Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Public Comment topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Residents and council clash over circulated expense documents; council asks for proof

City of Rose Creek City Council · February 4, 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

Residents questioned amounts in documents circulated by S. Taylor; Council Members Mark Conradt and Andrew Felten said the figures were incorrect, citing FMEC pole work that cost the city nothing and water-tower fencing paid from gambling-tax funds; residents asked for invoice proof.

During public comment the Rose Creek City Council addressed documents distributed earlier by an individual identified as S. Taylor. Council Members Mark Conradt and Andrew Felten told the meeting that two items in the documents contained incorrect cost claims: they said FMEC’s relocation of an electrical pole on Oak Street cost the city nothing because the electric service was run under the street, and they said the water-tower fencing had been paid from gambling-tax funds that the city may use for items benefiting the municipality as a whole.

Residents pressed for documentation. Bob Rosel said he would request proof when materials are handed out and described the matter as a waste of council time without invoices. Denise Lewison said presenting unverified documents harms the council and staff’s reputation and criticized calls for television coverage. Patty Conradt agreed that respect is earned and stated residents should provide evidence for claims. Council Member Andrew Felten said a mistake in the special election paperwork was exactly that — a mistake — and called a television crew “overkill” that cast an unnecessary shadow over the town. Council Member Thomas Lewison said a judge had ordered him off the council until the election but urged focusing on city work.

The minutes record disagreement about the accuracy of the circulated figures and calls for documentation; the council did not produce invoices or other documentary evidence during the meeting, and the matter remained a point of dispute in the public record.