Contention brews over Antelope County budget preparation

Two residents of the Royal community faced the Antelope County Commissioners at their Aug. 13 meeting, asking the county leaders to intercede in the case of a dog running at large.

Marlowe Jensen and Justin Jensen came to the meeting armed with copies of state statutes dealing with dangerous dogs, claiming the documents required the county sheriff to bring charges against the dog’s owner.

“I was harassed by a dog,” Marlowe Jensen said, adding “It chased a deputy into Justin’s house.”

“It’s the only dog in town that’s running loose,” his son said. “Everybody has poop in their yard because of her.”

According to Antelope County Sheriff Bob Moore and County Attorney Joe Abler, the village of Royal has no ordinance that applies and state law deals only with documented dangerous or viscous animals, ones that have attacked or bitten a person, causing injury requiring medical treatment.

“I can’t write a ticket for an ordinance that doesn’t exist,” Moore said.

The sheriff said he had discussed the incident with Royal Mayor Max Heiter and the village’s attorney, who confirmed an ordinance was being drafted.

“It’s a work in progress,” Moore said.

Commissioners repeatedly told the Jensens there was nothing the board could do, advising them to take their concerns to the village board of trustees.

The Jensens countered with other, unrelated, incidents they said were not addressed when reported to village officials.

As the county leaders took care of business at the table in their Chambers at the Neligh courthouse, Lisa Payne, county clerk was in and out of the room. Signed petitions were being turned in just across the hall, at her office, asking for the recall of two commissioners.

Bethany Miller of Elgin and Jack Allemang of Elgin, both handed in notarized documents calling for the recall of Borer and Bentley, respectively. The clerk’s staff is currently verifying the signatures, with a recall election on the horizon this fall.

Payne informed the commissioners that cash flow was low. The commissioners approved fund transfers to pay the month’s claims. She said $200,000 was transferred from General Fund to Disaster Fund.

Another transfer of $230,000 was made from General Fund to Road and Bridge Fund. It was noted that FEMA reimbursement for flood-related expenses may be two years away.

“Yes, this is tax collecting month,” she said. “But at this point, General (Fund) cash flow is low.”

A resolution to accept subdivision levy requests within the county budget authority and review of preliminary budgets with department heads, expected at the meeting, were postponed. A special budget hearing is set to get underway at 8 a.m. Thursday, Aug. 22.

Regarding preliminary budgets submitted, Borer said the weed control budget was the only one submitted with a 10% reduction requested by the commissioners.

He said the Finance Committee (Borer and Bentley), planned to review budgets with department heads, prior to full board review, a plan contested by other county officials.

“I think the department heads should discuss their budgets with the full board, and in front of the public,” Deb Branstiter, county treasurer, said. “It’s something we’ve always done in the past, then the public can hear. I think they want to know.”

Casey Dittrich, road superintendent, Kelly Mueller, assessor, Charlie Henery, commissioner, and Moore each voiced similar inclination. Lengthy dialog ensued, with contention apparent between some officials.

Smith said every budget would still be “fully discussed” at the board meeting. Bentley voiced agreement.

County attorney, Joe Abler, asked, “Just for clarification, are you proposing that the budgets that the board looks at then, would be the Finance Committee’s budgets and not the officials’ (budgets)?”

Bentley answered, “It would be agreed on by the Finance Committee and each official.”

Abler questioned, “So you are not going to propose those budgets, you are going to present the Finance Committee’s budgets?”

Bentley replied, “After discussion with each one of the elected officials, yes.”

“My thought is, since it says the Finance Committee is in charge of making the budget, we would meet with everybody, then bring it to the board to discuss,” Borer said. “If we don’t do it that way, then we probably need a motion, because that’s what the statute says. Section 23-906 is the statute…I am assuming, if the department head disagrees, we can take it up with the public.”

“I think it would be best for the public to hear it firsthand, right out of the official’s mouth and see what is going on,” Mueller said. “People always talk about transparency; this is a great example of that.”

Moore and Henery both suggested holding a special budget meeting.

“I’m requesting this board to please have this hearing, let us all come in and present our budgets… get it all done, instead of having a meeting with you, then having another meeting, then regurgitating the issues that were a problem, meeting with the Finance Committee. Let’s get it done so the whole board hears it, and we’re done.”

