DIGGING A LITTLE DEEPER

         The Truth is Out There Someplace!

                                        

Attending Town Board and 

Planning Commission meetings,

in my opinion, is an important

part of living in a community.

As I spend several hours sitting

through a meeting, I expect to

hear discussions based on facts.

Many times I find I need to do my

homework on issues to sort out

fact from fiction as I experience a 
"spin" attached to discussions which can change the outcome 
in a negative manner.

In particular, at the last two Town Board meetings,  the issue of a

proposed annexation of the Airlake Airport property seems to

have morphed into the prospect of Commercial/Industrial (C/I)

zoning within Eureka Township. In particular, there is a push
by a few to "spot zone" four properties on the Northern
Corridor.

During the Public input period, as well as during Board discussions,

Alan Novacek, Butch Hansen and Mark Parranto were quite 

adamant that the only way to keep Airlake from annexation is to 

allow C/I zoning.

AlAN NOVACEK:  Stated,"I was at the Annual meeting when it was 

overwhelmingly voted to proceed with C/I and I do not see it

being promoted." I am also aware that a motion was made

"to direct the Planning Commission to involve language in the

Comprehensive plan." (There is NO such motion in the meeting
recording to direct the Planning Commission to involve language 
in the Comprehensive Plan.) Alan went on to say "The Comprehensive 
Plan is often used as a tactic by people who do not want to see things 
changed. That is paralysis through analysis."

"Sequencing; in order for the airport to stay in Eureka, we have to 
have  C/I.  In order for that to happen, you have to have the sewer
line and in order for that to happen you have to change the 
Comprehensive Plan."

BUTCH HANSEN:  "I made the motion at the Annual meeting, I know

what the motion is; get the minutes. Citizens gave the direction at the

Annual meeting as to what to do. Citizens asked you to start a 

Commercial Zone up there. The citizens gave the direction; what

have you done?  It is pretty frustrating when the direction at the

Annual meeting was to do something. It was overwhelming to continue

ahead with the Commercial zone and not allow Airlake to get annexed.

Needs to be tooken [sic] care of. That is what you (Town Board) were

given direction for at the Annual meeting."

MARK PARRANTO:  "The only point I wish to address is you, as

the Board, can write a zoning ordinance that says what industrial

use is or is not.  You can write that into the zoning ordinance

and you do not have to designate properties. The airport staying in 

Eureka is important and questions by the Board has not pushed hard

for the Joint Powers and get them to say yes or no."

CHAIR BUDENSKI:  (Chair Budenski wrote his own ordinance 

language without direction from the Board, input from the Planning

Commission or Board discussion and expected the Planning

Commission to hold a public hearing on his drafted ordinance.)

Brian stated at the September Town Board meeting: "Send to the
Planning Commission (his draft ordinance) so we can schedule a 
Public Hearing. Why isn't there something in the new 
Comprehensive plan that encourages common growth on our 
Northern Corridor like the motion that was made at the 
Annual meeting? That is what the Board was directed to do 
by the citizens. The citizens decided that they wanted a 
Commercial zone up there. It ain't that hard to do."

                                             AND THE TRUTH IS!!!

THE TRUTH REGARDING THE CONTENT OF THE MOTION
WAS AS I REMEMBERED.

After sitting through the last two Town Board meetings, I decided to 

take Butch's advice, dig a little deeper, and review the Annual 

meeting minutes to confirm the motion made by Butch Hansen.
The motion from the Annual meeting was misrepresented, 
not only by the citizens quoted above, but by the Chair of the Board
at the same September Board meeting.

There was discussion during the meeting regarding C/I; however,

the "meat" of the discussion was regarding trying to prevent the
annexation of the Airlake airport.  Three members from MAC 
were present.

Attorney Lemmons stated the following regarding the methods

for annexation allowed under State Statue:

1) Voluntary annexation where both municipalities agree to it. Both

     would pass resolutions agreeing to annexation.

2) The owner or all owners of the properties which wish to be

     annexed petition to the State to annex the property, but that 

     petition must be accompanied by a resolution from one of the

     municipalities supporting the annexation.

Reviewing the CD provided clarity to the motion made by

Butch Hansen at the Annual meeting which is quoted exactly

as follows:

Butch Hansen: Made a motion "To direct the Board to negotiate
with the Airport Commission and to solicit the Metropolitan to 
hook up to the sewer line to the airport and to look into them 
to be able to put in a 10 inch well head or whatever they need to 
provide themselves water. Does not include negotiating with Lakeville.

Do not need to negotiate with Lakeville."

The motion was seconded by Mark Ceminsky.

Attorney Lemmons asked to clarify the motion stating "Negotiate 

between the Township and MAC?"

