A BIRD'S-EYE VIEW OF THE EUREKA TOWN BOARD REORGANIZATIONAL MEETING

On Tuesday, March 25, the Eureka Town Board held their Reorganizational Meeting which
follows the Board of Canvass meeting. The intent of the meeting is to address Township business
such as the election of the Town Board chair and vice-chair, adopt a calendar of Town Board regular meetings and designate the official newspaper and legal posting places.  Decisions are also made regarding the designation of the Township attorney, professional services, the official bank, officer compensation, policies and other Township organizational matters.

SELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR:
Supervisor Ceminsky nominated Kenny Miller as Chair and himself as Vice-Chair. Supervisor
Budenski agreed with the nomination of Kenny Miller as Chair, but nominated Cory Behrendt as Vice-Chair.
The voting results:  Supervisor Miller is Chair and Supervisor Behrendt is Vice-Chair.

ADOPTION OF THE CALENDAR OF THE TOWN BOARD REGULAR MEETINGS:
April 14, 2014                       August 11, 2014                    December 08, 2014
May 12, 2014                        September 08, 2014              January 12, 2015
June 02, 2014                        October 14, 2014 (Tues)       February 09, 2014
July 14, 2014                         November 10, 2014              March 09, 2015

ADOPTION OF THE CALENDAR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR
MEETINGS:
April 07, 2014                      August 04, 2014                     December 01, 2014
May 05, 2014                      September 02, 2014 (Tues)     January 05, 2015
June 02, 2014                      October 06, 2014                    February 02, 2015
July 02, 2014                       November 03, 2014                March 02, 2015

OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER:  Dakota County Tribune and Sun ThisWeek
DESIGNATED POSTING PLACE:  Eureka Town Hall outside bulletin board
DESIGNATED OFFICIAL BANK:  Castle Rock Bank

DESIGNATED TOWNSHIP ATTORNEY:  Supervisor Ceminsky made a motion to continue
with the current Township law firm, Kelly & Lemmons, with a caveat that within 60 days the
Town Board review other law firms as well as Kelly & Lemmons. The motion was 2nd by Supervisor
Madden. Supervisor Behrendt was in favor of the Township continuing with Kelly & Lemmons.
The voting result: Supervisor Ceminsky, Madden, Miller and Budenski voted yea
and Supervisor Behrendt voted nay.  
                                                 

BUILDING INSPECTOR:  The Board will review the Building Inspector RFP process at the April meeting. A contract has NOT been signed at this time with Darrel Gilmer.  Paperwork will be submitted to
the State requesting a State-appointed Commercial Inspector until the Township can contract with a Commercial Inspector.

ENGINEERING AND PLANNING:  The Township will continue to utilize TKDA.

SUPERVISOR LAWYER CONTACT:  Supervisor Ceminsky and Supervisor Behrendt
 indicated an interest as lawyer contact.  A ballot vote was taken.
The voting result: Supervisor Behrendt received  4 votes; Supervisor Ceminsky received
1 vote. Supervisor Behrendt is the primary attorney contact and Supervisor Miller
is second per the Attorney Engagement Policy. 

SET COMPENSATION FOR TOWNSHIP OFFICERS:  Supervisor Ceminsky moved that
Officers should NOT receive compensation for Board and Planning Commission meetings, special
meetings, liaison meetings and site inspections. Supervisor Ceminsky did exclude election judges in
his motion. He stated "that is what the citizens at the Annual Meeting wanted." REALLY?  
I attended the Annual Meeting and at no time, that I am aware of, did any citizen state
that he/she believes Township Officers should not be compensated. This is absurd and
unprecedented. Supervisor Madden 2nd the motion.
The voting result: Supervisors Madden and Ceminsky voted yea and Supervisors Miller,
Behrendt and Budenski voted nay. The motion failed. Supervisor Behrendt made a motion
to accept the fee schedule as presented. Supervisor Budenski 2nd the motion. Supervisors
Budenski, Miller and Behrendt voted yea; Supevisors Madden and Ceminsky voted nay.
Our Township Officials will be compensated as they should be.
In the past some Planning Commissioners and Supervisors have declined payment or have
in some way donated their fee back to the Township. This has been a personal choice and
is an option that can be utilized by Supervisors Ceminsky and Madden or any Officer
if they chose to do so.

