ED. YOU. KAY. SHUNNNNNNNN!!!!!

At the August Board meeting, a motion was made by Chair Tim Murphy concerning training sessions open to all Board Supervisors and Planning Commissioners. His purpose was to pre-approve the attendance costs for any and all members to go to any and even possibly all of the three sessions most recently sent in an email from Government Training Services (GTS).

GTS is a non-profit organization that has been around for a long time. It offers informative sessions with excellent, experienced presenters who are experts in various areas about which public officials need to be educated. I have personally attended many of these sessions and have found them to be of great help in understanding the jobs of Commissioner and Supervisor. They are instructive on issues of governmental law and function. I have always felt that without such exposure, what is essentially a local, amateur volunteer in a public office is apt to flounder and make errors along the learning curve. This is unacceptable. Those applying for or running for office have an obligation in my eyes to know what they are talking about and to correctly base all decisions on facts. Trainings such as these and those offered by the Minnesota Association of Townships and other organizations are vital to doing a good job and serving the Township as it should be served.

Do you know that there are Supervisors/Commissioners now and in the past who have NEVER taken even ONE such class? As a Supervisor I endeavored twice to make at least two sessions during a three-year term mandatory for all of Eureka's public officers. I failed both times as others on the Board shied away from the idea of "mandatory." Puzzling to me, but there you go. So there were and are still those who did not avail themselves of any training or any to speak of.

When Chair Murphy made his motion, both Supervisors Hansen and Ceminsky seemed to take issue with it. Being uncomfortable with a motion without a dollar amount was suggested as the reason to be against this suggestion. Now, really, even if all officers went to all sessions (Your Role As A Planning Commissioner, Basics of Planning and Zoning, and one about development) would that not be money well spent? Since the motion referenced only these three sessions, it was self-limiting anyway. Until attendance by whom and for which sessions in September would be decided, the dollar figure is not precise. In my mind and as expressed by two Supervisors (Palmquist and Barfknecht) and an audience member (not me) such opportunities are a very positive thing!

Eventually the motion passed with, I believe, an arbitrary cap on the money to be spent. Wonder WHO will actually go?? As a citizen, you can see that information if you look at how your tax money is spent. Such invoices would show up on the financial report.

Recently, I have witnessed and heard many things said at meetings that I believe are way off-base. Things such as two Supervisors pushing for Interim Use Permits (IUPs) to be passed at meetings for uses that are not even allowed! An IUP must involve a public hearing held by the Commission, followed by a recommendation, then and only then followed by a Board decision. The possible IUPs are limited by Ordinance.

Since these proposed uses were not even allowed under Eureka's IUPs, it would be necessary for such uses to go through a Text Amendment process started by the person or persons desiring them. That process also involves a public hearing, etc. If such a proposed amendment to the Ordinances were to be enacted, then that use would be eligible to exist anywhere in the Township-not just for the property of the amendment requester- but anywhere, maybe next door to YOU!

Acting as a legislative body, the Board is totally within its authority to deny such uses in text amendments simply because "We do not want that use in the Township." The courts tend to back up legislative decisions should there be a challenge. A Local Government Unit (LGU) can legislate as it sees fit as long as it is not less restrictive than County or States laws. The LGU can be more restrictive.

Now, if Supervisors don't take classes and try to do something that isn't quite kosher, they could at least learn from that mistake and not try to repeat it. I have seen the opposite occur at very recent public meetings. MAYBE because to do so takes an open mind and the understanding that the Supervisor doesn't know all there is. To know what one doesn't know is a valuable thing.





I have sometimes heard the argument put forth that it is "only common sense" that something be allowed. Fair enough, except if it isn't in the Ordinances, it isn't allowed. Where would we be if the Township just started allowing things simply because someone asked or someone advocates for the supplicant regardless of the interests of Eureka as a whole? The results could be problematic...

It is possible for an LGU to change an Ordinance to reflect a community's evolving sensibilities, but until an actual change is enacted, the Board must make its decisions based on the law in effect at the time of the request.

