WATCH THE SAUSAGE BEING MADE...

It may not be pretty, as they say, but it IS important!

Among other things, Supervisors Ceminsky, Madden, and Miller will deliberate what they deem to be appropriate "disciplinary action" regarding Commissioner Jennings.  (See previous blogs about people in glass houses.) Yours truly will be very interested in how they reconcile this with their own past actions, and many in the very recent past--as in last month! What will be the rationale?  Will they even offer one?

Supervisors Behrendt and Budenski have already disagreed with the other three.  It remains to be seen if reason can prevail in this matter.

Show your support for Commissioner Jennings and attend the Board meeting. The Board members are there representing you; are they making decisions you would deem proper and fair-minded? Our responsibility as citizens doesn't end at the voting booth, as you know. Let the Board understand that they do not act in a vacuum and that they are making these decisions "in the light of day!" Public meetings are for the public.

                                 Enough said...

     TODAY, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14TH, 7:00 P.M.

SWEEP IN FRONT OF YOUR OWN DOOR...

My mother was known to say that when any one of the six of us would come to her complaining about someone else.  It sure wasn't what we wanted to hear, but many times it was probably appropriate!  There are other apropos folksy sayings I am sure you are acquainted with: "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."  "When you point a finger at someone else, there are three fingers pointing back at you."  There's even one about "throwing the first stone."

Earlier posts have addressed why some of us opine that these sayings might apply to the three Commissioners who formally complained against Commissioner Jennings recently.  Please, feel free to review at will!

But let us turn our attention to the three Supervisors who have since decided that Jennings' behavior merits disciplinary action, a topic that they will discuss at their next regular Town Board meeting. Those three Supervisors are Madden, Ceminsky, and Chair Miller. Even though Supervisor Budenski stated that, "The meetings are what they are.  [Sometimes we become upset with each other.] I guess we can agree to disagree," these three supervisors voted to reprimand Jennings, nature and extent of said  "reprimand" to be decided.  And even though Supervisor Behrendt rightly stated that he has certainly observed others on the Board and the Commission--he mentioned Chair Hansen by name-- engaging in similar behavior as that alleged against Jennings, thus suggesting that there are few without something to think about before pointing fingers, the three supervisors--Madden, Ceminsky, and Miller--forged fearlessly ahead to agree to sanction "the crime."

Let's take a closer look at Supervisor Madden's behavior at meetings. (We do not hold ourselves above scrutiny, but are pained to point out that perhaps others should not do so either.) Audience members have several times observed Madden writing (apparently amusing) notes to the clerk on the back of his agenda, taking pictures of audience members, complaining to the Chair that an audience member "created a disturbance" by whispering to another, and similar such actions.  Maybe it's just me, but I think that he should be paying attention to the topic that the other supervisors are discussing while he is instead engaged in his "antics." If he were engaged in such discussion, for example, I doubt he would be even remotely aware of an audience member whispering to another. (It seemed to me at the time that he might have been just waiting for an opportunity to make an issue out of this as it wasn't the first time he complained about audience members quietly exchanging thoughts amongst themselves during a meeting.) Aren't supervisors elected to inform themselves about various Township issues and engage in a reasoned, intelligent discussion thereof? Isn't THAT what they are supposed to be putting their efforts into during meetings?  Hmmmm.

Recently, Supervisor Madden arrived late to a meeting of the Board. Not a deal, but it was questioned soon after that by Supervisor Budenski as to why Madden hadn't even picked up his information packet or have it in front of him for the matters on the agenda that night. He challenged Madden to right then go out to the file drawer and "pick it up!" Madden's response?  He didn't "care" and "shouldn't have even come to the bleep-bleep meeting."  Did he go to pick up his packet?  No, he did not.  As a former supervisor, I know what effort and time it takes to thoroughly prepare for meetings in order to fulfill one's duty to the citizens, ALL the citizens, whether they voted for one or not.

In spite of all this, Supervisor Madden apparently feels justified in castigating Commissioner Jennings.

Supervisor Ceminksy expressed thoughts at the last meeting that he really felt that "something should be done" about Commissioner Jennings' "behavior." He took exception to statements made by Jennings at meetings and to her alleged violation of policy, as well as to her behavior in general. He said that he has complained before and that "nothing was done."  He neglected to mention that the Township Attorney had advised him at a meeting that he could always file a civil suit concerning the statements whose content he objected to, but that it wasn't a Township matter.

