THE POSTMAN COMETH....

JOIN THE AGRITOURISM DISCUSSION TO BE HELD ON THURSDAY, DECEMBER 12TH, 6:30-8:30 AT THE TOWN HALL. You will be receiving a postcard very soon inviting you to this event.  The Board granted the Agritourism Task Force's request to hold an open house and seek input from the public. That's you! 
Don't miss the opportunity to say your piece-- plus, negative, or neutral-- regarding this use to be started through Ordinance in Eureka.

The Task Force has been working on a definition, which they have broken down bullet point by bullet point for you to comment on.  A list of possible uses under the heading "Agritourism" was streamlined by the group by removing those items not related to agriculture. This list will be presented at the open house for your reactions. Some of the items that remain are farm dinners, fee hunting and fishing, bed and breakfast of five or fewer guest rooms, corn mazes and fright houses, and more.

It is important to note that, thus far, both public hearings on the formerly proposed texts, as well as the Task Force's current efforts, have all been coming from the standpoint that agritourism cannot exist here unless there is first the agricultural use to which it must be related.  This is a very important foundation.  Without it, agritourism uses could stand alone and could literally pop up anywhere in the Township.  Personally, I do not think that the Metropolitan Council would accept an Ordinance change that would allow what amounts to commercial enterprises dotted around Eureka.  I believe the Council would be more amenable to the idea that agritourism is secondary to the agriculture, as we are zoned ag.  (The Commercial/Industrial Task Force recommended not to advance that discussion at the time.  Thus we have no commercial zone.) But then, the Metropolitan Council has not yet even come up in the Task Force or Board discussions except for my submitting to the Board an email reply from the Council and Jeff Otto's mentioning the Council review in his public comments--- to which Supervisor Ceminsky objected so much.

The Task Force has been wrestling with how to state the relationship between agriculture and agritourism.  I lean toward simply using the already-defined definitions of "principal use" and "accessory use."

Principal Use: A principal use relates to the main purpose of the zoning district, exists independently of any other use of a property, and is allowed as a permitted, conditional, or interim use. (Resolution 59, 8-13-2007, Ord. 2010-1, 6-15-2010) AND

Accessory Use: A use of a parcel that is subordinate to the Principal Use of the parcel, is located on the same parcel as the principal use, is customarily associated with and incidental to the principal use, and does not change the character of the principal use. There can be no accessory use on a parcel without a principal use. (Resolution 59, 8-13-2007, Ord. 2010-1, 6-15-2010) 

That means there would have to be a principal use of commercial agricultural operations for an accessory use of agritourism to exist.  If/when the farm goes away, the agritourism goes away.
This is why I favor an Interim Use Permit (IUP) instead of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for agritourism at least of a certain level of intensity or greater.  Both require a public hearing and both can be tailored to the particular use being sought.  The difference is that a CUP "runs with the land" and does not go away unless conditions are violated and this is not rectified.  There is no time restriction on how long a CUP continues.

An IUP, on the other hand, also "runs with the land," but has a sunset date or event. Not being an attorney, I would like to hear what Chad Lemmons, Township Attorney, might have to say, but I think that to grant a CUP to agritourism, even though we mean to restrict it to being attendant to an agricultural use, would mean that the farm could cease to exist, but the agritourism use would still continue, basically as a strictly commercial use. From all discussions so far, I do not think that is the intent. The "event" for the agritourism IUP to terminate could be the end of the agricultural use.  That would still be controlled by the farmer.  If she wants to continue the agritourism, she continues the farm. If it is possible to make the termination of the farm the terminating event for the IUP, that would do away with the part of an IUP that businesses do not like compared to a CUP; namely, that it sunsets or ends.
.

These are some of the thoughts than run through my head as I continue to attend the Task Force meetings as a member of the public.  Since my last report, there were three members of the public and one supervisor in attendance at one meeting, three members of the public at another, and at the last meeting, back to just one member of the public, me, with two supervisors poking their heads in after their Special Meeting.

