Legalectric

My LTE is in the paper today, on hearing him say he got only 2 emails supporting Pohlman’s firing, and that an “overwhelming majority” was in an uproar:

Letter: An open letter to Red Wing Mayor Mike Wilson

Written By: Carol Overland | 1:50 pm, Mar. 13, 2021

Do recall, I sent three emails to the City address, distributed to you and the Council. The bottom line was “I thank you for doing your jobs, difficult as it can be.” In those emails, I questioned the public letters, petition, and comments regarding Roger Pohlman that implied knowledge of confidential matters, twisting public perception. Because it’s a confidential process, insinuations and innuendoes couldn’t be refuted. Rep. Haley’s interference in city issues, seeking to prevent termination, also alluding to inside information, was as improper as the interference play on the national front seeking to overturn Georgia’s election.

In Red Wing, I hear cries of “witch hunt,” and “we have only begun to fight” and ugly statements about council members — irresponsible speech in light of our political climate (“credible threat” lockdown of Goodhue County building for refugee resettlement vote last year; Sen. Mike Goggin joining Rep. Steve Drazkowski and others, asking Texas A.G. to add Minnesota to lawsuit and disenfranchise Minnesota voters; Jan. 6 D.C. failed insurrection.). There’s talk of a recall effort of six council members. These words and actions will not change the Pohlman decision.

Your column (RE, March 6, 2021) hearkens back to a recent failure to accept election results, and uses the rhetorical gambit of using words of others, words conveying little understanding of the process, i.e., process is confidential, Pohlman was represented by counsel, that it was a lengthy process with iterative opportunities for change.

Not one of the supporters’ comments you quoted substantively challenged the examples cited in the council’s Feb. 19 letter, nor do you make any substantive challenges of your own.

“Remember, if it’s important to you, it’s important to me.”

The flurry of inflammatory charges during confidential proceedings prior to his termination was important enough, concerning enough, that I wrote three missives. And now? It’s important to me that decisions of the council be acknowledged, and not undermined. A 6-1 vote is not a close call. That is an “overwhelming majority.”

Red Wing has a weak mayor system, with the position being that of a bully pulpit. Using your position for a column of this fomenting tenor is divisive and increases rancor in our community.

In short, based on the information stated in the 2/19 letter, what’s been reported in the papers including your words, and a viewing of the short 2/19 council meeting, I support the City Council in its 6-1 decision to terminate Pohlman.

Carol A. Overland, Red Wing

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Here’s what Mayor Wilson had to say:

Column: Red Wing mayor fields questions about police chief’s departure

“The Mayor is IN” is a monthly column that appears in the Republican Eagle and online. Written By: Mike Wilson, Red Wing mayor | 7:00 am, Mar. 8, 2021

Mike Wilson

With COVID and so much else going on, it takes a lot to get people any more worked up and worried than they already are. But I’m really getting an earful about the City Council’s decision to fire our now former police chief, Roger Pohlman.

Red Wing citizens are calling, emailing, and stopping by my Third Street office. They are puzzled about the process, or lack of it, and furious about the outcome.

From what I see and hear, community support for him is overwhelming. In fact, I’ve received exactly two – yes, just two – emails from people who thought the council made the right decision. That’s it. Checking my notes from folks who have stopped by the office, called, or emailed, these points come up again and again.”

“The chief didn’t get a fair shake.”

“What ever happened to due process? Why weren’t citizens allowed to speak at the council meeting?”

“Why wasn’t Chief Pohlman allowed to attend and speak in his own defense? What kind of a kangaroo court is the council running?”

“Chief Pohlman treated people with respect, honesty, and kindness. I can’t believe what they did.”

“Looks like they had their own agenda and fired him for reasons that remain secret. Why weren’t citizen taxpayers allowed to weigh in?”

You get the idea. And when I met with members of our police force, to a person they expressed support and admiration for Pohlman. Quite frankly, I’m concerned about morale on the force, and about our ability to keep the top flight cops who have served Red Wing so well.

I’m also hearing plenty about what some are calling the taxpayer funded, multi-million dollar proposed “Bridge to Nowhere” that would link Bay Point Park to West End businesses. More on that later.

When “The Mayor is IN” sign is out at 327 Third St., feel free to stop in and share your ideas and opinions.