While it is true that it has been verbally recommended many times that sending emails to a quorum of others on the Board or Commission should go through the clerk in an effort to be sure one is not violating Open Meeting Law, Supervisor Behrendt stated that he would like to see that policy.  Where is it?  Can the Board hold someone responsible for violating a policy, even to the extent of taking disciplinary action, when no such policy was ever formally adopted? Take a look at the Town website page under "Policies."  There are about a dozen policies spelled out there, but none that addresses this instance. The fact that Jennings tried to send the "information-only" email through the clerk, but could not because the Board STILL hadn't engaged someone willing to stay in that position to work with them, seemed to be beside the point.  The fact that there was no violation of Open Meeting Law, the important allegation, apparently doesn't mean that Jennings shouldn't be punished for something anyway, according to the three supervisors, including Ceminsky.

Further, in regard to behavior at meetings, I was in attendance at a Board meeting during which Ceminsky alleged that Behrendt had altered the Agritourism Task Force work product submitted to the Board and attorney! When Task Force member Atina Diffley corrected Ceminksy and said that definitely hadn't happened, Ceminsky repeatedly said, "I stand corrected," but could not seem to bring himself to APOLOGIZE to Supervisor Behrendt!  Is that worse than interrupting someone?

Again, at a Board meeting, Ceminsky objected to Supervisor Behrendt's volunteering in offering his considerable professional talents to repair the Township website.  Ceminsky stated that he "wanted to keep things 'clean,'" and had a problem with a supervisor working on the computers for the Township. Was he alleging that something was "dirty?"  Former Supervisor and Board Chair Jeff Otto will tell you that he worked on Township computers both when he was a supervisor and also when he was no longer on the Board, and people were grateful for it!  I doubt Ceminsky had any knowledge of that before he entered his comments.  Behrendt stated that he was never alone in the office working on the computer system and that he would quite willingly withdraw his offer of (free) assistance, and also take back the (free) NEW computers that he had donated.  There's another old saying for that: "No good deed goes unpunished!" Even Chair Miller stated to Behrendt, "You don't deserve this abuse."

But here's a clincher:  When it comes to violating policy-formally adopted policy- Supervisor Ceminsky doesn't need to look very far, in my opinion.  When Attorney Contact Person Behrendt questioned three charges on the attorney bill that it is his responsibility to review, it came to light that Supervisor Ceminsky apparently had acted in a manner contrary to Township policy, the Attorney Engagement Policy.  Under that policy, all requests for attorney opinion or involvement must go through the Attorney Contact Person, namely, Supervisor Berhendt.  NEVER should a supervisor take it upon himself to just give legal counsel a call without permission.  (In fact, a direct call from a "general" supervisor to the attorney is rarely done.  In the past, Supervisor Miller was given permission to do so by me as Primary Attorney Contact in the instance of the theft of Township gravel.  It was just easier and more efficient that he speak directly to the attorney since he had all the details.)

However, Mark Ceminsky made not one, not TWO, but THREE CALLS directly to the attorney, incurring costs to the Township that he apparently had no authorization to do.  Is this worse than not being able to follow (an informal) policy in the absence of a clerk?  Credit where credit is due, Ceminsky did offer to pay for the unauthorized charges, but Mr. Lemmons very charitably offered to withdraw the items from his bill.

In spite of all this, Supervisor Ceminsky apparently feels justified in castigating Commissioner Jennings.

Supervisor Miller stated several times at the last meeting that there "wasn't enough of a violation" of the Open Meeting Law to turn this matter alleged against Commissioner Jennings over to the courts. Correction, Chair Miller, there was NO violation of the Open Meeting Law.  Supervisor Berhendt properly turned the Board's attention to the Minnesota State Statute regarding this.  In fact, he had to repeat these efforts a few times.  (I'm still not sure that all members picked up the distinction he was making.) State law and Township policy are two different things, Supervisor Miller  The Board voted unanimously--actually twice and they were going for a third!-- that Jennings had not violated the statute. The three supervisors mentioned above did go on to vote that there should be disciplinary action taken against Jennings regarding policy and meeting behavior.

Policy has already been addressed above. So let's look at meeting behavior concerning Chair Miller. Remember that the three Commissioners alleged that Jennings was "defiant, disruptive, condescending, confrontational," and even that she would "cause serious harm to members of the Township." Mr. Miller "wisely" pulled back from chairing the behavior part of the Board discussion, asking Vice Chair Berhendt to do so instead.  Self-preservation is a powerful human instinct. Miller stated that he was as "guilty as anybody" and had had "to apologize publicly" to people before.

While I certainly don't contradict his admissions, I have a curiously applicable incident to relate in addition. A few years ago, then-Commissioner Miller became irritated with then-Supervisor Jennings when she came before the Commission as liaison for the meeting. What outrageous thing had she done?  Well, as I remember it, she had suggested that perhaps information he was offering from the 70s and 80s was outdated. I guess her "defiance" bothered him, because he then slung a book at her!  I kid you not.  There are others who were present who will support this. Actually slung the book at her (I won't say "threw") so that it landed with a loud thud where she was sitting.  The truly ironic thing is that the book he tossed her way was the Minnesota Association of Townships Town Government Manual! Well, I ask you!


