Complicated Eureka Paper Files Cost Property Owner Time and Money

Let me be clear - this is NOT the fault of our clerks.  

Liz (the newest) and Amy (also relatively new) have inherited a mountain of paper files accumulated over decades that have not always been consistently filed by prior clerks, all of whom have been dealing with critical deadline work every month plus helping resident questions, leaving little to no time for taking on a major file review and possible reorganization effort.  It is to Liz and Amy's credit that some of this HAS been initiated, but the 10/8/2024 Board meeting surfaced an example of a situation "lost in the files" in part because it was a rare and unusual circumstance.

This is an example of a situation that could have been headed off by utilizing a  modern database of Eureka properties that catalogs all significant Town records related to each property (housing rights, lot splits, business-related permits, not minor over-the-counter permits). Yes, the Property Database I was creating was (is) such a tool that was known but not implemented (with the final necessary steps including training) by the 2022, 2023, and so far the 2024 Board.

I voluntarily undertook this database task at no cost to the Township  (until late advice from the 2023 Town Attorney raised the liability risk to me, easily resolved by my simple proposal totaling $2/month to make me a contractor providing and supporting the database and its "license".)  I did this because I knew the time and reliability value of a computerized tool and that there was no way such a tool could be afforded by Eureka to hire outside resources to create.  Central to its creation is a thorough understanding of our Zoning with unique Housing Right Transfer capability made complicated by the State-mandated requirement to recognize grandfathered lots with housing rights.

Specifically, this recent situation involved a current property owner planning to sell a property, but the title search at Dakota County Records turned up a unique 1995 restriction on the property group and housing by the original owner. This original owner's preference was within the general 1990 Clustering feature and was legal at the time. 

In 2013, I led the amendment process to increase the flexibility to be able to "transfer" housing rights while preserving a key feature of the older Cluster regulations to not allow more than 4 houses per quarter-quarter section. This made the special 1995 private restriction obsolete and unnecessary, but I was not aware of this unique restriction if it existed somewhere in town files. But apparently to be sure, the current owner had his attorney research and determine that the restriction was no longer relevant, so produced a letter requesting Eureka to remove the restriction.  Need I say this attorney work was not likely done for free. At least the Board did approve the restriction removal last night (10/8/2024).

It is my opinion that this could have been resolved easily as early as 2014 by the new owner bringing it to the Township directly and asking, if known by him.  

During 2021-2022, as part of my analysis of all Eureka properties, deputy clerk Amy had been scanning documents on file as time permitted and sending me copies of the scans which I catalogued in my database.  I also used those scans to verify other sources of lot splits and transfers, such as the famous "property map" on the wall considered an official summary record of pre-2013 Cluster moves. I discovered along the way that sometimes a lot split and housing right transfer were filed together (making it harder to find if looking for one), plus a few errors and missing documents were revealed that I was mostly able to resolve by further analysis, such as noting houses being built and new Property ID numbers appearing in County website map. The database makes it practical to associate all relevant documents with all affected properties for quick retrieval, including printing a copy in seconds of anything desired.

The 2022 Board suddenly cancelled this development process in 2/2023 along with rushing the incomplete  Zoning and Subdivision amendments out the door, errors and all (another topic). If this unique restriction was on file and the scanning process had been completed, I would have recognized it as an odd and obsolete restriction. I then would have advanced it to the Board with recommendation to officially withdraw it, for similar reasons the private attorney stated, and notify the current owner. A modest County recording fee would be needed, but private attorney involvement on this detail should not have been needed.

Yeah, I'm old school.  I still think local government should help residents when potential issues are discovered that are easily corrected.

Meanwhile, the clerks are saddled with yanking the reins to drive our clumsy old paper file buggy...     

Who's next?

 

 

I encourage you all to start following a major topic for the joint Board and Planning Commission Roundtable discussion this Wednesday night. Joining on Zoom makes it easy to follow - see clerk email notices with the Zoom link.

