This is a citizen blog. Visit http://eurekatownship-mn.us/ to sign up for the Township newsletter.

Tuesday, August 29, 2017

LET'S CLEAR THE FOG...OR IS IT SMOG???

Following are comments I made during Public Comment time at the August Board meeting, including the rest of what I wanted to say but couldn't because my three minutes were up. You may find it of interest. I post it here for your convenience.

I have a concern about "WRONG FACTS" being given by some to the public at these meetings.

At the last couple of meetings, the Launch Park First Addition on Cedar Avenue (very large warehouse/office) has been a subject of discussion.

This property was annexed into Lakeville in 2007 at the request of the property owners because they wanted city sewer and water for their proposed development there, services that only Lakeville could provide them.

This fact was correctly asserted by Supervisor Rogers at the last meeting, only to be contradicted directly and vigorously by Supervisor Hansen. Hansen asserted that it could have been handled differently and the property would still be in Eureka. Supervisor Rogers, I, and many citizens, including people in this room tonight (at the meeting), know that Hat Trick (later Launch Properties) wanted sewer and water services and Eureka couldn't provide that for them.


It wasn't for a lack of trying. The Township has looked into bonding, which isn't available to us. The Township offered the owners alternatives to city sewer and water as Supervisor Rogers has stated. This was rejected. It wasn't enough.

The true and unavoidable fact of the matter is that annexation law favors cities. In the end, the best that Eureka could do was to get an agreement that it would receive payments in the thousands of dollars for a certain number of years under the annexation to Lakeville.

It has taken 10 years or so, but the property is now being developed. MORE WRONG FACTS were given at a recent Board meeting. It was stated by Supervisor Hansen, in direct response to a citizen's question, that this development does NOT have sewer and water. This went unchallenged.

Since I knew sewer and water availability was the determining factor in the annexation, I visited Lakeville City Hall last week. I spoke to Dave Olson, Community and Economic Development Director for the City. He assured me that Launch Park IS having sewer and water. In fact, he said,

"We would never have approved the project without it."



I looked at and have a copy of the documents accompanying this property's final plat approval. These documents talk about sewer; they talk about water; and they even talk about the construction of a new street. All of these can be provided through the City of Lakeville and all are at cost to the developer. There are many other details in the documents.

At the public comment from last month it was asked by someone representing a corporation in words to the effect of, "Wouldn't it be nice to still have that property in the Township? Think of all the tax money it would yield!"

TRUE FACT: Without the annexation to Lakeville and all the attendant improvements that a city within the MUSA line can offer, it would still be a cornfield if it were still in Eureka. In a REALITY CHECK, Eureka is not in a position to offer the services that would suffice and keep certain uses, and thus their taxes, in the Township.

BUT THAT'S NOT ALL...

A resolution has also been presented to the Board by citizen Mark Ceminsky, supported by Supervisor Hansen, for Eureka to tap into the sewer interceptor line to serve the airport, the latest annexation dilemma. Just like Launch Properties, MAC wants city sewer and water. Unless Lakeville were somehow agreeable to a proposed Joint Powers Agreement involving sewer and water, which it appears not to be, this cannot be accomplished without annexation. Why not?

In the course of the recent Boundary Protection Study, it was outlined what Eureka would have to do to be allowed to access the sewer interceptor line. We would have to set aside 1,000 acres for higher density housing and other uses, not just commercial/industrial use and do lots of planning work and mapping. That's just one thing.

Perhaps the biggest obstacle is that, even if Eureka were ready and willing to set aside the 1,000 acres and do and pay for all of the planning that would be required, the Metropolitan Council would still have to be sold on the idea that there is a NEED for urbanization to extend into our Township. With all the available land yet open in cities to our north and east, that argument cannot currently stand. We surely don't want to spend large amounts of money preparing a proposal only to be told "no."

THERE ARE REASONS THE MET COUNCIL CONTINUES, AS IT DOES, TO SEE EUREKA AS AG AT LEAST UNTIL 2040. The Council forecasts slow and modest growth here into 2040


On another avenue, Eureka has not reached a population that history shows would even make incorporation as a city financially feasible. That number is about 5,000 people.
Once you are a city, you can no longer be annexed, true, but the County also expects a city to fund roads in a different way than it does townships. Unless the population is at least 5k, we have been advised the tax increases to meet this added cost would likely be undesirably high.

