KUDOS ALL AROUND !!!

Eureka citizens turned out big time to vote in the election on November 3rd.

The day started with 1,054 voters registered. Sixty-seven new voters were registered throughout the day.

By the end of the day, a whopping 788 people had voted!

Special thanks to the people who staffed the polls for our community:

Election Administrator, Ranee Solis

Head Election Judges, Julie Larson and Mary Ann Michels

Election Judges

Jody Arman-Jones                        Cindy Murphy

Dan Barfknecht                             Bill Pekarna

Laurie Campbell                           Colleen Riley

Mary Dawson                                Sue Rogers

Rich Fott                                        Kris Todd

Ralph Fredlund

It couldn't have happened without you! Thank You!

THE NITTY GRITTY PART TWO: CUPs and IUPs

Conditional Use Permit. Interim Use Permit

Both are grantable permits, that is, allowable uses. If an applicant meets all requirements and agrees to all proposed reasonable, related and roughly proportional conditions to help mitigate any negative impacts, the Township gives the permit. These are considered "quasi-judicial" (as opposed to legislative) actions, and they are the most likely to end up in court if not executed properly. 

Conditional uses are those decided upon and enacted as allowed, but with the capacity for the Township to place conditions such as adequate off-site parking and turn lanes so as to not negatively impact neighboring properties. Arbitrary conditions such as the buildings must be blue are not allowable and can be challenged.

The whole process of granting a CUP is outlined in the Ordinances. See Ordinance pp. 84-87.

Any CUP application requires a public hearing and notification of nearby neighbors. Public hearings require ten days' published notice in the official newspapers of the Township. The Board has also adopted the practice of sending out postcard notices of all public hearings to all property owners to ensure that they are aware of the upcoming proceeding. Newspaper publishing is required by state statute; notification of nearby neighbors up to 1,000 feet away is required under the Ordinances; postcards are not required and are optional.

Some examples of Conditional Uses allowed in the Ordinances are schools, cemeteries, churches, signs larger than 50 sq. ft. ONLY those CUPs listed in the Ordinances are allowed in Eureka. See Ordinance pp. 501-52.  In the past, inquiries have shown that some think that they can obtain a CUP for what they consider a "good idea" although not mentioned in the Ordinances. This is not true. If it were true, of what good would zoning be?

In fact, the Ordinances contain a paragraph that states anything not regulated in the Ordinances is prohibited. See Ordinance p. 52:

E. Prohibited Uses and Structures All other uses and structures which are not specifically permitted as a right or by Conditional Use Permit or Interim Use Permit, including public stables and boarding of dogs, shall be prohibited in the Agricultural District. (Resolution 59, 8-13-2007)

Once granted and recorded at the County, CUPs "run with the land." That is, they transfer owner to owner. They do not go away unless a landowner would request this of the Township. Sometimes, tax issues are involved in this.

Interim Use Permits are very similar to CUPs with the distinction that they do terminate, either on a specified date or at a specified event. The only two IUPs currently allowed in the Township are gravel mining and airstrips. See Ordinance p. 52. Perhaps the clearest example of the termination by an event is the gravel running out on a gravel mine. See Ordinance pp. 87-90 for the process to grant an IUP. IUPs require public hearings and notification just as CUPs do.

If an IUP terminates on a specific date, and the applicant would like to continue, a reapplication can be made and granted.

Any changes to CUPs or IUPs require and amendment process which follows the original process, including a public hearing. 

                                                     

The only way the list of CUPs and IUPs could be changed is by way of a Text Amendment to the Ordinances. Such amendments can be initiated by the Planning Commission, the Town Board, or by an individual. If an individual proposes an amendment, that person is responsible for all costs, regardless of the outcome of the process.

Whether as an applicant or as a neighbor to such uses, it is helpful to understand the ground rules!

THE NITTY GRITTY: PART ONE

I have observed and taken part in Township meetings for some time now. Below are some pointers that may assist you as applicants to more efficiently and more easily accomplish your objective. They are in no particular order. They do reflect some of the issues that have arisen over the years that can result in delays and even unhappy citizens because of those delays.

I hope I got your attention with the dog! Perhaps you'll be able to retrieve this information as you need it!

Please read the Ordinance part that refers to your application before you do anything else. Ordinance 3 is the zoning ordinance that will probably cover whatever it is you are thinking of doing. (Unless it's mining, which is Ordinance 6.) Do your homework before working with the Clerk to submit an application. A basic understanding of what you are dealing with helps everybody.

Eureka is entirely zoned agricultural. There are some areas much more densely developed because they predated the zoning Ordinance. As an ag zone, the density is one single family dwelling per quarter-quarter section, with the ability to transfer in rights up to four houses/building rights per quarter-quarter section. That's the maximum of today.