In spite of all this, Supervisor Miller apparently feels justified in castigating Commissioner Jennings.

Oh, and before I forget, when Commissioner Jennings was informed of the date of this last meeting, she informed Chair Miller that she could not be there because of work obligations. I believe she requested a change of date, but Miller would not agree.  Cory Behrendt, as IT Supervisor for the Township, complied with her request to "attend" via Skype, a service I am given to understand that was not offered by Chair Miller either.  It would seem to me to be a common courtesy that a meeting be scheduled when the person complained against could be present, or her attorney could be present, to hear the discussion of allegations against her.  Would you expect any different?
Supervisor Madden has alleged on a number of occasions that nothing less than THE CONSTITUTION and the First Amendment are being violated on the Township level, even laying this at the feet of Commissioner Jennings personally at the last meeting!  (This only goes to show me that he probably does not understand Open Meeting Law and the difference between a public meeting and a public hearing.  Further, I think not allowing a person who put herself on the agenda under the Board's own policy to even present her concerns comes closer to government stifling free speech than a Chair keeping a meeting moving along.) Granted a Township meeting is not a court of law, but I would think that the Board would understand that perhaps it might be nice if the "defendant" could face her accusers and witness the deliberation of her "fate."


FYI: These meetings to address the complaints, of which there have been two, cost the Township money.  One meeting was a "public hearing" and the other a special meeting of the Board.  Assuming that the supervisors are paid at the posted special meeting rate, that would be $70 x 5, plus $250 for the attorney's attendance.  Thus, there will be a minimum of $1200 expended in this "Salem-esque hunt."  This does not include any work that the attorney may have done outside the meetings, or any "bump" that is customarily given to the chair, at least at regular meetings. Draw your own conclusions about money well spent.

Mark Ceminsky: Term expires in 2015.

Steve Madden: Term expires in 2015.

Kenny Miller : Term expires in 2016.

"CATCH (UP)" AS CATCH CAN...

Having just checked the website and seeing that it is still not up, I realize that many of you may not know even yet who is running for Supervisor this spring, even though the filing ended on January 14th!!!

Chair Pete Storlie is running for position #2.  Former Planning Commissioner and Board Supervisor, Cory Behrendt, is also running for that position.

Supervisor Brian Budenski is running for position #1, as is current Commissioner Butch Hansen.

                             You can be sure to stay tuned for more on that!

The agritourism committee (task force ) met again on Tuesday, January 28th.  I was present along with two other citizens.  The time was spent discussing different uses and also compiling questions for the attorney.  If there were no issues raised with the Chair's phrasing of the questions discussed and decided upon, the scheduled meeting on Thursday, February 6th, will be canceled.  The group's next meeting is on Tuesday, February 11th, when Senior TKDA Planner, Sherri Buss, will return with her research and input. This could be an informative meeting to attend.

At an earlier meeting, Butch Hansen made a comment along the lines that if it had been up to him, none of the task force would even be there meeting as he apparently does not see it as necessary to write agritourism ordinance language or to involve professional assistance--an opinion he reminded the group he had stated previously.  This was at the time that he, Commissioner Fritz Frana, and member Phil Cleminson agreed to present the task force's recommendation to the Board to continue its work on the Ordinance with the assistance of a planner and the attorney. Leaving aside why he would want to argue for or at least present the recommendation to the Board when he says he does not agree with it (recall that he abstained rather than vote "yes" in favor of the recommendation), I am a little confused how Mr. Hansen takes that view when the Township has a current lawsuit concerning a use that still has not been resolved.  In fact, that is what started a chain of events that has brought us to this point, as some of you realize.  I raised this fact at another task force meeting as a member of the audience, explaining why I thought there does, indeed, need to be ordinance language if this use is to lawfully exist, yet its importance seems to escape him.  In my opinion.

We must all realize that the Right to Farm certainly exists, but that it takes one only so far. At some point, the line is crossed from agriculture to agritourism. I have talked to former Board Supervisors and Planning Commissioners about this, and they agree with this view. Evidently Scott and Goodhue Counties agree that this is a separate use since they each have specific ordinance language addressing it..  Apparently, the state of Minnesota thinks a definition is called for as they are developing one, as was represented to the task force by Bob Patton. So why would one continue to argue that "agritourism" is already included within "agriculture" or that no "agritourism" language is needed when Eureka is clearly endeavoring to allow it as an accessory use to agriculture?

