TIMELINE OF PETER RABBIT
HORSE ISSUE
Information within parenthesis is
Taken directly from published meeting minutes
8/31/06 Jack received a letter from Lawayne Feit, Hickman City Attorney, stating that “As the approval for the final plat of Scott’s Creek Subdivision was approved in 2005, it would be appropriate to request the annexation of that area to the city of Hickman”. He enclosed a form for making that request.
10/20/06 Jack received a letter from Lawayne Feit of clarification of involuntary and voluntary annexation per our questions.
10/24/06 Jack signed the form from Lawayne Feit’s office requesting annexation.
11/14/06 Resolution 2006-18 – Annexation of Scott’s Creek
12/12/06 Ordinance 2006-16 – Annexation of Scott’s Creek
6/26/07 Agenda - Horse is not mentioned on agenda. However, the minutes for that meeting under City Administrator’s Report are: “The City Administrator discussed with the Mayor and City Council various code violations and nuisance complaints. A copy of the certified letter that was sent to Mr. Jack Scott and Mrs. Cheryl Scott in regards to a continued code violation of Municipal Code#6-20, illegal horse on their property owned north of 68th Street and Hickman Road that was annexed into the City last year. Previously the City attorney conveyed to Mr. Jack Scott that this tenant’s horse located at that property within the city limit was not grandfathered. Official notice was sent to Mr. Jack Scott and Mrs. Cheryl Scott to remove the tenant horse from the city limit on or before Thursday, July 26th at 1:00 pm, or the city would have to pursue additional citation remedies “.
8/14/07 Agenda – New Business Item E. – Request for Exception to City Municipal Code #6-302 for Jack & Cheryl Scott Minutes of meeting state: “The Mayor opened discussion for a requested exception to Municipal Code #6-302, allowing a horse to stay within the Municipality. Mayor stated there were few options for allowing the horse to stay. The code could be repealed allowing livestock in the Municipality. City Attorney Lawayne Feit noted that the Municipal Code 6-302 was not a zoning issue. Municipal codes apply to all districts within the municipality. The use of the land has nothing to do with the section of code that prohibited animals from the Municipality. Mr. Feit noted that the code prohibited livestock within the Municipality regardless of the zoning. Mr. Feit discussed provisions to the code to allow an exception to be granted and he noted that the code did not allow for an exception. The code only prohibited certain animals from the Municipality. Mr. Feit noted that his item was not a public hearing. Mr. Feit stated that if the Scotts wanted they should be allowed to address the Council.”
“Mr. Harley T. Scott of 18801 S 68th Street, Hickman, was present to address the Council concerning his horse currently in the Municipality. Mr. H.T. Scott noted that his family had owned the farm from 1935, even though his family chose not to live on the farm. Mr. H.T. Scott noted the heritage was important to the community. Mr. H.T. Scott asked those in favor of Peter Rabbit (the Horse) to stand and be recognized. Mr. H.T. Scott stated that he would like the Council to think about Grandfathering and leave Peter Rabbit be.”
“Mr. Jack Scott of 207 Main Street addressed the Council. Mr. J. Scott asked for an exception to the Ordinance prohibiting the horse. He stated that he had his property voluntarily annexed to help the City. Mr. J. Scott stated that he felt that the Council was targeting his family. Council Member Hanson asked if there was any way to administratively make an exception. Mr. Feit stated that there was no authority in the Code to make an exception. He also stated that the use of the property did not matter. Council Member Hoesing asked Mr. J. Scott about his seeming avoidance to pick up certified letters. He said that they were out of town during that time. Council Member Hoesing stated that she was on the Horse’s side. Mr. J. Scott stated that if the use of property changed to commercial that the horse would have to go. Council Member Cejka asked if the Scott’s had a financial incentive, then they would get rid of the horse? Mr. J. Scott said that they would have no choice if a McDonald’s went in next to them but to get rid of the horse. Council Member Hoesing stated that if it is about financial gain then all sentimental value of the horse if thrown out the window. Council Member Cejka stated that he, like the statement of Council Member Hoesing took an oath of office to uphold the ordinances of the City.”