Our Township has done various studies on these matters which have resulted in valuable information for us to consider for our future.


Yet there are those among us who continue to scoff at the studies' results and are ever ready to ignore this information and to tell others that they "have their heads in the sand." (If I had a nickel for every time...) Again, these people seem to want to just ignore the facts as determined by market and border studies and professional experience and expertise.

BUT, you can't just MAKE UP your own facts and expect them to fly! Without sewer and water services, good, high-revenue-yielding development cannot and will not occur. Eureka can't currently provide these services and properties like Launch Park want and need it! As stated many times, "lesser" uses such as open storage, contractors' yards, and truck depots would only serve to occupy what some think is desirable property for the future of Eureka and would obstruct its development in the future as well. In the meanwhile, these uses would yield lower tax revenue than envisioned by many. A really nice home could bring in more taxes!

Please do no let anyone tell you that Launch Properties is not going to have sewer and water. They are going to have it and much more. That's a TRUE FACT.



On a further note, it will be of interest to many of you that, again put forward by Mark Ceminsky and supported by Supervisor Hansen, another proposed resolution (reportedly to be used if the airport resolution mentioned above isn't adopted!) promotes the annexation by Lakeville of all the Eureka land north of 225th Street W. where it abuts the City of Lakeville!


So we've gone from being upset about likely losing the Airport to Lakeville as we have the Hat Trick/Launch Properties 98 acres, to wanting Lakeville to annex all the Township land north of 225th that touches its southern border! Does this make any sense to you? 

In exchange, Ceminsky and Hansen have proposed that Lakeville turn over all taxes for this land (for seven years), agree to pay all involved fees of any sort including engineering, pay to pave all of 225th, shoulder all future improvement costs to the road as well as plow snow from it in alternate years, (with no end in sight)-- also all at no cost to Eureka.

Note that this "resolution" states that Lakeville will annex the property north of 225th. Presumably, this would include the north half of 225th since property lines go to mid-road. (The southern half of the road would go with the properties to the south of 225th, again, presumably.) Somehow, it is envisioned that Lakeville would be okay with all this, pay to pave the road, pay for all improvements to the road going forward, and share its winter upkeep with no end date.   LIKELY??????????

What reason was given by Hansen at a recent meeting for why this would be attractive to Eureka?
...Wait for it...He said, "We'd get rid of all our problems."

 As one of many homeowners on the north side of 225th, I find this verrrrrrrrrrry interesting!



Thursday, August 24, 2017

THIS BLOG SITE SERVES TO EDUCATE!

       THE FIRST 10 AMENDMENTS TO THE
CONSTITUTION ARE KNOWN AS THE BILL
OF RIGHTS AND WERE PASSED BY CONGRESS 
ON SEPTEMBER 25, 1789 AND RATIFIED ON
DECEMBER 15, 1791.

      THE FIRST AMENDMENT


"Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free 
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of 
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peacebly to assemble, and to petition the government
for a redress of grievences." 



             

BITS AND PIECES

A small instrument of various forms and sizes, for boring.

When SCOTTS Miracle-Gro, representing Friedges
Holdings, came before the Planning Commission
on June 6 of 2017 to apply for a new storage/office
building on the site at 225th and Highview, the 
Commission recommended denial of the application
to the Board. Reason given is that the property is 
controlled by the SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 
entered into by the Township and Country
Stone/Friedges Holdings on September 28, 2010. This
agreement, which ended the litigation, does not allow
further structures to be built.

Attorney Clip Art - Royalty Free - GoGraph
Before the Commission meeting, Commission Chair Sauber
asked Attorney Chad Lemmons to confer with Attorney
Patrick Kelly of Kelly and Lemmons concerning the 
application vis-a-vis the agreement. Mr. Lemmons had
consulted with Mr. Kelly as the attorney acting for Eureka
Township at the time of the negotiation and the settlement
agreement. Therefore, Mr. Lemmons was assured in what
he represented to the Board about this property at its
meeting of June 12, 2017. 