Along this same topic, it was also curious to me that Supervisor Ceminsky, who had previously argued that the task force should consist of six, and only six members, then argued at the last Board meeting that this committee should now be reduced to three members only! What has changed since his first speech?  Thankfully, after discussion, the Board ultimately accepted that the six could and should continue as all were willing to.  Thankfully, because anyone conversant or familiar with the Ordinance would know that such special committees must be made up of a minimum of five people.  Curiously, this fact was not mentioned in the Board's discussion of Ceminsky's notion, so I was thankful that the Board ended up on the correct path after all.  I'll admit it's hard enough to sit through these long meetings, without having certain members unhappy with me because I bring up some sticky such detail which they have overlooked!

As an aside that may interest you regarding the level of conversance with our community's laws, a different Supervisor had stated at an even earlier meeting when a use was being discussed by the Board that since the use was not addressed in the Ordinance (thus the Ordinance didn't regulate it) the use must be okay and allowed without restriction!!  At break time, I felt I needed to point out to him the part of the Ordinance which clearly states that any uses not addressed within are prohibited, quite the contrary to what he asserted and on which no one had corrected him.  He told me, "I didn't know that."  I said, "Obviously, that's why I am telling you."  I thought I was at least being nice by bringing it up to just him at the break, but he apparently didn't seem to think so, and I guess I hadn't made myself too popular with him. Who still remains nameless.

So, there is your update of sorts.  As the minutes of the agritourism task force meetings become available, it is the bloggers' intention to make them available to you, instead of waiting for the IT person to be hired to get the Township website fixed.  I don't know if that has been done yet or not, but the last time I asked a Supervisor about it--last Friday, January 31st-- it was unknown.

Can you pass the red stuff?

"LET'S TRY THIS AGAIN..."

Those were the words spoken by Supervisor Brian Budenski at the last Town Board meeting on December 9th. He was referring to his failed attempt last month to seek a temporary injunction against Great River Energy (GRE) so as to (at least for now) stop the installation of the rust-colored "monster poles" across the Township.

As you may recall, (See  "A Poll on the Poles" post) Budenski had volunteered his time along with assistance from Ray Kaufenberg to do the work to apply to the Public Utilities Commission for the change to galvanized poles.  Last time, Supervisor Kenny Miller (correctly) had to recuse himself due to his receiving income from GRE for its laydown yard on his property. As he explained, his voting on the matter could be argued to constitute a statutory conflict of interest, since an injunction, if approved, could prolong the project and thus increase his compensation.  Budenski and Storlie had voted for the motion, while Ceminsky and Madden had voted against it.

During the December discussion, Supervisor Ceminsky stated that he "didn't care" himself whether the poles were rust-colored or galvanized. He said he wondered whether the Township as a whole would come down on the side of galvanized poles.  He said he was concerned about the potential cost of the injunction to the Township, citing costs up to $40,000.

Budenski cleared that up by asking Township Attorney Chad Lemmons what the cost would be to file the injunction. Lemmons replied that it could cost from $2,000 up to $3,000.

Budenski assured Ceminsky that he, Budenski, has talked to the people whom this would affect most directly and he is speaking for them.

Let me editorialize for a moment:  The Town Board is elected to represent the public of Eureka.  At times, they have seemingly had no problem taking action to try to institute something like the agritourism ordinance in spite of the public's objections to the proposed language at two public hearings. Until pressed, they were not even willing to appoint a task force to explore the issue on behalf of you and other citizens. But when it comes to something which, to me, is as commonsensical as going with the less obtrusive option on the poles, now Ceminsky wants a vote by the public before acting on their behalf in a positive manner? Even though he is elected to do just that, one could argue.

Back to the vote: Once again, Supervisor Miller had to recuse himself from voting for his constituents because of his financial interest in the matter. Editorializing briefly, perhaps this is a good argument as to why a Town Board Supervisor shouldn't get himself into these situations. To my way of thinking, he is elected first and foremost to represent the citizens.  Just my opinion; enough said.

Once again, Storlie and Budenski voted "yes" to seek the injunction. This time, Supervisor Ceminsky joined them. Thus, the motion passed.

Supervisor Madden, as he is wont to do as the record shows, again voted "nay" without any explanation as to why he did so. Now understand, he is under no obligation to state for the record why he voted "nay."  However, this is an option taken by several Supervisors in the past. One of you out there might be curious as to his reasoning.

Digressing once again, after an earlier email by me to the Board quoting Ordinance language

regarding regulations on Conditional Use Permits, trying to show them the correct time frame under which the letters to adjacent property owners are to be sent, I received an email from Supervisor Madden.

His email stated : "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH." Just like that, all in caps; what some see as "shouting on the Internet!" So is he, as an elected public official, telling one of his constituents to quit communicating about Township issues, issues which can affect every one of us? How else do I take that? I'm not certain whether he was referring to my email or to this blog, but either way, REALLY?

