WHAT IS THE PROBLEM ANYWAY?

The September Board meeting stretched into two nights, ending at 11:45 pm Monday night and continuing for a few MORE hours on Tuesday evening. Part of the reason for this was the addition to the agenda of many items by "one or two" Supervisors, as I understand it. Some of these additions were what I would call "cryptic" in that it was very unclear by the one- or two-word addition where such items were intended to go. But more on that later...

One such item was the price of disc recording copies to the public. The discussion was to require/allow only one meeting per disc (wasteful) and Hansen proposed charging $20 per disc copy!
Having raised my hand and being graciously called on by Board Chair Tim Murphy, I came forward and gave the Board a short recap of the history of this whole matter. If you are a longer-time blog reader, you may recall that first certain Supervisors in the past, including Mark Ceminsky, tried to keep the public from even receiving these recordings. WRONG! was the opinion given by then-Township attorney Patrick Kelly. (Mr. Kelly practices municipal law and has been voted a "Super Lawyer" by his peers for years.) Then the attempt was made to charge more, again with Ceminsky's involvement. ARGUED AND WON for lesser amounts. There was also an attempt to have just one meeting per disc. Guess who? There is ample room on a disc for a whole month's meetings, including public hearings. I argued that one and thankfully good sense prevailed. There were enough Supervisors on the Board then to vote in favor of you, the people.

So now Hansen and Ceminsky try yet again! Ceminsky suggested that the public be invited to record the meetings themselves. HOW GENEROUS OF HIM! The public already has the RIGHT under Open Meeting Law to record meetings in any fashion it sees fit and the Board or Commission do not even have to be aware that the meeting is being recorded!!

I asked what is the difference if someone is present at the meeting recording or someone else in the Township can't make the meeting but would like a disc copy to hear the discussion? I suggested that the only reason I could see to proceed down Hansen's and Ceminsky's proposed route was to make it less convenient and more costly for citizens to stay informed!

Hansen hastened to declare that the citizens should receive the information, but proposed by motion that the cost be the afore-mentioned twenty bucks. Ridiculous! I reminded the Board that it is not allowed to make money on fees, which twenty dollars would surely do. Why would a Supervisor try to make a month's worth of meetings cost from $40 to $80 or more, depending on the month? Does this seem right to you? Hansen also wanted just one meeting per disc. Again, a ploy to make it more expensive? You might be interested to know that only a couple of people consistently ask for these copies right now. How pointed, in my opinion.

Ceminsky chimed in with "This has continued to be an issue." I whispered to a person next to me, "That is because he keeps MAKING it an issue!" Well, my goodness! One might have thought something really terrible and disturbing had just happened! Ceminsky very emphatically: "Mr. Chair, this has got to stop!" (He repeatedly says this when I speak. He and Hansen are visibly unhappy when Murphy calls on me and I offer information that no one on the Board has put forward on procedure or what-have-you. I just want to be sure for everyone's sake that things are fully understood. I would not be okay with just sitting there and not clarifying things when the Board hasn't acknowledged or pointed out the finer points of facts, proper procedure, etc. Believe me, I have waited many times as long as I felt I could.)

This very same reaction happened when Steve Madden was on the Board and I whispered something to the person ahead of me about Ceminsky's having called the attorney not once, not twice, but three times without even going through the proper channels to receive permission to do so. Madden loudly declared that there was a "disturbance" in the audience. Then-Chair Budenski stated (I believe tongue-in-cheek), "Disturbance? Disturbance? I must have missed it. What disturbance?" 

It was stated at the meeting that the only thing the Board is obligated to give the citizens is the approved, written minutes. This is incorrect. Under Data Practices Law anytime the Local Government Unit stores or retains data this falls under the law, even if the intent is to destroy the data later. (The discs are destroyed once the minutes are approved under Eureka's retention policy filed with the State.)

Finally Supervisor Lu Barfknecht moved that the cost per disc be continued at $5.00. Hansen said, "Per meeting?" Barfknecht said, "Per disc." Well, citizens, let it be known that her motion passed 3 to 2 with Ceminsky and Hansen voting "no." Are Ceminsky and Hansen looking out for your best interests? What ARE they looking out for? Do they not appreciate that this blog can state that what is reported here is backed up by the disc recording? No question in my mind.




Of note, when I was Chair of the Planning Commission for three years, I always called on anyone and everyone, including Hansen and Ceminsky, who raised his hand. This same practice has been followed by the Town Board. I have noticed that anyone else who has his hand raised at meetings is called on and no fuss is made by the "Tag Team." Sometimes people have just spoken without raising their hands, and no big deal is made about it. Sometimes others have whispered to each other at meetings and even louder making it hard to listen, but no big deal is made about that either.


MUST HAVE BEEN SOMETHING I SAID...?

"I HEAR THE TRAIN A-COMIN', IT'S ROLLIN' 'ROUND THE BEND..."

At the August Planning Commission meeting, a representative from Progressive Rail (PR) made an appearance before the Commissioners. The intent was to inform the Township about the company's plans that affect Eureka.

Many of you may know that the citizens of Lakeville have expressed their dissatisfaction many times about the (often longer-term) parking of railcars along Highway 50 and the nearby houses. Since the railroads are federally governed, going back to the post Civil War era, there really wasn't anything that the citizens of Lakeville, nor the city government of Lakeville could do to change that.

