A HEALTHY VISION OF THE FUTURE IS NOT POSSIBLE WITHOUT AN ACCURATE KNOWLEDGE OF THE PAST!, By Daisaku Ikeda

Engaging Eureka In Governance, A Look Into The Past!

The intent of this blog is to encourage Eureka citizens
who cannot attend Town Board and Planning Commission
meetings to become aware of the business of the
Township.

The many issues/topics that are addressed are from the
past and the present with the hope that citizens will
have access to information that might not be covered
or may be only summarized in the Town Board or 
Planning Commission minutes posted on the Eureka web site.



To access particular issues or decisions and comments
made by citizens, Town Board Supervisors, Planning
Commission members and the Township attorney,
click on the subject matter or names listed under
LABELS on the Right side of the blog.

To receive Email notifications when a blog is newly posted,
submit your Email address near the bottom right of the blog
page under "Follow by email."

MORE "BALD FACTS" FOR YOU

HERE'S ANOTHER WALK DOWN MEMORY LANE .... WITH ADDED DETAIL!

The following is an excerpt from a post on this blog written by another blogger.

DOES A PUBLIC OFFICIAL’S CHARACTER REALLY MATTER (Blog)

Commissioner Novacek, during a Town Board meeting, FALSELY accused Commissioner Barfknecht of improprieties. He actually went to her home... and told her that "when she does not vote as he thinks she should, he would like to knock her off her chair." This was reported by Commissioner Barfknecht at the public comment period of a Town Board meeting. NO BOARD ACTION was taken regarding Commissioner Novacek's threatening and false comments. He publicly and FALSELY accused Clerk Sandstrom of improprieties, suggesting that Sandstrom had not even opened the ballots cast when Commissioner Barfknecht was reappointed. 

HERE IS AN EXCERPT FROM TOWN BOARD MINUTES OF AUGUST 12, 2013:

Public Comment Period...
Allen Novacek, 24030 Iberia Ave commented on the appointment of Lu Barfknecht to the Planning Commission. He implied that the votes were not counted correctly. 

The established procedure of the Town Board for appointing Planning Commission members and or voting on Chair and Vice Chair positions has always been by secret ballot. Township Attorney Chad Lemmons commented that the correct procedure would be to collect the votes and each vote be read into the record individually. In the future either a role call vote should take place or each ballot should be read into the record, one at a time. The Township attorney will write a memo on the proper procedure. 

Lu Barfknecht, 24585 Iceland Path commented on a visit she had from Allen Novacek relating to his comments tonight. She felt that things were being communicated inappropriately. 

A motion by Supervisor Kenny Miller: To put into effect the procedure that Mr. Lemmons has outlined and keep it on file for future reference. Motion seconded by Supervisor Brian Budenski. Motion carried by unanimous vote. 

Attorney Chad Lemmons commented on the vote for the Planning Commission member. Town Board members signed by written ballots, they were handed to the Clerk. The Clerk reviewed the ballots and informed the Board who received the most votes, which is part of the public record. The procedure followed with the minor exception that they should have been read out loud was proper. He sees no reason to reconsider it. 
A motion by Supervisor Pete Storlie: The Planning Commission appointment of Lu Barfknecht is not an issue. Motion seconded by Supervisor Brian Budenski. Motion carried by unanimous vote. 


Now here is what Mr. Novacek put before the Town Board (quoted with all errors intact):

                                                                                                                              July 07, 2013
There has arisen a need to address a serious matter. That matter concerns the most recent vote appointing a Eureka Planning Commission member (May 2013) The problem involves a dilema which points to scandal. I am very aware of the potential for innocent people to be hurt. Caution is needed in how this matter is handled. That being said, I cannot in good conscience remain silent on this issue. Through both random and later my own deliberate actions, I have been made aware of the probability, not possibility, that 3 members of the Eureka Town Board voted for Heather Martin but Lu Barfknecht received the appointment. Multiple explanations may apply but the appearance of scandal demands some form of investigation. The information I possess can be shared in whatever manner follows proper procedure to constructively rectify the problem. As of the above date, this document is submitted to Eureka Town Board members ONLY. If some resolution is not found and shared with myself (Allen Novacek-Eureka Planning Commission member) by the Aug. 2013 Eureka Town Board meeting date, I will make a public statement reflecting what I know about this problem. Please contact me if I can be of any assistance in resolving this matter.
    Allen Novacek-2013 Eureka Planning Commission member  c 952 693 XXXX
    w 952 469 XXXX

