October 25, 2024 - Data Request Submitted

Requesting any and all email correspondence since 2019 related in any way to the East Side Corridor (ESC) project, 29th Ave, East Beltline study, and 

infrastructure on the E. Side of Owatonna, going to, from and between:

• • County commissioners

  • County staff

  • City council members

  • City staff

  • 3rd parties (including but not limited to WSB)

  • To and from any of the above and members of the public 

October 28, 2024
County Administrator Fry stated, "Lastly, because of the breadth of the request, the county will likely need several weeks to assemble everything." 

November 12, 2024
Residents offered to prioritize the scope of the data request to obtain access more quickly. 

November 18, 2024
The scope was narrowed to electronic communication between County Engineer Paul Sponholz and WSB. 

November 19, 2024
Administrator Fry attempted to rescind the data request. Residents clarified this was a prioritization—not a withdrawal. 

November 25, 2024
Administrator Fry confirmed this would involve thousands of emails. 

December 16, 2024
County Attorney Jarrett stated the original request included 7,600+ items and 15GB of data. The prioritized request included 2,500+ items and 7GB. 

December 27, 2024
The initial data set, containing 1,087 items, was ready for review. 

January 7-10, 2025
County Attorney Jarrett denied residents the ability to use their own equipment to capture public data, contrary to previous state rulings. (Public data is free; charging for the use of personal equipment is essentially charging for public data.) 

January 10, 2025
Residents were able to inspected data for a short time. 

January 13, 2025
The MN Department of Administration reached out to Steele County with previous advisory opinions supporting the use of personal equipment to capture public data. County Attorney Jarrett "disagreed". 

January 13-14, 2025
Residents were denied access to public data multiple times during regular business hours. 

January 15, 2025
Residents reviewed the county’s document release and found major issues, including hundreds of missing files, broken email links, missing attachments, duplicates, and no records from 2021—raising serious concerns about data integrity and possible loss during the conversion process. 

January 17, 2025
Data was finally ready for review, but issues from previous inspections were not addressed and remained unresolved. 

January 20, 2025
Residents asked for an estimate on how long it would take to fulfill the rest of the data request. County Attorney Jarrett had no estimate, despite the Administrator stating in October 2024 that it would take "several weeks". 

January 22, 2025
While inspecting public data, residents were asked to leave so the Attorney’s Office could close early. 

February 4, 2025
Residents again addressed concerns with public data—from denial of access to incomplete and inaccessible files. At this point, 105 days had passed with no indication of when the data would be available. Timeframes must be provided when asked. 

February 4, 2025
The Steele County Attorney and Administrator responded, telling residents they were only allowed to speak with the Attorney and Administrator moving forward. All prior correspondence had already been through them. This was an attempt to cut residents off from other county officials. 

February 11, 2025
After more follow-up emails, Attorney Jarrett responded saying it would be “several more weeks” before the next round of data. Residents addressed this delay at the Steele County Commissioners meeting that evening. 

February 14, 2025
Suddenly, Attorney Jarrett was able to look into the inaccessible emails, and the next round of data (736 items) was ready—suggesting intentional delay. He also informed residents it wasn’t the county’s responsibility to provide data in accessible formats or offer software to open it. He claimed the copy count was approaching 100—the threshold at which residents would be required to pay for the entire request. Residents had only printed approximately 40 pages combined. Inquiries about actual costs went unanswered. Residents were also locked out of the County Attorney’s Office during regular business hours. 

February 21, 2025
An Owatonna People’s Press reporter informed residents that County Administrator Fry claimed the public data request had cost $30,000—an unsubstantiated claim that ironically matched the amount Steele County had just paid in a lawsuit settlement for previous public data violations.

February 22, 2025
County Attorney Jarrett admitted he had combined two data requests to arrive at the copy count total. 

February 26, 2025
Residents were stopped from reviewing public data so the meeting room could be used for a potluck. 

March 11, 2025
After further inquiries, County Attorney Jarrett said the next batch of approximately 1,000 emails would be ready the first week of April, citing staffing and workload. 

