The Summerland Advocate-Messenger - Reliable, Trustworthy Reporting, Capturing The Heartbeat Of Our Community

A rural Orchard couple have submitted a complaint to Antelope County about an “Engine Braking Prohibited” sign located near their property.

The board of commissioners discussed a letter Tuesday, Sept. 1, in Neligh from the Galyen Boettcher Baier PC law firm on behalf of Terry and Patricia Hemenway.

According to the letter, dated Aug. 21 and filed Aug. 25 with the county clerk’s office, “It has come to our attention that the Antelope County Road Superintendent is threatening the removal of an ‘Engine Braking Prohibited’ sign located on 513th Avenue, near the Hemenways’ real estate.”

The letter detailed that in the past, the Hemenways’ cattle have experienced multiple injuries after trucks traveling on 513 Avenue “employed their engine breaks and spooked the herd.”

“Approximately five years ago, Mr. Hemenway approached the county about the situation, and the sign in question was installed to help alleviate the issue,” according to the letter.

“However, after several recent instances of the sign being knocked down, the road superintendent has apparently suggested the sign will no longer be maintained.”

The letter further stated that under Nebraska law, “the county board has the general supervision and control of all public roads within the county.”

“Antelope County obviously found it necessary to erect and maintain this sign for the past five years,” according to the letter.

“Should there be an unauthorized removal of this sign, my clients are prepared to take whatever action necessary to protect their property.”

The letter, signed by attorney Ashley Boettcher, ended with, “Please govern yourselves accordingly.”

The Galyen Boettcher Baier law firm has offices in Norfolk and O’Neill.

The Hemenways, who live about a mile south of Orchard, turned down an interview request from the Summerland Advocate-Messenger.

County road superintendent Aaron Boggs brought up the Hemenways’ letter during the commissioners’ meeting.

“It’s not on the agenda, but we received that letter from Galyen Boettcher and Baier,” Boggs said. “Do we want to discuss anything on that?”

“Since that first went up, my question in my mind always was, can that even be put there?” commissioner Dean Smith asked about the sign in question.

Boggs talked with county highway superintendent Brian McDonald after being notified by commissioner Eli Jacob that the sign had been knocked down.

“I called Brian McDonald,” Boggs said. “He remembers the board – it would’ve been five, six years ago – that they’d adopted an ordinance, I guess you’d call it, to put the signs up. I have not looked to see what the minutes were or if it was a resolution.”

“We need to look that up before we respond to it,” board chair Charlie Henery said. “I personally don’t remember it.”

Boggs was not pleased by the Hemenways’ letter because it referred to him by his job title, even though his name was never mentioned in it.

“This letter kind of ticks me off because I never had a conversation with Terry or his wife about this,” he said.

Boggs noted the sign was reinstalled the morning of Aug. 13 and the Hemenways’ letter was dated Aug. 21.

“I did it (reinstalled it) the next morning without hesitation. I asked around to make sure it was legal. As far as our county engineer is concerned, it was. “To be quite honest with you, I had no problem maintaining the sign until we received this letter,” Boggs said.

“It’s more of a city ordinance than it is a county road ordinance,” Boggs said. “Now I’m not saying that the county board couldn’t approve of such a thing.”

Henery noted the county needs to look back through its meeting minutes – if it is possible – from about five years ago to see whether a resolution about the sign was discussed and approved by the board.

Boggs did not appreciate the tone of the Hemenways’ lawyer’s letter.

Boggs updated the commissioners about the “Engine Braking Prohibited” sign issue during their meeting Tuesday, Sept. 8, in Neligh.

“The minutes have been thoroughly gone through,” he said. “We can’t find anything in the minutes that discuss of it nor is there a resolution stating that the ordinance was made to have the signs there.

“There’s no resolution, there’s no validity to the signs,” he said. “Therefore, we probably better take them down.”

“Basically, if the signs stay there, they’re not enforceable,” Henery said.

“They never have been,” Boggs said.

Boggs noted he was not opposed to the signs – including the one in question – being located where they are.

“I was more opposed to the way that it was approached,” he said. “Now the fact that we’ve been approached about it and done research on it and that there is no validity to it – pretty much, they ratted on themselves one way or the other.”

Boggs spoke with former county road superintendent Casey Dittrich and neither of them could recall a time when the sign had been down for longer than a 24-hour period.

“The whole thing is the longevity of the sign,” Henery said. “Do you know when it was put up?”

“Supposedly it was five years ago,” Boggs said. “Do I know an exact date? No. Even if the sign was up for an amount of time, there’s no validity to it.”

Henery noted the county would have to have a study conducted at the site where the signs are located before their installation became legal.

“Brian’s already done the study,” Boggs said. “It was just never put into a resolution.”

“Brian’s done a study on whether the sign can be put there?” Smith asked.

“He’s got the ordinance and everything,” Boggs said. “It’s just never been run through the commissioners.”

County clerk Lisa Payne asked Boggs when McDonald conducted the sign study.

“Five years ago or whenever previous to it going up,” Boggs said.

Henery noted McDonald needed to provide copies of the study to the commissioners.

Payne was surprised there was no evidence the sign study had ever been discussed by the board previously.

“There was nothing in the minutes and there’s no resolution,” Boggs said.

“To do a study like that would cost a fair amount of money, wouldn’t it?” Smith asked.

“I don’t know if he had to do a study or if he just found the ordinance,” Boggs said.

“A stop sign study or something like that is a $1,500 deal,” Henery said.

“I guess if he’s got recollection and paper to back it up, let’s get the date off of that,” Smith said.

Boggs reiterated he was not opposed to keeping the signs, but he recommended the county reach out to the Nebraska Intergovernmental Risk Management Association.

“We really need to lean into NIRMA with this because if you put up a sign like that, are we accepting liability to cattle?” he asked. “And where does it go from here for every feedlot in Antelope County – or feeder?”

“Follow up on it and we’ll talk about it next time,” Henery said.