M1MOTION BY RAINVILLE TO APPROVE THE AMENDED AGENDA
moved by Rainville, seconded by Blake
- YMayor Pilon
- YCouncilmember Alders
- YCouncilmember Greenberg
- YCouncilmember Blake
- YCouncilmember Rainville
Loading records…
2021-06-15
Agenda
Not posted
What was on the agenda.
One-line summary
At a special workshop, the Nowthen City Council approved a $13,280 Ebony and Garnet road-project change, directed research on planning fee structures and internal versus external planning services, and ordered improvements to zoning application checklists and communication.
7 items as recorded in the packet and minutes.
1Call to Order
Call to Order, Roll Call, and Approve Agenda.
The agenda was amended to add discussion of splitting planner responsibilities from code enforcement responsibilities, then approved.
2Engineering — Ebony & Garnet patch
Ebony & Garnet - Estimate for reclaiming & re-paving newer "patch".
Council approved adding the 600-foot patch to the Ebony and Garnet road project, with the City paying $13,280 from existing Road Improvement Funds.
3Flat Fee vs. Pass-Through Fee Structure
Flat Fee vs. Pass-Through Fee Structure.
Council directed staff to gather comparison information and planning cost data for a later council discussion.
4Check Lists for Land Use & Zoning Requests
Check Lists for Land Use & Zoning Requests.
Council approved development of a process map, intake meeting, checklist, and site-specific highlighted items for applicants.
5Internal Planning Services vs. External Planning Services
Internal Planning Services vs. External Planning Services.
The item was not fully decided; council planned to return to it after receiving staff research.
6Communication
Communication.
Council, staff, and the planner discussed improving communication about resident concerns and upcoming projects; no separate motion was adopted on this agenda item.
7Adjourn
Adjourn.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:26 PM.
What this meeting did about specific topics, organized by issue rather than by document.
Ebony and Garnet road project patch
Council approved adding the 600-foot newer patch on Ebony Street into the Ebony and Garnet reclaiming and repaving project. The approved additional City cost was $13,280, to be paid from existing Road Improvement Funds.
Agenda: 2. Motions: M2. Speakers: Engineer Nelson, Rainville, Alders, Streich.
Planning fee structure and internal versus external planning services
Council discussed whether planning costs should continue as pass-through hourly charges to applicants, move toward flat fees, or use a hybrid structure, and whether planning should remain contracted or become internal. Council directed staff to compare similar communities, report on planner responsibilities and billing methods, and break down Nowthen's planning cost data for a later meeting.
Agenda: 3, 5. Motions: M3. Speakers: Pilon, Stockman, Rainville, Blake, Alders, Greenberg, Lorensen, Streich, Kristin Cote, Jim Hazeman, Marie McCallum.
Land use and zoning request checklist improvements
Residents and council members discussed confusion, cost surprises, and communication problems in land-use and zoning applications, including the Cote and Tevik lot-split experience. Council directed the planner to prepare a process map, intake meeting approach, checklist, and site-specific highlighting of applicant requirements, using the common 80/20 range of Nowthen zoning projects.
Agenda: 4. Motions: M4. Speakers: Alders, Blake, Stockman, Rainville, Greenberg, Kristin Cote, Annie Tevik, Jim Hazeman, Marie McCallum, Pilon.
Communication and planning/code enforcement roles
The amended agenda added discussion of splitting planner responsibilities from code enforcement responsibilities. Near the end of the meeting, council and staff also discussed improving two-way communication so staff, the planner, and council are not surprised by resident concerns, upcoming projects, or public reactions.
Agenda: 1, 6. Motions: M1. Speakers: Pilon, Rainville, Lorensen, Stockman, Streich, Alders.
5 motions on the record. Split votes are highlighted.
M1MOTION BY RAINVILLE TO APPROVE THE AMENDED AGENDA
moved by Rainville, seconded by Blake
M2MOTION BY RAINVILLE TO APPROVE ADDITIONAL WORK FOR 600' PATCH TO THE EBONY AND GARNET ROAD PROJECT TO PROCEED, AND THAT THE CITY WILL PAY THE ADDITIONAL $13,280 WITH EXISTING ROAD IMPROVEMENT FUNDS
moved by Rainville, seconded by Alders
M3MOTION BY RAINVILLE TO DIRECT INTERNAL STAFF TO INVESTIGATE SURROUNDING CITIES, COMPARABLE SIZE-WISE AND DEVELOPMENT-WISE, REGARDING INTERNAL OR CONTRACTED PLANNER SERVICES, HOW THE FEES ARE BILLED, FLAT FEES VS. PASS-THRU FEES OR HYBRED AND FEE AMOUNTS, ADVANTAGES VS. DISADVANTAGES OF THE OPTION BEING USED; RAINVILLE AMENDED HER MOTION TO INCLUDE THAT THE REPORT WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE JULY 8, 2021, COUNCIL MEETING, REPORT SHOULD INCLUDE SCOPE OF PLANNER RESPONSIBILIES, AND PLANNER DATA BE BROKEN DOWN AS REQUESTED.
