Buried in the section of the article on the fire department on page 8 is a section that the city was required to print to inform residents of the cancellation of the fire service contract with Albertville:

Monticello hasn’t provided fire service for decades, so it’s unclear why they were included in the list. However, the requirement to notify residents comes from the Albertville Fire Protection Contract, approved in September of last year. One of the new requirements in the contract was that “Otsego shall mail a notice to every address within the Otsego portion of the [Fire Service Area] notifying the owners/occupants of such properties that Albertville shall no longer provide such emergency response to those properties.”

This portion of the contract was added because Albertville has provided fire service to a significant portion of our city for long time, and Albertville was concerned that residents may be confused about who is responsible for responding in 2027. Any delay in response may be misconstrued as Albertville’s failure, damaging their reputation. The contract makes it clear: Albertville will not be responding without a written Dispatch and/or Fire Protection Agreement.

It was a stark warning that I have drawn attention to repeatedly over the past few months. When I inquired as to how we were going to provide the required notice to residents, the quarterly newsletter was the solution.

I have strongly objected to this approach - it’s clear to me that it doesn’t meet the intent of that clause in the contract to bury some phrasing into an article in a quarterly newsletter. I don’t think this satisfies the requirement to mail a notice to every address because when I read that, I believe the intent was a postcard or a letter that explains the situation to residents in the affected area.

By not adhering to that clause in our contract, we are risking further damage to the relationships with our neighbors, and our own reputation as a good partner. Lest we forget, we still desperately need the other cities to sign mutual aid agreements. I would even go so far as to say we should immediately resume contracted service for at least the Albertville and Rogers portion since our single station can’t possibly cover the whole city.

But the newsletter contains another odd omission: we aren’t cancelling service with Elk River until May of 2027. As I pointed out last year, by failing to give Elk River timely notice, we actually ended up extending the contract through April of 2027. That means that the new fire service map will look like this for the first part of next year:

The Elk River Fire Service Area (FSA) goes right up to the front door of our fire station. Residents that live across the street from our fire station will be in the Elk River FSA.

Unlike the Albertville contract, there is no specific language in the Elk River contract that we cannot respond to incidents in their FSA, but it does mean two things: 1) we are paying for this service despite having our own fire department, and 2) Elk River is entitled to State Fire Aid for this portion of our city.

The lack of a plan, and the Council’s inability to make a decision, has resulted in Otsego residents paying an additional $146,083 in contracted service, plus losing out on roughly $84,000 in Fire State Aid.

This week

Special City Council Meeting

The Council met on Monday for a special meeting to go over the proposed budget and property tax levy for 2027. The due date for establishing a preliminary levy is the end of September - and the Council will need to make a decision so that notices can go out to residents on what their individual tax impacts will be.

After reviewing some of the capital expenditures and long-term spending plans, the Council also discussed the proposed property tax levy. Consistent with prior years, the Council is presented with a few options with the total tax levy adjusted based on various risk factors and budget impacts. This usually results in the Council leaning towards the middle or higher option for two reasons: 1) the preliminary levy sets the upper limit, so the levy can only be reduced prior to the end of the year and not increased, 2) the Goldilocks fallacy - the middle option always seems more “reasonable,” even if it really isn’t.

This year was a bit different, however. The Council strongly leaned towards the lowest option available between a 13.54%, 10.14%, and 9.73% increase in property taxes. The differences between the various options is based on pulling more money from the surplus, with the last option going below what our policy recommends in keeping money in reserve.

Every year, I go through the budget and find where reasonable adjustments could be made in order to reduce the levy beyond just these options. I do this because I believe it is my responsibility to not only be a steward of public funds, but also because I recognize that I should be able to make my case to others if I am objecting to the options being presented. I could just say “no tax increase” and fold my arms and be done with it, but I instead choose to show how reasonable adjustments could be made. I have done the work to show every year how property taxes could actually be reduced without cutting services.

The information presented also highlights the true annual costs of the fire department starting to impact the budget. Those costs can no longer be ignored and it’s becoming more difficult for the Council to hide those increases. Though we drained our reserve funds last year to try to hide the costs of the fire department, we are still buffering the impact with surplus cash.

Prior to starting the construction of the station, and the formation of the department, the propaganda around total costs significantly underestimated how much the impact would be to residents, claiming a total annual cost of $154 to $173 per household.

Last year, those costs were even further reduced in order to try to convince residents that the impact would be minimal - somewhere between $150 and $169 per household. Proponents of the department echoed these claims uncritically, stating that having our own fire department would only cost us a cup of coffee a day. Presumably, it was an expensive cup.

Now, the first year of actual costs show that the impact is far more significant. With operating expenses 13% higher than originally claimed, bond costs, and capital expenditures all included, the tax impact is actually $493. That is more than 4 times the cost of the contracts, on an annual basis. This was never going to be cheaper - and it was never going to be safer.

And, critically, this doesn’t include any additional costs for a second station, more equipment, or additional staff for more stations - which would be the actual comparison needed between contracts and municipal service. As the Fire Study pointed out: we would need four total stations to equal the performance of our contract providers due to the geography and population density of our city.

This is why a full official accounting was always needed, but never done. The Council was uninterested in knowing the full costs and thus making an informed decision - I have had to do that work all on my own to try to understand the full costs.

This shows that the question - from the beginning - has always been: why are we paying more to get less?

City Council Meeting

The Council also met on Monday for its regular meeting. The meeting included approval the Revolution Gym development, and the sale of a bond for the South Central Water Treatment Plant.

Then came the last item on the main agenda, which was... interesting.

Pulled from the total claims list was a separate item to approve reimbursements for trophies made for the Prairie Festival car show. The payment went to a family member of the Mayor. That alone might raise an eyebrow, but the larger issue is transparency: this claim has appeared every year since 2017, yet this is the first year it was disclosed as a potential conflict of interest, pulled for a separate vote, and met with a recusal. Given the recent focus on conflicts of interest, I have a hard time believing the timing is a coincidence.

It also highlights the glaring double standard. During previous debates on a separate issue, I heard repeatedly that a Council Member serving as a firefighter wasn’t a conflict because the pay was “only $16 an hour.” This trophy claim was $325 - far less than what the Council Member stood to make. Our ethics shouldn’t come with a sliding scale, and they ought to apply equally to everyone.

In past meetings, whenever fire department budgets or expenditures came up, I consistently raised the conflict of interest and moved for the Council to recognize it in the minutes and request a recusal.

I didn’t need to do that on Monday. Council Member Goede has resigned from the Fire Department.

On Tuesday, the Wright County Board participated in one of the most ridiculous political stunts I have witnessed in recent history.

Commissioner Schoen - facing an upcoming re-election after failing to secure a majority of votes in the primary - added a last-minute item to the agenda to voice her “great concerns” regarding Flock cameras and the collection of private surveillance data.

Commissioner Holland (my opponent in the District 3 race) quickly chimed in, claiming she had been pressing the Sheriff for three weeks for information, strongly implying a lack of cooperation on his part. She then pointed out how other jurisdictions had canceled their Flock agreements, and signaled her support of Schoen’s position to end their use in Wright County. It was an exchange so neatly choreographed that it seems to have been decided before the discussion even began.

While social media posts and campaign ads have already highlighted those soundbites, the actual discussion in the middle reveals what really took place: an attempt to throw our elected Sheriff under the bus for a decision the Board itself approved in December.

Narrative vs. Fact

The narrative being spun relies on selective memory, and the hope that residents won’t check the record. Back in December, the Board didn’t just give its blessing to the use of Flock cameras - they approved an additional appropriation of funds from reserves to cover it. That vote passed unanimously, and Schoen and Holland supported it.

While Commissioners are certainly allowed to re-examine past votes when presented with new data, the attempt to shift the blame onto the Sheriff for executing an initiative that the Board fully authorized and funded is entirely dishonest.

True leadership requires taking ownership when a past decision no longer aligns with your current stance or community input. Instead, we witnessed board members reversing course purely when politically expedient, attempting to make the Sheriff the scapegoat for their own recorded actions.

Schoen and Holland eventually motioned to remove Flock cameras from the Sheriff’s budget. The Chair struggled to word the motion in a way that was legitimate, since the Board does not have the legal authority to budget line items for the Sheriff.

Principles Should Matter

The discussion that took place highlights the difference between political posturing and actual principles.

Commissioner Diedrick stood as the lone opposing vote against this exercise, and she is now taking heat for it. Schoen’s supporters are attempting to frame the 4-1 vote as meaningful and claim that Diedrick is on the wrong side. In reality, she was the only member at the dais that recognized the fundamental issue: the Board lacks the statutory authority to dictate the day-to-day operations of an independently elected Sheriff. Her vote was a defense of constitutional roles and proper governance, regardless of one’s personal take on the technology.

Commissioner Vetsch explicitly acknowledged during the discussion that the exercise was political grandstanding. He correctly noted that a meeting with the Sheriff to discuss Flock issues was already scheduled for the following week and disputed Holland and Schoen’s claims of non-communication. He even conceded that the motion was legally meaningless. Yet, despite identifying the stunt for what it was, he ultimately collapsed under the political pressure and voted in favor of the motion anyway.

Fiscal Integrity

Where should a responsible leader stand on the broader issue of Flock cameras?

From a governance standpoint, process and fiscal discipline are just as important as policy. When this item was before the Board in December, it required pulling additional dollars from reserves to exceed the approved budget. Tapping reserve funds for off-budget additions is a practice I have consistently opposed and voted against in my own record, even when doing so was perhaps unpopular.

However, regardless of where individual citizens may land on the issue of public safety technology versus civil liberties, we should all agree on one principle: meaningless motions designed for campaign clips are not a substitute for actual governance.

When elected officials use the taxpayer-funded dais to pass symbolic resolutions that violate the separation of powers - all to dodge accountability for their own actions - the public loses real representation. We shouldn’t have to pay for campaign soundbites and political stunts.

Restoring Responsible Governance

It is always easier to drift with the political winds than to row against them on principle. Entering the race for County Commissioner was a choice I made to restore responsible governance to our local Board.

The citizens of Wright County expect leaders who have the courage to stand by their decisions, respect the intelligence of their citizens, and work constructively with fellow elected officials - rather than sacrificing them on the altar of political expediency.

This week

Planning Commission Meeting

The Planning Commission met this week to discuss the Revolution Gym development near Target. The plans call for a large facility on a parcel that is somewhat oddly shaped. This presents some challenges with the parking layout and the Commissioners had some questions about the flow of vehicles. Ultimately, the Commission unanimously recommended approval of the application, and it will be on the agenda for the City Council meeting on Monday.

Public Safety Commission Meeting

The Public Safety Commission met this week, hosting the Office of Emergency Medical Services, as well as each of the ambulance providers for the city, in a discussion about how those services work in Otsego.

The representatives and the Commission engaged in a thoughtful discussion about the challenges Otsego faces with its geography and somewhat unique situation when it comes to how the Public Service Areas (PSA) overlap and intersect within our city.

What this means is that Otsego is served by three difference ambulance providers:

• Elk River Ambulance covering the north, central, and northeast portion of the city

• Allina covering the south, and west part of the city

• Centracare covering the northwest

Importantly, these PSAs are set and cannot be changed by the city. The overlap in service between Elk River Ambulance and Allina is handled by an arrangement between the two entities, and Allina handles the dispatch for both. It’s also worth noting that the Elk River Ambulance service retains its old name of Elk River Fire & Ambulance Service from when it was part of the city Fire Department - even though it is now a separate, non-profit entity.

