Posted: 10/23/07
CJC location options are needed; county looks at buying more land
By Charlie Warner
Argus Editor
After listening to an hour presentation on zoning laws, and possible legal avenues that could be taken if the county wishes to pursue the downtown location for the criminal justice center (CJC) another option was added to the mix. The county board decided to take a look at a 10-acre tract of land on Esch Drive as a potential site for the CJC. This new development surfaced at the end of the Oct. 16 Houston County Commissioners meeting.
Scott Anderson, a zoning law expert, who is an attorney with Ratwik, Roszak & Maloney, of Minneapolis, told the county board a legal battle with the city could drag out for two years or more, and cost upwards of $25,000 in attorneysí fees without any guarantee of a successful outcome. Moments after Anderson had completed his presentation, Commissioner Larry Connery said 10.3 acres of land near the S & S Car Wash in the northwest portion of Caledonia had recently become available and he felt the county should take a good, hard look at that location.
"We need some options here," Connery said. "I think we need to see what kind of a deal we could make on this land, if it would be feasible to put the CJC there."
Commissioner Dave Corcoran echoed Conneryís statements and added, "Iíve felt for a long time we needed to have an alternative to the downtown location. This just came available. I donít know what the cost would be. But you donít know until you ask. It sounds to me we need to check out all of our options."
Commissioner Tom Bjerke said he agreed the county needs to have options. "With the projected legal costs, no guarantee we would win, putting this project off for another two years, and figuring in the additional costs due to inflation, we need to be looking at other options."
Connery made a motion that was seconded by Corcoran to instruct County Attorney Rick Jackson to begin working on a purchase agreement for the 10.3 acres of land. The motion was unanimously approved.
Not a sure thing
During his presentation on Oct. 16, Anderson said the county basically has two options: either find another location in Caledonia, or challenge the cityís denials of the two variance requests.
Following the Sept. 26 special city council meeting, where the countyís variance requests were denied, a growing sentiment was "letís just move the jail to another city." Anderson pointed out Minnesota law requires a county jail be located in the county seat. To move a county seat, 60 percent of the persons who voted in the last general election must sign a petition to put the question to a county-wide vote. The question must be approved by a simple majority.
"Itís never happened in the history of this state to have a county seat moved, and I donít see that happening here. That isnít one of your options," Anderson said.
Anderson went on to explain the variance denial for the number of parking stalls required would be the more winnable of the two. He felt the county would have a good case challenging the cityís findings that the proposed CJC is a business and would fall under the requirement of one parking stall for every 200 square feet of floor space.
The cityís interpretation that the CJC is a professional office and sells services to the public could be challenged as an improper reading of the zoning ordinance, according to Anderson.
"The county could contend the city did not want the CJC downtown and interpreted that ordinance accordingly," Anderson said.
"But if we were renting out cell space to other counties, wouldnít that make it a commercial business?" Bjerke asked. Anderson didnít think that would apply.
The parking stall size is the hurdle Anderson was more concerned about. "Thatís a decision Iím afraid you wouldnít win on a challenge."
"But the city has approved variance requests on this issue in the past," Commissioner Larry Graf pointed out.
"That argument wonít work," Anderson replied. "Just because a government agency approves a variance request for one party, doesnít mean they are required to grant one for someone else. There are always variables between one request and another. Unless two requests are for very similar situations, and made at the same time, it wonít hold up in court. Iíve even seen where a court ruled against a challenge when the second request was made just three months after the first one that was approved."
The time frame
If the county decides to challenge the cityís ruling on the two variance requests, a hearing would be held in Houston County District Court, unless a change of venue was approved. The filing of the challenges, scheduling for the case, the hearing of the case, and the time the judge usually takes to consider all the testimony and make a ruling would be between nine months and a year.
If either the county or the city did not agree with the ruling, they would have up to 60 days to file an appeal. The hearing would have to be scheduled for the District Court of Appeals. And the entire scenario would be played out again, using approximately the same time frame. But, Anderson cautioned, the Court of Appeals is way behind, and a court date might take even longer to secure.
If either party did not accept the outcome at the District Court of Appeals, they could make an appeal to have a hearing at the Minnesota State Supreme Court.
"Weíre talking about two years out," Anderson said. "And that would just be for the variance request challenges. You still need the street vacation request."
Looking at the alternatives
Anderson encouraged the county board to lay out all the concerns they have dealing with the CJC and the cityís rulings on their requests and present those concerns to the city.
"I think itís important to let the city know where you stand, what options you are looking at, and see if something can be worked out," Anderson advised.
Although the 22.5 acres of land the county is looking at to relocate the county highway department wasnít brought up during this discussion, Corcoran did say it was definitely an option in his mind.
Earlier in the meeting County Highway Engineer Marcus Evans had reported the soil borings on the land, located near the countyís recycling center, indicated the land would be workable. He requested the county ask for an extension on the current purchase option with Ma-Cal Developers, Inc. because the county wouldnít be able to complete the feasibility study within the 60-day time frame of the original agreement.
The county board approved Evansí request.
Caledonia Argus
314 West Lincoln St.
P.O. Box 227
Caledonia, MN 55921-0227
507/724-3475
E-Mail: editor.argus@ecm-inc.com