THE AGRI-TOURISM TRAIN IS FINALLY LEAVING THE STATION, FORTUNATELY WITH A PLANNER ON BOARD!

As reported in the previous blog, Eureka's "Box of Chocolates," As In You Never Know What You'll Get!,  the Board approved the engagement of Sherri Buss of TDKA as planner to assist the Agri-tourism Task Force members in their quest to determine the feasibility of allowing agri-tourism in Eureka Township. A vote to request the engagement of a planner to assist the Task Force was taken at the Task Force meeting prior to the Board meeting.
Mr. Hansen was not willing to vote "Yes" and abstained. I believe I can speak for many citizens in this Township, thanking those who showed leadership in voting "YES"; having the unbiased integrity, long-term vision and fortitude to realize how crucial it is to engage a professional in decisions that affect everyone in this Township.

I attended the Task Force meeting on Tuesday, January 21..  Sharri Buss was indeed in attendance and appeared pleased to once again be invited to assist Eureka with ordinance and zoning challenges. Chair Cory Behrendt, skillfully and efficiently spent the majority of the meeting bringing the planner up to speed with assistance from other Task Force members. Fritz Frana presented consolidated documents of relevant performance standards obtained through his research. Sharri Buss will utilize the material provided as well as her independent research to present her initial findings to the Task Force at the February 11 meeting.

At this time the Eureka web site is not up to date and Task Force Meeting minutes will not be posted on the web site until an IT person can deem the web site functional.  The following is content from the approved  January 14 Agri-tourism Task Force Meeting for those who were not able to attend. The January 21 minutes have NOT been approved and are not available at this time.

Task Force members present: Cory Behrendt, Philip Cleminson, Atina Diffley, Butch Hansen, Fredrick Frana, Mark Parranto


Meeting Called to order 7:00 p.m.
Notes submitted by Atina Diffley

Butch made a motion to approve the revised minutes from January 7, 2014. Fritz seconded. Motion passed unanimously.

Report on recommendation made to the Board:

•  The Board made a motion to have the six present Task Force members continue on as an ordinance committee with a budget of $4,000 for a planner, $1,000 for an attorney and one attorney round table discussion to go over legal questions.
• Butch suggested we could have a workable draft in 5-6 weeks and be able to report on it by the spring Annual Meeting.
• Fritz feels it should take twice as long.
• We should be ready to present something at the Annual Meeting based on the progress we have made at that point.

Butch nominated Cory as Chair of the Agr-itourism ordinance committee and Phil as secretary.  Atina Seconded. The motion passed unanimously.

We need to prepare some guidelines on what we want for the planner.  Look at the feedback we received from the other planners and the citizens and create a framework.

The committee identified 5 potential categories that agri-tourism activities may fit into.

1. Agri-tourism activities allowed under the existing performance standards.
2. Agri-tourism activities that need enhanced performance standards.
3. Agri-tourism activities that fit into a new category of administrative permit for occasional and low impact activities.
4. Agri-tourism activities allowed with an IUP, CUP or appropriate permit.

     5. Agri-tourism activities that aren't allowed.

We need to think about the needs, benefits and impact for the three constituents involved: farmers, neighbors and guests. We have to balance these three and make recommendations based on impact and not emotion.  When the public is on the property, there has to be some sort of mechanism to deal with it.

The committee worked through the agri-tourism activities list, discussed the impacts of the activities and captured present thinking on which category each of the activities may fit into.  Some areas we are in agreement.  Some we are not. Some activities may have two ways of being managed depending on their frequency, scale or permanence.

(I have not included the list of activities and comments indicated in the extensive list; however, the list may be requested from the Task Force secretary). At the January 21 meeting, Mr. Hansen and Mr. Cleminson were quite adamant that a Bed and Breakfast would not be considered.

Personal or political; impact or emotion?  I know that the possible use was submitted at the Open House. How lovely would a quaint Country Inn be in this agricultural community amongst other activities which might not be considered.  (my comments).

Questions for the Attorney

• Does the Met Council need to be involved?

Do the existing performance ordinances need to be changed in any way to allow the intended agri-tourism use?

Phil moved to remove from our list fee-fishing and fee-hunting. Butch seconded the motion. After discussion, the motion was amended to clarify the category to Fee Fishing-Farm Raised Fish and Fee Hunting-Game Farm and keep them on the list. Motion passed.

Fritz will put together a consolidated document of the relevant performance ordinances.

Cory moved to approve Phil to work with the planner in whatever capacity needed to define a scope of work and costs.  Atina seconded. Motion passed.

Fritz made a motion to adjourn. Atina seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.

Adjourned 9:40

UPCOMING MEETINGS:    January 28,  February 6- it is possible the Task Force will not meet on this date; check the Townhall posting)  February 11 and February 18.