Or email me anytime at: mike.wilson@ci.red-wing.mn.us. Remember, if it’s important to you, it’s important to me.

Don’t forget to tune in to KCUE Radio 1250 at 9 a.m. on the second and fourth Thursday of every month for “A Conversation With Mike.” It’s a live interview where you get to ask the questions. And I’ll also share the topics that were discussed, and what will be discussed, at the Council meetings the second and fourth Monday of each month.

click for larger version

EV Charging Station at Duluth’s Rail Museum Parking Lot

There’s been some discussion here in Red Wing and Goodhue Cunty about the city installing infrastructure for charging electric vehicles.  There’s a charger at the Kwik Trip on the west side of town, but I think that’s a slow charger, a regular outlet that would take forever to amount to anything.  The Red Wing City Council voted to approve a charging station in the LaGrange parking ramp, and to request a grant to cover part of the cost, estimated at about $10,000 (!!).

• EV charging station enters discussion in Goodhue County

• Electric vehicle charging station to come to Red Wing

In the meantime, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission has opened a docket looking into a few policy issues about electric charging:

In mid-March there will be a public workshop hosted by the PUC, and then there will be a comment period on these topics, and more:

This ties into what Red Wing and Goodhue County are looking into and could affect that.

Interested in receiving notices and participating in the workshop and discussion?  Contact:

Hanna Terwilliger: hanna.terwilliger@state.mn.us  or  (651) 201-2243

Kelly Martone: kelly.martone@state.mn.us  or  (651) 201-2245

If Evanston, WY, in the midst of gas/oil country can do it…

There’s a plan afoot here in Red Wing that strikes me as one of the more bizarre ideas, particularly given the subsidy the City of Red Wing is giving to Xcel Energy by leasing land from Xcel Energy for the term of Xcel’s own “ash mining” project and about 10 years beyond.  WHAT?

On Monday, the Pollution Control Agency will release the EAW and you’ll be able to find it HERE AT THIS LINK.

This PR blurb was issued recently by the Red Wing Chamber of Commerce, in support of the project:

Community Meeting to Share Information About Proposed Project to Process Ash and Recycle Metals from Xcel Energy’s Red Wing RDF Landfill – December 7 | 5PM-7PM | Red Wing Public Library.

Please join Lab USA and the City of Red Wing for a community meeting to learn more about a potential project that would process ash and recycle metals from Xcel Energy’s RDF landfill in Red Wing. Lab USA has proposed to build, own, and operate an environmentally-responsible ash processing facility that would be located next to the existing Xcel RDF landfill in Red Wing. The project will recover and recycle high quantities of iron and non-iron metals from ash in the landfill that was created by Xcel Energy’s Red Wing Generating Plant and from existing ash at Xcel Energy’s RDF landfill.The community meeting is another step in Lab USA’s ongoing work to secure permits and approvals and to reach out to the Red Wing community.

 *   Lab USA has completed a voluntary Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) that shows the project will comply with rules and regulations related to noise, emissions, and other impacts.
 *   People from Lab USA, Xcel Energy, and the City of Red Wing will be at the meeting to answer questions and talk about the project, how the ash processing works, and how this project can benefit Red Wing.
This project is also a unique way for Red Wing to take its commitment to sustainable environmental stewardship to a new level by creating both economic and environmental benefits for City of Red. It will remove and recycle metals from the landfill, generate new revenue for the city, and create jobs as the project moves forward.

The meeting will also include a chance to learn more about EAW for the project and to share comments and feedback with Lab USA and the City of Red Wing. The public comment period for the EAW begins December 5th. The Red Wing City Council is expected to vote to approve the project in February of 2017. For more information please contact labusaredwing@gmail.com 

To be clear, the Monday meeting is hosted by Lab USA and is an “open house” format and is not a formal hearing.  The public comment period is for 30 days, until January 4, and I’l publish details on where to send the comments after the Notice is issued.  After January 4, 2017, there will be a determination of whether an Environmental Impact Statement is necessary, and remember, in recent history, the MPCA Board has only ordered ONE EIS, and after that one EIS, the MPCA Citizens Board was unceremoniously disbanded!  The odds of a declaration that an EIS is needed are zilch, zip, nada, ZERO.

