WHY LET THE FACTS GET IN YOUR WAY?????

That's what I said to someone after the last Commercial/Industrial (C/I) "work group" meeting on December 17th.

At the "work group" meeting the preceding Monday, the 10th, the members of the group were asking each other if they could remember what questions had been asked at the Open House. I kid you not. Since the Open House was NOT recorded and evidently no one was taking notes, they were reliant only on their collective recall.

They did come up with some of the questions. For example, they remembered that people wanted to know how this all got started. Also they remembered they heard some of what they took as objections to the make-up of their group. Taken as in opposed to them in particular. These comments they pretty much dismissed as beside the point, in my opinion. (See earlier blog about this group's make-up.)

They remembered that questions had been asked about annexation and incorporation, but responded as they had at the Open House that "That's up to the Board. That's not our task." I guess "we" fail to see the connection or interplay between the issues of C/I and those topics.

They remembered that it was raised that there are entities within the Township now that are commercial and are not being monitored to the satisfaction of the questioner. Again, that has nothing to do with trying to establish more such uses. "That's up to the Board. It is not our task."


What they did not seem to recall were the questions asking them to relate to those in attendance what the Met Council representatives have already told the Township about what would be involved in even asking for consideration that Eureka be allowed to connect to sewer and water. When the question was asked about what housing density might be required to be able to hook-up, they declared that "now you're getting too detailed."  I asked why they were not answering this question when the Township has already been informed of this fact.
Guess that's too detailed, too. No answer was given.


A major point was raised at the Open House about enforcement of Ordinances and how well that might go with these new uses, when the Township seems to struggle with enforcement with only ag zoning. No real answer there either.

One individual made the statement that the "work group" had said they were holding the Open House "to hear from the public." He then asked them to indicate what they were taking away from what they had heard by this point of the meeting. Big silence followed at first. Not sure they knew how to characterize THAT! Or wanted to...



So we have a very faulty recall of some of the most important points made. Did we waste our time?
Novacek said he was "shocked" that their "suggestion box" wasn't stuffed full from that night.

As I later raised to the Board, "If they haven't answered questions 1, 2, and 3, why would an individual ask questions 4, 5, and 6?" There were a lot of questions and very little information given out.

OH! One important thing that Butch Hansen said was that he either has or can get a letter from the Met Council stating that they are going to let Eureka connect to sewer and water. Since making that statement, he has been asked about this a few times in public thus far and all he has said that I remember is that he can get that letter. NO LETTER has surfaced yet. If he has it, why not bring it forward?


Novacek also made the statement that the Township had spent "$30,000" on the last Comprehensive Plan update. When no one corrected that, I said I had to interrupt to correct that "fact." The Township spent $18,000. Divide that by the ten years, and that is hardly excessive to obtain professional help!

Novacek also commented that he "had heard" that the Comp Plan update "was rejected" and had to be resubmitted. He also has heard that set straight a number of times already. It was not rejected, simply more information was asked for. At least Ceminsky corrected Novacek on that one. I added that this was all part of the usual, normal process. Another fact that seems to escape.

Okay, so all that happened at earlier meetings. At this December 17 meeting they had received approval from the Board to invite a planner from TKDA to this meeting so that a proposal with associated costs could be submitted.
(The planner stated, "So, you are a committee..." They responded, "No! We are a 'work group'!" Can someone tell me the difference?)

There were a number of  "misrepresentations" of what has come before made during this meeting:

1. That the 2011 C/I Task Force had looked only at office building uses.

FACT: As a member of that Task Force, I corrected that as politely as I could. ("I'm sorry, Butch, but that's not quite accurate..." and went on to say what had actually been done.)

2. That MAC didn't want to be annexed to Lakeville, it is that we "refused" to give them sewer and water.

FACT: What MAC wanted and has said repeatedly is their interest was to have city services in compliance with their own airport policies. That's what they cared about.

3. That the Menasha building "had nothing to do with sewer and water." That the owners of the property had asked Eureka to build "a warehouse," but were told Eureka did not allow C/I.

FACT: The fact that Lakeville was the only municipality that could give them sewer and water was PIVOTAL to their asking for annexation. This continues to be misrepresented in the face of the facts of what actually happened. Talk to Lakeville. As I have stated before, if the 98 acres (not 87 as was pronounced by a "work group" member; "small" fact but can't get even that right) had remained in Eureka Township, it would still be a cornfield.