HERE'S THE SCOOP!

        August Town Board meeting on August 13, 2018.

     A Lakeville citizen approached the Planning Commission

on August 7 regarding purchasing 10 acres on County Road 86

for the purpose of constructing a business building of 

approximately 9,000 square feet to house their distribution of

items for agriculture producers.

     The items they distribute include farm aprons, pouches, totes,

belts, holsters, bags, boots, bibs and pants, children's gear, jackets,

breeding and vet gear, calf blankets and milking supplies.
(Information found on their web site.)

     The Planning Commission stated this is not a permitted use

and is not an agricultural service. They did indicate they could

possibly request a Conditional Use Permit and passed it onto 

the Town Board for discussion.

     Butch Hansen believes it falls under Agricultural Use.

The Ordinance definition of Agricultural Operations is:

"Operations operating for profit which include, but not

limited to, the cultivation, growing, harvesting and processing

of any agricultural commodity, including horticulture and

timber, the raising of livestock, fur-bearing animals, fish or

poultry; or any commercial agricultural practice

performed as incidental to or in conjunction with such

operations, including preparation for market, delivery to

storage, to market, or to carriers for transportation to market".

(I do not see the storage of aprons, holsters, bags, pants etc 

included in this definition).

     Butch Hansen stated "It is an allowed usage under a

Conditional Use Permit."  PC Chair Fredlund disagreed stating,
"A Conditional Use Permit is allowed for Agricultural Services."

Butch Hansen stated "This is an Agricultural Service."

Commissioner Funk indicated that it is a warehouse for storing

merchandise. Butch stated "They manufacture it there."

(I have seen nothing to indicate this statement is accurate.)

Hansen stated, "People are doing the exact same thing all over
the Township." 

The Ordinance states, "Agricultural  service is permitted

as a Conditional Use. Agricultural Service is described as

establishments primarily engaged in performing agricultural

or horticultural services on a fee or contract bases."

(I do not see where a warehouse utilized for storage of aprons,

holsters, pants, children's gear, jackets and sleeves, holsters and

bib pants is an Agricultural Service on a fee or contract

basis. (Mr. Hansen, if you do not have access to an Ordinance

book, please request a copy from the Town Hall.)

     Butch Hansen felt the Board needed to discuss the issue.

     Mark Ceminsky stated "The Statute under Agriculture allows

that even if you only have one acre, that if you are doing things

that provide to an Agricultural industry or supporting Agriculture,

it does not matter if you repair tractors or whatever you are allowed

under the Agricultural State Statute." (Not sure where this incoherent

statement by Mark was pulled from).

     Under the Ordinance definition of Agriculture: "The use of land

for the production of farm crops as well as for the raising of

livestock."

     Under the Ordinance definition of Commercial Agriculture:

"The exclusive use of ten (10) or more contiguous acres of

land for the production of field crops, livestock products,

or livestock, not counting one acre for homestead." (It then

goes on to define the above. I did not notice any reference to

aprons, bib pants, children's gear etc.) 

     (This would not be a permitted Accessory Structure.) The

Ordinance states, "There can be no Accessory Structure without

a Principal Structure existing on the same parcel."

     Commissioner Larson stated she felt the Planning Commission's

hands are tied when they do not have access to the Township attorney.

Chair Murphy stated "The Attorney prefers to have questions from

the Planning Commission Chair in writing rather than coming to the

meetings." He also stated "If the Planning Commission would

like to have the Attorney attend a specific meeting, they can 

request his presence."

(In the past, the Attorney attended the Planning Commission meetings

which makes sense because citizens' questions can be answered

or their permit requests can be addressed, recommended for approval or

turned down at the Planning Commission meeting. Possibly

saving the citizens another fruitless meeting).

     A citizen reminded the Board Supervisors that Agricultural

Services such as tractor repair and machinery repair is a service.

Products such as aprons, bib pants etc. are  NOT a service

for a fee or on a contract basis.

(The Attorney remained silent on this issue. Why???