Here is Lu Barfknecht's reply to the Board that evening:

I received a phone message from Allen Novacek stating he would like to talk with me about some very sensitive things going on in the Township. He stated it would be wise for me to return his phone call.  I returned his call and he asked that I not discuss the phone call with anyone and ask if we could meet in person either at his home or mine. He also stated that I may want my husband to also be present in the event that a witness to the conversation is needed at a later time.   I suggested my home, as there would be less chance of any interruptions.   Allen came to my home on July 29th.  He started the conversation by stating he wanted to make it clear that he is his own person and not at the end of puppet strings directed or controlled by Butch Hanson, so if anything happens this is solely on him.  He also stated that no one knows he is at my house except his daughter.  I told him I kept my word and the only one that knows he is here is my husband and he is in the other room. Allen then gave me a piece of paper he took from his briefcase. I was very surprised by the contents of the paragraph.  Allen proceeded to tell me that through direct conversations with 3 Board Supervisors when he specifically asked them "why did you vote Lu back in" their responses were they didn't.  Allen also stated that Butch questioned the outcome as well, and that Butch and Terri Petter are both aware of this situation.  I asked him how they would know any of this since I was lead to believe that no one other than the Board of Supervisors, as Allen claimed, were aware of what we were discussing. Allen's response was that Butch and Terri were aware of the situation but that he hadn't shown them the paragraph that was meant for the Board of Supervisor eyes only - I assumed Allen followed procedure and sent his complaint & concerns on this through the Town Clerk, but it appears to me his communication was either hand delivered or mailed.  He also stated he and Butch almost came to blows because they had a disagreement on Allen's actions and I quote "no one tells Butch Hanson what he can or cannot do, you just don't do that, you don’t tell Butch what to do, everyone knows that” I told Allen that I had no knowledge of Butch Hanson or Terri Petter prior to becoming a Planning Commission member.  My first introduction to the two of them was in 2010 when they were both present on the application for the rebuild of her pole barn.  It was to be a pole barn with a dirt floor and a water spiket, nothing more.  That was my first encounter with the two of them. Allen stated some people could think that I had something to do with the outcome and the appointment was fixed.  My response was why would anyone think that, the interviews are done live, the votes are cast immediately after, and the appointment is made.  Allen's comment was "if you recall, when Nanette took the ballets she didn't even open them, she just said you won"  I did not recall that was what occurred and suggested a call be made to Gloria Belzer to ask if she has the visual recording of the meeting. Allen stated he did not want Gloria Belzer to be involved or in any way pulled into this. Allen's view on what happened was that one of the 3 Supervisors lied to him or Nanette made a mistake. So, Allen is calling a Township Supervisor a Liar or Nanette a Liar.  He indicated again, this could be a witch hunt and nothing may come of it and he knows innocent people could be hurt by it.  I advised Allen that I had nothing to do with what he is proposing happened or any involvement in what he referred to as a fixed appointment or a mistake.  I also advised him that Nanette would have no reason to "fix" the outcome and the integrity of the Town Board as well as Nanette and myself are being put out there basically to cast doubt on the outcome of the appointment.  If the Board of Supervisors does not want me on the Planning Commission then I shouldn't be.  Allen stated that the Supervisor's don't want to touch this.  I suggested the Attorney be contacted and Allen stated the Attorney does not want to touch this situation either; no one wants their fingerprints on this. Makes me wonder how he has all this inside information and what else is being communicated inappropriately. 

Allen stated that if he doesn't hear from someone, a Supervisor, within the next two days that he will be contacting Heather Martin to let her know what is going on, just as he did me so that no one is blind sided.  I did not agree with him, my advice to him was to wait for the discussion with the Board. He stated that he could not stand by knowing that a wrong was done to someone (Heather Martin) without doing something about it, even though this could be nothing more than a witch hunt.  Allen stated that when "we" he and the supervisors talk about “me” Lu Barfknecht, that the Supervisors don't really have anything bad to say about me as a person but they just don't like the way I vote on things when a motion is made.  He went on to say he would like to see my vote lean in favor of his direction and that he too "sometimes wonders why and where my votes on motions come from and sometimes, and I quote "I'd like to knock you off your chair".   Allen suggested that he, Heather Martin and I should all sit together before you (the Board) so that the people could see that there could be unification in the Township. I thanked Allen for coming by with the heads up so I was not to be blinded sided by his actions and told him I would call Pete Storlie since he is the Board of Supervisor Chair.  I also thanked him for not "knocking me off my chair". 