The Commission went over the history of how these PSAs came to be, the legal requirements of each of the providers, and the steps that would be required for them to change. Unless each of the entities are willing to negotiate different boundaries, they essentially own that territory. In some cases, cities have accepted territory from a provider when they go out of business or no longer want to cover an area. Additionally, the reverse can happen - where a city no longer wants to own its PSA and gives it up to a private entity.

The Elk River Ambulance service is different from the others in that it operates what are called Emergency Response Vehicles - or ERVs. These are rapid-response vehicles that can leave the station quickly and provide care while an ambulance is making its way to the scene. Elk River Ambulance is also challenged by the fact that it does not have a hospital anywhere in its PSA, and ambulance providers can only receive compensation for transporting patients.

The question of whether an ambulance can be parked at our fire station inevitably came up, and the owner of the PSA that covers that part of the city is Elk River Ambulance. He reiterated statements he has made in the past that Otsego doesn’t have the number of calls to justify parking one of the three ambulances that they have at our station. Even if we had double the number of calls, it wouldn’t be enough. While our first Fire Chief promised this would happen, and we built our facility around this promise - it was always known that this was not possible.

That said, there is some good news for Otsego residents; despite our growing population and the unique situation we are in - the number of calls and the response time of our ambulances are consistent with other cities our size. This has been a point of contention with some Commissioners and it was a relief to finally be able to go over some of the data provided by the Office of Emergency Medical Services to address some of those concerns.

Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting

The Heritage Preservation Commission met this week to go over a few items on their agenda. The Commission discussed some donations of artifacts from a local family and where they could be stored, as well as the upcoming plans for the Prairie Festival and the annual Cemetery Tour.

The Commission is planning to have lots of pictures up for the Prairie Festival, so be sure to stop by the booth and see old Otsego!

Next Week

Special City Council Meeting

The City Council will meet on Monday at 5:30 pm at Prairie Center for a special meeting. This meeting will be the third in a series to go over the budget and property tax levy for 2027.

During the discussion, the Council will review general fund revenues, capital project funds, and the projected levy. The current preliminary property tax levy is between 9.73% and 13.54%. The Council will make a decision on the preliminary levy during the regular Council meeting on September 14th or September 28th.

(Link to meeting packet)

City Council Meeting

The City Council will also meet on Monday at 7 pm at Prairie Center. The agenda for this meeting includes the Revolution Gym development, as well as a bond for water quality improvements.

1. Consent Agenda:

   1. Approve Claims List.

   2. Approve Prior City Council Meeting Minutes.

   3. Approve Pay Application #20 for the Fire Station Facility Project.

   4. Approve Pay Application #3 for the South-Central Wellfield Development Phase 1A Project.

   5. Approve Pay Application #1 for the Well No. 12 Project.

   6. Approve Pay Application #2 for the Martin Farms Lift Station No. 4 Improvements Project.

   7. Adopt Ordinance 2026-12 Amending City Code – Reasonable Accommodation Requests.

   8. Approve Amendment No. 3 to Engineering Agreement – Wellhouse No. 4 Water Treatment Plant.

   9. South-Central Wellfield Development Phase 1A Project: Change Order and Engineering Amendment

   10. Adopt Resolution 2026-72 Declaring Surplus Property.

   11. Accept Quotes and Authorize Procurement – Firefighter Protective Equipment.

   12. Adopt Resolution 2026-73 Accepting Bids and Awarding Contract – 2026 Greenway Trail Projects.

   13. Approve Hiring for the Public Works Manager Position.

2. MRD Christ Lutheran Second Addition (Revolution Gym): Zoning Map Amendment, Preliminary Plat, PUD, CUP

3. General Obligation Water Revenue Bond, Series 2026A: Consider Sale of Bonds

4. Approve Claims List

New charges this month for owning our own fire department have increased the total cost to $23,376,120.97, which is almost 17 times the cost of having contract fire service.

(Link to meeting packet)

This week

Special City Council Meeting

The City Council met on Monday for a special meeting to kick off our budget discussions for the year. This meeting went over special revenue funds and our debt. During the discussion on the EDA Lease Revenue Bond for the fire station construction, it was revealed that the fund will likely end up with some remaining funds. Although the city can’t “take back” those funds for general use, they could be used on the station itself.

The projected surplus for the fire station construction is $866,896... however, there’s a mountain of a problem with that figure.

Typically, in a construction project, we would include the grading and removal of dirt from the project site. For reasons that still aren’t clear to me, we decided not to include those costs in this project. I can only assume it was because the cost of the project was already too high.

Our first Fire Chief touted this as an accomplishment - claiming we could sell the 40,000 cubic yards of dirt that currently sits on an adjacent property for a profit. He had managed to convince the rest of the Council that we hit actual pay dirt. We requested bids back in June to see how much money we sell our mountain of dirt for.

It turns out, nobody wants our dirt. So now, in all likelihood, we’re going to have to spend the money we should have spent in the first place to hire someone to haul the dirt away or level the adjacent property.

If that reality wasn’t enough to let the air out of the room, the next surplus discussion certainly was.

Every year, the Council ends up with higher “revenues” than expenditures - meaning a surplus of funds. This is not unusual, and it’s much better than the alternative of not having enough money to cover our expenses. However, it’s often viewed as a positive when that number is higher - and that’s not how I see it. From my perspective, the closer that number is to $1, the better we have done in budgeting appropriately.

The reason we end up with a surplus is because it’s difficult to estimate how much “other revenue” will come in during a year. Having more money from building permits, fines, and interest essentially means we took too much money from the taxpayer. As a result, we have a “fund balance policy” that tells us what to do with that extra money past a certain amount. Due to the way government finance works, we need to maintain 45% of expected expenditures in reserve since we only get property tax money twice a year to pay our bills. Everything over that 45% is our actual surplus. In the past, the Council would take that extra money and stick it in its coffers. I have opposed this practice.

This year, that surplus is estimated to be around $791,001. Once again, however, that number starts to erode when you look at our complete financial picture. First, we have a significant increase next year in our spending thanks to the Fire Department and other staffing. To account for that, our finance department recommended that we keep 45% of the projected budget in reserve (instead of looking at last years budget). That drops the surplus down to $260,991.

Then, I had to be the bearer of bad news and point out that we have already committed some of those funds to paying for a contracted fire marshal position. Since excess funds from the building permit revenue were used to pay for that - and those funds would otherwise be considered part of the “unassigned fund balance” - we could potentially be double-counting our surplus.

Once we take out those costs, and use the safer number to account for next years preliminary budget - our surplus drops down to just $22,000.

City Council Meeting

The City Council met on Monday for a brief meeting. Since all of the items were on the consent agenda, the meeting only lasted a few minutes.

Special Budget Meeting

On Tuesday, the City Council met for a day-long general fund budget review. During this meeting, each department comes into the room one at a time to present an overview of their department, accomplishments, goals, and major projects. Then, the Council reviews their general budget request and asks questions or gets clarification on projects and initiatives.

Ultimately, the Council doesn’t approve a line-item budget, yet the practice of going through each department budget in detail brings more clarity and allows the Council to provide feedback directly to department leaders. In the past, we did this over several meetings, but more recently we conduct one meeting during the day to address all of the general fund. Later, the Council will meet to go over future capital improvement projects and long-term spending goals.

This year, the budget is going up significantly, mostly driven by the Fire Department coming online, and new positions being hired in other areas like HR, Finance, Engineering, and Facilities. This also brings us out of the realm of “small employer” for health insurance purposes. That changes the health plan market and requires that we follow Federal FMLA standards. The costs of that change are still being evaluated.

The City is considering hiring an in-house Engineer. We currently contract for that position and during the discussion on this change, I raised the issue that the cost-benefit analysis still has me concerned. Our current Engineer is retiring, and we have an opportunity to contract with him while we build out our own engineering department and shift towards reorganizing streets and utilities into a public works function.

The budget reflects that we would no longer be paying around $65k for contracted engineering services, and instead would be paying $290k for the transition to an in-house Engineer. At more than four times the cost, I am left scratching my head at the purpose for doing so - but it’s also not an entirely fair comparison. Our contract Engineer is able to charge developments directly for their services - whereas our budget with an in-house Engineer would reflect the total cost, with some of that expense recovered through development charges. Our finance department is going to continue to work on providing a more fair comparison of the two options.

Fire Department Budget

Then, there’s the Fire Department. What was expected to take an hour to go through took more than twice that as the Council discussed the department budget. At points, the discussion became very heated - and when I brought up the fact that we have nothing in the budget for mutual aid agreements, it started a back and forth that resulted in the Mayor telling the reporter from the Star News not to print what was said. (In a Facebook post, the reporter stated it’s not appropriate for an elected official to tell them what to write, and it doesn’t sway what they decide to write on.)

Before we started discussing the budget for the Fire Department, I asked my colleagues if any of them had a personal or financial interest that would necessitate a disclosure and recusal due to a conflict of interest. None of them spoke up, so I made the motion for the Council to recognize the inherent conflict of interest in an employee of the fire department - who is also a Council Member - discussing the fire department budget... but the fact that her boss and the person who she ultimately oversees is presenting a budget was not a concern for anyone, apparently. I couldn’t get a second to my motion and it failed. This whole scenario is absurd, and it’s not how other cities handle it.

After discussing the lack of mutual aid contracts, I highlighted that we received a contract two months ago that has not made its way to the Council - and I suspect that’s because the relationships with the other cities still are not repaired. At the same time, we are paying Elk River $146,083 next year for partial fire service, despite having our own fire department, because we didn’t cancel the contracts in time. My colleagues tried to blame Elk River for that - saying those costs were not foreseeable - despite the fact that I raised that issue on the record several times... even offering a resolution to try to clarify our position for the other cities.

The Council’s inability to make a decision and to adequately plan for fire service in our city has now put us in a ridiculous position: we’re either going to have to pay for Elk River to continue to cover us through April while having our own fire department, or we’re going to have to pay them for nothing because we are contractually obligated to do so. Plus, if Elk River does provide service for even one day in 2027, they will be entitled to State Aid funds for another year - meaning we won’t be able to get that money from the State until at least 2029.

We don’t have a plan - except to beg Elk River not to charge us the money we are contractually obligated to provide and to force their taxpayers to make up for our lack of planning. When I pointed out that we are going live in a few months and we still don’t have a plan for coverage on our west side, southeast side, what to do with Elk River, what type of service our residents can expect, what mutual aid would look like, and how we are going to address the problems of covering I-94... the Council devolved into a shouting match over why I’m bringing up these issues in public.

My response was simple - I’m required to by law. While my colleagues seemed to suggest they discuss matters amongst each other privately, I recognize that is a clear violation of Minnesota Open Meeting Law which requires that the Council only discuss issues in a public meeting that has been properly noticed. The public has a right to hear our deliberations and watch the decision-making process. They have a right to scrutinize their representatives - and the purpose of that law has never been more clear: we’re about to start up our own fire department and the Council has provided zero direction.

The good news is, that resulted in the Council finally agreeing to sit down and discuss what we expect for fire service in Otsego. Although the Council was willing to set a meeting date - an upcoming staff meeting with other cities was given priority, and the Council will schedule its discussion after that has occurred.

