THE BOARD WAS LISTENING...

...or at least most of them.

At the February Board meeting, during the public comment section, three people came up front to enter their input. Two of the three were former Board members themselves; the third was a former Planning Commissioner and former Board member.  The three agreed with each other.  The points made covered the procedures going on of late between the Board and the Commission and the inappropriateness of the most recently modified proposed Agritourism Ordinance language.  The language resulted from the changes made by the three male Commissioners, Cleminson, Hansen, and Novacek, despite opinions to the contrary given by Commissioners Barfknecht and Jennings. These details, such as the misplaced inclusion of the Outdoor Assembly Ordinance (OAO) because "it is already on the books," have been covered in this blog recently.

The three people giving public comments gave a reason for speaking up at the Board meeting instead of waiting for the scheduled public hearing on February 17th. That was that all three considered even holding the hearing on what they considered, in part, as nonsensical language (See previous posts) was a waste of Township time and money.

When it came time for the Board agenda item of "Agritourism," Supervisor Ceminsky STILL moved to forward the language in its most recent version to the public hearing.  Discussion followed. Chair Kenny Miller called for a roll call vote on the motion: Budenski- nay; Behrendt-nay; Miller-nay; Ceminsky-yea. (Supervisor Madden has been absent due to health problems.)


Ceminsky, in spite of the fact that he had been promoting and advocating for the agritourism ordinance over the past year and a half or so, went on to move that the matter of the agritourism ordinance not be pursued, or words to that effect. ???!!!
Roll Call:  All Supervisors voted "yea."

You should remember that this text amendment to the zoning code came up as a proposal by one individual person.  When that attempt was poorly done (my opinion), then-Chair Pete Storlie stated that the Board was "going to take this on." That resulted in Storlie's woefully inadequate definition-only proposal. Again, my opinion, although I am certainly not alone in it!

A Task Force was eventually appointed to examine agritourism more fully and come up with ordinance language. Open houses were held. Public comments were submitted.  It was also my opinion given during the comment period that this public input was poorly "examined" and in the case of written, submitted questions about the attorney draft, not at all.

Two of the three Commissioners voting to change the agreed-upon Task Force language to include the Outdoor Assembly Ordinance were also Task Force members. Again in my opinion, this was simply a thinly-veiled attempt to significantly raise the threshold for the number of people before an Interim Use Permit would be required.  The Task-Force-agreed-upon threshold for number of cars was taken out altogether. The inclusion of the OAO had actually been brought up at Task Force meetings (repeatedly, in fact) and yet was ultimately rejected by that group. But that wasn't the end of it as far as the two Commissioner/Task Force members were concerned, I guess. I am not saying that the Commission couldn't make changes, just that it was interesting to me that this significant but ill-reasoned change was still made even after the two had agreed to the Task Force language that was submitted to the Board as the group's work product.

A public statement made by Novacek about wanting to "keep in place what already exists" and exemptions publicly passed by the three male Commissioners for "seasonal, decorative lighting such as Christmas lights" and even "candles in pumpkins! (Cleminson)" made me wonder whether the Township's interests were what was being looked after, and I said so.

When Clerk Mira Broyles asked, "What about the public hearing?" Chair Miller replied, "Well, you'll have to cancel that."

So at least THIS Board listened.

We'll see what the future brings...

NAH NU NAH NU...NAH NU NAH NU....

Did I enter "The Twilight Zone?"  Had I gone beyond "The Outer Limits?" Maybe I was seeing an exhibit at "Ripley's Believe It Or Not?"  That was the surreal atmosphere that I and a few others experienced at the Special Meeting of the Eureka Planning Commission on January 20th.


First, a little background to set this up:

At its December meeting, the Board had directed the Commission to come up with a procedure and an updated application form for the Water Ordinance.  The VRWJPO ceded its authority for the implementation of the Ordinance over to Eureka at the Township's request.  (You might remember that some have repeatedly expressed what many would consider sound reasoning as to why this should not happen. See previous blog posts.) The Board had set the date of March 1st to start enforcing the law.

Because of this, Board Chair Kenny Miller emphasized the need for a timely drawing up of these items to Commission Chair Butch Hansen and suggested that perhaps a special meeting in the month of December was in order.  Hansen indicated that it would be done at the PC's January meeting. Miller said, "Are you sure you can get this done at one meeting so the Board can review it at its January meeting?"  Hansen's reply: "No problem."

HOWEVER, when the January meeting of the Commission was held, Commissioner Hansen chaired a meeting at which the main order of business discussed (until nearly 11:00 p.m.!) was that Perennial Favorite, the proposed Agritourism Ordinance!  The VRWJPO item was on the agenda, but Chair Hansen never got that far, nor did he move it up on the agenda or even indicate to the rest of the Commission the Board's urgency on this matter that had been expressed to him earlier. Hence, no procedure, no updated form. So much for "No problem." So the Board's priorities were left unaddressed. Further, the Commission's work on the Agritourism Ordinance, even at the late hour of nearly 11:00 was still not completed.