The property is limited to the structures and the site plan
that was drawn at the time of the agreement. That is,
the structures are limited to what was present on the site
at the time of the agreement in 2010.

Even though informed otherwise by the attorney and advised
by the Commission Chair that the Board would have no 
legal basis upon which to approve the building application,
at the June Board meeting, this situation was disputed by the
applicant, Alex Allen, and his attorney, Matt Duffy.
The subject was discussed for a time. Audience members 
reminded the Board what they believed had been represented
in the initial building application for the currently 
existing structure and the subsequent agreement after 
litigation. (Now-Supervisor Hansen had represented the 
matter of a new (first) building application for Friedges
Holdings, Inc. at the property in 2005.) Activities
taking place at the operation, both before and after that
building construction, were also described.

                                          
The opinion was put forth that to build another building now
would actually constitute an expansion/intensification of the
use and would violate the settlement agreement. Much time,
much energy and professional assistance were expended on
the agreement, trying to get the best possible conditions
for the Township. It was felt by the Board members at the
time that to let it end up with the judge would likely not
end with suitable conditions from the Township's point
of view were the judge to allow the business to continue to
exist.

The further opinion was asserted that, even if what some
allege was represented in the very beginning in 2005, 
simply putting outside materials inside a new building, 
supposedly reducing noise and dust, were what had actually
happened at the site, this too, would have been an
expansion. (There is a ruling by the Minnesota Supreme
Court to this effect on another, allegedly very similar, case.)
Note that what ultimately did occur at the site was very 
different from what the Board at the time of the initial
building application understood. See minutes from the
November, 2005, Planning Commission meeting, the
November, 2005, Board meeting, the January, 2006,
Board meeting, and the January 18, 2006, Special Board
meeting for background. Be aware, however, that what
is represented in the minutes from these meetings 
contains errors, in my opinion, such as the part about
alteration, not expansion. As stated this is wrong under
MN Supreme Court ruling.

When asked by Supervisor Jennings at the June 2017
meeting if he were going to recuse himself since he
represented Friedges a number of times, Supervisor 
Hansen replied that he would not do so.

After further discussion, the Board voted. Supervisors
Rogers, Palmquist, Jennings, and Barfknecht ALL
voted to deny the application, following attorney
comment.

Supervisor Hansen, in DIRECT CONFLICT with
attorney advisement, voted against the motion to
deny the application.  The minutes did not state he
gave any reason for his vote of "nay."     

                       FAST FORWARD    

Eureka Town Board Meeting, July 10, 2017

Alex Allen, representing Scotts Miracle-Gro, came
before the Board to request a reconsideration of the
building permit which was denied at the June Board
meeting.

The Board members had received in their packet a 
DRAFT letter from Attorney Chad Lemmons
which was a response to a letter from Scott's
Miracle-Gro explaining why the application
was denied based on the Settlement Agreement.
Mr. Hansen requested time to review
the letter (usually this is done in preparation for
the meeting). Chair Barfknecht made a motion to
accept the DRAFT letter from Attorney Lemmons.
The motion was seconded. Supervisor Hansen and
Supervisor Rogers voted NOT to accept the draft
letter. (Why would a Supervisor vote to not accept
legal advice from the Township attorney as a response 
to a letter from the Scotts Miracle-Gro attorney when
this was an issue they were discussing?)

Supervisor Hansen argued with the attorney and 
stated the Settlement Agreement "should have been
drafted better." He was adamant regarding
allowing Commissioner Sauber to submit FACTS
and stated she "was muddying the waters."
He wanted to go on record that "when this ends up
in Court, we are going to lose."

Supervisor Hansen stated "I will make it simple for you;
I make a motion to approve their building application."
When Attorney Norder reminded Supervisor Hansen
that he did not feel that this was a proper motion,
Supervisor Hansen stated "It doesn't matter; I made 
the motion." "The attorney does not run the Township,
we do." "The attorney has been wrong numerous
numbers of times." After boisterous discussion,
 Supervisor Rogers made the motion to approve
the building permit. 
Supervisor Hansen 2nd the motion. They offered
NO facts to support their motions.
Supervisor Hansen stated he "would like to request
a letter from Attorney Lemmons in 48 hours, not
2 months, that he cannot do that."
Supervisor Hansen stated he "would go on the record 
as the 2nd motion.


