Bye-bye bicycles

The Silver Cycling club of Lakeville is being told that they cannot return to Eureka.

Pete Storlie

As you may recall, they had been using the parking lot of the town hall to gather a few times a summer for their evening time trials.

They were using the County Roads and we have no control on whether they cycle there but the current
Board, led by Pete Storlie decided that we would not allow them to use our parking lot.

Butch Hansen

The reason given?  Butch Hansen will be leading the construction of the Township storage building so the parking lot will not be available.

All summer?  To build a garage?  The garage that was supposed to have been built last year?

What's the real reason, guys? Just tired of what you perceive as inconveniences?





Does anyone want to volunteer the parking lot at Highview Church for this club?

Agri-tourism Task Force

        There is no update on the Agri-tourism Task Force committee. A meeting was posted
to take place at the Town Hall on Tuesday, February 18.  Task Force committee members Cory Behrendt and Mark Parranto were waiting in the parking lot for Mr. Hansen, who has a key to 
unlock the Town Hall.  Fritz Frana was available to participate via a conference call. A few citizens were waiting in the parking lot also. Committee members Butch Hansen and Phil Cleminson did not avail themselves for the meeting.  I inquired regarding the posting of the meeting and the clerk stated she had done so.  Unfortunately the meeting did not take place. The clerk removed the posting on the Thursday after the meeting.

Sherri Buss, the TKDA Planner, was in attendance at the prior meeting.  Minutes from the meeting have not been approved as of this date.

AS EUREKA TURNS!

As of January 31, 2014, Scott Qualle of  MNSPECT Inspections is no longer Eureka's Building Inspector. Mr. Qualle contracted with Eureka as the Building Inspector on January 1, 2009. His role as our Building Inspector was to protect the health, safety, and welfare of residents by ensuring that all buildings are constructed and improved in compliance with the Minnesota State Building Code and the Eureka Ordinances. In my opinion, Mr.Qualle conducted his responsibilities with integrity and a strict adherence to the Building Code in spite of a somewhat contentious climate to work in within the community.

Following are relevant excerpts from the Township minutes and correspondence:
      
At the April 8, 2013, Town Board Meeting, Supervisor Steve Madden commented that "he does not feel that the Building Official should have the authority to write citations. He should only be able to write citations with permission of a Town Board Supervisor or a vote from the Town Board." Controlling and uninformed?  I believe Supervisor Madden would be well-served by reading the letter from the Eureka attorney, Trevor Oliver, dated February 11, 2012, which states "the Town does have an ongoing duty to ensure that existing buildings are maintained in a safe condition. The Building Official is primarily responsible for carrying out this duty." The Township attorney also stated during a meeting that the Building Inspector has the authority to carry out his contractual obligations independently and does not require "Board permission'' to do so.

Steve Madden, Mark Ceminsky and Pete Storlie

During a Town Board meeting (refer to previous blog) Supervisor Storlie admitted in the presence of Scott Qualle that he had advised a citizen to IGNORE a letter asking him to bring his buildings into compliance.
Perhaps Supervisor Storlie should also refer to the above-mentioned letter from the attorney where Oliver states "To carry out this authority, the Building Inspector has an obligation to pursue an inspection of a building when the official has reasonable cause to believe that there exists in a structure or upon a premises a condition contrary to or in violation of the code that makes the structure or premises unsafe, dangerous, or hazardous. If the Building Official believes an inspection is warranted, the official may request entry to the premises to conduct the inspection.  If entry is denied, the Building Official may obtain an administrative warrant from a District Court judge to secure entry to the building. Minn. R. 1300.0110, subp.7." The Building Official's job is difficult and he deserves to be supported by a Supervisor, not undermined by him.

Supervisor Ceminsky demonstrated such support when he stated in the February 2013 Town Board minutes, "Mr. Qualle was experiencing difficulties in working with incomplete and, in some cases, missing records of permits from the previous Building Inspector." "Missing past permits and records are sketchy. Scott is not sure he is getting all the correct information he needs prior to inspections. We (the Board) know his (Scott's) records are straight."

During the Town Board meeting on September 2013, Supervisor Storlie stated that the Town Board
"should not re-sign the current contract which expires December 31, 2013. If the Town Board does sign another contract with MNSPECT, it is a contract that represents both sides and is fair with opt-out clauses for both sides as well." The Town Board agreed to develop a new Building Inspector contract.

At the November 12, 2013, Town Board meeting, Scott Qualle graciously, when asked, granted the Township a 30-day contract extension so it would not have to do without inspector services. The Board agreed to publish a RFP (Request For Proposal) to be published in the newspaper for building inspectors to submit a proposal if interested in working as a Building Inspector in Eureka.