What developer is going to sink very significant money into such a structure and have it be serviced by "an advanced" septic system? And what about water?

4. That we want to develop the northern corridor (established/spoken of now by the group as the area they think is best) so we can have the C/I that's "inevitably coming," not Lakeville. "It's coming, so let's get in front of it and keep it for ourselves."

FACT: That putting C/I property along such a border only encourages annexation has been raised so many times, but it is always ignored. It was clear to me that this group may not even yet have read the 2011 Task Force Report. This very point was concluded in that report.

When the planner asked to see the report, Mark Ceminsky said, "I suppose we could find a copy of it around here somewhere," or words close to that. Why don't they have those copies with them at their meetings? HAVE they read the report or haven't they?

Why not benefit from the work that was done before by citizens with professional assistance from Township Planner, TKDA? When Phase I of the 2011 study was completed and the rest was put on hold because of the findings of Phase I, it was determined that if/when the economy improved significantly, it could be picked up again and Phase II would come into play. So why not update the market study that was accomplished with brokers in the C/I real estate field to get an informed opinion of where things really stand right now? How much has that status changed?

Why not do a cost/benefit analysis or fiscal impact study to have some real facts about what this will cost the Township and what is a realistic estimate of what it will bring in? There was also a significant amount of engineering work to be done to lay out the future sewer plan for a minimum of 1,000 acres of various uses, including high density housing. This had to be invested in before the Met Council would consider a request for hook-up to sewer and water. They don't tell you ahead of time that they are going to approve it. They can still say "no, try again for 2040" which is the time at which they have told us they see Eureka getting city services.

To learn more about the 2011 C/I Task Force Final Report and other matters, go to this Township website link.

5. This move to C/I uses and areas has been characterized as a "done deal" as far as the Board is concerned.

QUESTION OF FACT: Do they mean to represent that the public has no (worthy) input about what happens in their community? Are they saying the Board isn't open to public opinion, changes, or recommendation? These are two of your Supervisors speaking...

6. When they asked the (in my opinion naive) question of why would any business want to be annexed to Lakeville when it could stay in Eureka, the planner responded in a couple of ways.

PLANNER'S TAKE: She said that it might be technically possible to service some C/I uses by "advanced" septic systems, but that she wasn't sure that "it would be worth it." Judging from the response from the "work group," I think they missed her point that the business might not find that worth it and would still prefer sewer and water.

She stated that in her experience with the Met Council, she is "not so sure" they would accept a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Eureka allowing these uses. She will look into it further by speaking to the Met Council.

7. I thought the planner was at least mildly surprised when Hansen said at this meeting that the Met Council has told him the Township can hook up to the MUSA. He also stated that the Township has never actually applied to do so.



Actually, the fact is the Township submitted an incomplete application to the Council which it, of course, rejected as incomplete! Hansen has attributed this to the fact that all this was "dumped in my lap" at the last minute. Still doesn't explain to me why he didn't make sure (with the attorney who was to assist) that the application was filled out. I believe the fact is that it simply involved much more technical input than he ever acknowledged or, when informed, wanted to accept. But don't "blame" him!

Hansen keeps pointing out that the interceptor runs along Eureka's northern border, so it would be easy to hook up to it.

The fact that this does NOT make it Eureka's interceptor seems to get by him. The Met Council is in charge of that aspect.

8. As I said above, I corrected something early on in the 17th meeting. And I asked for clarification from the planner about zoning, nonconforming uses and future uses, depending on the way this might be enacted, which she confirmed. It is important that the group understands this fully. Sometimes I think they do, but then again sometimes they say something that leads me to think they really don't.

When a few more things were misrepresented, I raised my hand and had it up for a long time. Finally, it was asked whether they should call again on someone from "the audience." Hansen, who I feel had tunnel vision when it came to my raised hand :-), replied that "if you start that, it'll never end." Of course, I had already been allowed to make two contributions. (Probably because the planner was there.) So perhaps a third just plain wasn't welcome.

I stated that the "work group" had made some "misrepresentations" of facts that I would like to address. I agreed that if the "work group" does not want to hear from a member of the C/I Task Force or a member of the public at this stage, that is up to them. In response, Hansen declared to Novacek, "See what I mean!" There was no curiosity that I could discern about what I felt they had stated inaccurately.

So I ask: Why let the facts get in your way?