Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Housing topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Resident at Garrett's Grove tells council property management changes are harming tenants

Fergus Falls City Council · January 5, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A resident at Garrett's Grove told the Fergus Falls council the building's new property manager imposed excessive rules, limited residents' autonomy, and attempted measures residents believe violate Minnesota law; the council said staff would follow up off the record.

Jen Thonus, a resident of Garrett's Grove, addressed the Fergus Falls City Council during open forum on Jan. 5 and described a series of problems since a new property manager (identified in the comment as DW Jones) took over.

Thonus said the building—intended for people in need and in crisis—went from about 18 rules to a 25-page rules document and that enforcement has left residents feeling constrained. She described incidents including a resident being reprimanded for using jumper cables, lack of accommodations when the elevator was out for a wheelchair user, and what she said were eviction actions against residents who are in crisis rather than being helped.

Thonus also alleged the property manager attempted to require DNA testing of tenants' dogs despite residents providing medical letters for service animals, and she said that a requirement of DNA testing conflicted with Minnesota law. "We have no rights," Thonus said, describing feelings of being "stuck" and unable to regain stability.

Council members said this was the first they had heard of some of the specific problems and asked Thonus to leave contact information so staff could investigate and follow up one-on-one rather than in open session.

Why this matters: Garrett's Grove is a property intended to serve residents in crisis and receives city funding; allegations about management practices, evictions of vulnerable residents, and potential legal violations prompted council agreement to review the matter privately and report back as appropriate.