State Fire Marshal Town Hall

On Wednesday, I attended a town hall session hosted by the State Fire Marshal’s Office. This meeting brought together more than a dozen fire chiefs from across the area, and was part of a statewide assessment of fire services being conducted by the State Fire Marshal’s Office with assistance from Citygate Associates.

Much of what was discussed during the two hour meeting was familiar to me. I have heard many of the same concerns from fire professionals I have spoken with over the years. Even so, it was refreshing to hear such a frank discussion take place with so many fire chiefs in the room.

At times, I have felt that the challenges facing fire departments across the state are something of an open secret. Few people want to discuss them publicly, but many of the professionals working in the fire service know they are happening. That puts fire departments in a precarious position.

These problems are often attributed to staffing challenges and the erosion of volunteerism. Those are certainly significant factors, but I believe the problem is much deeper - and the many of the questions posed by the State Fire Marshal’s Office appear intended to identify some of those underlying causes.

Almost every fire chief in the room said their department has had to reduce the types of calls they respond to by no longer dispatching to some lower acuity incidents. They’ve had to take this approach to reduce burnout, improve retention, and control costs.

When asked if their department was currently at an appropriate staffing level, no chief was willing to say that it was. Many pointed to the difficulty of retaining firefighters, noting that the training requirements and time commitments place substantial demands on their personnel.

The situation became even more striking when the chiefs were asked whether they had enough personnel to respond consistently to structure fires. Only Champlin was willing to say that they did - and even that was largely because its joint department can rely on mutual aid from neighboring communities.

That led to another concern: mutual aid is not always available when it’s needed. Some chiefs acknowledged that there have been occasions when they called neighboring departments for assistance only to find that those departments were, themselves, unavailable.

Having full-time firefighters does not solve all of these problems, as one Chief pointed out. He stated that when it comes time for callbacks or overtime coverage, the full-time staff aren’t going to show up because they’ve already put in their time.

It is therefore understandable that many of the chiefs felt that city councils do not always understand the realities of modern fire service well enough to appreciate the importance of these investments. It is easy for elected officials to look at fire prevention, mental health initiatives, staffing, or other programs and see an opportunity to reduce expenditures when those costs have a direct impact on the property tax levy.

However, while that concern is legitimate, I think assuming that inadequate funding is the root cause can lead policymakers down the path of the wrong solution.

For example, one proposal discussed was the possibility of establishing a statewide minimum standard for fire response. Such a standard could prescribe by law how many firefighters need to respond, how quickly they must arrive, what equipment must be available, or what capabilities a department must maintain.

I understand why those in the fire service might see that as the solution. A statewide minimum standard would essentially require every community to fund a certain level of fire service, regardless of the local political or financial circumstances. It would relieve the burden of some of those making difficult decisions, and put the onus on the State to solve for it.

However, I think that creates more problems than it solves.

There is no single standard that will work equally well for every jurisdiction. We already have nationally developed standards and recommendations, such as those published by the NFPA, and the discussion made clear that many departments struggle to meet them. A statutory statewide minimum could go even further by turning a recommended level of service into a legally mandated expenditure.

More importantly, every community is different. The level of service appropriate for a densely populated urban jurisdiction may not be appropriate for a smaller, less densely populated community. Citizens should have the ultimate say in determining how much they are willing to spend for the level of service they want and need.

There is also a risk in establishing a statewide minimum: that minimum inevitably becomes the target.

If the state establishes a mandatory staffing level, response time, or equipment requirement, I suspect many cities will eventually structure their departments around meeting that minimum rather than asking what level of service is actually appropriate for their community. What begins as a floor quickly becomes the ceiling.

The final question posed to the group was perhaps the most interesting: if you could be king for a day, what would you change to improve your department.

My answer was: regionalization.

After listening to the chiefs discuss staffing shortages, budgets, overtime, apparatus costs, mutual-aid limitations, training requirements, and the difficulty of maintaining adequate coverage, I believe there is a strong argument for examining regional fire service models, and I see the State trending in that direction.

Regionalization would not solve every problem. But it could allow communities to share personnel, equipment, infrastructure, and administrative costs while providing better geographic coverage. Instead of every municipality bearing the ever-increasing costs, resources could be organized around the needs of the region and be deployed where they are most needed.

In Otsego, this conversation is particularly relevant. We simply do not have the coverage we need in some parts of the city, while our costs have already risen far beyond what was originally anticipated - and they continue to climb. We are moving toward becoming one of the more expensive fire departments per capita in the State while still facing significant coverage challenges on our west and southeast sides.

That should force us to ask a difficult question: are we actually building a better fire service, or are we simply spending more money to maintain a system that is becoming increasingly more difficult to sustain?

The State Fire Marshal’s town hall reinforced something I have witnessed for some time: the problems facing the fire service are real, and they deserve serious attention. But acknowledging those problems does not automatically tell us what the solution should be.

Perhaps the answer is not simply more money, more firefighters, more equipment, or another statewide mandate. Perhaps we need to reconsider the structure of the system itself.

Otsego failed to learn the lessons that Orono taught us. We reduced coverage, dramatically increased costs, and limited public involvement in the process - all in pursuit of what was presented as a solution to challenges that could not be articulated. We created our own fire department and accepted all the risk associated with doing so.

Instead, we may have added more problems and more costs to an industry whose own professionals were already warning us how difficult the current model was becoming. We should have listened when they told us “don’t do this.”

Next Week

Planning Commission Meeting

The Planning Commission will meet at Prairie Center on Monday at 7pm. The agenda for this meeting includes a public hearing for the Revolution Gym development, northeast of Target next to the church. This property is currently owned by the City.

(Link to meeting packet)

Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting

The Parks and Recreation Commission will meet on Tuesday at 6pm at the Otsego Fire Station. The only item on the main agenda is a tour of the fire station.

(Link to meeting packet)

Public Safety Commission Meeting

The Public Safety Commission will also meet on Tuesday at the Fire Station, with this meeting starting at 6:30pm. In addition to reviewing reports from the Rogers Fire Department and the Wright County Sheriff’s Office, the Commission is hosting a discussion with a representative from the Office of Emergency Medical Services to get a better understanding of how ambulance districts work within our city.

Later, the Commission will also receive a report from the Otsego Fire Chief and discuss the preparations for the Prairie Festival.

(Link to meeting packet)

Public Works Subcommittee Meeting

The Public Works Subcommittee will meet next week with only a few items on the agenda. First, the Subcommittee will hear an update on utility projects, including the South Central Wellfield progress and the Wellhouse 4 Water Treatment project completion.

Following that item, the Subcommittee will also receive an update on the engineering budget and recruitment updates.

Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting

The Heritage Preservation Commission will meet at 7pm at City Hall on Wednesday. The agenda for this meeting includes old business, discussing the Holt Family donations, cemetery tour, Prairie Festival preparations, and the article for the city newsletter.

(Link to meeting packet)

The Wright County Highway Department has announced that County Road 37 / 137 will be opened by the end of the day on Monday, and all detours will be lifted. There will still be some construction work on the curbs and sidewalks, so pedestrian access will remain closed until that work is completed. However, the substantial completion restores access to I-94, and the new Costco site.

To see more about the announcement and check the progress of the overall project see the official announcement from Wright County

Primary Election Day

On Tuesday, August 11th, Primary Election Day will take place across the State. The Primary Election is what determines what voters will see on the ballot for the November general election, and includes partisan and non-partisan offices.

In Wright County, the Commissioner races in other districts had more than two candidates. This means that those districts will have candidates on the ballot in order to narrow the general election down to two candidates per district. However, in District 3 (Otsego, Albertville, and part of Dayton), only two candidates filed for office: the incumbent and me. This means that you will not see my name on the ballot for the primary as that race has moved directly to the general election in November.

Other offices you may see on the ballot for the Primary include US Senator, US Representative, Governor & Lt Governor, Secretary of State, State Auditor, Attorney General, Judicial Districts, and others.

To find your polling place and see what is on your ballot, check the Elections page on the City website.

Costco to Open

On Friday, August 14th Costco in Otsego will officially open at 8am. A ribbon-cutting ceremony will take place beginning at 7:30am. Residents who would like to sign up for a Costco membership in advance of the opening may do so in Rogers at a special booth they have set up daily from 10am to 7pm at 13690 Rogers Drive, Suite 180.

State Fire Marshal Town Hall

On Wednesday, I will be attending the State Fire Marshall Town Hall in Blaine. The Office has been holding these Town Hall sessions across the state in preparation of a comprehensive statewide assessment of firefighting services in Minnesota. The final report will be due to the Legislature by the end of the year, and the Town Hall sessions are designed to get feedback from professionals and others on standards, staffing challenges, training, and equipment.

To read more about the Statewide Fire Assessment, see the State Fire Marshal website.

This week

Special City Council Meeting

The City Council met for a special meeting on Monday in order to amend the liquor license for Costco. This meeting took around two minutes as the request was straightforward and required no discussion. The amendment to the liquor license allowed Costco to begin ordering liquor ahead of their grand opening later next week.

Meetings Next Week

Special City Council Meeting - Budget Review

On Monday at 5:30pm, the City Council will meet at Prairie Center for our first budget review. This meeting will go over Special Revenue Funds, Debt Service Funds, and the Fund Balance Policy transfer.

(Link to meeting packet)

City Council Meeting

The City Council will also meet on Monday at 7pm at Prairie Center. All of the items for this meeting are on the consent agenda:

1. Consent Agenda:

   1. Approve Claims List.

   2. Approve Prior City Council Meeting Minutes.

   3. Approve City Council Special Compensation for July 2026.

   4. Approve Change Order #2 and Pay Application #2 for the Lily Pond Park Improvements Project.

   5. Approve Change Order #4 and Pay Application #3 (Final) for the Parrish Avenue Trail Improvement Project.

   6. Approve Change Order #35 and #36 for the Wellhouse 4 Treatment Improvements Project.

   7. Adopt Resolution 2026-61 Accepting Public Improvements – ACG Industrial Condo’s.

   8. Adopt Resolution 2026-62 Imposing a Civil Penalty and Other Sanctions – Alcohol Compliance.

   9. Adopt Resolution 2026-63 Approving the Heggem I-94 West Industrial Condominium Plat.

   10. Adopt Resolution 2026-64 Ordering Improvement and Preparation of Plans – 65th Street Improvements.

   11. Meadows of Otsego 3rd Addition (US Home Corporation, LLC): Final Plat and Development Contract

   12. Meridian Fields (Pulte Homes): Final Plat and Development Contract

   13. South Central Water Treatment Plant: Accepting GMP and Contract Amendment

   14. Adopt Resolution 2026-71 Approving Plans and Ordering Advertisement for Bids – Wellhouse 3 Watermains.

New charges this month bring the total cost of owning our own fire department to $22,702,418.53 an amount that would have covered more than 16 years of contracted fire service with our neighbors.

(Link to meeting packet)

Special Budget Meeting

The City Council will be meeting for a day-long review of the general budget on Tuesday, beginning at 8am at Prairie Center. During this meeting, the Council will hear from department heads covering IT, the Fire Department, Public Works, Parks & Recreation, Human Resources, Communication, Building Safety, Legal, Finance, Planning, and others.