Be sure to include your site plan with ALL the information requested. (There is a sample site plan available on the website or at Town Hall to guide you.) If you do not include information required under the Ordinance, that means your application is incomplete. The Clerk has 15 days under state statute to notify you in writing that it is incomplete and inform you of what you need to complete it. Since the deadline to get on the Planning Commission agenda is the Thursday 10 days before the meeting, this alone can cause a month's delay. If you turned in the incomplete application the day of the deadline, timing is a big issue. Nobody wants that for you, but we must have all the information. Only complete applications will come before the Commission.

The reason behind this is that the Ordinances, our community laws, have requirements that must be met to be able to grant you your request. No one on the Board or the Commission has the authority under normal conditions to alter these requirements outside of a full-on Text Amendment to the Ordinances, including a public hearing. If you read the duties of the Commission and the Board in Ordinance 2, nowhere does it state that these two bodies can step outside of these laws because applicants think it makes "common sense." 

Some examples of applicants pleading "common sense" have been: 

(1) I want to build a house in a quarter-quarter that is already full (maximum density cap of 4 housing rights, including Pre-1982 Lots of Record rights) because it would "save ag land" and keep my family close together. Maybe so, but to exceed that cap would require an extensive change to the Ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan subject to the Metropolitan Council's acceptance. (Council representatives have repeatedly told the Township officials over time in various ways that they see us as Ag until 2040, which limits density, with sewer maybe coming after 2040. This keeps us open for future much higher density development from the Council's perspective and oversight of the metropolitan area development.)

(2) What if I get my neighbor to sign something saying he is okay with my infringement into the setback for a new structure; after all, it's only farmland next door. The neighbor has no more authority to waive a setback under law than the Commission and Board do. IN SOME RELATIVELY FEW CASES, a variance may be possible, but the problem has to be unique to the property and not caused by the owner or any previous owner. If the way your house is situated because you built it that way and now because of the house's placement, the addition you want encroaches into the setback, you have created that problem. Under state statute, there wouldn't be obvious grounds to grant a variance-my opinion. Your addition plans may have to change.

(3) I want to buy this property and develop it by building more homes I can sell. It makes more sense if we could just move one of the proposed houses over the line into the (already-full) adjoining quarter-quarter, part of which I would own anyway. Same problem as (1) for different reasons.

If provided by the ordinances and all requirements are met, then the citizen is entitled to the use/structure. The Supervisors and the Commissioners actually represent the common good, not the individual. This means the Ordinance must be followed. Our Ordinances have followed proper procedure for adoption, with appropriate opportunity for public input. Because of this, they are seen to reflect the common good, having been approved by our community. So follow the ordinances, and all should fall into place. The individual's request can be honored under the Ordinance and stay in keeping with the common good.

STAY TUNED FOR PART TWO... CUPs and IUPs.

EUREKA NEWS!

 Eureka Town Board Meeting, July 13, 2020

At the Eureka Town Board meeting on July 13, 2020, the 

Town Board Supervisors discussed the following:

Road Superintendent:  A motion was made to engage a Road 

Superintendent to work with the Road Supervisors and the Road

Contractors to evaluate the current road maintenance and repairs 

plan in order to save dollars spent on the roads.

Several people were contacted and spoken with regarding the newly

created position as Road Superintendent.  Mark Henry, who has an 

abundance of experience with road maintenance and was a Eureka

Road Contractor in the past was selected.

The compensation will be $25 per hour with a maximum of 10 hours

per week. Winter will require less time. A reasonable schedule and

parameters will be set. The intent is also to engage one citizen in

each quadrant of the Township to represent the needed maintenance

in each area. Gravel tickets, work orders and costs will be reviewed 

before work is done.

Four Supervisors were willing to give this system a try to save the 

Township dollars, felt it was long overdue and voted yes. 

Supervisor Ceminsky voted Nay!

New Complaints:  A complaint was submitted regarding the Planning 

Commission Chair's dialogue with citizens who attended a Public

Hearing. Commissioner Novacek raised strong concerns and stated he 

does not understand the rules of engagement.

Planning Commission Chair Sauber responded stating that at a Public

Hearing it is important to add facts that will clarify 

any information pertinent to the issue. Chair Sauber felt her questions

and perspective, while being respectful and transparent, were to relate

as much information as possible so everyone understands what the

issue is.

Chair Palmquist commented that it is important to make clarifying

statements. Meetings are not always civil.

Commissioner Novacek was adamant that personal comments be removed

from the minutes.  Attorney Lemmons stated that a public forum is healthy

for democracy. People have a right to express their opinions and should 

be respected. The public can be engaged with a dialogue and respectful 

conversation. It was determined that whatever has been stated by a citizen 

will be recorded. One cannot arbitrarily decided what is and is not recorded.

