At the April 16 meeting, the Rushford Village Council the council heard from Zoning Administrator Jon Pettit about a change in the push to modify the animal control ordinance. After a complaint of dogs running at large, including one deemed potentially dangerous by the state, the council had urged adding running at large to the ordinance to give substance to enforcement options and expedite the process. However, the zoning board will now rewrite the whole ordinance.
“We will be rewriting the ordinance on animal control. We’re not going to do it real fast and right now,” said Pettit. “We’ll get the entire ordinance rewritten. The problem that existed with the dogs has been alleviated.” The dogs’ owner is no longer at the property and the dogs were removed, according to City Clerk Mary Miner.
The ordinance discussion, while later on the agenda, came up because residents Kevin and Amy Feller were present to discuss a recent round of coop inspections during the time for public comment. The inspections by Animal Control Officer Robert Brand were at the request of Pettit, who received a complaint from a resident regarding a rat problem in a section of south Rushford.
“The person complaining thought it was coming from chickens, so we asked him to look into the chicken coops to see if it was or not,” responded Pettit. “It wasn’t. The coops had nothing to do with it. I believe it’s going to be handled by an exterminator that has been contracted to try and kill and control rats at that residence.”
The Fellers asked whether or not the source of the infestation, which they say Brand indicated was likely their neighbor’s yard in what they call a “tent city,” will be addressed. “If you look at the ordinances, it shouldn’t have been allowed to happen,” said Amy Feller. “There’s been no permits issued for that, I promise you. That’s another entrance point of this infestation.”
“At this point, that’s not something we’re looking at,” countered Pettit. “As the Planning & Zoning Administrator, I’m not going to look into that.”As a council, they don’t answer, they take it under advisement. I think I will do the same. This complaint, I think you should bring it forward.”
The Fellers indicated they’d brought the issue up to multiple people, but no formal, written complaint has been made to date. The council and city attorney suggested they submit the formal request to the city clerk for documentation.
Other zoning issues addressed at the meeting included renewal of the Interim Use Permit for Featherstone Farms/Jack Heddin and setting a public hearing for 6:45 pm on May 21 to consider a variance at a residence on Village Road.
The council also conducted its annual rock bid opening during the meeting but ultimately tabled the decision on which of the two bidders it would choose after a lengthy discussion. Bruening Rock Products is the longtime provider for the village and Milestone Materials is a first-time bidder. The council expressed confusion about the terms and pricing in both bids for the 3,000 cubic yards of rock. While Bruening was higher in some classes of rock, Milestone was higher in others and the Bruening bid wasn’t listed in tons as requested. It also wasn’t initially clear if both bids included the rock delivery and spreading on village roads or just delivery and whether or not Milestone could fill emergency winter/ice rock needs during the winter or just before October 31.
“I don’t think we have enough information,” said Mayor Dennis Overland.
After determining the conversion rate for cubic yards to tons, Link figured the Milestone bid was roughly $2,720 cheaper overall. Councilor Rick Ruberg suggested that perhaps both bidders split the village needs as a way to keep all bidders honest in pricing and support a company with a first-time bid, but Overland cautioned it was unclear if the companies would be willing to offer the same prices on a lesser amount of product.
Councilor Bob Hart made a motion to approve granting the contract to Bruening, but the motion died for lack of a second. Link later made a motion to grant the bid to Milestone based on the lower cost, but he ended up rescinding his motion and motioning to table the issue after more questions about pricing arose. The council approved tabling the bid discussion unanimously.
Lastly, Community and Economic Development Associates Community and Business Development Specialist Rebecca Charles presented an update. Speaking of the recent virtual meeting between the village council, Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), and US Department of Transportation Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Program officials, and others regarding a grant for trail extension in the village, Charles noted some communication misunderstanding on the part of MnDOT.
“MnDOT kind of dropped the ball when they explained our project, especially the difference between Rushford and Rushford Village,” she said. Charles also noted concerns from the city of Rushford about the department looking at making changes within Rushford’s city limits because of the confusion about the two similarly named cities. “I apologize for the beginning of the meeting. I was just as disappointed.”
“We’re also really only looking at that south connection. By the time we got to the northern portions, it was millions. The budget and engineering were really different,” she added.
A rough draft of options is expected at the September meeting including details on obtaining landowner permission and full costs. The final version is expected in October. The next regularly scheduled council meeting is Tuesday, May 7, at 6 p.m. at the village hall. The annual road tour will kick off the meeting at 5:30 p.m. The public is welcome to attend the tour and encouraged to attend the regular meeting.
Leave a Reply