The General Fund budget has an increase in the tax levy of 12.5%. That number represents the increase in general governmental activities, and does not include any capital project investments, or other levy spending. That means that the preliminary property tax increase number may go up or down from there, depending on if other spending is needed, or capital investment projects are reduced. The preliminary tax levy must be approved by the Council before the end of September. The final adoption of the property tax levy must be adopted before the end of December after a public hearing is conducted during the Truth-in-Taxation meeting.

(Link to meeting packet)

Commission Meetings Rescheduled

Due to the upcoming Primary Election, state law prohibits public government meetings after 6pm on Tuesday. As a result, the Commission meetings that would normally occur on that day have been rescheduled.

• The Public Safety Commission will meet on August 18th at the Fire Station.

• The Heritage Preservation Commission will meet on August 19th at City Hall.

At the July 27, 2026 Council Meeting, residents witnessed a situation that represents an unsettling breakdown of governance and basic transparency.

When asked if there were any Members that had a potential conflict of interest on a fire department item, a Member of the Council who is also a Fire Department employee, stated quite clearly that they have no conflict of interest, and they would not be recusing themselves. This is despite a previous promise to the community that they would recuse themselves.

In order to protect the integrity of the Council’s proceedings, preserve the validity of any action taken, and safeguard the public trust, I moved that the Council formally recognize the conflict of interest and request that the Member recuse themselves.

Discussing the matter and requesting an opinion from the City Attorney brought the issue before the Council, which required a vote. The strange set of circumstances ultimately resulted in me being the only one to identify the conflict of interest... a 1-4 vote, something that has never happened before on the Otsego City Council. This action sent a clear message to residents that the Council will not take conflicts of interest seriously.

Applying a standard that does not exist

During the meeting, the Assistant City Attorney laid out the position that the Council should apply, relying on a narrow reading of Minnesota Statute § 471.87 that sets the basic criminal standards for direct contract fraud.

A conflict of interest would only exist if she were deriving some personal financial benefit. Since the benefit is going to the contractors, and she has no relationship with those contractors, there is no conflict of interest.

In other words, since she is not listed in the contract, she has no personal beneficial interests in the payment under these contracts.

That standard addresses one category of conflict - direct financial interest - but Minnesota law recognizes other forms of disqualifying interests as well. In the Minnesota Supreme Court Case of Singewald v. Minneapolis Gas Company, the Court found that a Council Member cannot vote if they have a direct or indirect interest - even if they are completely honest, receive no personal benefit, and believe that they are acting in the public’s best interest. The appearance and existence of a conflict - not the official’s motives - are what the law seeks to prevent.

Similarly, in ETO Inc v. Town of Marion, the same Court found that denying a liquor license because it may reduce the property value of a Council Member who lives nearby is still a conflict. There, the court was quite blunt:

The Minnesota Court of Appeals applauded two Council Members who recused themselves from voting when a street improvement project affected their neighborhood in 1989 Street Imp. Program v. Denmark Township. There, the Court stated that they were right to recuse themselves, adding:

Even in situations where the direct financial benefit may not be obvious, when we are talking about the individual voting on equipment, benefits, and the continuation of the Fire Department, a disclosure and recusal is required. In this case it’s more obvious than most, and this is evidenced by the fact that her boss is listed as the requester for the Council action.

The Council failed to uphold the ethical standards established in City Code

One of the challenges in conflicts of interest cases is that the law says one thing and courts apply it. Often these types of cases - due to the nature of how local government operates - don’t make it to court. For all the cases that do, there are thousands of examples of Council Members simply taking the safer approach and recusing themselves in the interests of securing the public trust. However, since these laws are somewhat untested, the Attorney General has had to offer opinions on how to apply the law.

Those recommendations, and the guidance from the League of Minnesota Cities, often make their way into local ordinances. That is the case in Otsego, where the Council has addressed the ambiguity with clear and objective standards that are adopted in Section 1-10 of City Code.

Under our laws, the definition of a disqualifying conflict of interest is “a conflict which rises to such a level that a reasonable person viewing the matter in an objective fashion would conclude that the apparent or real conflict would not allow the involved official to make an unbiased decision in the matter.”

Notice that it does not say that the Council Member must be getting money in their pocket for it to be a conflict of interest. It does not say that the conflict must even be real - it’s simply the appearance of impropriety based on a reasonable person viewing the matter in an objective fashion.

The standard that the Council relied upon (“direct financial benefit”) is not what the law says. In fact, City Code is quite clear. Under Section 1-10-4(A)(1):

Compare that with the statement from the conflicted officer, on the record:

The opportunity to fulfill a long-time dream was provided by her position of authority. The decision to continue to vote on matters where there is a clear disqualifying conflict of interest demonstrates that public trust will not be safeguarded by the Council. It is a dereliction of duty, and a violation of our oath as elected officials, to continue to ignore the conflict of interest.

In the adopted City Code, Section 1-10-5 requires disclosure of any conflict of interest. Disclosure is important because conflict of interest laws are not about proving corruption - they exist to prevent situations that undermine public confidence before actual misconduct occurs. Failure to disclose a conflict, in this case, has resulted in further erosion of public trust, and left residents wondering why a Council would go to such lengths to avoid following the law.

The process devolved further when the Council Member participated in - and voted on - the motion regarding her own conflict. Allowing an official to act as the deciding vote on their own ethical compliance defies fundamental fairness. As the League of Minnesota Cities highlights, court precedent establishes that no officer should serve as a judge in their own cause. By voting to clear herself, the member rendered the ethical check-and-balance meaningless:

The completely preventable controversy

No one benefits when questions about impartiality are ignored. The solution is neither complicated nor punitive: when a reasonable question about impartiality exists, disclose it, allow the matter to be considered openly, and recuse yourself. That protects the Council, the individual official, and most importantly: the public’s confidence that decisions are being made solely in the public interest.

This is what other cities consistently do.

Instead, a majority of the Council declined to require disclosure or recusal despite the standards established in the City Code and despite guidance cautioning against officials participating in decisions concerning their own potential conflicts.

As a result, residents are left questioning the integrity of the Council, and why such a clear conflict of interest is allowed to occur.

Rules of ethics and laws around conflicts of interest exist precisely for moments like this - not when compliance is easy, but when it’s uncomfortable. By refusing to enforce our own City Code, the Council sent the message that transparency and ethics are optional. We can, and must, hold our local government to a higher standard and restore responsible governance.

This week

Special City Council Meeting

The Council met on Monday for a special meeting to review the South Central Water Treatment Plant progress. The Council discussed the project and financing, as well as the Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) from the construction manager. By using a Construction Manager-at-Risk (CMAR) process for this project, the total cost is expected to be within 1% of the overall budget, if not lower.

City Council Meeting

The City Council also met on Monday for its regular meeting. In addition to the issues discussed above, the Council unanimously approved a one year moratorium on data centers in Otsego.

This meeting has garnered a lot of public interest, with this being the most watched Council meeting this year.

Next Week

Special City Council Meeting

On Monday at 5:30 pm, the City Council will meet for a special meeting at Prairie Center. This meeting was called by Costco to amend their liquor license. The request from Costco is to purchase liquor starting on August 4th, instead of the previous August 14th date. Retail sales will still begin on the 14th. Due to this being a special request, Costco has paid $500 for the meeting, per the City fee schedule.

(Link to meeting packet)

Planning Commission Meeting Canceled

The Planning Commission would normally meet on Monday. However, that meeting has been canceled due to a lack of agenda items. The next meeting for the Planning Commission is scheduled for August 17th.

That last point is important. In cities like Inver Grove Heights and Eagan, the passage of a moratorium while a development was under consideration caused legal challenges. Cities like Elk River and Monticello also recently denied applications for a data center. The one year moratorium that Wright County passed earlier this year only impacts townships within Wright County and so Otsego was not included in that action.

Residents who want to be heard on this issue will have an opportunity to speak during the public hearing portion of this item on the agenda.

This week

Planning Commission Meeting

The Planning Commission met on Monday with one item on the agenda: an Interim Use Permit for outdoor storage on an industrial parcel located on the west side of the city. The previous owner of the lot also had a permit for outdoor storage, so the application was straightforward and the Commission unanimously recommended approval. That application will also be on the Council agenda for Monday.

Next Week

Special City Council Meeting

The City Council will meet on Monday at 5:30 pm at Prairie Center for a special meeting. During this meeting, the Council will receive an update on the South Central Water Treatment Plant, including the project timeline and total maximum cost from the construction manager.

Link to meeting materials

City Council Meeting

The City Council will also meet on Monday at 7 pm for its regular meeting at Prairie Center. In addition to the data center item discussed above, the main agenda includes the following items:

1. Consent Agenda:

   1. Approve Claims List.

   2. Approve Prior City Council Meeting Minutes.

   3. Approve Pay Application #19 for the Fire Station Facility Project.

   4. Approve Pay Application #5 (Final) for the Odean Avenue Watermain & PRV Project.

   5. Accept Proposal and Authorize Special Inspection and Testing Services – Wellhouse No. 3 Water Treatment.

   6. Approve Issuance of Temporary On-Sale Liquor License – Otsego Lion’s Club.

   7. Approve Resolution 2026-54 Approving an Interim Use Permit for Hempl Properties.

   8. Approve Hiring of Utility Billing Position.

   9. Approve Pay Application #1 for the 2026 Mill & Overlay Project.

   10. Approve Plans and Specifications, Authorize Bids and Pre-Procurement for Greenway Trail Projects.

   11. Accept Staff Resignation of Mechanic.

   12. Approve Purchase of Fleet Vehicle – Tandem Axle Dump Truck.

   13. Approve Resolution 2026-55 Approving Connection to City Sewer for 5886 Rawlings Ave.

2. Interim Ordinance – Data Center Land Use: Public Hearing, Moratorium

3. Jacobs Plat Second Addition (Endeavor Investments XII, LLC): Easements, Final Plat, Development Contract, Special Assessments

4. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program: Public Hearing

New charges this month have increased the total cost of owning our own fire department to $22,427,914.77

Link to meeting materials

Over the past few years, I have worked very hard to bring more clarity, transparency, and data to this fire department process than any of my colleagues have been willing to accept. I did so because, from the very beginning, the decisions being made simply defied logic.

Every major action taken by this Council went against standard municipal practice, fiscal responsibility, and the explicit will of the community.

• It never made sense to go from seven stations down to one, drastically reducing our actual geographic coverage area and leaving residents on the west side and southeast side with higher insurance premiums.

• It never made sense to completely ignore the objective, data-driven recommendations of our independent, third-party Fire Study.

• It never made sense to deliberately spend an extra million dollars just to construct a legal loophole that prevented our own citizens from placing this issue on the ballot.

• It never made sense to flatly refuse to hold a dedicated public hearing on a project of this magnitude.

• It never made sense that a major public safety transition was characterized by a complete lack of open discussion, public deliberation, or transparent planning.

• It never made sense to force the taxpayers to spend three times the cost for one-third of the service.

For months the community has looked at these facts and asked why are we doing this. None of it has ever made sense.

Until now.

Now, it finally makes sense - because we have to realize that it never needed to make sense.

This was never a decision driven by data, public safety, or fiscal responsibility. This was a decision driven by a conflict of interest so fundamental that it undermines the entire dais. This was about a personal desire being fast-tracked through the bureaucratic machinery, using the authority of public office to achieve a private goal against the explicit objectives of the people we were elected to represent.

