NEW ULM — How long should an inoperative vehicle remain on a business’ property and how should it be stored?

This question has been a blight on the City of New Ulm for years, to the point it was part of the city’s blight ordinance until last year.

Though no longer technically classified as a blight issue, inoperable vehicles remain a storage and zoning issue that is proving to be complicated for the city.

On Tuesday, March 21, during a city council work session, staff presented a draft of an ordinance designed to start the process of cleaning up auto repair businesses. After 90 minutes of reviewing the ordinance, the council could not reach a consensus on how to proceed.

City Manager Chris Dalton said the goal was to create an ordinance that kept the community looking clean, was enforceable and would not overly hinder businesses. The draft ordinance stated a vehicle that is unregistered or unlicensed is considered inoperable. If it goes unmoved from the property in 30 days, the city can pursue enforcement to remove the vehicle.

The ordinance does provide flexibility. Dalton said some repair shops are struggling to find parts to make vehicles operable. In certain cases, the city would allow up to 90 days to move a vehicle.

The draft also made a distinction between existing auto businesses and new auto businesses. The existing businesses would have greater leeway. Current auto businesses are allowed to have 10 visible inoperable/junk vehicles on the property at a time. The businesses are allowed five inoperable vehicles in the front of the business and five in the rear.

The new business would be required to have everything go behind the front setback. Anything in front of the business must be screened. All auto repair businesses had the option of fencing off the property to screen vehicles from the public. The ordinance even allowed “live” screens including shrubs or trees.

Dalton acknowledge this would not be an overnight fix. The city’s desire was to be flexible with the businesses and give them time to make the changes. Ordering fencing and moving a high volume of inoperable vehicles could take several months.

“I won’t sugar coat it, this is probably going to be a year process,” Dalton said.

Once the ordinance is in place, enforcement would allow for three citations for non-compliance, after which the city would look into property removal or prosecution.

Councilor David Christian had major concerns this ordinance would create ripple effects beyond inoperable vehicles and auto repairs. Christian was adamant this issue be classified as storage and zoning issues, saying it was not blight. He believed there were other non-auto-based businesses with similar storage concerns. By enforcing this ordinance, he believed the city would open the floodgates and a “tsunami” of complaints would come before the city.

City Attorney Robert Scott agreed with Christian, that this was not a blight issue, it was about storage, setbacks and exterior maintenance.

Scott said the draft ordinance was trying to accommodate a business that already exists and was out of compliance with the current city code.

“The effort is to reduce the burden on the property owner by this regulation,” he said. Existing businesses would actually have fewer regulations under this proposed ordinance. “[This is] an effort to be realistic and not be overly restrictive, acknowledging how businesses in your community have operated, and what can be realistically accomplished.”

Councilor Les Schultz also expressed concerns with the draft ordinance. At the end of the work session, he said it was “too much, too big, and too soon.”

Based on the current language, he would not support the ordinance if it ever came before the council. Schultz was uncertain if the inoperable vehicles were a large enough issue that needed enforcement.

“Do we have that many major violators?” he asked. “If we only have three or four major violators, are we doing too much?”

Dalton agreed, saying visitors often praise the community for how clean it looks. However, he acknowledged there were pockets that stood out compared with the rest of the community.

Schultz addressed councilor Larry Mack, about enforcement, saying many of the complaints on businesses were coming from Mack.

Mack said he owned property near one of the auto repair businesses and wanted the code enforced. Mack was uncertain how many complaints he had personally filed. In the last six months, he had received three complaints about inoperable vehicles from three constituents. Each complaint was in regard to a different business.

Councilor Eric Warmka said he also received complaints from constituents about inoperable vehicles.

Christian said in some of the cases the business could get around the ordinance by moving the inoperable vehicles every 28 days or even moving a trailer five feet.

Warmka argued that was part of the problem, nothing ever moved and the problems only got worse. He said there is a difference between a truck being fixed at an autobody shop and a demo derby car sitting on a property without wheels.

Mayor Kathleen Backer commented that as it stands, the city already has an ordinance in place in terms of zoning. If ordinances are being ignored or are unenforceable, then they need to change.

Council President Andrea Boettger said if the city has them on the book but is not enforcing them, then they need to be looked at.

“I think the consensus is we want to move forward but we want something practical and enforceable,” Boettger said. “What I don’t like is businesses being singled out by individuals.”

Dalton suggested city staff rework the ordinance and bring it back during the next council work session in April.

Schultz proposed inviting owners of businesses who would be impacted by the ordinance to attend the next work session. The next council work session is scheduled for April 18 following the regular city council meeting.