The EAW will be released on Monday, FIND IT HERE, per Dan Card at the MPCA:

Kevin Kain is the environmental review project manager for the proposed Lab USA project. 

The reason you couldn’t find the EAW on our website is because it hasn’t been placed on public notice yet. That will occur next Monday Dec 5, 2016 which starts the 30 day public comment period.  You will find EAW posted next Monday at the bottom of https://www.pca.state.mn.us/quick-links/environmental-assessment-worksheets-and-environmental-impact-statements under Environmental Assessment Worksheets.

The company will be hosting an Open House and Kevin along with other solid waste permitting staff plan on attending.

What’s the deal?

Here are the documents I have, in chronological order for the most part, some are duplicates produced for the procedural step that followed:

• 8c2 – attachment – 11-09-15workshopminutes
• January-28-2016-storm water design material storage laydown area 9b – attachment
• 07- Public Works Maintenance Yard CUP – APC 3-15-16 (contains application)
• 06- Minutes – APC 3-15-2016_approved 4-19-16
• 09c1 Xcel Lease Agreement CC 04-25-2016
• 09c2-LabUSA Letter CC 04-25-2016
• April 25, 2016 CC Minutes
• May 9, 2016 CC Minutes
• May 9, 2016_9b – attachment (see January 28, above)
• 12- Status Report  APC 5-17-16

So what is this, the short version??  It’s a plan to “mine” the incinerator ash in the City of Red Wing landfill.  There’s a link to formally closing the dump, and I think that by doing this, the city takes a step toward that formal closure, one pushed by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.  But mining the ash?  The plan is for the City of Red Wing to hire a company, Lab USA, to “mine” the ash and remove salable materials from it.

Now here’s where it gets really weird.  The City of Red Wing’s planned part of this project lasts one year.  Xcel Energy, which has its own incinerator dump here, plans to do the same, and its part of the project lasts 11 years.  And the City of Red Wing signed a lease with Xcel Energy to do this project for 20 years.  TWENTY YEARS?  WHAT?!?!  Here are the details…

The City staff has stressed the underlying Red Wing goal of landfill closure through the state’s “Closed Landfill Program.”  When presented at the 11/9/2015 workshop (See 8c2-attachment -_11-09-15_Workshop_Minutes), there was “potential” for a sublease, and now that’s presumed.  Red Wing’s Public Works has pressure from the MPCA to close its landfill, and also from Xcel because Red Wing “does not have enough ash to support this project as a stand alone project.”  In other words, it’s dependent on Xcel to do this “project.”  RW Public Works’s Moskwa admits that “the Xcel Energy landfill ash is the primary reason for the Lab USA’s interest in submitting a proposal.” (See p. 5, March 22. 2016, Sustainability Commission MeetingMinutes).

The City of Red Wing project would last just 1 year, and Xcel Energy’s share would last 10-11 years.  (Lease, p. 17 of pdf: May 9, 2016_9b – attachment)  Yet the City of Red Wing is leasing Lots 1 and 2 from Xcel Energy for 20 years!  Given that disparity, the reasons for the lease/sublease arrangement with the City of Red Wing, Xcel, and Lab USA, rather than Lab USA taking on the lease, are not clear.  Because there are three parties in this, that provides some measure of inherent instability in the project, and because Lab USA has no history in Minnesota, they’ll receive higher scrutiny, one would hope.  On the other hand, the City of Red Wing seems to have yet another deal with Xcel Energy, where they’ve taken on a lease of land from Xcel for the City yard (for what purpose?) and that also includes lease of the land for this project and then the City plans to sublease to Lab USA (for the one year, for 11 years, for 20 years?), but yet the lion’s share of term of the project is the 10-11 years for Xcel, not the 1 year for Red Wing.  So why is the City of Red Wing buying into this, subsidizing this, so heavily?  To induce Xcel to do it?  Some other reason?

With the lease for both lots already signed, the project is moving forward, and that’s a problem.  How is this a good deal for the City of Red Wing?  Is anyone paying attention?

