This is a citizen blog. Visit http://eurekatownship-mn.us/ to sign up for the Township newsletter.

Tuesday, August 29, 2017

LET'S CLEAR THE FOG...OR IS IT SMOG???

Following are comments I made during Public Comment time at the August Board meeting, including the rest of what I wanted to say but couldn't because my three minutes were up. You may find it of interest. I post it here for your convenience.

I have a concern about "WRONG FACTS" being given by some to the public at these meetings.

At the last couple of meetings, the Launch Park First Addition on Cedar Avenue (very large warehouse/office) has been a subject of discussion.

This property was annexed into Lakeville in 2007 at the request of the property owners because they wanted city sewer and water for their proposed development there, services that only Lakeville could provide them.

This fact was correctly asserted by Supervisor Rogers at the last meeting, only to be contradicted directly and vigorously by Supervisor Hansen. Hansen asserted that it could have been handled differently and the property would still be in Eureka. Supervisor Rogers, I, and many citizens, including people in this room tonight (at the meeting), know that Hat Trick (later Launch Properties) wanted sewer and water services and Eureka couldn't provide that for them.


It wasn't for a lack of trying. The Township has looked into bonding, which isn't available to us. The Township offered the owners alternatives to city sewer and water as Supervisor Rogers has stated. This was rejected. It wasn't enough.

The true and unavoidable fact of the matter is that annexation law favors cities. In the end, the best that Eureka could do was to get an agreement that it would receive payments in the thousands of dollars for a certain number of years under the annexation to Lakeville.

It has taken 10 years or so, but the property is now being developed. MORE WRONG FACTS were given at a recent Board meeting. It was stated by Supervisor Hansen, in direct response to a citizen's question, that this development does NOT have sewer and water. This went unchallenged.

Since I knew sewer and water availability was the determining factor in the annexation, I visited Lakeville City Hall last week. I spoke to Dave Olson, Community and Economic Development Director for the City. He assured me that Launch Park IS having sewer and water. In fact, he said,

"We would never have approved the project without it."



I looked at and have a copy of the documents accompanying this property's final plat approval. These documents talk about sewer; they talk about water; and they even talk about the construction of a new street. All of these can be provided through the City of Lakeville and all are at cost to the developer. There are many other details in the documents.

At the public comment from last month it was asked by someone representing a corporation in words to the effect of, "Wouldn't it be nice to still have that property in the Township? Think of all the tax money it would yield!"

TRUE FACT: Without the annexation to Lakeville and all the attendant improvements that a city within the MUSA line can offer, it would still be a cornfield if it were still in Eureka. In a REALITY CHECK, Eureka is not in a position to offer the services that would suffice and keep certain uses, and thus their taxes, in the Township.

BUT THAT'S NOT ALL...

A resolution has also been presented to the Board by citizen Mark Ceminsky, supported by Supervisor Hansen, for Eureka to tap into the sewer interceptor line to serve the airport, the latest annexation dilemma. Just like Launch Properties, MAC wants city sewer and water. Unless Lakeville were somehow agreeable to a proposed Joint Powers Agreement involving sewer and water, which it appears not to be, this cannot be accomplished without annexation. Why not?

In the course of the recent Boundary Protection Study, it was outlined what Eureka would have to do to be allowed to access the sewer interceptor line. We would have to set aside 1,000 acres for higher density housing and other uses, not just commercial/industrial use and do lots of planning work and mapping. That's just one thing.

Perhaps the biggest obstacle is that, even if Eureka were ready and willing to set aside the 1,000 acres and do and pay for all of the planning that would be required, the Metropolitan Council would still have to be sold on the idea that there is a NEED for urbanization to extend into our Township. With all the available land yet open in cities to our north and east, that argument cannot currently stand. We surely don't want to spend large amounts of money preparing a proposal only to be told "no."

THERE ARE REASONS THE MET COUNCIL CONTINUES, AS IT DOES, TO SEE EUREKA AS AG AT LEAST UNTIL 2040. The Council forecasts slow and modest growth here into 2040


On another avenue, Eureka has not reached a population that history shows would even make incorporation as a city financially feasible. That number is about 5,000 people.
Once you are a city, you can no longer be annexed, true, but the County also expects a city to fund roads in a different way than it does townships. Unless the population is at least 5k, we have been advised the tax increases to meet this added cost would likely be undesirably high.

Our Township has done various studies on these matters which have resulted in valuable information for us to consider for our future.