SUPERVISOR ASSIGNMENTS:  
Lakeville Fire Contract - Supervisor Madden
Farmington Fire Contact - Supervisor Madden
North Cannon and Vermillion River Watershed - Supervisors Budenski and Ceminsky
Weed Inspector - Supervisor Madden
Roads - Supervisor Budenski and Supervisor Behrendt
Wetlands/DNR - Supervisor Miller
Airlake Airport - Supervisor Ceminsky
Town Hall Supervisor - Supervisor Miller
County Contact - Supervisor Miller
Sheriff Contact - #1 - Supervisor Budenski, #2 - Supervisor Madden
Compliance Officer - Supervisor Behrendt
Professional Services - Supervisor Behrendt
Building Inspector Contact - Supervisor Ceminsky
IT Consultant - Supervisor Behrendt

Anyone you might recognize?

BUILDING INSPECTOR CODE BOOKS:  The recently purchased Minnesota State Building Code books have been taken from the Town Hall premises. (The Code books belong exclusively to the Township and were paid for by the citizens). The Board agreed to once again purchase the Minnesota State Building Code books and secure them.
        
Policies, MAT meetings, signer cards, the next Roundtable Meeting date, clerk and Treasurer positions and other issues were discussed.  Information can be obtained from the Clerk regarding the Reorganizational Meeting and the Annual Meeting as well as CD copies of the meetings.

HANSEN ALLEGES IMPROPER PROCEDURE IN ORDINANCE ADOPTION

At the March meeting of the Planning Commission, Attorney Jerry Filla, of Kelly and Lemmons, was present to answer questions previously submitted by the Commission, at their request.

One of those submitted questions had originated with Commissioner Butch Hansen, who wanted to know if the "Duck Book"  of earlier Ordinances didn't govern nonconforming uses today.  See "Still Shaking My Head" post.

Jerry Filla's answer to this question?  "The Duck Book is history." He then stated, "I assume, of course, you have followed all the proper procedures, such as holding a public hearing."



What happened next?  Butch Hansen then immediately stated that a public hearing was never held on the Ordinance changes!!! He insisted that "the verbage [sic] was changed"  In fact he said that three times, until Commissioner Carrie Jennings asked him to please be more specific about what he was talking about. He never was more specific, but repeated that a hearing was not held.

Let me be specific: If you go to the website and look up minutes you will indeed see that
1)  a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on April 18th, 2005, followed by 
2) a Special Planning Commission Meeting on the same date.  Then
3) a Special Meeting of the Board was held on, May 16, 2005, specifically to review the changes to the Ordinance from the public hearing. After that,
4) a public hearing was held by the Board of Supervisors on June 7, 2005, followed right after by
5) a Special Town Board Meeting also on June 7, 2005 to review the changes from the second public hearing. 

Not only was a public hearing held, but a second one was held by the Board just to make sure everyone had a chance to weigh in!  (This is unusual.) The Board then adopted the Ordinances as amended at the hearings..

But here's something also interesting:  Butch Hansen was in attendance at both April 18th meetings as a Planning Commissioner.  He even made a motion or two during the special meeting and, if I counted correctly, eight comments during the public hearing!
One comment made reads thus on page 5: "Francie Madden: Old ordinances are repealed and new ordinance immediately instated.
Butch Hansen- old ordinance is in effect until (emphasis added) the new ordinance is adopted."  (Seems like he understood it then!)

(It was also asked and stated by others at the April 18th hearing that the Ordinances and the proposed Ordinances were on the Township website-yet another way for the public to be aware of proposed changes.)

Also of note is that in May 2005 Butch Hansen was no longer on the Planning Commission; he and another member were replaced by Mike Greco and Kevin Flaherty.

Hmmmmm.  

Back to the March 2014 Commission  meeting: Then-Supervisor, Pete Storlie, who was Board liaison for the evening, stated that the recording of the hearing could be looked for as such recordings are kept.


Fast-forward to the Annual Meeting 2014.  This time Attorney Chad Lemmons, of Kelly and Lemmons, was in attendance to answer any legal questions that might arise.  The topic of this Ordinance adoption was brought up again.  A citizen asked if a public hearing would have been neccessary.  Mr. Lemmons' answer was "yes."  The citizen stated that the recording must also be reviewed, or words to that effect.  Mr. Lemmons said he agreed that having the recording "would be nice," but it was not essential as the approved, written minutes are the official record.