“Motion by Council Member Hoesing that an animal born on the property and 20 years of age be willing to stay on the property after it is annexed. Motion died due to lack of a second. Mr. Feit stated that a better course of action may be to study what other towns have done in similar instances. Motion by Council Member Hoesing, and seconded by Council Member Hanson, to table any action on the horse within the Municipality, and to direct the City Attorney and City Administrator to review past annexation of rural communities, to see how they handled the issue. The following Council Member voted “YEA”. Cejka, Dykmann, Hanson, Hoesing, and Noren. The following Council Members voted “NAY”. Harms. Motion passed 5-1.”
8/28/07 Agenda Unfinished Business – A. Request for Exception to City Municipal Code #6-302 for Jack and Cheryl Scott Minutes state that “Mayor Hrouda opened discussion for a request for exception to City Municipal Code#6-302 for Jack and Cheryl Scott. Mayor Hrouda noted that the City Attorney Lawayne Feit sent a letter discussing with the council options on the Municipal Code Violation. Mayor noted that Mr. Feit gave the Council three options. The first options was to enforce the code and start issuing citation for the violation, option 2 was to repeal the ordinance and allow any and all animals in the city limits and the third option was to amend the ordinance allowing animals with some regulations.”
“Motion by Council Member Hoesing, to collect more data on Petting Zoos, Riding Stables, Riding Programs within Municipalities in Nebraska and other states as data becomes available. Motion died due to lack of a second. Motion by Council Member Hanson, and seconded by council Member Cejka, to reject the Scott’s request for exception to Municipal Code #6-302, and to direct City Staff to draft an Ordinance with the City Attorney, to amend Municipal Code #6-302 allowing a large animal permit process, Ordinance will be presented within 60 days. The following Council Members voted “YEA”. Cejka, Dykmann, Hanson, Hoesing, and Noren. The following Council Member voted “NAY”. Harms. Motion passed 5-1.”
10/23/07 Agenda New Business – C. Consideration of Ordinance #2007-20 – Allowance of Horses in City Limits Minutes state that: “Ordinance #2007-20 to amend Municipal Code #6-202 Animals Banned from Municipality was introduced and read by title by the Deputy City Clerk. Discussion began on the Ordinance 2007-20. Mr. Kevin DeValkenaere of 321 E. 2nd Street was present and discussed his concerns with enforcement of the proposed ordinance. Mr. DeValkenaere stated that he did not think amending the Ordinance to allow horse within the Municipality was a good idea. He noted that several of the items, including the acres required, manure removal, and neighboring property signed release that appeared to be an enforcement problem. Mr. DeValkenaere thought neighboring property owners within a specific distance should have a say on weather or not the horse would be allowed. Mr. Harley T. Scott of 18801 S 68th Street was also present to discuss his concerns with the proposed ordinance. He stated that he did not want the ordinance changed; he wanted an exemption from the ordinance. Mr. H.T. Scott also noted that he did not think several of the items in the ordinance were needed. He did not think a horse that had not seen a vet in 29 years should have to see a vet now. Mr. H.T. Scott also noted that the permit fee was too high for a horse that was worth less than $100.00. The Council discussed the proposed ordinance. Motion by Council Member Hanson and seconded by Council Member Hoesing to pass Ordinance #2007-20 on first reading with the following changes: section 1. Change 2.5 acres to 1.5 acres of fenced area, section 2 correcting typographical errors, section 3. Change once a week to reasonably timely manner, section 4. Add annually to presentation of health certificate, section 5. Change neighboring properties to properties with 200 feet of fenced area, section 6. Adding at all times to fence in good repair, section 7. Change $500 to $100 and add annual fee of $25 due December 31, of each year, and removal of section 8. The following Council Members voted “YEA”. Cejka, Hanson, and Hoesing. The following Council Members voted “NAY”. Harms. Motion passed 3-1.”