At the last meeting, I think the group gelled and moved forward, instead of going in a circular discussion as I felt it did during its first meetings.  There was more consensus of opinion on the committee than I would have suspected, and a consensus that I found myself in basic agreement with as well.  I hope this bodes well for theTownship.

However, it is not up to the Task Force to say what the public wants, which at least some on the committee have openly acknowledged.  It is up to the public.  That is why it is very important that the public come forward and give its reactions and comments to the Task Force.

This blog is "Engaging Eureka in Governance." That's what we are trying to accomplish.  By informing you of what is going on in our community even if you can't make the regular meetings, we hope that you will make the effort to take part in what happens here.  If you don't, rest assured someone else will! Make a difference.

A POLL ON THE POLES

At the November Board meeting, Supervisor Budenski moved that the Township seek an injunction against Great River Energy (GRE) to stop work regarding the installation of powerline poles in Eureka Township.  His thought was that, just as the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) granted a local deviation in the route near Dodd and 245th, perhaps they would grant a formal Township request for a change in the pole material.  That is, to switch from the rusty brown they want to install (think Pillsbury Avenue) to the silvery galvanized poles found elsewhere that would blend in better with the Minnesota sky and might be a little more palatable to Eureka citizens. (Since we're stuck with them no matter what.) Budenski volunteered his time to go through the request process.

OR 

Remember, these power poles are 15 or 16 stories tall.  You might notice them! As you may imagine, this matter of the power line and the poles has been discussed a number of times at the Board level.  Citizen Ray Kaufenberg, who will have the poles right in his own neighborhood, has been active on the topic for some time. He has previously suggested to the Board that a change in the pole material is a reasonable request for the Township to make. 

The Board has requested that a representative from GRE be present each month to give the Board (and presumably the citizens?) an update on the work being done. 

At the October meeting, Ray was denied his request to ask a question during the part of the meeting that the GRE rep was before the Board. Chair Storlie informed Ray that it wasn't the public comment time, and he was not allowed to speak..  

Supervisor Budenski asked why Ray could not speak.  Storlie replied that he, Storlie, is the Chair, it is his job to keep the meeting moving and the public comment period was over: Mr. Kaufenberg would have to be quiet.  While it IS TRUE that Pete is the Chair, he needs to keep the meeting moving, and the public comment period was over, the Citizen Input Policy states under "During the Meeting" that the BOARD can allow citizen input during a meeting if it, the Board, at its sole discretion, decides it is necessary.  

It is also true that the Chair does not have any special powers beyond those of the other supervisors.  His vote doesn't count more than the others'. His sole additional obligation here is to run the meeting.  That's it. 

THEREFORE, it is my belief that Chair Storlie should have properly asked the Board whether it would like to hear Mr. Kaufenberg and not unilaterally made that decision himself, especially when his decision was challenged by another Supervisor.  (Maybe the others don't agree with you?) It is at the Board's sole discretion, not the Chair's sole discretion re the Policy, after all! 

Apparently, the other three Supervisors (Miller, Ceminsky, and Madden) are fine, however, indicated by their TOTAL silence on the matter, with Chair Storlie's dictatorial (my opinion) decision on whether one of their constituents would be given the courtesy of a comment or question about this topic which affects us all.

I view this in much the same manner as the Road Contractor part of the meeting or the Sheriff's part of the meeting.  If they are there to report on roads (which affect us all) or on public safety (which affects us all) and citizens are allowed or even encouraged to ask questions, why can't a citizen be allowed to ask a question on the power lines (which affects us all)?  I don't get it.

At any rate, Supervisor Budenski tried to pick up the banner at the November meeting as described above. What happened next, you ask?

