YOU CAN LEAD A HORSE TO WATER...

The Eureka Town Board held its regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, April 8th. There were a number of topics that I think may be of interest to you as a citizen. I will address just one here; more to come.

Your local officials seem to need some education on matters such as following state statutes. When a legal issue is raised by a former official, albeit in the audience, one might think they would at least ask the attorney present at the meeting for a clarification. Didn't happen.

This legal issue involves when an agricultural building exemption can be granted. By action of the State Legislature, ag buildings are exempt from the Building Code. What this means locally is that such an applicant pays a $25 application fee which covers Clerk time to process the application and pays no other fees. There are no inspections as the building is not open to public use. If one truly qualifies for such an exemption, he fills out and signs the appropriate forms. His status as ag is checked by the Commission and the Board on the Dakota County online property records.. Under statute, he must be taxed as ag or he cannot receive an exemption, regardless of what a building might be used for. If he qualifies, he deserves the exemption and should be granted such.

This matter has come up under different guises over time. If one does not qualify as ag and is granted the exemption anyway, this would mean that the Township is out the required permit fees. Yet officials who have been informed otherwise (some of them repeatedly over time and the horse won't drink) don't seem to appreciate that they CANNOT ignore state law however much "common sense" they seem to think it might make! Where is your authority?

In spite of the fact that the Planning Commission had correctly dealt with an application for a pole barn that qualified as an accessory building and thus was subject to building permit fees, Ceminsky and Hansen thought they knew better. It is of note that at the April Planning Commission meeting, Hansen made the statement to the effect that all one has to do to receive an ag exemption is to "prove that the use of the building is ag." I corrected his statement, saying that the statute has to be satisfied. The Planning Commission understood and proceeded correctly.

At the Board meeting, since the use of the structure was to be connected to ag, Hansen and Ceminsky still held that as long as the applicant "could prove that [ag] use" he would qualify for an exemption from the Building Code. Ceminsky moved that the applicant be granted an ag building exemption. The applicant stated he understood the situation, didn't care about paying the permit fees and "just wanted [his] building."  He was fine with it. Ceminsky then openly admitted that it was his, Ceminsky's, move all on his own to grant the exemption, even though the applicant understood he didn't qualify for it. Apparently Ceminsky wanted to give something that wasn't qualified to someone who hadn't asked for it! (Even the Clerk said, "but that isn't what he applied for.")

Part of Hansen's discussion on Ceminsky's motion referred to a small "parcel on Dodd" that had previously received an ag exemption. He stated that he "believes all citizens should be treated equally." Who would argue with that? He, however, in my opinion, seemed to imply that because that parcel on Dodd was even smaller than the parcel from the April TB meeting that did not qualify (both were fewer than 10 acres), that perhaps "favors" were done on Dodd. (My perception. Listen to disc and make your own conclusion.) The problem with his example is that the particular citizen involved in "parcel on Dodd" WAS treated the same as anyone else! This individual had to go to the County Assessor and have his residentially taxed property changed to be taxed as ag as he was using that small parcel and an adjacent 80-acre parcel as his farm. Once that was done, he came back the next month and was then eligible for his ag pole building exemption, which he was granted. He wasn't necessarily happy that this was required, but he did it and received his exemption. Law was followed. I stated all this at the TB meeting, but that seemed to have not made an imprint.

What Hansen and Ceminsky did not take into account, in spite of my stating so, is that the statutory requirement from Statute 326B states that [regardless of size] the property must be classified and therefore taxed as agricultural. This classification is done by whomever is the official assessor-in our case the County Assessor.

Again, no one asked the attorney any question on the statute.




During the meeting, I sent an email to the clerk and asked her to forward it to the Board and the Commission. The email contained minutes I located from an earlier Town Board meeting (October 11, 2016) at which a request for an ag building on residential and commercial preferred property was denied and the statute cited in explanation. This was done by, in the presence of, and with the approval of the Township Attorney at that meeting. See second item under Land Use Permits on page 2.

At any rate, the four Supervisors present at the April meeting voted to grant an ag exemption to the applicant who didn't want it. The proper paperwork for such an application was not submitted or signed by the applicant. Thus in approving this (unsolicited) motion, the Board violated the Township's proper procedure on applications.

Thirsty, Anyone?

The Commercial/Industrial "Work Group" Chugs On!

       The  Commercial/Industrial "work group" meeting
                will be held at the Eureka Town Hall on:

                                TUESDAY,  APRIL 9

                                        7:00 p.m.

     The "work group" meetings are not recorded and 

     meetings minutes are not made available by the

     group!

                               STAY INFORMED!