At the Board's January meeting, upon hearing of the Commission's failure to fulfill its directive, the Board directed the Commission to have a January Special Meeting on the Water Ordinance (an expenditure of Township $$$$ that could/should have been avoided), and further, specified ONLY the Water Ordinance be the subject of this Special Meeting.. The Board was now left with asking for the procedure and the form by its February meeting.  This does not allow much time for any additional changes and finalization, as that is only just before the start date of the Township's enforcement of this major piece of legislation.

During the January Board meeting it was also made clear when the subject of having another Special Meeting on Agritourism was brought up, I believe by Supervisor Ceminsky,that the Commission was to engage in any further discussion of the Agritourism draft language at their regular February meeting, which was time enough, and not at a Special Meeting. When that language was deemed complete by the Commission, it was directed to send the final draft language for the Agritourism Ordinance back to the Board for its review before any public hearing should be scheduled.

Supervisor Ceminsky and Commissioner Novacek (who was filling in as liaison for an absent Hansen) were directed to communicate all this to Chair Hansen.  They indicated they would.

A Special Meeting of the Commission was scheduled for January 20th.  The Agenda?  The VRWJPO permit process and the Agritourism Ordinance! Hmmmmmmmmm......... In addition, the meeting was scheduled for a time that Commissioner Jennings was not available.  She is very knowledgable about the Vermillion River Watershed and it would have been valuable for the Township had she been able to participate in the discussion.


When it came to the Agritourism issue, the Commission made a number of (what I consider unfortunate and ill-reasoned) changes which I will discuss later. Chair Hansen then went on to say that he wanted to schedule a public hearing on Agritourism!

A member of the audience raised his hand and said that the Board had indicated at their meeting that they wanted to see the final draft language before a public hearing.  Supervisor Ceminsky, as Board liaison, was asked about this.  His response was along the lines of,  "I don't remember that, but this topic has been around a long time and it should get moved forward."

ENTER THE TWILIGHT ZONE!!!!!  Supervisor Ceminsky had been tasked with relaying the Board's directive to Chair Hansen (before the special meeting, I might point out) and now as the Board liaison at that meeting he was actually urging the Commission to move ahead with the hearing? That sounded to me like a Supervisor becoming a Board of One!

I then raised my hand and stated that the first audience member was totally correct even if Supervisor Ceminsky seemed to be having a problem remembering! Well, then Commissioner Al Novacek raised his hand and said he had been the Commission liaison at the Board meeting and he did not remember this directive from the Board either!

The only thing to say was, "Well, then you have a bad memory, too!"

The first audience member then said to Ceminsky, "Mark, don't you remember the Board discussion on this?"  Ceminsky's response was, "I don't remember a motion on this."  (Emphasis mine.) Audience Member No. 1 replied, "Not a motion, but the discussion!  Don't you remember the discussion?" I don't recall that Mr. Ceminsky answered that question.

 Both Ceminsky and Novacek had agreed that they would inform Hansen, but were now publicly professing that they could not even remember their task or perhaps questioning that they even had a task! Citizens who had also been present at the Board meeting and could speak to the matter were simply ignored. So, rather than having a Commission that follows Board direction,or a liaison that communicates the directive properly, do we have a "loose cannon" or two instead? The public hearing was scheduled for February 3rd.  Check to see if it is posted on the website or is properly published as required in the two official newspapers of the Township.

And if you see any three-eyed aliens running around Eureka, ask them if they know who is running the Township!  Tell them Rod Serling and I would like to know!

IS THE AGRITOURISM CLOCK TICKING?

     The monthly meeting of the Town Board was held on January 12, 2015. The following is an update                       on agritourism, IT and the VRWJPO ordinance.                                                          

     Vermillion River Joint Powers Organization Ordinance (VRWJPO): The Township will start administrating the ordinance on March 1. The attorney stated that the Township needs to adopt the summary ordinance as prepared. The Ordinance was adopted and a summary was to be prepared for distribution. The Planning Commission was tasked with reviewing the Watershed Management Relations summary ordinance for any changes to procedures and creating an application form. The attorney stated the summary needs to be adopted before it can be published by the Town Clerk. A motion was made by Miller and seconded by Ceminsky to adopt the summary. The motion passed.
     Supervisor Miller stated to Commissioner Novacek, the Planning Commission liaison, that he was especially concerned regarding the procedures for implementation of the Water Resources Management Ordinance and the application stating the March deadline.  He suggested a special meeting be held by the Planning Commission. Supervisor Miller stated that the Board had directed Chair Hansen to present the VRWJPO deadline as a priority for discussion. Both Commissioners Jennings and Novacek agreed that Mr. Hansen did not convey the message. Commissioner Jennings stated that a draft copy of the December Town Board meeting minutes had not been given to the Commission for their January meeting.
     Supervisor Ceminsky made a motion to direct the Planning Commission to call a special meeting to address the Watershed Ordinance. Chair Miller seconded the motion with an amendment to discuss the Watershed Ordinance and ONLY the Watershed Ordinance. Supervisor Ceminsky accepted the amendment.  The motion passed. The intent was to have a "polished" instrument on the Ordinance and a completed "ready to go" application form to be presented to the Board in February. Supervisor Ceminsky agreed to speak with Chair Hansen regarding the special meeting. Supervisor Ceminsky felt that there should also be a special meeting for agritourism. He wanted to move it forward to get it "off the plate."  He made a motion to allow the Planning Commission to hold another special meeting.  The Board did not agree with this motion and it died. Chair Miller felt the agritourism discussion should take place at the Planning Commission
February meeting.
                                                                             