I believe 15 RFPs were mailed to various inspectors and only Mr. Qualle of MNSPECT, our current Building Inspector, submitted a proposal to be considered by the Town Board by the deadline posted. Chair Storlie requested time to "shake the bushes" (my term) and extend the deadline.

I attended and video recorded the January 30 special Town Board Meeting. Mr Qualle was present to represent his RFP. Chair Storlie opened the sealed envelope which contained Mr. Qualle's submitted proposal for consideration. Mr. Gilmer's proposal was not in an envelope, but on the desk in the front of each Supervisor. Chair Storlie distributed 5 copies of Mr. Qualle's proposal to each Supevisor. Chair Storlie placed his copy of Mr. Qualle's RFP next to his waterbottle and NEVER opened or reviewed Mr, Qualle's proposal. It appeared Chair Storlie's mind was made up before he came to the meeting. Butch Hansen, Phil Cleminson and Allen Novacek attended the meeting.

It is my understanding that Chair Storlie and Supervisor Ceminsky encouraged Darrell Gilmer, our current Septic Inspector, to apply. Mr. Gilmer was not present to answer any questions the Board might have regarding his proposal. Mr. Gilmer submitted a proposal agreeing to a 90 day contract with an option to negotiate after 90 days rather than the requested 24 month contract. A discussion took place regarding the time discrepancy and it was decided to communicate further with Mr. Gilmer regarding the issue. Supervisor Ceminsky stated that Mr. Gilmer and an inspector from Prior Lake stated to Ceminsky that Scott had told ALL (Mark's words) inspectors not to apply as it is difficult to work in the Township. Mr. Qualle approached the Board and stated that this was not accurate. Supervisor Budenski stated that Mr. Ceminsky's comments were only hearsay and should not be considered. Supervisor Ceminsky said "Who should we believe?  Without asking Mr. Qualle to represent his proposal, Chair Storlie quickly made a motion to accept Mr. Gilmer's proposal and arrange a meeting with Mr. Gilmer to negotiate his terms. Supervisors Ceminsky, Storlie and Madden voted yes; Supervisors Budenski and Miller voted no.

Mr. Qualle's contract expired the following day, January 31, and his obligation to the Township also ended.  Chair Storlie asked Mr. Qualle if he would complete his open permits. Mr. Qualle stated that he would like to continue as the Township Building Inspector; however two building inspectors in one Township was not allowed.  Chair Storlie stated "that is not what I asked." Mr. Qualle acknowledged that "of course" he would provide the Township with the necessary paperwork for the outstanding permits.

The following day I had a conversation with Mr. Gilmer, our current Septic Inspector. I believe Mr. Gilmer is a very competent inspector and conducts his inspections with integrity while following the Building Code. Mr. Gilmer stated that he had only seen Mr Qualle in passing in the past and never had a conversation with Mr. Qualle as stated by Supervisor Ceminsky. He stated that Mr. Qualle is a very intelligent and competent inspector who completes his job with integrity and adhers to the Building Code. As of this date I have not had the opportunity to speak with the Prior Lake inspector. This is on my "bucket list."

Thank you Supervisors Budenski and Miller for doing what responsible Supervisors are obligated to do; review all information and ask pertinent questions to make an educated decision based on facts.

Were the two proposals treated equally and addressed professionally? Was the Building Inspector who was present to represent his proposal treated with respect? After all, he did work with Township citizens since 2009, fulfilling his contract obligations.  I asked the clerk if there were any formal complaints against Mr. Qualle,and she stated she was not aware of any. Because of this I do not understand why the Board would not renew Mr. Qualle's contract. Mr. Qualle was not "fired" as some choose to believe. For clarification his contract was not renewed. I would like to believe that this was not just a DELIRIOUS POWER OF THE PODIUM.

A link to the video of the Building Inspector Contract discussion will be posted at a later date!

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

STILL SHAKING MY HEAD...!!!

The Planning Commission's regular meeting was held last evening.  There are a  number of matters to be related, but this post shall focus on just one item that came up.

An item had been placed on the agenda by Commissioner Butch Hansen:  "Eureka Township Zoning - Duck Book."  The "Duck Book," for those of you unfamiliar with it, is the book containing some of the older Eureka Ordinances which happens to have a black-and-white line drawing of a duck on the cover; hence the folksy term.