This seems to be a time at a meeting when an attorney 

with expertise in municipal law needs to weigh in

to educate the Board and the Planning Commission.

Supervisors and Planning Commissioners have

a responsibility to reference the facts before making 

definitive statements.")

(Imagine if the Township issued Conditional Use Permits

willy nilly to anyone who would like to utilize

10 acres, or more or less, as storage for manufactured 

products or even worse, manufacturing, anyplace in

an agriculturally zoned Township.")

(If previous Planning Commissioners and Board Supervisors
have made mistakes in the past, current members are
not obligated to make the same mistakes, nor should they.)

 

     

The information is taken from
the August 13 meeting CD.  My
opinions are indicated in italics.

PERSOID METEOR SHOWER AND DRONES!

     On August 14, a
citizen in the Northwest corner of

Eureka Township stepped outside to view the Persoid 

meteor shower around 10:30 p.m.

     When he looked south, he noticed a drone hovering roughly

 1/2 mile or so from his location. It was a bright light, relatively

stationary for 20 minutes or longer. As a licensed drone pilot, he 

was very aware that flying drones at night is against FAA

regulations (unless you're law enforcement and have a waiver).

     When the incident was mentioned to another resident in the same

area, she mentioned that several nights before, when she was sitting

on the deck late at night, she noticed a drone passing over a 

neighbor's house. The light was bright enough to reflect off the

house.

     This is ILLEGAL activity. Call 911 if you see one. You will not hear

it unless it is right over you.

WAIT FOR IT, W-A-I-T FOR IT...!!!

Recently, on July 26, I attended the Roundtable meeting between the Town Board and the Planning Commission. The purpose of this meeting/workshop is the chance for the Board and the Commission to go over ground rules, bring everybody up to snuff on the issues of government, and ask questions about areas of concern.

Some issues that the two bodies received information on were:

The statutory requirements for sending a letter to let an applicant know that his application is incomplete.


How this letter affects the 60-Day Rule.


What is a legislative action by the Board and how this is viewed by the courts as a rule.

What is a quasi-judicial action by the Board and how this is viewed differently by the courts. The reason this type of decision goes to court more often.

Why Finding of Facts (for IUPs and CUPs for example) is perhaps best left to the attorney as it is a legal document and one that the attorney is familiar with and able to produce quickly. Why it makes more sense to delegate this finding to the attorney with PC and TB final approval than to leave it up to what is essentially a group of volunteers with no legal training. That the omission of even one fact could be crucial if something is challenged and goes to court.


What is meant by the "Finding of Facts." They are facts (not opinions) based on the Ordinance, not a "vote" from the public hearing on how many were for or against the IUP or CUP application being reviewed. (Commissioner Novacek spoke and seemed to think that it is the case that something is granted, at least in part, on whether the neighbors are okay with it or not. The reasons someone may be for or against something are what is important. If based on the Ordinance and what it allows or doesn't allow, that's one thing. Just because they don't like it or, conversely, they are willing to live next to it should not enter into quasi-judicial decisions.)

When a question arose about publishing notices in Eureka's official newspaper since the free copies do not go out "automatically" any more, the two bodies were reminded that this is a statutory requirement for public hearings. The idea put forth by Hansen that "We already send postcards" is probably not sufficient and probably does not reach the statutory requirement. The suggestion was made that the attorney be asked about how the Township can meet the requirement in today's situation.



Do these seem like important subjects to you? I think they are!

NOW....

Let me tell you how this information came up during that meeting.

Before the meeting, Butch Hansen mutters to Chair Tim Murphy that "we don't take comment from the audience at this meeting" or words very close to that.

Guess what? I was the only member of the audience!

Once the meeting started, I sat quietly listening to the discussion. When I first raised my hand just to offer some of the above important information, Hansen says, "I thought we all agreed that we weren't going to take audience comment!" (Or words very close to that.)

I said, "Even when it is informative?" And, "No, Butch, that was just you before the meeting talking to Tim." (There was NO discussion of this by the Board. Where does he get "we all agreed" from? Once again, said with such authority!!)