moved by Rainville, seconded by Pilon
M4MOTION BY ALDERS TO REQUEST: 1) PROCESS MAP; 2) INTAKE MEETING; 3) CHECKLIST; and 4) HIGHLIGHTING SITE SPECIFIC ITEMS FOR APPLICANTS. He asked that Planner Stockman review 80/20 of the Zoning Projects in Nowthen and make sure the 1st Draft Checklist encompasses that 80/20 Rule regarding what will be on the checklist. He requested that Stockman develop a first pass at a Process Map to review applications with applicants at the Intake Meeting, including site visits, maps, etc., and that the Checklist includes what is needed to get everything done on the Proposed Project up front; and that Planner Stockman highlight in the Intake Meeting what is needed specific to the site.
moved by Alders, seconded by Blake
M5MOTION TO ADJOURN
moved by Alders, seconded by Blake
Each figure links back to the document it came from. When the council voted on the amount, the motion is shown.
F1
Engineer estimate for reclaiming and repaving the newer 600-foot patch section on Ebony Street.
contract · Ebony and Garnet road project · FY 2021
$13,280
outflow
F2
Council approved the City paying the additional Ebony and Garnet work cost with existing Road Improvement Funds.
expenditure · Road Improvement Fund · FY 2021
$13,280
outflow
F3
Checklist states the park dedication fee per buildable lot.
fee · Park dedication fee
$2,000
inflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F4
Checklist states the trail dedication fee per buildable lot.
fee · Trail dedication fee
$500
inflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F5
Planning Company rate for City technical assistance.
rate · The Planning Company — City TA rate
$100
outflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F6
Planning Company private technical assistance rate passed through to applicants.
rate · The Planning Company — Private TA rate
$120
outflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F7
Planning Company zoning administration rate.
rate · The Planning Company — Zoning Admin rate
$60
outflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F8
Planning Company code maintenance rate.
rate · The Planning Company — Code Maintenance rate
$40
outflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F9
Planning Company code enforcement rate.
rate · The Planning Company — Code Enforcement rate
$60
outflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F10
Planning Company meeting charge.
rate · The Planning Company — meeting rate
$250
outflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F11
Minutes discussion of total paid to The Planning Company in 2020.
expenditure · The Planning Company — 2020 total, rounded in discussion · FY 2020
$66,942
outflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F12
Minutes discussion estimated resident pass-through responsibility in 2020 as $42K-$43K.
reimbursement · The Planning Company — 2020 pass-through share, approximate · FY 2020
$42,500
inflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F13
Minutes discussion estimated the City's 2020 Planning Company responsibility at about $24,000.
expenditure · The Planning Company — 2020 city responsibility, approximate · FY 2020
$24,000
outflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F14
2020 City TA invoice total for ordinance, zoning, and comprehensive plan work.
invoice · The Planning Company — City TA · FY 2020
$8,010
outflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F15
2020 private technical assistance invoice total for private projects such as IUPs and plats.
invoice · The Planning Company — Private TA · FY 2020
$32,491.5
outflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F16
2020 zoning administration invoice total for pass-through building and permit work.
invoice · The Planning Company — Zoning Admin pass-through · FY 2020
$10,190.08
outflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F17
2020 zoning administration invoice total for general city-cost work.
invoice · The Planning Company — Zoning Admin general city cost · FY 2020
$5,711.28
outflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F18
2020 code maintenance/code enforcement invoice total.
invoice · The Planning Company — Code Maintenance/Code Enforcement · FY 2020
$4,290
outflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F19
2020 meeting invoice total.
invoice · The Planning Company — Meetings · FY 2020
$6,250
outflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F20
Packet table's 2020 year-end total for The Planning Company.
invoice · The Planning Company — Year-End Total · FY 2020
$66,942.86
outflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F21
Packet table's 2020 city responsibility after excluding pass-through fees.
invoice · The Planning Company — City Responsibility · FY 2020
$24,261.28
outflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F22
Historical year-end total in the packet table.
invoice · The Planning Company — Year-End Total · FY 2011
$9,080
outflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F23
Historical year-end total in the packet table.
