We Voted to Post Signs Before Spraying. Then we didn't.

I voted to require signs before spraying weed killer in a public park. This is a record of what the council committed to, and what happened instead.

The commitment

The item was on the agenda at McLean's own request: it was information on a weed killer he proposed using in Lloyd Minor Park. During public comment, resident Colleen Nyberg asked the council to post signs before any application—not a flyer "that flaps on the pole," but an actual sign—so parents, and families with children who have respiratory issues, could choose to skip the park that day.^[1]

The council took the point seriously. The plan that emerged was specific: McLean would give the City Manager a two-week window by email, so he'd have the flexibility to pick the right weather day within it—and on the day he sprayed, he would post signs on multiple sides of the park so residents could decide for themselves whether to avoid the area. McLean didn't just accept the idea; he helped build it, offering that he could put a notice up "on a stake" and acknowledging an offer for a roll of caution tape that a colleague offered.^[2]

Then the council amended the motion to include the notice and signage, and voted.

Note the sequence at the end: the City Manager states plainly that the vote is about "the signage and the two-week notice," and McLean says "yes" three seconds later. Five to zero.

What happened instead

At the June 8, 2026 meeting, I asked McLean directly whether or not the signs had gone up. They hadn't. He'd sprayed the park—the boat-ramp edge, the area around the playground, the benches—with no warnings and no signs or emails.

What follows in the clip is the whole of it: I point out that the council sat in a meeting and decided to post signs, and that we "just ignored that." McLean says he did not ignore it—there was "no need." When I ask whether he forgot he'd agreed to it or simply decided not to, he answers: "I saw absolutely no need to have it at that time of night." The Mayor lands where the record does—"no spraying will happen without a sign"—and McLean closes with "Fair enough… I apologize for that."

McLean's defense, and why the record doesn't support it

McLean's position is that he didn't break the agreement, because the agreement was conditional: but it was not. On the record he described it this way:

The April 13 record contains no such condition.

I said as much in the moment—"I don't think that's what we said at all"—and again: the plan was a two-week window and signs "regardless of when." A late-evening application with no one around isn't an exception the agreement carved out, it's squarely inside the situations the agreement was made to mitigate.

Why this one is simple

• It was a formal 5-0 roll-call vote, not an informal understanding.
• The councilor who did the spraying voted yes, seconds after signage was named aloud.
• He admits on the record that he posted no signs, and that it was a choice: "I saw absolutely no need."
• It's not process or administrivia, it's clear, resident-facing accountability: public notice before herbicide is applied in a park where children play.

This wasn't new. Park spraying in Lloyd Minor Park, and how much say residents get before it happens, had been an open question at the council for years:

• July 2023—the council brought in a contractor for broadleaf weed control, on assurances it posed "no issue… to pets or animals"
• September 2023—a councilor floated a gentler, biodegradable alternative ("agricultural vinegar") for the blackberries and ivy
• May 2024—two residents objected: one asked what herbicide his pets had been exposed to after an unannounced application and got no reply, another said the spray had damaged trees in the park
• February 2026—after a constituent reached out, I asked the council to formalize advance notice before spraying. That discussion led to the April 13 vote

This isn't about anything financial, but there's a real cost. We violated the trust of our residents, clearly and on the record, at a time when our city is already dealing with a trust deficit. The cost of that is hard to measure, but it's real.

Postscript: what's actually in the sprayer

This post is about the notice the council voted for and skipped. But at the April 13 meeting a few residents asked a different question—what is being sprayed—so here is that separate conversation, for anyone interested.

McLean, who brought the product to the council, described it himself. It's worth hearing in full, because the description carries its own tension:

He calls it "an organic product" that "doesn't leave any chemicals behind it, 'cause there are none in it." And then, describing the same product:

…a high concentration of alcohol of some sort, that you don't wanna get on your skin because it will tend to burn you. So that's the reason why you don't wanna have kids running around.

Councilor Doug McLean, April 13, 2026 Council Meeting

So: organic and chemical-free, but not for your skin, and not with kids around. He also noted it's not the product used in 2023—that one was Roundup. And on vetting: no outside agency or expert was consulted, and when I asked whether he'd used this particular product before, McLean answered, "I have not used this one."

These are quotes from the meeting, not claims about the product's actual chemistry.^[3] If you want to know what's in it, the material data sheet is the place to look—and a good follow-up for anyone who cares about this piece specifically.

Lastly, I want to be up front that I have no expertise in chemistry or toxicology, and while I'm an enthusiastic amateur gardener, I don't have meaningful experience with herbicides. I care because my constituents care, and many of them are far more educated on the topic than I am.

If you're interested in meeting up to talk about this, to correct anything I've missed or gotten wrong, or if you have any questions at all, please reach out. I'm happy to connect and always appreciate the opportunity to learn.