By ELI LUTGENS
Publisher/Editor
An official citation and fine for unmowed grass on five lots was unanimously approved by members of the Ellendale City Council Thursday, July 11, 2024, despite dispute and numerous accusations of unfair treatment from property owner Daniel Petsinger.
Petsinger, along with two concerned citizens, cited numerous complaints with the city’s handling of the situation, called into question the city's codification ordinances and delivered official letters of complaint to the city of Ellendale.
The fine in question totals $250 for unmowed grass in excess height of six inches at 601 and 603 Lageson Court and 801, 803 and 805 Dale Court.
“[I’m] formally warning you right now your actions are retaliation in nature and discriminatory,” Petsinger stated. “I, for one, will not tolerate these actions. You will be held accountable.”
Petsinger has owned the five lots at Lageson and Dale Courts since 2017. This is the first incident of a fine. The previous owners of the lot reportedly left the property unmowed or used it for baling hay. Petsinger also bails hay grown on the land, which the city confirmed after the council meeting.
Ellendale mayor Matthew Bartsch stated during the exchange that “ninety percent of the time,” violations of this type are “resolved with a phone call.
“If it’s not resolved after that, then an administrative citation… Most of the time it is resolved very quickly.”
Petsinger said he received no courtesy phone call, but acknowledged receiving a letter informing him of a hearing on the matter which was scheduled in May. That hearing ended abruptly after questions were raised concerning the city’s codification manual.
Petsinger cited the codification manual which states a letter of “destruction” (in this case a letter stating the lawn should be mowed) must precipitate a formal citation.
The city’s codification manual includes a clause under 10.9 Section E, number 2 that “Nothing herein shall be interpreted to require that a demand be sent prior to issuing an administrative fine or utilizing any other remedy available to the city under this section.” Simply put, the ordinance allows city officials to impose administrative fines at their discretion. Petsinger stated the codification manual contradicts itself because under the weed’s portion the manual also says that a formal letter of destruction must come first.
During the public comment portion of the meeting, Mayor Bartsch summarized the typical process, stating it usually begins with a phone call which is followed by a letter, then a public hearing, then an administrative citation if the council so chooses.
The council vote was 4-0 in favor of issuing a fine to Petsinger for the five properties.
Petsinger’s letter of complaint also includes an issue regarding a “tower” which Petsinger reportedly placed on 601 Lageson Court. The object in question, actually a trailer with a stand on it to hold a 360-degree camera, is a security feature used to keep surveillance on the property.
“In May I verbally brought up and complained about the out of compliance and illegal tower and antenna at the home of a city council member who resides in the city 808 Rose Drive,” Petsinger wrote in his complaint. “I have not heard any follow up, nor seen it on the agenda… It is apparent that he was not given 22 days to comply with the ordinance by the next council meeting like you tried to force on me with the mowing issue. He has had 63 days, as has the council and there has been no action. This is the epitome of discriminatory enforcement of your codification manual.”
Petsinger was fined $55 for the “illegal tower” in June without having been granted a public hearing on the matter. He disputed the terminology describing the structure as a “tower,” comparing it instead to a tent.
Petsinger stated he had placed the tall pole and 360-degree camera because, after he reported a neighbor had vandalized some surveillance equipment previously located on the property, the city police had stated there was “insufficient evidence” to prosecute the neighbor for destruction of property. Both the neighbor and Petsinger reportedly have “no-trespassing” notices against each other.
Regarding the $250 fine, Petsinger asked, “Why can other people have crops on their property and not me?”
Petsinger said the city is trying to punish him for not doing what they say.
“[Council person] Jon Asplund called me an agitator, a rabble rouser and said the city was going to make an example out of me,” Petsinger said after the meeting.
Petsinger also states the actions of the council are discriminatory because Asplund has a tower on his property which he claims was “grandfathered in” from the previous codification manual. Asplund was reportedly not asked to remove his tower, nor has he been fined for having it on his property.
An out-of-town group called, “WethePeople” filmed the city council meeting and stated its intent to post it to the YouTube channel titled “507PatriotMN.” Two persons associated with the group spoke. One person reported having placed numerous official “information requests” with the city which he said were not properly responded to in a timely manner. The other, the cameraman, interrupted the council meeting just prior to the vote to move forward with the fines against Petsinger and argued the mayor was silencing him and not allowing him to speak.
The city had responded to the information requests prior to the night’s city council meeting.
Mayor Bartsch reminded those trying to speak that their opportunity to do so came during the public comment portion of the meeting.
Petsinger is currently appealing the fines with the city of Ellendale. He is also reportedly pursuing legal action and seeking financial restitution from the city.