An audience member asked to speak regarding the 
permit application issue. Butch stated the member of the
audience could not enter the discussion "as it had
been discussed to death for 15 years." He felt the
Settlement Agreement was "foolish" and the Township
should be paid for their fees. He stated "he does not
care what the attorney advised and that he is not the
Mayor of Eureka; that would be us."
(Could someone please show me when Eureka acquired a 
MAYOR?)

The motion failed to approve the building application
which was previously denied by the Town Board.
Alex Allen asked what the next step would be. 
Supervisor Hansen stated "Dakota County at the Court
House." Attorney Norder stated the Town Board should 
not be giving legal advice about anything.

The next step for Scott's Miracle-Gro was to appear
before the Planning Commission regarding an appeal
for a recommendation to the Town Board.

MY OPINION:  The disrespect shown by one of the 
Supervisors at the July Town Board meeting was
appalling!  The attorney's advice was not only
ignored, but defied.  The attorney was verbally 
assaulted.

I believe Supervisors and Commissioners are
to act as advocates for the best interests of the
Township.  When they become advocates for
the applicants, they need to recuse themselves.
This appears to happen too many times at
meetings.

If a Supervisor is afraid of the Township being sued,
embrace the Township attorney's legal advice.
I believe Supervisors should know their level of 
competence. When he/she has reached it, defer to
the attorney for legal opinions and respect them.
I believe it is quite possible that no one on the
Board or Commission is more competent regarding
legalities than the Township attorney. Citizens
pay for this advice.

Supervisors should follow and enforce the Ordinances,
follow policies, make decisions based on facts and avoid
situations such as possible racial slurs or disrespect
to contractors who are hired by the Township.

The Minnesota Association of Townships provides 
valuable workshops on various subjects including
legal seminars. Although Supervisors are not required
to attend, I believe they have an obligation to the
citizens to do so. The Township will pay for the 
workshops.

I thank the members of the Town Board and Planning
Commission who take their responsibilities seriously,
are respectful to everyone, act with dignity and are
professional.

I attended a City Council meeting for a reality check.
Yes, I witnessed, professionalism, civility,respect
for the attorney and guest speakers, and a Council
who came well read and prepared for the issues to be
discussed. The meeting started at 7:00 p.m. and
adjourned around 7:40.  A very pleasant experience.

This is a CITIZEN BLOG!  (Portions of the information were taken
from meeting CDs.) 






                              









Thursday, August 10, 2017

GAG ME WITH A SPOON?!


Well, it happened again!!! At the August 7th Town Board meeting, during the public comment period, Mark Ceminsky got up and commented negatively about this blog. Since he is both a former Planning Commissioner and a former Board Supervisor, I personally would think he should know better than to complain about others' freedom of speech, but I guess not.

It seems this blog is distressing to him. That's okay. He doesn't have to like it. But it can still be here. Never mind that we have been through all this before with him and his "compadres."


This blog, as is often noted herein, contains opinions. It's a blog after all. It also contains verifiable facts. We give our readers enough credit that they know this and they know the difference.


Here are a few other facts that have come to light over time in response to certain efforts to try to gag the blog:

1) A blog is just one of the freedoms we can exercise in this country. We are free to voice our opinions. Government CANNOT take this freedom away from us.

2) A blog is exempt from the Open Meeting Law. Check with the MN State Legislature.

3) There is NO PRESUMPTION OF PRIVACY at a public meeting. Yes, it seems even your name can be used! Shocking!

4) And, no, it is not "illegal" to report what goes on at a meeting! Even before the minutes are approved.


          Sunshine is a great disinfectant!

Each and every attempt (and there have been several) that has been made to silence this voice has been met with common sense and an understanding of the law and, yes, even of our Constitution. Some like to allude to the Constitution frequently, but don't seem to fully grasp the implications of it and how the rights therein apply to other people, all of us, not just themselves. My opinion.