Mr. Hansen explained that he had put this item on the agenda and had each Commissioner provided with a copy for their benefit because older uses are "governed" (even today) by the older Ordinance in effect when the use started.

In response to Hansen's statement, Commissioner Fritz Frana read a portion (Ord. 1, Ch. 3, p. 4) of the Ordinance to the group:

Chapter 3: Repealing Old Ordinance 

All general ordinances of the township passed prior to the adoption of this 
Ordinance are hereby repealed, except such as are included in this Ordinance or 
are by necessary implication herein reserved from repeal. 

(Emphasis mine.)

Because of this, Frana stated that he did not believe that the "Duck Book" governs today.  He is correct. Indeed, it may be useful as a historical document and does detail the circumstances under which earlier uses were permitted, but, unless portions are carried forward into the current Ordinance (and this would make it part of the current Ordinance) they are not applicable today, having been repealed.

To give a very simple example:  If an existing garage had been built under an older Ordinance which required only a ten-foot side lot line setback, this older, although repealed, Ordinance can document that this was, in fact, lawful at the time and was done properly.  A property owner could not be required to move his garage today just because the newer and existing Ordinance now calls for a thirty-foot setback.  However, any new garage or accessory building must meet the current setback of thirty feet.  The original garage has become a non-conforming structure.  That is, it was lawful when established, newer Ordinances changed the setback, but the older structure can continue where it is.  But, if it were to be torn down to be replaced, the replacement would have to meet the current thirty-foot setback requirement, not the old ten-foot one even though what it is replacing was built under that older regulation.  The Ordinance has changed; the community now requires a greater setback. Seems simple enough, reasonable enough?

Apparently not to all.  Hansen, who is running for Supervisor, requested that the question be put to the attorney as to whether it isn't true that non-conforming uses are governed by the Duck Book, not by the current Ordinance.  He stated that this is his "opinion." Now, I am all for seeking attorney opinion when necessary, but can we not read a straight-forward paragraph and understand it without spending taxpayer money for the obvious?

Supervisor and Primary Attorney Contact Person, Kenny Miller, was the Board liaison for the meeting.  Miller has been on the Board twice and the Planning Commission once, yet he did not clarify for the Commission that Ordinance 1, Chapter 3, means exactly what it says it does!  CURRENT ORDINANCE GOVERNS.

Board Chair and Secondary Attorney Contact Person, Pete Storlie, was also in attendance at the meeting. Storlie has been a Planning Commissioner and is currently a Supervisor running for re-election, but he did not clarify for the Commission that Ordinance 1, Chapter 3, means exactly what it says.  OLDER ORDINANCES ARE REPEALED unless carried forward in the current edition.

What IS going on here?  Well, Township Attorney Chad Lemmons will be in attendance at the next Commission meeting to answer this and other questions that the Commission have.  It would be nice to think that some of these very basic understandings can be attained by all and these confusions could once and for all be laid to rest. 

As a taxpayer, I would like to see the "grey beards" pass on their knowledge on these straightforward items to newer officials without reinventing the wheel every time the composition of  the body changes.  This used to be done.

As a taxpayer, I would like to see monies spent efficiently and when necessary.

  

As a taxpayer and citizen, I would like to see that basic training sessions are required for all Planning Commissioners and Board Supervisors.

As a taxpayer and a citizen, I would like all Township officials to frequently revisit the Ordinances and to bring their copies to each meeting for easy reference, whether electronic or hard copy.  Want to guess who did NOT have an Ordinance copy at the meeting?  Frankly, sometimes sitting there at Commission and Board meetings, I wonder if certain individuals have ever even read the entire Ordinance, much less check it often.

As a citizen, I expect all citizens to be treated evenly, consistently, and without favoritism, according to the Ordinances.

While it is true that having certain specific issues can spearhead momentum and motivate the "silent majority" to vote, I have always held that the most fundamental and important role of this government is to see that our community's laws are carried out and are applied to all, whether neighbor, relative, friend, acquaintance, or even Board Supervisor or Planning Commissioner! Over my years of being involved in our Township government and attending more meetings than I care to think about, I have seen a lot, and not all of it is reassuring, believe me.

Are you a member of the "silent majority?"  Or do you consistently take the time to vote in our local

elections?  Do you think that what happens at meetings doesn't really matter to you if it does not have an immediate impact on your life or if you believe it will affect only others?  Do you believe the old adage that we "get the government that we deserve?" Do you keep up-to-date with developments by reading the minutes, attending an occasional meeting, responding to surveys, emailing officials with your opinions?  Have you ever sat at a Township meeting and ask the question I have heard all too often, "Why didn't somebody tell me?"