Well, there you go!  Paraphrasing Sherlock Holmes, "What game's afoot, Watson?"

"COW: C - O - W........E - I - E - I - O!"

The Agritourism Task Force met again last Tuesday night from 7:00 to 8:35 p.m.
Fritz Frana was absent; Atina Diffley participated via conference call; all others were present.  Two members of the public were present.


The members once again further discussed the definitions, "triggers" for Township review, and the various possible uses.  Atina Diffley will do further work on performance standards, while Mark Paranto is going to work on a procedure for an Interim Use Permit (IUP) for agritourism, which may or may not be different from the procedure for other IUPs, such as for mining.

The group also discussed possible registration of such uses for a nominal fee.  This would allow the Township to know what is occurring within its borders, the landowner to state that the Township is aware of her use, as well as the dissemination of information regarding the triggers and when a Township review of the use is required, with a possible IUP, due to higher impact. This was met with a positive reaction by the committee members. It was noted that this is a different sort of use in that it could occur at a level whereby it would be permitted by right, but could also occur at a greater level of intensity, possibly requiring an IUP. This two-level approach is supported by public feedback from the public open house held in December, 2013.



(When I think that, earlier, it was thought by certain Board members at the time, that just a definition would suffice for regulation of this use, I shudder. The Task Force has discovered that it is, indeed, the complex subject that many members of the public said it was at the time of the hearing ON THE DEFINITION!!!)




The group canceled its March 26th meeting, but will meet again on April 3rd.  It will meet with TKDA Senior Planner,  Sherri Buss, on April 8th.  It plans to meet with the Township Attorney, with perhaps one more committee meeting before going to the Board with a recommendation.

Since this added use could affect systems such as traffic, it presumably must be submitted to the Metropolitan Council for input before final adoption.





Your faithful reporter has asked that the minutes from all these meetings and other materials be posted on the website now that it is "semi-up" again, but thus far this hasn't happened.  I'll try again!

Remember that your comments on this use can always be sent to Linda Wilson, Clerk, at the Township, and she will forward them to the Task Force for its consideration.  Otherwise, members of the public in attendance at the meetings have been given limited opportunity for such comment.  There will, of course, be an opportunity at a public hearing at some time in the future.

Eureka Town Board Reorganization Meeting

   

                 Eureka Town Board

        Reorganization Meeting

                           Tuesday, March 25

                                   7:00 p.m.      

                            Eureka Town Hall

GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT!

For those of you who attend Town Board meetings, you might be familiar with the practice of the Town Board Chair allowing citizens 3 minutes each to speak during the public comment period. The policy reads as follows:
                                                                                                                  
Public Comment Period (Beginning of a Meeting)

Although not required by Township ordinances, a public comment period will be held at the beginning of each Board meeting (following agenda approval) to receive input from individuals in attendance. The "public comment" section of the agenda is your opportunity to address items on the agenda or general comments to the Board. The following procedures will be followed:

Individuals wishing to be heard during this period will be required to sign in and indicate their
intention to speak before moving to speak.
     1. Public comment will be taken after the agenda is approved in the order of signature.
     2. The time allotted for all comments will be no longer than twenty (20) minutes.
     3. After recognition by the Chair, each individual will have up to three (3) minutes
         to speak and cannot assign any remaining time to someone else.  Time may be extended
         by the Chair based on the number of speakers and time available.
     4. Each person will stand up or stand at the podium, if one is available, and give their
         name, address and group affiliation (if applicable) before addressing the Board.
     5. If a group would like to address the Board, an appointed spokesperson will speak for the group.

It is requested that anyone bringing written materials to the meeting have seven (7)copies available - five for the Board, one for the public and one for the official record.

The Township Board supervisors will listen to your comments and may ask questions for clarification. It should be noted that this is a time for listening, not uncontrolled debate. If there is a need for a response from the Board, it should come at a later time when the Board has had time to deliberate the issue, to seek more information, or to take recommendations from its attorney.
(The information above is only a portion taken from the Policy on Citizen Input and Conduct at Township Meetings.)