June 3, 2025
No further response was received until after Steele County was served with a Public Data Practices Act complaint by the state. Shortly there after, the third batch of data was available.

January 13, 2025 - Data Request Submitted

I am requesting copies of the professional engineering service proposals for the East Side Corridor. These proposals should have been included in the commissioners' board meeting packet which is available online for the 12/14/2021 meeting, as is standard for all other projects. However, they appear to be missing.

Could you let me know the cost of obtaining electronic copies of the professional engineering service proposals for the ESC project? These proposals should have been included in the county commissioners' board meeting packet available online but appear to be missing. If they had been included like other projects, I would have been able to access the information myself.

January 16, 2025
County Attorney Robert Jarrett stated the documents (3 proposals, totaling 50 pages) were available for pickup or electronic delivery—but only after a $12.50 fee was paid. Residents inquired about electronic delivery and were told the files could be emailed after payment.

Note: Under Minnesota law, public data inspection is free, and residents should not be charged simply to access or inspect data. Inspection was not offered in this case. This small, standalone request was later combined with the larger October 2024 request, inflating the total cost and creating barriers to access.

January 31, 2025

Initial inquery to the County about the Joint Transporation Committee. After discovering the existence of the Joint Transportation Committee through public data, a resident contacted County Administrator Renae Fry:

Hi Renae,

I’m looking for the meeting minutes from the Joint Transportation Committee meeting referenced in the board meeting minutes. I’ve searched Steele County’s website but haven’t been able to find them. Could you point me in the right direction?

Also, could you share the schedule for when they meet? I wasn’t able to determine that from the board meeting minutes.
Thanks.

Upon receiving an out-of-office message from Administrator Fry, the inquiry was forwarded per instructions to Rebecca Kubicek for response. 

February 4, 2025
County Attorney Jarrett and Administrator Fry instructed residents to send all ESC-related requests only to them. Mr. Jarrett stated that the county does not have any minutes for the Joint Transportation Committee.

February 11, 2025
After a County Board meeting, Commissioner Krueger told a resident the Joint Transportation Committee was not open to the public. Administrator Fry, speaking with a raised voice, claimed it wasn’t public due to lack of a quorum and dismissed comparisons to other non-quorum meetings—like Public Works—as practices that predated her hiring.

March 31, 2025 - Formal Data Request Submitted

I am requesting any and all information regarding the Joint Transportation Committee including but not limited to:
When was it created?
Why was it created?
Who created it?
What is its purpose?
What are the by-laws or operating procedures?
How many members?
Member names and terms?
When does it meet?
Attendance Information?
What projects and initiatives has it worked on?
Financial information and budget impacts?
Committee' s charter or purpose and any amendments, Minutes, Agendas, Files, Accounts, and any other documents that a governmental body is required to maintain?
And any other information that may pertains to the Join Transportation Committee.

April 1, 2025 

Attorney Jarrett denied the request, claiming it was not valid under Chapter 13 because it contained questions, not a formal data request. (Chapter 13 states allows for questions and data explainations.)

April 1, 2025 

Resident responded, explaining that the request was asking for access to existing government data, not answers to questions, and asked how to reformat the request. 

April 2, 2025

The data request was resubmitted in statement form, without question marks.

April 8, 2025

After a County Board meeting, Administrator Fry stated the reformatted request was acceptable and that she would inform Attorney Jarrett to proceed with it. 

April 10, 2025

After 8 days of no confirmation that the request was being processed, residents followed up. 

April 14, 2025

A formal letter was submitted citing multiple violations of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. The letter demanded processing of the request, a written acknowledgment, and a copy of the county’s official Data Practices Policy. A deadline of April 15 was set, with notice that the matter would be escalated to the MN Department of Administration, State Auditor, and Attorney General if no response was received. 

April 1, 2025

Following the Owatonna City Council meeting, concerns were raised with Steele County Commissioner Abbe about the transfer of federal funding from the East Side Corridor (ESC) to the Main Street project. Questions were submitted regarding whether the ESC was being delayed, restructured, or abandoned. 