It matters.  If you are currently plugged-in to what is going on, good for you!  If not, I would entreat you to find out for yourself what the issues are, where the governing bodies might be taking your Township, whether your elected and appointed officials are doing a good job.  Above all, be informed, vote and encourage your friends and neighbors to do the same!

"CATCH (UP)" AS CATCH CAN...

Having just checked the website and seeing that it is still not up, I realize that many of you may not know even yet who is running for Supervisor this spring, even though the filing ended on January 14th!!!

Chair Pete Storlie is running for position #2.  Former Planning Commissioner and Board Supervisor, Cory Behrendt, is also running for that position.

Supervisor Brian Budenski is running for position #1, as is current Commissioner Butch Hansen.

                             You can be sure to stay tuned for more on that!

The agritourism committee (task force ) met again on Tuesday, January 28th.  I was present along with two other citizens.  The time was spent discussing different uses and also compiling questions for the attorney.  If there were no issues raised with the Chair's phrasing of the questions discussed and decided upon, the scheduled meeting on Thursday, February 6th, will be canceled.  The group's next meeting is on Tuesday, February 11th, when Senior TKDA Planner, Sherri Buss, will return with her research and input. This could be an informative meeting to attend.

At an earlier meeting, Butch Hansen made a comment along the lines that if it had been up to him, none of the task force would even be there meeting as he apparently does not see it as necessary to write agritourism ordinance language or to involve professional assistance--an opinion he reminded the group he had stated previously.  This was at the time that he, Commissioner Fritz Frana, and member Phil Cleminson agreed to present the task force's recommendation to the Board to continue its work on the Ordinance with the assistance of a planner and the attorney. Leaving aside why he would want to argue for or at least present the recommendation to the Board when he says he does not agree with it (recall that he abstained rather than vote "yes" in favor of the recommendation), I am a little confused how Mr. Hansen takes that view when the Township has a current lawsuit concerning a use that still has not been resolved.  In fact, that is what started a chain of events that has brought us to this point, as some of you realize.  I raised this fact at another task force meeting as a member of the audience, explaining why I thought there does, indeed, need to be ordinance language if this use is to lawfully exist, yet its importance seems to escape him.  In my opinion.

We must all realize that the Right to Farm certainly exists, but that it takes one only so far. At some point, the line is crossed from agriculture to agritourism. I have talked to former Board Supervisors and Planning Commissioners about this, and they agree with this view. Evidently Scott and Goodhue Counties agree that this is a separate use since they each have specific ordinance language addressing it..  Apparently, the state of Minnesota thinks a definition is called for as they are developing one, as was represented to the task force by Bob Patton. So why would one continue to argue that "agritourism" is already included within "agriculture" or that no "agritourism" language is needed when Eureka is clearly endeavoring to allow it as an accessory use to agriculture?

Along this same topic, it was also curious to me that Supervisor Ceminsky, who had previously argued that the task force should consist of six, and only six members, then argued at the last Board meeting that this committee should now be reduced to three members only! What has changed since his first speech?  Thankfully, after discussion, the Board ultimately accepted that the six could and should continue as all were willing to.  Thankfully, because anyone conversant or familiar with the Ordinance would know that such special committees must be made up of a minimum of five people.  Curiously, this fact was not mentioned in the Board's discussion of Ceminsky's notion, so I was thankful that the Board ended up on the correct path after all.  I'll admit it's hard enough to sit through these long meetings, without having certain members unhappy with me because I bring up some sticky such detail which they have overlooked!

As an aside that may interest you regarding the level of conversance with our community's laws, a different Supervisor had stated at an even earlier meeting when a use was being discussed by the Board that since the use was not addressed in the Ordinance (thus the Ordinance didn't regulate it) the use must be okay and allowed without restriction!!  At break time, I felt I needed to point out to him the part of the Ordinance which clearly states that any uses not addressed within are prohibited, quite the contrary to what he asserted and on which no one had corrected him.  He told me, "I didn't know that."  I said, "Obviously, that's why I am telling you."  I thought I was at least being nice by bringing it up to just him at the break, but he apparently didn't seem to think so, and I guess I hadn't made myself too popular with him. Who still remains nameless.

So, there is your update of sorts.  As the minutes of the agritourism task force meetings become available, it is the bloggers' intention to make them available to you, instead of waiting for the IT person to be hired to get the Township website fixed.  I don't know if that has been done yet or not, but the last time I asked a Supervisor about it--last Friday, January 31st-- it was unknown.

Can you pass the red stuff?