Complicated Eureka Paper Files Cost Property Owner Time and Money

Let me be clear - this is NOT the fault of our clerks.  

Liz (the newest) and Amy (also relatively new) have inherited a mountain of paper files accumulated over decades that have not always been consistently filed by prior clerks, all of whom have been dealing with critical deadline work every month plus helping resident questions, leaving little to no time for taking on a major file review and possible reorganization effort.  It is to Liz and Amy's credit that some of this HAS been initiated, but the 10/8/2024 Board meeting surfaced an example of a situation "lost in the files" in part because it was a rare and unusual circumstance.

This is an example of a situation that could have been headed off by utilizing a  modern database of Eureka properties that catalogs all significant Town records related to each property (housing rights, lot splits, business-related permits, not minor over-the-counter permits). Yes, the Property Database I was creating was (is) such a tool that was known but not implemented (with the final necessary steps including training) by the 2022, 2023, and so far the 2024 Board.

I voluntarily undertook this database task at no cost to the Township  (until late advice from the 2023 Town Attorney raised the liability risk to me, easily resolved by my simple proposal totaling $2/month to make me a contractor providing and supporting the database and its "license".)  I did this because I knew the time and reliability value of a computerized tool and that there was no way such a tool could be afforded by Eureka to hire outside resources to create.  Central to its creation is a thorough understanding of our Zoning with unique Housing Right Transfer capability made complicated by the State-mandated requirement to recognize grandfathered lots with housing rights.

Specifically, this recent situation involved a current property owner planning to sell a property, but the title search at Dakota County Records turned up a unique 1995 restriction on the property group and housing by the original owner. This original owner's preference was within the general 1990 Clustering feature and was legal at the time. 

In 2013, I led the amendment process to increase the flexibility to be able to "transfer" housing rights while preserving a key feature of the older Cluster regulations to not allow more than 4 houses per quarter-quarter section. This made the special 1995 private restriction obsolete and unnecessary, but I was not aware of this unique restriction if it existed somewhere in town files. But apparently to be sure, the current owner had his attorney research and determine that the restriction was no longer relevant, so produced a letter requesting Eureka to remove the restriction.  Need I say this attorney work was not likely done for free. At least the Board did approve the restriction removal last night (10/8/2024).

It is my opinion that this could have been resolved easily as early as 2014 by the new owner bringing it to the Township directly and asking, if known by him.  

During 2021-2022, as part of my analysis of all Eureka properties, deputy clerk Amy had been scanning documents on file as time permitted and sending me copies of the scans which I catalogued in my database.  I also used those scans to verify other sources of lot splits and transfers, such as the famous "property map" on the wall considered an official summary record of pre-2013 Cluster moves. I discovered along the way that sometimes a lot split and housing right transfer were filed together (making it harder to find if looking for one), plus a few errors and missing documents were revealed that I was mostly able to resolve by further analysis, such as noting houses being built and new Property ID numbers appearing in County website map. The database makes it practical to associate all relevant documents with all affected properties for quick retrieval, including printing a copy in seconds of anything desired.

The 2022 Board suddenly cancelled this development process in 2/2023 along with rushing the incomplete  Zoning and Subdivision amendments out the door, errors and all (another topic). If this unique restriction was on file and the scanning process had been completed, I would have recognized it as an odd and obsolete restriction. I then would have advanced it to the Board with recommendation to officially withdraw it, for similar reasons the private attorney stated, and notify the current owner. A modest County recording fee would be needed, but private attorney involvement on this detail should not have been needed.

Yeah, I'm old school.  I still think local government should help residents when potential issues are discovered that are easily corrected.

Meanwhile, the clerks are saddled with yanking the reins to drive our clumsy old paper file buggy...     

Who's next?