It was determined that there was no violation of anything. 

Attorney Lemmons stated the Township should establish policies

and procedures that do not violate 1st Amendment rights and statutory

notice requests regarding zoning. The Planning Commission

will review their Policies and Procedures Manual at the August meeting.

Property on 10132 235th Street - The amended Court Order filed 

January 18, 2018, in the case of Eureka vs Terri Petter, was reviewed 

and it appeared that what Terri Petter was proposing to do violates this

Order. Paragraph 1 enjoins Terri Petter and other defendants from 

conducting activities related to ANIMAL exhibition at 10132 235th

street exhibit. 

Paragraph 2 of the Order permanently enjoins the defendants from 

conducting retail sales in Eureka Township at 10132 235th Street 

except for horticultural products produced on one's property.

Upon reviewing the information in the complaint, Attorney 

Lemmons stated it appears Terri Petter intends to violate this 

injunction as well.

Under paragraphs 6 of the order, it states that the Dakota County Sheriff is 

authorized to enforce the Eureka Township Ordinances in accordance

to the Order.

The Town Board authorized the Attorney to send a letter to the Sheriff

providing the information the Township has and request the Sheriff 

enforce paragraphs1 and 2 of the amended Order. This Order

prohibits exhibition of animals. This would include farm animals 

as well as exotic animals. 

Four Supervisors voted yes to enforce the Court order and the Eureka

Township Ordinance. Supervisor Ceminsky voted NAY!!!!!!

Building without a permit - Eureka Township's Building Inspector 

is Inspectron.  It was determined that Darrel Gilmer, who was no

longer the Township's Building Inspector, had NO authority 

to issue extensions for the accessory building construction on 

Mark Ceminsky's property. 

It was agreed that Supervisor Ceminsky will pay a fee of $388 to

the Township and the final inspection will be done by the Township 

Building Inspector, Inspectron.

  

24404 Iceland Path - Complaint regarding running business 

without a CUP. A Supervisor inspection will be conducted initially.

24230 Holyoke - A complaint regarding a pool without a fence which

is required by the Eureka Ordinance. Inspectron sent a letter

to the property address and there has been no response.  Supervisor

Murphy will follow up with Inspectron.

Human Resource Safety Concern:

Chair Palmquist read the contents of a Trespass Notice at the 

direction of the Minnesota Association of Townships and the Township

Attorney regarding abusive behavior. The letter dated June 11, 2020, 

and signed by the Township was sent to Charles (Butch) Hansen.

"Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 609.605, no person shall intentionally 

trespass on the land of another and refuse to depart from that land, 

without legal basis, when  demand to do so made by a lawful possessor 

or the agent of said lawful possessor.

This notice informs you that you are prohibited from trespassing, entering

or occupying the land and buildings located at 25043 Cedar Avenue,

Eureka, Minnesota. (Eureka Town Hall).).

This trespass notice constitutes a written demand to depart from the land

and property immediately. Any violation of this will be considered a 

criminal trespass in violation of Minn. Stat.  609.605.

Any communication with the Town including but not limited to permit

application and complaints, should either be mailed by U.S. Mail 

postage prepaid to the Town, electronically delivered to the Town 

Clerk, or delivered by a third party messenger. If you need to 

communicate with a representative of the Town you should contact 

either Donovan Palmquist or Timothy Murphy. There should be no 

contact of any other member with Town Staff.

This notice does not prohibit you from attending open meetings of the

Eureka Planning Commission or Town Board. However, if you become

disruptive while attending either a Planning Commission or

Town Board meeting, the Town reserves the right to demand your

immediate departure. "

(Information in the above Trespass Order was taken from the meeting

CD recording of July 13, 2020, which can be obtained from the Clerk).

The Town Board does have the responsibility to protect Township 

staff.

COVID-19:

It was stated that the Town Board put great effort into the 

development of a preparedness plan to hold a public hearing on 

June 15, 2020.

Masks were required at the meeting. Planning Commissioner Novacek

refused to wear a mask at the Planning Commission public

hearing. He stated that he believed the masks do not work and the 

masks were "feeding the fear narrative" among the population.

Attorney Lemmons stated that Ordinance 2 dealing with the Planning 

Commission states that rules can be set as to how members are to

operate.  If they refuse to comply with a mandate of the Town Board,

that would be a basis for removing from the Planning Commission.

I believe Governor Walz's order requiring all citizens to wear masks 

in public buildings will satisfy this issue.

(Information regarding this blog was taken from the July 13, 2020,

meeting CD which can be obtained from the Clerk).

    

IT'S TEN O'CLOCK: DO YOU KNOW WHERE YOUR TOWN BOARD IS?

