WHISTLING IN THE DARK...?????

During public comment at the recent Board meeting on May 14th, I spoke to the Board on several points that I feel have been not been handled appropriately very recently. Due to a policy limiting citizen input time at meetings to three minutes, I wasn't able to cover all the points I had. They are as follows:

1. Reasons to Continue Attorney input to PC as before:
The Board has recently removed the Planning Commission Chair's ability to speak directly to the attorney and to have his presence at Commission meetings as a matter of course. I do not feel this is in service to the citizens for the following reasons:

a. Transfer of Building Rights:
In all Transfer of Building Rights (TBR) situations, stub abstracts for both the sending and receiving parcels are required. As was recently experienced, the Commission needs the practiced, professional eye of the attorney to decipher these abstracts or tract checks to ensure that the building right status is acceptable. This is not the sort of expertise citizen Commissioners typically possess. This is a crucial factor in TBRs. The Board has voted to not track restrictions on parcels in any other way, so it falls to a correct reading of these stub abstracts. The attorney is needed. This serves the Township as a Local Governing Unit (LGU).

b. "Resident Inquiry" Agenda Item: 

Without the attorney present to confirm Commission answers to citizens' questions, the Commission can give only a tentative answer. These questions can arise the night of the meeting at the meeting. Their content need not be known ahead of time. It would be more beneficial to citizens to know that the attorney is reading things as the Commission is when such a question arises.

If the Board will not allow the attorney to be present at Commission meetings, perhaps this agenda item should be transferred to the Board's already full agenda when the attorney presumably is to be present.

c. Cost:
Some have raised an objection to the cost to have the attorney attend a Commission meeting. If the attorney is asked questions ahead of time and answers them, this also costs money. A disadvantage is that not all pertinent questions may in fact be asked of the attorney ahead of the meeting. Some of these questions may easily arise after all Commissioners have heard the issue further discussed at the meeting. Or an applicant may have an additional question which requires legal input. Without an attorney present to consult on these further questions, this could then still cause a delay for attorney input to be obtained. I don't think this serves the citizens well.

d. Citizen confidence in opinions rendered and actions taken:
Without the attorney present to affirm Commission opinions as they may be offered, the citizen is perhaps left without full confidence that what they have been told is accurate and that they can move forward on it.




e. Proper and timely representation of the Township:
Citizens frequently are accompanied by their attorneys or realtors. It is important that the Township be similarly represented.

The attorney provides continuity and a knowledge of Township history so that issues are dealt with appropriately. Newer Commissioners may not even be aware of settlement agreements and the like. This could result in something being granted or denied that isn't in sync with such an agreement.

The attorney has also had a role in assuring that state statutes are followed correctly. Appointed officials may not even be aware of the statutes backing up our local authority. They must be followed.

All these points serve not only those citizens applying for uses or structures, but also the community at large. That community deserves some confidence that operations are being performed correctly and according to the Ordinances that we have all enacted. Too many mistakes can be made. Citizens should not be left with their only recourse being legal action to correct a wrong.

2. Ordinances not being followed appropriately:

At the last Commission meeting, several errors were made in regard to this alone, and the errors were NOT the Planning Commission's.

a. What Mining Uses are permitted:

"Two Board Supervisors" had misinformed applicants from Sibley Aggregates about a use they wanted. The idea was to crush concrete from Lakeville demolition for the whole summer. Now if you know anything about the Mining Ordinance, neither concrete crushing from projects outside of the Township nor crushing beyond fifteen days is allowed. To be able to accomplish this an Ordinance Text Amendment would have to be proposed and passed first. This was unsuccessfully attempted not that long ago. There was concern expressed about the crushing of concrete.

When the Mining Ordinance Task Force wrote the language some years ago, it very deliberately put those restrictions on mines: no outside crushing of concrete, only from Eureka projects and then only for fifteen days. This fact was brought up by task force members at the last public hearing on this subject.