Yet there are those among us who continue to scoff at the studies' results and are ever ready to ignore this information and to tell others that they "have their heads in the sand." (If I had a nickel for every time...) Again, these people seem to want to just ignore the facts as determined by market and border studies and professional experience and expertise.

BUT, you can't just MAKE UP your own facts and expect them to fly! Without sewer and water services, good, high-revenue-yielding development cannot and will not occur. Eureka can't currently provide these services and properties like Launch Park want and need it! As stated many times, "lesser" uses such as open storage, contractors' yards, and truck depots would only serve to occupy what some think is desirable property for the future of Eureka and would obstruct its development in the future as well. In the meanwhile, these uses would yield lower tax revenue than envisioned by many. A really nice home could bring in more taxes!

Please do no let anyone tell you that Launch Properties is not going to have sewer and water. They are going to have it and much more. That's a TRUE FACT.



On a further note, it will be of interest to many of you that, again put forward by Mark Ceminsky and supported by Supervisor Hansen, another proposed resolution (reportedly to be used if the airport resolution mentioned above isn't adopted!) promotes the annexation by Lakeville of all the Eureka land north of 225th Street W. where it abuts the City of Lakeville!


So we've gone from being upset about likely losing the Airport to Lakeville as we have the Hat Trick/Launch Properties 98 acres, to wanting Lakeville to annex all the Township land north of 225th that touches its southern border! Does this make any sense to you? 

In exchange, Ceminsky and Hansen have proposed that Lakeville turn over all taxes for this land (for seven years), agree to pay all involved fees of any sort including engineering, pay to pave all of 225th, shoulder all future improvement costs to the road as well as plow snow from it in alternate years, (with no end in sight)-- also all at no cost to Eureka.

Note that this "resolution" states that Lakeville will annex the property north of 225th. Presumably, this would include the north half of 225th since property lines go to mid-road. (The southern half of the road would go with the properties to the south of 225th, again, presumably.) Somehow, it is envisioned that Lakeville would be okay with all this, pay to pave the road, pay for all improvements to the road going forward, and share its winter upkeep with no end date.   LIKELY??????????

What reason was given by Hansen at a recent meeting for why this would be attractive to Eureka?
...Wait for it...He said, "We'd get rid of all our problems."

 As one of many homeowners on the north side of 225th, I find this verrrrrrrrrrry interesting!



Thursday, August 24, 2017

THIS BLOG SITE SERVES TO EDUCATE!

       THE FIRST 10 AMENDMENTS TO THE
CONSTITUTION ARE KNOWN AS THE BILL
OF RIGHTS AND WERE PASSED BY CONGRESS 
ON SEPTEMBER 25, 1789 AND RATIFIED ON
DECEMBER 15, 1791.

      THE FIRST AMENDMENT


"Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free 
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of 
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peacebly to assemble, and to petition the government
for a redress of grievences." 



             

BITS AND PIECES

A small instrument of various forms and sizes, for boring.

When SCOTTS Miracle-Gro, representing Friedges
Holdings, came before the Planning Commission
on June 6 of 2017 to apply for a new storage/office
building on the site at 225th and Highview, the 
Commission recommended denial of the application
to the Board. Reason given is that the property is 
controlled by the SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 
entered into by the Township and Country
Stone/Friedges Holdings on September 28, 2010. This
agreement, which ended the litigation, does not allow
further structures to be built.

Attorney Clip Art - Royalty Free - GoGraph
Before the Commission meeting, Commission Chair Sauber
asked Attorney Chad Lemmons to confer with Attorney
Patrick Kelly of Kelly and Lemmons concerning the 
application vis-a-vis the agreement. Mr. Lemmons had
consulted with Mr. Kelly as the attorney acting for Eureka
Township at the time of the negotiation and the settlement
agreement. Therefore, Mr. Lemmons was assured in what
he represented to the Board about this property at its
meeting of June 12, 2017. 

The property is limited to the structures and the site plan
that was drawn at the time of the agreement. That is,
the structures are limited to what was present on the site
at the time of the agreement in 2010.

Even though informed otherwise by the attorney and advised
by the Commission Chair that the Board would have no 
legal basis upon which to approve the building application,
at the June Board meeting, this situation was disputed by the
applicant, Alex Allen, and his attorney, Matt Duffy.
The subject was discussed for a time. Audience members 
reminded the Board what they believed had been represented
in the initial building application for the currently 
existing structure and the subsequent agreement after 
litigation. (Now-Supervisor Hansen had represented the 
matter of a new (first) building application for Friedges
Holdings, Inc. at the property in 2005.) Activities
taking place at the operation, both before and after that
building construction, were also described.