Asleep at the wheel?

Yes, Board meetings can be long.

Sometimes they get tedious as well.

Grassroots-government in action is not always pretty... or efficient.  

However, these guys were elected to do a job and are getting paid to be here.

These photos were taken during the first half hour of a regularly scheduled Board meeting.

Shouldn't Steve Madden catch up on sleep somewhere else?

Complaint policy revamp

Chairman Storlie

Isn't it interesting that Chairman Storlie told the Planning Commission that the Board had been misinterpreting the Complaint Policy.  He informed them that it was really up to the Board to decide if a complaint had merit.  Then they would decide if a complaint should be followed up on.

Letter dismissing complaint.

The timing of this "discovery" is what interests me most.  You see, it turns out that Supervisor Ceminsky was the object of a complaint regarding the use of his outbuildings.  It was decreed that the complaint had no merit apparently, as stated in this letter that was sent to the person making the complaint (and who will remain anonymous, according to Township policy--at least as long as the Board continues to adhere to that part of the policy).

What do you think?  Does Mark Ceminsky run his construction business out of his home and not his outbuildings, as Township rules require?  If he is using his outbuildings for this business endeavor, that is in violation of the ordinances.  These rules are being enforced with others in the township by the current board.

Reprinted below for your consideration is the text of the original complaint.  You decide.  Did it have enough merit to at least be followed up upon by a NEUTRAL party like the Building Inspector?
________________________________________________________________________________

With recent, stepped up enforcement of the home occupation ordinance, it would be hypocritical for our Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission members to be in violation this ordinance.  They should conduct their businesses so that they are above suspicion.

I request that the building inspector view the contents of accessory use structures (including the temporary storage building) at the home of Supervisor Ceminksy to make sure that Beaver Creek Construction http://www.beavercreekco.com/ does not operate out of, or store equipment in, his accessory use structures.  If this were the case, it would be in clear violation of the ordinances as they are being enforced against other residents and potential buyers.

Over the past few years, there has been an expansion outdoor storage at the home of Supervisor Ceminsky.  The company website does not give a specific street address but it has a Farmington city address.  Mr. Ceminsky advertises his work , that is, that the landscaping was done by him, with signs at his property.  Many companies do this immediately after a project is completed.  But if the sign is permanent it requires a permit and a broader discussion about its legitimacy.  Mr. Ceminsky parks a business trailer outside his accessory building with the company name on it in a way that makes it visible to passers by.  The Township has had discussions on this in the past.  Does it constitute advertising or is it inadvertent?  How can we make the distinction? 

Mr. Ceminsky’s company’s business is remodeling, construction and landscaping, according to his website.  It is possible that everything he uses is contained within the trailer , but this seems unlikely.  Unidentified materials outside his temporary structure (beams of some sort) appear to be related to the business, as do some pieces of equipment that sometimes parked outside his buildings.

It is confusing to residents who are trying to abide by the ordinances when they see Supervisors and Planning Commission members skirting or violating the ordinances they have been elected to enforce. 

Photo of temporary structure, accessory use building and trailer at the Ceminsky residence.

Not included here, but part of the original complaint, were a series of historic airphotos showing an expansion of the use at this site under the ownership of Mr. Ceminsky.

EUREKA'S "BOX OF CHOCOLATES," AS IN YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT YOU'LL GET!

First some of the more positive news:
The Board approved $4,000 for a planner (Sherri Buss of TKDA who has worked well with the Township before) to work with the agritourism task force and also $1,000 for them to consult the Township Attorney with their questions thus far. The money will come from the professional services escrow funds. Surprisingly, the Board has also left it open for possibly more money if deemed needed. (Other task forces have cost more.) The current six task force members were willing to continue their work, so the Board approved their doing so. Sherri has been doing work on agritourism in other communities and so will bring valuable information and experience to the group.

The less positive aspect: those of you who have been following this know that not once, BUT TWICE, a Planning Commission majority of 3 had asked for this very thing: a task force with planner and attorney assistance, but was denied twice by the Board! At that time, the Board repeatedly expressed a desire to "move this along".  In fact, Chair Storlie, as you might recall, wrote a definition only with a couple of regulations embedded in it that was presented at a public hearing. Some of the Board also voiced that having a planner would just "slow things down" --as if that were necessarily a bad thing.  (Act in haste: repent at leisure?) Had they granted the Commission's requests in the first place, it would have saved a lot of time which they find such a precious commodity.