WELL, Supervisor Miller had to recuse himself because of a potential financial conflict of interest. You may remember that he is being paid by GRE for use of his property as a laydown yard.  Any possible delay in the project could result in more money for him, so he shouldn't vote on this matter which affects his constituents.

 

Chair Pete Storlie, refreshingly in my opinion, voted with Brian to seek the injunction and the possible change in the poles.

Supervisors Ceminsky and Madden, however,.voted against Budenski's motion.  Don't ask me to explain why, because I don't get that either.  What, really, is there to lose?  Well, some money in taking the action. A few hundred, perhaps? How long will the effect of their votes, which caused the motion to fail, be with us?  How long does a power pole last?  How long will the power line be in place?  Personally, I don't think this was a good economy. Do you ?

VS.

DRAFTING AN ORDINANCE IS AN EASY TASK? NOT SO!

     It is my hope and belief that the majority of Eureka citizens are aware of the Town Board's appointment

of a Task Force to study the feasibility of Agri-tourism as a land use in Eureka Township. If it is determined that Eureka citizens, after attending an open house and expressing their opinions and ideas, are interested
in an Agri-tourism land use, the Task Force will continue with the complex task of developing a definition and ordinance which will allow the use. The Task Force has scheduled the Open House to be held on December 12. Citizens can expect to receive a notice of the meeting inviting their attendance and input prior to this date.

     To have full force and effect of law, an ordinance must not be in conflict with any higher law such as state or national law. Professional planners and other consultants can be an invaluable resource to a Township that is beginning the planning and zoning process. Planners can help identify issues of which the Township may be unaware.  Legal assistance is very important to help ensure that all documents have been properly drafted and that all procedural requirements have been followed.

     The Task Force meets on Wednesday evenings at the Town Hall from 7:00 - 9:00 p.m. All citizens are welcome to attend the meetings which are posted on the Eureka web site; however, they are not allowed to participate.

     I attended the November 13 Task Force meeting which I found quite interesting. I believe it is imperative that the members of the Task Force put their personal agendas aside and have an understanding as to the specifics of the delegated task. When I left I was not convinced every member of the Task Force had reached this important point. It is also my opinion that the Chair, who is exceptionally competent, be allowed to set the agenda and steer the meeting.  In the future, I hope he will be allowed to do so. 

     Atina Diffley, a Task Force member, offered information which I felt is quite valuable in our study of Agri-tourism.  Atina stated the following:

    " I spoke with Bob Patton at the Department of Agriculture.

His work with the department is land use. Agri-tourism is a growing area in his work, and he sees a need to support understanding of it from a land use perspective. His idea is to create materials to support jurisdictions to create their ordinances. He's working on the idea but has nothing ready now beyond willingness to come and talk with us."

     "The work on the definition is being done by a non-profit Renewing the Countryside. Brett Olson, co-founder and the Creative Director at Renewing the Countryside, stated "we have been attempting to go at it from a state-wide liability stand point.  We have a definition for agri-tourism that has passed bi-partisan approval and will likely slide through without opposition in this coming legislative session."

     "Bob Patton stated that when developing an Agri-tourism ordinance the process should not be hurried and 2 years is a reasonable time frame.

     In preparation for attending the Agri-tourism open house at the Eureka Town Hall on December 12, I believe it serves the public well if citizens have a basic understanding of the procedure the Task Force should consider when developing an ordinance which would allow the Agri-tourism land use. The following information is perhaps a step in understanding the complex process.

An Ordinance Must Be:  (Ordinance Drafting and Enactment by Steve Lobertini)

          

          1." Consonant with the constitution and statutes of the United States and of the State, and             

             with the general principles of the common law;

          2. Authorized by the charter of the corporation or general laws applying thereto;

          3. consistent with the general objects and purposes of (the city's) creation;

          4. general, and applicable alike to all persons and property affected by them;

          5. certain in their application and operation, and their execution not left to the caprice of 

              those whose duty it is to enforce them;

          6. just;

          7. adapted to the locality and affairs which it is intended they shall control and affect;

          8. general in their nature;

          9. impartial in their operation and effect.

