County board votes to offer administrator position

Published 1:27 pm Wednesday, January 15, 2025

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

The Freeborn County Board of Commissioners voted 4-1 Wednesday to offer the job of county administrator to Blooming Prairie City Administrator Melanie Aeschliman.

The board reached the decision after deliberating for about an hour following second interviews with Aeschliman and candidate David Stiernagle.

Fourth District Commissioner Chris Shoff was the lone dissenting vote.

Email newsletter signup

Board Chairman Brad Edwin said the county’s Human Resources department will make the offer to Aeschliman and enter into negotiations with her for a contract, at which time the benefits and wages will be finalized.

Second Commissioner Dawn Kaasa thanked all of the candidates for coming to be interviewed, for their patience with the process and for putting themselves forward for the position.

The board initially interviewed four candidates for the job but narrowed the list down to Aeschliman and Stiernagle following the initial interviews.

Before becoming city administrator in Blooming Prairie, Aeschliman worked for about a year as state supervisor of assessments for the state of North Dakota and as director of planning and as an assessor for 4 1/2 years with the Kenai Peninsula Borough in Soldotna, Alaska.

Stiernagle is originally from Freeborn and has been in the private sector for 37 years and recently retired as vice president of lubrications and corporate accounts at Coastal Chemical Co., running the largest of four revenue focus sectors for the business.

The board asked both candidates about three scenarios that could happen in county government and how they would handle them if they were the administrator. Candidates were asked to arrive an hour before their scheduled interview time and were given that time to prepare their responses.

The first-scenario described preparing the county budget and how they would go about reducing a projected 10% levy increase to a 4% levy increase in a year that also included a 3% cost of living increase for union and nonunion employees, along with increased health insurance premiums. The scenario asked the candidates to imagine they were six weeks out from when the preliminary levy would need to be approved. It asked how they would determine the county’s priorities for the coming year and who would be the key people they would work with in reducing the budget.  It also asked them to see if anything could be done about the cost of high-deductible family health insurance.

Aeschliman said six weeks was not a realistic time frame to achieve that reduction in the levy and stressed the importance of department heads and staff thinking year-round of how to do more with less.

She talked about reducing costs through increased efficiencies and of the importance of the department heads prioritizing their needs versus wants for their departments. In addition to the department heads, she said some of the other key positions she would be working with are the finance director, as well as the county board in determining county priorities.

She stressed the importance of long-term budget planning and being aware of outside money that could be used for projects, along with being cognizant of how they can create efficiencies or change job descriptions in some cases if needed. She said she did not want to scare people, but noted that Minnesota is an at-will state, and she would not be afraid of making changes if needed.

Stiernagle asked for clarification on the levy percentage and whether increases in valuations across the county were already included in that projection.

He said he would work with the Human Resources department and the legal department to a degree, noting that they can’t go in with a 10% increase after being told the board wanted to get it to a 4% increase.

Regarding looking at the high-deductible plan, one of the things he did at a previous job was to give more of the power in choosing a plan to the employees, where they can identify what level they want to pay for. He said this would save the county money.

The second scenario was one that centered around maintenance and construction of roads and particularly a two-mile section of paved road that was in poor condition. The road has had low traffic levels and needs significant investment if it should remain a paved roadway.

The scenario stated the highway engineer has proposed turning the roadway into a gravel roadway to avoid the large up-front cost of the project, noting that there are other routes in similar condition that have much more traffic. The engineer recommended spending the money elsewhere in the system though the two property owners on the route and others in the township are unhappy about the road being turned back to gravel.

It also asked what they would do about an additional 20 miles of roadway in the same or worse condition.

Aeschliman suggested the county look at a phased approach to fixing the roadway and talked about exploring additional funding sources, including state and federal grants, and of collaborating with neighboring jurisdictions.

She said it was important to look at cost-saving measures when possible and to scale back non-essential projects and to always advocate for legislative support. She also emphasized the importance of long-term planning.

Fourth District Commissioner Chris Shoff explained that a similar scenario happened in the county where a road was turned back to gravel, and he and Edwin asked Aeschliman how she would respond to people who may be upset about the decision.

Aeschliman said it would be important to have an open conversation with them about where the project falls on the priority list in terms of all county projects.

Stiernagle said to him this scenario was “a numbers game” and he would want to meet with the county engineer and his team to get all of the associated numbers and to get a complete picture.

He said he would look at the cost to completing all 22 miles of roadway and how many segments it could get broken down into. He would want to know things like revenue generated by the properties on those roads, how much traffic there is and what type of traffic.

He said he would speak to the legal team and see if it was possible to have direct communication with the people on the initial two-mile segment and talk to them about the situation. He said he believed in openness and discussing what they can ahead of time.

Stiernagle noted he would not override the decision of the engineering team based on their knowledge of the issue.

The third scenario talked about a contentious application for a new 199-animal swine finishing barn that several adjacent landowners advocated against. A neighboring feedlot operator also presented concerns about biosecurity, though those concerns were dismissed. 

Despite the opposition, the project met all of the requirements. It asked the candidates how they would assist the board in making their decision.

Aeschliman said she thought it was important to be understanding to both sides, to set ground rules before the meeting started and to ask for police presence for public safety if there was history of contention surrounding the issue.

They should also make sure to allow both sides to present at the board meeting, provide expert testimony from both sides, and encourage safety and civility. At the end of the day, she said the board is the decision-making body and must make decisions with its oaths and responsibilities in mind without bias.

Commissioner Nicole Eckstrom asked Aeschliman how she would communicate with board members and make sure each is well-informed and aware of things that came up during the prior planning commission meetings and others, especially considering open meeting laws. 

Aeschliman talked of the importance of the commissioners bringing issues to her and said the board could review the issue at one of its work sessions.

Stiernagle said the feedlot issue was a frustrating one for him and referenced some of his family who have hog barns.

He said it struck him that it seemed the owner was doing everything he could to avoid certain requirements. The owner also didn’t live in the county.

Despite this, he said, if the owner met all the conditions in place, his recommendation would be to reluctantly allow it. In the future, though, he said he would be in favor of looking at the restrictions for feedlots.

Eckstrom asked the same question of Stiernagle about communication and referencing the open meeting laws and how he would communicate with the board to make sure everyone is on the same level about issues.

He talked about sending out a group email, though commissioners pointed out they would not be able to reply on there to everyone because of open meeting rules, and he noted he would not be opposed to calling all of them if needed.

He told the commissioners he was working to find out more about the role and had called a few administrators and had a 1-1/2- to 2-hour meeting with one. He said that conversation helped him get a good feel of what would be most demanding in the role.

He said if selected for the position, he would not be afraid of reaching out to others and utilizing resources.