Why does this blog exist? As the title suggests, it tries to "engage citizens in Eureka government." This effort started for a few reasons.


One is that what goes on at the Township affects everyone who lives in Eureka in one way or another: "Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon, and for the rest of your lives." Those of us who have been involved up close and personal over the years have seen quite a bit, some good and some definitely not so good. By the time you, if you are a citizen who isn't tuned-in and up-to-date, become aware of something that directly and adversely affects you and your quality of life, it may very well be too late to help you in your particular instance!



Not everyone can attend Township meetings, of course, but we hope that everyone will try to stay attuned to what is going on in our community. Minutes are posted on the official website, but minutes can be sketchy and not always as informative as one might think. And "Past Administrations" have seemed to me to clearly want to control the message. This troubles some of us greatly. THAT'S when this blog was started!

You could also request a disc recording of a meeting, but it isn't the greatest joy in life to sit and listen to a recording of a meeting that, at minimum, is two hours long. Not when there are so many more pleasant things to spend your time on. :-) But it CAN be eye-opening.

We hope that you will become or stay involved with your community, and hope to see you at meetings soon! Vote. Attend the Annual Meeting in March. Show up. Ask questions. Let the saying "You get the government you deserve" be a GOOD thing for you!





Wednesday, July 12, 2017

IF HISTORY INDICATES ANYTHING, YOU MAY NOT SEE THIS ANYWHERE ELSE...

I placed myself on the Board agenda at the July meeting. I wanted to address what I considered some important flaws in the Board's draft minutes. Since these flaws involve whole sections of Planning Commission reports and discussion being omitted, I place my comments here--JUST IN CASE THEY DON'T SHOW UP AGAIN!!




Good evening, and thank you for this opportunity to address you as a body, since this is the only place I can do that.
I debated some time about whether to come before the Board with this. I do not like spending my time as a Planning Commissioner or as that body's Chair in this way. However, I would not be saying this here and now if the draft minutes of the May Board meeting and the Roundtable meeting had not (as it appears to me at least) been written selectively, resulting in an unjust circumstance.


At the May Board meeting, there were two citizens who spoke during the public comment period. I felt that their comments were incorrect and misleading. Since I was giving the PC Liaison report that night, I did not respond during the public comment period, but instead gave a very full and responsive report and explanation of the Commission's stance on the matters raised at the comment time.

In reading the draft minutes, the two citizens' remarks were there in what I consider misleading detail. My full report? It was reduced to one non-informative line: "Planning Commission Chair Nancy Sauber provided a summary of the May 2, 2017, Planning Commission meeting." What I had stated during my report was important and specific and shed light on the various matters. Yet NO details at all were given.


Again, the draft minutes of the Roundtable Meeting held no report of the various Commission comments and discussion. Those comments and discussion were pertinent to the agenda and were brought up for good reason. The minutes say only "Nancy Sauber initiated discussion on the following" with just a list of the Commission's requested agenda items for that meeting. So the minutes held no more information than the agenda.


Why are some voices virtually silenced in effect, while others' opinions based at best on incorrect information are reported? Is this giving citizens a fair and correct understanding of what happened at a meeting? The Township should not be editorializing by omission!

The Planning Commission has a say in the Roundtable meeting minutes as it is a joint meeting. The Board deals with its own minutes, but surely including detail from the Commission report, details that show reasoning for decisions and/or responses to unfounded allegations concerning those decisions is the honest and proper thing to do! I believe the Board recognizes the value of the Commission's report. It ought to be included in the accounting of the meeting.

Here are some details I would like to see included in tonight's minutes:

1) At the May Board meeting, a citizen stated he felt the issue regarding a building right was "being delayed" as the Board of Supervisors unanimously acknowledged the applicants had a building right at the March Town Board meeting.

What he failed to note was that that acknowledgement was, by Board motion, subject to documentation being provided. The attorney also made this important point during the May meeting, but that did not appear in the minutes either. The Commission was working with the attorney on this documentation so that correct procedure would be followed per the Board's own motion. At no time was the intent to be obstructionist!