     FAST FORWARD: Supervisor Ceminsky agreed to talk with Chair Hansen regarding the special meeting for discussion of the VRWJPO ONLY! Chair Hansen, without consulting with the Board, took it upon himself to schedule a special meeting on January 20, 2015 at 7:00 p.m., to include BOTH VRWJPO and agritourism even though the Board directed otherwise. He scheduled the special meeting on a date Commissioner Jennings is NOT available. When the public hearing for Terri Petter was scheduled, it was done around Commissioner Hansen's schedule so he could be present. Where was the disconnect between Ceminsky and Hansen (or was there one)?MAY I ASK WHY? Agritourism is a very complicated issue with the potential of affecting all land owners and future zoning. Who is running this Township? Note: Supervisor Ceminsky, Commissioners Hansen and Novacek's terms end in March. Is there a sense of urgency?                                                       


     IT UPDATE: Supervisor Behrendt stated the web site is taking more time than expected; therefore, the Clerk and Treasurer emails will be set up to be consistent with the web site.The Board will then discuss individual emails for Commissioners and Board members. He expects the web site to be in production by next month. There will then be training for the Clerk and Deputy Clerk.
     The Treasurer requested the purchase of a new lap top computer. Supervisor Behrendt offered to donate
a lap top that would be of a higher quality than the lap top the Treasurer would be authorized to purchase. Declining the offer, Supervisor Miller suggested the Board purchase a new lap top computer.  This purchase was approved. Thank you Supervisor Behrendt for once again trying to save the Township money.

     AGRITOURISM: Commissioner Novacek reported to the Town Board on the Commission's discussion of agritourism at their January meeting. He stated that there were three significant issues that prevented their discussion from being sent on to the Board. He stated that hopefully the language could be addressed at the February Planning Commission meeting.
     At the AUGUST Town Board meeting Supervisor Behrendt expressed concerns regarding allowing agritourism as a use can have different implications in different areas. Chair Hansen attended this meeting. Supervisor Behrendt indicated that the Township has had problems with past issues and to come out and say "it is allowed" might be a form of an ordinance zoning change. Attorney Lemmons stated that he had concerns regarding making agritourism a permitted use because of all the potential uses. If agritourism is allowed, he felt an IUP would be MUCH better. Mr. Lemmons stated the same at the January Planning Commission meeting. WHY DOES THE ATTORNEY'S ADVICE CONTINUE TO BE IGNORED?
   

     Suprvisor Behrendt stated that he would like clarification of what the expectations are regarding the Planning Commission's further discussion of Agritourism at their February meeting. The Planning Commission has been asked to submit their ordinance draft language to the Board for review and discussion of appropriate language PRIOR to setting a Public Hearing.
                                                                 
                                                                         STAY TUNED!

   

THE SKINNY ON THE "PUBLIC FLOGGING..."

First of all, thank you to those of you "diehards" who showed up yet again at the Board meeting last Tuesday night or who may have submitted comment to supervisors on the Carrie Jennings "reprimand" matter!

In a word, the efforts to chastise, reprimand, remove Commissioner Jennings FLOPPED, big time.

This, in my opinion, is due in part to Supervisor Kenny Miller's coming down on the "right side" of the fence and in part to what I'd have to call Supervisors Ceminsky and Madden shooting themselves in the feet.



On the matter of violating policy, Supervisor Miller stated that "we don't have a policy," implying he didn't see how to discipline someone for violating it. He stated yet again that he is "as guilty as anyone else" on the behavior count, again mentioning that he has had to "apologize publicly" to people in the past. (At least he HAS apologized.  Still waiting for Ceminsky to apologize to Behrendt on the Agritourism submission.  Reference earlier blog, "Sweep...") Miller then told Ceminsky "You can throw me (Miller) off the Board!  Go ahead!"

Score one for reason.

Next, a motion was made to "reprimand" Commissioner Jennings on her "ill-advised" sending of her information-only email directly to the Commission in the absence of a Clerk. (Let me repeat, this is NOT a violation of Open Meeting Law.  Period. That was established and voted on--I think unanimously, memory serves--at the previous Board discussion of this matter.  The attorney had backed this up when he stated that there was "no discussion" of Township matters outside of a public meeting occurring in connection with that email, serial or otherwise.)

Supervisor Miller stated generally that he felt a verbal reprimand or caution was enough under all the circumstances. Supervisor Madden pushed for "a formal letter of reprimand to be placed in her file." He was informed that the Township does not HAVE personnel files to put a letter in!  Ceminsky and Madden wanted the minutes kept permanently.  They were told that (in our retention policy filed with the state) Board minutes are kept permanently. Indeed, they are legal documents.  They are posted on the website.  Cloud is forever.