April 2, 2025
Commissioner Abbe initially directed follow-up to Commissioner Brady, then later clarified that Commissioners Krueger and Prokopec were the actual committee members involved in the funding discussion. 

Requests were submitted to both commissioners seeking transparency on the funding shift and its implications for the ESC.  No response was ever recieved. 

April 8, 2025
The ESC federal funds transfer request was discussed at the Steele County Board meeting. No public input was allowed, and no vote was recorded. The transfer was justified by citing concerns about meeting deadlines, including claims of potential litigation from a neighborhood. However, in a hostile post-meeting interaction, Administrator Fry admitted the litigation claim could not be tied to ESC residents.  

Just two weeks earlier, County Engineer Sponholz told the board the environmental reports were ready for public input following a noise wall vote. No concerns about deadlines appear in any previous meeting minutes or agendas, including the most recent Public Works meeting, which only addressed the Township’s preference for a specific alignment. 

April 9, 2025
A formal public data request was submitted to Steele County seeking all records related to the transfer of federal ESC funds. 

Public data related to the transfer of federal funds from the ESC project.

Any and all information relating to the transfer of federal funds from the ESC to the Main St Project. This includes all documentation, emails, written correspondence, text messages, government records, audio or video recordings, and any other data related to the transfer of these funds. Person of correspondence may include but are not limited to ATP members, Paul Sponholtz, Sean Murphy, and County Commissioner, City council, County Administrator, and City Administrator.

April 10, 2025 

County Attorney Jarrett confirmed receipt of the request and stated it would follow the existing ESC request queue, likely taking several months to fulfill. 

43 minutes later, the same request was abruptly closed. The County Attorney claimed it was too vague and did not meet the criteria of a valid data request under Chapter 13. 

April 10, 2025 

Objection to Denial Submitted - A response was submitted disputing the County’s claim, noting that the request was clear, cited the applicable statute, and had already been acknowledged earlier that day.

April 14, 2025

A formal letter was issued demanding immediate reinstatement of the request. The letter cited Minnesota Statutes §13.03, subd. 2(a) and (f), multiple advisory opinions, and requested a written response by April 16. The letter also requested the County’s official Data Practices Policy and identification of its Responsible Authority. 

**No Response**

May 6, 2025 - County Policy Data Request Submitted

County Ethics, Conduct, and COI Policies

1. Any current Code of Conduct applicable to county officials, employees, or board/commission members.

2. Any adopted Code of Ethics governing the actions and responsibilities of county personnel or officials.

3. Steele County’s Conflict of Interest Policy for elected officials, employees, and appointed representatives.

If these documents are already available online, a link to them would be appreciated. Otherwise, please provide electronic copies. As these should be readily available but I can’t find them on the website, there should not be a charge. If there are any concerns regarding the scope of the request, feel free to contact me for clarification.

May 8, 2025
Steele County Attorney Robert Jarrett confirmed receipt of the request and stated it would be added to the existing queue of requests, with an estimated delivery timeline of fall/winter 2025.

May 8, 2025
A follow-up email clarified that the requested policies—such as conflict of interest, code of conduct, and code of ethics—should be existing, public-facing documents and must be made available without unreasonable delay under Minn. Stat. § 13.03, subd. 2(a). A more immediate timeline was requested, along with confirmation on whether the policies currently exist.

**No Response**

May 6, 2025 - Data Request Submitted

ESC Project & Annexation Communications with Townships (2021–Present)

Any and all correspondence, meeting notes, emails, letters, or other communications between Steele County and any township or township officials regarding the East Side Corridor (ESC) project

or related annexation matters. This includes, but is not limited to:

- Objections or concerns raised by township representatives

- Records of township approvals, statements of support, or formal positions

- Internal or external memos discussing township responses

- Any documentation regarding the orderly annexation agreement, including discussions related

to specific parcels

- Documentation and notes from any meetings occurring with the township

The timeframe for this request is from January 1, 2021, to the present.

Please advise if these records are available electronically or if any estimated costs would apply for physical copies. I am willing to clarify or narrow the scope as needed to facilitate a prompt response.