2) This same citizen claimed the intent or purpose of the ordinances at a public hearing was unclear and "there was no regard for public comment." This is not true. The intent of protecting property rights and welfare is obvious. The reason for the agricultural and horticultural language was explained. There was plenty of regard for public comment. The Commission listened respectfully to each speaker and the points made. Some adjustments to the ordinance language were made where deemed appropriate based on that input.

This citizen stated "we had someone from__________(a well-known Eureka business) there."
Yes, that person was present at the hearing and the ensuing Commission meeting when discussion of the hearing took place. She did not make any comment or ask even one question. Apparently the proposed ordinance language was clear to her and she had no objection to it.

There was a person who spoke at the public hearing who said he had no problem with the language and that he believed it provided a benefit. How did our public commentator "regard" that individual's input? He said the individual "must have been confused."
When it was questioned and the attorney advised four instead of three opportunities for ordinance language comment, the Commission did exactly that and made every effort to follow protocol and to assure that all in attendance had every opportunity and all the time they needed to be heard.

3) The second individual giving public comment at the May Board meeting asked why "Eureka didn't have a culture of helping people" and noted that "personal attacks" must stop.

The Commission bent over backward trying to help the applicants I believe he referred to, giving up meeting preparation time and personal time. As noted at the Roundtable, the Commission's and the Board's job is not to "problem solve" but to explain and clarify the ordinance and procedures. That is what was done.

When directed first to the Clerks, the applicants indicated that the Clerks did not have the information necessary.
Two Commissioners subsequently met with the applicants when the Clerk asked for their help at Town Hall, and explained what can be a confusing procedure to them. When the applicants said they were confused, the answer was, well, it can be confusing; let me go through it again for you. The procedure was explained patiently and multiple times. For example, it was explained how an undeveloped building right would exist and how applicants would have to ask the involved landowner if such a particular right were for sale. The applicants asked for a list of building rights for sale in the Township. I told them that such a list does not exist, that this is a private transaction, and invited them to stay and check the Township map for undeveloped quarter-quarters and building right possibilities.

Actually this transfer procedure was outlined expressly to keep the Township out of personal details. Neither I nor any other Commissioner should be filling out applicants' forms for them. That is not appropriate.

When I was asked a question by the applicant that required a substantive response, I said we would have to deal with that at a meeting as a body. This apparently made the applicant unhappy as she challenged this reply. I then explained the history and the Township policy on not speaking for the body as just one person. At all times, the Commission tries to follow policy. Applicants need to understand that.

4) Regarding the public comment about "personal attacks," I can only imagine what might have been represented to this individual. I do know that I did not receive the courtesy of a call to hear my explanation of the full background before he made his public comments.
 5) This second citizen stated that the Commission should work with the attorney on building rights. That is exactly what we did. Again, he did not call me for clarification although the landowner referenced did and he and I had a productive conversation.


6) When an applicant stated a procedure took 8 months, please note that they appeared at a meeting, maybe two, several phone calls were exchanged, ending in a building right sale falling through. Then the Commission heard nothing from them for the next 4 or 5 months-their choice. Then they came in again in the spring and it was finalized. To say it took 8 months is wrong.


Citizen applications continue to be submitted to the Planning Commission with mistakes or void of site plans or other information necessary to process the application. This is not just occasionally, but on a regular basis, unfortunately.  The Clerks need to be very familiar with the ordinances and policies. I am looking for solutions. If it is a matter of not having enough time to review the applications, perhaps the Board might consider authorizing more hours. 

It is not beneficial to citizens to allow them to come before the Commission only to hear that they have not submitted the required information to recommend approval of those applications. When a citizen submits an application and it is accepted, he would have no reason to think it is incomplete if he is not told that right away so he can complete it. The applicant most likely believes he is "all set" for the Commission meeting. I would. Too often applicants are not "all set." This cannot continue; it is not good procedure.

Are too many people giving information to the Clerks? Information that is not correct? Perhaps the Clerks should consult with the Chairs of the two bodies or the Vice Chairs if the Chairs are not available.

The accuracy and completeness of the minutes is absolutely necessary. The citizens who are unable to attend the meetings count on accurate and detailed minutes as a resource for information of issues of concern in the Township. The minutes are the official records of the meetings for the Township. They can and have been referred to in court proceedings, for example. This is no light matter.