Then Mark Ceminsky chimes in with what I saw as negativity towards my offering information. I indicated that if I were a former male Board member sitting there saying that Mark wouldn't have any problem with it.

Next, Al Novacek chimed in with something else negative. Big surprise.

Chair Murphy called on me anyway, apparently to Hansen's "discomfort." Murphy asked him if he (Murphy) were in charge as the Chair or not. Hansen told him he actually was not. !!!

The next time I raised my hand and was called on by Chair Murphy, I prefaced my comment with, "At the risk of offering information..." After that the threesome stopped giving me grief about trying to help them out, but I don't think they were too happy.



What would give a sole audience member the "audacity" to offer all this information? 

Being a former Board Supervisor, a former Planning Commissioner and Chair, and a member of various task forces, I mentioned these points as I thought they were important, helpful, and would be welcome. After all, no one else was raising these points.

In the normal course of things, one might think Hansen, Ceminsky, and Novacek would be appreciative of such important information to help prevent them from breaking laws, help enable them to meet requirements, and assist in keeping the Township out of legal jeopardy.

That's what I would want any supervisor/commissioner to do: Inform himself. Especially since these three persons perhaps have gone to one information session/training seminar amongst all three of them!!!! What do you think your supervisors/commissioners should do?

Yes, this is an excellent reason for each and every one of you to be engaged in your local government and be informed!

PERHAPS IT WILL FLY THIS TIME!!!!!!!

Remember the previous blog in which the "Mysterious"
non-conforming registration was discussed during the
June, 2018, Town Board meeting?  Ms. Petter was
present and stated, "This is about me." The registration
was for Farm Tours.
                                     
During the July 9, 2018, Town Board
meeting, Supervisor Ceminsky once
again introduced the "mystery"
non-conforming registration which
he stated appeared on his doorstep
and also fell into the hands of Supervisor
Hansen at the Town Hall.

The "mystery" registration does not have the
original Township stamp on it as every other registration in the
non-conforming registration book of "accepted"
registrations from 2005. (The official Township stamp is red.)

There is no record, including the minutes, which verifies
the acceptance of a non-conforming registration for
Fur-Ever Wild OR Farm Tours for Ms. Petter.  An original
cannot be located.

As indicated in the previous blog, Chair Murphy was absent from
the meeting due to a pre-planned vacation in Europe.
Supervisors Ceminsky, Barfknecht, Hansen and Palmquist were
present. Hansen was acting Chair.

Ceminsky insisted ALL non-conforming registrations were
accepted in  "one sweeping motion." (In my research I did 
not find this to be accurate. Citizens can review past minutes
from 2004 and 2005.)

Ceminsky made a motion to ACCEPT the "mysterious"
registration. Hansen seconded the motion.

Ceminsky's argument was that "when he went back to the minutes
the document was nowhere to be found." "Years ago it could not
be found." "It showed up this year at his door and in an envelope
at the Town Hall." (It is rather perplexing to me that the person 
who dropped off the application at Ceminsky's and delivered
an envelope to the Town Hall has not been identified or come
forward. If this registration is an issue, why hasn't
the owner of the "mystery" registration approached the Town
Board represented by an attorney to resolve it instead of 
dropping the registration mysteriously on a Supervisor's doorstep?)

Ceminsky stated, "It is a photocopy and the original is missing." He stated,
"We as a Township are going to get into trouble because of
missing documents." "Have no choice but to accept a photocopy
of what was done." (My thought: So now the Township
should accept ALL mystery copies of non-conforming
registrations because the Township might get in trouble??
LINE UP FOLKS??  I find this rather offensive and an

invitation for law suits.)

Attorney Lemmons reminded the Board that Ms. Petter admitted
to the Judge under oath at a Hearing that she did not complete
and submit a non-conforming registration because she said
she was told she did not have to.

