THREE BLIND MICE, THREE BLIND MICE...

The following is amazing, but true!

At the March Planning Commission meeting, Al Novacek objected to an agenda item: Resolution 2015-03. This Resolution is the one Butch Hansen "sprang" on the Board at an earlier meeting. (See previous post "IT'S THE PITS," February 18, 2019.) The Board had actually asked the Commission to further look at some aspects of this matter of gravel pit storage. Novacek claimed that there was nothing further to say and that the Board had voted unanimously on the matter involving a particular pit owner's storage of bagged mulch. (Ceminsky and Hansen had pushed hard on this, even though it does not line up with the Ordinance language! I strongly believe that the Board erred on this one. This type of storage is expressly "strictly prohibited" in the Ordinance.) At any rate, Novacek wanted the item removed from the agenda. Commission Chair Ralph Fredlund stated that he was going to leave it on the night's list of items to be covered.

Okay, so then the Commission voted on the approval of the agenda. It passed 4-1. Novacek actually voted against approving an agenda! I don't think I have EVER witnessed this before in all the years and all the meetings I have attended since 2004! Why is he afraid of even discussing this issue? Why not just make his argument when the item comes up? (This is the very kind of attempt at the stifling of free discourse that I have observed too many times from a certain threesome. My opinion.)


At this same PC meeting when the item came up, Chair Fredlund presented a document that he had prepared on the subject and, after the Commission had a chance to comment on it, asked that the Clerk send it to the Attorney for review. The Commission (or most of them) agreed. Butch Hansen, however, objected to this happening. Board Chair Murphy (the actual Board liaison for the night) disagreed with Hansen and stated that the document could be forwarded to legal counsel. (At the following Board meeting, it came to light that this had NOT been done. Hmmmm... The Board majority then voted to send it to Kelly and Lemmons, the Township's law firm.) Chair Fredlund's request was entirely in order and appropriate. Yet Butch Hansen wanted to stand in its way. WHY? Is he afraid of any discussion as well?

Now move forward to the Board of Canvass Meeting. Under Ordinance, the Town Board is our Board of Canvass. As it happened, three Supervisors attended: Barfknecht, Ceminsky, and Hansen. The purpose of the meeting is to certify the results of the election.

When the subject of absentee ballots arose, it came to light that ALL the absentee ballots were cast for Lu Barfknecht. Mark Ceminsky apparently objected to the County's tally of these ballots, saying he knew of one person who had cast an absentee ballot for Novacek. Hansen then, it seems, chimed in with he knew of two people who had done likewise. Ok, so we are talking about three (3) votes against a winning margin by Barfknecht of 42. Reportedly, it was expressed that Al should get credit for every vote he received. Fair enough.

However, with Barfknecht necessarily recusing herself as the victor of the election, there was not a quorum to certify. So then what? Rather than move to accept the results, the Board of Canvass Meeting was recessed until the following Monday. Again, I don't believe this has ever happened before! Remember, it is allegedly three votes, and wouldn't even change the end result anyway. Those persons thinking they had cast such votes have the option of signing an affidavit with the County to that effect. Novacek could always challenge the count if he truly thought he had any chance of reversing the end game. But we are recessed.

On the following Monday, Tim Murphy was in attendance at the Town Hall. Butch Hansen "refused" to let Murphy take part in the extended Board of Canvass meeting since he hadn't been at the first part!! This is so out of line. I can't convey the level of my dismay and shock at hearing this! Hansen cannot block a duly elected public official from performing his duties! From where does he propose he gets this authority? Rather than create a scene, Murphy acquiesced. (I wouldn't have done the same!)

Would it not logically follow then, that if Hansen or anyone else ever shows up late to a meeting, he can be refused any participation at the meeting? How well do you think that would sit?

At any rate, Clerk Solis reported that she had communicated with the County. The County reconfirmed that the 11 absentee ballots had all been cast for Barfknecht. Evidently, there were some defective and/or late absentee ballots cast for Novacek, but they had to be disallowed as proper procedure was NOT followed. This was the County's decision and ruling.

FINALLY, your election results were finalized! Barfknecht 208, Novacek 166.

Have You Ever Seen Such a Sight In Your Life As...?

Keeping the C/I work group on the rails!