The Board and PC are exploring re-making the character of Eureka, including increasing housing density and bringing in various levels of commercial and industrial zones with "buffers".  Let's start first with housing density, since it is a simpler subject than complex business development layers.

Here are some questions that would be helpful as a base line to be answered for any serious consideration of housing density:

1. Approximately how many houses exist in Eureka?

2. About how many new houses are built per year?

3. How many unused housing rights are available currently?

4. If our current base of Agricultural zoning of one housing right per quarter-quarter section (approx. 40 acres) is increased to 4, how many additional housing rights would be created in Eureka?

5. Would there be a corresponding new minimum lot size?

 OK, I'll apologize for sand-bagging you a bit.  I already know the answers to those questions. It is all cataloged in my database of Eureka properties created from County and Eureka records based on our Zoning ordinance features. I created it with the intent that Eureka would adopt it and assume upkeep by the clerical staff after being trained by me (free).

Ask your Board those 5 questions and see how they answer.  In a few days, I'll provide the answers and you can grade the Board.

My plan of a free donation of the database had to be slightly changed due to a Eureka Town Attorney pointing out that I could be included in any legal dispute but wouldn't be covered by township liability insurance. I'll get into more background on this as a separate post subject. But the 2022 Board, then 2023, and so far the 2024 Board have not been interested in pursuing this nearly free, huge time saving tool for the clerks and Planning Commission. It enables much faster response (as in minutes instead of hours potentially spread over days as clerks have the time) to questions property owners may raise versus rummaging through paper files. 

There are about 170 properties that MAY have a grandfathered housing right. Do you have 1 or 2 of them? I have a report listing them all that I showed to the Board at the beginning of 2023, but they chose not to share it on the Eureka website with you, the public.  (Note - the Township does not have the property records to certify - only Dakota County property records in Hastings can provide the legal documents needed to prove grandfathering. But most do prove true.)

 Back on topic: After this first step of 5 questions above, wouldn't it then be prudent to consider the traffic impact of substantial growth generating higher maintenance needs? This can then be translated to property tax impact on current property owners during the "accelerated" growth years.  You've seen school districts translate their budget requests to property tax impact, shouldn't we expect the same?

Be careful what you wish for.

IT FELL ON DEAF EARS

 The public hearing last evening saw 12 different people going on the record on the proposed elimination of first class mail notification of changes in zoning and mining uses. 

No one on Zoom was allowed to testify. Apparently, Ceminsky’s decision. This is an unfortunate turn of policy under this Board’s tenure. Why shouldn’t someone who can’t attend in person be able to weigh in on subjects that affect them? CONTROL?

Also, evidently a deadline of noon that day was put on any written comments submitted. That is a deadline without a purpose, except perhaps making it difficult for citizens to be heard. My opinion. One former Commissioner and Supervisor actually had to drive to Town Hall after submitting his comments after noon and being told that wouldn’t work, and he couldn’t testify on Zoom either. Why?

After each testimony, Mark Ceminsky, filling in for absent Pete Storlie, said, “ Thank you, Zelda” in a tone that one might almost mistake for sincerity, if one hadn’t sat through this farce before. Butter wouldn’t melt. Again, my opinion. 

Only Lu Barfknecht weighed in favoring continuing mail notification. Al Novacek said he “has struggled” with this on grounds of transparency. But when push came to shove, he opted to discontinue notifying you by mail. So much for “transparency”. Ceminsky’s motion to change the ordinance was approved 3-1.

THANK YOU to all those taking the opportunity to weigh in. NOT ONE citizen supported the change. Did that make any difference to the majority of the Board? No!

Nor did they give any substantive reason for supporting the change. No real rationale. It was a knee-jerk response to having been caught out on the subject during the agritourism hearing, I believe. This was pointed out by others to no avail. 

If you are not on the News and Notices email list, send your email and request for notification to the Clerk ASAP. That option is provided you by law and may be the only way you can stay on top of things. 