11/13/07 Agenda Unfinished Business – B. Second Reading – Ordinance #2007-20- Allowance of Horses in City Limits Minutes state that: “Ordinance #2007-20 to amend Municipal Code #6-202 Animals Banned from Municipality was presented. Motion by Council Member Cejka and seconded by Council Member Hoesing to pass Ordinance #2002-20 on 2nd reading. The following Council Members voted “YEA”. Cejka, Hoesing and Noren. The following Council Members voted “NAY”. Dykmann and Harms. Motion passed 3-2.”
11/27/07 Agenda Unfinished Business – A. Third and Final Reading – Ordinance #2007-20- Allowance of Horses in City Limits Minutes state that: “Motion by Council Member Dykmann and seconded by Council Member Noren to table third reading of Ordinance #2007-20 Animals Banned from the Municipality until May 1, 2008. The following Council Members voted “YEA”. Dykmann, Harms, Hoesing and Noren. The following Council Members voted “NAY”. Cejka and Hanson. Motion passed 4-2.
5/13/08 Agenda Unfinished Business – B. Consideration of Ordinance #2008-6 – Allowance of Horses in City Limits Minutes state that: “Ordinance 2008-6 was tabled until June 13, 2008.” (No vote). Under City Attorney’s Report: “City Attorney stated that he would look at the information on the horse ordinance and research historical information. Motion by Council Member Noren and seconded by Council Member Harms to approve City Attorney’s Report. The following Council Members voted “YEA”. Harms, Hanson, Noren and Cejka. The following Council Members voted “NAY”. None. Motion passed 4-0.”
6/10/08 Agenda Unfinished Business – D. Consideration of Ordinance #2008-6 – Allowance of Horses in City Limits Minutes state that: “Discussion began on Ordinance 2008-6 Amending City Code to allow Horses in the City Limits. City Attorney presented his findings on the issue and noted that some communities allowed a “grace period” for annexed lands to comply with City Codes. Motion by Council Member Dykmann and seconded by Council Harms to NOT approve Ordinance 2008-6 and retain current code. The following Council Members voted “YEA”. Noren, Dykmann, Harms and Mayor Hrouda. The following Council Members voted “NAY”. Cejka, Hoesing and Hanson. Motion passed 4-3. City Attorney was asked to continue researching “grace periods” for annexed properties.”
6/24/08 Agenda Unfinished Business – B. Consideration of Ordinance Modifications for Grace Period for Horses in City Limits The minutes state that: “Discussion on Ordinance to amend Municipal Code to add a grace period for Horses in the City Limits was tabled until City Attorney was present.”
7/8/08 Agenda Unfinished Business – B. Consideration of Ordinance #2008-7 – Allowance of Horses in City Limits Minutes state that: “City Administrator introduced Ordinance #2008-7 Allowance of Horses within the City Limits. Motion by Council Member Hanson and seconded by Council Member Cejka to approve Ordinance #2008-7 on first reading. The following Council Members voted “YEA”. Hoesing and Cejka. The following Council Members voted “NAY”. Dykmann, Harms, Hanson, and Noren. Motion failed 2-4.
7/22/08 Agenda City Administrator’s Report – C. Report on Horses within the City Limits Minutes state that: “City Administrator updated Mayor and city Council on various Code and Nuisance Violations. He also noted that there was still an unauthorized horse within the City Limits.” Under Governing Body Comments and Correspondence Minutes state that: “Council Member Dykmann noted that the City currently had a regulation against horses in the municipality and noted that it needed to be addressed.”
8/12/08 Agenda City Attorney’s Report – A. Municipal Code Violations – Animals banned from Municipality – Section 6-202 Minutes stated that: “Open Forum – Ms. Cheryl Scott 207 Main Street was present and opened by quoting Mayor Jim Hrouda from an Omaha World Herald article on 8.29.07 citing that nothing has changed in regards to the horse. Cheryl presented concern for other horse barns outside of City limits. Cheryl stated there were many concerns from citizens, counting 63 from a Lincoln Journal Star blog and several to the City. She also stated appreciation for the letter from the veterinarian offering to take the horse, but declined as she thought it was not in the best interest of the horse.