When a process rejects logic, rejects independent data, and actively spends public funds to silence the voters, it’s not just bad leadership. It’s a system being manipulated to serve the personal interests of a person who holds power, not the public.

In speaking with one resident, they summarized the situation quite well: It’s a good thing she didn’t want to be an astronaut, otherwise the City would be building a rocket right now.

The Erosion of Representation

Perhaps the most important admission during the meeting on Monday is also the statement that will probably get the least amount of attention. When a Council Member states that staff will let them know when there is a conflict of interest, that statement is an admission that citizens have lost their representation on the Council. This hints at a much deeper problem with how the Council generally considers issues, and the role they believe they have in making decisions.

The fundamental promise of local government is that the citizens elect their peers to protect their rights and represent their interests, values, and common sense. However, that process is eroded when elected officials delegate their thinking to others.

That problem is pervasive, and it means that ethical accountability and the disclosure of conflicts of interest are no longer the personal, non-delegable duties of an elected official. The decisions of other, unelected staff members become a shield against personal accountability.

How can elected officials take an oath to protect and defend The Constitution of the United States and of Minnesota, the laws of the State and of the City - if they don’t feel they are capable of knowing what those things are? Is the oath of office a promise that elected officials will uphold their duties by deferring their thinking to others? If that is the case, then we have transitioned from a government of the people to a government of unaccountable decision-making.

Our Commissioner Doesn’t Get It

During the open forum portion of the meeting, our current Wright County Commissioner took the opportunity to do a little campaigning. She attempted to claim that there is no budget surplus and asserted that statements on my campaign website are false. In doing so, she tried to confuse the audience by claiming that any excess funds in the County coffers are simply an “insurance policy” against delayed collections.

Let’s look at the actual mechanics of local budgeting. Our representative is either fundamentally disconnected from the County’s own financial documentation, or she is intentionally misleading the public.

When she mentions that the our city also does this - she’s referring to standard fund balance policies. On the City Council, we maintained a policy to hold 45% of next years expenditures in reserve since property taxes (”revenues”) are only paid twice per year. It’s fiscally responsible to hold that money to pay the bills that happen throughout the year.

But the County’s situation is entirely different. Wright County’s own budget planning documents from earlier this year show that the current surplus sits well beyond any reasonable or required reserve. The Board has consistently collected more money from taxpayers than necessary for years. In fact, County staff explicitly recommended using those excess funds to pay down the County levy over the next three years. Furthermore, this over-collection isn’t isolated to the general property tax levy - it even extends into other areas, including the Health and Human Services fund. I attended this County budget meeting - but so did our current Commissioner.

Instead of giving that hard-earned money back to the taxpayers, our current County Commissioner chose to threaten residents with the prospect of longer lines at the DMV. This comes weeks after she proudly proclaimed the acquisition of property in her own city for a brand new DMV station. You cannot celebrate the expansion one week, and then threaten service cuts the next just to justify holding onto a surplus.

Throughout my time in municipal government, I have come to appreciate the complex and difficult budget decisions required at the County level. I have watched Wright County make some good choices, and some poor ones. Part of the reason I chose to enter this race is because residents deserve clear, accurate information from their representatives - not defensive threats to cut services. It’s time for transparent leadership, and that’s what I will do.

This week

City Council Meeting

The City Council met on Monday for its regular meeting. Beyond the issues discussed above, there were no items on the main agenda.

Public Safety Commission Meeting

The Public Safety Commission met on Tuesday to review reports from our fire service providers, ambulance providers, and receive an update from our Wright County Sheriff’s Office (WCSO).

Over the past few years, the WCSO has partnered with Oracle to pilot a program for bodycams, dispatch technology, and integrated systems. This program has essentially allowed our Sheriff’s Office to build out a custom suite for free, saving the taxpayers untold millions of dollars. Bodycams were implemented as a pilot program earlier this year as part of that larger suite, and in one of the videos describing this program you can see our City Hall, local first responders, as well as our Sergeant liaison.

The Commission also discussed the ambulance service and the Primary Service Area (PSA) system that determines what providers serve our community. Our City has three ambulance services:

• Elk River Ambulance, covering the north and east portions of the city

• Allina Health, covering the southwest portion of the city, as well as an agreement with Elk River Ambulance to cover the central portion of the city

• Centracare, covering a portion of the northwest corner of the city

This arrangement presents some challenges as it means that we are at the outer edge of three different providers. The volume of calls for each of them independently, and the location of their PSA means that it doesn’t justify keeping an ambulance stationed in our city.

The PSA system is something that the City has no control over - it’s all determined by a State Board. The Commission has requested that the representative from the Office of Emergency Medical Services, as well as the ambulance providers, attend our next Public Safety Commission to discuss what this arrangement means for our City.

Next Week

Planning Commission Meeting

The Planning Commission will meet on Monday at 7pm at Prairie Center. There is only one item on the main agenda for this meeting: an Interim Use Permit for an existing property on the west side of the city, that currently has outdoor storage.

The property is changing owners, so the Interim Use Permit to allow for outdoor storage doesn’t automatically transfer to the new owners. As a result, a new public hearing and application for the permit has to occur.

(Link to meeting materials)

Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Canceled

The Parks and Recreation Commission would normally meet on Tuesday. However, that meeting has been canceled due to a lack of agenda items.

The next scheduled meeting for the Parks and Recreation Commission is set for August 18th.

As a reminder, the candidate filing period for the City Council seats begins on Tuesday, next week. The filing period runs until 5 pm on Tuesday, July 28th. Candidates can file at City Hall during regular hours.

This year, two City Council seats are up for election. I am seeking the office of County Commissioner, and the other Council Member whose term is expiring has announced that they will not seek reelection. As a result, there will be no incumbents on the ballot.

Interested candidates should review the filing packet and requirements for office. You can fill out your Affidavit of Candidacy prior to bringing it, but do not sign it until you actually file at City Hall.

For more information, see the city website

This week

Planning Commission Meeting

The Planning Commission met this week starting off with a tour of the Fire Station. After the tour, the Commission discussed several concerns with data center regulations, including the recent issues in Monticello, Elk River, and Eagan. The Commission ultimately recommended a one year moratorium for the City Council to consider. Since that action requires adequate notice and a public hearing, that will come to the City Council on the 27th.

You can see the public notice here, and it will be published in the newspaper as well.

There are currently no plans for data centers in Otsego that have been submitted to the Council for consideration.

Next Week

City Council Meeting

The City Council will meet on Monday at 7 pm at Prairie Center. The agenda for this meeting has no items on the main agenda, with all items appearing on consent:

1. Oath of Office and Swearing In – Firefighter Aaron Ende, Firefighter Grant Carlson.

2. Open Forum.

3. Consider Agenda Approval.

4. Consent Agenda:

   1. Approve Claims List.

   2. Approve Prior City Council Meeting Minutes

   3. Approve City Council Special Compensation for June 2026.

   4. Adopt Resolution 2026-52 Accepting a Donation from Girl Scout Troop #18170.

   5. Accept Quotes and Authorize the 2026 Trail Maintenance Project.

   6. Approve Hirings for the Parks Supervisor and Park Maintenance I Positions.

   7. Approve Pay Application #4 (Final) for the 80th Street Trail Improvement Project.

   8. Approve an Election Equipment Lease Agreement – Wright County.

   9. Approve an Off-Sale Liquor License.

   10. South Central Water Treatment Plant: Amend Zoning Map and approve CUP

New charges this month bring the total spend for owning our own fire department to $22,344,505.14

(Link to meeting packet)

Public Safety Commission Meeting

On Tuesday at 6:30 pm, the Public Safety Commission will meet at the Fire Station for their regular meeting. The agenda for this meeting includes a review of reports from the contract fire cities, ambulance providers, and the Wright County Sheriff’s Office.

There will also be an update from the Fire Chief on fire department staffing, and an opportunity to show the new fire trucks that just arrived.

(Link to meeting packet)

Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting

The Heritage Preservation Commission will meet on Tuesday at 7 pm at City Hall. The Commission will consider old business, including a review of the current inventory of historical items. The Commission will also discuss the Holt family donations, fire station display photos, the cemetery tour, Prairie Festival preparations, and the fall newsletter article.

(Link to meeting packet)

Public Works Subcommittee Meeting

The Public Works Subcommittee will meet next week with a few items on the agenda. First, the Subcommittee will review the progress and updated cost estimates for the South Central Water Treatment Plant. Following that, there will also be a review of the draft capital improvement plan for fleet vehicles and pavement management. The Subcommittee will also review upcoming greenway trail projects.

The Fourth of July is more than just a celebration of our nation’s birth. It is a reminder that liberty is never the default condition of humanity. It exists only when ordinary people are willing to defend it, preserve it, and pass it on.

To me, Independence Day is about the principle that government exists to secure our rights, not to bestow them. It is about self-government, personal responsibility, and the understanding that free people must be vigilant, active participants in their communities, because it is within our communities that the most important decisions are made. Freedom isn’t something we inherit once and keep forever. It is renewed by every generation of citizens who are willing to ask difficult questions, hold their leaders accountable, and do the often unseen work of public service.

The Declaration of Independence was an act of extraordinary courage. By pledging their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, the signers accepted immense personal risk in defense of a principle they believed was worth preserving. They gave us a gift we can never repay - not liberty itself, but the recognition that liberty is ours to secure and preserve. The Declaration proclaimed that individuals possess inherent rights and that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. Those ideas were revolutionary in 1776, and they remain just as relevant today.

As we gather with family, friends, and neighbors, I hope we take a moment together to remember that America is defined not only by its history, but its ideals. We honor those ideals not just with fireworks and parades, but by striving to leave our communities stronger, more honest, and more free than we found them.

That, to me, is what the Fourth of July represents, and why it will always be worth celebrating.

Happy Fourth of July, everyone.

Next Week

Planning Commission Meeting

The Planning Commission will meet at 6 pm at the Fire Station for a special meeting, starting with a tour of the Fire Station. After the conclusion of the tour, the Commission will hold a work session on data center regulations within the city.

Some of the things the Commission will discuss in order to provide guidance on potential future regulations:

• How data centers are defined

• Land use considerations

• Appropriate zoning districts

• Setback requirements

• Water usage

• Electric service

• Noise regulations

• Screening

• Exterior lighting

• Environmental review

• Implementation and moratorium

(Link to meeting materials)

The Timeline

Council Member Goede applied for the position of part-time firefighter (cadet) in March of 2026. From that point forward, she had a personal financial interest in obtaining employment with the city. That raises conflict of interest questions regarding her subsequent participation in fire department decisions.

Since applying for the job, the Council Member voted on and participated in:

• Approving fire station pay application #15 in the amount of $667,470.12

• Interviewing candidates for the fire chief role

• Hiring the new fire chief, who would later interview her for the firefighter position

• Approving fire station pay application #16 in the amount of $927,569.05

Shortly after hiring the new fire chief, he would then interview her - ultimately providing a conditional offer of employment at the end of May. Since receiving that conditional offer, the Council Member voted to approve:

• Fire station pay application #17 for $1,131,856.64

• Resolution 2026-46 - adopting the fire department pension plan

• Adopting the contract for a Fire Marshal

During the period in which she was an applicant or had received a conditional offer, she participated in votes approving more than $2.7MM in fire department expenditures, along with adoption of the city’s firefighter pension plan and the Fire Marshal contract. There was no disclosure to the Council or to the public about the potential for conflicts of interest.