Yet the two gentlemen from Sibley had been told to come before the Commission, which would pass their request on to the Board and the Board, as Supervisor Hansen told the Commission, "would take care of it." Wrong, Mr. Hansen! This sort of change requires a public hearing for starters. And Hansen made that statement about the Commission passing it on to the Board and the Board "taking care of it" even after the requirement for a public hearing was raised, which he totally ignored. Had an attorney been present, this could have been cleared up in a definitive manner.

SEE BELOW:

Ordinance 6 Ch. 7: Mineral Extraction Performance Standards
Section 1 - PERFORMANCE STANDARDS The following performance standards apply to all mineral extraction facilities in the Township:

B. Source of Materials. Only minerals from the site shall be processed at the mineral extraction facility subject, however, to the following exceptions:
1. Recyclable concrete and recyclable asphalt may be crushed and mixed on site if the crushing and mixing do not exceed fifteen (15) working days per calendar year and if the recyclable concrete and recyclable asphalt originated from a road demolition or road repair project in the Township of Eureka. 

b. Length of building permit's duration: 
Supervisor Hansen was heard telling a building permit applicant that "building permits are good for a year." Wrong again, Mr. Hansen!

SEE BELOW
Ordinance 3 Ch. 4 Section 5 - BUILDING PERMITS
A. Permit
3. Every permit issued shall become invalid unless the work authorized by the permit is commenced within 180 days after its issuance, or if the work authorized by the permit is suspended or abandoned for a period of 180 days after the time the work is commenced. The Building Official may grant, in writing, one or more extensions of time, for periods not more than 180 days each. The extension shall be requested in writing and justifiable cause demonstrated. (Resolution 59, 8-13-2007)

c. What requires a building permit:
An individual came in to go through the process for a "hoop" building. During the discussion for this,  Supervisor Hansen actually advised the Commission to "refer to your Ordinances" and that such a building does not require a building permit.
Hat Trick! Wrong a third time!!!

SEE BELOW
Ordinance 3 Ch. 4 Section 5 - BUILDING PERMITS
A. Permit
1. For the purpose of regulating the location, size, and height of buildings on lots and the density of population in the Township of Eureka, and to provide separate districts for the purpose of carrying out the aforesaid regulations, building permits shall be required for all buildings, whether temporary or permanent in nature. No person or persons, firm, or corporation shall construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure; erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert, or replace any gas, mechanical, electrical, plumbing system, or other equipment, the installation of which is regulated by the Minnesota State Building Code; or cause any such work to be done, before first making application for

What Mr. Hansen still hasn't gotten straight is that he thinks if a building is "portable" it is "temporary" and further, he thinks temporary buildings don't require permits.

"Temporary" has to do with less than 180 days that a building is there. After 180 days, taxation enters in. AND temporary structures are limited as can be seen below:

Ordinance 3 Ch. 4 Section 11 – TEMPORARY STRUCTURES
A. The building official may issue a permit for those temporary structures and temporary uses specified below. The permit shall be limited as to time of service, but shall not be permitted for more than 180 days. The building official may grant extensions in writing for demonstrated cause. (Resolution 59, 8-13-2007)

B. The following temporary structures or uses are permitted:
1. Any one temporary building or stand exclusively for the sale of agricultural or horticultural products produced on the premises, provided that such building shall be no less than twenty (20) feet from the road right-of-way and further provided that adequate off-street parking shall be available. (Resolution 59, 8-13-2007)
2. Any temporary building for uses incidental to construction work, provided that such building shall be removed upon the completion of the construction work. (Resolution 59, 8-13-2007)
3. A garage may be occupied as a temporary dwelling for a period of not more than six (6) months if construction of a permanent dwelling is actually under way and in active progress during occupancy of the garage. Said garage shall be provided and equipped with garage doors. In the event that any person shall reside in any such temporary garage home for a period of time Ordinance 3 Ch. 4 71 exceeding that permitted by the building official, the Town Board shall proceed to have such extended use abated as a nuisance. (Resolution 59, 8-13-2007) C. All other temporary uses or structures are prohibited in Eureka Township. (Resolution 59, 8-13-2007)

