Residents Press Council After Herbicide Application at Will Baker Park

If no one funds local news, your community is just rumors. Help Decorah News bring facts home. DECORAH — A discussion over the recent use of herbicides at Will Baker Park drew a large crowd to Monday's Decorah City Council meeting, where residents questioned city officials about public safety, chemical exposure and whether the city should move toward a low-spray or no-spray approach in public spaces. The discussion unfolded during both public comment and a later agenda item devoted to the city's spray policy. Multiple speakers said the spraying took place near children and recreational users and raised concerns about notification, safety protocols and the long-term use of chemicals in public areas. During public comment, Decorah resident Amy Chicos said she was "profoundly" concerned by the application. "My understanding is that on April 28, safety regulations were apparently not followed, and chemicals were apparently applied during wind speeds that violated the application protocols, creating immediate drift right next to the bike trail and the Upper Iowa River," Chicos told the council. Chicos also alleged warning signs were removed before the required waiting period ended and said families with children unknowingly used the fields after the application. "By failing to follow the required safety protocols … the person responsible put our community's children, families, immune-compromised people and pregnant women potentially at risk for exposure to harmful chemicals," she said. Chicos urged the council to investigate the incident and determine who was responsible. She also called on Decorah to become "a low-spray or no-spray city." Teela Hammell, who identified herself as both a concerned resident and a board member of Kinderhaus, said Kinderhaus students were playing near the river about 150 feet from the spraying site before teachers became aware chemicals were being used. She also alleged a deodorizing product was used to mask the smell of the chemicals. "The lack of signage and smell directly impacted teachers' joint decision to keep the children by the river," Hammell said. According to Hammell, teachers left the area immediately after learning about the spraying. She said Kinderhaus wanted to work with the city and other stakeholders "to make sure something like this never happens again." Hammell added that other communities around the country have adopted "non-toxic community" designations and said Decorah could pursue a similar approach. Resident Adam Campbell urged the council to view the controversy as an opportunity rather than simply a mistake. "The problem here could be the solution," Campbell said. Campbell distributed information to council members about Durango, Colorado, which he said transitioned city parks toward organic management practices through a public-private partnership. "We don't have to reinvent the wheel," he said. Several speakers connected the local debate to broader environmental and public health concerns. Steve McCargar, who also spoke about the issue at a previous council meeting, referenced Iowa's cancer rates and warned about pesticides and environmental toxins. Another resident, Liz Rog, shared a personal story about a sibling who died after childhood exposure to herbicides. "I've spent my whole life paying attention to this," Rog said. Other residents spoke about pollinator declines, children's health and concerns about the Upper Iowa River. Sue Otte cited language from what she described as the herbicide's safety documentation, including restrictions related to wind speeds and applications near waterways. "Let's get going and do the right thing for all of our citizens," Otte told the council. Elsa McCargar, a beekeeper and Decorah resident, said seeing and smelling chemicals in the spring caused her "grief and distress" because of family experiences with cancer. "I feel like we're at a moment where we really have to start to address this issue," McCargar said. Resident Matthew Steven, who said he moved to Decorah because of the city's quality of life and outdoor spaces, questioned why the city would not pursue more proactive alternatives. "What's the issue with being proactive for our children?" he asked. Council members later revisited the issue during a formal discussion on the city's spray policy. Council member Emily Neal opened the discussion by praising the parks department and describing the issue as complex. "There are so many things I would like to say on this issue," Neal said. Neal said she believed city staff acted according to existing guidelines when the herbicide was applied at the athletic fields. "One of the reasons they chose to spray on April 28 is because conditions that day were considered ideal," Neal said. She added the fields had deteriorated significantly and staff viewed the treatment as an effort to save the athletic turf. "It was an opportunity to try to save an athletic field and do so in the best possible weather conditions," she said. Still, Neal said the city needed to improve transparency and communication with residents. "We have to be able to communicate these things to the public," she said, adding the city should establish clearer criteria governing when herbicides are used, where they are used and how residents are notified. Acting Mayor Pro Tem. Randy Schissel defended the parks department's handling of the application and said the city had attempted to notify the public. "The spraying done on these fields was done under 10 miles an hour, the winds," Schissel said, clarifying that staff monitored conditions to remain within application guidelines. He added that only the athletic fields were treated and that the city was attempting to restore healthy grass coverage. "This isn't a permanent thing that you have to do every year," Schissel said. Schissel also said notices about the spraying were posted online and signs remained in place after the application. "I think we did everything we could," he said. The debate revealed broad agreement among council members that the city should reduce herbicide use whenever possible, though they differed on whether the city needed a formal written policy. Council member Johanna Bergan said she was uncomfortable with the council micromanaging operational decisions made by trained staff. "My hope is that our staff and our park board have heard from citizens who care a lot about this," Bergan said. Bergan said she would prefer the parks department and park board develop recommendations rather than having the council dictate operational policy. She also stressed the need for clearer communication with residents, pointing to the city's online notice, which read: "Will Baker athletic fields are closed today for turf maintenance (fertilizing and target weed control). The fields will be ready for use tomorrow afternoon." "I get that means you're spraying, but I had to think about it for a hot minute," Bergan said. "We need to say it in real English words." Council member Steve Zittergruen said the city should continue minimizing chemical use while taking residents' concerns seriously. "I do think community members very much deserve very clear communication if and when the city uses herbicides or pesticides," Zittergruen said. He acknowledged residents' frustrations with the city's response. "This thing happened, and it very much upset some people," Zittergruen said. "However, the city's like, 'We don't do it nearly as bad as all the other cities in Iowa.' That's not much of a defense that anyone wants to hear." Zittergruen said he had been researching Durango's low-spray designation and estimated Decorah would likely qualify for a similar designation based on the amount of herbicide used by the city. City Manager Travis Goedken said the herbicide application was unusual and intended to avoid a much more costly field restoration project. "Of these 700 acres that our staff are responsible to manage, 12 acres had it applied so we could avoid having to do a restoration capital improvement project if we lost those fields," Goedken said. Goedken said the city had not broadly sprayed parks during his tenure and described the application as a one-time effort to restore turf grass and prevent more extensive deterioration. "If we ended up with no turf grass out there, we're talking hundreds of thousands pushing a million dollars in restoration," he said. Goedken also said he was open to creating a policy outlining how future decisions about herbicide use would be made. The discussion ended without a formal vote on a new spray policy, though council members signaled support for continued conversations involving city staff, the park board and community experts. Be in the know, always! The free newsletter delivers local news, features, and tips directly to you—perfect for busy readers.