The motion to reprimand went forward.  Chair Miller called for a voice vote. Budenski: Aye; Behrendt: Nay and would like to state something after the vote; Miller: Aye; Ceminsky; Nay; Madden (who had stated that he "agreed 100% with Mark Ceminsky:" Nay.  Chair Miller then stated in a somewhat dazed voice, "The motion failed!"  Madden appeared to ask Ceminsky what this meant.  Ceminsky told him, "She does not get a reprimand."  Miller asked Behrendt what he had wanted to say.  Behrendt said to Madden and Ceminsky, "I think you were confused on what you were voting for."  He went on to say that, "Since the motion failed, I don't have to say anything."

Mark Ceminsky then went on to move that Jennings be removed from the Commission because "she violated the Open Meeting Law."  This motion, seconded by Madden, failed 3-2.  I don't have to tell you who voted how.

Score two for reason.

Ceminsky said he wanted the "recorded minutes" to be preserved.  What he meant was that he wanted the disc recording of the meeting kept and not destroyed once the minutes are approved, which is also part of our retention policy.  (Quick aside:  The disc does not constitute "minutes," Supervisor Ceminsky.  The minutes are the minutes.  Those written, Board-approved documents that you deal with every month.  The recording is the recording.)

The disc will be preserved.  That's interesting to me, because on that disc will be kept forever Supervisor Ceminsky stating that Commissioner Jennings violated Open Meeting Law, a serious accusation. On that disc will be kept forever Ceminksy's and Madden's previously stated positions and then their voting against themselves on the motion to reprimand that failed.  Goodness!




Does this make you, as a citizen, a little unsettled?  If you come before the Board on a matter important to you, will you be reassured that the Supervisors will all understand the impact of their votes before they cast them?

WATCH THE SAUSAGE BEING MADE...

It may not be pretty, as they say, but it IS important!

Among other things, Supervisors Ceminsky, Madden, and Miller will deliberate what they deem to be appropriate "disciplinary action" regarding Commissioner Jennings.  (See previous blogs about people in glass houses.) Yours truly will be very interested in how they reconcile this with their own past actions, and many in the very recent past--as in last month! What will be the rationale?  Will they even offer one?

Supervisors Behrendt and Budenski have already disagreed with the other three.  It remains to be seen if reason can prevail in this matter.

Show your support for Commissioner Jennings and attend the Board meeting. The Board members are there representing you; are they making decisions you would deem proper and fair-minded? Our responsibility as citizens doesn't end at the voting booth, as you know. Let the Board understand that they do not act in a vacuum and that they are making these decisions "in the light of day!" Public meetings are for the public.

                                 Enough said...

     TODAY, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14TH, 7:00 P.M.

SWEEP IN FRONT OF YOUR OWN DOOR...

My mother was known to say that when any one of the six of us would come to her complaining about someone else.  It sure wasn't what we wanted to hear, but many times it was probably appropriate!  There are other apropos folksy sayings I am sure you are acquainted with: "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."  "When you point a finger at someone else, there are three fingers pointing back at you."  There's even one about "throwing the first stone."

Earlier posts have addressed why some of us opine that these sayings might apply to the three Commissioners who formally complained against Commissioner Jennings recently.  Please, feel free to review at will!

But let us turn our attention to the three Supervisors who have since decided that Jennings' behavior merits disciplinary action, a topic that they will discuss at their next regular Town Board meeting. Those three Supervisors are Madden, Ceminsky, and Chair Miller. Even though Supervisor Budenski stated that, "The meetings are what they are.  [Sometimes we become upset with each other.] I guess we can agree to disagree," these three supervisors voted to reprimand Jennings, nature and extent of said  "reprimand" to be decided.  And even though Supervisor Behrendt rightly stated that he has certainly observed others on the Board and the Commission--he mentioned Chair Hansen by name-- engaging in similar behavior as that alleged against Jennings, thus suggesting that there are few without something to think about before pointing fingers, the three supervisors--Madden, Ceminsky, and Miller--forged fearlessly ahead to agree to sanction "the crime."

Let's take a closer look at Supervisor Madden's behavior at meetings. (We do not hold ourselves above scrutiny, but are pained to point out that perhaps others should not do so either.) Audience members have several times observed Madden writing (apparently amusing) notes to the clerk on the back of his agenda, taking pictures of audience members, complaining to the Chair that an audience member "created a disturbance" by whispering to another, and similar such actions.  Maybe it's just me, but I think that he should be paying attention to the topic that the other supervisors are discussing while he is instead engaged in his "antics." If he were engaged in such discussion, for example, I doubt he would be even remotely aware of an audience member whispering to another. (It seemed to me at the time that he might have been just waiting for an opportunity to make an issue out of this as it wasn't the first time he complained about audience members quietly exchanging thoughts amongst themselves during a meeting.) Aren't supervisors elected to inform themselves about various Township issues and engage in a reasoned, intelligent discussion thereof? Isn't THAT what they are supposed to be putting their efforts into during meetings?  Hmmmm.