You can see them on Zoom meetings! Until further notice vis a vis the coronavirus, this will be the mode of operation for the Township meetings and even public hearings if there are any. Recently, several citizens have attended meetings in this way. You are encouraged to also attend from the comfort of your own home.

If you are on the "notification list," the Clerk will send you the information for joining the meeting. If not, it is always posted on the Township website. If you would like to be on the notification list for certain items such as special meetings or public hearings or certain topics, just let the Clerk know and she will be glad to include you.


It is also of interest that the Town Board has opted to hold two regular meetings a month-the second and fourth Mondays as a rule. The hope is that meetings will not take so long, "overtime" attorney fees beyond the flat meeting rate up to 10 p.m. can be avoided, and attendees can function well at work the next day! So far, meetings have ended by ten or earlier. The first meeting of the month will generally be the one at which citizen permits and reviews are held.

At the latest Town Board meeting on the 22nd of July, the Board reaffirmed a policy to allow pools and decks to be processed as Over-The-Counter (OTC) permits. This was instituted years ago under then-Planning Commission Chair Mike Greco as an aid to citizens due to the short seasons for such uses. Rather than needing to go before the Commission and the Board at successive meetings, the Planning Commission Chair or Vice Chair, along with the Zoning Administrator (the Clerk) will review the applications for zoning requirements such as setbacks and sign off on them. The permit is then forwarded to the Building Official for inspections, etc. This is a big time saver for citizens.

It is of note that, although classified as OTC, the building permit fees for these structures is based on the Building Official's valuation, per the state schedule. Other more typical OTC permits, such as re-roofing, have a flat fee attached to them.

One type of permit that will continue to come before the Planning Commission and the Town Board for zoning review is for an agricultural building. A previous Board had moved Ag building permits to OTC status; a subsequent Board had moved them back to more review.

At the last Town Board meetings, Mark Ceminsky argued to make them OTC again. It was stated at each meeting that the majority of the Commission believes these permits need to come before both bodies. During the time that they were OTC, an ag building was constructed over a lot line! This sort of error must be avoided. Exemptions from the Building Code for such structures are governed by State statute. Every time a building is incorrectly granted ag exemption status, the Township misses out on hundreds or even thousands of dollars of permit fees!



Under the statute, the land must be taxed as ag by the Dakota County Assessor. It must have produced ag products for at least one year prior to receiving this classification. The building must be used for agricultural purposes, such as the storage of grain, hay, or farming equipment, or the housing of livestock. The public is not allowed to be in the building. Farmers, their families and farm employees are covered for use. If the public has entry, then the structure is no longer considered ag, and the Building Code must be enforced to protect public safety. The State Legislature made this accommodation to farmers, reducing their costs of doing business since the permit fees do not apply. There is a Township fee of $25 for Clerk time and one of $25 for Planning Commission member inspection of setback stakes. There is also an accompanying ag exemption form to be filled out and signed by the applicant, attesting to the structure's use as ag.

Since this can be a weighty matter, the Commission has supported both Commission and Board review to be sure that the statute is being met and any permit fees that should be required in certain instances are paid.

The Board agreed and voted to keep these buildings on the monthly agendas. Since the applicant is receiving an exemption from building permit fees, this is thought to be not too much to ask. It is also less likely that errors will be made with more eyes with oversight.

The May 05, 2020, Planning Commission Meeting News!

The current Eureka Planning Commission met for the first time on
May 05, 2020, after the Town Board appointed Nancy Sauber, 
Julie Larson and William (Bill) Clancy as Commissioners.

Nominations were accepted for Planning Commission Chair
and Vice Chair.  Nancy Sauber and Julie Larson were nominated 
for the position of Chair.  Commissioner Larson declined.
Commissioners voted 4 to 1 to elect Commissioner Sauber as Chair. 
Four votes stated aye and  Commissioner Novacek voted nay. 
Congratulations, Commissioner Sauber.

Commissioner Randy Wood was nominated as Vice Chair. The
vote was taken and Commissioner Wood was elected.  
Congratulations, Commissioner Wood.

ZONING APPLICATIONS: Zoning questions on applications that 
need to be addressed were discussed. The applications should include
setbacks and the use so Permit fees can be charged appropriately.

GOVERNMENT TRAINING:  Chair Sauber encouraged all
Commissioners to enroll in classes offered by the Government
Training Services and other providers.  The classes give a basic
understanding of what government is all about, the history
of zoning, why Eureka has zoning and how the Planning
Commission interacts with the Town Board, etc.

MAT MANUALS: Chair Sauber asked if any of the Commissioners
were interested in an updated hard copy of the MAT (Minnesota
Association of Townships) Manual. The request needed to be submitted
to the Town Board for approval.  Four Commissioners requested a
hard copy of the Manual and Commissioner Novacek declined.