Last, if I may offer my opinion, I think that government ought to be wary if its different components and bodies are pitted against each other for another's purpose and should react accordingly and be supportive of each other, which I will continue to try to do.

Monday, April 10, 2017

AIRPORT TRIVIA, ANYONE?





MARCH 27th: A meeting was held at Lakeville City Hall regarding the Airport LTCP---Long-Term Comprehensive Plan---Update. Neil Ralston, Airport Planner from MAC, presented the most recent information regarding the airport's future.

There were special meetings of both the PC and the TB called and posted by the Clerk. Commissioner Ralph Fredlund, Sherri Buss, and Commission Chair Nancy Sauber attended. There was not a quorum of the PC, so no "meeting" actually held. Cost for Sherri to attend still accommodated in budget of Boundary Protection Study.The airport is late doing its update and this is currently reflected in Eureka's Comprehensive Plan Update. The communication about this meeting came from Neil Ralston in response to Buss' second reminder of the Eureka Comp Plan review request to all affected jurisdictions.

In addition to a PowerPoint presentation, the following comments were made, mostly by Neil Ralston, A.A.E., airport planner:

*Do not see the role of the airport changing over the next 20-year period. They want to make improvements so that it can operate more efficiently. Need longer runway for small jets. 

* Need more apron to park aircraft.

* Existing land use "grandfathered in."

* In 2008, looked at a 5,000' runway. Would have cost $8-9 million, not including land acquisition costs.

* FAA does not want public roads in the protection zones. If move a public roadway, FAA says have to move it out of the protection zone entirely. Some discussion about whether there might be a way around this or not.


*When Cedar Avenue goes to 4 lanes, Cedar could be rerouted or even tunneled under. 

* Brian Sorenson, P.E., Assistant County Engineer, said County does not see Cedar going to 4 lanes at least through 2030. 20-yr forecasts do not expand it.

* If a railroad car is on the railroad tracks it is too high for airport. $5 million to move Railroad is not feasible.

* If were to relocate Cedar, it would cost $ 16-20 million, not including land acquisition.

* White Point Flight Services says there is a growing demand for business aviation in the south metro. Without increasing the runway, this is not likely to increase at AirLake.



* Slowdown in operations from projections due to 9-11, recession, and high fuel prices.

*  2035 forecast of 36-38,000 operations; although about the same as current level of operations, does include more jet traffic, proportionally. 

*The business/jet traffic would be taking up the slack from the reduction in recreational traffic.

* Small prop aircraft is not just recreational. Some are used for business because they are faster and longer range.

* MN State Statute-can't expand minor (< 5,000') w/o law.

* If AirLake is able to handle more business traffic, businesses would not have to go to Flying Cloud to get passengers and more fuel before going to, say, Kansas City.

*Extend runway 270' to NW and 480' to south. The runway will not be used in the same way in both directions; i.e., take-offs and landings. Landings will be about same place as are now. Take-offs could originate from the NW end of the runway as well.

* Do not want to study alterations to Cedar Avenue right now.

* 225th paved from just before Hamburg east to Cedar. Used terms like "our intent" and "likely" (Gary Schmidt) No firm commitment.

* $ 5.5-6 million includes repave runway. Much less than relocating Cedar.


* These improvements will add layers of complexity to airport use and pilots will have to be educated.

* FAA will approve with Cedar in same place.

* Would like to see Joint Airport Zoning Board with adjacent municipalities.

* Tributary to Vermillion River needs to be addressed.

* Add red lights on some hangars. They wouldn't be allowed there now.

* Clients want more access for hangars in the southern area. The airport hangars are currently full.

* There has been some displacement due to number of aircraft in a particular hangar. Could have gone from 3 or 4 down to one.

* No restriction on use in industrial park except for one little corner.

* Have money. It could happen in 2022, but may not.

* 45-day review period during June/July. Notice in local newspapers for Lakeville and Eureka for public comment and questions. Postcards to airport "neighbors." Asked at what distance? Answer-look to Eureka for help with that. Recommended holding one meeting at Eureka Town Hall.

