Gaiter Lake controversy continues

A hot button issue in Waseca for the past few years has been the Gaiter Lake development project. The controversy surrounds a 62-acre property owned by the city and slated for development, including possible installation of a storm-water retention pond, water and sewer lines, and more at city expense, then offering the lots for sale. 

The city has made more than one attempt to entice developers to take charge of the project, but has received very limited response, with only one proposal coming from Southwest Minnesota Housing Partnership. After area residents made their opinions heard during a March 21 meeting, the city council approved seeking additional “requests for proposal.” 

Deb Dobberstein was the first member of the public to share her concerns. According to her, residents of the neighborhood near Gaiter Lake have spoken up several times about the planned development of the city-owned property currently known as the “Lewer Farm.”

“We thought our concerns and logic were considered, but we’re starting all over again,” Dobbersten said, pointing out that, when requests for proposals (RFPs) have been published regarding past development plans, responses were limited or nonexistent. When a later RFP was sent out, the only response came from the Southwest Minnesota Housing Partnership. Even with the difficulties and controversies, she stated, the council tabled plans for a 2023 project at the lake.

Dobberstein claimed she wants to prevent another situation like Pondview, a recent development project north of Gaiter Lake. “There are lots at Pondview that have sat empty for several years,” she said. “If the [Gaiter Lake] field is developed, who is to say that those empty lots won’t stay empty?”

Gary Dobberstein stated that his personal calculations determined the land cost and infrastructure to develop around 60 lots on the Gaiter Lake development would be about $63,000 per lot. “That’s a far cry from the $55,000 we were told,” he said. “Also, if residential development is such a big deal, why aren’t developers coming to us instead of us coming to them? It doesn’t make sense.”

Another resident, who was a bit more emotional about the project, said that her family moved to Waseca in 2019 because of the view from the field. “Like the neighbors, we like to watch the wildlife,” she said. “I think it’s unfair to have these developments with businesses leaving and shops closing. I think it’s time to focus on something to help the city.”

One more speaker said that if they were going to move on with this project regardless of concerns, they want to see the city “do it right, not fast.”

“This RFP makes it look like something would be slapped together as quickly as possible,” she said.

During discussion about possibly moving forward with a proposed RFP, council member Jeremy Conrath echoed the last resident’s concerns. “I agree with the public comments; I want to do this right,” he said. “If it takes longer to do it…as far as I’m concerned, if it goes to 2027, that’s fine by me.”

Mayor Randy Zimmerman agreed. “Any progress should emphasize thoroughness over speed.”

He also mentioned concerns about the type of housing proposed. “I’m more interested in seeing single family houses in that area,” he said.

However, Zimmerman also stated he would like to see the timeframe of the development kept brisk. “I know it’s been dragged out, and here we are moving forward,” he said. “I think we can still get it right and expedite the timeframe.”

When council member Stacey Schroeder asked city engineer Nate Willey what it would take for the city to move forward, he answered: “It would be a special project that the city staff would have to devote a lot of time to. The ideal situation would be to sell the property or the lots as quickly as possible to a developer to get it off our tax roll and onto someone else’s.”

The council approved allowing Willey and city staff to put out an RFP on the project with a timeline of buildable lots by 2026. Council member Mark Christiansen put forward an additional motion to go with the Southwest Minnesota Housing Partnership’s offer if the council doesn’t get any other bids with the RFP. Council member James Ebertowski entertained the motion.

“My wife and I work out of town, and we pay into Waseca,” he told everyone. “I try to buy everything here. I work with people in Mankato that can’t find a $250,000 house there. We have that here; in Mankato, you have to have $350,000 to buy a house.

“I drive to make more [money] out of town,” he admitted. “Living here, I have made $50,000 in savings in ten years just on the mileage and having a house in Waseca. I’m not even including interest saved compared to that $350,000 house in Mankato.

“We have a piece of property available and ready to go. We’ve been sitting on this since 2016. We could be making great money in the next 50 to 100 years.”

On concerns about not expanding in other ways in the city, Christiansen pointed out, “We have an expansion of a local pizzeria, among other expansions. We have great schools. I understand the cost concerns of land development. But people have to make money.”

He named housing as a much bigger issue at the moment. “We have eight houses for sale within the city limits today. That’s it. If we really look at the numbers, it’s far more effective and cheaper to develop this land than anywhere else around Waseca.”

His proposal to take on Southwest Minnesota Housing Partnership’s proposal if no other developers were interested fell through. The submittal deadline for the RFP will be April 28.