invoice · The Planning Company — Year-End Total · FY 2012
$40,903.66
outflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F24
Historical year-end total in the packet table.
invoice · The Planning Company — Year-End Total · FY 2013
$57,965.16
outflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F25
Historical year-end total in the packet table.
invoice · The Planning Company — Year-End Total · FY 2014
$61,657.48
outflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F26
Historical year-end total in the packet table.
invoice · The Planning Company — Year-End Total · FY 2015
$73,439.07
outflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F27
Historical year-end total in the packet table.
invoice · The Planning Company — Year-End Total · FY 2016
$45,393.84
outflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F28
Historical year-end total in the packet table.
invoice · The Planning Company — Year-End Total · FY 2017
$67,282.06
outflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F29
Historical year-end total in the packet table.
invoice · The Planning Company — Year-End Total · FY 2018
$58,918.36
outflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
F30
Historical year-end total in the packet table.
invoice · The Planning Company — Year-End Total · FY 2019
$62,409.61
outflow
Council approval status: not yet on record.
When someone tried to remember earlier business, we cross-reference the corpus and write a short related-history note.
Stockman explained her billing invoicing and rates that have not changed since the 2011 Contract Agreement:
— Stockman
What this is about
Prior 2011 Planning Company contract rates and how the City set contracted planning charges.
The records searched do not include the 2011 Planning Company contract agreement or a rate schedule showing the prior contracted planning rates, so they do not verify from these results that the rates had remained unchanged since 2011. There is a partial match on how the City set planning-related charges. In the March 10, 2026 packet, the City described a policy for land use matters stating that development-related planning costs should be “self-sustaining” and not paid by taxpayers, while allowing one initial virtual or phone consultation with the City’s planning consultant at no charge. The excerpts provided do not show a formal vote outcome on that policy.
Blake asked if this was discussed in 2011 when TPC contract agreement was made.
— Blake
What this is about
Whether flat-fee or pass-through planning fees had been discussed when the 2011 Planning Company arrangement was chosen.
The records searched do not include a 2011 TPC/The Planning Company contract discussion or decision, so they do not show whether flat-fee versus pass-through planning fees were discussed when that arrangement was chosen. The closest matches are recent 2026 materials about recovering planning and land-use costs. In the March 10, 2026 packet, a draft land-use fee policy states the City’s intent that costs for development and parcel-specific land-use matters be “self-sustaining” rather than borne by taxpayers, while allowing one initial planning consultation at no charge. The March 10 and April 14, 2026 packets also include development-agreement language requiring developers to pay reasonable City professional fees, including planner, engineer, and attorney fees. Those are related to the current fee-recovery issue, but they do not document what was discussed in 2011.
Pilon said at that time the City had an in-house Building Official with multiple hats, including zoning, to keep him busy fulltime and justify paying the salary and benefits package.
— Pilon
What this is about
Earlier City staffing model with an in-house building official who also handled zoning and planning-related duties.
The records searched do not contain a prior decision matching the specific recollection of an earlier in-house Building Official position that also handled zoning and planning-related duties to justify a full-time salary and benefits package. There is a partial related record: an April 14, 2026 packet included a public notice stating that at the October 12, 2021 meeting, the Council adopted Ordinance 2021-05, which amended City Code to allow plumbing plan review, inspections, testing, and permits by licensed individuals other than state inspectors, “which may include the city’s contracted building official.” Later 2026 packet materials also refer to the City’s Building Official in connection with permit review, septic review, inspections, and building safety, but they do not document the earlier in-house staffing model described in the recollection.
Pilon stated that the Council has asked for that information for years.
— Pilon
What this is about
Prior council requests for more Planning Company private technical assistance data.
The records searched show a partial match. At the March 10, 2026 meeting packet, the Council had materials about how the City handles private land-use inquiries and planning-consultant time. That packet said the City regularly receives requests from property owners, developers, and real estate professionals, that those requests can take significant staff and consultant time, and that the City wanted costs for parcel-specific land-use matters to be self-sustaining rather than borne by taxpayers. The packet also described allowing one free initial phone or virtual consultation with the City’s planning consultant. However, the records provided here do not show prior Council requests “for years” for more Planning Company/private technical-assistance data, and they do not include a formal vote or decision specifically directing staff or the planning consultant to provide that data. The other search results are not relevant to that recollection.
McCallum started working with Burns Township years ago when the Met Council was involved.
— Marie McCallum
What this is about
Historic Burns Township/Met Council development context raised as a comparison point for Nowthen's current planning environment.