Mr. Harley Scott 18801 S 68th presented his family history in Hickman. He stated the term we want to hear here is grandfathering, concerning his horse. He personally received many letter and phone calls in support of not moving his horse. Harley concluded with a story about “Old Jim the Faithful Horse” with the moral of the story being “That when people crush us down and cover us with dirt, let us stamp it underneath our feet and never let it hurt”.
Ms. Patricia Hill 305 Maple reminded those present of the oath of their office and the United States democratic process in which majority rules. If only three to five percent of the town would be opposed then Peter Rabbit should not be evicted. Under City Attorney’s Report The City Attorney was not present. City Administrator noted e-mail correspondence discussing 30 day limitation on code violation for animals banned from the municipality. Under Governing Body Comments and Correspondence Council members made comments on animals banned from the municipality.”
8/26/08 Agenda New Business – A. Consideration of Ordinance #2008-13 – Permitting & Application Process for Horses (Scotts were out of town for this meeting) Minutes stated that: “Due to media coverage at this meeting, Mayor Hrouda addressed all in attendance to give a show of hands as to how many were here for or against the horse. Of the 30 persons in attendance, 5 attendees were in favor of the horse staying in the city limits and 4 were opposed. To point out that the community of Hickman is not focused on this one particular item, the city Administrator noted that of 1300 emails received, less than 10 were from citizens of Hickman; of 160 phone calls, only 4 were from citizens of Hickman ; and of 52 hand written letters received, only 4 were from citizens of Hickman, noting that two letters were from the same citizen. Mayor Hrouda then reviewed the history of the situation and requested possible solutions from those in attendance. Council Members then discussed possible options for the horse owner, enforcement of the current ordinance, and if a newly revised ordinance would be honored by the owners. Council Member Hanson suggested the pursuit of a Resolution allowing the horse to stay provided that the Scott’s would donate 2 acres for a future City Park. Mayor Hrouda allowed comment from those other than council members requesting the horse topic be limited to three minutes per person, three persons per side. Mr. Tony Castillo 321 E 1st, Hickman was the first to speak in favor of the horse ordinance. He requested the horse be grandfathered into the city limits. Mr. Robert Priel, Non City resident, 20895 S 68th Street, Hickman stated he was not speaking for anyone but wanted to note that the city is going through growing pains and that making solutions is the council’s job no matter how painful it is. Mr. Marvin Moser, 111 E 7th, Hickman spoke in opposition of the proposed horse ordinance and stated his perspective of the lack of care and clean up of Peter Rabbit. Mr. Kevin DeValkenaere, 433 Chestnut, Hickman spoke in opposition and also sent a letter to the Mayor and City Council members requesting them to enforce the current ordinance. Deputy Clerk was asked by Mayor to introduce and read by title Ordinance #2008-13- Permitting and Application Process for Horses. Motion by Council Member Cejka and seconded by Council Member Hanson to waive the three reading rule. The following Council Members voted “YEA”. Hanson, Noren, Cejka, Dykmann, Hoesing and Harms. The following Council Members voted “NAY”. None. Motion passed 6-0. Motion by Council Member Cejka and seconded by Council Member Hoesing to pass Ordinance #2008-13 – Permitting and Application Process for Horses on first and final reading. The following Council Members voted “YEA”. Cejka and Hoesing. The following Council Members voted “NAY”. Hanson, Noren, Dykmann, and Harms. Motion failed 4-2. Under City Administrator’s Report City Administrator reported that contact was made with Jack Scott that the horse ordinance would be on the August 26, 2008 Agenda by a Council Member who introduced the proposed ordinance on the agenda. The Agenda was posted as required the week previous to the meeting and that copies of the August 26, 2008 Agenda were mailed to the Scott Family. City Employees have done a good job documenting all phone calls received in regards to the horse issue, but due to threatening phone calls the City has installed caller identification on its phone system.”
