It Was in Lehner's Inbox.

On October 15 and October 22, 2026 this site asked the City of Kenyon, under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, for fourteen records about electric service to 551 Engel Drive, the industrial park lot sold to a cannabis cultivator. The requests followed City Administrator Scott Lehner's October 13 account to the council that the power had never been arranged, that the utility's power agency was hearing of it for the first time, that a transformer would cost "on the upwards of a million dollars," that a contract sent July 2 had drawn no response, and that a substation would run three to five million (article 28). On October 26 the City released a Dropbox folder: 131 files, plus a 316 MB archive holding 27 printed emails from the power agency and two Google Drive exports of the EDA coordinator's correspondence with the developer. The whole production, an inventory of every file, and the City's and this site's letters are posted at kenyonminnesota.com/records. One file was removed before posting: a Ramsey County bench warrant for a private individual with no connection to Kenyon, which the City included by mistake.

What follows is what those files say, set against what the council was told. Every quotation names the file it comes from.

Randy Eggert did not drop the ball.

On October 13, asked by Council member Deanna Gard who had "dropped the ball," Lehner answered: "I'm not going to point fingers," then, "I'm thinking you guys would be able to figure out maybe where the ball was dropped" 44:35. A council member replied: "If you're talking about one person that was just let go, that shouldn't fall on one person." Lehner did not correct that. Twenty-four seconds later he said: "I can say it was with one person. It should have been shared, but it wasn't" 44:59. The one person just let go was Randy Eggert, the utility's operations superintendent, whom Lehner had placed on leave on September 10 and whose separation the council approved on September 21. The Kenyon Leader printed the line on October 21, and Gard told the paper Lehner "tends to want to make Randy a scapegoat" (Kenyon Leader, October 21, 2026). The same night, Lehner told the council the transformer was one "we probably should have ordered a couple years ago" 39:01, which put the fault on whoever ran the utility before October.

The records do not support any of it. Nothing in the 131 files and 316 MB archive the City produced shows Randy Eggert doing anything wrong. Not one document shows him failing to do something he was asked to do or was required to do. Every document that mentions him shows him doing the work.

The record, in order. On December 16, 2025 he raised who would pay for the new service, and the commission voted to have him estimate it and charge the buyer up front (12-16-25 KMU minutes.docx). On January 20, 2026 he reported that KMU would buy and install the transformer itself (1-20-26 KMU minutes.docx). Through the EDA coordinator he asked the developer for the transformer size in April and for the amperage in July. The developer answered in April that "it will be some time before we get an exact number on electrical usage," and in July, "Not yet" (Industrial Park Lot-KMU questions.eml.msg; amperage power.eml.msg). On August 14 he authorized CMPAS's engineer to begin the long-range plan that includes new substations (EMf Jay Anderson 2026-10-08.pdf). By his account to the commission on October 20, the 750 kVA transformer was ordered, and the supplier delivered it on October 21 (10-20-26 KMU minutes.docx; 750 KVA transformer .msg).

The KMU service application is the customer's to file, and the developer had no load figure to put on it until its electrical drawings were stamped on September 18, 2026. By then Eggert had been on administrative leave for eight days. The figure the developer did give in November 2025 went to the EDA coordinator, not to the utility, and reached Eggert on December 17 in the same email that reached the administrator. At the September 21 meeting Council member Lee Sjolander thanked him for 48 years of service to the city (9-21-26 Closed-Open Meeting minutes.docx). The production gives no reason for his separation and contains no finding of misconduct. It holds the resolution, a separation agreement that records his resignation in exchange for paid leave and insurance (Resolution 2026-34), and minutes in which he said he signed it because he "felt pressured."

The one person who held the load figure and did not share it was the EDA coordinator, and the administrator received it in the same email as Eggert. The transformer was ordered. The July contract was a template that most member utilities had not returned. The account Lehner gave the council, and repeated through the newspaper, assigned to Eggert a failure the City's own files show was not his.

"Hearing about it for the first time"

Lehner told the council on October 13 that CMPAS, the Central Minnesota Municipal Power Agency, was "hearing about that for the first time" 38:09.

The production contains a meeting summary written by CMPAS's transmission lead on May 15, 2026, recording a May 13 meeting between Xcel Energy and CMPAS "to discuss transmission near Kenyon." Its action items include "CMPAS will maintain accurate load forecasts for Kenyon as incremental load is added" and "Josh will connect with the Xcel contacts," Josh being Josh Johnson, then a KMU lineworker and now its interim superintendent. Its summary includes: "New substation near Kenyon's Industrial Park – Xcel is okay if a new sub is built and load is moved from the existing old sub to the new without a planning study." CMPAS forwarded that summary to Lehner on October 20, a week after his council remarks (EMf Jay Anderson 2026-10-20.pdf).