Borer asked the sheriff, “So you’re recommending we break the law?”

“No,” the sheriff answered. “I’m saying that you can make a motion to do that.”

In reply to a budget timeline question, Payne said, “I have not been asked to do budget. I’ve put my hands off it. I haven’t been asked. Nothing’s been asked of me. Nothing’s been asked how we did things in the past. I’ve given you the figures I have collected. I’m hands off.”

Borer said her help was “definitely” needed.

But Payne had more to say, “You’ve gone to everybody else. You’ve gone to people who are not even involved in county government for the budget. Maybe they want to help you this year. I’m not opposed with, and I’m willing to help and I’m willing to help you and show you where things come from. But nobody’s asked…I have a lot going on in my office at this time. I am down one employee at this point. I can do this. And I will do this, to the best of my ability. But I have to have some direction…We are totally behind the eight ball…I’m worried.”

The budget must be submitted by Sept. 20, with a public hearing required prior to its adoption. Notice must be published at least five days before the hearing. Certified valuations, that will be done by Aug. 20, are also needed prior to setting levies. Payne said a resolution related to subdivision levy allocation was needed prior to Sept. 1. The commissioners approved the allocation Aug. 6, after which Payne said she would notify the subdivisions.

The budget timeline last year included the following: *Aug. 7, preliminary levies for subdivisions approved; *Aug. 21, review of department budgets, discussion on cuts; *Sept. 5, budget summary and notice of public hearings published; *Sept. 4, budget reviewed; *Sept. 11, budget and tax request hearings held, budget adopted. No resolution related to subdivision levy allocation was passed in 2018, according to Payne.

Liz Doerr, zoning administrator, read a follow-up report from the asset manager with Invenergy regarding a wind tower that collapsed earlier this summer northeast of Neligh.

“The preliminary root-cause analysis of this failure has been attributed to a blade failure on the unit, which was the result of a failed pre-operations repair. Following this failure, General Electric and Upstream completed external blade inspections on another seven wind turbine generators with pre-operations repairs. For additional security, GE also completed an internal, inside the blade, inspection on repairs of the other WTGs that had similar (pre-commercial operation date) repairs.

“Following this thorough and in-depth review, GE has confirmed that there is not an additional risk with the continued operation of the wind farms. Based on our data, this is an isolated incident, specific to this blade on this tower.”

The report also indicated decommissioning of the failed tower was tentatively scheduled the week of Aug. 19. Work was underway to reopen road-use agreements. The asset manager indicated the structure’s foundation will be analyzed by engineers as well, with an expectation that the foundation will be reused for a new generator at the site.

Doerr also read a letter from Keith Dittrich, developer of Ponderosa Subdivision near Tilden, that accompanied a building permit application. She said, when the subdivision was established, it was with the understanding a road wouldn’t be upgraded until there was a permit issued to build.

The developer said he had a potential buyer, who was reluctant to purchase a lot without a road in place, leading to his submission of a tentative permit application in his own name.

Doerr said issuance of a permit does bind the permit holder to build. “It’s a $20 pierce of paper to build a road.”

Dittrich was directed to proceed with the road work.

David Owenby, construction manager for Thunderhead wind farm, with input from Dittrich, updated the commissioners on the status of a road use agreement. He said road work on the designated roads, including 846 Avenue and Zig Zag Road, would begin next week. The “laydown” yard will be located between 520 and 521 roads on 846 Avenue.

Dittrich said several road segments had been added to the agreement at his request.

Jay and Tina Snider and Curt Thiele spoke on behalf of the Clearwater village, regarding Dittrich’s recent discovery that 516 Avenue, was owned by the village, and the subsequent decision by the county board that the village was responsible for future maintenance of the road.

“My only concern is these roads have been going to heck for many years…nobody’s been fixing them, now all of a sudden, they are terrible,” Thiele said. “Don’t you think the county should get the roads fixed back up before we give them back to the town?”

“Did we give back or did we quit giving our services?” Dittrich asked.