Recently, Supervisor Madden arrived late to a meeting of the Board. Not a deal, but it was questioned soon after that by Supervisor Budenski as to why Madden hadn't even picked up his information packet or have it in front of him for the matters on the agenda that night. He challenged Madden to right then go out to the file drawer and "pick it up!" Madden's response?  He didn't "care" and "shouldn't have even come to the bleep-bleep meeting."  Did he go to pick up his packet?  No, he did not.  As a former supervisor, I know what effort and time it takes to thoroughly prepare for meetings in order to fulfill one's duty to the citizens, ALL the citizens, whether they voted for one or not.

In spite of all this, Supervisor Madden apparently feels justified in castigating Commissioner Jennings.

Supervisor Ceminksy expressed thoughts at the last meeting that he really felt that "something should be done" about Commissioner Jennings' "behavior." He took exception to statements made by Jennings at meetings and to her alleged violation of policy, as well as to her behavior in general. He said that he has complained before and that "nothing was done."  He neglected to mention that the Township Attorney had advised him at a meeting that he could always file a civil suit concerning the statements whose content he objected to, but that it wasn't a Township matter.

While it is true that it has been verbally recommended many times that sending emails to a quorum of others on the Board or Commission should go through the clerk in an effort to be sure one is not violating Open Meeting Law, Supervisor Behrendt stated that he would like to see that policy.  Where is it?  Can the Board hold someone responsible for violating a policy, even to the extent of taking disciplinary action, when no such policy was ever formally adopted? Take a look at the Town website page under "Policies."  There are about a dozen policies spelled out there, but none that addresses this instance. The fact that Jennings tried to send the "information-only" email through the clerk, but could not because the Board STILL hadn't engaged someone willing to stay in that position to work with them, seemed to be beside the point.  The fact that there was no violation of Open Meeting Law, the important allegation, apparently doesn't mean that Jennings shouldn't be punished for something anyway, according to the three supervisors, including Ceminsky.

Further, in regard to behavior at meetings, I was in attendance at a Board meeting during which Ceminsky alleged that Behrendt had altered the Agritourism Task Force work product submitted to the Board and attorney! When Task Force member Atina Diffley corrected Ceminksy and said that definitely hadn't happened, Ceminsky repeatedly said, "I stand corrected," but could not seem to bring himself to APOLOGIZE to Supervisor Behrendt!  Is that worse than interrupting someone?

Again, at a Board meeting, Ceminsky objected to Supervisor Behrendt's volunteering in offering his considerable professional talents to repair the Township website.  Ceminsky stated that he "wanted to keep things 'clean,'" and had a problem with a supervisor working on the computers for the Township. Was he alleging that something was "dirty?"  Former Supervisor and Board Chair Jeff Otto will tell you that he worked on Township computers both when he was a supervisor and also when he was no longer on the Board, and people were grateful for it!  I doubt Ceminsky had any knowledge of that before he entered his comments.  Behrendt stated that he was never alone in the office working on the computer system and that he would quite willingly withdraw his offer of (free) assistance, and also take back the (free) NEW computers that he had donated.  There's another old saying for that: "No good deed goes unpunished!" Even Chair Miller stated to Behrendt, "You don't deserve this abuse."

But here's a clincher:  When it comes to violating policy-formally adopted policy- Supervisor Ceminsky doesn't need to look very far, in my opinion.  When Attorney Contact Person Behrendt questioned three charges on the attorney bill that it is his responsibility to review, it came to light that Supervisor Ceminsky apparently had acted in a manner contrary to Township policy, the Attorney Engagement Policy.  Under that policy, all requests for attorney opinion or involvement must go through the Attorney Contact Person, namely, Supervisor Berhendt.  NEVER should a supervisor take it upon himself to just give legal counsel a call without permission.  (In fact, a direct call from a "general" supervisor to the attorney is rarely done.  In the past, Supervisor Miller was given permission to do so by me as Primary Attorney Contact in the instance of the theft of Township gravel.  It was just easier and more efficient that he speak directly to the attorney since he had all the details.)

However, Mark Ceminsky made not one, not TWO, but THREE CALLS directly to the attorney, incurring costs to the Township that he apparently had no authorization to do.  Is this worse than not being able to follow (an informal) policy in the absence of a clerk?  Credit where credit is due, Ceminsky did offer to pay for the unauthorized charges, but Mr. Lemmons very charitably offered to withdraw the items from his bill.

In spite of all this, Supervisor Ceminsky apparently feels justified in castigating Commissioner Jennings.