TWO FURTHER POINTS:
1. The policy regarding meetings is that they are to be recorded and the recordings kept to facilitate with minutes until the minutes are approved. Apparently, no recording from the special Board meeting of 4-23-18 exists. More important, the draft minutes submitted by Supervisor Ceminsky do not give his own full motion involving the reduced payment to Darrel Gilmer, the Building Official. Ceminsky's original, fully stated motion actually included the original invoice amount submitted by Gilmer, but the draft minutes reflect only the amount approved to be paid, without any indication that this was a greatly reduced amount. I was there and heard the motion in real time, but this was not included and now no recording exists to verify this. Perhaps other Supervisors will remember Ceminsky's full motion.

Mr. Hansen has been insisting that minutes have only motions and votes and not much else. Motions and votes are what is required, but it is up to the body in question how much detail it wants in its minutes.

In the case of these draft minutes, not only are no details given, an incomplete motion is recorded and the public would have no way to know through these minutes what transpired regarding the Gilmer invoice. Why shouldn't that be "out there for public consumption?"

ANOTHER REASON THE BLOG IS SO IMPORTANT! WE REPORT WHAT HAPPENS AT YOUR TOWNSHIP MEETINGS, INCLUDING DETAILS YOU WOULD PROBABLY THINK IT IMPORTANT TO KNOW ABOUT!!!

AND ON A HUMOROUS NOTE
2. The Township website has our Ordinances dated as 11-17-2103. That means I am 153 years old! Who knew?

THANK YOU, CAPTAIN OBVIOUS!!!! THE CAPTAIN WAS IN FULL REGALIA AT THE RECENT SPECIAL BOARD MEETING...

First, did you even know that there was a Town Board Special Meeting on April 23rd? NOT SO OBVIOUS! Unfortunately, it appears that only some, not all, individuals on the special notification list received their notice of this meeting. It was also reported to NOT be on the Township Calendar on the website. Since the Township is operating without any clerk, this could be a reason.

Did you know that being on this list and being notified of certain topics or special meetings is not a local courtesy, but a state requirement of the Township? The new Board Chair has been apprised of this. Look for improvement in the very near future! How can citizens be up-to-date on meetings' content if they do not even know of all the meetings?



Let's take the most obvious item from the meeting first, which happened to be the third agenda item that evening. For the longest time, the Board has asked Darrel Gilmer, Building Official, to turn in his list of open permits. After many months, that was finally done.

We all owe Supervisor Lu Barfknecht a big THANK YOU as apparently she alone took the initiative to go through all the items on the submitted invoice of $8,758.22. Upon doing so, she noticed quite a few discrepancies and errors. She discussed all these with the Board on the 23rd.



By motion, the Board adjusted the invoice amount from $8,758.22 to $1,869.12!! That's a difference of $6,889.10, Folks.

Supervisor Ceminsky is the primary Building Official contact person for the Board. His comment? "Darrel realizes he made some mistakes."

Now, that DID seem obvious! The primary attorney contact person on the Board reviews the attorney's bills; why doesn't the primary Building Official contact person do the same? It was only after Supervisor Barfknecht alerted the Board to the problem that Ceminsky aided her in examining the bill. (It is of interest that Supervisor Butch Hansen didn't seem to think Barfknecht should even be involved in examining the bill more closely! This, after she did all that work! And no one else seems to have done so! I don't get the logic.)

Of course, ultimately, the entire Board is responsible for approving any expenditures, whether for a light bulb or a litigation. Yet another reason that Barfknecht could and should be involved.


OBVIOUS #2

The Board's second agenda item was to approve a job description for the clerk openings. One of the main challenges that the previous clerks had was in fulfilling the role of Zoning Administrator. 

