The City of Peterson approved a vehicle ordinance in November 2018 after debating the issue for months. It went into effect January 1 after repeated notice to city residents. The goal of the ordinance was to reduce nuisance vehicles within city limits, specifically including those that are not operating and registered. The ordinance was reviewed by legal counsel to be concise and clear. Vehicles was described as “trailers, boats, tractors, all-terrain vehicles, golf carts, and campers, but does not include snowmobiles, lawnmowers, or scooters.” In addition, they must be registered to the property resident only.
The city further clarified the ordinance to allow no more than six vehicles stored outside on a property. Prohibition of parking in certain areas was narrowed to include 11 specific bullet points, which include on grass and sidewalks. Each non-compliant vehicle may receive a $50 first citation, followed by a 30-day grace period. If no action is taken by the property owner and the vehicle remains, the second per vehicle citation is $75 and every subsequent citation increases $25 from the previous citation fine with just 15 days grace period for all.
Residents Jeremy and Gage Volkman, 253 River Street, were present at last month’s meeting with complaints over the number of citations received. Jeremy Volkman accused the citations as “bordering on harassment” and of the council singling his property out. He requested the city remove the fines. The council opted to create a committee, including Councilors Gail Boyum and Dave Colbenson, to review the citations and determine a recommended course forward.
At the October 9 council meeting, the two discussed the options and recommended the council take partial fine forgiveness under consideration. “What we came up with is that we need to enforce ordinances, but be flexible,” said Colbenson. The recommendation included 50% fine forgiveness if properties can be brought into compliance and maintain 100% compliance for one year. The remainder of the fines would need to be paid. Property owners with fines would need to sign a document agreeing to the conditions. Should they fail to achieve and maintain compliance for a year, the full amount of the fines would be reinstated.
“We have to do it for all, not one,” added Colbenson. “The motivation is to let people know we’re willing to be somewhat flexible.”
Volkman was again present and countered that fine forgiveness didn’t address the issue of what he believed was illegitimate fines. “You’re working on forgiveness, but it’s not comparing apples to apples. We still haven’t gotten anywhere. I still have the same questions.”
The council approved the recommendation and property owners have until November 6 to bring their properties into compliance. Boyum and Colbenson will review properties to assert whether or not they are and then the partial fine forgiveness will be applied. The balance of the fines will need to be paid by the property owner. If unpaid, the amount will be certified to the county for addition to tax rolls.
A Minnesota Basic Code update was also discussed. Currently being reviewed by Planning and Zoning member Karlin Symons, the code is specifically written for small cities.
“The goal is to make it clear and easily enforceable,” said City Clerk Chris Grindland. “We pulled a bunch of old ordinances and see if they need updating. The plan is to get through it by next Wednesday and then call committee together for review within the next few weeks.”
Boyum suggested that when discussing compliance issues, the council review the issues as a whole, with the clerk. “That way, someone wouldn’t be accused of being a bad person. Then it’s us reviewing our ordinances and working together,” said Boyum.
“I think it would be a good idea from the standpoint that not any one person would be, or could be, singled out or instigating or picking on residents as it pertains to their property,” added Councilor Loren Rue. It was noted that there may be variables in what is perceived as non-compliance, but with the council reaching a consensus together, after twice yearly review, a collective agreement would be reached.
In order to do the reviews, the council would need to convene a special meeting. There is a possibility it may happen this fall, but more likely a council walkabout will be done next spring, prior the the citywide cleanup.
In other news, the city is considering a 3% budget increase, or $89,881, for 2020. The preliminary levy amount was set at 6%, or $92,499. The final amount needs to be certified to the county in December.
With the Street Improvement Fund being zeroed out after payment of recent street work, the council did discuss the option of putting additional budget funds into future street improvement or other lacking funds. Calculated in are 4% waste management increases and cost of living increases for city employees.
During a Public Works update, it was noted that the new water pump has been installed at a cost of $24,262. An additional $3,742 needs to be paid to upgrade electric to maintain compliance and to complete pump warranty requirements. The city will cash in one CD in the amount of $56,378 to pay for the pump and reinvest $30,000 of in a new CD.
The cost of fire coverage by the Rushford Fire Department is $1,636 for 2020 and 2021, up from $1,400 in the last contract. The increase was approved unanimously.
The meeting was closed for employee review before adjourning. The next regularly scheduled council meeting is Wednesday, November 13, at 6 p.m., at city hall. The public is encouraged to attend.
Leave a Reply