The City of Peterson has spent the past three years building up its zoning ordinances, particularly when it comes to non-compliant properties and nuisance vehicles. In that time, the council has set fines which can be applied to property owners. With long-standing issues continuing and several properties either not communicating with the city or not bringing their properties into compliance, the city is once again looking to give a push to property owners by implementing fines.
Nineteen properties were originally identified as non-comforming by Mayor Tim Hallum and Councilor Dave Colbenson earlier this year. An additional five properties were later added for review at the request of Councilor Loren Rue last month. At that time, just five of the property owners had come to speak with either city staff or the council regarding the issues. At the August 12 council meeting, Hallum indicated more had come forward to communicate their plans to the city, but not all.
“We’ve heard nothing back on others,” said Hallum. “Moving forward, what do you want to do? We gave them two chances to come to us.”
“If the council doesn’t do anything, the individual property owners are going to do what they want,” responded Rue. “Right now, we have ordinances, but they don’t have any teeth or bite.” Rue further indicated he’d taken a look around town at the identified properties. He believes a majority of them would require no or very little cash outlay on behalf of the resident to be rectified. “I don’t think it would be an undue hardship if there was a fine to some of these individuals. If we don’t do something, the individual homeowners are the ones controlling our ordinances by failure to comply. It’s been 8-10 years that the council has attempted to work with property cleanup and little to nothing has been accomplished.”
Councilor Lisa Price noted the number of individuals who’ve communicated with the council and/or brought their properties into compliance. “Something has been accomplished,” she stressed. “It was a big list and it’s down to just seven.”
“We have cleaned up,” agreed Hallum. “it’s the ones that continue to go in a circle. We need to move forward on the ones who don’t do anything about it and keep repeating.”
Colbenson also agreed. “We don’t want to put people in a hardship, but we need to see what kind of progress is going to go on.”
“We didn’t want to cause hardship, but there’s a few that aren’t going to do anything anyway. They’re gonna force us. It’s been a year and they haven’t done anything,” said Hallum, who suggested property owners have until September 1 and the issue is reviewed again at the September council meeting.
This didn’t sit well with Rue who stated by that time, another month will have passed. “They have no penalty all summer? We’ve got the month of August here, which they’re in violation for. They know of the ordinances. They received letters and received them last year also.” Rue made a motion to send letters regarding violations and suggest they have 10 days to comply, at which time fines would be implemented. The motion was seconded by Councilor Gail Boyum, but ultimately both amended their motion, after further council discussion, to a compliance date of September 1.
“The letter never reminded them of fine and that we do have ‘teeth,’” noted Boyum. “It would have been so easy if they’d just come in to talk with us.”
The city is also working on a culvert policy. There’s nothing currently on the books regarding culvert ownership and responsibility. There are four identified culverts in town with only one needing work or replacement, according to Public Works Director Rick Lee.
“The city is responsible for how the water flows. If a culvert is plugged, too small, or no good, I’m thinking the city should be responsible for cleaning it up. We are the ones who’ve directed the water to flow where it’s flowing and it should be corrected,” said Rue.
Colbenson noted, however, that if concrete or asphalt was added over top of the culvert by the property owner, the city shouldn’t be responsible for repair/replacement of the hard surface.
“It’s not that you want a new culvert, it’s that you need one,” added Boyum, clarifying instances for replacement. Lee has recommended culverts be a minimum of 10 inches, but unless culverts are failing or creating undue issues with water flowage, the city will not replace them.
“I do think it is the city’s responsibility. If that means the ditch needs to get dug out, it gets done. We’ll supply gravel back over it as a base. Concrete or asphalt over it is homeowner responsibility. I would like to get to a point where we get this water flowage under control.” City Clerk Chris Grindland will draft a culvert policy for council review
In other news, the city has set the 2020 preliminary tax levy. Typically, councils set this amount higher, then work through the budget to potentially lower the number. It may be lowered, but it cannot be raised once set. The last levy was set at $92,499. The suggestion for preliminary levy for 2021 is $98,049, representing a 6% increase. The city is still anticipating roughly $41,900 in Local Government Aid from the state and all accounts are sitting in good position. However, with a number of streets needing to be done and the uncertainty of state funding due to COVID-19, the council approved the preliminary 6% as a cushion.
Concerns over usage of a property in a mixed use district have the council looking into zoning regulations. According to Boyum, noise violations, late hours of a store within a residential neighborhood have created some concern over mixed zoning allowances. “I’m asking to review zoning for mixed use and see if we shouldn’t make some adjustments,” she stated.
According to Grindland, the zoning does cover noise violations and hours of operation, but for a storage facility only, not a retail facility. The property owner will be contacted regarding the issues and a Planning Commission meeting called to further discuss the ordinance.
The next regularly scheduled council meeting is Wednesday, September 9, at 6 p.m., at city hall.
Leave a Reply