         [An ordinance MUST NOT] (my emphasis)

         10. be harsh and oppressive; [or]

         11. discriminate in FAVOR OF OR AGAINST any class of persons or property. (my 
               emphasis)

          An ordinance which is free from the objectionable."

     The following is information from Drafting Ordinances and Resolutions by :  Kent Sulem, MAT Attorney:  (Section V., pages 6-7)



"V. General Considerations.
When drafting resolutions and ordinances, a township should carefully consider exactly what it wants to accomplish. Thought should be given to the cost of enforcement, and the likelihood that the regulation will achieve the desired result. In many situations, the township would be well advised to study the issue, obtain sample ordinances, and consult with their township attorney and possibly other experts. After the township knows what it wishes to accomplish, the following should help the document achieve the goal:

A. Use clear, simple, and contemporary language - Terms of art, trade jargon, and non-standard language should be avoided. Further, terms should be used as they are being used at the time of adoption. Words such as "Wheretofore", "Hereinafter", and similar terms should be avoided. Resolutions and ordinances should be drafted so that the majority of people can reasonably be expected to understand them. Showing off the author's vocabulary will not result in comprehension and thus will reduce compliance.

B. Avoid the confusing use of pronouns. Use of terms such as "said" as in "said persons"; "the same"; and similar phrases only serve to obscure what is actually being referenced. Further, if pronouns such as "he" or "she" are to be used, be sure that the person being referenced is clearly identifiable.

C. And/Or - An old Minnesota court case (Podany v. Erickson, 235 Minn. 36 (1951)) held that the term "and/or" had no legal meaning and could not be enforced. While this case has never been overturned, given the increasing acceptance and use of "and/or" it is possible that a court today would give legal recognition to the term. If at all possible, however, the term should be avoided.

D. Gender Neutrality - The easiest way to make ordinances gender neutral is to use titles whenever possible. The second preferred method would be to use the phrase "he or she" (in either order). The use of “s/he" can be hard to read if a person is not paying close attention to the words. Finally, as a catch-all provision, the township may wish to include a provision in the body of the document that provides something similar to, "Any use of the masculine shall include the feminine and vice-versa."E. Be definitive - The word "should" does not belong in ordinances, and would have a limited role in resolutions. Definitive language should be used. Historical drafting guides such as Strunk & White's The Elements of Style state that the term "must" is preferred to the term "shall". Modem drafting styles, however, show acceptance of the use of "shall" to show that something is mandatory. The term "may" should be used to indicate when something is permissible but not mandatory.

F. Be specific but not too limiting. Language that is too broad or vague runs the risk of being found unconstitutionally vague. On the other hand, language that is too specific can make a regulation too difficult to enforce or limit its practical benefit to the community.

G. Keep things short, labeled, and punctuated - Sentences, paragraphs, and ultimately the entire document should be kept as short as possible to enhance readability and comprehension. Further, the use of headings and subdivision titles can increase clarity. Finally, it is very important that punctuation be used accurately. There is growing acceptance of the dropping of the final comma in a list, but this practice can result in an ambiguous regulation.            

H. Define all key terms - One of the first sections of the body of an ordinance should set forth the definitions and rules of interpreting all key terms used throughout the ordinance. Be sure that the definition is specific and not circular (i.e. do not define "Light Commercial District" as being a district where light commercial activities are allowed.) It can be helpful to include examples, but if a list of examples is to be used, it should be prefaced with, "The term _ shall include, but not be limited to..." How a term is to be literally interpreted and applied is equally important to how it is defined. For example, when defining a setback distance, provide how the measurement is to be made (i.e. from what point to what point.) Further, catch-all provisions such as "The singular shall include the plural and vice-versa", or "The present tense shall include the future tense", can be used to prevent challenges based on overly literal interpretations.

