Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Blair council postpones eminent-domain decision after hours of residents’ objections to proposed water tower site
Summary
After an hours-long public hearing in which numerous nearby landowners warned a proposed Site A water tower would harm views and property values, Blair City Council voted to postpone a resolution that would authorize acquisition (including eminent domain). Staff said the engineer recommended Site A but the council signaled it will seek more outreach and alternative designs.
Mayor Mindy Rump presided over a packed hearing Dec. 9 after city staff presented an engineer-recommended location ("Site A") for a regional water tower intended to tie into Rural Water District No. 2 and Fort Calhoun.
Phil Green, the city's state-administration liaison, and a staff engineer summarized site-selection criteria (elevation, cost, hydraulic compatibility with the existing tower) and advised the council that Site A ranked highest on overall constructability and function. Staff said they had spoken to some landowners but had not found a willing seller and that the resolution on the agenda would authorize the city to pursue acquisition by negotiation or, if necessary, eminent domain.
Residents from multiple County Road P33 and P35 properties spoke in strong opposition. Mike Hazer, whose home lies below the proposed site, said placing a tower at Site A would "completely shoot" the views that drew him to the property and predicted a sharp drop in market value. Several others, including Debbie Frederick and Phil White, described never having been contacted directly before seeing the map and raised concerns about lighted towers, tree removal, and the visual impact on acreage they bought for rural views.
Speakers repeatedly asked why alternatives such as booster pumps or below-ground storage had not been more fully studied; commenters cited examples (Grand Island using booster pumps) and urged the city to obtain multiple independent engineering studies. Some participants also challenged the fairness of the process, noting most affected properties are outside city limits and those residents cannot vote on council members.
Council members expressed sympathy for neighbors' concerns and asked staff to redouble outreach and to explore lower-visibility designs and additional technical alternatives. After discussion, a motion to postpone consideration of Resolution 2025-145 (authorizing acquisition by negotiation or eminent domain for the water-tower project) carried, with the clerk recording that all members present voted to postpone. Staff said postponement would allow time to revisit alternatives and continue good-faith negotiations with landowners.
The council did not adopt an acquisition resolution; staff said the issue will return to a future meeting with more analysis and outreach.