Supervisor Madden may think "enough is enough," but I think posting on the blog to keep citizens informed and speaking up when one sees something done incorrectly, is important, of value, and I intend to continue.

stay tuned for updates on the injunction.  It is worth a shot, as we will be living with those poles for a very long time.

Thank you, Supervisor Budenski!

AAAAHHH, AGRITOURISM!

What IS it, anyway?  

Well, one thing for sure is it can be much more than a pick-your-own pumpkin patch, a hayride, or a corn maze.  These are all uses that I doubt anyone would have any issue with.  Sounds like good, clean, family fun, right?  However, as has been presented in various forums so far, agritourism can entail a wide variety of fairly intensive applications, not all of which you, as a Eureka citizen, might be in favor of in our fair community.

The AGRITOURISM TASK FORCE had its first meeting this past Wednesday, October 23rd.  All six members appointed by the Board were in attendance. One member of the public was there: me.  :-)

Nancy Sauber

I had applied to be on the committee, but was the only person not associated with the ongoing lawsuit (there were three such applicants) not to be appointed by the Board.  Supervisor Budenski had suggested that the seven remaining applicants, once the three litigants were "set aside" at the Attorney's advice, be appointed; this was a good response to a call for a task force, a positive thing, he thought.  However, the Board in its wisdom saw fit to stick with the even-numbered committee (See October 22nd post, "Eureka Engages An Agritourism Task Force," for this discussion) and saw fit to appoint the others. So be it; it is a good group for the discussion.  And your faithful reporter will be in attendance as I have been in the past.

A great amount of meeting time was spent discussing the definition of agritourism. The group had at its disposal several definitions from various other venues: states and also neighboring counties.  It discussed whether it should list things to be NOT included (rodeos, concerts, amusement parks?) or whether it should list things TO BE included (apple sales, tours, meat processing facilities, amusement park rides on a limited time basis?). Or should it NOT LIST at all? How does the Township limit the use? Various participants gave their own views on what should or should not be allowed. The definitions looked at included the concept that agritourism is to be an accessory use to an already-existing agricultural operation. 

Barn concert, Rice County

The definitions included the ideas of such uses providing entertainment, recreation, and education and being involved with the ag operation itself. The discussion of retail sales, importing items from outside sources for sale within Eureka, and whether we even allow retail sales in Eureka cycled around repeatedly. Whether the agricultural operation or the agritourism operation had to be primary in Eureka was returned to a number of times.
It was argued how that exists already in the Township. Where is the line between agritourism and simply a commercial enterprise (remember, Eureka is zoned ag), the group queried?  Can we do something other than the state definition of ag; probably not, the group concurred. What is the difference between "entertainment" and "recreation?" And so on.

As an outside observer, I was unclear as to why the group apparently felt it perhaps needed to come up with a different definition for agritourism than what is already out there.  Since the other definitions were so similar to each other, would it not make sense to simply recommend the adoption of one of them? Then discuss what that might mean in practical terms.

Again and again, I was struck by the fact that here we have SIX people, as well-intentioned as they might be, who are discussing what Eureka wants or does not want; should allow or should not allow, without benefit of open houses and surveys from the public stating what THE PUBLIC wants. The idea of having such open houses and questionnaires was briefly discussed towards the end of the meeting. One member thought it was "not necessary." Others seemed to think it was definitely needed, while still others were okay with it, at least to some extent, although not advocating for it. Frankly, I cannot see a way to do this appropriately UNLESS we have greater community involvement. It feels to me that we are coming at this backwards. WHAT DO YOU THINK?

The group has tentatively planned their next meetings:

Wednesday, October 30th, 7:00 p.m., Town Hall

Wednesday, November 6th, 7:00 p.m., Town Hall

Wednesday, November 13th, 7:00 p.m., Town Hall

Wednesday, November 20th, 7:00 p.m., Town Hall

Tuesday, November 26th, 7:00 p.m., Town Hall

On the agenda for the next meeting is the definition and what the "steps to implementation" should involve.  The latter is where the public input would come in, if it is going to. The group could recommend to the Board that open houses, surveys, Planner assistance and Attorney input be sought, and earlier rather than later. (Again, see "Eureka Engages An Agritourism Task Force" for thoughts on the appropriate process.)

HOW CAN YOU HAVE YOUR THOUGHTS HEARD?

There are several ways:

1) Call the Task Force Members and discuss with them.

2) Send an email to the Town Clerk to be dispersed to a) the Task Force, b) the Town Board, c) the Planning Commission, d) all of the above.

