NOTHING TO "CROW" ABOUT?

Our Township, like many others, uses the mechanism of an escrow fund to pay fees incurred during a process requested by an applicant such as a public hearing for a Text Amendment, for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), or for an Interim Use Permit (IUP), as well as in other instances.

When such requests are made, there are "standard" costs such as for officials' attendance, required newspaper publication, sending out letters to neighbors within 1,000 feet, and so on. This amount is paid by the applicant and is nonrefundable, for obvious reasons.



The escrow is a separate amount in addition to these "standard" costs and both must be paid at the time of application in order for the application to be considered complete. The Planning Commission and the Town Board aren't supposed to move forward on any application that is incomplete. Makes sense, right? The applicant is to be notified in writing within 15 days of submission if his application is not complete and is informed as to what is still missing.

The thing with escrows, however, is that they are more like a "down payment." That means the initial amount -often $1,000- stipulated in the Fee Schedule (Ordinance 7) is paid up front to cover any additional costs such as attorney fees or engineer fees as they come up. But that thousand dollars does not represent a total figure necessarily.  It is up to the Commission and the Board as to what additional information they may need in processing an application like this and that information can include such things as attorney consults, for example. If it should happen that more than one thousand dollars is expended, the applicant must also pay any additional fees.  On the other hand, it is certainly possible that less than the one thousand dollars is spent.  In that case, the extra amount is returned to the applicant at the end of the process.

For some uses, there are escrow accounts held by the Township on a continuing basis.  If the account should fall below 50%, it must be replenished to the stipulated amount, which is sometimes $4,000. All this can be spelled out in a development agreement, for example.

This should make a lot of sense and seem right to you because, unless the applicant pays both the "standard" and any escrow amounts involved, you, as the taxpayer, pay. Because the engineer's or other bills still have to be paid, of course! The applicant is and should be the one to pay all costs of gaining his permit or holding his hearing. Period, in my estimation. If someone refuses to pay an additional amount or later requests and is granted a refund, as has actually happened, you and I, through means of the general fund, end up paying for someone else's hearing, entailed attorney fees, or whatever else was deemed necessary.

In the case of a permit, the Township has the simple remedy of at least not granting the permit if any additional costs are not paid in full.  We even have an Ordinance (born out of "necessity") that states that, before receiving any additional permits, any outstanding bills from the past must be paid first.

In the case of a CUP or an IUP, reasonable and related conditions may be placed, but ultimately, these are permitted uses.  We grant them when the procedure is followed correctly and the applicant agrees to all such conditions.  It's possible one may not be thrilled by some conditions, but if they can be defended as related and reasonable, they would stand. As a citizen, you are entitled to such a permit if you agree to the conditions. The Township can regulate by allowing some uses in the list of CUPs and IUPs and not others. One cannot get a permit, even with conditions, for a restaurant as we do not allow that.  It's not on "the list."

But in the case of a hearing, say, for an ordinance text change, the hearing results in their entirety may not be to the applicant's liking. The Board can turn down a Ordinance Text Amendment request. It does not have to allow the use being asked for. This is different from a CUP or an IUP situation. There have been such hearings in the past whereby the applicant was not granted the text change he or she sought. Whether the hearing results are what the applicant wanted or not, or even if the request is withdrawn, but after the fees have been charged for services rendered while the request was in play, does not relieve that person from his/her obligations. Those obligations are taken on at the outset.

ob·li·ga·tion

ˌäbləˈɡāSH(ə)n/

noun

1. an act or course of action to which a person is morally or legally bound; a duty or commitment.

o·blig·a·to·ry

əˈbliɡəˌtôrē/

adjective

1. required by a legal, moral, or other rule; compulsory.

   "use of seat belts in cars is now obligatory"

   synonyms:

   compulsory, mandatory, prescribed, required, demanded, statutory,enforced, binding, incumbent;

WHEN IS A RETREAD NOT A RETREAD ?

re-tread: to put a new tread on (a worn tire)  [Emphasis mine]

At the April Town Board meeting, the Board interviewed four applicants for the Planning Commission. In interviewing one applicant who has never before been a public official in Eureka, Supervisor Kenny Miller stated that he was asking a question of this person because, "The others are 'retreads.'"

"Ooowww noice; verrry noice," Yours Truly commented loudly from the back of the audience. (Think Eliza Doolittle of My Fair Lady, the weasels of The Wind In the Willows, or even Onslow of Keeping Up Appearances. Who says this blog isn't a treasure trove of culture???)

At this juncture, Supervisor Miller had enough self-perspective to state, "Maybe I should watch what words I use," or something to that effect.

Now, there's a thought.