                                          
The opinion was put forth that to build another building now
would actually constitute an expansion/intensification of the
use and would violate the settlement agreement. Much time,
much energy and professional assistance were expended on
the agreement, trying to get the best possible conditions
for the Township. It was felt by the Board members at the
time that to let it end up with the judge would likely not
end with suitable conditions from the Township's point
of view were the judge to allow the business to continue to
exist.

The further opinion was asserted that, even if what some
allege was represented in the very beginning in 2005, 
simply putting outside materials inside a new building, 
supposedly reducing noise and dust, were what had actually
happened at the site, this too, would have been an
expansion. (There is a ruling by the Minnesota Supreme
Court to this effect on another, allegedly very similar, case.)
Note that what ultimately did occur at the site was very 
different from what the Board at the time of the initial
building application understood. See minutes from the
November, 2005, Planning Commission meeting, the
November, 2005, Board meeting, the January, 2006,
Board meeting, and the January 18, 2006, Special Board
meeting for background. Be aware, however, that what
is represented in the minutes from these meetings 
contains errors, in my opinion, such as the part about
alteration, not expansion. As stated this is wrong under
MN Supreme Court ruling.

When asked by Supervisor Jennings at the June 2017
meeting if he were going to recuse himself since he
represented Friedges a number of times, Supervisor 
Hansen replied that he would not do so.

After further discussion, the Board voted. Supervisors
Rogers, Palmquist, Jennings, and Barfknecht ALL
voted to deny the application, following attorney
comment.

Supervisor Hansen, in DIRECT CONFLICT with
attorney advisement, voted against the motion to
deny the application.  The minutes did not state he
gave any reason for his vote of "nay."     

                       FAST FORWARD    

Eureka Town Board Meeting, July 10, 2017

Alex Allen, representing Scotts Miracle-Gro, came
before the Board to request a reconsideration of the
building permit which was denied at the June Board
meeting.

The Board members had received in their packet a 
DRAFT letter from Attorney Chad Lemmons
which was a response to a letter from Scott's
Miracle-Gro explaining why the application
was denied based on the Settlement Agreement.
Mr. Hansen requested time to review
the letter (usually this is done in preparation for
the meeting). Chair Barfknecht made a motion to
accept the DRAFT letter from Attorney Lemmons.
The motion was seconded. Supervisor Hansen and
Supervisor Rogers voted NOT to accept the draft
letter. (Why would a Supervisor vote to not accept
legal advice from the Township attorney as a response 
to a letter from the Scotts Miracle-Gro attorney when
this was an issue they were discussing?)

Supervisor Hansen argued with the attorney and 
stated the Settlement Agreement "should have been
drafted better." He was adamant regarding
allowing Commissioner Sauber to submit FACTS
and stated she "was muddying the waters."
He wanted to go on record that "when this ends up
in Court, we are going to lose."

Supervisor Hansen stated "I will make it simple for you;
I make a motion to approve their building application."
When Attorney Norder reminded Supervisor Hansen
that he did not feel that this was a proper motion,
Supervisor Hansen stated "It doesn't matter; I made 
the motion." "The attorney does not run the Township,
we do." "The attorney has been wrong numerous
numbers of times." After boisterous discussion,
 Supervisor Rogers made the motion to approve
the building permit. 
Supervisor Hansen 2nd the motion. They offered
NO facts to support their motions.
Supervisor Hansen stated he "would like to request
a letter from Attorney Lemmons in 48 hours, not
2 months, that he cannot do that."
Supervisor Hansen stated he "would go on the record 
as the 2nd motion.


An audience member asked to speak regarding the 
permit application issue. Butch stated the member of the
audience could not enter the discussion "as it had
been discussed to death for 15 years." He felt the
Settlement Agreement was "foolish" and the Township
should be paid for their fees. He stated "he does not
care what the attorney advised and that he is not the
Mayor of Eureka; that would be us."
(Could someone please show me when Eureka acquired a 
MAYOR?)

The motion failed to approve the building application
which was previously denied by the Town Board.
Alex Allen asked what the next step would be. 
Supervisor Hansen stated "Dakota County at the Court
House." Attorney Norder stated the Town Board should 
not be giving legal advice about anything.