Supervisor Barfknecht stated that the minutes specifically state
those who have actually registered and the Treasurer's Report
indicates those who registered and paid the $50 fee.
A Fur-Ever Wild registration is not in the records.
When the documents "miraculously" appeared, Supervisor
Barfknecht and the Attorney both reviewed the non-
conforming registration book and every other document in the book
had the original RED Township stamp on it. The application
for Fur-Ever Wild was the ONLY ONE THAT DID NOT!
At that time Supervisor Barfknecht's opinion was that
the application was fabricated. Whiteout marks could be
seen on it.

Hansen stated that he was on the Planning Commission when all
"this came down." "It should be easy enough to figure out how it
got to where it is." He feels things "miraculously appear and
disappear in this Township." "The color of the stamp does not
mean a whole lot to me." "It does not matter to me how the document
appeared." Need to talk about "is it legit or isn't it." Hansen stated,
"Attorney Lemmons encouraged the Township to put this to rest."

A citizen asked "can the Board, by motion without a Public
Hearing pass a motion that has to do with zoning where they
are approving a non-conforming use that was not approved at
the time as far as the Township records go?"

Mr. Hansen asked,"Can the Board now accept the registration as a
legal non-conforming use."

Attorney Lemmons: No, the deadline passed 13 years ago.


Hansen asked,"Can the Board determine if the registration
was actually filed and can be recognized as a file application based
on previous testimony and minutes."

Attorney Lemmons: The Court has already decided the issue.

Ceminsky stated, "They should talk
 with Planning Commission
and Board members at the time
 of the non-conforming registration.
(My opinion: This was 13 years ago.
Perhaps difficult to remember facts
that can possibly be litigated).

Once again Supervisor Palmquist was a voice of reason
and stated that he would like to review ALL documents/facts
before any decisions are made.

Ceminsky withdrew his motion, the issue was tabled and will be
discussed at a future date.

Ceminsky stated, "I introduced the registration because I am
getting tired of all of this." (My opinion: Perhaps after 
13 years and expenditures of Tax $$$$$$'s, citizens are tired
of it also. 
Why push what seems to be an obvious agenda.? It seems that
the Township would have to hire an attorney to sort this out. 
More TAX $$$$$$'s.

During the discussion, I believe either 
Ceminsky or Hansen mentioned that 21 others could possibly
be missing. If this is accurate, why the focus on JUST this
registration in particular.?) 

   



To request current blog notifications, complete the 
"Follow by Email" entry space on the right side of the
 blog page.

Information for this blog was taken
from the July 9, Town Board
meeting CD.  For more detailed
information, a CD can be purchased
from the Township for $5.00.                                   

WHILE THE CAT IS AWAY.................

On Monday, July 9, the Eureka Board of Supervisors
held its monthly meeting. Supervisors Ceminsky,
Hansen, Palmquist and Barfknecht were present.
Chair Murphy was on vacation in Europe which he
had planned before he was elected.
                           Supervisor
Hansen was acting Chair for the meeting.
One of the items on the agenda was "Clerk
Applicants".  Hansen stated "me and Tim
interviewed 2 candidates." He mentioned Ranee
but gave no last name and another candidate
who he later mentioned that he thought her
name was Sarah!  Well prepared for the meeting???

Hansen stated "the other gal has minor children,
possibly ages 4 and 6, and an ailing mother-in-law
which she would have to get a nanny to come
in and take care of them."  The attorney later 
reminded Mr. Hansen that the personal information
regarding family cannot be used to determine if
an applicant is qualified.

Mr. Hansen stated that Ranee has para legal
experience and has been "what I would
call secretary or clerk" for a Townhouse
Association and she would be very capable
of putting together packets and doing minutes.
She is a single person with adult children
and is able to attend training. She would
like to work another 17 years. He felt Ranee
stands "out front" because she never talked
about delegating work to anyone.

Mr. Hansen felt she is very qualified for the
Clerk position with "lots of stuff" going on 
at Townhouse meetings.

Ceminsky stated it looked like she has worked 
with people in the association as well as contractors
and has handled budgets.

Supervisor Hansen mentioned Robert Finke as an
applicant who was an executive with the
Fairview Healthcare System and a delegator.