Many citizens also mentioned the ongoing effort to rezone landowners’ properties to commercial/industrial. Only Commissioner Brian Storlie asked at a PC meeting why they are spending all this time and effort (and taxpayer money) on this rezoning when many affected landowners are AGAINST it?

GOOD QUESTION. 

REMINDER AND AN INVITATION

This Tuesday, September 10, at 6:30, is the public hearing regarding the Township notifying all citizens by first class mail of any proposed changes to the zoning and mining Ordinances. While it is true that some changes to zoning, for example, may be quite minor, others can be far-reaching and affect the entire Township. Under current law outside of Ordinance 57.2, the Township is required to place such notice in the official newspapers (which are not read by many in today's times) and posting the notice on the outside bulletin board at Town Hall (necessitating checks to see if anything has been posted).

The Board seeks to do away with such notice by first class mail outside of newspapers n bulletin board. They want to change Ordinance 57.2 to eliminate mailed notice to you. 

To alert citizens of such changes is a relatively minor cost in our large budget and would go a long way toward transparency, not to mention any trust one might have in the current officials. Currently, the Planning Commission and the Town Board are looking to rezone ag property as various levels of Commercial/Industrial use. Many of those landowners affected by this do NOT want their property rezoned. Yet the Board doesn't seem to care and has pushed aside any suggestions that they start with the landowners affected, asking for their input up front be4fore spending t5ime and money pursuing this. Then there are the others who would live much closer to such development if the rezoning goes into effect even if their property itself is not rezoned.

You can attend the Public Hearing in person, via Zoom. You can also send your comments to the Town Clerk via email at clerk@eurekatownship-mn.us and ask that your comments be read into the record.

Below are two such comments already sent to the Clerk:

ONE

9/10/2024 Hearing re: Ordinance 57 Notifications

 My name is Jeff Otto. I reside at 25580 Dodd Blvd.

The Zoning Ordinance 240 and Mining Ordinance 165 have the greatest and most wide-spread impact on all the residents and property owners in Eureka Township because traffic and visual impacts may occur far beyond the immediately surrounding neighbors.  It is for that very reason these two Ordinances were specifically identified to require full direct communication to ALL property owners of record at the time of any proposed amendments to them.

There was a long period in history when an official newspaper was the only mass media and so was widely read. That clearly is no longer the case with the result that newspapers no longer assure wide audiences and even less-so with non-resident property owners.

Both of the Ordinances should have had the direct mailing requirement within them.  Now the current Town Board is using the technicality of the requirement being in a separate Ordinance 57 to change the requirement to reduce the visibility and potential greater resistance to zoning changes this Board is advocating. There also could be more support. This is a significant change to the Zoning and Mining ordinance amendment processes, so why was there not proper full notification for this proposed change?  Technicality trumps transparency.

There is growing evidence of this motivation to reduce transparency by the actions and inactions of the Board and its directives to the Planning Commission.  The decades long friendly culture of allowing input in public meetings from residents known to have valued experience as well as concerns about certain agenda subjects has been blocked. The alternative of knowledgeable written input has been completely ignored  to the detriment of residents and property owners.  Board and Planning Commission actions directly violating clear Ordinance language have occurred in spite of such violations being pointed out, in one case in writing in addition to verbal. Recent Planning Commission resignations are also evidence of frustration with this Board’s actions.

Again a Town Attorney has unfortunately given incorrect advice based on a general State statute instead of reviewing actual Eureka Town Ordinance. The recent example was on hearing notification of a zoning change. No person or Town official or Town body may arbitrarily override written Ordinance.   Ordinance language may only be amended by proper procedure.

So now the Board is suddenly pursuing clean-up duty on Ordinance 57.  Why would this be done now if they hadn’t recognized that the process of advancing the Tourism Ordinance amendment was handled improperly?  Even the applicant commented that the 2014 amendment proposal should be reviewed, but neither that nor the improper hearing notification was reported by the PC to the Board. Two Board members were present at the “open house” (since it wasn’t a proper hearing)  and neither of them reported either of those two significant points.