                                          

                                     

For the citizens who are interested in the push for Commercial/

Industrial zoning in Eureka Township!

The Commercial/Industrial work group will meet at the Eureka

Town Hall on Monday, April 1, at 7:00 p.m.

The work group does not record the meeting and there are no 

printed minutes for reference.   

                                           STAY INFORMED!

Town Board Reorganization Meeting

At the Town Board Reorganization meeting on March 21, 2019, 

the Town Board Supervisors elected a Chair and a Vice-Chair

for March 2019 through March 2020. They also addressed

Meetings/Posting/Notices, Financial Items, Professional Services,

Policies and Contact Assignments.

                              
Chair and Vice Chair positions:

The nominees for Chair were Donovan Palmquist and Butch Hansen.

The new Township Chair is Donovan Palmquist.

Tim Murphy was nominated and elected as Vice Chair.

Congratulations! I know the Township is in good hands.

Supervisor Liaisons to attend and represent the Board

at Planning Commission meetings:

Typically one Supervisor attends each Planning Commission meeting

as a resource person. Each Supervisor commits to attend several of

12 meetings throughout the 2019-2020 year.

Mark Ceminsky, Tim Murphy, Lu Barfknecht and Donovan

Palmquist volunteered as Liaisons.

Butch Hansen did not volunteer to act as a liaison at any of

the meetings. When asked if he would like to be the liaison

at the April Planning Commission meeting,
his response was "Not Really."

When asked if there were any months that he was willing

to volunteer for, Butch's response was "Nope."

At a later time in the meeting, Butch stated "All Supervisors

should commit to attending ALL 12 Board meetings."

He was reminded that there are life circumstances that might

prevent any one of the Supervisors from attending. However,

they were elected to attend and would honor that commitment

if at all possible.

                                    

Contact Assignments were made for the following entities:

Airlake Airport:                           Tim Murphy and Donovan Palmquist

Ambulance Service:                     Lu Barfknecht and Tim Murphy

Attorney Contacts:                      Donovan Palmquist and Tim Murphy

Building Inspector:                      Mark Ceminsky and Donovan Palmquist

Compliance Official:                    Donovan Palmquist and Tim Murphy

Dakota County:                            Tim Murphy and Lu Barfknecht

Dakota County Sheriff:               Tim Murphy and Lu Barfknecht

Data Practices:                             Donovan Palmquist and Tim Murphy

Farmington Fire Dept:                Tim Murphy and Lu Barfknecht

Lakeville Fire Dept:                     Tim Murphy and Lu Barfknecht

IT Consultant:                              Tim Murphy and Lu Barfknecht

Professional Services:                  Ranee Solis, Clerk and Deputy Clerk

Roads:                                           Mark Ceminsky and Butch Hansen

Town Hall:                                    Lu Barfknecht and Mark Ceminsky

North Cannon and

Vermilion River Watersheds:      Tim Murphy and Donovan Palmquist

Weed Inspector:                            Donovan Palmquist and Tim Murphy

Wetlands DNR:                             Donovan Palmquist and Tim Murphy

Vice Chair Tim Murphy asked Butch Hansen if he was interested in

serving as a contact person with him regarding the Airlake Airport

as Butch was a contact person with Tim last year. Butch stated "He

wanted nothing to do with the airport."
Road contacts will be compensated $25 per hour for various tasks.

The Direct List of Officers Form will be forwarded by Ranee Solis

to the MINNESOTA ASSOCIATION OF TOWNSHIPS.

The Eureka Commercial-Industrial

Work Group Rolls Down The Track!

On March 20, I attended a Commercial-Industrial work group

meeting. In attendance were Mark Ceminsky, Butch Hansen,

Ralph Fredlund, Al Novacek, Merritt Clapp-Smith, Senior

Planner TKDA and three citizens.

                                     

The following updated memo was distributed by the Planner:

General Project Description: Evaluate the feasibility of

introducing independently serviced commercial and

industrial properties in Eureka Township. If determined feasible,

amend the Eureka Township Comprehensive Plan and

Township zoning districts to allow new commercial and

industrial uses.

Project Status: I (Merritt Clapp-Smith) have reviewed the four

concept zone districts and where they might apply in the Township.