The fact that certain citizens have had the commitment and dedication to a well and fairly run Township to give yet again of their personal time is something to be appreciated, not dismissed off-handedly, in my opinion.  Being a public official, trying to appropriately follow the Ordinances, whether on the Board or the Commission, can be a thankless job. I am not alone in speaking from experience on this point, rest assured.

Therefore, I applaud the "retreads," whether on the newly appointed Planning Commission or the recently elected Board.

Energizer Bunny, Anyone?

EUREKA TOWNSHIP NEWS

                                             TOWN BOARD MEETING                                             
                                                          MAY 11, 2015






EUREKA TREASURER TRAINING:
     The Town Board approved the requested funds by the Treasurer, Marsha Wilson, for training.


LAND USE AND PERMITS:
     The Town Board approved an exempt agriculture building permit for Julie and Dylan Larson.


ANNUAL REVIEW:
     The Spirit Ranch 1 and Spirit Ranch 2 Conditional Use Permits were reviewed. The legal description of the Permits are filed with Dakota County. Spirit Ranch 1, located at 24005 Dodd Boulevard has a Conditional Use Permit for a dog kennel and horse boarding. Spirit Ranch 2, located at 10132 235th Street West, has a Conditional Use Permit for boarding, breeding and sales of Cattle. The review was acknowledged and approved by the Town Board. The properties are owned by Terri Petter.  Butch Hansen and Terri Petter were present to represent the properties.


PLANNING COMMISSION BACK PAY:
     At the April 2015 Town Board meeting, Treasurer Marsha Wilson discussed a request by Planning Commission member, Butch Hansen, to be paid for the three years he was on the Planning Commission. During the three year period Mr. Hansen served on the Planning 
Commission, he did NOT request to be paid nor did he submit a social security number.
Discussion was held regarding the tax implications and Supervisor Miller indicated he would work with Treasurer Marsha Wilson to locate a tax accountant to consult with regarding the issue. Mr. Hansen applied for another three year term on the Planning Commission at the April Town Board meeting but was not appointed.

At the May Town Board meeting, a check was issued and given to Mr. Hansen for three years of back pay and it was noted that the tax burden was Mr. Hansen's.

                                                                     
                                                                       
OUTSTANDING INVOICE ISSUE:
     The outstanding invoice regarding attorney fees and accrued interest of $700 plus 
dollars was discussed. Terri Petter and Butch Hansen did not agree with the outstanding invoice and stated the reasons they believed Ms. Petter should not have to pay it. The monies owed were a result of Ms. Petter's application for a text amendment to allow Agritourism. After
a Board discussion and a bit of confusing information, the majority of the Board agreed to dismiss the invoice.

                                                                            



WINDMILL LLC AND KELLY AGGREGATE:
     After consultation with the Township Attorney regarding the ordinance requirements, the 
Board advised Mr. Brosseth of Kelly Aggregate, Inc. and Mr. Miller, Eureka Sand & Gravel, of the need to follow the necessary procedure required in requesting an amendment to their mining IUPs, allowing a Ready Mix concrete accessory use.


STREET SWEEPING:
     Terpstra Snowplowing and Lawn Care submitted a quote in the amount of $850 for street sweeping which is done once per year in the Jersey Court, Eureka Town Hall, Eureka Estates and the 265th Street Bridge locations. The quote was accepted with assurance that Eureka Estate streets will be included as they were in the past with Terpstra.

                                                          
                 
TOWN HALL BUILDING MAINTENANCE:
     Mark Ceminsky, Beaver Creek Companies, Inc. submitted a proposal which included the following:
Electrical Repairs, per man hour - $125.00 plus materials, 1 hour minimum
Plumbing repairs, per man hour - $115.00 plus materials, 1 hour minimum
Carpentry repairs, per man hour - $100.00 plus materials, 1 hour minimum
Materials - cost plus 10%
Trip charge - $75.00 per trip

The Town Board members discussed the proposal and made the decision to save the citizens of Eureka money by volunteering to change light bulbs, fill the salt containers and take care of other maintenance needs when possible. In the case of requiring professional services, the need would be addressed at that time.

                                                                       


DAKOTA COUNTY SHERIFF:
     A Dakota County Sheriff was present to update citizens and take questions. Several times during the meeting, Charles Liane became quite disruptive; at one time (in my opinion) threatened members of the Town Board.  Mr. Liane was asked to leave the meeting after an earlier warning. The Sheriff escorted Mr. Liane out of the room.


CITIZEN REMINDER:
     Chad Lemmons, the Township attorney, is engaged by the Township to answer questions and research issues related to Planning Commission and Town Board business. Mr. Lemmons'
responsibility is NOT to take personal phone calls from citizens. Please check the web site for attorney contacts on the Town Board.