City council heats up

A number of controversial topics led to lengthy discussion during the July 18 Waseca City Council meeting.

A heated outburst from council member John Mansfield initiated a five-minute recess imposed by Mayor Randy Zimmerman at 7:39 p.m. Mansfield began by expressing misgivings about expenditures being considered under the consent agenda. A $1,314 purchase of  “miscellaneous hand tools” led him to ask, “Am I just writing a blank check for the city [staff] to go out and spend thousands of dollars at their leisure?” 

Mansfield went on to reveal he had learned within the past week that a multi-thousand dollar computer program meant to be used in keeping track of loan repayments to the city’s Economic Development Authority (EDA) has gone unused, even though it was purchased 10 months ago.

“The city council directed that this [use of the program] be done. It hasn’t been, and there was no communication for 10 weeks,” claimed Mansfield, who then implied angrily that city staff was being careless about completing its duties–leading to reprimands from Zimmerman followed by the recess.

When the discussion resumed, city manager Carl Sonnenberg suggested the possibility that a string of recent resignations and reassignments among staff had led to the implementation of the computer program being placed on a “back burner.” 

Although Mansfield made a motion that an investigation should take place into why the program had not yet been made operational, four of the seven council members voted against it. Sonnenberg did say, however, that staffing has stabilized and that implementing the program would now be given increased importance.

In compliance with state statute, a public input session was held to review and receive input regarding a new body camera policy under consideration by the Waseca police department. Chief of Police Penny Vought introduced the session, telling everyone in attendance that the 16-page draft under consideration was drawn directly from the League of Minnesota Cities model policy. She stated “It’s new to us, too. That’s why we’ve given our officers time to study the policy and to learn more about the operation of the cameras.”

The policy–available on the city website for anyone interested in reviewing it–covers a wide array of information that begins with definitions of terms and goes on to specify, among many other things, how long videos must be retained based on their subject matter.

Input was received from city resident Christopher Thiessen, who called attention to references to “aggressive behavior,” and how such incidents should be followed up. “We’ve all seen evidence,” Thiessen pointed out, “that it is not only the civilian populace that acts unreasonably.”

Thiessen sought confirmation that any reviews or investigations having to do with aggressive behavior would not be solely internal.

“There are checks and balances,” responded council member James Ebertowski.

Vought stated it is already the case that, when investigations occur regarding allegations of misconduct against an officer, that “external” input is received.

As discussion wound down, Vought invited any interested individuals to review the policy and, if they would like, meet with her for more information.

No action was taken at Tuesday’s meeting; the hearing was simply an element of the review process required for any police department working toward implementing a body camera policy.

Another required public hearing regarded the status of a city residence located at 501 Third Street NE. Despite repeated contacts with the homeowner asking that the property be brought in compliance with city statute, city staff has seen no indication of progress. No comments were received during the public hearing and so the property owner will be served with a notice that the property must be brought in compliance within 30 days or face legal consequences.

Another very short public hearing pertained to the city’s  policies regarding THC or cannabis. City attorney Chris Kennedy informed board members that the only jurisdiction they have regards zoning or similar matters. “For better or worse,” Kennedy observed, “Minnesota has the most expansive marijuana law in the country at this point.” He pointed out that, under state law, it became legal for residents to grow a limited amount of marijuana for personal use beginning on April 1. On August 1, it becomes legal for people to have a small amount in their possession.

As for who will be authorized to sell marijuana, the state will begin issuing licenses in January 2025.

City Economic Development Manager Tina Wilson informed council members that there is a possibility of a 45-unit hotel locating in Waseca. She mentioned that development on the project cannot continue without two required elements: there must be a local investor and a “hotel feasibility study” must be carried out.

Such a study must be done by a qualified agency. Wilson has found a company which will carry out the needed research after receiving a “deposit” of $7,500. The company will then complete the study and provide a written summary of its conclusions within about 30 days. If its information shows that Waseca’s economic environment is not suitable for a 45-unit hotel, the agency will not bill the city any further, and will keep itself available as a consultant for two years.

If, on the other hand, the study reveals the economic environment will support the development, there will be an additional $7,500 cost, for a total of $15,000.

Council members asked numerous questions, pointing out that similar and related studies had occurred within their memory. Council member Mark Christiansen commented that, if the city paid for the study, any data it included would be public, thus hinting the company might wish to pay for the study itself.

Wilson stated that having the city pay for the study has become fairly standard practice.

Council member Jeremy Conrath commented, “We’ve approved studies before and a lot of them haven’t gone anywhere. I’m hoping this is a turning point. If it's not, I will be very hesitant regarding future studies.”

John Mansfield observed that a study costing $15,000 opened up the possibility of a $7.5 million investment to the local economy.

Council members ultimately voted to approve the feasibility study.