This is another example of hiding behind broad State language designed to enable local government units to then tailor more specific limits important to their circumstances.  This includes counties and municipalities as well as townships. To not understand this distinction is to impose local ordinances far too wide-open to follow individual Comprehensive Plans.

A reasonable compromise on the “first class mail” requirement is a less expensive postcard mailing. Surely a few hundred dollars in postage once a year or less often can be managed in a nearly half-million-dollar budget for the sake of true transparency. Eureka has been spending far more than that by continuing to use the company named “General Code” to “review” amendments, an over-rated service no longer needed in our township and used by only 4 other local governments in the entire State of Minnesota.

 Thank you.

 

TWO

Sent from Yours Truly:

Please read my comments into the record. 

Nancy Sauber, 9445 225th St W, Lakeville

I believe the Township should notify citizens by mail when there is a proposed Township-wide zoning or mining amendment of significance. 

Changing a minor detail in the zoning ordinance is one thing, but considering commercial zoning as is now going on merits such notification of all citizens. 

This sort of zoning change affects people’s property values, use of their land in the here-and-now (not just for the future as has been professed), taxes, quality of life, and so on. These are weighty matters and the public should be given full disclosure of such very substantive major changes. A transparent government FOR the people would do that. 

I ask you to be such a government. 

LET YOUR BOARD HEAR FROM YOU.

• 

The following was sent from Jeff Otto to Amy Liberty, Deputy Clerk/Treasurer, who works with the Planning Commission.  In spite of his honest effort to be of assistance based on lots of experience on this topic, there was no response of any kind received.

Of additional note is the attachment Jeff sent regarding Lakeville annexations of Eureka properties. I was in attendance at that PC meeting. Chair Melanie Storlie was unclear on exactly what properties have been annexed and asked Amy Liberty if there was a map. The Deputy Clerk replied she did not have one. Apparently, Mr. Otto had no difficulty in procuring one.

From: ottojs@frontiernet.net <ottojs@frontiernet.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2024 12:12 PM
To: 'Eureka Township Deputy Clerk' <deputyclerk@eurekatownship-mn.us>
Subject: PC Zoning Study

Hi Amy,

Please share with all PC members.  Note attached 2023 map and legend from Lakeville showing Eureka properties that have been annexed.

The population of Eureka is approximately 1600 with about 900 of voting age, not all owners live in the township.

You all would be better served and save time by first having a detailed discussion with the Met Council representative assigned to the townships of Dakota County to understand the change thresholds that would require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. This includes the plan detail requirements (sewer, water, road infrastructure) for such an amendment.  You are likely to get up-front information of some aspects the Met Council may not consider since they have at least four times that I am aware of over the past 18 years indicated that they do not want Eureka to increase density or change zoning until 2040.  Two major reasons for this is still available housing rights and the concern to protect gravel resources for the metropolitan area.  They do not want to repeat the mistake of allowing major gravel resources in Apple Valley area to be lost to massive development of all types covering them.

For many years the Met Council rep assigned to Eureka was Mr. Patrick Boylan.  I don’t know if he still is. One general point I remember is if they would allow us to do anything significant, they required a “sustainable development plan” of at least 1000 acres that includes details for adequate services for sewer, water, and roads. Multiple zoning categories, for example,  encourage high density housing to be within walking distance of neighborhood services such as drug store and groceries.  If anything requirements may be more stringent now, but I don’t know. This is why a fresh dialog is essential.

Lake Elmo was sued by the Met Council about 25 years ago for not having a Comprehensive Plan that the State-authorized Met Council approved.  Lake Elmo spent $200,000 in legal fees ($400,000 in today’s dollars) fighting and was forced to change half their zoning area to match the Council’s oversight directive.