3) Come to a meeting or two.  You have a right to observe, not to comment, but the committee can decide whether to take public input or not.  Other Task Forces have done so during their meetings--at least at a "break time" just for that. At the very least, you can be better informed for your next phone call(s)/email(s).

4) Send someone from your neighborhood to attend and report back.  You can take turns doing this so as to not be overly burdensome for any one person.

5) Come to the Board meeting to speak during the "Public Comment" period. (Limited time-3 minutes or so)
6) Any combination of the above!

EUREKA ENGAGES AN AGRI-TOURISM TASK FORCE

    

After "kicking the can down the road" for several months, the Eureka Town Board appointed a Task Force at the October 15th Town Board meeting to address the possibility of developing ordinance language which would allow agri-tourism in Eureka Township.
     At the September Town Board meeting, the Board had discussed the number of applicants that would be accepted as Task Force members. The Board also requested the Task Force report to the Board monthly regarding progress. The ordinance states there must be a minimum of 5 members, an uneven number, allowing a Task Force to have a majority vote. I believe there was logical thinking applied as it is most feasible to have an odd number and minimum of 5 when this was implemented in Ordinance 2, Chapter 4. The majority of the Board members voted to have 6 members.

     During the discussion at their October meeting, Supervisor Budenski re-visited the issue and asked the Township attorney for his comment on what the appropriate number of members should be.  The attorney's response stated "the ordinance requires only a minimum of 5, but I would recommend the Board to select an odd number; with an even number, the Task Force members could deadlock. If there is a chance of a deadlock, the report then would not serve much of a purpose and would not be practical." Supervisor Storlie stated "With all due respect, I feel having 6 members forces them to come to a solution." The attorney's advice was ignored and 6 members were selected.

Butch Hansen

Appointed to the Task Force are Fritz Frana (photo not available) and Charles "Butch" Hansen, current Planning Commission members;










Phil Cleminson,a partner in a consulting firm and a member of the Transfer of Building Rights Task Force; Mark Parranto, owner of the Applewood Apple Orchard;

Phil Cleminson

Mark Parranto

Atina Diffley

Cory Behrendt

 Cory Behrendt, past Chair of the Eureka Town Board, past Planning Commission member and a computer engineer in technical services with the Minneapolis firm, Clifton, Larson and Allen. He has twice served Highview Lutheran Church in a leadership role on call committees, established the church data base and maintains it. Cory stated he is open-minded, fair and sees things from all sides; and Atina Diffley, an organic vegetable farmer who educates consumers, farmers, and policymakers about organic farming through the consulting business Organic Farming Works which she owns with her husband. Atina and her husband owned and operated Gardens of Eagan.

     Embracing the concept of agri-tourism and developing ordinance language is a very complex and strategic planning process. The stated purpose of the zoning ordinance is to protect the public health,
safety, morals, comfort, convenience and general welfare; to protect and preserve lands identified for long-term agricultural use; promote well-managed and staged development of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public areas; conserve and manage the use of natural resources; and provide for the compatibility of different land uses and the most appropriate use of land throughout the Township. Addressing these issues should be a very good starting point.
     The Board and Task Force applicants heard a statement from Jeff Otto, a Eureka citizen who served as Board Chair and legal liaison; as well as a task force chair and legal liaison. He also participated in several other committee and ordinance revision efforts for the Township. Mr. Otto submitted what he believes is the "proper procedure and process to study a subject of complexity, to communicate issues and recommendations effectively to audiences large and small, and to manage legal and technical guidance for maximum benefit and value to the Township."

Jeff Otto

      Mr. Otto stated that he appreciates the time and effort serving on the Board and Planning Commission can entail. He stated that each of the Board members has taken on particular subjects involving extra commitment to do well that has benefited the Township; however, he felt that as a Board, their management of the agri-tourism issue has not yet been one of their better efforts and felt it is not too late for course correction. I believe Mr. Otto presented a very valid argument for a proper process to evaluate the feasibility of agri-tourism in Eureka in his presentation to the Board members and Task Force applicants.

THE FOLLOWING ARE COMMENTS BY JEFF OTTO ON THE TASK FORCE PROCESS:
TIMING: First of all, what is the rush? The Board has been involved in this subject for nearly a year, directed the Planning Commission to conduct two hearings, and ignored thoughtful early research and draft input on the subject from the Commission.  The sum total of the Board's consideration and vision on the subject after all these months was one paragraph that was open-ended and unenforceable except for hours of operation; and those hours provided no consideration for the nature of an operation, seasonal variation in daylight hours, or possible safety, noise, and light pollution issues for night activity.
                                                                                                                
