Gabe Stark
The Trenton Telegraph

The Trenton City Council approved several administrative actions and debated how to resolve conflicting city code language related to allowing or removing farm animals in Trenton during its February 9 meeting, ultimately directing staff to return with an ordinance that would clarify the existing rules while potentially tightening requirements.

City Administrator Scott Wrighton addressed an effort to consolidate years of council-adopted policies into a single “City Council policies” notebook so the policies are easier to locate and reference.

Wrighton explained that policies have been adopted over time through council actions and pronouncements but are often buried in past minutes or placed into the ordinance book, making them difficult to find after years pass. Staff have been reviewing older minutes to assemble policies into a working table of contents, with the goal of producing printed notebooks for council members.

Council approved additional policy sections that had not previously been adopted, including two finance-related items and a customer assistance policy related to lead water service line replacements. Wrighton said that the lead service line assistance policy was discussed previously alongside an ordinance clarifying that water laterals are the responsibility of property owners, and council had indicated it wanted the financial assistance portion handled as a separate policy.

The meeting’s longest discussion centered on farm animals within the city limits. Wrighton told council the topic returned as promised following a prior discussion in which a council member raised concerns about what appeared to be a conflict between two different sections of the city code.

One section outlines conditions under which certain farm animals may be kept, with requirements related to fencing, acreage, and buffer zones, this ordinance implies that within current zoning certain agriculture is allowed. However, another section, contained within a broader list of public health nuisances, states that keeping animals and fowl in areas not zoned for agricultural uses is considered a public nuisance.

Wrighton told council the language creates confusion because the city code about public health nuisances refers to areas “zoned for agricultural uses,” which could refer to any zones where agriculture is compatible or it could be interpreted to require zones specifically meant for agriculture.That leaves room for multiple interpretations, including the possibility that animals are allowed within reasonable areas when kept in compliance with the requirements described elsewhere in the code, or contrarily that animals are prohibited unless an agricultural district exists.

To resolve the discrepancy, Wrighton presented three options. Option one would revise the language to state that keeping animals in a manner not conforming to the farm animal requirements would be considered a public nuisance, which would allow for animals within Trenton as long as owners followed the needed requirements.

Option two would prohibit farm animals unless they are located within an agriculturally zoned district, which currently don’t exist in Trenton effectively prohibiting livestock within Trenton city limits.

Option three would add an agricultural district to the city’s zoning map where owners would be able to have outlined livestock.

Discussion followed including questions about how “grandfathering” would apply if the city changed its code to remove animals. Wrighton explained that grandfathering protects uses that were legal at the time they began, allowing them to continue even if the rules later change, but does not protect uses that were illegal from the start.

Council members also discussed practical impacts across the community, including whether tightened rules could account for animals kept in well-maintained fenced pasture areas near the edge of the city limits. Some council members raised concerns about health, safety and enforcement, while others emphasized maintaining compatibility between uses, especially in areas where agricultural activity already exists near the city’s perimeter.

Ultimately, council gave staff direction to Wrighton to proceed with option one as the basis for an future ordinance to resolve the conflict. Several members also indicated they wanted to explore additional restrictions, such as changes to setback requirements and other regulatory language, and suggested council members provide ideas to staff ahead of the next meeting.

In new business, council approved a resolution appointing Harry Belvel to serve as the city’s chief financial officer and comptroller and approved a separate resolution creating the position.

A roll call vote was recorded on the resolution. The measure passed, with one dissenting vote from councilman Marvin Humphreys.

Council voted to approve the transfer of portable restrooms to the Grundy County Fair Board. The restrooms were originally funded through a shared effort involving multiple groups, but the arrangement has changed over time. Under the approved transfer, the fair board will manage the units, while the city will continue storing them because the fair board does not have an indoor storage facility. Any rental income would go to the fair board.

Council also approved an intergovernmental agreement to share costs for the Hyper-Reach emergency notification system. Under the agreement, the city will receive a single bill, pay it, and then collect reimbursement from participating agencies. Officials noted Laredo had joined in the past year, reducing the cost.

During council comments, a member reported contacting a state senator regarding the local senior center’s funding issues. The member said the senior center has not yet received funds for November and December and is hoping to receive them by the end of February. The member also said the community has donated about $31,000 to help keep the senior center operating while funding delays continue.