At the March 10 Town Board meeting two citizens came before the Board with concerns regarding citizens
putting garbage/recycling in the Town Hall containers.  The citizens stated that the sheriff could do nothing about this and asked if the dumping practice was appropriate.  The Chair stated that he was not aware if the Township had a policy regarding this issue. The two citizens went well beyond the 3 minutes allowed and failed to bring the 7 copies of the sheriff's report they read from including 1 copy for the public. After the citizens continued to ask the same question, Chair Miller very politely and patiently stated that citizens should be "reasonable" regarding this matter and utilize "common sense". The citizen stated that she had garbage with her and was wondering if it was okay to dump it in the garbage container as other people seem to be allowed to do so.  The Chair asked the couple to put their concerns in writing and the topic could be discussed at the Reorganization Meeting. (The above comments can be accessed on the public comment portion of the March 10 Town Board meeting CD.)

What was the real motive for this concern? To the best of my knowledge this has NOT been an issue in the past, nor has it been necessary to implement a policy to regulate. Has someone been dumpster diving and checking on whether or not citizens have been putting paper in the Town Hall recycle or garbage containers?

The Town Hall garbage and recycle containers are on public property.  As a citizen, I would prefer that citizens utilize the containers if they find this is necessary rather than leave their trash along the roads where the road contractor picks up the trash at the expense of the citizens.  If I put something in the wastebasket inside the Town Hall, would I then be in violation of a policy which addresses garbage? Are Town Board Supervisors and Planning Commission members allowed to dispose of their volumes of paper work in the outdoor recycle bin? I would hope this is allowed. If a dumpster diver or a drive by citizen finds a piece of personal paper in the garbage or notices a citizen disposing of papers, will it be deemed an offense and worthy of calling the Dakota County Sheriff as has been done in the recent past? Will it be necessary to build an enclosure around the garbage/recycle containers with a secure lock?

The Town Board has many issues to contend with that are certainly more pressing than the dumpster issue.  Who will monitor the garbage/recycle bins? Does the Dakota County Sheriff's office have more important things to do than write reports regarding the garbage? I believe they do.

I highly recommend the Town Board supervisors give serious thought to all aspects of what a policy regarding garbage monitoring on public property would entail prior to the consideration of establishing a policy on managing the garbage containers. My experience has been that many citizens believe the Town Board makes policies and ordinances that over-regulate.  A policy to regulate the use of the Town Hall garbage receptacles, in my opinion, would be gross over-regulation and another expense for citizens to absorb.


For those who are curious as to who might throw something in the trash, it is good to know that dumpster diving on public property is not usually prohibited by law. After all "one person's trash is another's treasure." For those who choose to enhance their life by dumpster diving or are just plain nosey and/or have an agenda, there is a group, Dumpster Diving Together, that you might find of interest. Perhaps you might enjoy How to Dumpster Dive which includes 15 steps. Check the internet!

GIVE YOURSELF A PAT ON THE BACK...

IF YOU VOTED IN THE TOWNSHIP ELECTIONS!

Supervisor position #1:  Brian Budenski 249 votes   
                                     Butch Hansen   149 votes

Supervisor position #2:  Cory Behrendt 238 votes   
                                   
                                     Pete Storlie      161 votes


399 votes total!

Levy for 2015:  $435,000





Good night, or should I say Good Morning!?!?

Where The Rubber Meets The Road!

As a citizen in Eureka Township, do you at times wonder how your tax money is spent? For those who have concerns or questions, are unable to attend Township meetings, or have not had access to the Budget,
allow me to offer you "food for thought" regarding $'s spent on the Township roads above and beyond the road contractor's budget.

Eureka Township has two Board-appointed road supervisors: Mark Ceminsky and Board Chair, Peter Storlie. To the best of my knowledge there is no Policy adopted
which would define the responsibilities of a road supervisor. The Township also has a contract with Mark Henry, a State-Certified Road Contractor.

I have concerns regarding the 2013 road-related mileage and meeting charges which have been submitted to the Township per our road supervisors. The Town Board supervisors engage in a road review trip
every year to determine what road work needs to be done regarding culverts, road conditions, ditch issues etc.  The Planning Commission members also conduct a road review trip once every year after which they make recommendations to the Board. If citizens have a complaint regarding the road or road right-of-way, they contact a road supervisor who will then contact the road contractor.

