favor of food vendors at Pigs and Swigs and other downtown events such as Third Friday. Hoefle said that he objected now because Bateman’s new permit had brought the matter to Hoefle’s attention and he was concerned about it.

Bateman said in that case, it could be assumed that from here on out Hoefle would vote no to requests for Pigs and Swigs and Third Friday. He added that he still wasn’t’ getting the logic behind Hoefle’s strenuous objects now when they were not present in the past. Again raising his voice to make his point, Hoefle responded, “You’re not listening to me. I wasn’t aware then. You brought it to my attention.”

In the end there were two votes. The first vote was to amend the original motion to cover only the first permit form and the changes to the form made at the request of the council.

Prior to the vote, Bateman said that in his discussion he had mentioned that he would love to someday have a food truck. However, he said that was something that he and wife Peggy were not in agreement on, and therefore, he did not foresee that happening. None the less, to avoid the appearance of impropriety he would abstain from all voting regarding the new permit process.

The vote for the amendment was taken with six aldermen voting yes, Hoefle voting no and Bateman abstaining.

The second vote on the matter was to approve the motion as amended. The motion passed with a vote of 7-0-1 with Hoefle voting yes this time and Bateman once again abstaining.

Also during the discussion two other items came to light. Street Superintendent Walt Landers said that companies doing façade work in the downtown area are not notifying the city ahead of time. He said that there are health and wellbeing issues involved when sidewalks are blocked and lifts are being used to work on second story building fronts. He would like to see the city require some kind of permit or at least something that would give city officials a heads up as to when such work was taking place.

Zurkammer brought up that some of the city’s codes are antiquated. He noted specifically that chapter seven where the permit codes are found is out of touch with the times, and he feels the city should invest time in reviewing all sections in that chapter.

Both of those topics will be addressed at a later date.

[Nila Smith]