Supervisor Miller stated several times at the last meeting that there "wasn't enough of a violation" of the Open Meeting Law to turn this matter alleged against Commissioner Jennings over to the courts. Correction, Chair Miller, there was NO violation of the Open Meeting Law.  Supervisor Berhendt properly turned the Board's attention to the Minnesota State Statute regarding this.  In fact, he had to repeat these efforts a few times.  (I'm still not sure that all members picked up the distinction he was making.) State law and Township policy are two different things, Supervisor Miller  The Board voted unanimously--actually twice and they were going for a third!-- that Jennings had not violated the statute. The three supervisors mentioned above did go on to vote that there should be disciplinary action taken against Jennings regarding policy and meeting behavior.

Policy has already been addressed above. So let's look at meeting behavior concerning Chair Miller. Remember that the three Commissioners alleged that Jennings was "defiant, disruptive, condescending, confrontational," and even that she would "cause serious harm to members of the Township." Mr. Miller "wisely" pulled back from chairing the behavior part of the Board discussion, asking Vice Chair Berhendt to do so instead.  Self-preservation is a powerful human instinct. Miller stated that he was as "guilty as anybody" and had had "to apologize publicly" to people before.

While I certainly don't contradict his admissions, I have a curiously applicable incident to relate in addition. A few years ago, then-Commissioner Miller became irritated with then-Supervisor Jennings when she came before the Commission as liaison for the meeting. What outrageous thing had she done?  Well, as I remember it, she had suggested that perhaps information he was offering from the 70s and 80s was outdated. I guess her "defiance" bothered him, because he then slung a book at her!  I kid you not.  There are others who were present who will support this. Actually slung the book at her (I won't say "threw") so that it landed with a loud thud where she was sitting.  The truly ironic thing is that the book he tossed her way was the Minnesota Association of Townships Town Government Manual! Well, I ask you!


In spite of all this, Supervisor Miller apparently feels justified in castigating Commissioner Jennings.

Oh, and before I forget, when Commissioner Jennings was informed of the date of this last meeting, she informed Chair Miller that she could not be there because of work obligations. I believe she requested a change of date, but Miller would not agree.  Cory Behrendt, as IT Supervisor for the Township, complied with her request to "attend" via Skype, a service I am given to understand that was not offered by Chair Miller either.  It would seem to me to be a common courtesy that a meeting be scheduled when the person complained against could be present, or her attorney could be present, to hear the discussion of allegations against her.  Would you expect any different?
Supervisor Madden has alleged on a number of occasions that nothing less than THE CONSTITUTION and the First Amendment are being violated on the Township level, even laying this at the feet of Commissioner Jennings personally at the last meeting!  (This only goes to show me that he probably does not understand Open Meeting Law and the difference between a public meeting and a public hearing.  Further, I think not allowing a person who put herself on the agenda under the Board's own policy to even present her concerns comes closer to government stifling free speech than a Chair keeping a meeting moving along.) Granted a Township meeting is not a court of law, but I would think that the Board would understand that perhaps it might be nice if the "defendant" could face her accusers and witness the deliberation of her "fate."


FYI: These meetings to address the complaints, of which there have been two, cost the Township money.  One meeting was a "public hearing" and the other a special meeting of the Board.  Assuming that the supervisors are paid at the posted special meeting rate, that would be $70 x 5, plus $250 for the attorney's attendance.  Thus, there will be a minimum of $1200 expended in this "Salem-esque hunt."  This does not include any work that the attorney may have done outside the meetings, or any "bump" that is customarily given to the chair, at least at regular meetings. Draw your own conclusions about money well spent.

Mark Ceminsky: Term expires in 2015.

Steve Madden: Term expires in 2015.

Kenny Miller : Term expires in 2016.

DAS WASSER, VATTEN, AGUA, VANN, VODA,...WATER!!!

On August 18th, The Eureka Planning Commission held a Special Meeting to ask questions of local "water experts" and officials.  The Commission was in full attendance, with the late arrival of Commissioner Cleminson.  Supervisor Kenny Miller was present for the whole meeting, while Supervisor Ceminsky arrived later in the meeting.  The invited guests were Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization (VRWJPO) Administrator, Mark Zabel, Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) District Manager/Wetland Specialist, Brian Watson, and Dakota County Commissioner and VRWJPO Chair, Mike Slavik.

If I am keeping my meetings straight, Yours Truly was the sole audience member present.  As such, I report to you now, aided by my disc recording copy of the meeting without trying to go into too much detail on a very detailed subject.

Chair Hansen opened the meeting at 7:10 p.m., stating that the purpose of the meeting was "to discuss how hard it is for [Eureka] to manage the permitting process that [the VRWJPO] does now."  He stated that other communities are doing their own permitting and asked if the VRWJPO was "having any problems with those communities."  Mark Zabel replied that the answer thus far was "generally, no," but also that the JPO "has not instituted any strong evaluation program."  They have not been spot-checking permits or requiring any particular recording, for instance.  Zabel said that those elements are what the JPO would plan to do after it is through with the current Water Plan updating process.

Zabel then gave an overview of what would need to be done if Eureka wanted to do its own watershed permitting.  Eureka had previously adopted the Water Plan, he offered, but chose not to adopt the Ordinance, which is the enforceable mechanism by which the standards are upheld.  Zabel said that what the Township needs to do, if desired, is to develop a draft ordinance that meets the requirements of the standards and provide it to the JPO for its review.  Once the ordinance would pass review and be approved, Eureka could adopt the ordinance and the JPO "would rescind its earlier action and vacate the field of regulation."