My concerns are the following charges submitted for payment in 2013:

• First Quarter 2013 - Supervisor Ceminsky submitted 414 miles for payment at the Federal rate. Supervisor Storlie submitted 20 miles for payment and Supervisor Madden requested 20.4 miles for payment.
• Second Quarter 2013 - Supervisor Ceminsky submitted 921 miles for payment; no one else claimed mileage.
• Third Quarter 2013 - Supervisor Ceminsky submitted 1,112 miles for payment for road miles and "mileage supervisor." Supervisor Storlie submitted 20 miles for payment. Ninety-one additional miles were submitted pertaining to CAPX which should be reimbursed by the CAPX escrow.
• Fourth Quarter 2013 - Supervisor Ceminsky submitted payment for 20 "road-related" meetings = $1, 400.00 with no mileage shown.  An additional twenty-three meeting charges were submitted by Supervisor Ceminsky which should also be reimbursed by CAPX.

Charges like these, other than similar ones made by Supervisor Ceminsky in 2012, have been unprecedented.

The recent Eureka Newsletter stated that "with the hard work of our road contractor, the roads have improved "tremendously." Do you agree with this? Most would think that the State-Certified Road Contractor is quite competent in completing the road work in Eureka. Are the Township road supervisors, logging 2,487 miles and a multitude of "road-related" meetings in 2013, micro-managing the road contractor at the expense of the taxpayers? Who has oversight regarding the

actions of the road supervisors? Are all road expenditures preapproved by a roll call of the Town Board supervisors or only after the fact on the claims list?

Keep in mind, Eureka is a Township of only approximately 35.9 square miles containing County roads maintained by Dakota County as well as road maintenance shared with Castle Rock Township.

IT WAS A DARK AND LONELY NIGHT...

...and the wind was HOWLING across the Town Hall parking lot, but at least this time the only agritourism task force member with a key who was in town showed up so we were able to have the meeting! (I will give credit for some shoveling of snow by the door.)




The faithful Three Musketeers of the public were in attendance, and Commissioner Fritz Frana took part long distance.  Thus, all members took part in the meeting.  Most of the evening was taken up with discussion of the four definitions submitted by Sherri Buss of TKDA.  It seems to have been the consensus that they could be condensed into two.

The "ever-popular" roadside stand for farm produce sales was again cited. It is agreed among the Musketeers that we do not have to revisit that at every meeting, yet it seems to occur!  It's already in the Ordinance, we all acknowledge that, let's get beyond that.




It seemed to me from his comments that Commissioner Hansen apparently does not understand the difference between complying with the Building Code and land use zoning.  Even though the task force's majority understands and believes, and the attorney recommends, that an IUP for agritourism use of a certain level is a good idea, providing the Township the ability to adjust conditions as problems might arise, Mr. Hansen kept pushing, in my opinion, for simply complying with the Building Code, no IUP necessary. He even made the statement that another member of the committee "just wants to regulate it."  Since an IUP is clearly beneficial to all at certain levels of impact, I was left wondering whether Hansen just "doesn't want to regulate it --at all."  He has, after all, several times  made the comment that this task force on which he sits isn't even necessary.


Refer to "The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight?" post for a similar issue on the AgStar/Living Waters Church CUP application during which Hansen stated that the Township could just go ahead and issue the building permit for the church and take care of the CUP at a later date!  I objected to this incorrect thinking at the next Board meeting. The Board then asked Attorney Chad Lemmons for his advice. He stated that it is done as one; the CUP includes the building permit as well as any conditions the Board deems beneficial for the use.

So why isn't it yet crystal clear that complying with the Building Code is all well and good, but that doesn't mean that is all that is desirable?  For example, one might want to build a factory and could comply with the Code, but that land use is not allowed, even under a special permit.  The church example shows that, yes, the Code must be met for a public building, but our Ordinance also shows that there are procedures and conditions involved in granting the CUP for this allowed land use. One doesn't just build a building. Even simple residential buildings, which have to meet Code, also have to meet land use requirements such as setbacks and housing density. At least some on the committee clearly get that.


The next meeting is to be held on Tuesday, March 4, 7:00-9:00 p.m., at the Town Hall.  You are encouraged to attend.  I heard a rumor that Musketeers bars are going to be served...