On August 13, 2026 CMPAS's consulting engineer, Electrical Consultants, Inc., sent a scope of work for a Kenyon Municipal Utilities Long Range Plan whose options include "Addition of new substations" and whose steps include a contingency analysis for "loss of a substation transformer." On August 14 Randy Eggert, then superintendent, replied: "Jay I give my authorization to go ahead to proceed" (Kenyon Scope of Work.msg; EMf Jay Anderson 2026-10-08.pdf).

On October 5, 2026 CMPAS's chief executive, Jay Anderson, wrote to Johnson: "Due to some recent events, Josh has asked for some assistance." He listed two work items. The first was a new substation: acquire ground, design, cost estimates, bidding, equipment, interconnection with Xcel. The second: "A new roughly 750 kva load (grow facility) is coming to Kenyon" (EMf Jay Anderson 2026-10-05.pdf). The email does not read as a first notice of either. It reads as an agency taking over work from a utility that had just lost its superintendent.

The July 2 contract

Lehner told the council that a contract "sent out on July 2nd of this year" had drawn "no response and no signatures" 39:26.

The only July contract in the production is the CMPAS Master Distribution Services Agreement, a sixteen-page template whose first line reads "City of [MEMBER NAME], a Minnesota [home rule charter/statutory] city." Anderson sent a draft to every CMPAS member's board representative on April 8, 2026 ("I don't envision approving this in April, but working to get it completed in May or June"), a revised version on June 3, and the agreement again on July 16 (EMf Jay Anderson 2026-04-08.pdf; Emf Jay Anderson 2026-6-3 Master Distribution Services Agreement.pdf). On September 9 he wrote to all members: "so far, unless I am missing some, I have received 3 Distribution Service Agreements back. (Windom, Janesville and Fairfax)" (Distribution Agreement.msg). Kenyon was one of the many that had not returned it.

On October 12 Lehner forwarded the agreement to Johnson: "Have any concerns with this? I'm going through it also. Was sent to Randy in July." Johnson answered the next morning, the day of the council meeting: "looks alright to me." KMU approved the agreement on October 20 (10-20-26 KMU minutes.docx). It is a services contract between the agency and each of its members. It is not a contract for the industrial park.

The million-dollar transformer

Lehner told the council the transformer "we probably should have ordered a couple years ago" would run "on the upwards of a million dollars" 39:01.

The transformer is a 750 kVA dual-voltage unit from B&B Transformer of Farmington, Minnesota. Its drawing, headed "Kenyon Municipal Utilities," is dated September 23, 2026 (Kenyon customer application.msg, attachment). On October 19 Johnson asked the supplier for "the original purchase order for our 750 KVA dual voltage transformer as well as a guess on delivery date." The supplier answered on October 21: "We will deliver this this morning" (750 KVA transformer .msg). The City's own cost estimate for preparing the lot, sent to the developer on January 2, 2026, put the transformer at $25,000 within a total of $38,250 (Firebird Costs for Preparing 551 Engle Drive.eml.msg).

At the KMU commission meeting on October 20, Eggert, appearing as a citizen, "reported that a 750 kVA dual-voltage transformer for the Falcon project had been ordered." Commissioner Don Kirchmann asked "where the $1 million price discussed in the city council meeting comes from versus the $31,000 price that Randy mentioned." The minutes record Lehner's answer: "the $1 million is the estimated costs of providing electrical service to the Falcon project. Initial estimates for transformers, switches, wiring, and installation were approximately $500,000, potentially increasing to $750,000 to $1 million. A previously ordered 750 kVA transformer was reported to cost approximately $31,000." Later in the same meeting: "The estimated substation cost has increased to approximately $5–6 million from the 3-5 million reported in the City Council meeting" (10-20-26 KMU minutes.docx). The production contains no purchase order, no quote, no estimate, and no engineering memo behind $500,000, $1 million, $3 to 5 million, or $5 to 6 million. The request asked for every such document from January 2025 forward.

Who had the number, and when

The question underneath the October 13 account is who knew how much power the building would draw. The production answers it in four emails.

On October 29, 2025 the developer's representative, Alexander Samardzich, told the EDA coordinator, Todd Kieffer of CEDA: "Anticipated Electrical usage at around 7-8,000 kwh per day. Highest voltage needed would be 480v." On November 5, asked what KMU would need to know, he answered: "Around 1000-1500 amps @ 480 volts, 3 phase." On November 10 Kieffer wrote to the developers: "Kenyon utilities should have not issues providing the needed power for the facility" (202511101208-Utilities-40.pdf). On November 13 the EDA held its public hearing and its minutes recorded that the utility had "confirmed that the anticipated utility demand will remain within the city's current capabilities." On December 9 the council approved the sale.