Hansen then asked, "Would you prefer that we did that?"  Zabel replied, "We don't have a preference. Our goal is to have the watershed standards implemented.  Whether we do it or you do it, makes no difference.  It's just that the standards need to be implemented and they need to be enforced when somebody doesn't do what they are supposed to be doing."

Next, Commissioner Novacek asked, "What do you mean by 'draft an ordinance?'  To what effect?"  Zabel answered, "There are five standards: the buffer requirements, the storm water requirement/the erosion and sediment control requirements, wetland alteration, drainage alteration, and floodplain alteration.  As long as all those requirements are included within the [proposed] ordinance and it meets the level of implementation that we would do as the watershed, then you can go ahead and do it."  "Agriculture is the sixth standard, but that is all voluntary, so it doesn't have to be in the ordinance."

Commissioner Jennings asked questions that went into more detail about Township engineer involvement, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) and staff review, submission of the SWPPP to the Pollution Control Agency (PCA), SWCD involvement in the wetlands, trout stream designation, and so on.  Supervisor Miller joined in some of her questions.
Commissioner Novacek asked, "From the perspective of just some guy building a house, what would be the benefit for [Eureka] to take it over, or for you to keep it.  What would be the downside of either one?"
Administrator Zabel answered, "There shouldn't be any difference. If you take it on, then the VRWJPO would not have to approve the application at its monthly meeting.  The permitting process would be under local control."

The discussion moved on to the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), with Brian Watson commenting on the topic. The responsible authority for implementing the state WCA in Eureka Township is Eureka Township.  The SWCD entered into an agreement with all the townships back in 2002 to do field reviews and to assist landowners with what's required under WCA, and so forth."  (Similar to the agreement with the County involving Floodplain and Shoreland)  This wetland work is covered by a state grant to provide those services throughout all of Dakota County.  Wetland delineation is separate.  Any work above and beyond state requirements would involve a fee for service.

Buffer and setback requirements were next discussed. Wetlands are assessed as to quality which determines the required setback and easement.  In a recent lot split in Eureka, an exemption was met, so just setbacks were determined.  If there should be a subsequent lot split on this property, then the buffer would "be developed, The owner did not have to put it into an easement at this time," Zabel stated.  In  another recent Eureka lot split discussed, the size of the lot was large enough so that it qualified for Green Acres, thus meeting an exemption.  Parcels such as this do not have to actually be enrolled in Green Acres, but must meet requirements that would make them eligible for that program.  (These are exemptions that the VRWJPO agreed to after community feedback to make the process less onerous for "initial" splits.)  Commissioner Jennings asked how this would be done if Eureka would take over the process.  Would the SWCD come into play?

Brian Watson replied, "This is where it gets a little bit challenging. As I mentioned before, we (SWCD) currently get a grant to do work with wetlands-doing buffers on those wetlands. But we (SWCD) would not enter into a contract with any township or city to implement the Vermillion River Watershed standards because we are already under contract with the Vermillion River (VRWJPO).  I would see that as a conflict of interest.  As long as I am doing work that can be transferred to that state grant, that's okay."  He stated that when dealing with the VRWJPO standards then it gets "a little gray," and the SWCD would not be able to enter into a contract with any Local Government Unit (LGU). The grant mentioned provides funds for nearly a full-time employee to work on wetlands regarding the state requirements.  Waterway buffers are a different category.  To this point, the VRWJPO has not yet had a buffer installed.

Most Floodplain standards for the Vermillion are captured by the County's Floodplain/Shoreland Ordinance, Zabel commented.  He said if a situation came up where the County's standards for Shoreland and Floodplain did not apply, but the Vermillion's standards did, then Eureka would have to enforce that.

Continuing to the Drainage Alteration standards, to date, Mark Zabel said, the Vermillion has not yet had a request for such an alteration.  The Ordinance covers "a wide swath" on drainage alteration.  Changing a ditch is a drainage alteration.  There can be drainage alterations which also have a wetland impact, Zabel stated.  Kenny Miller asked about "natural" drainage vs. man-made drainage from the '20's and '30's.  Mark replied that the Ordinance applies to existing conveyances, whether "natural" or historical man-made.  The idea is not to alter, obstruct, or divert the drainage flow so that it impedes the system and possibly causes a problem for a neighboring landowner or neighboring community.  Supervisor Ceminsky asked whether there is cost-sharing for such things as (grassed) waterways for farmers, for example.  The short answer was "yes." Zabel clarified the chain of authority and money between the VRWJPO and the SWCD. Commissioner Hansen asked about drain tile regulations.  Zabel said that currently the VRWJPO does not have regulations for that, but would welcome any input if a change were desired.  Brian Watson said that there have been discussions about drain tile regulations in many venues of late.  It is being looked at pretty closely, he stated.  Connecting the tile drainage to the right of way requires a permit.  Wetlands can come into play. Watson talked briefly about what typically happens, however, whereby the requirement for a permit is avoided or skirted, such as "daylighting" the drainage two feet short of a right of way. Zabel said the same thing often happens in regard to someone else's property.  To drain onto someone else's property would be illegal, but oftentimes, it is stopped a foot short of the line.