Well, brace yourselves, because now Progressive Rail plans to have this storage in Eureka Township! It presented the plan to add side rails in its rights-of-way north of Cedar Avenue and 250th St. W. It was my understanding that this area would end at 240th St. This would most likely entail the removal of trees. PR would park its idle cars on those side rails until they are needed and can be moved for use. Of course, the rep stated that their plans are to have these cars move a lot as they hope to have their business pick up. And also of course, there are no guarantees about any of that!

Members of the Commission and the Board present expressed their discontent with this plan. The Progressive Rail rep seemed to indicate that since these cars would be parked next to "your farm fields," he didn't see a problem exactly. He had intended to come before the Board at its August meeting as well, but now would be out-of-town. He said he could come to the September Board meeting. However, the grant application for this endeavor is due mid-September, so this didn't meet with much in the way of what I would call trust that anything would be any different or that there would remain enough time to change anything in the application before its submittal.

As a member of the audience that night and of the Planning Commission when Progressive Rail had other dealings with the Township, it seemed very clear to me that the rail company had no intention of changing any of its plans. And why would it?  It was simply doing "the courtesy" of a notification and it wasn't even obligated to do that. There is nothing that the Township can do to require them to change their plans.

At the Board's August meeting, Supervisor Hansen proposed the idea that Progressive Rail purchase the property northeast of the intersection of Highview and 225th St. W. and use that to park its idle cars. It was mentioned that the property is industrial property in AirLake Industrial Park. If it is the parcel I believe it is, that is NOT in the industrial park. It is zoned agricultural, as is the rest of Eureka.

Hansen mentioned a property near Cedar and 250th that could be affected by the cars under PR's plan. He stressed that if the train cars were stopped or stored there, they could block this property's driveway. The driveway is the only access to the property. This could pose a serious predicament as anyone can see, but I am not so sure that Progressive can do that.

A couple of questions were asked including can PR block a private resident's only access indefinitely or at all? No answer on that one.

Hansen asked the attorney what power the Township had to stop this. Lemmons answered, "None."
Hansen made an off-the-cuff comment that we have "the last president to thank" for this. I'm really not sure what he is talking about as the railroads have been federally regulated for way over a century-going on two pretty soon!

A point I would explore is whether it is even the Township's role to advocate for a change that may relieve some citizens  of the "burden" of the cars, but would necessarily subject others to it instead? How is that decided fairly? Who chooses who is who? Is one resident more important than another? Based on what?

A similar situation came up during my first term as a Commissioner. A citizen came before the officials asking that the Township advocate that a pipeline be rerouted away from that citizen's property. That citizen had a very solid reason for such a request, at least of the pipeline company. Of course, that would have meant that utility would then go by another person's property instead. At the time I commented that I was uncomfortable with Eureka as an entity advocating for one citizen over another. Ultimately, the citizen successfully accomplished the rerouting on his own behalf without any Township intervention. In this sort of situation, I believe that the government should seek public comment, especially from all affected parties. This would help it arrive at a better, informed decision consistent with the community's interests as a whole.

So in the current situation, I questioned the propriety of such a move now. For one thing, I asked, what if the owner of the property did not want to sell to PR?

WELLLLLL... Hansen rushed to say that he had already talked to the owner of the empty parcel about this! Some may think that is enterprising to do so, but what about the areas that then would be affected instead? Would you want your elected official to advocate for something unwanted by pretty much everybody to be moved near you to satisfy another resident or even to help a property owner sell his property for that matter, especially without your knowledge or opinion? Is that a proper role for a Board Supervisor? How about exploring further what is allowed by law and what isn't? It would seem unlikely that the railroad could or would even want to block a private driveway keeping someone from emergency care, don't you think?

Whether Progressive Rail would even consider such a move as spending money on a property when it isn't necessary since it already owns its rights-of-way, is open to question.

The Board designated two Supervisors, Murphy and Hansen to meet with the railroad representatives. Hansen reported at the September Planning Commission meeting that the two who actually went were Hansen and Ceminsky. Since this was a Board designation, I am not so sure it is kosher to change who is representing the Township in this outside of the Board designating again. The three of them should not decide this on their own in my opinion.

Hansen described the alternate affected area as reaching from the tracks from 240th all the way to the Lakeville line. The Vermillion River runs through a portion of this area. Depending on the influence of the River (the exact dimensions have not been discussed at this time), this could potentially affect the property values of a greater area of present and future homes than the area the railroad outlined. Have those property owners been contacted for their input, I wonder? If so, no mention has been made of it.

 The question of whose interests are really foremost crossed my mind. Again, I do not feel that the Township Board should step in as a representative body if the result is now someone else has to view the undesirable rail cars, at least not without a thorough airing of the subject publicly. Would YOU want to be that person that is now stuck with this? And this won't be going away anytime soon or perhaps even ever. 

It's too bad that the opportunity to seek public comment was not made available due to the short notice given by Progressive Rail in relation to its grant deadline of September 17th. The Board will be discussing this further at its meeting on Monday, September 10th.

"...And I'd let that lonesome whistle blow my blues away."