First, know that under the Ordinances, the Clerk IS the Zoning Administrator. This requires familiarity with planning and zoning and a thorough knowledge of Eureka's Ordinances. This enables the Clerk (and the Deputy Clerk in the Clerk's absence) to answer questions, to be sure all applications are completely filled out and ready for Planning Commission (PC) review, and to refer persons to the appropriate portion of the Ordinances.

Without someone reliably doing those jobs thoroughly, the Planning Commission was left in the position of checking all applications for completeness ahead of its meetings (not its job), which very frequently resulted in having to ask the Clerk to contact applicants to alert them ahead of the PC meeting that something was missing from their applications. Applicants then often had a narrow window (Thursday, PC "packet day" to the meeting day five days later with a weekend in between) to complete the application forms. When an application comes before the Planning Commission, they should not have the unfortunate task of informing the applicant that information is missing and delaying action. This makes the Commission appear obstructive when it certainly is NOT.

So without someone to fulfill the Zoning Administrator (ZA) duties, the Commission's work (especially the Chair's) becomes that much harder than it should be. I also believe that this is not providing citizens with responsible government.



OKAY, SO FAST FORWARD TO TO THE JOB DESCRIPTION. Instead of making absolutely sure this aspect was clear to position applicants before they applied, the job description had NO MENTION of the Zoning Administrator role! I have spoken to this point publicly at meetings and still there was no mention that the Clerk functions as the ZA.

What did Supervisor Hansen say to the Chair about my question? "We'll handle that in the interview." More Captain Obvious. The interview is a LITTLE LATE to inform applicants that the job they have applied for also encompasses this whole other aspect. Ultimately, the Board agreed to add "Zoning Administrator" to the description.


LAST "OBVIOUS" FROM THIS MEETING

One of the items on the agenda for this special meeting was the Building Official contract. If you have been in the loop, you would know that the Board immediately before the current one had already by motion hired MNSpect as the official. However, in what I and other observers considered an OBVIOUS ploy, "certain individuals" dragged their feet and dragged their feet, objecting to this or that and not being ready to approve the contract until the new Board was in place. Because of the delays, the contract had been pretty much finalized, but not actually signed yet. The new Board membership then decided that they wanted to send out a Request For Professional Services (RFP) for Building Officials even though this had already been done. It happens that Scott Qualle of MNSpect was the only one responding to that RFP. Again, it was OBVIOUS to any attendees at meetings from their words and actions that "certain individuals" did not like this situation.

One citizen, a former Commissioner and Supervisor, even stated at a recent meeting that the Board hadn't sent out a "proper" RFP in the first place. OF COURSE it was a "proper" RFP; it just happens that this particular person seems to have an issue with the one responding firm! He has even made public derogatory statements about Mr. Qualle on more than one occasion. There's a whole history to that which has been discussed at Board meetings of late.

The Board is offering a one-year contract that has a thirty-day notice for termination. The intent-at least at ONE meeting- was stated to be to continue with Darrel Gilmer on a short-term, monthly basis until a new Building Official can be interviewed and hired. Supervisor Ceminsky stated that Gilmer "did not want to have to come in and sign a contract every month." Gilmer would presumably be stopping in often with inspections reports anyway, so I don't see the hardship.

I do not think that the RFP has gone out yet; it is possible that Gilmer could be around for another full year. SEE OBVIOUS NUMBER 1!!

Also of note is that it was stated at the special Board meeting that Gilmer wanted to deal with Ceminsky and Hansen only. Supervisor Barfknecht pointed out that Supervisor Palmquist was the secondary Building Official contact person, not Hansen. Again, is it not OBVIOUS that the supervisors that the Building Official would work with are the contact persons for that governmental function? Apparently, not immediately. Eventually Ceminsky and Palmquist were designated (once AGAIN) to be the two Gilmer would work with.

Supervisor Barfknecht raised the interesting question that was in my mind as well-Why would the Township hire a tail to wag the dog in an inspector who says he wants to deal with just two specific supervisors ONLY? The Building Official is ultimately answerable to the entire Board. He doesn't have the role of narrowing with whom he is willing to work, surely.