BITS AND PIECES

When SCOTTS Miracle-Gro, representing Friedges
Holdings, came before the Planning Commission
on June 6 of 2017 to apply for a new storage/office
building on the site at 225th and Highview, the 
Commission recommended denial of the application
to the Board. Reason given is that the property is 
controlled by the SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 
entered into by the Township and Country
Stone/Friedges Holdings on September 28, 2010. This
agreement, which ended the litigation, does not allow
further structures to be built.


Before the Commission meeting, Commission Chair Sauber
asked Attorney Chad Lemmons to confer with Attorney
Patrick Kelly of Kelly and Lemmons concerning the 
application vis-a-vis the agreement. Mr. Lemmons had
consulted with Mr. Kelly as the attorney acting for Eureka
Township at the time of the negotiation and the settlement
agreement. Therefore, Mr. Lemmons was assured in what
he represented to the Board about this property at its
meeting of June 12, 2017. 

The property is limited to the structures and the site plan
that was drawn at the time of the agreement. That is,
the structures are limited to what was present on the site
at the time of the agreement in 2010.

Even though informed otherwise by the attorney and advised
by the Commission Chair that the Board would have no 
legal basis upon which to approve the building application,
at the June Board meeting, this situation was disputed by the
applicant, Alex Allen, and his attorney, Matt Duffy.
The subject was discussed for a time. Audience members 
reminded the Board what they believed had been represented
in the initial building application for the currently 
existing structure and the subsequent agreement after 
litigation. (Now-Supervisor Hansen had represented the 
matter of a new (first) building application for Friedges
Holdings, Inc. at the property in 2005.) Activities
taking place at the operation, both before and after that
building construction, were also described.

                                          
The opinion was put forth that to build another building now
would actually constitute an expansion/intensification of the
use and would violate the settlement agreement. Much time,
much energy and professional assistance were expended on
the agreement, trying to get the best possible conditions
for the Township. It was felt by the Board members at the
time that to let it end up with the judge would likely not
end with suitable conditions from the Township's point
of view were the judge to allow the business to continue to
exist.

The further opinion was asserted that, even if what some
allege was represented in the very beginning in 2005, 
simply putting outside materials inside a new building, 
supposedly reducing noise and dust, were what had actually
happened at the site, this too, would have been an
expansion. (There is a ruling by the Minnesota Supreme
Court to this effect on another, allegedly very similar, case.)
Note that what ultimately did occur at the site was very 
different from what the Board at the time of the initial
building application understood. See minutes from the
November, 2005, Planning Commission meeting, the
November, 2005, Board meeting, the January, 2006,
Board meeting, and the January 18, 2006, Special Board
meeting for background. Be aware, however, that what
is represented in the minutes from these meetings 
contains errors, in my opinion, such as the part about
alteration, not expansion. As stated this is wrong under
MN Supreme Court ruling.

When asked by Supervisor Jennings at the June 2017
meeting if he were going to recuse himself since he
represented Friedges a number of times, Supervisor 
Hansen replied that he would not do so.

After further discussion, the Board voted. Supervisors
Rogers, Palmquist, Jennings, and Barfknecht ALL
voted to deny the application, following attorney
comment.

Supervisor Hansen, in DIRECT CONFLICT with
attorney advisement, voted against the motion to
deny the application.  The minutes did not state he
gave any reason for his vote of "nay."     

                       FAST FORWARD    

Eureka Town Board Meeting, July 10, 2017

Alex Allen, representing Scotts Miracle-Gro, came
before the Board to request a reconsideration of the
building permit which was denied at the June Board
meeting.

The Board members had received in their packet a 
DRAFT letter from Attorney Chad Lemmons
which was a response to a letter from Scott's
Miracle-Gro explaining why the application
was denied based on the Settlement Agreement.
Mr. Hansen requested time to review
the letter (usually this is done in preparation for
the meeting). Chair Barfknecht made a motion to
accept the DRAFT letter from Attorney Lemmons.
The motion was seconded. Supervisor Hansen and
Supervisor Rogers voted NOT to accept the draft
letter. (Why would a Supervisor vote to not accept
legal advice from the Township attorney as a response 
to a letter from the Scotts Miracle-Gro attorney when
this was an issue they were discussing?)

Supervisor Hansen argued with the attorney and 
stated the Settlement Agreement "should have been
drafted better." He was adamant regarding
allowing Commissioner Sauber to submit FACTS
and stated she "was muddying the waters."
He wanted to go on record that "when this ends up
in Court, we are going to lose."

Supervisor Hansen stated "I will make it simple for you;
I make a motion to approve their building application."
When Attorney Norder reminded Supervisor Hansen
that he did not feel that this was a proper motion,
Supervisor Hansen stated "It doesn't matter; I made 
the motion." "The attorney does not run the Township,
we do." "The attorney has been wrong numerous
numbers of times." After boisterous discussion,
 Supervisor Rogers made the motion to approve
the building permit. 
Supervisor Hansen 2nd the motion. They offered
NO facts to support their motions.
Supervisor Hansen stated he "would like to request
a letter from Attorney Lemmons in 48 hours, not
2 months, that he cannot do that."
Supervisor Hansen stated he "would go on the record 
as the 2nd motion.


An audience member asked to speak regarding the 
permit application issue. Butch stated the member of the
audience could not enter the discussion "as it had
been discussed to death for 15 years." He felt the
Settlement Agreement was "foolish" and the Township
should be paid for their fees. He stated "he does not
care what the attorney advised and that he is not the
Mayor of Eureka; that would be us."
(Could someone please show me when Eureka acquired a 
MAYOR?)

The motion failed to approve the building application
which was previously denied by the Town Board.
Alex Allen asked what the next step would be. 
Supervisor Hansen stated "Dakota County at the Court
House." Attorney Norder stated the Town Board should 
not be giving legal advice about anything.

The next step for Scott's Miracle-Gro was to appear
before the Planning Commission regarding an appeal
for a recommendation to the Town Board.

MY OPINION:  The disrespect shown by one of the 
Supervisors at the July Town Board meeting was
appalling!  The attorney's advice was not only
ignored, but defied.  The attorney was verbally 
assaulted.

I believe Supervisors and Commissioners are
to act as advocates for the best interests of the
Township.  When they become advocates for
the applicants, they need to recuse themselves.
This appears to happen too many times at
meetings.

If a Supervisor is afraid of the Township being sued,
embrace the Township attorney's legal advice.
I believe Supervisors should know their level of 
competence. When he/she has reached it, defer to
the attorney for legal opinions and respect them.
I believe it is quite possible that no one on the
Board or Commission is more competent regarding
legalities than the Township attorney. Citizens
pay for this advice.

Supervisors should follow and enforce the Ordinances,
follow policies, make decisions based on facts and avoid
situations such as possible racial slurs or disrespect
to contractors who are hired by the Township.

The Minnesota Association of Townships provides 
valuable workshops on various subjects including
legal seminars. Although Supervisors are not required
to attend, I believe they have an obligation to the
citizens to do so. The Township will pay for the 
workshops.

I thank the members of the Town Board and Planning
Commission who take their responsibilities seriously,
are respectful to everyone, act with dignity and are
professional.

I attended a City Council meeting for a reality check.
Yes, I witnessed, professionalism, civility,respect
for the attorney and guest speakers, and a Council
who came well read and prepared for the issues to be
discussed. The meeting started at 7:00 p.m. and
adjourned around 7:40.  A very pleasant experience.

This is a CITIZEN BLOG!  (Portions of the information were taken
from meeting CDs.)