I. Use space and time savers whenever possible - Adopting statutes by reference can save a lot of time and space when drafting an ordinance. On the other hand, if the township does not have easy access to current statute books, adoption by reference can lead to confusion as no one will have access to what is actually referenced in the ordinance. Providing a section that states all references to a particular township official shall include his or her authorized designee can also be a time and space saver and allow more flexibility in the day to day operations of the township. Finally, instead of listing individual fees in separate ordinances, the township may wish to consider the adoption of a fee schedule that is adopted by reference in the main text of the ordinance. By creating a list of all fees and adopting it as a separate document, the board can amend the entire list at once without having to search through all ordinances and adopting separate amending ordinances for each one imposing a fee

J. State needed information - Who is responsible for enforcement, etc? Who is responsible for distributing and collecting applications and other forms? Who is to conduct inspections? Whose opinion must be sought before a request can be approved? These questions should be answered in the text of the ordinance.

K. Due Process and other Constitutional Protections - Regulations adopted by the town board cannot deny any person of his or her protected rights. Due process protection needs to be considered when debating enforcement mechanisms.."

 Drafting an ordinance is a very difficult , time consuming and challenging task which deserves the time, professionalism and due diligence, while taking into consideration the long term outcome of the rule of law.









      

          

          

          

     

     

    

       

Heeeeeere's Johnny!!!!

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the Eureka Planning Commission, here is a brief introduction:

Lu Barfknecht

The current Chair of the Planning Commission is Lu Barfknecht, who is serving her second term which expires on April 30, 2016.  She grew up in Anoka, 7th in a family of 12 children. She has been married to her husband, Dan, for 35 years; has 4 children and 3 grandchildren; and lives in Eureka Estates.  Lu has held a variety of jobs over the years, from waitress and secretary, to various positions in the banking business, to different roles in the insurance business.  She is currently employed as a Field Agent in Marketing at Blue Cross Blue Shield, where she has been for nearly 13 years.  Lu loves fishing and being outdoors.

Dr. Carrie Jennings

Vice Chair Carrie Jennings is a geologist, with degrees from Northwestern and the University of Minnesota, the latter including an M.S. and a Ph.D. She enjoys teaching and has done so at various institutions, such as Carleton and Macalester, including 20 years' instruction in glacial geology at the U of M.  Carrie has worked for the Minnesota Geological Society, the National Center for Earth Surface Dynamics, and is currently employed by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Lands and Minerals. She and husband, Charlie Mahler, live on the former Borg farm in the southernmost part of the Township. Having been among those facilitating the purchase of the Chub Lake Wildlife Management Area by the DNR in the late 1990's, Carrie went on to file an application for her own property with the Farmland and Natural Areas Program, resulting in a 110-acre easement acquisition by that program in 2010.  Carrie has also served as Board Supervisor; her current term as Commissioner expires in April, 2014.

Fritz Frana

Frederick "Fritz" Frana has been a resident of Eureka Township for over 25 years.  His educational background includes a BA in Sociology at the University of Northern Iowa. Now retired, Fritz has over 35 years in the defense industry in a high-tech environment, with extensive Human Resources management, project management, and consulting experience. Currently a member of the Agritourism Task Force, Fritz lives in Rice Lake Heights on the western side of Eureka. His term is until April, 2014.

Butch Hansen          Al Novacek        

Charles "Butch" Hansen is a self-employed business owner and farmer who lives on Highview Avenue, south of 250th Street.  Butch served for two years on the Planning Commission at an earlier time; his current term expires on April 30, 2015.  Butch was a member of the Town Hall Task Force, which worked on the planning and construction of the "new" Town Hall. He was also a member of the Transfer Task Force and is currently on the Agritourism Committee.



Allen Novacek (pictured above) is the owner and president of the family business Nova-Chek Auto Body. It is located in Lakeville and employs several people.  Relatively new to local government, Al served as member on the Transfer Task Force. He resides in Eureka Estates; his term as Commissioner expires on April 30, 2015.

