Meyer takes open Ellendale seat

Joel Meyer is getting a little preview of the responsibilities he will face for the next four years.

He was appointed to fill the Ellendale City Council seat left vacant after the resignation of Derek Bartness, whose term was set to expire in December.

Bartness had already decided not to pursue re-election but stepped down after an accusation of abuse of power, violation of ethical standards and consumer protections laws, and defamation.

The allegations were made in a complaint against Bartness, claiming he left a one-star review of a business owned by Daniel Petsinger, of rural Ellendale.

Petsinger asked that Bartness be censured and demanded a written online statement “fully admitting to, confessing to, acknowledging the wrongness, and apologizing to (Petsinger), as well as a 60-day posting of such at Ellendale City Hall.”

Instead, Bartness resigned from the council two weeks later, with three months left in his term. His resignation was accepted in October.

Meyer, who was sworn in at the Nov. 14 meeting, won one of the two open seats on the city council in the general election. He and Scott Swanson were the only two candidates in the race; incumbent Jackie Froman had also decided not to run.

Swanson will take office in January.

A further rearrangement of the council is coming: Current councilor Scott Groth was the lone candidate in the race for mayor after Matthew Bartsch announced he would not run again.

That will leave the remainder of Groth’s city council term open when he takes the gavel in January.

City Clerk Steve Engel said the city will appoint a successor to fill the two years left on Groth’s councilor seat.

The appointment is expected to come soon after the new year.

Signs and communication

Petsinger has been a regular attendee of the council meetings for about six months, challenging the city’s claims of code violations on properties he owns in town.

Last week, he seemingly spoke for his neighbors.

“We do not have a street sign on my cul-de-sac,” Petsinger said. “Is there any reason the city has failed to erect a sign, with all the work done (in the area), that we are being discriminated against on Lageson Court? On all the other streets, there’s street signs throughout the city.

“I would ask that the city put a street sign out there in a very timely and pertinent manner, and not assess any of the property owners the cost of installing the sign,” he said. “That should’ve been the responsibility of the city to begin with.”

City Maintenance Supervisor Josh Otto said the street sign would be installed sometime this week.

Petsinger continued to address the council.

“I have asked, then I’ve demanded, and now I’m going to give you one last chance to give me all of the information, communication, to and from the city, about 601 Lageson Court,” he said of one of the properties he owns in town.

“That picture shows everything that I own on that property, and I demand from the city all communications to and from, for the last two years – and moving forward, for at least two more years,” Petsinger said.

“That includes any correspondence to anyone concerning my property … and I am entitled to know what’s going on with it. Please do so before the close of business tomorrow, Nov. 15, by 5 p.m.,” he said. “Steve has my email, and I will accept pdf versions.”

Engel said he wanted the request in writing.

“It doesn’t quite make sense, what you’re asking,” he said.

Petsinger appeared angry, saying he had already provided the request.

“It was in their packet at the last meeting, and you can look at it in the email,” he said. “If you want to have this conversation, I can come back up and we can have an open conversation about this.”

“Did it have the data request in there?” Engel asked.

“Yes, it did, and you, the city, have failed to respond to my request that you’ve had in your packet, that all the council members have seen,” Petsinger said.

Bartsch confirmed the council members had the information.

“Shall we clarify this afterwards?” he asked Engel.

“You’re going to have to, yes,” Engel said. “I’m not aware of it. I don’t understand it.”

Continued contention

The disagreement is one of many that have played out in the monthly meetings.

Minutes before the October meeting began, Petsinger was served with a civil lawsuit filed by the city, asking for a court order that would require him to abate one of the violations.

At issue is a trailer that is parked at 601 Lageson Court; a tower on the trailer is equipped with cameras. In his answer to the lawsuit, Petsinger denies the allegation, saying “the City and other Plaintiffs continually try to write their own law or definition of what a trailer is.”

City officials believe Petsinger violated city code by “not obtaining a zoning permit for placing an accessory structure on the property.”

It seems to come down to semantics: Is it a structure or a trailer?

An agenda item at last week’s meeting may indicate some sort of movement. In new business, Engel asked that a codification draft revision about zoning permits be tabled until December.

“I’m working with Mark,” he said, referring to city attorney Mark Rahrick. “It looks like a little loophole in our coding; in our books, there’s not a definition for an item with a structure on there, so that pretty much allowed the building to go up without a zoning permit required.

“Other violations are involved,” Engel told the council, “but I don’t know if we can even enforce them, because a zoning permit wasn’t required.”

Another revision, this one regarding telecommunication towers and antennae, was also tabled until December “for further review,” without any council discussion.

There was no clarification of either item; the meeting soon adjourned, and members of the city council went into a closed meeting, citing attorney-client privilege.