The Council was notified on Monday 6/15 via email that she will be “Continuing to Serve the Otsego Community” by accepting the position of a part-time firefighter. At this point, the email was sent only to the Council and the public was not notified.

The meeting agenda and staff report did not specifically identify that one of the firefighter candidates was also a sitting Council Member. The only indication of that was because her name appeared in the new fire department roster. A reader would only recognize the overlap if they independently recognized the name.

This is not the first time that a conflict of interest has surfaced with this same Council Member. Back in September of 2024, her name appeared on a list of hires for election judges. The item was on the consent agenda until I requested a separate vote - again no potential conflict of interest was alerted or noted for the public. The minutes from that meeting highlight the issue:

This example is important because it seems to suggest that conflicts of interest can be resolved if there is no difference in pay. I fundamentally disagree with that assessment because it doesn’t address the actual conflict whatsoever. If a Council Member was on a list of two people being awarded a lucrative multi-million dollar a year contract, would we say there is no conflict of interest because someone else is being paid the same thing? The dollar amount and the presence of other employees on this list is irrelevant. This example also shows that Council Member Goede will vote on her own hiring, even when abstaining would better serve the public interest.

Minnesota Law Requires Specific Procedures

The most important thing to understand about this situation is that conflicts of interest are not allowed - that is specifically written into law. The issue is so important that elected officials are prohibited outright from being employed full-time by the city, and the law has specific requirements for the other types of employment.

That same law does allow for some extremely narrow exceptions and ways to mitigate conflicts of interest, which would apply, here. Because small cities generally have a limited pool to select from when it comes to volunteer fire departments, there is an exception for a member of a governing body to also serve on the fire department. However, to allow for that exception, a unanimous vote by the remaining members of the Council is required to authorize it.

That procedure requires several steps. None of these procedures appear to have been followed:

• The adoption of the contract with the individual must be done by separate resolution

• The interested officer must file with the clerk an affidavit disclosing the conflict of interest

• The vote must be unanimous of the remaining members

The Minnesota Office of the State Auditor says the same thing, as does the League of Minnesota Cities. By failing to pass a separate, unanimous resolution, the Council has bypassed the specific statutory safeguards designed to protect the public from these exact conflicts.

When It Happens

The issue of an elected official also serving on the fire department is not unheard of - especially in small towns - but how it is handled matters. During Monday’s discussion, this was brought up as a defense. However, the situation in Otsego is unique: unlike other cases, the Council Member in this instance helped create, fund, and expand the department she is now employed by.

While research into small town meeting minutes can be difficult, clear examples exist for how other cities navigate this statutory exception. In instances where this has occurred, the process involved rigorous transparency to protect the public interest.

For example, in Baldwin, when Council Member Scott Case was elected, he also served as the city’s Fire Chief, and the city adhered to the precise statutory framework:

• They formally adopted the employment contract via a separate resolution.

• The official filed the required affidavit disclosing the conflict.

• The Council held a unanimous vote to authorize the arrangement, with the interested member abstaining.

• The official was required to recuse himself from all votes and discussions regarding the fire department

Other cities, such as Lester Prairie and White Bear Lake, have followed similar protocols with their respective officials consistently abstaining from fire department pension and budget votes.

That distinction is critical because merely abstaining from a vote is not enough to resolve the conflict. Conflicts of interest work both ways: they create undue influence from an elected official onto their position, but also from the position onto the rest of the Council. Even when an official abstains from a final vote, their presence influences financial and policy decisions. Furthermore, it creates a “councilmanic influence” on fellow firefighters, who may fear political retribution or feel pressured to show favoritism.

When a Council Member participates in appointing, evaluating, and funding the Fire Department and Chief - while simultaneously being supervised by that same Chief - the lines of independent oversight are effectively erased.

The Bottom Line

A conflict of interest arises when there are competing loyalties. A seat on the Council and a position on the city payroll are, by definition, incompatible without rigorous safeguards. Dismissing this as “only $16 an hour” misses the point entirely - the danger exists not in the amount of the check, but in the erosion of the process. Public confidence depends on elected officials acting solely in the public interest, free from the shadow of personal financial considerations. When the city skips the required legal procedures, they aren’t just failing to fill out the correct paperwork - they are bypassing the public’s right to be sure that the rules apply equally to everyone.

This week

Special City Council Meeting

The City Council met on Monday for a special meeting with two items on the agenda: a review of the annual financial audit, and an update on the progress for Phase 1 of the Prairie Park remodel.

The Council reviewed some of the design options for the Park, with discussion around the expansion of the parking lot, the veteran’s memorial, and the amenities in the new shelter. While the Council provided some thoughts about the plan, no formal decisions were made at this point.

City Council Meeting

The Council also met on Monday for its regular meeting. The agenda for this meeting included the approval of the Zachman Meadows 2nd Addition development, as well as several fire department hires.

In total, the fire department now consists of: a Fire Chief, an Interim Chief, a Fire Marshal, a Community Risk Reduction Team, a Captain, a Full-Time Firefighter, and 22 cadets (part-time firefighters in training).

With the addition of the unbudgeted Fire Marshal and two additional cadets - the Council has approved going 64% over budget for the year.

Next Week

City Offices Closed July 3rd

City Offices will be closed on Friday, July 3rd in observance of the Fourth of July holiday, celebrating 250 years of Independence.

The Council meeting on Monday will finalize the hiring of cadets for the new fire department. One of the names on that list is Council Member Tina Goede, who pushed hard for the creation of that same department.

The fire department’s price tag has divided the community for years. Residents have questioned how a project of this scale got approved without a public vote. Now, with a City Council Member about to join the department’s payroll, the controversy will only get worse.

Public trust in government depends on the idea that officials act in the public interest - not their own. When the line between duty and self-enrichment blurs, that trust erodes. This decision won’t just determine the fate of the department - it will shape how the city defines boundaries between accountability and ambition.

Wright County Data Center Working Group

Earlier this month, Wright County issued a temporary Data Center Moratorium. This impacts any township within Wright County - but not any cities, as cities retain their own zoning authority.

By law, the moratorium can only last one year, at which point the County will have to decide how to apply zoning for data centers going forward. In the mean time, the County is seeking individuals to join a workgroup to develop those rules and provide recommendations to the County Board.

The workgroup will consist of 14 members in total, including two appointed commissioners, two County Planning Commission members, and others:

• Two township supervisors

• One local utility company representative

• One local water resources expert

• Two data center industry representatives

• Four community members with interests in data center development and regulation

If you are interested in joining the workgroup, please see the Wright County website for more information. The deadline to apply is noon on Friday, July 10.

This week

Planning Commission Meeting

The Planning Commission met on Monday with three items on the main agenda: the Zachman Meadows 2nd Addition development, the South Central Water Treatment Plant plat, and the R+L Carriers building plans for a truck washing station. All three items were approved unanimously, with the new development and R+L Carriers plans coming to the Council on Monday. The South Central Water Treatment Plant will come to the Council at a later date.

Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting

The Parks and Recreation Commission met on Tuesday to decide on the design of the Prairie Park Phase 1 remodel. The Commission heard the results of the community survey, and discussed options for the layout, playground, and veteran’s memorial. After selecting features between the two options, they ultimately recommended a plan for the Council to review. That design will be presented to the Council during it’s special meeting on Monday.

Next Week

Special City Council Meeting

The City Council will meet for a special meeting at 5:30 pm on Monday at Prairie Center. There are two items on the agenda for this meeting: the presentation of the annual financial audit, and an update on the design for the Prairie Park Phase 1 remodel.

(Link to meeting materials)

City Council Meeting

The City Council will also meet on Monday at 7 pm at Prairie Center for its regular meeting. The main agenda for this meeting includes several hiring approvals for firefighters, including the Council Member noted above, and a new development. The full agenda is as follows:

1. Consent Agenda:

   1. Approve Claims List.

   2. Approve Prior City Council Meeting Minutes.

   3. Approve Pay Application #18 for the Fire Station Facility Project.

   4. Approve Pay Application #4 for the Odean Avenue Watermain & PRV Project.

   5. Accept Resignation from a City Employee – Utility Billing.

   6. Adopt Resolution 2026-47 Adopting the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report.

   7. Adopt Resolution 2026-48 Approving a Right of Entry Agreement – Outlot C, Ashwood 3rd Addition.

   8. Approve a Job Description and Authorize Recruitment – Public Works Manager.

   9. Approve Hiring for a Park Maintenance II Position.

   10. Authorize a Request for Proposals – Excess Soil Removal from City Property.

   11. Accept Quote and Authorize Procurement – Portable 800mhz Radios.

   12. Accept Quotes and Authorize Procurement – Self Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA).

   13. Approve Hiring for the Election Specialist Positions.

   14. Adopt Resolution 2026-49 Approving Site and Building Plans – Lot 1, Block 1 RLC Addition.

   15. Adopt Resolution 2026-50 Appointing Absentee Ballot Board and Election Judges.

2. Zachman Meadows Second Addition (Boyd Dollansky, LLC): PUD Development Plan and Preliminary Plat

3. Fire Department Staffing: Hiring Fire Captain, Full-Time Firefighter, Part-Time Firefighters

New charges this month have increased the total cost of owning our own fire department to $21,940,813.73 so far.

(Link to meeting materials)

During the Public Safety Commission meeting earlier this week, the Commission heard about how oversized and unnecessary the truck is. While this type of truck may be common in places like Colorado or other areas where the type of power and drive-train is needed, here in Otsego it’s a bit overkill.

Instead, the Commission approved a recommendation to the Council to sell the truck, and replace it with a smaller mini-pumper at a cost of around $400k. The Fire Department has been in discussions with vendors to purchase Engine 12 at roughly the price we purchased it for, which will net around $100k for the city - money that is needed to purchase additional small equipment and gear. The mini-pumper will be easier to operate and maintain, and less expensive to replace.

This week

City Council Meeting

The City Council met on Monday with only a few items on the main agenda. The first was a change to the early in-person voting rules for the City. A new law allows cities to reduce in-person absentee voting from 46 days to 18 days prior to election day - with the option to change it per election. The 46 day requirement meant that cities had to hire more election staff, keep the city hall building open, and led to a lot of confusion for voters. The Council agreed that moving to an 18 day in-person absentee voting schedule was more manageable and approved the change. Voters will still have the ability to vote via mail-in ballot during the full early voting period.

The second item on the agenda was the approval of a Fire Marshal contract position. I voted against the proposal because it represented yet another unbudgeted addition to a Fire Department that the Council has already allowed to exceed its budget by 50%.

During the discussion, it became clear that other members of the Council were unaware of just how far over budget the department already is for this year. I found that especially disappointing, as the approval of that budget overrun occurred only a few months ago. In fact, I appeared to be the only Council member who recognized the extent of the department’s current budget situation.

Public Safety Commission Meeting

The Public Safety Commission met this week and heard an update on the Fire Department progress, the sale of Engine 12, and also took a tour of the Station. During the open forum portion of the meeting residents discussed safety concerns on Radford Ave.