Now the Board is dumping this broad and diverse tourism subject into a hastily assembled committee, inadequately advertised to the entire Township, with the direction to make its recommendations in 60 days, taking it through Thanksgiving and nearly to Christmas Eve. The option is left open to possibly allow a thirty day extension so the committee can work through Christmas and New Year's to provide recommendations in early January. 
The Board is expecting a lot for that which they couldn't produce in over 9 months. The sham of boxing the Task Force into such an unrealistic time frame is unfair to the volunteers, as well as doing superficial disservice to the complexity of the subject. If the result is to put more time into the effort, the original volunteers are best positioned to advance the subject. If the decision is to produce draft ordinance language working with the Town Attorney, again, the original volunteers are best informed to advance the subject. When, not if, ordinance language on this subject goes to the Met Council for review with answers to traffic, road and sanitary impacts, the original volunteers are best informed to advance the subject. All volunteers need to be informed up front of that possible time frame. Too much loss of continuity in the Task Force will delay overall progress and risk seriously undermining key issues carefully resolved but later re-visited by new members not having the benefit of the earlier discussions.
A point was made by a Board member that this Task Force should need less time because of all the "data" already collected in the two hearings.  A structured public hearing is not an adequate substitute for the open exchange and dialog that a public open house provides. Much of the hearing "data" is little more than opinions raising issues and concerns, not dialog to resolve those issues or detail reasonable regulation.

SCOPE: The scope of the Task Force must be clearly focused on public agri-tourism Township wide. It must not be allowed to digress into another venue for debating what is included and not included in private and commercial agricultural. That is a separate issue being handled in other appropriate venues, including the ongoing legal proceeding. A prerequisite for agri-tourism is being comercial ag, whatever that includes and is resolved outside the Agri-tourism Task Force. The Board continues to suggest that a task force doesn't need to develop explicit language but only provide "recommendations." The implication is that broad recommendations can be done more quickly and then refined into more specific language by others later. This is a completely false economy of effort and time by both the volunteers and Town legal counsel. Who better to provide carefully worded language than the group that has studied and discussed the issues in detail, and done so in concert with the Town attorney so that the concepts are sound and legally supported? This would still recognize that final legal language adjustments may be needed, but the confidence level that the final proposals are workable and proper will be much higher than vague language hastily drafted to meet an artificial deadline. Being able to answer questions specifically and thoughtfully at public meetings is a major factor in elevating the confidence of the public that the study has been
performed diligently.
   
TOWN BOARD SUPPORT: The Board should demonstrate its serious regard for this initiative in the following three ways:
1. The time frame needs to be made longer and can be tied to clear milestone decision points. The Commercial/Industrial Task Force reached an intermediate decision point and recommended no further pursuit. The Transfer Task Force completed its initial charge, but only then was asked to continue on to the final tasks. Of course, it is reasonable and proper for any task force or committee to provide monthly status reports to the commissioning body. This Board has seen that this has been done consistently, speaking of the seven years I have been active in the Township.

2. A Professional Planner needs to be engaged up front to work with the Task Force due to the nature and breadth of the subject. This is not only to provide technical support and experienced input on the subject to the Task Force or ask questions, but importantly to provide knowledgeable external perspective and validation of diligence for the 1100 owners of Eureka Township for whom the Board works. Government transparency and constructive dialog depend on public gatherings and outside objectivity. Only then will public confidence in the process and support for an initiative grow. Concerns about the value of professional consulting are often traced to misunderstanding and mis-management of the consulting service. A common mistake is to try to save money by asking very narrow questions. This limits the opportunity for a consultant to understand the goal and use their experience to identify alternatives and trade-offs. Adding a planning consultant later in the process rather than from the beginning will delay progress while the consultant is brought current with what has already transpired. As with legal guidance, bringing such knowledge and experience into the process at a later stage can result in important insight that will motivate the Task Force to reconsider
and possibly re-work portions they thought were complete, causing delay. 

3. An Aggressive Schedule requires direct access to legal counsel via the Task Force Chair or a designated legal liaison with the Task Force. Not all questions can be efficiently handled in writing alone. There may need to be dialog to clarify the question or the answer, as well as follow up questions based on the initial response. This was true in more than one instance with the Transfer Task Force to avoid spending time on a path outside the authority of a township, not being aware of the risks for a course being considered, or swinging effort to a better alternative suggested to the Task Force. A 60 or 90 day time box certainly allows no room for external delays impacting the progress of the Task Force.

A copy of the entire content of the presentation by Jeff Otto can be obtained from the Township Clerk in written form or on a CD of the Town Board meeting. Eventually, the written presentation should be posted on the Township web site as an attachment.

DOES THE MINNESOTA STATE BUILDING CODE REALLY MATTER?