Even in 2006 when I made my first (of 3) thorough study of Eureka properties and cataloged them in a computer database, our Council representative was shocked that Eureka had 80% more housing rights than they had assumed from our common “Agriculture” zoning of 1 house per quarter-quarter section of the Public Land Survey system. Zoning in Minnesota (and most states) is derived from the survey grid done when becoming a territory. Incorporation into a municipality authorizes much more flexibility for area zoning with many zoning categories to enable very high density development with thoughtful buffering from high-impact development to less intrusive. Lakeville is a good example and obviously Minneapolis is a classic big city.

While it can be more convenient to describe township zoning by acreage, it is misleading and can result in poor land use choices such as thinking going to 10-acre lot sizes is a good idea (which is properly described as 4 houses per quarter-quarter section, known as “Rural Residential”).  Actual 10-acre minimum size is one of the worst choices for the long term for reasons too lengthy to describe here and clearly contradicts goal of critical preservation of ag land.  This also would automatically make 104 currently buildable lots (between 2 and 10 acres in size) fall into the Grandfathered protection category (by State law), meaning they would still be buildable but then those owners would have to go through the process of obtaining County property record documents to prove grandfather status before being allowed to apply for a Eureka building permit. We already have about 180 housing rights in this category that must be accurately tracked as used or transferred.

ALL property owners should of course receive a postcard (doesn’t have to be more expensive letter) for a MAJOR ZONING CHANGE survey and open house describing both and response deadline, encouraging use of web survey (with website and link highlighted on postcard) with option to instead get paper copy from town hall or by mail if desired. Besides some owners not using computer communication, there are also some property owners located outside the area or out of state.    

To cherry pick who you think should be informed and trust word of mouth on something of this wide potential impact is to invite a significant lawsuit. Hiding behind simple legal publication requirement will not sit well with public when some discover too late what may be allowed next to them. Transparency.

A proper survey must have unique ID  traced to owner name whether via web or paper (not PID since there are many owners with more than one property) to avoid ballot stuffing. I guarantee some will want to do it because I witnessed it at a previous open house when people could place stars on images.  A couple people took a full page of stick-ons and used them all on only a couple options as in NO-NO-NO.

Attached is the southern portion of the July 2023 Lakeville Zoning Map showing Eureka and airport land now part of Lakeville.  Starting with the airport in the right center, next east is 97-acre Hat Trick property taken about 2009 (my Board era), then the recent Adelman property and about the same time to the far left is the group of parcels on the west side of Dodd.  The legend image is the entire list of zoning colors and classes for all of Lakeville.

Using the same zoning class names as Lakeville where the definition may fit could be a benefit to a potential buyer. Does anyone really think the Lakeville professional planner is too dumb to see parallels in descriptions that might be used here?

By the way, it is understood that a major negotiating mistake with the 1973 plat proposal to establish the 75 lots of Eureka Estates was to not include the cost of paving 240^th Street from Dodd to the Eureka Estates entrances in the developer’s cost plan. Eureka taxpayers have instead been paying for higher gravel road maintenance for 50 years and counting. 

Jeff Otto

Town Board 2007-2010, twice Chair and attorney liaison

Member or Chair of several zoning-related task forces and Zoning Ordinance amendments

 

 

MY LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNRESPONSIVE ?????

 At the last Eureka Town Board meeting on August 14th, I made the following public comment:

Town Boards have a duty and a responsibility to maintain settlement agreements in place when they assume office. 

These settlement agreements often follow litigation and involve considerable time and resources by Township attorneys and officials at taxpayers’ expense. 

These agreements are compromises reached by both sides, hopefully to the benefit of the public. To not uphold such agreements is to let your public down. 

In April of this year, Chair Pete Storlie declared that certain unfinished items kept on the agenda as a reminder until taken care of were to be removed immediately. As a Board Supervisor, he should know that among all the business conducted, certain items can fall through the cracks and not be followed up on. 

In April I explained that the settlement agreement with Country Stone that goes with property to Scotts Miracle-Gro includes the replacement of any screening trees that are dead, dying, or diseased. This spring would have  been an ideal time for replacement. There are currently a goodly number of trees at this site that need such replacement. 