ANOTHER TRAGIC ACCIDENT! ARE EUREKA CITIZENS PROTECTED BY THEIR ORDINANCES?

     ONCE AGAIN we are reminded of the safety risks involved with the keeping of exotic animals in a confined environment. The employee at the Wildcat Santuary in Oregon 

was an experienced worker who was "comfortable with the animals she cared for." The worker was killed by a cougar in a sanctuary in the suburb of Sherwood, outside Portland, Oregon.

     Eureka has an ordinance in place that is meant to protect the citizens in this community  This ordinance should be strictly enforced and not free-wheeling; nor should it be viewed as a "suggested"tool, available to protect citizens.


Ordinance 3, Chapter 7, Section 3 - EXOTIC ANIMALS
A. Purpose and Intent
It is the intent of the Town Board of the Township of Eureka to protect the
public against the health and safety risks that exotic animals pose to the
community and to protect the welfare of individual animals that are held in
private possession. By their very nature, exotic animals are wild and
potentially dangerous and, as such, do not adjust well to a captive
environment.

Sanctuary says woman killed in cougar attack didn't follow protocols

By KATU.com Staff Published: Nov 10, 2013 at 6:07 PM PST Last Updated: Nov 11, 2013 at 7:22 AM PST

SHERWOOD, Ore. -- An employee at a Sherwood animal sanctuary who was attacked and killed by a cougar on Saturday didn't follow safety protocols, the facility says.

Sgt. Robert Wurpes of the Clackamas County Sheriff's office said the attack was reported Saturday night at WildCat Haven in Sherwood just before 7 p.m.

The sheriff's office and medical examiner said Renee Radziwon, 36, of Portland died of injuries consistent with a wild animal attack. A fundraising site has been set up for Radziwon's 6-month-old daughter.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife spokesman Rick Swart on Sunday told KATU that a cougar attacked and killed Radziwon.

The sheriff's office said there were two cougars in a cage with her when she was killed. In a statement released on Sunday, WildCat Haven said Radziwon was alone with the cougars during the attack, which goes against the facility's protocols.

"WildCat Haven has strict safety protocols to ensure the well-being of everyone working at the sanctuary and all the sanctuary’s neighbors. The sanctuary’s handbook specifies that 'two qualified staff members shall work together during the lock out of dangerous animals. Once the animals are locked out, one staff member can safely enter the enclosure to clean or make repairs. Two qualified staff members shall be available when releasing animals from lockout areas.' At this time, it is believed that Radziwon-Chapman was alone at the sanctuary and alone in the enclosure with cats, who had not been shifted into the lockout area. Investigation is ongoing," the statement said.

Executive Director Cheryl Tuller also said the thoughts and prayers of everyone at WildCat Haven are with Radziwon's family.

As a Eureka citizen, do you feel confident that your local government officials are enforcing the ordinances and protecting you against the health and safety risks that exotic animals pose to the community?

• 
  

WILL YOU LET SEEKING YOUR OPINION BE A "WASTE OF TIME?"

AS PROMISED, I ATTENDED THE SECOND AGRITOURISM COMMITTEE MEETING last Wednesday. Five of the six members were present, one having said she would be out of town for the meeting.  ONE member of the public was present: me.

The committee voted four to one to recommend to the Board to hold a public open house on this topic. They have tentatively scheduled this open house for Thursday, December 12th, at 7:00 p.m. at the Town Hall.  It will be up to the Board at its November meeting whether or not they go along with this recommendation.

During the discussion of whether to hold this open house, one member said that having it "would be a waste of time!" That same member has been against having a planner involved as an "unnecessary" action.  He also said, "We already had public hearings:" I inferred that he meant the public has already been heard from.  Chair Cory Behrendt rightly made the distinction that a public hearing reacting to specific proposed language is not at all the same thing as an open house exchange on the broader issue. Another member said that it "may be a waste of time," but people have asked why hasn't there been an open house; this way at least "we can say we had an open house."