Further, calling this project an allowed use, as “Public Works Maintenance Shops and Yards,” is a stretch.  I’m not seeing any change from Agricultural Residential (AR) designation in the Comp Plan, and see statements that “Outlot A” was removed from the Tyler Hills PUD, Applications for Lot 1 and Lot 2 both denote Zoning as “AR.”  I don’t see a change from AR to anything else. The Application includes “Proposed Tyler Hills Fourth Addition” and the lease boundary doesn’t match up with Outlot A, and Figures 1 and 2 don’t match up with the proposed plat.  Details, anyone?

Other issues with the project itself?

• There’s traffic… “24 trucks/day” means 48 truck trips per day, or 24 trucks assigned to the area to make many trips back and forth and back and forth from the landfill to the building — this needs to be clarified, and impacts addressed.  And these trucks are in addition to currently running Xcel garbage burner ash trucks and in addition to RW’s Lot 1 “Public Works Maintenance Shops and Yards” trucks that will be at least an additional 15-30 pickups and trucks per day.

• There’s sound…  The homes directly north, west, and southwest are above, with this project situated down in a hole — and sound travels up.  The “CUP Sound Study” is for the RW crusher, and does not take into account the Lab USA operation, so how does the EAW address that?

• There’s dust…  From Mark Walsworth, who notes that “one of the items left out is just how much hazardous material that will be produced annually is not mentioned…all of it dust, and  that by themselves, these numbers should scare anyone!  Also notably missing is ANY plan or equipment to keep these from escaping to the environment.”

Lead        519,000 lbs

Cadmium       8,400 lbs

Chrome       51,000 lbs

Arsenic       6,000 lbs

Manganese   156,000 lbs

Nickel       24,600 lbs

Selenium      1,500 lbs

Mercury         600 lbs

• On and on…

Here are two Letters to the Editor written by Alan Muller about this:

LTE  Muller – Mining Incinerator Ash is Foolish Idea  12-10-2015

LTE_Muller – Incinerator ash plan and actions behind it are toxic  3-31-2016

LTE_Walsworth – Mayor didn’t raise NIMBY_4-6-2016

LTE_Muller – NIMBY is good thing, NIABY is better  4-15-16

We need to take a look at that EAW (remember, it’s prepared by the applicant/project proponent) and see what is revealed, what is considered, and what’s left out.

Red Wing City Council meeting last night voted to reconsider the most recent passage of Resolution 6873, which is supporting the National Fraternal Order of Police to request “[t]o expand the Federal hate crimes law to protect police…”  GOOD!  It will go to the Human Rights Commission for discussion.

It was passed that the meeting prior with almost zero discussion (except for a procedural sidebar about Resolution v. Proclamation!):

Listen to the Council’s discussion of 9/28/2015 HERE — video at 1:05 – 1:11

9B_-_Attachment_Sept 28 2015

FYI, assault of a police officer is a FELONY in Minnesota.  See Minn. Stat. 609.2231.

My concern was first raised listening to the Police Chief introducing it, when he spoke of the State Fair Black Lives Matter protest and hostile statements there, and statements in the cover sheet for resolution, that “The United States has seen an increase of hostility toward law enforcement over the past two years.” and “at a time when law enforcement is the target of criticism and violent attacks…”  … sigh… and it was a clear diversion from very pressing issues regarding police behavior and accountability.  What’s the need for this?  If a Black Lives Matter demonstration is used as basis for a resolution of this sort, if claims of “hostility” and “criticism” are the basis… no, this is a defensive maneuver, a step in the wrong direction, and shifting the focus from dealing with police abuse of power.

Phony basis?  Yup.  It’s about attacks on police officers?  Fact check!  Check out the details of officers who died on duty, search by year on the Officer Down web page.

And though 98 or 99 officers have died on duty, and 29 were indeed killed by gunfire, there is no indication of the number that would have the targeted premeditation required of a hate crime. Those are very few, and all are front page news triggering manhunts and fast arrests. The next highest category is “Automobile Accident” at 23 (not including 3 motorcycle accident and 1 aircraft accident), arguably 27 vehicular accidents. Next highest category, 16 died of heart attack on the job. Next is a tie with 5 each for 9/11 related illness and 5 struck by vehicle. This is not an unusual uptic.  The only thing unusual is that there’s a wave of public sentiment that police need to be held accountable.