On December 17, 2025, Kieffer forwarded the November 5 email to Eggert and to Lehner: "Randy, here is the email from Firebird stating what they will need for electricity. If 1,000 - 1,500 is not precise enough, then please use 1,500 amps when developing your numbers to share with them." On October 26, 2026, the afternoon the production was assembled, Kieffer wrote to Lehner and the clerk: "Found it, Scott. The delay from November 5, 2025, to December 17, 2025, was because I had shared it with Randy verbally, and it was shared at the public hearing, too" (EM Re Firebird-Falcon.pdf). The request asked for the documents behind the November 13 statement. That email chain is what came. No load estimate or capacity review by the utility is in the production.

The utility, for its part, asked. On December 16, 2025 the KMU commission voted to have Eggert "get an estimate for electrical based on the load provided by Firebird LLC and charge them upfront" (12-16-25 KMU minutes.docx). On January 20, 2026, with Lehner present, the minutes record: "KMU will purchase and install the transformer for Firebird LLC, as KMU does not want the company installing their own transformer" (1-20-26 KMU minutes.docx). On April 7 Kieffer asked the developer for "confirmation on the exact size of the transformer needed"; the answer was "It will be some time before we get an exact number on electrical usage" (Industrial Park Lot-KMU questions.eml.msg). On July 16 Kieffer wrote again: "Randy asked me if we had ever received the amperage power the facility will need." The developer: "Not yet, hope to have something tomorrow" (amperage power.eml.msg). The stamped electrical drawings are dated September 18, 2026. The developer sent them to Johnson on October 6, after Eggert had been placed on leave (Electrical.msg).

The application that was never filed

KMU's rules require every new commercial customer to file an Application for Installation of New Service with its projected load and a one-line diagram, and to sign a Specification Agreement, "at the same time that they apply for a building permit" (KMU rules, Appendix 1B). Goodhue County issued the building permit on August 19, 2026. The request asked for that application. None was produced.

What was produced instead shows why. On October 13, 2026, the morning of the council meeting, CMPAS's attorney emailed Lehner, Johnson, and the agency's rate consultant under the subject "Kenyon customer application," with the words "See attached" (Kenyon customer application.msg). On October 14 Anderson scheduled a meeting titled "Assist with filling out City service applications": "Lets get together and go through city service regulations and lay out what needs to be gathered and presented to get the ball rolling" (Teams Meeting Assit with Filling Out City Services Applications 2026-10-14.pdf). On October 20 the KMU commission could not set the new customer's utility deposit because "the Falcon location is new and has no billing history, a reasonable estimate of expected electricity and water usage will be needed" (10-20-26 KMU minutes.docx). Fourteen months after the lot was marketed with "3 phase electric," ten months after the council approved its sale, and two months after the county permitted the building, the utility had no application, no load figure of record, and no basis for a deposit.

Since May 13, 2025 the utility's staff have reported to the city administrator under the Administrative Staff Supervision Agreement, which Lehner presented and the council approved (ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF AGREEMENT 2025.pdf). The minutes of the October 20 meeting list him as "KMU Administrator."

What the City did not produce

The City's cover email called the request "voluminous" and said records would come "on a rolling production basis." Of the seventy documents at the top level of the folder, forty-one were already public on cityofkenyon.gov inside council packets: every KMU and EDA minute from January 2025 through August 2026, the five City–KMU agreements, and the organizational chart. The new material is the email, and it came from two mailboxes: the EDA coordinator's and the utility's. Nothing came from the administrator's.

Not produced, and not denied: the service application; any request for local certification from the Office of Cannabis Management, or any certification the City made, for a business the City's own ordinance makes the administrator responsible for certifying; the purchase order for the transformer; any estimate for a substation; the executed assignment of the lot from Firebird LLC to Falcon Investments LLC, produced only as an unsigned draft dated "March ___, 2026"; the administrator's salary since hire; the City's data access policy; and the name of its data practices compliance official. The Act requires, for each, either the record or a written denial citing the statute (Minn. Stat. § 13.03, subd. 3(f)). Several of the CMPAS records reached City Hall only by being forwarded from a personal Gmail account that the interim superintendent uses for utility business. This site's reply, asking for each missing item by October 29 and for twelve further records by November 5, is posted with the production.

The administrator's responsibility

The October 13 account named no one. It did not need to. Lehner had placed Eggert on administrative leave on September 10 and separated him on September 21 (9-21-26 Closed-Open Meeting minutes.docx), and he told the council that the transformer was one "we probably should have ordered a couple years ago" and that the July contract had drawn "no response and no signatures." The room was left to draw the line to the man who was gone. The council members who spoke at the September 21 meeting had already drawn it the other way. Commissioner Jerry Houglum "stated that it all started two years ago at the first KMU meeting that Lehner attended. He was against Eggert from the start." Council member Deanna Gard said she had received no notice until September 17. Eggert, asked whether he had signed the separation under duress, "responded that he felt pressured" (9-21-26 Closed-Open Meeting minutes.docx).

