EUREKA ENGAGES AN AGRI-TOURISM TASK FORCE

    

After "kicking the can down the road" for several months, the Eureka Town Board appointed a Task Force at the October 15th Town Board meeting to address the possibility of developing ordinance language which would allow agri-tourism in Eureka Township.
     At the September Town Board meeting, the Board had discussed the number of applicants that would be accepted as Task Force members. The Board also requested the Task Force report to the Board monthly regarding progress. The ordinance states there must be a minimum of 5 members, an uneven number, allowing a Task Force to have a majority vote. I believe there was logical thinking applied as it is most feasible to have an odd number and minimum of 5 when this was implemented in Ordinance 2, Chapter 4. The majority of the Board members voted to have 6 members.

     During the discussion at their October meeting, Supervisor Budenski re-visited the issue and asked the Township attorney for his comment on what the appropriate number of members should be.  The attorney's response stated "the ordinance requires only a minimum of 5, but I would recommend the Board to select an odd number; with an even number, the Task Force members could deadlock. If there is a chance of a deadlock, the report then would not serve much of a purpose and would not be practical." Supervisor Storlie stated "With all due respect, I feel having 6 members forces them to come to a solution." The attorney's advice was ignored and 6 members were selected.

Butch Hansen

Appointed to the Task Force are Fritz Frana (photo not available) and Charles "Butch" Hansen, current Planning Commission members;










Phil Cleminson,a partner in a consulting firm and a member of the Transfer of Building Rights Task Force; Mark Parranto, owner of the Applewood Apple Orchard;

Phil Cleminson

Mark Parranto

Atina Diffley

Cory Behrendt

 Cory Behrendt, past Chair of the Eureka Town Board, past Planning Commission member and a computer engineer in technical services with the Minneapolis firm, Clifton, Larson and Allen. He has twice served Highview Lutheran Church in a leadership role on call committees, established the church data base and maintains it. Cory stated he is open-minded, fair and sees things from all sides; and Atina Diffley, an organic vegetable farmer who educates consumers, farmers, and policymakers about organic farming through the consulting business Organic Farming Works which she owns with her husband. Atina and her husband owned and operated Gardens of Eagan.

     Embracing the concept of agri-tourism and developing ordinance language is a very complex and strategic planning process. The stated purpose of the zoning ordinance is to protect the public health,
safety, morals, comfort, convenience and general welfare; to protect and preserve lands identified for long-term agricultural use; promote well-managed and staged development of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public areas; conserve and manage the use of natural resources; and provide for the compatibility of different land uses and the most appropriate use of land throughout the Township. Addressing these issues should be a very good starting point.
     The Board and Task Force applicants heard a statement from Jeff Otto, a Eureka citizen who served as Board Chair and legal liaison; as well as a task force chair and legal liaison. He also participated in several other committee and ordinance revision efforts for the Township. Mr. Otto submitted what he believes is the "proper procedure and process to study a subject of complexity, to communicate issues and recommendations effectively to audiences large and small, and to manage legal and technical guidance for maximum benefit and value to the Township."

Jeff Otto

      Mr. Otto stated that he appreciates the time and effort serving on the Board and Planning Commission can entail. He stated that each of the Board members has taken on particular subjects involving extra commitment to do well that has benefited the Township; however, he felt that as a Board, their management of the agri-tourism issue has not yet been one of their better efforts and felt it is not too late for course correction. I believe Mr. Otto presented a very valid argument for a proper process to evaluate the feasibility of agri-tourism in Eureka in his presentation to the Board members and Task Force applicants.

THE FOLLOWING ARE COMMENTS BY JEFF OTTO ON THE TASK FORCE PROCESS:
TIMING: First of all, what is the rush? The Board has been involved in this subject for nearly a year, directed the Planning Commission to conduct two hearings, and ignored thoughtful early research and draft input on the subject from the Commission.  The sum total of the Board's consideration and vision on the subject after all these months was one paragraph that was open-ended and unenforceable except for hours of operation; and those hours provided no consideration for the nature of an operation, seasonal variation in daylight hours, or possible safety, noise, and light pollution issues for night activity.
                                                                                                                