The street is a longer stretch of road in the southeast portion of the city. Due to the development timeline in that area and geography, neighborhoods have been added in a sort of stacked fashion - resulting in an area that backs into a corner with no immediate access to a collector street. That means residents have a longer drive time to get out of the neighborhood and some of those that live along the street have witnessed unsafe driving and activity as a result. The situation is probably made worse by the fact that the newer areas are at the top of a hill, and may be tempted to speed down it.

The Commission discussed some possible solutions to tame the speed and unsafe behaviors. The Administrative Subcommittee and Public Works Subcommittee will also review the options and come back to the Council at a future date.

Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting

The Heritage Preservation Commission met earlier this week at the Fire Station and received a tour of the Station, with highlights of where historical placards and posters will be displayed in the future.

After the tour, the Commission also discussed plans for events later this year, including the cemetery tour and Prairie Festival.

Next Week

Planning Commission Meeting

The Planning Commission will meet on Monday at 7 pm at Prairie Center. The agenda for this meeting includes two public hearing items, as well as a building plan review for a truck wash station.

The first public hearing item is a development on the west side of the city, across from DSG on Kadler: Zachman Meadows, 2nd Addition. The development includes 43 single family lots, extending the current Zachman Meadows development to the north.

The second public hearing item is on the South Central Water Treatment Facility. The facility will be located on the property just south of Water Tower 4 - the newest water tower in the city. This project will continue to improve water quality throughout the city, and this building will add additional water capacity for the city.

The final item on the agenda is a building plan review for R + L Carriers to build a truck washing building on their existing property. The Commission will review the building plans and provide a possible recommendation to the Council.

(Link to meeting packet)

Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting

On Tuesday at 7 pm at Prairie Center, the Planning Commission will meet for its regular meeting. The only item on the agenda is a review of the Prairie Park Phase 1 design, and the Commission will be asked to select a design from a few options to move forward.

(Link to meeting packet)

Public Works Subcommittee Meeting

The Public Works Subcommittee will meet next week. However, the agenda for this meeting has not yet been finalized.

City Offices Closed - Fri Jun 19

City Offices will be closed on Friday, June 19th next week in observance of Juneteenth.

The total cost is estimated to be around $8.2MM if it’s built within the next year. As I listened to the Albertville Council discuss how to fund these improvements, I was struck by how unfortunate it is that our own Council has chosen to pull up the ladder behind us, turning away from our neighbors when they need our support most. Albertville needs to remodel their station, while Elk River is doing the same. Rogers and Elk River also just built new stations that support our city, but with the cancellation of the contracts - they won’t be getting any revenue to help offset those costs.

Had we instead decided to work with our neighbors to continue the contracts, we could have benefited from the improved service while ensuring that the other cities didn’t have to take on the financial burden alone.

Next Week

City Council Meeting

The City Council will meet on Monday at 7 pm at Prairie Center for its regular meeting. The main agenda includes the following items:

3. Consent Agenda:

   1. Approve Claims List.

   2. Approve Prior City Council Meeting Minutes.

   3. Approve City Council Special Compensation for May 2026.

   4. Approve Pay Application #20 for the Wellhouse 4 Treatment Improvements Project.

   5. Approve Pay Application #1 for the Martin Farms Lift Station No. 4 Improvements Project.

   6. Approve Pay Application #1 for the Lily Pond Park Improvements Project.

   7. Approve One Hour City Hall Closure on June 23, 2026, for the Employee Summer Recognition Event.

   8. Adopt Resolution 2026-45 Accepting a Donation from Coborn’s.

   9. Approve the Renewal of the City’s Workers Compensation Insurance Coverage.

   10. Adopt Resolution 2026-46 Declaring Position Eligibility for the Police & Fire PERA Pension Plan.

   11. Approve Hiring for a Recreation Leader Position.

4. Consider Approval and Selection of 18-Day Early Voting Period.

5. Consider Approval of a Contract Fire Marshal Agreement.

New charges this month have increased the total spend for our fire department up to $21,861,315.06 - a cost that would have covered almost 16 years of contracted fire service.

(Link to meeting materials)

Public Safety Commission Meeting

The Public Safety Commission will meet on Tuesday at 6:30 pm at the fire station. Meetings for the Commission have been permanently moved to that location going forward.

The standing agenda includes the review of reports from the surrounding fire departments as well as an update from the Wright County Sheriff’s Office.

(Link to meeting materials)

Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting

The Otsego Heritage Preservation Commission will be meeting on Wednesday at 6 pm, starting with a tour of the fire station. The meeting following that tour will also take place in the fire station conference room.

The agenda for this meeting includes old business on the NAPC Forum, time capsule, 2026 goals and projects, Holt family donations, fire station display photos and history highlights, the cemetery tour, and the Prairie Festival preparations.

(Link to meeting materials)

Albertville Friendly City Days

The annual Albertville Friendly City Days starts next week! The multi-day event has lots of music, games, vendors, and fireworks. The festival runs from June 10th through the 14th.

There is even a parade on Sunday, starting at 12:30 pm.

Find more information on the official Albertville Friendly City Days website.

Wright County Sheriff’s Office Open House

Next Friday, June 12th, the Wright County Sheriff’s Office will be hosting their annual open house. This is a great opportunity to learn more about the equipment and services that the WCSO provides. Families will have the opportunity to see demonstrations of drones and K9s, and there is free hot dogs and chips with refreshments!

I suggest getting there a little early to ensure you find a good parking spot and arrive in time for the helicopter landing!

See the County News Flash for more information.

City Council Meeting

The City Council met on Monday with a few items on the regular agenda. The first item was the Interim Use Permit and rezoning for the Jacobs Plat - currently Blu Dot. That tenant will be leaving, and the property owner was asking for the permit to allow for outdoor storage. When this issue was before the Planning Commission, it generated a lot of discussion, and the Council received additional information on the fencing and screening plan. The plan was approved with a few modifications to the conditions allowing for the total height of the fencing to meet certain height requirements above ground level.

The property owner had also requested 24 hour operations at the site - asking for a condition to be removed that forbid outdoor operations between 10 pm and 7 am. However, given the potential for disruption in the outdoor space, the Council did not feel that was acceptable at this time. The tenant could potentially apply for an amendment in the future that would allow for extended hours of operation.

The other major item on the agenda was the Wellhouse 3 Water Treatment Plant expansion - awarding construction contracts and services. This project has been in the works for quite a while, and there is certainly more to come. However, this upgrade - along with the Wellhouse 4 upgrades that are nearing completion within the next few days - should provide some noticeable improvements to drinking water quality for most residents - especially during the winter months when water usage across the city is lower.

Next Week

Planning Commission Meeting Canceled

The Planning Commission would normally meet on Monday, however that meeting has been canceled due to a lack of quorum.

Subscribe now

Earlier this week, I announced a special declaration informing residents that I officially filed for the Office of County Commissioner, District 3. This District represents Otsego, Albertville, and a portion of Dayton.

Since I will not be seeking re-election to my current seat as Otsego City Council Member, I extend the offer to anyone who has questions about the process of filing or what it means to be an elected official. Please feel free to reach out, and I would be happy to discuss or meet with you.

This year, there will be two seats open on the Otsego City Council. Filing for that office is from July 14 - July 28 at Otsego City Hall with a filing fee of $25.

You can learn more about my campaign for County Commissioner on my campaign website:

https://www.rjdunlap.com

May 26 - County 37/137 Closure

Starting on Tuesday, the eastbound ramps to I-94 will be closed for construction. The westbound ramps will also remain closed with local access to the gas station and businesses there.

This week

Planning Commission Meeting

The Planning Commission met on Monday for a long meeting with a lot of good discussion. The item that garnered the most discussion will also be on the main agenda for the City Council meeting on Tuesday: an outdoor storage facility on the current Blu Dot property. A few residents spoke with concerns about noise and light at the new location, and Commissioners expressed concern that the fencing and landscaping wouldn’t be enough to address those concerns.

The Commission also discussed the zoning map amendment for Condo Suites of Otsego, a cell tower, and amendments to the city code - all of which were approved and will be on the consent agenda for the City Council meeting on Tuesday.

Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting

The Heritage Preservation Commission met on Tuesday, with the planned tour of the Fire Station being cancelled due to the timing of construction. The Commission reviewed and finalized the historical work that was done on the 1914 Barn. They also finalized the Time Capsule and sealed it up! It will be kept at Prairie Center until its opening 50 years from now. Contents included pictures of the city, narratives of important historical sites and their provenance, as well as some modern items.

Next Week

Memorial Day - City Offices Closed Monday

City Offices will be closed on Monday in observance of Memorial Day.

There are many events in the area honoring the men and women of the Armed Services that have lost their lives in the service in our country. Some of those events in the area include the following:

• 8 am - St. Michael, St. Paul Lutheran Church

• 9 am - Albertville, St. Albert’s Cemetery

• 11:15 am - Monticello High School, Honor Guard and music

City Council Meeting

The City Council will meet on Tuesday at 7 pm at Prairie Center. The agenda for this meeting includes the following items:

3. Consent Agenda:

   1. Approve Claims List.

   2. Approve Prior City Council Meeting Minutes.

   3. Approve Pay Application #17 for the Fire Station Facility Project.

   4. Accept Quotes and Authorize Control Structure Repairs – East WWTF.

   5. Accept Quotes and Authorize Purchase of Odor Control Unit Media – East WWTF.

   6. Authorize a Letter of Intent for Purchase of a Fleet Vehicle – Combo Unit Jet-Vac Truck.

   7. Adopt Resolution 2026-40 Adopting Findings of Fact and Approving a Conditional Use Permit (Towers, LLC).

   8. Adopt Ordinance 2026-07 Amending the City Code – Animal Kennels, Accessory Buildings, Fences & Signs.

   9. Condo Suites of Otsego PUD District Amendment (Boyd Dollansky, LLC): Zoning Map Amendment

   10. Approve Liquor License Renewals for July 1, 2026, to June 30, 2027.

4. Jacobs Plat Second Addition (Endeavor Investments XII, LLC) - Blu Dot: Preliminary Plat and Interim Use Permit

5. Wellhouse No. 3 Water Treatment Plant: Awarding Construction Contracts

New charges this week have exploded the cost of owning our own fire department to $20,658,857.06 - an amount that would have covered 15 years of contracted fire service.

Special City Council Meeting

On Monday, the Council met to continue the discussion around the goals and objectives of the Council. We also reviewed the summarized feedback from staff on their recommendations for areas the Council could focus on.

A theme that stuck out for a lot of the items was improved communication, planning for future infrastructure, and more visibility around city services. During the discussion, I shared my thoughts on these issues including the fact that better communication seemed to continually resurface.

I’m my experience, this is a bit of a trap. It’s a convenient scapegoat to say that a project or an initiative failed because it just wasn’t communicated properly. While I believe that transparency and the availability of important information is a critical aspect of good governance, I don’t think better communication transforms a bad project into a good one - because at that point, what you’re really asking for is propaganda.

Furthermore, with the hiring and expansion of a communications specialist in the city, more and more issues are being pushed into the scope of that role. That’s not a great long-term solution, in my mind.

Part of the reason I started this newsletter is because information on city issues was sparse - and what information was out there was often sanitized and lacked the depth necessary to truly understand what is going on in our city.

The other reason that I started this newsletter is because I believe it is my responsibility as an elected official to be that source of information. If I am not able to explain my position, my research, my understanding of what is happening - then I don’t think I’m being a good representative of the people. This newsletter is my way of fulfilling my promise to residents to be more transparent and to honor my oath.

