Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Residents urge St. Louis County to withdraw or narrow proposed Ordinance 62, citing vague language and fees
Loading...
Summary
At a public-comment session on Ordinance 62, multiple St. Louis County residents told the board the draft language is unclear, risks reclassifying private property as commercial salvage, and would impose burdensome fees and enforcement costs, particularly on rural and retired residents.
Several dozen residents told the St. Louis County Board during the public-comment period that proposed amendments in Ordinance 62 threaten private-property rights, are written with ambiguous terms and could saddle rural residents with new fees.
Danielle Filipovic, a resident who spoke early in the hour, said the proposal was “wrong on so many levels,” arguing the county would be overreaching by taxing or regulating items stored on private property and by imposing fees that would hurt working-class and farming families. “Once you’re taxed again for something that is already yours…Enough is enough,” she said.
Multiple speakers pressed the board for clarity about definitions in the amended vocabulary. A public commenter who read a prepared analysis said the proposed changes replace familiar phrases with terms such as “non-riparian shoreland property” and warned that those terms—and the ordinance’s references to shoreland and riparian property—would expand the ordinance’s reach. That commenter cited Minnesota statutes and DNR shoreland definitions and urged the county to revert to clearer wording or to replace “shoreland” with “land along a large body of water such as a lake or river.”
Others focused on fees and enforcement. Several speakers asked whether the $720 (variously referenced in notices and at the microphone) or a $7,750 figure in mailed notices was an annual, one-time or per-parcel charge and pressed who would pay for enforcement. “If they’re going to enforce this, who’s going to do that and who’s going to pay them?” a resident asked.
Speakers with farming, logging and restoration backgrounds said salvage parts and older vehicles are essential to livelihoods and hobbies; several urged an agricultural exemption. Mark Howard, who described himself as a farmer, said many operations rely on salvaged parts and that an exemption should be built into any ordinance.
A public commenter who identified himself as a St. Louis County property owner warned the amendments could be legally vulnerable. He said courts require that fees be tied to measurable impacts and argued a broadly applied reclassification of properties as commercial salvage yards could be viewed as arbitrary or a taking.
Several commenters also questioned a provision that appears to let the planning commission change certain standards. Dan Ranke said the language is ambiguous and cautioned that letting the planning commission “change the law as they see fit” effectively transfers control away from elected officials.
The board did not take any vote during the public-comment period; the chair closed the sign-up portion and reminded residents that Ordinance 62 would be on the formal agenda later in the meeting, when they could speak again. No formal actions or amendments to the ordinance were recorded during this segment of the meeting.
The board’s next procedural step on Ordinance 62—whether to refer, amend, or schedule additional hearings—was not announced during the public-comment portion.