Commissioner Jennings stated that, if the Ordinance were adopted, Eureka would be the "eyes on the ground" to detect whether some things are happening that might require a permit that hasn't been sought out.  She indicated that she felt the Township would need assistance with that, however.

Keeping soil at tolerable loss levels on Ag Preserves land was brought up.  Eureka as a township is currently required to do this and should be checking this when an application for Ag Preserves is made.  Because there is a tax advantage, the soil loss is to be kept at "tolerable" levels.  Watson said that there is a model that can be used.  Each situation varies, due to things such as slopes, rain events, and so on.  There has been discussion in watersheds whether it would be better to have the watershed, and not the townships, do the applications and renewals, so that this is actually being determined, and it is not just sort of "an automatic approval."  The various LGUs execute the process in different ways and there are no checks and balance, really.

Mike Slavik stated that it would be possible for Eureka to implement the Ordinance.  Other townships are doing so.  He pointed out that in the next phase, there will be efforts to be sure that there is consistency among the different LGUs. Taking on this responsibility, he said, the Township needs to understand that consistency is important.  One township does not follow one set of rules and another township another.  "We can make that happen; you can make that happen."  As public officials we need to make sure the standards are enforced.  The other thing is that there is a net-zero cost to the LGU as the fees are passed through to the applicants.  Size of escrow is important.  All taxpayers do not subsidize an individual project.  "Do it. Don't do it.  We are indifferent...  We will support Eureka...  Just know that there are expectations.  We are going to make sure that those are consistent throughout the entire watershed...  It's your decision; it's been the whole time."

Commissioner  Lu Barfknecht asked, "What is your background as far as your knowledge with all of this?  How many years have you been doing it?  Degrees?  For us to take it on--your knowledge base is so vast.  You can answer the questions just like that, where we could be here for hours trying to interpret our own Ordinance that we might adopt based on this  What are your backgrounds? How long have you been doing this?"

Mark Zabel: Bachelor's Degree in Geology, hydrologist with the MN Dept. of Agriculture for 17 years before coming to the JPO, I have had other environmental jobs, including a short time with the Dakota County SWCD. Water and land conservation is my life.  I also serve as an elected supervisor for the Carver SWCD, and am currently serving as the president of the Minnesota Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts.  That's why I have some knowledge of state and federal laws and rules.

Mike Slavik: I am in my second year now serving as a Dakota County Commissioner for this area-District 1, also this is my second year on the JPO. Before that I did serve 6 years on the [Hastings] City Council, so I do have experience working with one of the Dakota County communities that is an MS4 (Discussed earlier-based on population triggering different requirements).  I was Chair of the Operations Committee which dealt with many of these issues on public works.  My degree is in Political Science and Public Policy, so I have learned a lot about water and continue to.

Brian Watson: I was born and raised on a dairy farm in Goodhue County.  Have a Bachelor's of Science degree from Mankato State in Natural Resource Management, my emphasis being in Plant Botany.  I have been a certified wetland delineator in the state of Minnesota for 14 years.  I worked with the US Corps of Engineers right out of college; I worked up and down the river on the lock and dam systems.  I moved to a private consulting firm over in Minnetonka and worked primarily on bridge and road design with engineers for 2 years, and I have been with the SWCD for 20 years.

Supervisor Ceminsky asked whether the other townships have had to go out and hire people with these qualifications.  Zabel answered that he understands that they have largely been going through their Building Inspectors. Mark Zabel also stated that the JPO has been holding training and question/answer sessions that they rotate through building inspectors, contractors, and local elected and appointed officials to talk about the standards and the implementation of the standards.  They are currently at the beginning of the cycle again and will set a date soon.

Brian Watson said he would like to weigh in on this topic as he had anticipated the question and

would speak from his wetland experience.  Eureka Township is normally busier than all the other townships.  You have the City of Lakeville knocking on your door to the north; you have the 35 corridor to your west.  You have a lot of different challenges that other townships, such as Hampton or Douglas, don't have.  You have developments that were done back in the '70's and '60's.  In my experience, not just with wetland issues, but also with conservation issues, with landowners with flooding concerns or whatever the issues are, Eureka has more issues than any other township. It gets to be competing interests.  When I look at Eureka ag in relation to the 5-acre, 10-acre homes that are not necessarily in agriculture business, it creates challenges.  Eureka has that more than any other township in Dakota.

Mark Zabel said he is open to questions or emails.  Carrie Jennings asked whether anyone from Eureka was ever involved with one of the JPO's workshops. (I have to put this in here, because Yours Truly is the only person who has actually done so. :-) This was acknowledged by Watson and Zabel.)


The Planning Commission has not yet approved the minutes from this meeting, so one can still request a copy of the recording.