YES, OF COURSE, IT  DOES!   WHY?
Because it is designed to keep us all safe.  The authority for the Code comes from the good old "to protect the general health, safety and welfare" intent and purpose for such codes and for laws in general.
In its Ordinance, Eureka has adopted the Building Code and any updates to it, as well it should to protect its citizens.

As you know, the state legislature has given farmers "a break" by making agricultural buildings exempt from the Building Code. However, the public is still protected because an agricultural building may not have the public inside of it.  If it does, it is no longer an ag building.  As mentioned before, the state statute is very specific on this.  That is why the Township (credit going to a Planning Commission Chair from some time ago who recognized the need) requires anyone asking for an ag building to sign an ag exemption form which clearly lays out the statutory specifications for such a building to qualify.  This, along with a very nominal $25 application fee (no permit fees), is all that is necessary from the Building Code aspect.

It is also a fact that the Township receives some of its revenue from its share of any permit fees that are collected under the Code.  Because of the sluggish economy of the last few years, this revenue has dropped precipitately and, as a result, affects us all as taxpayers.  Whatever does not come in through permit fees has to be made up to meet the budgetary requirements for the Township.  And you know how that is done!

As discussed at the last Board meeting, the contract for the Township Building Inspector/Official expires at the end of this year.  As reported earlier, it appears from various actions and comments that there are members of the Board who may not have any interest in renewing Scott Qualle's contract.  The last contract to his firm, MNSPECT, was for three years.  Yours truly was on the Board at that time and was glad to give him a longer contract than for just one year as he had demonstrated good job performance.

Much earlier, as a Planning Commissioner, I was asked by Chair Mike Greco to go through the files of the Building Inspector contracted by the Township at that time.  This was in an effort to determine what permits were still open and which had been closed, very like what is done today by our current Planning Commission. Unfortunately, I had to report to the Commission and the Board that I found the files in what I could only describe as disarray.  There were forms that should have been there that were missing, things were certainly out of order, and it took me hours and hours to make sense of it.

Because of my efforts in that respect the Board at the time actually invited me to help them interview applicants for the position when they let the contract that was in effect expire.  Mr. Qualle was one of the applicants.  In my opinion, he was clearly head-and-shoulders above the other two applicants.  He was very professional in his demeanor and in the way which he described his job as he saw it.  I remember telling the Board that I thought he was "a breath of fresh air" for this position.  I meant that figuratively AND literally after having waded through the former Building Official's files that were heavily permeated by cigarette smoke!!! (My lungs still shudder at the memory.)

I then had, and still do have, a lot of confidence in Qualle's ability and willingness to do his job right.  (As a reminder, it is in the minutes and on the recording that I referred to in an earlier post regarding ag buildings that allegedly are not being used for ag, that he explains to the Board--not for the first time-- that he is bound by state statute and his license to do as he has done in performing his job.)

The current Board Chair, Pete Storlie, is, of course, quick and careful to say publicly that Scott can certainly apply for the position again if he so chooses; in my view, Pete would be crazy to say otherwise, especially given what I would call the "tiffs" he and Mark Ceminsky have gotten into with the Inspector on these matters.  I, for one, though, have little doubt that Mr. Qualle has the proverbial snowball's chance, unless he is the ONLY applicant or the others are so dismal that even Mssrs. Storlie and Ceminsky, along with their brother-in-arms (my opinion, folks, and it's still a free country), Steve Madden, have no choice but to give him the contract again.

It should be noted as background that back several months ago, the Board, at which Supervisor's (s') instigation I couldn't say exactly, not being the Attorney Liaison (although I don't see it as a stretch to guess who), spent money asking the Township Attorney if different "items" he/they had "come up with" would constitute cause under his contract for dismissing Mr. Qualle.  The answer, at how much Township expense I don't know, but we could find out, came back pretty much a definite "No" on each "count." The Board member(s) who instigated this apparently gave up his/their pursuit of this as no more such questions were put to the Attorney.  At a later time, "a" Supervisor (since I can't remember definitely which one of two it was, I won't say who) stated at the Board's public meeting that "it's too bad we have to continue with the current Building Inspector" (since we can't come up with legitimate cause for dismissal) or words close to that, parenthetical words being my interpretation.  It is also of note that in most local governments, elected officials strive to work closely with and have a good relationship with their building official who is, after all, only helping them conform to Code in their permits.  Some on this Board seem to have a markedly different approach to this.

For their part, Supervisor Budenski and Supervisor Miller have appeared generally more supportive of our Building Official.

We get the government we deserve, in my opinion.  As a fellow citizen, I ask you to keep your eye on this topic and watch what the Board does.  Offer your opinion to them, whether it agrees with mine or not. Show up, as they say. It is in all our best interests on a number of levels that Eureka have a competent, professional, and experienced Building Official.