Butch Hansen added "So they can hook up to sewer line."

A roll call vote was taken. Thirty four citizens voted yes and four 
voted no.

There was NO MENTION of Commercial/Industrial in the motion. Why 
the push now for C/I, and in particular, four specific properties in the
North.  It appears a little more "digging"might be in order.
                                        

                                              

In case you did not know, there are approximately 1,500 citizens in 
Eureka. In my opinion, thirty-eight people is not a stellar representation 
of the Eureka citizens and their opinions on this issue.

                                                 

"Oh what a web we weave, when first we practice to deceive."
Sir Walter Scott

(The above information was taken directly from the recorded minutes of the

March 2016 Annual meeting and the September 16, 2016 Town Board

meeting. A CD copy of both meetings can be obtained from the Township

Clerk).

                                            

HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT, TOO?

SCENE: Eureka Planning Commission holds a meeting earlier in the summer and is discussing the Comprehensive Plan update.

A few citizens ask to speak at the meeting and are heard. They "advise" the Planning Commission that it (the PC) could be "instrumental" (as in being out front trailblazing) in implementing Commercial/Industrial (C/I) use in the Township. They implied the PC could steer things in the "right" direction. Seems all the Commission needs to do is to take the bull by the horns and just include this use in the current Comprehensive Plan update and progress shall be made.

Never mind that the Commission was simply directed by the Board to "update" the current Plan. It was even told by one then-Supervisor, Kenny Miller, "It shouldn't take you long; there aren't any major changes."

One of the citizens who came before the PC didn't seem to even realize (based on his facial expression), until the Chair so informed him, that the Comp Plan can be updated at any time and even repeatedly if desired- NOT just every ten years! This is the same person who publicly stated  AS A PLANNING COMMISSIONER that Eureka would be better off with no ordinances at all! Hello!? How can one be a Planning Commissioner and do one's job under our Ordinances which include the description of the role and duties of the Commission, if one is in direct opposition to even having local laws? I do not know why one believing so would even apply to be on the Commission.

As Chair of the Commission I told the citizens that this "direction" of theirs might wash if we wanted to be a ROGUE Commission, but we were actually following the Town Board's direction. Thank you very much.


Okay, so first the PC is castigated for following the Board's direction. Hold that thought.



NOW FAST FORWARD TO AUGUST 1ST MEETING OF THE COMMISSION:
(I, as Chair, was not present being on a trip to Canada, so Vice Chair Fritz Frana chaired the meeting.)


Chair Budenski, as related in an earlier post, in July instigated a direction to the Commission to hold a public "hearing" on "public opinion" regarding making four specific properties C/I. (See earlier post.) There was no detail at all as to what the properties might be used for exactly or anything else, such as performance standards. None.



Discussing -not scheduling- this "hearing" was on the PC agenda in August. The opinion was expressed that scheduling it may not be appropriate at that time under the circumstances.

Evidently, this opinion met with some intense pushback from some members of the public in attendance who lectured (my word) Frana to schedule the hearing "or it will be done for you!" These members included those individuals speaking at the earlier meeting first referenced.

Frana did not yield to this pressure.

This sort of "hearing" on "public opinion" on an ill-defined idea has never been held before that I am aware of!

Further, the proposal is out of sync with state statute and the Comprehensive Plan and the results of the C/I study results approved by the Board (including Budenski) at the time. Hey, not an issue: just go ahead and do it because we said so. I have to say that I would have supported Commissioner Frana on this matter.

Here's the rub:

Ordinance 2 Ch. 3
Chapter 3: Planning Commission
Section 1 – PURPOSE
 This Ordinance is enacted for the following purposes:
A. To encourage sound and harmonious growth of the community and its environs and efficiency and economy in the provision of facilities and services, to ensure maximum returns for expenditure of public funds, and to avoid errors and waste resulting from unplanned and uncoordinated development. (Resolution 59, 8-13-2007) 
 B. To plan for the physical development, to recommend a zoning plan for the Township of Eureka and provide rules for the operation thereof.
 C. To prepare and maintain in current form a comprehensive plan with related studies, statement of policies, regulations and ordinances to guide the development of the Township of Eureka. 
D. To establish a Planning Commission under the authority granted by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 462.354.