LIAISONS TO THE TOWN BOARD MEETINGS:  Chair Sauber
stated that it has been the past policy that each Commissioner
accept and act as liaison to report pertinent information to
the Supervisors at the Town Board meetings. Each Commissioner
has traditionally accepted 2 or 3 meetings as a liaison.

Commissioner Novacek stated he would gladly take 2 meetings
provided HE is the liaison. However he would NOT do so if the Chair
is there as well "watching over." Chair Sauber stated that that was 
his decision to make. 

Chair Sauber stated that she would never not be at the table if she is
attending a Board meeting.  She would always offer factual information
if the liaison did not clarify well enough. She stated that she would not sit by
and let mistakes be made. Then Chair Sauber stated she would beg the 
indulgence of other Commissioners to also feel free to add anything 
of importance.

When once again Chair Sauber asked Commissioner Novacek if he
would consider volunteering for any liaison dates he stated
"absolutely not."  



Commissioners Wood, Clancy and Larson all indicated that they were
appreciative of the Chair's presence and assistance when it was offered.
The Commissioners discussed who would be taking which months and their
responses are as follows: 

Commissioner Sauber - Will act as liaison to the July, October  and 
February Board meetings.

Commissioner Larson - Will act as liaison to the June, September,
December and March Board meetings.

Commissioner Wood - Will act as liaison to the May, November
and August Board meetings.

Commissioner Clancy - Will act as liaison to the January and
April Board meetings.

Thank you to the 4 Commissioners who "stepped up to the plate"
and fulfilled their obligation as Commissioners.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS:  Regular Planning
Commission meetings will be held the first Tuesday of every month
except for November.  Tuesday, November 3, is Election Day.
The Planning Commission meeting will be on Wednesday, November 4.
A vote was taken to approve the meeting dates. Four Commissioners
voted aye and Commissioner Novacek voted nay.

                                            

THE LATEST EUREKA NEWS!

The Eureka Town Board met on Monday, April 13, 2020,  via Zoom
 at 7:00 p.m.

The Town Board Supervisors in attendance were Supervisor Murphy,
Supervisor Palmquist, Supervisor Barfknecht, Supervisor Fredlund 
and Supervisor Ceminsky.

The Town Board considered the applications to fill the three 
vacancies on the Planning Commission. The three new appointments
to the Planning Commission are Nancy Sauber, Julie Larson,
and Bill Clancy.  

Supervisors Fredlund, Barfknecht, Murphy and Palmquist

voted aye and Supervisor Ceminsky abstained but offered 

no reason.

Congratulations to Nancy Sauber, Julie Larson and Bill Clancy who
will serve the entire community with dignity, fairness and a strong 
commitment.

                                         
The Treasurer, Marcia Wilson, presented the Treasurers Report to the Town 
Board. The following information was included in the report and the public copy. 

Transparency is important and I believe citizens should be aware of how their 
tax dollars are spent.

                           

The First Quarter Payroll is as follows:

SUPERVISOR BARFKNECHT  -   $701.86

SUPERVISOR CEMINSKY   -   $1,214.00

SUPERVISOR HANSEN   -   $544.86

SUPERVISOR MURPHY   -   $415.57

SUPERVISOR PALMQUIST   -   $618.74


PLANNING COMMISSIONER FREDLUND   -   $304.75

PLANNING COMMISSIONER FUNK.  -   $221.64

PLANNING COMMISSIONER LARSON   -   $221.40

PLANNING COMMISSIONER NOVACEK   -   $221.64

Super Ceminsky requested that only a "Lump sum" of the entire
Payroll for Supervisors and Planning Commission members 
should be allowed to be included in the minutes which are posted
when approved on the website. Treasurer Wilson was very
much in support of Supervisor Ceminsky's request.
The Board of Supervisors agreed with this request and stated 
that more detailed information will be available for citizens at the
Town Hall.

                                                 **********************

                    
                                                  
The Town Board met via Zoom on April 14, 2020, to conduct the 
Re-Organization Meeting which is held yearly. The Supervisors
present were Supervisor Palmquist, Supervisor Barfknecht, 
Supervisor Murphy, Supervisor Fredlund and Supervisor Ceminsky.
The Board elected a Chair and Vice Chair, and addressed meetings, 
posting notices, financial items, professional services, policies and 
contact assignments.

The results are as follows:

THE TOWNSHIP CHAIR is Supervisor Palmquist and the 
VICE CHAIR is Supervisor Murphy.

NOTICES: Those that require posting can be found at the Town Hall 
outside Bulletin Board and those requiring publication can be found
in the Sun This Week Farmington/Lakeville newspaper and the 
Dakota County Tribune. The Sun Newspaper is free but a 
completed subscription form must be submitted to the
Sun Newspaper to receive the paper.

