CEMINSKY AND HANSEN CONTINUE TO PUSH THE C/I WORK GROUP TRAIN DOWN THE TRACK!

At the April 2019 Annual Township meeting, a motion was made to
discontinue the quest for commercial/industrial zoning and development
by the Eureka Town Board and the "Work Group." Township citizens
voted overwhelmingly to do so. However, the Town Board has omitted
to address the motion at its Town Board meetings and the majority of
Supervisors continue to engage the "Work Group" in moving the C/I zoning
forward. Whose voice is the C/I Work Group listening to?

                              

At the June 10, 2019, Town Board meeting, the Supervisors entertained
the idea of spending additional tax payer money to hold a
second Open House. This is phase 1 of 4 phases. The Supervisors
approved $2,500.00 for the first phase. The $ amount spent at this
time is $2,471.00. The mailing cost for the One House will incur
over budget spending. The 2nd phase, if approved, will cost Eureka
citizens additional tax money. Butch stated that he had offered to pay for
the mailing. Show me the money! Of course this will not happen
and the tax payers will pay.

A discussion was held regarding this "aggressive mission." The
Planner will attend and answer questions. Even though her
recommendation was to allow only 2 zones, the "Work Group"
insisted the Planner work with pre-described information from
the group. Consequently, ignoring the Planner's facts presented,
which conflicted with the desired answers of the "Work Group,"
the Open House will address 4 zones consisting of an
Industrial District, Heavy Commercial District, General Commercial
District and a Neighborhood Commercial District.

Chair Palmquist suggested inviting other entities such as the
MET Council to be present to answer questions. Butch Hansen
and Mark Ceminsky were quite adamant against inviting a
member of the MET Council to attend. Are they afraid of working
with facts and opinions? If Commercial/Industrial moves
forward, the Comprehensive Plan will need to be amended even
without sewer and water and this will involve the MET Council.

                              
As a side note, the road supervisors addressed the costs to the
Township citizens to repair the Township roads. Shocking!
The cost to complete the gravel overlay needed on the roads
is $33,000 a mile which translates to $1,254,000.00 to replace
the surface of our Township roads. This does not take into
consideration replacing culverts, trees that need to be trimmed or
removed and ditch cleaning which could add another $500,000.
The same Supervisors who are fast tracking C/I zoning
and all its complexities including financial are our Road
Supervisors.
                                                                
Butch Hansen made a motion to approve the Open House and
the expenditures involved. Mark seconded the motion and added
an amendment that the Open House occur within the next 30 days.
Supervisor Barfknecht voted nay, Chair Palmquist voted yes,
Vice-chair Murphy voted yes, Mark Ceminsky voted yes, and
Butch Hansen, who made the motion,
abstained. Why abstain? Does he not seriously believe in his C/I
project?
                                                 
The Commercial work Group Open House will be held on
July 9, 2019, at 7:00 p.m. at the Eureka TOWN HALL.
The TKDA Planner will be present to answer questions.
Please plan to attend to have your voices heard. (Unlike the
first Open House, I have been assured that this Open House
WILL BE recorded and conducted in a professional manner).

Access the following link for information submitted by the
Planner:
https://eurekatownship-mn.us/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/
Open-House-Docs-1.pdf

Information obtained from the meeting CD and includes my
opinions.

ON THE ROADS AGAIN...

First, apologies for my computer "skills."  Following is a screenshot of the road report passed out to the Board near the beginning of the May 13th Town Board meeting. This is the document that there were no public copies of as I referenced on an earlier blog. It was submitted by Mark Ceminsky as Road Supervisor.

You will want to note the dollar figures. 

At the June Board meeting the following information was offered, mostly by the Road Supervisors, Ceminsky and Hansen:

• It cost $42,000 to fix Chub Lake Road. Intent is to add rock and open it.
• Barriers for [either side of the Chub Lake Road] are expensive. Read not feasible.
• We'll be out of money for gravel by July. 
• There is still $68k available for grading.
• These shortfalls could also affect snow plowing in the upcoming winter months.
• Flagstaff Avernue to northern border and 245th St from Essex to Denmark will receive attention. (I believe that this meant more gravel.)

Hansen asked for a vote by the Board to approve the proposed expenditures, or the Road Supervisors "heads will be on the chopping block. This has happened before."

What seems to be misunderstood is that the Board and only the Board as a body can approve expenditures. Period. The Road Supervisors or the Chair should be asking for such a vote each and every time something is proposed for the roads.

What was the outcome of the vote?

Palmquist: aye

Murphy: aye

Barfknecht: no

Hansen: ABSTAIN

Ceminsky: ABSTAIN

The "Road Supervisors" abstain from a vote on the roads? What is THAT all about? No reason was given for the abstentions. Does this mean that only the other three Supervisors' heads would be on the "chopping block" if there is a negative reaction to this situation???

WE THE PEOPLE......DO YOU COPY????

The problem mentioned before with the Open Meeting Law and required public copies of what the Board (or Planning Commission) is discussing at meetings continues.