Pete Storlie’s answer at the time to my input? “I’d have to see that agreement.” That was months ago, Mr. Chair. Has the clerk shown you that agreement? Have you even asked to see it? Or are you content to let this “fall through the cracks?”

It is now August. Fall is another favorable planting season. Please act on your obligation as the current Chair and Board to get these trees replaced. There is a landscaping plan specified in the agreement map. Trees are to be replaced by the same specimens as noted there. September is fast approaching. 

Thank you.

I WAS ON THE BOARD WHEN THIS MATTER WAS NEGOTIATED. JEFF OTTO WAS ONE OF TWO DIRECT BOARD NEGOTIATORS WITH THE OTHER SIDE, BUT I WAS PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR INCLUDING THE TREE REPLACEMENT LANGUAGE. I RECOGNIZED THIS AGREEMENT CONTINUES INTO THE FUTURE. FOR SCREENING TO BE PROVIDED BY THE TREES TO CONTINUE THEIR REPLACEMENT SHOULD (WHEN) THE TREES DIE WAS NECESSARY.

WHAT RESPONSE DID I RECEIVE?

An essentially meaningless, "Thank you, Nancy" from Pete Storlie. I say "essentially meaningless" because this is the Chair's usual response to anyone making a public comment, followed by no action on the point made by the citizen. No action, no discussion, even. No placing the item on the agenda for discussion that night, which the Board is fully able to do. A Board can discuss ANY topic at a regularly scheduled meeting, which this was. (Special meetings are a different case. Besides, the Board takes no public comment at special meetings.)

So, not only did CHAIR STORLIE not add this item to the agenda, the OTHER THREE SUPERVISORS PRESENT--CEMINSKY, NOVACEK, AND POPE were totally silent. None of them apparently thought that the current Board should discuss this upholding of an agreement that cost you, the taxpayer, to resolve. 

Where is the responsiveness to citizens? WHY did they refuse to deal with this matter that night? Are they picking sides in a long-ago, already settled, litigation issue? By not acting that night, the earliest this will be dealt with by this Board is in the spring. And since it is no longer on an "unfinished business" item on the agenda, do citizens have to keep showing up to remind them TO DO THEIR JOB?

THE MAP

Saving you a trip to Town Hall and a quarter...this is the map discussed at the Planning Commission meeting referenced earlier.

Apologies that it isn't clearer. Maybe you have the tech magic to fix that: I don't. 😇

The key says green line is "Industrial/Heavy Commercial."

The blue line is "General Commercial."

The yellow line is "Neighborhood Commercial."

The orange line is "High Density Housing."

When asked for the definitions of each category, the Deputy Clerk told a citizen that there weren't any. I'm not quite sure about that as how can one discuss this issue if one doesn't even know what the categories mean? 

Maybe it's just me and my opinion, but this sure appears a lot like spot zoning on first look. That may have to be determined through a legal process. Spot zoning is not allowed.

What is the explanation of how these areas were determined in the first place? Did some landowners request them? So I guess we pick "winners" then? Maybe some landowners don't want this zoning and/or were never asked? Are we picking "losers" then? Can their property rights be tampered with in such a way in our small community? Do you see that as being a "good neighbor?" I would set aside for the moment what CAN be done in favor of WHY this would be done. What are the different rationales?

AND let's not forget that the Commission is also tasked with looking at extended home business. How does this all fit together? 

What is the effect of zoning certain areas for certain uses vs. allowing a use Township-wide?

The Deputy Clerk reportedly told a citizen that this is "way in the future." I don't think that is correct information to be given out. Perhaps she misunderstands the Board's intentions. Why would the current Board not want to put this in place while it is in office? This effort has been around quite a while and forestalled before. Other Boards may see it totally differently, surely. 

Again, if "high density housing" means anything more than four houses/rights in a quarter-quarter, this can't be done under ag zoning. The only reason it works at four per quarter-quarter now is that some of those rights can be transferred in, leaving the sending parcels non-buildable. Thus, the average is the same.

What would these designations do to tax status? To land values?