FAIRMONT– With City Engineer Troy Nemmer’s upcoming departure, the Fairmont City Council on Monday needed to consider interim engineering services.

City Administrator Cathy Reynolds said that Nemmer’s position has been posted and recruitment is ongoing but that they have reached out to Bolton & Menk to inquire about providing interim services in the meantime.

“An optimistic timeline would put us in the January timeframe for replacement,” Reynolds said.

She said the city was seeking council approval for interim services with local engineering firm Bolton & Menk to help make sure issues don’t fall through the cracks and to also provide professional engineering services which are required on many projects.

Wes Brown, Senior Principal Engineer at Bolton & Menk, was present and provided some comments. He noted that with Nemmer’s departure there is a void that needs to be filled.

“Bolton & Menk has served as interim engineer and designated engineer in the past in Fairmont a few times over the years,” Brown said.

He said the proposed contract is for an hourly basis with a reduced rate at 20 hours a month.

Council Member Britney Kawecki asked why the city didn’t go out for a Request for Proposal (RFP). Reynolds said that with a professional consultant there’s no requirement to go out for RFPs. She also said that based on the timeline and need for services, going out for RFPs would take too long.

“We have a working relationship with Bolton & Menk… They are familiar with a lot of these items and are a local firm…,” Reynolds said.

The council unanimously approved a contract with Bolton & Menk for engineering services.

During staff reports, Nemmers shared that Monday was his last council meeting and that his last day at city hall would be Friday. He thanked his co-workers for their commitment to making the city better.

“Everyday they work to improve our way of life. Thanks to all the board and commission members as well as all of the city council members I’ve worked with as they work to keep the city moving forward,” Nemmers said.

He said looking back over the last 14 years, a lot of great things have been accomplished. While he’s working to wrap up current projects, Nemmers said he knows there are still great things to come.

“The city is fortunate to have an excellent staff in all departments. I’m confident that the current staff is committed to doing what’s best for our community in the future,” Nemmers said.

Mayor Deb Foster told Nemmers that he’s been important to both the community and the city council.

“When we were in a world of hurt back in 2019 and we had no city administrator… you came forward and you put yourself at risk… you did it. We will be forever grateful for what you did. You put us first,” said Foster.

She congratulated Nemmers and wished him well on his next endeavor, as did several other council members.

In other news, a brief council discussion was had regarding individual council member use of staff time.

Council Member Bruce Peters said that individual council members, without the majority of the council’s support, has been taking things to city staff and utilizing staff time without direction of the whole council.

“Our council policy states that we cannot do that. When I mentioned it to our city administrator, she didn’t necessarily feel that she had the backing of the city council to not address the individual councilor’s requests and needs,” Peters said.

He said he was seeking that direction and wanted to give the administrator the backing of the council.

Kawecki spoke up and said she knew the policy was directed at her and that she intends to continue to ask questions.

“If I don’t get a response or no response or if I get told I will not get an answer or anything like that, then that’s fine. I’m just going to continue to ask,” Kawecki said.

Peters shared that the request in question was a request on how many fines the city has paid in the last three years.

“It took a day, apparently, of financial staff people digging through all the IRS forms… to find out that the liquor store (was) delinquent on one tax payment so they had to pay a penalty of $500. The basis of wanting to know is just bizarre. We see these reports every month… to go back for three years to dig through all that is why it was articulated,” Peters said.