My research: Robert Finke, President and COO.
interim at TRIA Orthapaedic Center, Director
of Rehabitation, Clinic Manager; Business
Development and Community Relationsat
Northfield Hospital and Clinics, Director at
Minneaplis Sports Medicine Center, Physical
Therapist at Fairview Health Services, MBA
University of Minnesota and studied Accounting
at the University of Pennsylvania.

Supervisor Palmquist was very positive that
Mr. Finke is a delegator and has business
management skills. He stated the Township officials
have talked about bringing the Township up to
a modern level. He felt Mr. Finke is an experienced
manager. He felt that Ranee would be a fantastic
Deputy Clerk.

Mr. Hansen stated 
"Is he going to do minutes
 and filing because that
 would be his responsibility."
Does Mr. Hansen believe
 ONLY women can do minutes
and filing? 
Mr. Palmquist 
felt Mr. Finke has a "stellar"
resume. Mr. Hansen stated 
"for an executive, we need a
 clerk, not a  delegator." "He would be on a long learning curve
 because he has never clerked." "I do not see how 
anything in his resume relates to Township government
and doubt his commitment." "We need a clerk
who can do clerking, type and take minutes." "He 
does not see this in Mr. Finke's resume."  I am quite
certain Mr. Finke can even type and send a text message!!!


Mr. Ceminsky's concerns: Robert Finke is retired and 
is concerned  "He might not
stay with the Township for many years if his
wife retires.  Ranee wants to work for 17 more years; 
why not hire her." How many employees commit
themselves to work for 17 years? Many circumstances
can change and affect their commitments.

Mr. Ceminsky stated "we do not need another boss
delegating because that is what WE were elected to
do; to manage and have staff working under us."
He stated he was NOT confident with Mr. Finke's
resume.

Supervisors Palmquist and Barfknecht stated they
would like to interview both Mr. Finke and Ms. Solis
before making a hiring decision. Supervisor Hansen
stated he did not need to meet with Mr. Finke because
his (Hansen's) experience tells him that he 
(Mr. Finke) will not work out with the Township 
unless the Township wants to hire
a City Manager. "We are NOT looking for a manager,
we are looking for a CLERK."

Supervisor Barfknecht reminded Butch that the clerk is
also the Zoning Manager. She stated that she has
done many interviews during her career and would not
consider hiring anyone for this position without having
a discussion with the applicants.

Both Supervisors Palmquist and Barfknecht agreed
that a special meeting should be determined to discuss 
both applicants resumes and invite them for an interview 
with ALL supervisors present if possible. Thank you 
Supervisors Palmquist and Barfknecht for once again
being a voice of intellect and reason.

Ceminsky ignored the reasonable suggestion and made a
motion to hire Ranee Solis at this meeting without an
opportunity for the full Board to have a 
discussion/interview with the applicants. He later
withdrew his motion because there was continued discussion
regarding setting a date for a special meeting.

Chair Murphy would return from his vacation and hopefully
would be available for a special meeting on July 16.
Ceminsky stated that he was "amazed" that he always has
to change his schedule to meet a CERTAIN person's schedule.
(Meaning Chair Murphy). People's commitments change
during the course of their lives and of course there needs to 
be alternatives and flexibility.

 The July 16th meeting took place at the Town Hall. All 5
Supervisors interviewed Mr. Robert Finke and Ms. Ranee
Solis. Mr. Finke was hired as Clerk. Ms. Ranee Solis
is the Township's Deputy Clerk.

In my opinion I believe the position of Clerk and Deputy Clerk
should be modified to state Township Administrator and
Assistant Administrator. Perhaps this would attract applicants
with skills that would qualify them to manage the business
of the Township.


I was fortunate to meet both of them at the Town Hall.  I
believe excellent choices were made and the Township is headed
in a very positive direction.

                                          CONGRATULATIONS!!!!

The above information was taken from the CD recording of
the July 9, 2018, Town Board meeting. Copies can be
obtained from the Township for a fee of $5.00.