I did have a conversation with Pete immediately after Allen left my home.

(I also contacted Erik Hedkte with MAT.) 

Here is my opinion on the situation:

One can only assume that since 3 unnamed Board Supervisors along with Allen Novacek and Butch Hanson converse on a regular basis, the appointment would have been challenged by one of them at the time it was announced, it wasn't.  If the Eureka Town Board of Supervisors chooses to remove me from my appointment, then it should be handled accordingly per our Township Ordinance: Ordinance 2, Chapter 3, section 3:

Removal From Office: Vacancies

  Any Commission Member may be removed from office for just cause by a  

  minimum of 3 members of the Town Board, provided that the Member is given  

  ten days advance notice in writing of the proposed action of the Board and an 

 opportunity for a public hearing before a vote is taken.  In addition, any Member

 may be removed for non-attendance at Planning Commission meetings without 

 action by the Town Board according to the rules adopted by the Planning 

 Commission.

So if there is just cause to remove me from the appointment, then I will await the written notification from the Township and expect a Public Hearing.  I would also recommend the Board consider the removal of Allen Novacek for behavior unbecoming a representative of the Eureka Planning Commission in the Township of Eureka. He has voiced his dislike for Ordinances on several occasions, and he is unprepared and inattentive at regularly scheduled Planning Commission meetings.  One doesn't know if he will be able to restrain himself from physical violence should a vote not go in his direction on future motions.

Thank you for your time.

Lu Barfknecht

8/12/13



OF NOTE: Novacek did not attempt to deny or even to comment at that night's meeting on the above statements after Barfknecht read her response to the Board.

Lu Brafknecht went on to do a fine job on the Planning Commission-my opinion.

WHAT THIS BLOG PROVIDES FOR YOU, A LOOK IN THE REVIEW MIRROR...

This blog has already been in existence for a few YEARS! Tempus fugit! This blog serves to educate and update Eureka citizens about what goes on at your Town Hall. Unless you are there in person or have listened to the disc recordings, you might never have the bald facts!

Here are some of the more notable points made in various posts from the past.

Each of these entries gives the post title and date, so you can easily look these up for yourselves to read more. In my opinion, these excerpts tend to be about jaw-dropping instances whereby it came to light that some apparently do not have an understanding of even the simpler results and discussions of many topics important to Eureka and its governance.

On Friday, September 22, 2017, in the post "IS IT REALLY THAT HARD TO UNDERSTAND?" we reported the total misconceptions that former Commissioner Al Novacek had regarding the airport and commercial/industrial use. He was simply incorrect on three main issues.


Here is an excerpt:
******************************************************
At the last Town Board meeting, Allen Novacek had placed himself on the agenda as wanting to address the "Airport Issue." During the course of his presentation to the Board, Mr. Novacek stated that in order to be able to access the sewer interceptor to serve the airport Eureka would need to put 1,000 acres into commercial/industrial land.

Sorry, wrong. The Metropolitan Council would require that Eureka set aside 1,000 acres for (much) higher-density housing and other uses as well, not just commercial/industrial before it would even consider allowing access to the interceptor.  Such a proposal would require expensive planning and engineering work up front. And that does not mean that the Council would even accept this proposal after Eureka spent all the money since it sees Eureka as ag until 2040.



Mr. Novacek went on to say that making the northern portion of the Township commercial/industrial would provide a "buffer" to Lakeville.

Sorry, wrong. All indications from both the Commercial/Industrial Study and the recent Boundary Protection Study (which includes sound advice from other townships that have been in similar situations) are that putting such a use along our northern border would serve as an enticement for Lakeville to want to annex more of Eureka land, not to discourage it. (Uses such as churches along the border would be a deterrent because of the non-tax status.)



Another point made by Mr. Novacek was that "it has been said" that an area with fewer than 5,000 people is "too small" for commercial/industrial uses.