Under the Open Meeting Law (OML), the Township MUST provide at least one copy for the public of anything printed that the Board has before it and is considering and discussing in a public meeting. This is true except for what the Data Practices Act classifies as other than public. The public has the right to follow the discussion fully and observe the decisions being made. This is what the OML is all about!

Sadly, this has been spotty at best. I have, for a number of consecutive meetings, asked the Chair if there were a public copy of something the Board had before it. In these instances, if I haven't asked for a copy of a document not in the public folder, the public hasn't received it. At the June Board meeting, there were no public copies of (1) the draft airport annexation agreement (important?), (2) the draft language for a resolution affecting parking (especially targeting offending semis) on Township roads, and (3) the materials that will be presented at the upcoming but as yet unscheduled Open House on Commercial/Industrial (C/I) use.

On this last item, you may recall that the "work group" for this consideration of C/I has repeatedly resisted that they should be providing public copies of their materials at their meetings. The Board still has not acknowledged that, although the "work group" is not a quorum of either the Board or the Commission, it IS a quorum of the "work group" appointed by the Board! This makes it a Special Committee under the Ordinances as referenced before on this blogsite. If certain "work group" members such as Hansen, who has been the most publicly vocal about it, cannot see the distinction, I believe the Board should step up and point it out and require conformance with the OML. So far they haven't done that.

Once I received the C/I Open House materials at the June meeting, I still had to ask whether the Township would put this information on its website so that citizens can read it ahead of time and be prepared for the Open House. Chair Palmquist assured those assembled that it would be. I'm left wondering (not really) why the Board members of this "work group" present at this Board meeting (Ceminsky and Hansen) didn't make sure of this website posting themselves!

It reminded me of the time in December/January that the Board received a letter from the TKDA planner in which she presented views/advice contrary to what the C/I "work group" wanted and thought it was getting. When this letter was raised at a Board meeting at the time, Butch Hansen stated that "You (the Board) weren't supposed to see that." Supervisor Barfknecht replied that that was nonsense; of course the Board should see it!  I guess the public wasn't supposed to see it either as again I had to ask for a copy. This December letter was later followed by a January letter in which the planner basically changed the stance to go along with what the "work group" was pushing for. I don't recall exactly, but I'm pretty sure there was no copy of this subsequent letter from the planner either. Do you need a reminder of Hansen's later comments at a "work group" meeting that "She (the planner) screwed it up again" and "She has to go back to the drawing board." I have never heard this C/I group ask the planner for her rationale for the advice she gave. Maybe that doesn't matter to them.

Similarly, you may recall that in the past, during a meeting, Hansen pulled out 5 copies (instead of the 7 as required to provide copies for the public and the attorney) of a resolution saying something along the lines of, "I knew it wouldn't be/didn't think it would be in the packets." (Disc back-up.) This deprived the Board of reading it ahead of time and the public of following along.

At the May Board meeting, Ceminsky handed out 5 copies (not 7) of his "road report" to the Board in which he stated that the Township would need to spend $1,254,000 to pay just for the "gravel overlay our roads need." Since this would have such an impact on the public, why wouldn't a public copy have been provided? Stunning. More on that in another blog to come.


I sincerely hope the Board will raise this issue of OML public copies at its next meeting so the Township can be in compliance with state law.

TEETH OR TOOTHLESS ?

Following is the gist of a public comment I made at the June Town Board meeting:

At the last (May) Board meeting, the Board considered changing the penalty for violating the Ordinances from a misdemeanor to a petty misdemeanor. A misdemeanor carries a penalty of up to $1,000 and up to 90 days in jail. A petty misdemeanor carries a penalty of up to $300. This topic is on the Board’s agenda tonight.

With a misdemeanor, the Township has more “teeth” to its Ordinances. How does that work? If the ordinance is violated, the Township has the option of pursuing x number of days in jail, to be suspended if the violator corrects the transgression. With a petty misdemeanor, it isn’t a stretch to envision a violator happily paying the smaller fine and continuing as established.

How does changing to a petty misdemeanor benefit the Township or ensure that the Ordinances are meaningful? It doesn’t.

The Ordinances would be reduced to the “guidelines" a certain Commission/Town Board member of the past asserted publicly that he considered our laws to be. He was quickly corrected then by another Commissioner. Please do not let his mistake and blatant lack of comprehension become prophetic!

Cities and townships are given the authority to impose sanctions. The “misdemeanor” standard is what is commonly used-and for good reason. Cities and townships often have a “payables” list which itemizes fines for certain offenses, such as $xxx for a parking violation. This expedites law enforcement’s job and I believe addresses the issue reported by Butch Hansen allegedly commented on by the Sheriff. (No deputy in attendance at ANY Town Board meeting has ever made this statement!)

Please consider this carefully and do not act hastily. We have enough difficulty with enforcing our Ordinances as it is.

The Board is still considering this option. Its first response was, in my opinion, a knee-jerk reaction. I suggested that perhaps, at most, some violations could be petty misdemeanors, but others (most) misdemeanors. They have since slowed down to consider this more fully and have enlisted legal advice.