TOWN BOARD MEETINGS:  Supervisor Fredlund proposed that
meetings will be held bi-monthly to shorten meeting times, 
eliminate paying the attorney late night fees, make the meetings more
convenient for citizens and allow the opportunity to save money by
piggybacking closed, emergency and special meetings. 
If the Board finds a second meeting is not necessary, the Board has 
the option to cancel. The majority of the Board adopted the bi-monthly
proposal by a Resolution.  
Supervisor Ceminsky abstained.

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES:   
   Kelly and Lemmons Law Firm
   TKDA, Planning and Engineering 

CONTACT ASSIGNMENTS WERE MADE FOR THE 
FOLLOWING ENTITIES:

AMBULANCE SERVICE   -   #1 Supervisor Barfknecht,  
                                                    #2 Supervisor Fredlund

ATTORNEY CONTACTS   -   Supervisors Palmquist and Murphy

BUILDING INSPECTOR   -   #1 Supervisor Fredlund
                                                    #2 Supervisor Murphy

COMPLIANCE OFFICIAL   -   #1 Supervisor Palmquist
                                                       #2 Supervisor Barfknecht

DAKOTA COUNTY   -   #1 Supervisor Murphy
                                           #2 Supervisor Barfknecht

DAKOTA COUNTY SHERIFF   -   Supervisor Barfknecht

DATA PRACTICES   -   Supervisor Palmquist 

FARMINGTON FIRE DEPARTMENT   -   #1 Supervisor Barfknecht
                                                                           #2 Supervisor Fredlund
                                                                           
IT CONSULTANT   -   Clerk Ranee Solis

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES   -   #1 Clerk Ranee Solis
                                                           #2 Supervisor Barfknecht

ROADS   -   #1 Supervisor Palmquist
                                                   #2 Supervisor Fredlund

TOWN HALL   -   #1 Supervisor Fredlund  
                                #2 Supervisor Barfknecht

NORTH CANNON & VERMILLION RIVER WATERSHEDS   -  
                                                               #1 Supervisor Murphy
                                                               #2 Supervisor Palmquist

WEED INSPECTOR   -   Supervisor Palmquist

WETLANDS DNR   -   #1 Supervisor Palmquist
                                        #2 Supervisor Barfknecht

ROAD CONTACT COMPENSATION   -  $25.00 per hour

PLANNING COMMISSIONER AND TOWN BOARD SUPERVISOR 
COMPENSATION   -   NO increase

SUPERVISORS BARFKNECHT, MURPHY, FREDLUND AND
PALMQUIST WERE VERY WILLING TO COMMIT TO AND 
ACCEPT CONTACT ASSIGNMENTS WHICH IS THEIR
RESPONSIBILITY AS BOARD SUPERVISORS.

CHAIR PALMQUIST ASKED SUPERVISOR CEMINSKY IF
HE WOULD BE WILLING TO BE ROAD LIAISON AGAIN. 
SUPERVISOR CEMINSKY DECLINED AND REFUSED TO
COMMIT TO ANY CONTACT ASSIGNMENTS.


The above meeting information was taken from the Zoom meeting!

Our Community Of Eureka Is What We Make It, Or What We Fail To Make It. The Choice Is Ours.

      Congratulations to our newly elected Supervisors!

Ralph Fredlund and Donovan Palmquist were elected as Township 

Supervisors at the March 10, 2020, election.

The Official Dakota County published election results are as follows:

Donovan Palmquist -193 votes     Al Novacek-73 votes   Write in-2 votes

Ralph Fredlund - 206 votes        Write in - 49 votes

Ralph and Donovan will work diligently to understand the complex

issues and challenges facing Eureka Township. I believe they are

dedicated to having a strong and CIVIL Town Board which will follow

the Ordinances and Comprehensive Plan, wisely manage potential

development and future growth, enforce policies and make

decisions based on solid information and not personal interests.

I look forward to a reduction in wasteful spending of our tax dollars,

respect for precious resources, transparency and a strong community.

Thank you to ALL who took the time from their busy schedules to 

vote in this election!

SCUTTLEBUTT

A few comments on the last Town Board meeting, held February 10:

If a citizen has a question about building rights, the best practice is to go to the Planning Commission first, and to provide any pertinent information and paperwork to the Clerk ahead of time. To call a supervisor you know personally and be told to come to the Board meeting for a decision on your question that evening is perhaps not a very productive route to follow, as was evidenced at the meeting.