Sorry, wrong. No one has ever said this that I know of. What has been said in reference to  a population of 5,000 is that 5,000 is probably the minimum size to make incorporation as a city financially feasible. Since the County has different expectations of cities for road expenses than it does of townships, the resulting increase in taxes with fewer people would not be welcome. (I believe Sherri Buss, from TKDA, has told us during one meeting with her of one instance whereby an Local Government Unit (LGU) of fewer than 5,000 people did incorporate, but they agreed ahead of time that they were willing to pay the higher taxes. From what I have heard at Eureka meetings of all sorts over many years leads me to think that the Eureka citizenry would object to that.

******************************************************

On Tuesday, August 29, 2017, in the post "LET'S CLEAR THE FOG...OR IS IT SMOG?" we reported the odd idea that Supervisor Butch Hansen and former Commissioner/former Supervisor Mark Ceminsky put forward.



Here's an excerpt:
***************************************************
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."

*****************************************************

On Thursday, August 10, 2017, in the post "GAG ME WITH  SPOON?!" one of the many attempts that Mark Ceminsky made to try to shut down this blog in spite of First Amendment rights was addressed.

Here's an excerpt:
****************************************************

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."

See also October 20, 2015, "STIFLE YAHSELF, EE-DIT', STIFLE YAHSELF" on the same topic-and there are other posts on this as well!

******************************************************

Again, on the important topic of sewer and water in the northern portion of the Township, the Met Council has always been very clear.
Yet there are those who have spoken publicly and repeatedly as if the facts were never presented at all! I speak about Hansen, Novacek, and Ceminsky. Check out April 22, 2016, "JUST THE FACTS, MA'AM..." and May 24, 2016, "WHAT'S THE LATEST SKINNY ON THE AIRPORT ANNEXATION?" among other posts for details on this topic. Note the dates just given are from YEARS ago, and yet these certain persons have seemingly refused to take the Met Council at its word and seem to think that they can just ignore what they have been told.

Here's an excerpt following discussion with Met Council reps on March 29, 2016:
******************************************************

The document goes on to say:
"If the airport is served through a direct connection to the interceptor, the Council will expect land to be set aside for future development as described below. If additional property in the Township is to receive service, the comprehensive plan must reflect that, which will require a comprehensive plan amendment for both land use and Tier II components including long-term sewer service area." (I point out that this is not doable in the current updating, as budgeted and timed, but would have to come after it. The Planning Commission received no such directive from the Board.) "Furthermore, to serve [even just] AirLake Airport, Council policy requires that the Township identify at least 1,000 acres developable acres (not including the airport area) for future development in a long term service area. This development must include land set aside to accommodate the region's growth (residential land) and not just for industrial development."

As stated at the meeting, this would entail Eureka's changing from an agricultural to an urban township, which would include a number of requirements such as affordable housing from which the Township is currently exempt. The Council would expect a density of three residences per acre of land in those developable acres, it was said.

******************************************************

On the topic of officials recusing themselves, here is an excerpt from June, 8, 2016, "DOES A RECUSAL MEAN AN OPPORTUNITY TO ACCUSE???" I published this post after at meeting at which my very appropriate recusal on a topic led to a public questioning about my motives by a citizen. To question someone's motives after she has removed herself from discussion and vote on a topic is nonsensical in every way. If a public official were to have bad motivation, wouldn't one expect that official to "lie low" and discuss and vote on the area of conflict anyway?! Yet I was castigated for doing the right thing.  How confused are some? This topic of recusal has come to the forefront very recently, as you know.

Here's an excerpt:
*****************************************************
These comments come after an incident that took place recently at a public hearing in Town Hall.

When a Commissioner or a Board Supervisor recuses him or herself from weighing in on a decision before the relevant Township body, does this mean that something is amiss? Does this mean that the Township's interests are not being represented fairly? Does this mean there is a conspiracy afoot? Does this mean that you, the citizen, are being misrepresented or taken advantage of?

Quite to the contrary!!! What it means is that the public official is doing the proper thing to remove him or herself from decisions regarding a topic wherein it could be argued that there is a personal financial interest, however indirect, or even just the appearance of such a lack of impartiality. This is the public official being transparent about something of which you, the citizen, may be, and most likely are, totally unaware.

******************************************************