The records show a partial match to the Burns Township history, but not a clear prior decision involving both Burns Township and the Met Council. In the April 28, 2026 packet for the Bar None property, staff noted that Anoka County Board of Adjustment records from October 3, 1984 granted an amendment to a conditional use permit for a proposed dormitory, conditioned on evidence that the development was acceptable to Burns Township. The same packet states that the property had reportedly operated as a residential treatment facility for more than 70 years, but that no original CUP or other land-use approval had been found in City or Anoka County records. The Met Council reference appears in the more recent Viking Estates materials rather than in the older Burns Township record. At the February 24, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, Planner Cindy Nash said Met Council had waived adjacent community review for a small comprehensive plan amendment, though Met Council approval would still be needed after City Council action. The records searched do not show a prior historic Burns Township development decision specifically involving the Met Council or Marie McCallum’s work with Burns Township.
At the initial meeting, Planner Stockman was pleasant and said that this would be simple lot split that would require a flag lot because of the 33-foot access instead of the 66 feet (changed in 2017).
— Kristin Cote
What this is about
Prior change to access width requirements affecting the Cote/Tevik lot split.
The records found are a partial match. They show the Cote/Tevik minor subdivision was before the City in early 2026: at the March 10, 2026 meeting, the packet included a decision approving the Minor Subdivision, subject to conditions on buildability/fill, wetland buffers, and septic/drainfield verification. The excerpt does not show the vote outcome. The records searched also include subdivision ordinance language in the February 24, 2026 and March 10, 2026 packets requiring resulting parcels to have frontage and access on an existing improved public street and describing City Planner review for lot line adjustments/minor subdivisions. However, these search results do not contain the prior 2017 ordinance change or any specific record changing an access-width requirement from 66 feet to 33 feet, so I cannot confirm that part of the recollection from the materials provided.
She responded that they would need a Variance, and they did not like that. They contacted Council Member Scheffler, and Planner Stockman attended a meeting with Scheffler at A & B Welding to discuss it.
— Stockman
What this is about
Earlier A & B Welding/Ulwelling discussion with Council Member Scheffler about needing a variance.
The records I searched do not contain a prior A & B Welding/Ulwelling discussion matching this recollection, nor a recorded meeting involving Council Member Scheffler and Planner Stockman about needing a variance. The search results returned unrelated 2026 council materials, including items such as the Minnesota State flag discussion and Planning and Zoning Commission appointments, but nothing about A & B Welding, Ulwelling, Scheffler, Stockman, or a variance request.
When he split off his acreage from his parents' acreage he ran into many unplanned issues, and at that time there was a checklist of 22 steps.
— Greenberg
What this is about
Greenberg's prior personal lot-split experience and a past 22-step checklist.
The records I searched do not contain a prior decision or discussion matching Council Member Greenberg’s recollection of splitting acreage from his parents’ property or a 22-step lot-split checklist. The search results do include unrelated 2022 references to Council Member Greenberg, mainly about park signs and disc golf signage at the October 11, 2022 and November 10, 2022 meetings, but those records do not address lot splits, acreage divisions, or a checklist process.
<!-- PageBreak --> <!-- PageNumber="34" --> <!-- PageHeader="8." --> CASWELL ENGINEERING CO. ENGINEERS & LAND SURVEYORS <!-- PageHeader="original" --> ## BIRCHWOOD ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA KNOW ALL MEN
<!-- PageBreak --> <!-- PageNumber="78" --> Bertram Asphalt Company P.O. Box 162 Paynesville, MN 56362 Cell: 320-292-1311 Email: bertramasphalt@gmail.com Proposal <table> <tr> <td>Company Name:</td> <
<!-- PageBreak --> <!-- PageNumber="326" --> 1\. The City regularly receives inquiries from property owners, real estate professionals, developers and proposed purchasers ("Requesting Parties" or each
<!-- PageBreak --> <!-- PageNumber="188" --> Cindy Nash - Collab Planning <table> <tr> <td>From:</td> <td>Jason Jones</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Sent:</td> <td>Thursday, February 12, 2026 9:07 AM</td> </tr>
<!-- PageBreak --> <!-- PageNumber="191" --> Cindy Nash - Collab Planning <table> <tr> <td>From:</td> <td>Gerald Bonine</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Sent:</td> <td>Sunday, February 22, 2026 2:33 PM</td> </tr>
Every document and recording archived for this meeting.
Meeting Special City Council Meeting — Minutes (2021-06-15)
Minutes · 2021-06-15
7 pages
Meeting Special City Council Meeting — Agenda Packet (2021-06-15)
Packet · 2021-06-15
20 pages
Meeting recording
YouTube
Transcript · 980 segments · 2:26:40
The structured brief on this page is auto-generated and may need correction. The PDFs and the meeting recording remain the official record.