Some of you may think that this is a rather cynical view of democracy.  I would urge you to prove the naysayers wrong and show up, whether in person, via email, phone call, or USPS.  State what you like or don't like, what you think should be or should not be allowed under this use.  If you don't care what use may be next door, down the road, in your neighborhood, or in the Township in general, bringing with it possible noise or light pollution, increased traffic, change in intensity, or other unforeseen consequences, you know what to do: Nothing. But then "Forever hold your peace."

Call me Pollyanna, but I have more faith in you than that.  I believe you do care about our Township and are willing to make the small effort to be heard on this topic.  Even though, because of the Board's unseemly rush to "Get R Done," and the fact that you may have a child's Christmas concert to go to that night (We do still have those, don't we?), and this timing may be an inconvenience, I know you can make time to offer your input. Have you thought about it up to now?  How long will it take you to just make your opinion known?

YOUR COMMUNITY IS WAITING TO HEAR FROM YOU!

LIGHT BULBS, GARAGE FLOORS, AND "THE BENJAMINS"

A couple of other "tidbits" from the last Board meeting:

The Board hired Supervisor Mark Ceminsky to perform "Town Hall maintenance." (Agenda item "Other Business, H., Township Hall Maintenance")  This assignment comes with an "up to $5,000 a year" potential price tag.  Ceminsky's first assignment, given to him by Supervisor Miller. was to change some light bulbs.
It was unclear to me what other "projects" or "tasks" this role might include.  It was also unclear to me at what rate this work is to be performed. Maybe I missed it? Perhaps Supervisor Ceminsky has a (standard) hourly rate he will charge? Not sure what that is.  I trust it won't be at the "special meeting" rate of $70 per "meeting," no matter how long or how short, that has been utilized often so far. (It might be of interest to you to check out sometime how much Supervisor Ceminsky is receiving as Road Supervisor.  Compare that to what former-Supervisors Dan Rogers and Jeff Otto or Supervisor Budenski received for the same task. Just ask the Clerk for the records.)

In the past, various citizens have volunteered their time in a number of different efforts.  For example, former-Commissioner Sharon Buckley volunteered many hours helping Clerk Nanett "tidying up" and organizing the Township files. Sue Rogers, former-Supervisor Rogers' wife, generously volunteered her time to vacuum the Town Hall.  Former-Supervisor Gloria Belzer washed the Town Hall windows when it needed to be done.  Then-Supervisor Rogers brought in the salt for the water softener, not to mention the countless big packs of bottled water he consistently donated to the Township for citizens' benefit at meetings. Someone else donated two waste receptacles for recyclable items and CD discs to the Township.  I am quite certain there have been many others over the years who have done likewise. Not one of these asked for recognition, much less for compensation.  Isn't there someone out there who would be willing to volunteer to change light bulbs to save taxpayer money?

Isn't there a rap song called "It's All About the wBenjamins, Baby?"  


Under "Other Business, N., New Garage," Commissioner Hansen presented the Board with some information concerning the building of the new Township storage garage that was voted on by citizens at the last Annual Meeting.  Commissioner Hansen volunteered to be the "general contractor" for the Township in an effort to hold down costs. The Board was okay with his being in that position.  It was my take-away that Hansen is not going to be paid for this role.  It is unclear to me which particular contractors Commissioner Hansen might be going to have the Board solicit quotes from (not bids, so it doesn't have to be published, nor awarded to the lowest bidder. This option is due to the dollar amounts involved.) Which contractors might not be known at this time.  Presumably, Hansen does have to go back to the Board for its approval of his selections/suggestions before they put out these requests, not just for the awarding of the business per portion of the construction, such as the in-floor heating.

Food for thought...???