Indeed, they recently allowed a bare 60 days for the committee to come back with a recommendation. Other than a break at the holidays, the committee has been meeting for two or more hours every week. Having served on  the Transfer Task Force which did the same thing because of the Board's "sense of urgency," and having attended the agritourism meetings, I know that that is a lot to ask of citizens.  (I sincerely doubt the Board itself would agree to meet that often!!!) Even now, the Board wants results for the Annual Meeting.  I think it is good to have at least a report of progress for the Annual Meeting, but do not understand the big rush to conclude this so quickly.  Or perhaps I understand it all too well...

Older, but an important piece of information, is the fact that the polls for the March Election will be open 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. This will allow citizens to vote on their way to work just they can during the November elections. Mark your calendars for Tuesday, March 11th.



Another "mixed confection": At the January Board meeting, the Board approved hiring a tech person to get the website going again. Not a moment too soon for somebody to do so!  I communicated with one citizen who attended this meeting simply so he could find out what was happening. He typically receives an agenda via email, but hasn't since Nanett resigned. When he got to the meeting, he told me that there were no agendas to be had at the table where one enters. If this ever happens to you, immediately ask the Clerk for more agendas.

I applaud his dedication, but not everyone can physically come to a meeting just to find out what is going to be discussed.  That is why it is so important that the website get up ASAP so that you can read agendas, minutes, agritourism info, etc. This is taking way too long, folks!

The light bulb went off and Chair Storlie (finally) proposed that an ad be placed in the newspaper to start the process of finding a new Clerk/Treasurer. He said he recalled that in the past, it took a couple publications to get some applicants. No kidding!

Not as sweet... Do you think that a Supervisor should be paid for the time he will spend to go through his earlier charges with the Clerk so that they can be allocated to the proper budget line?  If you were a Supervisor, wouldn't you "tag" those charges as you submitted them, so that the accounts would be correct as possible at all times and escrow or other accounts that are involved could be billed as necessary? Granted, supervisors can spend a lot of time doing their jobs and, strictly speaking, I guess can charge for each minute and each and every mile, but I don't believe that to do so would be in keeping with the generous sense of volunteerism that carried the day in the past.  It used to be that no one charged for mileage except for Township road reviews or in isolated cases where one had to travel a fair distance for a training, but many did not charge even then. As reported before, the payment for  "special meetings" ($70) was applied for those supervisors attending, say, an NCRWMO meeting as part of their responsibilities, though, again, some did not charge for this either.  The intent  when it was passed (and I know this because I was there for the discussion) was that these extra meetings can take a few hours each, just as a special meeting of the Board locally can, and supervisors are paid for that.  The idea was not to pay for, as an example, a fifteen-minute discussion with an agency rep, but was for a full-fledged meeting with the VRWJPO or NCRWMO bodies and the like.

Now, this is just my personal opinion; you may disagree.  All citizens should know that what each Supervisor is paid and what for is public information which can be accessed at any time via a request of the Clerk.  Stay tuned for more information...

RECOMMENDATION COMING TO BOARD...

At the last agritourism committee meeting, where I was one of two audience members, the committee approved its recommendation to advance to the Board at their upcoming meeting Monday evening.




That is, they are advising the Board to appoint a Task Force with access to the attorney and a planner to study the subject further.  It was recognized that this issue needs more time to be done right, along with critical input from professionals.  This path is similar to that which was taken with the transfer of building rights and makes sense.

The general feedback from the open house was varied, with some uses being considered okay to be allowed with somewhat minimal regulation, while others were thought to require conditions in the permitting process.  Thank you to all who came to the event and/or sent in feedback!





It will be interesting how the Board responds to this recommendation. Hopefully, they will heed the advice of those they appointed to examine this issue and approve the Task Force, including the access to professional assistance.



I notice that the website is on the agenda for the Board meeting.  I sincerely hope the Board will finally get this fixed (there was never a need for us to go without the password!) so that the information from the open house and the minutes from all the agritourism meetings will be available to you, the public, to examine and inform yourselves about!

DANKE, MERCI, GRACIAS, THANK YOU!

A big thank you to Jeff Otto for his thorough work on writing up the procedure for application for a transfer of building rights under the recently adopted Ordinance, complete with the appropriate forms from the attorney.

As a member of the Transfer Task Force, I can attest to Jeff's dedication to this matter.  As Chair of the Task Force, Jeff had an agenda for each and every meeting, was thoroughly prepared for each, spoke to the attorney when necessary, spoke to individuals in other local governments, and followed through.  This latest effort from him is just his following through once more for the benefit of Eureka citizens.  It was clear to Clerk Linda Wilson and to the Planning Commission that Jeff had (once again) spent considerable time on his work which he presented to the Commission last evening, and they thanked him for it.

It is encouraging to see a citizen volunteer his time in such a selfless manner: no private agenda, just a sincere wish to help his community. His is a great example to all of us.