I suggest that two districts - Light Industrial and Neighborhood

Commercial - could be sufficient to accomplish the land use

groupings envisioned. The districts could be written very simply

and include an example of the types of uses allowed, without 

needing to list every type of use possible. Each district would

be accompanied by clear lot design standards, which would

ensure organized and attractive development.

Deciding where to locate commercial and industrial districts

can be based on a number of factors.

Desired condition for commercial and industrial properties:

     * proximity to major roadways

     * access to or ability to provide necessary utilities

     * moderate land costs

     * reasonable site design standards

     * convenient access to/for consumers

Highest and best use of the land:

     * What would the private market want to use the land for,

        based on its location, amenities and natural features?

     * Can the land accommodate a use that is needed and 

        otherwise hard to find in the community, such as

        fertile agricultural soil or aggregate resources?

      

     * Does the land have natural amenities or resources that

        add value to the community or the region and should be

        preserved?

     * What is the opportunity cost of using the land for one

        type of land use versus another?

Compatibility with surrounding land uses:

     * Commercial land uses are best located adjacent to denser

        residential areas, where they have good visibility and 

        convenient access to consumers.

     * Commercial land uses will benefit from public amenities such 

        as lighting, boulevards or sidewalks, making the area attractive

        to visitor, and blending into the adjacent residential areas.

        Commercial uses will seek good visibility from roadways, but

        require good ingress and egress for customers, so location

        on busy highways without protected turn lanes can be a

        challenge.

     * Industrial buildings and properties are often placed away from

        residential uses, or if adjacent, they are heavily screened and

        buffered.`

     * Industrial land uses are focused on production, processing and

        storage, with few consumer visits. they can therefore be located 

        further from population centers and may not need the same

        level of public amenities as commercial.

     * Industrial uses with high levels of vehicle trips, will seek

        locations on or near major roadways.

The Planner advised the Work Group to prepare a map with
land use designations which would be acceptable to the Met
Council. There is no reason to spend time and money on it
if the MET Council will not approve.

The next steps would be a Board presentation with the Planner
present, Public review and an Open House.
                           

My Input from the Annual Meeting follows:

Commercial Industrial work group and TKDA Planner:
There was discussion regarding the proposed $14,000
expenditure to study the feasibility of Commercial/Industrial
zoning in Eureka Township.
A motion was made by Gene Dietz "To suspend any further
expenditures in 2019 for the purpose of establishing a
Commercial/Industrial zone in Eureka Township. The Township
would have a ballot referendum at the 2020 Township election to
give all citizens an opportunity to vote yes or no on further
expenditures to establish a Commercial/Industrial zone within
the Township in the next five years. CUP's for non agricultural
businesses will continue to be processed by the Township
Supervisors as they have done in the past."
Mark Ceminsky stated the Township cannot issue conditional
use permits for businesses.
The motion passed 36-18. 
(See previous blog).

Although this motion is not binding, I believe the Board of Supervisors 
need to seriously consider the above motion and the will of the citizens.

 Election Results, Annual Meeting Highlights and more!

Three hundred and seventy five citizens took the time out of

their busy day to vote for a candidate for Town Board Supervisor!

The election results are:  Lu Barfknecht   208 votes
                                        Alan Novacek    166 votes
                                        Other             1 vote
                  
                                              

                            2019 Annual Township Meeting

The 2019 Annual Township meeting followed the closing of the
polls.  Cory Behrendt was the moderator and the meeting was
conducted with dignity, order, civility and at times a little humor!

The following are issues that were discussed and motions
were voted on:

Security system - Motion to install a security system with
identifiable access with video. The motion passed unanimously.

Electronic access to the file/records room: Motion
to obtain costs estimates for the installation of an electronic
log-in system and record of what access is for. Motion passed with
one dissenting vote.

Commercial Industrial work group and TKDA Planner:
There was discussion regarding the proposed $14,000
expenditure to study the feasibility of Commercial/Industrial
zoning in Eureka Township.
A motion was made by Gene Dietz "To suspend any further
expenditures in 2019 for the purpose of establishing a
Commercial/Industrial zone in Eureka Township. The Township
would have a ballot referendum at the 2020 Township election to
give all citizens an opportunity to vote yes or no on further
expenditures to establish a Commercial/Industrial zone within
the Township in the next five years. CUP's for non agricultural
businesses will continue to be processed by the Township
Supervisors as they have done in the past."
Mark Ceminsky stated the Township cannot issue conditional
use permits for businesses.
The motion passed 36-18. (In the past, Mr. Hansen has "hung his
hat" on motions passed at the Annual meetings. It will be
interesting to see if his commitment continues void of any personal
agendas).
                                                                       

Township Levy:  A motion was made to approve a levy of $679,584
with legal review. The motion passed 36-12.