This topic of building rights can include many facets, such as quarter-quarter density caps, legal details about "grandfathered" lots, transfer of building rights procedure, transfer of building rights history, shared "native" building rights, substandard lot dimensions, etc. The Planning Commission cannot give a "guarantee" that a certain parcel is buildable. It can give you a researched answer if they are provided enough time. Persons who assert that they are looking at a land purchase and thus, understandably, time is a critical factor, might be better served to negotiate the buildability point with the seller. No building right, no sale. It is unrealistic and perhaps unwise to expect a "hurry up" decision on such an important matter. Further, sellers might be advised to explore this aspect before putting land for sale. If the groundwork has been done, the whole process is so much smoother.

It was necessary for the Board to once again revisit the Attorney Engagement Policy. There are two attorney contact liaisons on the Board, this year namely Donovan Palmquist and Tim Murphy. Any other Board member, or any Planning Commissioner with legal questions for the attorney, must go through the attorney liaisons. If deemed appropriate, either the questions can be forwarded to Kelly and Lemmons (Township legal counsel), or the individual with the questions can be permitted to speak with the attorney. It is important to keep the other Eureka public officials in the information loop by cc'ing them on the questions and the answers when received. Such copying goes through the Clerk. The purpose of this policy, which has existed for many years, is to conserve resources and prevent duplication. Great reasons!

When I was the attorney contact liaison, I would have needed a very solid reason to decide that the attorney did not need to be contacted in such instances. Apparently, there is a lack of confidence that such a standard would apply by a couple supervisors who have several times each contacted the attorney solely on their own. This is against Board-adopted policy and puts the attorney in a sticky situation with the rest of the Board if he takes such phone calls from unauthorized individuals. These individuals are very unhappy if denied, yet the attorney will not be paid for such unauthorized time. In fact, the attorney in the past has later agreed to remove items from his bill if he took such calls. He is not paid for such time. A few years ago, one of these same "offending" supervisors once contacted the attorney without permission THREE times in one month!

I truly doubt that any official forwarding pertinent legal questions would ever be denied professional input by the current liaisons. It is also better to give the counsel a heads-up before a meeting so the answers can be well considered ahead of time. This repeated refusal by these two supervisors (Can you guess who?) to follow adopted policy is way out of line in my opinion. At the very least, it shows a lack of simple cooperation among the parties. I think it is disrespectful to the attorney to expect him to take calls that one shouldn't have made to him in the first place. Based on their history of complaints filed by them against others, these two supervisors would be the very first to vociferously and emphatically object to anyone else doing even once what they have repeatedly done! Yet they entitled to act this way? I don't think so!

Similarly, the topic of calling special meetings of the Board was addressed. The blog post just before this one commented on this matter. So-called "emergency" meetings have been called that do not meet the requirements for an emergency and the exception to posting these meetings in the usual way. An emergency meeting can be called for reasons such as public safety. Any reasonably informed supervisor should know this. It is part of training and it is a part of the Minnesota Association of Townships Government Manual. Of course, perhaps one would have to take the training or read the Manual to know this! Calling unnecessary special meetings to deal with non-urgent matters in between regular meetings costs you, the taxpayer, money that could have been saved or spent more appropriately on something else. I do not consider holding unnecessary special Board meetings to be wisely managing Township resources.

It was suggested at the meeting that such requests for these non-regular meetings go through the Chair to the Clerk to enable a more orderly process. The two supervisors who have taken it upon themselves to call such meetings, in my mind arbitrarily, objected strongly to this idea. The suggestion was not intended to give the Chair unfettered ability to stymie other supervisors, but to introduce some reasonable order into this matter, in my opinion. There was animosity in the air. Being a frequent attendee of Township meetings, I am used to this unfortunate antagonism, but I wonder what a first-time citizen attendee might think about his public officials. I'm sure most would hope and expect that the elected officials are cooperating with each other to carry out the business of the Township in a reasoned and responsible manner.

%#@$&
On that topic generally, the "drama" that has gone on at many of our public meetings is unseemly. At the last meeting, for example, Ceminsky and Hansen each used vulgarisms that really have no place in polite conversation, much less at a public meeting. Why do they seem to think it is okay to subject the public to this? Using such language does not impress anybody, does not lend any weight to their points (in fact, quite the opposite!), is disrespectful, and totally unnecessary. And this was probably the least of the unseemliness. Show a little more respect for your audience!!

CITIZENS HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW IF THEIR TAX DOLLARS ARE SPENT WISELY!

Is it always wise, necessary and cost effective to schedule a Special, Emergency, Continued or Closed meeting? 

                                                                                                                         

Regular Meeting

TB $410 flat rate

PC liaison $50 flat rate

Attorney $250 for first 3 hours, then $135/hour

Treasurer $26.25/hour

Clerk $22/hour

3 hour meeting cost $854.75

4 hour meeting cost $1038

5 hour meeting cost $1221.25

Special Meeting

TB $360 flat rate

Attorney $250 for first 3 hours

Clerk $22/hour

3 hour meeting $676

+ $157 for each additional hour

+ $26.25/hour if Treasurer is present

Meetings, other than regular Board meetings, can be called for legitimate reasons.  As noted above, calling Special, Closed, Recessed and Emergency meetings can add a large expense to the budget. Refer to the information below which indicates types of meetings and the reasons they can be called.  Emergency meetings are TRUE emergencies such as could affect life and limb; a bridge or a road is washed out and needs immediate attention.

