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.

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