I hope this doesn't  embarrass  Jeff too much, but he deserves the recognition and thanks, and not just at a meeting of the Commission or the Board!  :-)

THE GANG THAT COULDN'T SHOOT STRAIGHT?

As reported earlier, the Township Clerk/Treasurer, Nanett Sandstrom, resigned not long ago.  The Deputy Clerk, Linda Wilson, was made Clerk, but was not able to do the CTAS bookkeeping as she hasn't been trained in that.  There were TWO Special Meetings on this topic. The Board at its December meeting, or more precisely, Supervisor Brian Budenski, asked Linda what she needed to help her
.

Linda replied that she had talked to Nanett and Nanett was willing to stay on for a couple of more months and perhaps might even stay on after that.  Linda had already sworn Nanett in so that the December Financial Reports could be done. She said she would like to work with Nanett for at least this transitional period.


However, three Supervisors, Storlie, Ceminsky, and Madden, appeared to have a problem with that. Chair's Storlie's "impeccable" logic presented publicly was that, since, Nanett had been both Clerk and Treasurer before, and would now have reduced responsibilities as just Treasurer, she should take a cut in pay!  She was paid "x" to do "a" and "b."  She did either "a" or "b" at one time, right; she didn't do both at once?  So now she could do just "b," thus having fewer hours and thus earning less money, but Storlie wants to also dock her hourly pay by, as I recall, roughly 20%!

So you have an employee who has been here for 14 years.  Is she suddenly less experienced to do "b?"  Has she suddenly forgotten all her training on CTAS? Has she suddenly not been here at Eureka for as long as she has? What real justification does Mr. Storlie have to reduce her hourly pay? How insulting is that!? Personally, I think the three Supervisors who voted to reduce her pay figured she wouldn't accept their "New Deal," and this was a way to seem "reasonable" (?), leaving her to make the call.  

Well, she did.  "No Way!" was her reported answer.  Can you blame her? I surely do not.

So now we have no Treasurer.  A very nice person (I have met her) from Castle Rock has agreed to fill in in that capacity for a while, but she does not want the job.  Linda Wilson does not want the job; in fact, she is looking for another job. She has stayed on for now because of concern for the citizens of Eureka. She doesn't even live here, but SHE has concern for the citizens of Eureka!  Where is the Board's concern, I wonder?

Oh!  Lest I forget! Who told Nanett she no longer has a job here after the Board's vote?  NOT CHAIR STORLIE!  NOT SUPERVISOR CEMINSKY!  NOT SUPERVISOR MADDEN!  Not even Supervisors Budenski and Miller who would have liked to see her stay.  Oh no, not the Fortitudinous Five! They let Linda be the bearer of the bad news!  Isn't that nice? Really stand-up.



In fact, as of one o'clock on New Year's Eve, it was believed that not one of the five has yet even called Nanett to get the password for the website from her.  They HAVE called another citizen who did work on the website in the past, but not the logical person, Nanett! This is the reason the Agritourism Task Force minutes have not been posted as requested and as has been done for other task forces! No call to Nanett: no password!  Is the Board doing its best to inform the public here?  I would say, no, definitely not.

Also, as of one o'clock on New Year's Eve, there still has not been an ad placed in the newspaper seeking a replacement even though that request has been made a few times.  The current temporary replacement doesn't want the job! There are end-of-year reports to be done as well as the usual monthly work.  Shouldn't we start looking for someone new since we have chucked away the person who has served us well for the last nearly decade and a half?


Related but different: You recall the Conditional Use Permit for Living Waters Church on Dodd Boulevard? You might recall that I reported on that public hearing, including Commissioner Hansen's testifying as a member of the public AND serving as Planning Commissioner!

Hansen was to assist Linda with drafting a letter to the applicants, explaining what else they have to submit for a complete application. There has to be another public hearing.  The Township is picking up the tab for that. Well, as of one o'clock on New Year's Eve, Hansen has not been by to get this letter finished and sent.  This made me wonder has ANYONE contacted the applicants or the realtor at all? The answer was that to the best of knowledge, no one had yet called them  to let them know where they stood on the matter. If that is true, how are you being represented?  Remember, the first public hearing was on December 5th.  New Year's Eve was three and one half weeks later!

Put yourself in the applicants' shoes.  What would be your impression of Eureka Township? Sure you still want to be here?
Put yourself in the realtor's shoes. She has already expressed real concerns regarding the Board's actions at the November meeting. She would like the sale to go through.  Time is money.
Put yourself in the bank's shoes.  You finally have a buyer for the property.  Is the Township going to handle this so poorly that your buyer decides it's not worth it and goes to look elsewhere?

The gang that couldn't shoot straight?  I think their aim is straight--straight into their collective foot!