*Met Council will review for "consistency."

* Need to determine engineering for the relocation of 225th St. W. Dakota County P.E. said they would be willing to work with Township Engineer.

* Intend to move 225th 750' south to Cedar and then back north to reconnect with where it is now east of Cedar.


* Mentioned Wat Lao Temple. Is it 750' south of the intersection? They do not want to have to deal with land acquisitions, Mr. Ralston stated.

Respectfully submitted to Town Board FYI for its April 10 meeting,
Nancy Sauber

Monday, April 3, 2017

TOWN BOARD RE-ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING

 Meeting Word Man Writing on Board Discussion Meet Up 
            On Wednesday, March 29, 2017, the Board of  Supervisors 
held their annual Re-organizational Meeting at the Eureka Town Hall.
In attendance were Supervisors Lu Barfknecht, Dan Rogers, Donovan 
Palmquist, Carrie Jennings and Charles "Butch" Hansen.

            Meeting dates, posting places, notices, financial items, policies,
professional services and Supervisor assignments were the major agenda
items discussed.

            The following are topics that might be of interest: (This 
information can also be found in the Town Board minutes when approved).
    
MEETINGS:
     The schedule of the Town Board meetings:
           April 10, May 8, June 12, July 10, August 14, September 11, 
           October 10, November 13, December 11, January 8 (2018)
           February 12, and March 12.

     The majority of the Planning Commission meetings, by a majority
      vote and resolution, will be held on the first Tuesday of the month 
      unless otherwise indicated:
           April 3, May 2, June 6, July 3, August 8, September 5, October 3,
           November 6, December 5, January 2 (2018), February 6,
           and March 6.

NOTICES:
      The designated official newspapers are the Farmington/Rosemount
      Dakota County Tribune and the Lakeville Sun Thisweek.

RECORDING MEETINGS:
      The recordings of regular and special meetings will be used for
       transcription purposes and will be destroyed after approval unless
       specifically directed to preserve the recording. Recordings of Public 
       Hearings will be preserved. Recordings of the meetings can be obtained
       by the public upon written request, for a fee between the actual meeting
       and approval of the minutes for that meeting.

CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR:
      Supervisor Lu Barfknechs is the Chair and Supervisor Carrie Jennings
      is the Vice-Chair.                                           
                                                                                                  
COMPENSATION FOR TOWNSHIP OFFICERS, PLANNING 
COMMISSIONERS AND JUDGES WILL REMAIN THE SAME:
      Supervisor Chair - $90 and Vice-chair $90.
      Board Supervisors - $80
      Special meetings - $70
      Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair - $70
      Commissioners - $60
      Special meetings - $60
      Liaisons - $50
      Head Election Judge - $15/ hour
      Judges - $12/hour
      Site Inspection rates - $25

TOWNSHIP ATTORNEY FIRM:
Man with a Cell Phone clipart
     Kelley & Lemmons Law Firm

ENGINEERING AND PLANNING:
     TKDA

OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES:
     Broad View Tech, Town Web and Rack Space

SUPERVISOR ASSIGNMENTS:
     Supervisor Rogers - Lakeville Fire, Farmington Fire, (Butch
     Hansen is the backup) contact, Weed Inspector, Ambulance contact, 
     Road contact and Dakota County Sheriff contact.

     Supervisor Jennings - North Cannon River Watershed,
     Vermillion River Watershed contact (Planning Commissioner 
     Nancy Sauber is the Vermillion River Watershed and
     North Cannon River Watershed backup contact). 
     Wetlands/DNR contact, Airlake Airport contact, Dakota County
     contact and Soil and Water Conservation District contact.

     Supervisor Palmquist - Road contact, Compliance Official and
     Building Inspector backup contact.

     Supervisor Charles "Butch" Hansen - Town Hall Structure contact
     and Building Inspector contact.

     Supervisor Barfknecht - Professional Services contact.

For Supervisor contact information, visit the Eureka Township web site
or call the Town Hall clerk at 952 469 3736.

For additional information regarding adopted policies, financial items
and other business discussed, refer to the DRAFT minutes when posted
or the minutes which will be approved at the April Town Board meeting.