Council Kills Parking Ordinance

By Gordon HopkinsThe Fairbury City Council voted against an ordinance that would prohibit parking in front yards in the city limits, except on an improved surface at a meeting on Tuesday, October 7. It was the second of three votes. Changing or creating an ordinance normally requires three votes unless that requirement is waived by the council. That means there are two more meetings where the public will have the opportunity to express opinions on the proposed ordinance before it becomes final.The prior vote, which occurred on September 17, had only a single vote against it, that of city councilperson Bradley Kuzelka. Several minds were changed in the three weeks between the first and second vote. This time four members of the council voted against the measure and three for. The proposed amendment to § 72.20 of the Fairbury Municipal Code reads, “No motor vehicle shall be parked or stored in the front yard, or adjacent right-of-way, of any residential use lot except on an improved surface driveway or other improved surface.”The amendment also defines improved surface, “For purposes of this section, “improved surface” shall mean a hard surface area maintained with materials, including, but not limited to, concrete, pavement, asphalt, brick, or gravel, sufficient to prevent mud, dust, or loose debris.” The Public SpeaksWhile the proposed parking change has been a hot topic on social media, only two residents showed up at the city council meeting to voice their opinion. One was in favor and the other in opposition.Donna Bauer said, “And as far as backyards and cars, I don’t get damned if these people park in their backyard, but not when I got family coming to visit and it’s all over the front yard. Use your backyard.”Ramona Jones said, “If I wanted to pull up my front yard or my backyard, I don’t have pavement, you know, and I should be able to pull the vehicle on my property.”“You leave your vehicle parked out, parked out on the street, you got the chance of getting hit, getting damaged from vandalism being out on the street than parked on your own property. I mean, there’s a lot of reasons to that you’d want to park on your own property,” said Jones. “You know, you get more of a discount if you park your vehicle on your property for your insurance because of stuff like that.”While only two individuals spoke publicly, some city council members noted they had been approached privately by people. Reasons Some On The CouncilChange Their MindsKuzelka has been an opponent from the very beginning. He believes the current code regarding nuisances is sufficient to address the problem of junked vehicles in front yards, which the proposed ordinance was intended to solve.“I sent out a mass email this afternoon. I don’t know if you saw it or not but, basically, stating the problems that I think we want to take care of, we could already take care of without adding a new code. So, I understand about the parking on the lawns, and no one likes that,” said Kuzelka, “I don’t think we need to tell people what they can do and what they can’t do. We’ve got enough code already.”While he had previously voted for the ordinance, councilperson John Ebke explained why he changed his vote, “So, Brad and I don’t always agree on everything, but after he sent out the nuisance (email) earlier, I guess I feel like that a lot of what we can handle could be done by better clarification of what we already have, rather than adopting things and muddying the water.”Councilperson Jaime McDaniel concurred, “If there’s ways that we can explore the current code that we have, if there’s ways we can enforce what we currently have in place in those extreme cases, I think that’s something that I would like to explore first, rather than imposing something on everybody.”Fairbury Mayor Kelly Davis said he drove past some cars parked in a yard and suggested perhaps they were there because of the condition of the street.“If it was in any kind of condition to park in that ditch or along that ditch, it could be done. But there’s no way I’d put a car there,” said Davis. “Some of it is on us, you know. Maybe we need to start taking care of that a little better. But if that street was better shape, they could be parking there too, rather than in their yards.”Councilperson Charlie Endorf has been an ardent supporter of the proposed ordinance. He asked, “Where is it written that you can’t park a half block from your house?”The mayor answered, “It’s not.”“I know it’s an inconvenience,” said Endorf. “We got to do something. We can’t continue this mess.”Endorf said, “Well, with these cars parked in front yards and all the junk cars sitting around town, when in the heck are we going to clean this place up? We’re the City Council. Make some rules, some codes, something. I want this mess cleaned up.” City Defends Code EnforcementA major reason for voting against the parking ordinance given by city council members was enforcement. The city currently has two code enforcement officers, Dan Lufkin and Don Fritch.City Councilperson Tim Polson said, “I think we have enough codes for junked cars, don’t we?”“But they’re not enforced,” said Bauer. “They’re not being enforced at all. It’s like, yes, they’re on the record, but who the hell supposed to enforce them and go up to these places?”The mayor responded, “Dan’s doing his job to the best of his ability.”Bauer said, “You need to hire more help. That’s the problem. He can’t do it all by himself.”Mayor Davis said, “I understand that, ma’am, and that’s easier said than done, but, and I agree with you 100 percent and I would love to do that. I would love to have our police department back, but that’s another story too.”The first step in Addressing code violations is sending a letter to the violator. According to Lufkin, who was present at the meeting, the city has sent 545 letters so far in 2025.“Last year we did 600 for the total year, and we’re already at 545 (for this year).” Said Lufkin. “I mean, we’re just two guys in town of 3,000.”The mayor also addressed accusations, also common on social media, that code enforcement is targeting certain individuals.“I hear this on a weekly basis that that certain people are getting targeted,” said the mayor. “Nobody’s getting targeted”“He’s written almost 600 nuisance letters so far this year and so, he’s targeting no one. They’re getting spread out so.Lufkin added, “This includes friends, employees, they all get them, even council members.”

New Wymore Medical Clinic Groundbreaking

City of Fairbury Gives Non-Union Employees Six Percent Raise

Related Articles

High Winds Fuel Multiple Wild Fires in SE Nebraska

Sen. Ricketts Makes the Case for War

City Offices Closed During Move

A Broken Wire Over Railroad Tracks Leaves City in the Dark