10/14/08 Agenda City Attorney’s Report – B. Municipal Code 6-202 – Continuing Violation – Executive/Closed Session Minutes state that: “Executive Session Motion by Council Member Harms and seconded by Council Member Hoesing to go into executive session to discuss City legal matters of current, pending or anticipated litigation at 8:55 pm. The following Council Members voted “YEA”. Noren, Cejka, Dykmann, Hoesing, Harms, Hanson. The following Council Members voted “NAY”. None. Motion passed 6-0. No Action taken during Executive Session. Under Regular Session Motion by Council Member Dykmann and seconded by Council Member Harms to allow City Attorney to enter into discussions with Harley Scott & Jack Scott on the continuing violation of Municipal Code 6-202 – Animals Banned from Municipality and to submit a written report to the Governing Body by the November 11, 2008 Council Meeting. The following Council Members voted “YEA”. Noren, Cejka, Dykmann, Hoesing, Harms, and Hanson. The following Council Members voted “NAY”. None. Motion passed 6-0.”
11/11/08 Agenda City Attorney’s Report – A. Continuing Violation on Municipal Code 6-202 – Meeting Report and Recommendation Minutes state that “The City Attorney stated that the matter of pending litigation of the continuing violation of Municipal Code 6-202 should be discussed in closed session. Under Executive Session Motion by Member Cejka and seconded by Council Member Noren to go into executive session to discuss City legal matters of current, pending or anticipated litigation concerning violation of Municipal Code 6-202 at 9:09 pm. The following Council Members voted “YEA”. Hoesing, Harms, Noren, Cejka and Dykmann. The following Council Member voted “NAY”. None. Motion passed 5-0. No action taken during Executive Session. Under Regular Session Motion by Council Member Dykmann and seconded by Council member Harms to reconvene into regular session at 9:19 pm. The following Council Member voted “YEA”. Hoesing, Harms, Noren, Cejka and Dykmann. The following Council Member voted “NAY”. None. Motion passed 5-0. Motion by Council Member Harms and seconded by Council Member Dykmann to allow City Attorney to continue discussions on pending litigation with the Scott’s until December 9th Council Meeting. The following Council Members voted “YEA”. Hoesing, Harms, Noren, Cejka and Dykmann. The following Council Members voted “NAY”. None. Motion passed 5-0.”
12/9/08 Agenda City Attorney’s Report – A. Continuing Horse Violation on Municipal Code 6-202 – Nov. Report & Council Direction Minutes state: “The City Attorney stated that the mater of pending litigation of the continuing horse/animal violation of Municipal Code 6-202 and property dispute items involving City-owned facility structure should be discussed in executive session. Motion by Council Member Harms and seconded by Council Member Dykmann to discuss pending litigation and property dispute items in an executive session. The following Council Members voted “YEA”. Hanson, Noren, Cejka, Dykmann, Goering and Harms. The following Council Members voted “NAY”. None. Motion passed 6-0. Executive Session Motion by Council Member Harms and seconded by Council Member Goering to go into executive session for 25 minutes to discuss City legal matters of current, pending or anticipated litigation concerning violation of Municipal Code 6-202 at 8:53 pm. The following Council Members voted “YEA”. Hanson, Noren, Cejka, Dykmann, Goering and Harms. The following voted “NAY”. None. Motion passed 6-0. No action taken during executive session. Regular Session Motion by Council Member Harms and seconded by Council Member Dykmann to allow City Attorney to proceed with enforcement of Municipal Animal Code 6-202. The following Council Members voted “YEA”. Hanson, Noren, Cejka, Dykmann, Goering and Harms. The following Council Members voted “NAY”. None. Motion passed 6-0.
Posts