Three documents in the production fix where responsibility for the industrial park's power sat before anything went wrong, and all three carry Lehner's name.

The first is the Administrative Staff Supervision Agreement, signed April 23, 2025 and approved by the council on May 13, 2025 on his presentation. From that date the utility's employees, including its superintendent, reported to the city administrator (ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF AGREEMENT 2025.pdf). The October 20, 2026 KMU minutes list him as "KMU Administrator." The service application that was never filed was his utility's rule to enforce. The load figure that the coordinator held for six weeks was owed to his utility, and on December 17, 2025 it reached his own inbox: the forward went to Eggert and to Lehner (EM Re Firebird-Falcon.pdf). The transformer his utility voted to buy on January 20, 2026 was voted on with him in the room (1-20-26 KMU minutes.docx).

The second is Ordinance 112, adopted January 14, 2025 at his first meeting, whose section 1140.05 makes the city administrator the officer who certifies cannabis businesses to the Office of Cannabis Management. The request asked for any certification request the City received and any certification it made for this site or this business. None was produced, and the City did not say that none exists.

The third is the purchase and development agreement the council approved on December 9, 2025 with him present, in which the EDA represented to the buyer that "primary electric distribution infrastructure is installed and is available to the Development Property" (December 9, 2025 packet, p. 55). The lot had been marketed under his administration with "3 phase electric." The EDA minutes of July 22 and August 26, 2025 list him in attendance when the cultivator first pitched the park. The November 13, 2025 hearing minutes say the utility had confirmed capacity. The production shows that confirmation was the coordinator's November 10 email, sent before the utility had the number.

Then there is what the production leaves out. Every email in it came from two places: the EDA coordinator's Firebird folder and the utility's mailbox. Nothing came from the administrator's own correspondence, though the request asked for it twice. The purchase order for the transformer, the estimate behind the figures he gave the council, the certification file for the business, and the record of his own salary since hire are all records that sit with his office, and all are absent. Absence is not proof of anything. But the Act requires the City either to produce a record or to state in writing that it does not exist, and for each of these the City did neither. The deadline for that answer is Thursday.

One thing the record does prove. On October 12 Lehner forwarded the CMPAS services agreement to Johnson with the note "Was sent to Randy in July," and asked whether he had concerns with it. On October 13 he told the council that a contract sent July 2 had drawn no response and no signatures, in a passage about the utility's failure to arrange power for the industrial park. He knew what the document was the night before he described it. That is the one point where the files show the fact in his hand and a different account in his mouth. On the substation, the load, and the transformer, the files show the facts in his utility's minutes and his agency's email. Whether he had read them is not something a document can settle.

What can be concluded now

Four things follow from the City's own files, and each is a matter of record rather than interpretation.

The timing given to the council does not hold. The industrial park substation was discussed with Xcel in May 2026, a long-range plan that includes new substations was commissioned in August, and the power agency wrote about the 750 kVA load on October 5 as a known fact. What changed in October was that the utility lost its superintendent and asked the agency to take over.

The "July 2 contract" is not what it was described as. It is a template services agreement sent to every member utility, which most members had not returned by September, and which the administrator himself identified in writing on October 12 before describing it to the council the next night as an unanswered contract.

The dollar figures have no document behind them that the City can produce. The transformer that was described as costing upward of a million dollars is a 750 kVA unit, ordered, delivered on October 21, estimated by the City at $25,000 in January and stated by its departing superintendent at about $31,000. The million was reframed a week later as the cost of all service to the facility, and the substation grew from three to five million to five to six million between meetings, without a quote, an estimate, or a study.

The responsibility sits with the administrator's office, by the City's own documents. The utility reported to him from May 2025. The ordinance that makes him the certifying officer for the business was adopted at his first meeting. The lot was marketed and sold on a written promise of installed power under his administration and with him present. The application rule was not followed, the load figure reached the utility and the administrator himself after the vote, the transformer purchase was decided with him in the room, and the utility was still asking for the amperage in July. The account he gave the council on October 13 contained none of that, was wrong on the contract in a way his own email shows he knew, and left the blame with the one person who could no longer answer in the room. Nothing in the City's production shows Randy Eggert doing anything wrong.

What cannot yet be concluded is what the service will actually cost, whether a new substation is needed for this load or was needed regardless, who placed the transformer order and when, and whether the City ever certified the business to the state. Those answers are in records the City holds and has not produced: the purchase order, the engineer's study, the certification file, and the administrator's own mailbox. The deadline for them is Thursday, October 29. If it passes, this site will ask the Commissioner of Administration for an advisory opinion on October 30.