Now the Board is dumping this broad and diverse tourism subject into a hastily assembled committee, inadequately advertised to the entire Township, with the direction to make its recommendations in 60 days, taking it through Thanksgiving and nearly to Christmas Eve. The option is left open to possibly allow a thirty day extension so the committee can work through Christmas and New Year's to provide recommendations in early January. 
The Board is expecting a lot for that which they couldn't produce in over 9 months. The sham of boxing the Task Force into such an unrealistic time frame is unfair to the volunteers, as well as doing superficial disservice to the complexity of the subject. If the result is to put more time into the effort, the original volunteers are best positioned to advance the subject. If the decision is to produce draft ordinance language working with the Town Attorney, again, the original volunteers are best informed to advance the subject. When, not if, ordinance language on this subject goes to the Met Council for review with answers to traffic, road and sanitary impacts, the original volunteers are best informed to advance the subject. All volunteers need to be informed up front of that possible time frame. Too much loss of continuity in the Task Force will delay overall progress and risk seriously undermining key issues carefully resolved but later re-visited by new members not having the benefit of the earlier discussions.
A point was made by a Board member that this Task Force should need less time because of all the "data" already collected in the two hearings.  A structured public hearing is not an adequate substitute for the open exchange and dialog that a public open house provides. Much of the hearing "data" is little more than opinions raising issues and concerns, not dialog to resolve those issues or detail reasonable regulation.

SCOPE: The scope of the Task Force must be clearly focused on public agri-tourism Township wide. It must not be allowed to digress into another venue for debating what is included and not included in private and commercial agricultural. That is a separate issue being handled in other appropriate venues, including the ongoing legal proceeding. A prerequisite for agri-tourism is being comercial ag, whatever that includes and is resolved outside the Agri-tourism Task Force. The Board continues to suggest that a task force doesn't need to develop explicit language but only provide "recommendations." The implication is that broad recommendations can be done more quickly and then refined into more specific language by others later. This is a completely false economy of effort and time by both the volunteers and Town legal counsel. Who better to provide carefully worded language than the group that has studied and discussed the issues in detail, and done so in concert with the Town attorney so that the concepts are sound and legally supported? This would still recognize that final legal language adjustments may be needed, but the confidence level that the final proposals are workable and proper will be much higher than vague language hastily drafted to meet an artificial deadline. Being able to answer questions specifically and thoughtfully at public meetings is a major factor in elevating the confidence of the public that the study has been
performed diligently.
   
TOWN BOARD SUPPORT: The Board should demonstrate its serious regard for this initiative in the following three ways:
1. The time frame needs to be made longer and can be tied to clear milestone decision points. The Commercial/Industrial Task Force reached an intermediate decision point and recommended no further pursuit. The Transfer Task Force completed its initial charge, but only then was asked to continue on to the final tasks. Of course, it is reasonable and proper for any task force or committee to provide monthly status reports to the commissioning body. This Board has seen that this has been done consistently, speaking of the seven years I have been active in the Township.

2. A Professional Planner needs to be engaged up front to work with the Task Force due to the nature and breadth of the subject. This is not only to provide technical support and experienced input on the subject to the Task Force or ask questions, but importantly to provide knowledgeable external perspective and validation of diligence for the 1100 owners of Eureka Township for whom the Board works. Government transparency and constructive dialog depend on public gatherings and outside objectivity. Only then will public confidence in the process and support for an initiative grow. Concerns about the value of professional consulting are often traced to misunderstanding and mis-management of the consulting service. A common mistake is to try to save money by asking very narrow questions. This limits the opportunity for a consultant to understand the goal and use their experience to identify alternatives and trade-offs. Adding a planning consultant later in the process rather than from the beginning will delay progress while the consultant is brought current with what has already transpired. As with legal guidance, bringing such knowledge and experience into the process at a later stage can result in important insight that will motivate the Task Force to reconsider
and possibly re-work portions they thought were complete, causing delay. 

3. An Aggressive Schedule requires direct access to legal counsel via the Task Force Chair or a designated legal liaison with the Task Force. Not all questions can be efficiently handled in writing alone. There may need to be dialog to clarify the question or the answer, as well as follow up questions based on the initial response. This was true in more than one instance with the Transfer Task Force to avoid spending time on a path outside the authority of a township, not being aware of the risks for a course being considered, or swinging effort to a better alternative suggested to the Task Force. A 60 or 90 day time box certainly allows no room for external delays impacting the progress of the Task Force.

A copy of the entire content of the presentation by Jeff Otto can be obtained from the Township Clerk in written form or on a CD of the Town Board meeting. Eventually, the written presentation should be posted on the Township web site as an attachment.