In the first meeting where this came up, on the 28th, the intro part referring to the “Black Lives Matter” protest at the State Fair (also referred to by Peggy Rehder yesterday), and the written background cover sheet refers to “an increase of hostility toward law enforcement over the past two years” and “At a time when law enforcement is the target of criticism and violent attacks…” which are red warning flags that the NFOP agenda here is to uprate the hype when in fact police deaths are at lower levels, and where targeted killings are very few, and conversely, police being murdered are far fewer than the systemic pattern of police murders “over the past two years” that generates the demands for accountability and “an increase in hostility.” I’m glad they’re revisiting, since I’ve done the research and now will be able to put my thoughts together (this last week was a busy week) for the next meeting. This NFOP agenda is disturbing.  Police are trained in response, de-escalation, and use of deadly force (how, if, and when).  They’re held to a high standard, yet uncalled for and unlawful killings are rampant. Accountability is necessary, not a dodge and weave ducking of responsibility, liability, and resistance to change.

Listen to the Council’s discussion of 10/12/2015 HERE!  Video from 54 – ~115

And a few snippets (NOT a transcript!):

Lisa Bayley eloquently explained her concerns, and that the Council was to discuss specifically whether it was appropriate to take it up, and there was no discussion about it, and that must be done.  She said it should be referred to the Human Rights Commission.  And she noted that we already have laws in place, and thinks it paints a broad brush over something that’s very complicated.  It was given to us, was written for us, by an outside group, and she’d like to see us come up with something specific to our situation.  And so makes a Motion for Reconsideration.

Dean Hove seconded the Motion, with the same concerns, and thinks it should go to the Human Rights Commission.

Peggy Rehder would be opposed to having any discussion at Human Rights Commission without the Chief present at that meeting (that was resolved, would go on agenda at following meeting).  She’s looked at the Police Department facebook page, and she looked at who was commenting and “some of them were pretty interesting felons that don’t like what we’re proposing to do.”  (She knew they were felons how?  Someone with access looking them up for her?)  “The comments that I picked up, all of this stuff about piggies, and all of those kinds of things, I don’t think it was a huge deal for the National Order of Police to ask our police to do this, and for the FOP to ask the Chief to bring it forward, because I’m certainly not seeing… the people that I can identify just obviously don’t like the police, this isn’t going to change that one way or another.

Dean Hove – Supports Motion to Reconsider.  Would like to slow down and look at the last sentence at the bottom.  I don’t think anyone here doesn’t support the police… the wording on that last sentence is something that we really need to reconsider.

Peggy Rehder wants to know what sentence, Lisa Bayley wants to revisit that last sentence, the part about the hate crimes statute what it means.

Dan Munson wants to review that as well…

Peggy Rehder wants to know if it’s just that part, or if we’re going to rewrite the entire document.  I won’t support it if we’re going to go beyond that.  Wants to table that next resolution then, don’t want to not have any real positive thing, if we’re in agreement on that, then I can support it.  I’ve been amazed to see how many people are proud that we’re doing this, not bashing the police.

Dean Hove — I’ve reread it several times, we need to talk about that last sentence.

Ralph Rauterkraus – wants Human Rights Commission, and not just send it bac, but to encourage them to engage public dialog and public forums, these are issues that people feel emotional about, and I want to encourage them to speak out on that.

Roger Pohlman, Police Chief – “misperceptions” – some comments he’s seen on Facebook, wants to clarify some things.  Thought about how litigated and how much law enforcement has so much more than any other… all dictate rulings and trainings.  So many things that our department implement, that are not being considered.  Law enforcement believes that all life is valuable, and we look forward to working with all groups to help end the needless loss of life…  But I believe the end result must be that the needless killing on all groups comes to an end.

Dean Hove: That last statement is your best statement, that all killing needs to come to an end.  That is the biggest issue we have in this country as far as I’m concerned…

(Jason Sebion didn’t say a word, not unusual, but he seconded the Motion to approve it on the 28th!).

Voted unanimously to reconsider.  And at that time, they tabled a Motion (9B) to encourage our state Senator and Representatives to also lobby for “hate crime” status.

9B_-_Attachment_Oct12 2015

Here’s the full report in the Red Wing Republican bEagle:

Council pushes rewind button on resolution

By Danielle Killey Today at 8:00 a.m.

A single sentence in a resolution supporting law enforcement has brought significant attention to Red Wing and led City Council members to take a step back, calling for more discussion.