May 8, 2025
County Attorney Robert Jarrett confirmed receipt of the request and stated it would be added to the existing queue of group requests, with an estimated fulfillment timeline of fall/winter 2025.

May 8, 2025
A follow-up email clarified that the request sought existing township correspondence related to the ESC project or annexation—records presumed public under Minn. Stat. § 13.03, subds. 1 & 2(a). A prompt response or written confirmation of no such data was requested.

**No Response**

May 9, 2025 - Data Request Submitted

Dear Steele County Recorder’s Office,

Pursuant to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (Minn. Stat. Chapter 13), we respectfully request access to and copies of all public official bond documents currently maintained by your office for any bonded officials or employees of Steele County. This request includes, but is not limited to, all individual or blanket surety and fidelity bonds issued for county personnel between January 1, 2021, and the present.

If there are any costs associated with locating, copying, or transmitting these records, please notify us with an estimate before processing. We would prefer to receive the documents in electronic format, if available, but are open to other formats if necessary.

Thank you for your time and assistance. Please contact us if clarification is needed to fulfill this request.

Sincerely,

East Side Corridor Residents

May 15, 2025 (morning)
When attempting to collect the bond documents in person, the request was initially denied and redirected to the County Administrator. The Recorder’s Office appeared unaware of the data request. After concerns were raised—particularly regarding access to the Administrator’s own bonds—the County Recorder acknowledged the issue, agreed to look into it, and stated he would follow up. 

May 15, 2025 (a few hours later)
The County Recorder notified residents that the documents were located and ready for pickup. The records were provided the same day.

• Copying Fee Charged: $9.00 at $1/page, despite prior county practices quoting $0.25/page.

• Bonds Received: MCIT blanket bonds were provided; it was unclear whether individual bonds exist, and the Recorder was unaware of any others.

May 15, 2025 - Data Preservation Request Submitted

Dear Mr. Jarrett,

Pursuant to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA), Minn. Stat. Chapter 13, I am formally requesting that Steele County ensure the preservation and continued accessibility of all government data that meets the following criteria:

Scope of Request – Preservation Order

Please ensure that all government data—regardless of format (e.g., emails, texts, voicemails, physical notes, reports, internal memos, Microsoft Teams chats, drafts, etc.)—that meets any of the criteria below is preserved in full:

1. Created, sent, received, or otherwise accessed by Paul Sponholz, County Engineer, between January 1, 2021 and the day after his final day of employment with Steele County;

2. Any data stored in accounts, devices, drives, or applications associated with his county role (including personal devices used for county business);

3. Any data shared with or received from Paul Sponholz, whether internally (e.g., staff, commissioners, consultants) or externally (e.g., WSB, MnDOT, SE Minnesota ATP, FHWA, etc.);

4. Any government data Paul Sponholz possessed, created, or maintained that may be held by third-party consultants or contractors acting on behalf of Steele County.

This request includes but is not limited to:

- Email accounts (Outlook, archived emails)

- County cell phone/text logs and content

- Microsoft Teams or other messaging platforms

- File directories (OneDrive, shared drives, etc.)

- Notes, meeting recordings, and handwritten materials

- Contracts, correspondence, and memos

- All metadata associated with the above

- Retention Request

Please treat this as a formal notice to preserve relevant data under applicable retention schedules, especially in light of ongoing public interest and potential investigations. The data must not be deleted, altered, purged, or made inaccessible due to role separation.

Clarification: I am not requesting copies of this data at this time (though I may follow up with a specific data request). This request is to ensure Steele County maintains and preserves all such data in accordance with your legal obligations.

Please confirm receipt of this request and that appropriate preservation measures have been initiated.

June 2, 2025  
A follow-up email was submitted reiterating the urgency of the request. The email noted that no confirmation had been received and warned that the matter would be escalated to oversight agencies if preservation measures were not confirmed by June 2. The request restated that it did not seek copies of data—only assurance of proper retention across all formats and systems. 

June 3, 2025
Steele County Attorney Robert Jarrett confirmed receipt of the preservation request and acknowledged the related data complaint. He stated that the County would respond to data requests in the order received and indicated more data may be available from the initial request.