Ellendale denies permit to Petsinger

Raised voices and pointed comments have become standard fare at Ellendale City Council meetings, but the arguing started before the June 12 meeting was even called to order.

“I asked a very simple question,” said rural resident Dan Petsinger, standing in front of City Clerk Steve Engel and City Attorney Mark Rahrick.

“Why don’t you back off?” Rahrick responded. “Sit down. Back off.”

“I’m asking a very important question,” Petsinger said.

“Step away from the table and back off,” Rahrick repeated.

“Law enforcement will be here real shortly, if that’s what you want to deal with,” Engel said.

“You can call them,” Petsinger said, insisting on an answer about when the city publicly posts the council agenda and the meeting minutes.

The back-and-forth continued, much as it has for the past year, as the two sides face off about alleged code violations, city ordinances and definitions of words like “tower.”

“Mayor, will you ask him to leave?” Engel said to Scott Groth, prompting a response from Keith Haskell, a self-described investigative journalist who regularly attends the meetings in support of Petsinger.

“The meeting’s not even in session,” he said. “He got told to talk to the city attorney” about the administrative issue at the center of the argument.

“Yeah, and now he got told how many times to shut up and sit down?” said Jim Crosby, an Ellendale resident who has been vocal in his support of the city council.

“I don’t think it works that way,” Haskell said.

A Steele County Sheriff’s Office deputy arrived as the meeting began.

Public comment

Haskell took advantage of the 3-minute public comment to speak about a data request he made to the city on May 20, with a deadline of June 1, saying he “keeps getting stalled on it. As you know, it’s not the first time” he has had issues with receiving public documents – most related to city ordinances and alleged code violations.

“Also, through a data request, I have now discovered that this council and the clerk have lied to the general public in a public meeting, on record and recorded, about whether or not there had been any correspondence between Jaguar (Communications) and the city,” Haskell said.

Petsinger has alleged the internet provider has violated a conditional use permit on property in town; the city’s policy is to send a letter, notifying a party of a violation.

“In three different meetings, we were all told publicly … ‘nope, there’s been no correspondence; we’re waiting to hear from Jaguar,’” Haskell said.

“Now that we have a data request (that was) filled, that’s not true,” he said, “and it shows that the city did not handle that complaint – that official, formal, written complaint – the way they normally handle them, and the way their policy codification manual says they handle violations and complaints.”

Haskell claimed the city’s email to Jaguar mentions Petsinger and his wife but says nothing about the city itself having an issue with the CUP.

He said the emails exchanged between the city and Jaguar not only don’t discuss abating or correcting the problem, “it looks like the city’s trying to negotiate a new conditional use permit to make adjustments to make it all go away.”

Haskell acknowledged the “friction and feelings” between the city and Petsinger, who also owns an internet service company, telling the council “if that’s the behavior that’s going to go on, it doesn’t give the appearance of being very transparent or equal or fair or without bias or free of discrimination.”

He went on to say he recorded two sitting council members “flip off Mr. Petsinger in the last week or so” and said they challenged him to post it on social media.

“If this council and this city think that behavior of an elected servant is appropriate and ethical – I’m not your problem,” Haskell said.

The behavior was defended – sort of – by Sue Asplund, who told Haskell that “flipping off someone has been determined by the Supreme Court as a protected freedom of speech.”

She went on to tell Haskell that his “legal record is not so great, so I wouldn’t take the high road if I were you.”

Asplund said the council “seems to have a hard time enforcing their ordinances, and I don’t see that happening in other towns.” She suggested forming a citizens’ committee that could help.

“You need to be more clear on the actual rules and the penalties, and in some cases, I think the penalty should be greatly increased for people who blatantly disregard – like the lawn mowing,” she said.

“I know other cities do enforce their ordinances – and nobody in their right minds would sue them for doing that, because they would lose,” she said.

Legalities

Asplund was referring to Petsinger, who is appealing a district court ruling that he cannot have a tower – whatever form that takes – on a piece of property he and his wife own in town.

The city had filed a civil suit against the Petsingers in October, requesting that the court issue a permanent injunction requiring the couple to remove a trailer equipped with security cameras from the property.

The Petsingers claimed that because it is a licensed trailer, typically towed behind a vehicle, it didn’t fit the definition of “tower.”

A Steele County District Court judge disagreed, ruling that it was the use of the structure that mattered: in this case, to mount security cameras on. The trailer was to be removed from the property within 10 days.

The judge wrote in his May 29 judgment that “despite their mere assertions, the Petsingers have provided no persuasive evidence that the City Code and ordinances do not apply to them, nor have they shown that they are being unfairly targeted for their violation.”

He also ruled that the city is entitled to recover its costs, including administrative costs and attorney’s fees.

The Petsingers sought an emergency stay of enforcement while they appeal.

New permit

For years, Petsinger has rented space atop the city’s water tower for equipment related to his internet business. The most recent five-year contract expired in May, and the city did not renew the contract.

Though he disputed that refusal, Petsinger proceeded with obtaining another means to provide a clear line of sight for his equipment.

He settled on installing a 150-foot utility pole in the right-of-way near his property in town – but he needed to apply for a city permit for “a small wireless facility.”

At the June 12 meeting, council members were asked to either deny the permit application entirely or approve it with conditions.

The application was denied outright.

Petsinger has appealed the decision; he said after the meeting that if his appeal is rejected, he will file a federal lawsuit against the city.