Of recent times, some have questioned the need for some of the meetings called (but not held due to a lack of quorum) and some of the special meetings that have been held. Were the reasons for calling a special meeting really valid? Data Practices requests are to be dealt with by the Clerk and the Board Compliance Liaison. It is not necessary to spend money for full meetings of the Board to address such matters.

Open permits, which have been on the agenda for certain special meetings, should be handled at regular meetings, in my opinion. Is an open permit that urgent that it cannot be dealt with at the next regular meeting? Trying to call closed meetings on pending litigation is uncalled for if there has been nothing new reported by legal counsel.
Attorney contacts can discuss with the attorney regarding whether another meeting is necessary.

Meetings outside of regular meetings have been called for a number of times by supervisors, not the Chair. It would seem a normal and usual function of the Chair to be the one to do so. Any other supervisor wanting to call such a meeting could certainly discuss this with the Chair for him/her to request.  Money SHOULD NOT be spent
holding meetings of the full Board unless warranted. In those cases, it is money well spent. But when the topic can and should be addressed otherwise through process already established (such as Data Practices requests) holding a meeting of the full Board is a waste of taxpayer dollars.

Special and Closed meetings can be held immediately before a regular Board
meeting to save on meeting costs as long as there is less than an hour gap between meetings.

I believe if Supervisors are prepared for the Board meeting and the agenda items
to be addressed are clearly stated, there is no reason for a meeting to last until
midnight and then be continued to another date. This also requires the attorney is paid additionally after 10:00 and then again for a continued meeting. Very costly to the
taxpayers.

In 2019 I noted there were 11 meetings held that were scheduled on days other than the Regular Board meetings. This includes the Re-organizational meeting, the Round Table meeting and the Board of Canvas meeting which are held after every election. Were
the remaining necessary or could the meetings be held immediately before a regular Board meeting to save on meeting costs as long as there is less than an hour gap between meetings. Another 3 special meetings to be held in February other than the regular Town Board meeting! Two are on the same evening.

Perhaps the Board could adopt a policy that extra meeting requests are either made by the Chair or are made through the Chair.

Types Of Meeting Supervisors Can Request And Under What Circumstance!

 See generally, Minn. Stat. 13D.04, for Notice of Meetings under Open Meeting Law.                 

THE "SUPPORTING CAST"! LIGHTS, CAMERA, ACTION!

At the end of my last blog I mentioned a cell phone video of Mark Ceminsky threatening to call the Sheriff to remove two citizens from Town Hall. Well, there’s more to the story.

When the two citizens arrived at Town Hall, our public building was locked, not allowing anyone to enter. The C/I “work group” was already inside. Presently, the TKDA Planner, Merritt Clapp-Smith, arrived. As the door was still locked, she waited outside, chatting with the two citizens.

Eventually, Butch Hansen came to the door to let the Planner in. He indicated to the two citizens that they could not enter. However, those two citizens ducked under his arm and went in anyway. Then ensued the confrontation. Along with Ceminsky, Hansen is also on the cell phone video telling the two citizens that they cannot be there and they cannot even observe the meeting. Eventually, he told Ceminsky “let them stand out here all night.” He then went into the small room off the lobby. Ceminsky stayed around with his problematic threat to call the Sheriff. He even went out to the vestibule and feigned calling the sheriff, as it appeared to the two citizens. Evidently, he thought he could convince them to leave. When that didn't work, he finally gave up and went into the small room with the others.

The two citizens who only wanted to stay on top of the (unfortunately) C/I agenda-and-results-driven process (instead of an open, welcoming, listening process) went home.

This is how these two elected officials have treated the public. Supposedly their public. Is this the kind of representation that is welcoming and puts serving the citizens of the Township first? I think it is sadly lacking.








Here’s an incident that should make every citizen take notice:

Right after the end of the October Board meeting, a supervisor rudely suggested to one of the two citizens involved in the above incident that she should “just go home!” When I protested this supervisor’s treatment of a citizen, he then turned on me, eventually even resorting to calling me slurs as I was leaving, perhaps thinking I could no longer hear him! But I could.
All this happened to be caught on the recording of the meeting! Who was this “warm and fuzzy” supervisor? None other than BUTCH HANSEN. Unbelievable, yet there it is on the recording!

I REALLY don't think any person deserves to be exposed to that kind of treatment from anyone, much less her own governmental official!