After nearly half an hour of discussion that included potential costs, damage that may have been caused to the road by county trucks after the flood, possible FEMA reimbursement to one entity or the other, a possible interlocal agreement to extend the payback time and other issues, agreement was reached for the county road crew to include the portion owned by the village when several miles are overlaid with recycled material in the coming days. Payment details will be determined later. Dittrich estimated the cost of oil to mix with county millings to be in the $40,000 range.

Discussion moved to how the Clearwater directive may set precedence for other situations, including a current request by Orchard village officials to mix and lay out a windrow on a short span of the Orchard Road, approximately 1,000 yards located between Highway 20 and the railroad tracks.

Dittrich said it was a different situation, since overlay of Orchard Road “is not on the radar,” but he could schedule the work. Henery suggested hauling material from a windrow being prepared near the 14/20 junction. Dittrich estimated 20 truckloads of material.

Dittrich also suggested portions of county roads owned by villages be included in any overlay work on the county’s portion of the roads in the future, possibly through interlocal agreements. He said he would reach out to each village before the next meeting.

Approval was given to maintain three blocks of gravel streets in Orchard, once a month, as the county maintainer heads out of town, to be billed at regular rates.

The commissioners unanimously approved the purchase of a used 140 H motorgrader for $44,616.50, on a Smith motion, seconded by Henery. The machine has been in use at Clearwater, on lease.

He told the leaders that he would like to keep an older grader within the village for the time being. Pending approval of his budget, he has plans to add one or two operators and would need the machine for snow removal. To offset some of the machinery cost, he informed the leaders of an offer of $17,250 he received for a 2001 patching machine, which has been parked since a 2008 machine was purchased, also mentioning the grinder isn’t being used. Sale of the equipment was tabled.

Another purchase was given an unofficial nod, with a vote tabled until two additional quotes are obtained. According to the road boss, a 2006 belly-dump trailer had been used by the road department since last October, without reimbursement to owner Matt Klabenes. When approached by Dittrich regarding reimbursement, Klabenes offered to sell the trailer to the county for $26,000, an amount Dittrich and Smith both said was significantly lower than the trailer’s value.

Dittrich informed the leaders that road department spending for the year, including claims approved for payment this month, and in conjunction with emergency funds, is up 119% from last year, adding that next month will “probably be even higher.”

He said, last year by the end of August, the department had spent $522,000. This year, including funds spent from the emergency and inheritance funds, the total is $1.1 million, $800,000 coming from the Road and Bridge Fund.

A large portion of that spending has been for gravel and rock hauled in and oiling costs.

“We aren’t wasting it,” he said. “We are actually spending less on normal maintenance…and more on big projects.”

Much of the cost will be turned in to FEMA for reimbursement, but he said that doesn’t help current cash flow issues, adding he would request an increased budget for next year.

“But we really don’t know that right now. We are kind of driving by the moonlight right now and we are going really fast,” said. “We have the pedal to the floor, and we are standing on it.”

He said road and bridge employees are working 50 to 60 hours a week, Fridays, Saturdays, and some Sundays.

“I don’t want to find out in February that maybe we shouldn’t have armor coated so much,” Dittrich said, asking if the commissioners were confident in what he was doing.

“I’m not,” Henery replied. “Not at all.”

Discussion on roads ended with Smith reading a prepared statement.

“I’ve received phone calls from the general public and from the contractor (who) was involved.

“When I addressed this issue at a prior board meeting, I did not mention the contractor’s name because there was no fault or responsibility that lies with them. The contractor was contracted by the county to conduct the work. The contractor informed me that he was contacted by the county sheriff regarding the issue of the bridge. If there is an investigation into this bridge, I think we should be aware of this and, as of today, I have no knowledge, or at least I do not know of any investigation that is going on. I brought this issue up so the county board and taxpayers of the county are aware of the situation. I have communicated with Knox County (officials) and they will participate, going forward, with repairs and replacement of the new bridge, eventually.

“When I brought the issue up, it was a point of information to all the rest of the board. It happened quite a few years ago, but everybody needed to be aware of, going forward, so we know how it will be handled when the bridge is replaced.

“That’s why, when I brought it up, and again in the statement, I did not mention the contractor’s name because the contractor is not – there is no fault at all with the contractor involved.

“If there is an investigation going on, I am not aware of it,” he concluded. “I wanted to clear that up.”