Motions made and passed at the Annual Meeting are
not binding but will be heard by the Board of Supervisors
and taken under advisement.

Other issues brought forward by citizens:
There was a concern over the length of Town Board meetings which
at times can go past midnight. Many controversial issues are
belabored at the meetings. A citizen suggested a more
regimented approach to business.

Citizens also suggested the Township engage in 21st Century
communication solutions in order to embrace transparency. Mark
Ceminsky stated emails are sent regarding meetings and are
posted on the website. (Looking at the website on Sunday, March
17, there was NOTHING posted on the Website regarding the
rescheduled Board of Canvass meeting on Monday, March 18, 
the Work Group C/I meeting on Wednesday nor the Reoganization 
meeting on Thursday evening. We can do better)!

Jeff Otto gave an update on two issues he explained need urgent
attention that he had presented to the Board and Planning
Commission members at a free 4-hour training seminar he
conducted Oct. 30. The seminar explained what Jeff characterizes
as the single most complex aspect of our zoning, the recognition
and protection of possible grandfathered housing rights and how the
transfer program works.

He first described the need for a comprehensive computer database to
accurately track housing rights, transfers and protection of possible
grandfathered housing rights. He pointed out how the old simple map
approach to tracking transfers is no longer practical now that housing
right transfers since 2013 (originally known as clustering) may
involve small parcels as either sources or destinations because many
small parcels are not even shown individually on the map. There also
are other important pieces of helpful information that simply can't be
represented on a map for lack of space.

Jeff offered to create the database at no cost for his time, including his
analysis of all housing rights and properties in Eureka and then
programming the database for Township use. He is considered our resident
expert on this subject, having been directly involved in all aspects of
researching and writing the Ordinance language, working closely with
our Township attorneys and two study teams. He pointed out that any
consultant would need to be trained and then checked for accuracy, plus
then be given the specs for the database and how it needs to work to
support the Town Clerks and officials. He estimated it could easily cost
$30,000 for a consultant to produce the analysis and computer
program. What he asked of the Board to initiate the project was a fresh
map like TKDA has done for us in the past and a free fresh download
of Eureka property data from Dakota County essential to the analysis.

Jeff also indicated that the database would easily be able to produce a
master list of the status of rights and properties that could be published
on the website. He will make the first available when ready and hopes
that it might be republished annually by Town staff.

The second initiative Jeff advocated is a text amendment to the grand-
fathering portion of the Ordinance to make applying for such status
strictly an option for a property owner and not a status that can be forced
on the property owner. This is because the guideline of the State Supreme
Court Case Law the our Ordinance is based on, it is now realized,
was a protection for sub-standard parcels that can actually take away
a housing right in some situations involving large properties. Jeff
indicated that this actually happened once and must be corrected.
He indicated this will be easy to progress because the research has
already been done and explained in detail to Board and Planning
Commission members during his October seminar when he also
proposed the draft language. Jeff indicated he has a couple of tweaks to
make to the language, but it is basically ready for attorney review and a
pubic hearing.

After the meeting ended, Mike Greco and Carrie Jennings each
approached Jeff with ideas on how the County is now in a better
position to produce maps that may avoid the estimated $1,000 cost
of involving TKDA. Jeff is working with Mike and Mike's working
contacts in the County to make this happen or at least at less cost.

They also indicated that a recent project was completed with Castle
Rock that may heip with our Eureka effort. Jeff indicated he would
follow up on that also, but was less optimistic that this would be of
much help since no township has a program with the rules and
flexibility of our transfer program. The bulk of the time in this
project is the analysis and application of Eureka rules to properties.
Jeff stated a fresh map is a project tool, not the goal for this
project.

Thank you, Jeff, for the time and effort you put into
this presentation for a better understanding of a complex
zoning issue.