In that sense, when my colleagues push the failure of the fire department project onto bad public relations they miss the point: it’s a failure to the residents and taxpayers in the basics of elected representation. The refusal of the Council to hold a public forum on the project, or provide accurate accounting of the costs, is not a communication problem - it’s a governance problem.

City Council Meeting

The City Council also met on Monday for its regular meeting. This meeting was brief as there were no items on the main agenda. At the start of the meeting, the Council hosted the ceremony to swear in the new Otsego Fire Chief, James McCoy.

Public Safety Commission Meeting

The Public Safety Commission met on Thursday this week, with the bulk of the meeting being centered around introducing the new Fire Chief, and hearing updates on the progress of the fire station and the hiring process.

The Commission also heard about an opportunity to hire a contract position for the role of Fire Marshall, and voted unanimously to recommend that the Council consider the position.

Additionally, the Commission also voted unanimously to recommend the sale of surplus equipment: two antique hose carts that had been purchased by the previous Chief with the intent to display them at the new fire station. The statement was made that attempting to co-opt the history of another fire department is not something that our city should do, and it’s not a great way to start a new department. That recommendation will come to the City Council at a later time.

Next Week

Planning Commission Meeting

The Planning Commission will meet on Monday at 7 pm at Prairie Center. The agenda for this meeting has multiple public hearing items:

• Blue Dot expansion and outdoor storage (Endeavor Investments XII LLC): Preliminary and Final Plat, Interim Use Permit

• Wireless tower (The Towers LLC): Conditional Use Permit

• Condo Suites of Otsego (Boyd CIC): PUD District Amendment / Correction

• Various zoning ordinance amendments for accessory buildings, landscaping, screening, and fences, signs, and a residential rural open space cluster district

(Link to meeting packet)

Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Canceled

The Parks and Recreation Commission would normally meet on Tuesday - however, that meeting has been canceled due to a lack of agenda items.

Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting

The Heritage Preservation Commission will meet on Tuesday, starting with a tour of the Fire Station at 6 pm. Following the tour, the Commission will then meet at City Hall with a few standing items for discussion on the agenda:

• 1914 Barn

• Time Capsule

• 2026 goals and projects

• Holt family donations

• Fire station display photos - history highlights of Otsego

(Link to meeting packet)

Public Works Subcommittee Meeting

The Public Works Subcommittee will meet next week to discuss several important issues. The agenda for this meeting includes:

• Wellhouse 3 Water Treatment - Engineering and Bids

• East Wastewater Treatment Facility - Repairs and Media Replacement

• Fleet Procurement - Combo Unit Jet-Vac Truck

• Discussion on Preliminary Concepts of Future Staffing Plan

Special City Council Meeting - Goal Setting

On Monday at 5:30 pm, the City Council will hold a special meeting at Prairie Center to finalize the discussions around Council goal setting.

(Link to meeting packet)

City Council Meeting

The City Council will also meet on Monday at 7 pm at Prairie Center for its regular meeting. This meeting has no items on the main agenda, with all the items put on the consent agenda. However, the Council will be conducting a swearing in ceremony for the new Fire Chief, James McCoy.

The main agenda for this meeting is as follows:

1. Presentations:

   1. Oath of Office – Fire Chief James McCoy.

   2. Bank of Elk River – Donation.

2. Open Forum.

3. Consider Agenda Approval.

4. Consent Agenda:

   1. Approve Claims List.

   2. Approve Prior City Council Meeting Minutes.

   3. Approve City Council Special Compensation for April 2026.

   4. Approve Pay Application #19 for the Wellhouse 4 Treatment Improvements Project.

   5. Approve Pay Application #2 for the South-Central Wellfield Development Phase 1A Project.

   6. Approve Hiring for the IT Support Specialist Position.

   7. Adopt Resolution 2026-38 Accepting a Donation from the Bank of Elk River.

   8. Adopt Resolution 2026-39 Approving a Median Encroachment and Maintenance Agreement.

   9. Approve a Job Description and Authorize Recruitment – Parks Supervisor.

New charges this month bring the total cost of owning our own fire department up to $17,577,225.34 - which would have paid for more than 12 years of fire service from our contract providers.

(Link to meeting packet)

Touch-a-Truck

The Otsego Touch a Truck event will be held at Prairie Park on Tuesday from 6:00 pm - 7:30 pm. The event is free for all ages, and includes trucks from multiple professions, including city vehicles. There is also food available at the food trucks.

To help make the event accessible to everyone, a sensory-friendly time will be held from 5:30 pm to 6:00 pm with no horns or sirens for visitors with sensory sensitivities.

(More information)

Public Safety Commission Meeting

The Public Safety Commission would normally meet on Tuesday. However, due to the Touch-a-Truck event, the Commission will be meeting on Thursday at 6:30 pm at Prairie Center, instead.

The packet for this meeting is not yet available due to it occurring later in the week. It will be posted on the city website on Monday.

At the same time that our Council was making the ill-advised decision to go it alone and turn our backs on our neighbors, the city of Lexington voted to end its fire department after 72 years. That city decided to follow the best path forward for its residents and move to a regional model. Their public announcement highlights the following:

This partnership follows a broader regional trend toward collaboration and shared services, including the recent transition of the Centennial Fire District—serving Centerville and Circle Pines—into SBM Fire. These mergers are designed to enhance service delivery, improve response times, and create long-term efficiencies through shared personnel and resources.

Meanwhile, our city is moving in the opposite direction, shutting out the citizens in the process, and ignoring the advice of expert analysis that told us to keep a regional system in place.

Time and time again, residents continue to ask the fundamental question: why are we doing this? In response, they get silence from the dais. No public forum is coming. No answers. No refunds.

That’s not leadership. And it doesn’t make us safer.

This week

City Council Meeting

On Monday, the City Council met to review the plans for Foss Swim School, and make the fateful decision about the future of fire services in Otsego.

Planning Commission Meeting Canceled

The Planning Commission would normally meet on Monday. However, that meeting has been canceled due to a lack of agenda items.

This week

Special Meeting - Hiring Fire Chief

The City Council convened briefly on Monday to consider the hiring of Jim McCoy as the next Fire Chief. The meeting, which was not recorded, was treated largely as a formality and an inconvenience rather than a substantive deliberation. No Council Members offered comments or justification in support of the motion, despite its approval. I was the sole dissenting vote and provided my reasoning during the meeting, which is included below.

Tonight, we are being asked to take a significant step: hiring a fire chief who, by all accounts, is a strong and qualified candidate. I want to be clear at the outset: my concern is not with the individual. My concern is with the process, and more importantly, the absence of a real plan.

Because what we have today is not a plan.

Buying land without a mission is an impulse, not a strategy. Allowing that property to sit vacant for a decade while residents continued to pay for it is not a plan. A plan requires clarity - it defines what level of service we intend to provide, what it will cost, how we will fund it, and how we will measure success. Those are not details to be worked out later. They are the foundation that should drive decisions, not the other way around.

And because they are missing, we are now shifting that responsibility onto someone we haven’t even hired yet.

We are asking a future fire chief to answer the most fundamental questions: what services to offer, how to structure them, and how much the community should be asked to pay. The Chief manages operations; this Council dictates policy. Tonight, those lines are dangerously blurred.

That leads directly to the position we are putting this candidate in.

We are effectively asking them to build something undefined, under constraints we haven’t articulated, in a ridiculously short time-frame that leaves no room for careful planning. And when that produces gaps or failures, who will be held responsible? Not this Council. The person we hired will be. That is not a fair expectation of any professional, and it’s not how you build a functional department.

At the same time, we are considering moving away from a system that currently provides coverage through multiple neighboring stations - and replacing it with a single, stand-alone station. The Fire Study explicitly warned against canceling those contracts. Yet that is the direction we appear to be heading.

The result is not theoretical. We’re looking at a 350% increase in residents who will fall outside of the five road-mile safety zone. We aren’t expanding our reach, we are expanding the distance between our residents and the help they need. That is not an improvement in service, it’s an increase in risk.

And yet, despite all of this, we are being asked to move forward tonight, because the timeline demands it.

Instead of taking the time to do it right, we are rushing towards an arbitrary deadline - one that appears to prioritize speed and image over the genuine needs and safety of our community. This process has also limited meaningful public input on a decision that will shape long-term service and costs for residents.

Before we take this step - before we spend another dollar - we need to do the work we were elected to do. Define the plan. Set the expectations. Establish the budget. Make clear, deliberate decisions about the level of service this community deserves. Instead, we spent more time discussing paint schemes and exercise equipment than answering the most basic question: why are we doing this, and what problem are we trying to solve?

For these reasons, I cannot support this hire tonight. Not because of the candidate, but because we have not done the work necessary to ensure their success - or to protect this community.

If this fails, it will not be because of the person we hire. It will be because of the decisions we refused to make.

Tonight, I am making a decision on behalf of all residents, including those who were effectively excluded from a meaningful vote on this issue. I will be voting no.

Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting

The Parks and Recreation Commission met to discuss the design on Phase 1 of the Prairie Park improvements. The presentation highlighted some decision-points on the playground equipment, location of the pavilion, and the design of the relocated veterans memorial. The Commission had a lengthy discussion around these items, as well as community engagement and finances.

During the Touch-a-Truck event next month (May 12), the Parks and Recreation department will have a survey and booth set up for residents to see the options that the Commission is considering and provide feedback.

Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Meeting

On Wednesday, the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization met to consider changes to property valuations. The Wright County Assessors office provided a detailed presentation over value changes for the County, and our local assessors went through some of the impacts within our city.

In Otsego, property values for residential increased 1.83%, excluding new construction. Individual property values will differ from that based on neighborhood characteristics, property changes, and other factors.

Some members of the public spoke about their valuations, asking questions about the process and the history of their property values. One individual was a former Council Member and requested that the Board reduce his property taxes, which were high because of items he had voted in favor of while he was on the Council... Since the Board does not deal with property taxes, no relief could be offered.

Next Week

City Council Meeting

The City Council will meet Monday at 7 pm at Prairie Center for its regular meeting. This meeting includes several important items on the agenda, representing a significant change in how the City provides essential services. The City Council is being asked to cancel the fire service contracts with the surrounding communities.

The agenda for this meeting is below:

1. Consent Agenda:

   1. Approve Claims List.

   2. Approve Prior City Council Meeting Minutes.

   3. Approve Pay Application #16 for the Fire Station Facility Project.

   4. Approve the Purchase of a Fleet Vehicle – Utility Biosolids Tandem Dump Truck.

   5. Accept a Grant and Approve a Grant Agreement – Drinking Water Protection.

   6. Adopt Resolution 2026-35 Approving a Revised Information Technology Policy.

   7. Accept Notice of Retirement from a City Employee – Parks Foreperson.

2. Foss Swim School: Final Plat and PUD Development

3. Fire Department Presentation: Cancellation of Fire Service Contracts, and Hiring of CRR Team Members

New charges this month increase the total spend to date for our fire department to $16,601,837.42

(Link to meeting packet)

Clean Up Day (May 2nd)

Next Saturday is Otsego Clean Up Day! Residents of Otsego have an opportunity to dispose of a wide variety of unwanted items. A small fee is required for some items and pre-registration is requested so that residents can move quickly through the site.

For more information, check the city website.

Subscribe now