PAPER OR PLASTIC? THE "MIXED BAG" CONTINUES...

Revisiting some facts from previous post: All five Supervisors present; Sheriff's Deputy and Township Attorney, Chad Lermmons, also in attendance.

As a now-regular "feature," the Board has placed "Outstanding Complaints" on its agenda. This, in my opinion, is largely in response to repeated comments they have heard that these complaints have been dealt with in a very sluggish manner, not by any real initiative on their part. WELL, to illustrate how "tuned-in" they are, the Board did not deal with or give any updates on any outstanding, "old" complaints.  Why Not? Evidently, because the Board does not yet have a list (Get that--a list?) to work from. Now, believe me, anybody who has been sitting through these meetings could give them the list on the spot!  But, because they do not have a list in front of them, they do nothing, the Chair just moves them on to the next agenda item!?


What were these matters they "sat on," as some might describe it? One that has been around for quite some time is about the uses of three supposed "ag" buildings (there is no record of anything else having been permitted, as determined by our Building Inspector/Official and the Clerk after examination of the files). One of these buildings is currently for sale, along with the house on the property.  This is the building mentioned before whereby the prospective buyers and the realtor (to their credit) came in to ask the Board about the permitted use of the large building. They were told that personal storage is permitted, but NO USE for a business, not even storage. This was directly from the Attorney, Mr. Lemmons, referencing the Ordinance portion that applies, and supported, correctly, by Supervisor Miller.  Yet, when the Board was told by the realtor and the possible buyers what they have seen as the business use already there, Supervisor Miller then said, "We don't want to hear about that.  Don't tell us about that.  It has been a problematic property," or words very close to that. So why doesn't HE remember this matter at the last meeting and bring it up for the Board discussion under this agenda item? He needs a list?

Let me explain something if you don't already know: Hypothetically, if one applies for an "ag" building, all one pays is a $25 application fee, agriculturally used buildings being exempted from permitting under the Building Code and thus also exempted from any permit fees.  State statute is explicit, however, on what building use, and by whom, qualifies as "ag," including that there must actually be "ag" taking place there! (Go figure...) The permitting fees under the Code for buildings if they are not for "ag" use could be in the hundreds or even thousands of dollars to the Township.  It has been very clearly stated by the Building Official that any "ag" building which changes use must be permitted for the actual use as if it were new construction, with all attendant permitting fees. This has come up in reference to different properties.  We'll leave alone for the moment whether the hypothetical one's actual non-ag use of such buildings that may occur is even legal under our Ordinances or not.

Further, one of these "ag" buildings (one that is not for sale) has had obvious construction to it: windows apparently on two floors and a change in the door opening. This much is visible from the road. This has happened without benefit of any permit having been issued.  These matters, building designation/use and lack of permits, were brought to the Board's attention many, many months ago by Scott Qualle, Eureka's Building Official, with no further "real action" actually happening from the Board's part. (They eventually had "okayed" a visit to the premises by the Building Official, also months ago, but to this writer's knowledge that has still not taken place; why, I am not sure.)

I put "okayed" in quotation marks because the Building Official is empowered to carry out these duties whether the Board "approves" or not. This is a fact that some in the community, taking their public comments at face value, don't believe to be the case.  (One person even said the Board "should rein him in.") However, it has been pointed out to the Board by more than one attorney that, in fact, Mr. Qualle DOES have that ability. Nonetheless, even some on the Board have clearly seemed to me and to others in attendance at certain meetings to have had "a problem" with this.


For example, from the April 8, 2013, Town Board minutes:

"N. Building Official Issuing Citations
Supervisor Steve Madden commented that he does not feel that the Building Official should have the authority to write citations. He should only be able to write citations with permission of a Town Board Supervisor or a vote from the Town Board. [Wrong!]
The only citations he has written have been directed by the Town Board. [However,] he has the authority to write Building Code Citations. 
The Building Inspector Supervisors have been working on putting a policy in place for contacting the township." (Additions and emphasis mine.)

The Building Inspector Supervisors at the time were Supervisor Storlie and Supervisor Ceminsky, both of whom wanted to be alerted before the Building Official acted in the very capacity for which the Board hired him.  Evidently, when called by irate constituents (at one meeting they mentioned having received such calls: "We get yelled at."), "Let me check on that and get back to you" doesn't work for them.

All this caused me to wonder under what circumstances would a Supervisor tell the Building Official to NOT write a citation or order concerning a violation of our Ordinances?  Beats me.

Indeed, wouldn't you think that Commissioners and Supervisors would, for another example, expect landowners to respond appropriately to the Building Official's letter? I know at least SOME of them do, and would like to think that they ALL do... but it appeared not so in a (recorded) heated and astonishing exchange between Commissioner Hansen and Supervisor Storlie at a public meeting over a year ago. To wit: The property owner who had not responded in a timely manner to the Building Official's letter regarding these buildings had been told, it was admitted, that he could "ignore" the letter! Hansen alleged that he did that after talking to Storlie and receiving his direction in this, and Storlie finally admitted in public that he had done so!!! (See first item on page 7 of  Board Minutes June,11, 2012 )  The Board-approved minutes do not include the embarrassing exchange.  (Imagine that.) Note, the Building Official cites state statute and his licensing as they apply to his duty to carry out his job.
This was 1 year and 3 months ago...and counting.

My Goodness! With what I will describe as such a "hazy history," why isn't the Board now making sure this and other matters on their "Outstanding Complaints" list are taken care of in a more appropriate time frame?  Do they really need a list after these items have come up time and time again over years? Do they believe that everyone should abide by the rules?  Do they understand their obligation to enforce the Ordinances? There is currently a lawsuit ("Does This Suit You?" post) about enforcing the Ordinances, as you know.


Some other complaints discussed at other meetings but not even updated at this one are the model airplane noise complaint that should have been resolved by now (and maybe has been), an ongoing and repeated building setback issue that has been cited and was to have gone to court, a junk complaint (the one coming up on its third-year anniversary) which was supposed to have been cited. What is the status of these?
Now, I think that these complaints are of interest to others beyond those who filed them.  I believe that many in the community, I among them, would like to know how the Board handles complaints, follows up on them, and brings them to final resolution.  There's a word for you: "final."



STILL TO COME: JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WITH THE DAKOTA COUNTY SHERIFF, A FURTHER POINT ON ACCESSORY BUILDING SIZE, and BUILDING INSPECTOR CONTRACT.