                                                                              

                                       

                                                                                               

                                   
                                  

    Eureka Township ELECTION FOR

       TOWN BOARD SUPERVISOR

         Tuesday, March 12, 2019, at the Eureka Town Hall, 

                            25043 Cedar Avenue.

                       Voting 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.

      The Annual Meeting will commence at 8:15 p.m. 

                        YOUR VOTE COUNTS!

STALL! STALL! AND STALL SOME MORE!

Does this sound like a PLAN OF ACTION to you?

If you are Butch Hansen or Mark Ceminsky and the topic is the hiring of a Building Official, it apparently DOES!

This struggle has been on numerous Town Board agendas, even back to over a year ago!

IN A NUTSHELL, Hansen and Ceminsky appear to have a very strong desire to continue to hire Darrel Gilmer, the current (and now outgoing) Building Official.

This in spite of the fact that Gilmer was very delinquent in providing a list of open permits to the Board as requested. (This had been done before his tenure so Town officials -- PC and TB--could keep track of the status of approved permits.) This request was brought up repeatedly by Supervisor Lu Barfknecht, over and over, asking Where Is It? Meeting after meeting went by and no updated list appeared.

This in spite of the fact that Gilmer had submitted documents that had multiple addresses for the same permit number!

This in spite of the fact that Gilmer overbilled the Township almost $7,000 in one month, a fact that was caught only by Supervisor Lu Barfknecht. (Then Hansen and Ceminsky tried to keep her personally out of the audit process of this account with the Treasurer and Ceminsky. She was having none of that!)

This in spite of the fact that other firms vying for the job had much more up-to-date methods of reporting permit activity and were well-staffed with people to call on for various inspections.

How did Hansen and Ceminsky continue to get this put off month after month? 

By coming up with a series of new objections, month after month, to the latest version of the contract. You should note that this contract was thoroughly reviewed by the Attorney early on at the request of the Board to ensure that the Township was protected. Yet Hansen and Ceminsky continued to find "problems" with the contract that they hadn't brought up at the last meeting and continued to ask for new versions for the next month and the next month, thus keeping the Board from closing this out.

By Ceminsky claiming, even though the candidate firm was to sign a contract that included septic inspections, that he had researched and found that the principal used to have a septic certificate but had let it expire. Hello! Remember the staff of people besides the principal? 

By asserting that if the firm under consideration were sold, the Township would be stuck with whomever bought it. The Township is NOT and this was already handled in the contract in front of them that they repeatedly objected to.
In fact, Ceminsky made incorrect assertions on this point, was told they were incorrect, and asked to be shown where the item was covered in the contract. Which he was. A few minutes' of discussion later, he repeated this with the same incorrect objection!

Hansen objected on the topic of subcontractors that might be hired by the firm. The Clerk very politely pointed out to him the section "on page 4 at the bottom: Subcontractors." Now, how does one suggest that he has thoroughly reviewed a proposed contract and then go on to object that there is missing information for a portion when that portion is right there in front of him? I've heard of Selective Hearing before....


Eventually, rather than let this get put off until the April meeting (when the Board might be different) Barfknecht called for a Special Meeting of the Board on the topic of hiring the Building Official. In my mind, Hansen and Ceminsky are responsible for this extra expenditure of taxpayer funds.

At that Special Meeting, Supervisor Palmquist stated that he was "tired" of all this [nonsense] and asked Hansen and Ceminsky WHY they were so dead set on having Gilmer as Township Building Official.

The Board approved the new contract with Inspectron by a vote of three Supervisors. What did your representatives Hansen and Ceminsky do?
                                  THEY ABSTAINED!

Perhaps NOW we can have a Building Official who does not insist that he wants to talk only to Hansen and Ceminsky! What was that about anyway? THE BOARD hires him on behalf of the residents. He is answerable to the entire Board.

Perhaps NOW we can have a Building Official who understands that he does NOT have Zoning authority. One who will not, without any compunction or apparent understanding of the implication of his statement, say to a public official that "80% of the time, what happens on site is not what is on the approved permit application" [that has gone before the Commission and the Board, who DO have zoning authority.] This is how unapproved structures not provided for under the Ordinances can get built anyway.

Perhaps NOW we can have a Building Official who wants to do the right thing professionally and is not punished by the changing political winds, as I view what happened to one individual in the past.

Looking for the Township to BUILD a good relationship with its new Building Official!