                                   AND

Section 6 - FUNCTIONS, POWERS AND DUTIES
The functions, powers and duties of the Commission shall be, in general:
A. To acquire and maintain in current form such basic information and background data as is necessary to an understanding of past trends, present conditions, and forces at work to cause changes in these conditions.
 B. To prepare and keep a current comprehensive general plan for meeting present requirements, and such future needs as may be foreseen.
 C. To establish principles and policies for guiding action affecting development in the Township and its environs.
 D. To prepare and recommend to the Town Board ordinances, regulations, and other proposals promoting orderly development along lines indicated as desirable by the Comprehensive Plan. 
 E. To determine whether specific proposed development conforms to the principles and requirements for the Comprehensive Plan and the Ordinances. Ordinance 2 Ch. 3
F. To keep the Town Board and the general public informed and advised as to all planning and development matters.
G. To conduct such public hearings, as may be required to gather information necessary for the drafting, establishment, and maintenance of a Comprehensive Plan and Ordinances and regulations relating to it, and to establish public committees for the purpose of collecting and supplying information necessary for the Plan, or for the purpose of promoting the accomplishment of the Plan in whole or in part.
H. To perform other duties which may be lawfully assigned to it, or which may have bearing on the preparation or accomplishment of the Plan. In connection with its duties, and within the limit of its funds, the Commission may make, cause to be made, or obtain maps, aerial photographs.
(Emphases mine.)



As I presented to the Board during the Public Comment period at their August meeting, the Comprehensive Plan would have to be updated first to move forward with C/I zoning. The Comprehensive Plan calls for a thorough study of this use. To date, this has not been completed. Things such as a fiscal impact study, as called for, just MIGHT be important!?! The Township CANNOT implement ordinances that are in conflict with its Comprehensive Plan. This is a state statute matter. So then, is the Planning Commission supposed to follow such direction blindly, or are we supposed to help the Board understand the legal as well as the planning issues involved here?

NOTE, as I pointed out to Budenski in July, the Board can resume and could always resume the study at any time. Preferably when economic conditions improve as was recommended from the market study, of which I for one do not see any real evidence. The Board could then, if it thought it appropriate, ultimately call for an update of the Comprehensive Plan along those lines.



Then there is the matter of using up what could be argued as prime C/I land for the future with uses that will not go away and that will not be of any significant benefit to the Township. Things such as outdoor or even enclosed storage, truck depots, etc. do not bring in significant taxes. The one commercial/industrial use that is there (by mishap in my opinion) is already paying C/I taxes, so no net benefit there, either.

Do you know that we currently have residences in the Township that pay more taxes than some of the existing (truly grandfathered) commercial uses do? Some of these uses are similar to those low-tax-benefit uses mentioned above.



Now, also during the Public Comment time at the August Board meeting, some of the same individuals that were at the PC meetings referenced above came forward and complained about the PC's hesitation about going ahead with holding such a (meaningless-my opinion) "public hearing." The PC Vice Chair was personally denigrated for doing what he thought, with GOOD reason, to be the right thing. Aspersions were cast on the Commission as being a poor reflection on Eureka. Urgency for C/I use was expressed - again, contrary to the study results.
None of the four specific property owners were present, interestingly. Nor have they come in to any meetings recently.

Okay, so now the Planning Commission was being castigated for not immediately following the Board's direction to hold a hearing on "public opinion" for four properties and their use- even when it knows that that direction is ill-founded.

AFTER the July Board meeting, some Ordinance language was submitted to the Town Clerk for the hearing by Chair Brian Budenski. Problem there is, the Board had never seen this language, never discussed it, never agreed to send it forward for a hearing. This was not coming from the Board at all! So now the PC is expected to include this language for the hearing based on one Supervisor's desire?


This ordinance language talks about a C/I "District," but never says where that might BE! Presumably, then, it could be anywhere in the Township???

I always thought that there were five members on the Town Board. We used to say it was good to get five different viewpoints on issues. Now, ONE member evidently wants the PC to move ahead to hold a public hearing on ordinance language to create a C/I district. AGAIN, the trouble is, that CANNOT be done until the Comprehensive Plan would be updated, preferably following further study. (That pesky state statute again)


POINT: How would it make any sense to hold a public hearing on an ordinance that CANNOT EVEN BE ADOPTED at this time? Is THAT a wise use of your taxpayer dollars?

                        WE'RE STILL NOT DONE! 

Before the PC September meeting, lo and behold, a map highlighting the four properties shows up plus some language supposedly from 1966 that holds no import today! This submission was attached to the ordinance language that came earlier from Supervisor Budenski and was in our packets. Commissioner Frana, Supervisor and Liaison Behrendt, and I all commented that we had never seen these items before. None of the Commission had. So again, never has the Board seen this, discussed it, or agreed to send this forward!

Supervisor Behrendt made the point at the September PC meeting, as he also had at the August Board meeting (at which Budenski didn't show), that the Commission does NOT have before it any language from the Board on this subject. He stated that, as far as he is concerned, this came from an individual, not from the Board. Further, in August, the Board tabled the idea of holding a hearing on "public opinion" at least until further clarification might be made.

                  CARE FOR A PIECE?