The next step for Scott's Miracle-Gro was to appear
before the Planning Commission regarding an appeal
for a recommendation to the Town Board.

MY OPINION:  The disrespect shown by one of the 
Supervisors at the July Town Board meeting was
appalling!  The attorney's advice was not only
ignored, but defied.  The attorney was verbally 
assaulted.

I believe Supervisors and Commissioners are
to act as advocates for the best interests of the
Township.  When they become advocates for
the applicants, they need to recuse themselves.
This appears to happen too many times at
meetings.

If a Supervisor is afraid of the Township being sued,
embrace the Township attorney's legal advice.
I believe Supervisors should know their level of 
competence. When he/she has reached it, defer to
the attorney for legal opinions and respect them.
I believe it is quite possible that no one on the
Board or Commission is more competent regarding
legalities than the Township attorney. Citizens
pay for this advice.

Supervisors should follow and enforce the Ordinances,
follow policies, make decisions based on facts and avoid
situations such as possible racial slurs or disrespect
to contractors who are hired by the Township.

The Minnesota Association of Townships provides 
valuable workshops on various subjects including
legal seminars. Although Supervisors are not required
to attend, I believe they have an obligation to the
citizens to do so. The Township will pay for the 
workshops.

I thank the members of the Town Board and Planning
Commission who take their responsibilities seriously,
are respectful to everyone, act with dignity and are
professional.

I attended a City Council meeting for a reality check.
Yes, I witnessed, professionalism, civility,respect
for the attorney and guest speakers, and a Council
who came well read and prepared for the issues to be
discussed. The meeting started at 7:00 p.m. and
adjourned around 7:40.  A very pleasant experience.

This is a CITIZEN BLOG!  (Portions of the information were taken
from meeting CDs.) 






                              









Thursday, August 10, 2017

GAG ME WITH A SPOON?!


Well, it happened again!!! At the August 7th Town Board meeting, during the public comment period, Mark Ceminsky got up and commented negatively about this blog. Since he is both a former Planning Commissioner and a former Board Supervisor, I personally would think he should know better than to complain about others' freedom of speech, but I guess not.

It seems this blog is distressing to him. That's okay. He doesn't have to like it. But it can still be here. Never mind that we have been through all this before with him and his "compadres."


This blog, as is often noted herein, contains opinions. It's a blog after all. It also contains verifiable facts. We give our readers enough credit that they know this and they know the difference.


Here are a few other facts that have come to light over time in response to certain efforts to try to gag the blog:

1) A blog is just one of the freedoms we can exercise in this country. We are free to voice our opinions. Government CANNOT take this freedom away from us.

2) A blog is exempt from the Open Meeting Law. Check with the MN State Legislature.

3) There is NO PRESUMPTION OF PRIVACY at a public meeting. Yes, it seems even your name can be used! Shocking!

4) And, no, it is not "illegal" to report what goes on at a meeting! Even before the minutes are approved.


          Sunshine is a great disinfectant!

Each and every attempt (and there have been several) that has been made to silence this voice has been met with common sense and an understanding of the law and, yes, even of our Constitution. Some like to allude to the Constitution frequently, but don't seem to fully grasp the implications of it and how the rights therein apply to other people, all of us, not just themselves. My opinion.



Why does this blog exist? As the title suggests, it tries to "engage citizens in Eureka government." This effort started for a few reasons.


One is that what goes on at the Township affects everyone who lives in Eureka in one way or another: "Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon, and for the rest of your lives." Those of us who have been involved up close and personal over the years have seen quite a bit, some good and some definitely not so good. By the time you, if you are a citizen who isn't tuned-in and up-to-date, become aware of something that directly and adversely affects you and your quality of life, it may very well be too late to help you in your particular instance!



Not everyone can attend Township meetings, of course, but we hope that everyone will try to stay attuned to what is going on in our community. Minutes are posted on the official website, but minutes can be sketchy and not always as informative as one might think. And "Past Administrations" have seemed to me to clearly want to control the message. This troubles some of us greatly. THAT'S when this blog was started!

You could also request a disc recording of a meeting, but it isn't the greatest joy in life to sit and listen to a recording of a meeting that, at minimum, is two hours long. Not when there are so many more pleasant things to spend your time on. :-) But it CAN be eye-opening.

We hope that you will become or stay involved with your community, and hope to see you at meetings soon! Vote. Attend the Annual Meeting in March. Show up. Ask questions. Let the saying "You get the government you deserve" be a GOOD thing for you!