"ALIEN INVASION"--- PART 2

Remember the "loose cannons?" Agritourism Hearing?  Picking up where we left off...

Eureka spends a significant amount of funds on attorney advice each year.  (At the budget meeting last night, the Board settled on $30,000 for the "legal fees" line.  This is in keeping more or less with the past.) This expenditure is totally appropriate, in my opinion, as there are many matters where the admitted amateurs in our public offices need assistance. Anyone with any humility acknowledges that.  If one is intelligent, one seeks advice from time to time.

Therefore, one might think that when such advice is given that it would be followed. Ask for explanation if need be, explore the topic fully, but recognize the Attorney has the J.D. and you don't! I have witnessed Chair Hansen publicly tell Chad Lemmons (Township Attorney) that he didn't agree with the legal advice that Mr. Lemmons had just offered.

Hello???

Mr. Lemmons has on more than one occasion/meeting said that he recommends an Interim Use Permit (IUP) for all Agritourism. (This is separate from Agricultural Direct Market, selling products.) Lemmons has stated that Agritourism encompasses many different uses and has also caused problems for our Township in the past.  True.  He pointed out that this would give the Township, the operator, and the neighbors a chance to address each case individually, affix appropriate conditions, and clarify where everything stands.  Much better than relying on a complaint basis enforcement for an "Ordinance" that is so open to interpretation as the one currently proposed by (the majority of) the Planning Commission- my opinion. If an operator violates a condition, that can be directly addressed as it was agreed upon in the first place.  If a neighbor complains about something that wasn't part of the conditions, unless it violates some other ordinance, the operator is protected. The Township must do a good job on attaching reasonable and related conditions on the first go-round, however, as it is next to impossible to add to them after the fact. (Were there an amendment to the IUP, this would be an opportunity to do so.  Otherwise, the operator has to agree to the addition.) Requiring an IUP makes good sense.

HOWEVER, this recommendation has not been directly addressed by the Commission OR the Board as official bodies. Commissioner Barfknecht did, however, ask Chair Hansen at a recent special meeting, "Why aren't we following the attorney's advice and making this an IUP for Agritourism?" Hansen's reply?  "Because I don't think it should be." (My emphasis.) Commissioners Novacek and Cleminson remained silent on the topic and therefore acquiescent.  Commissioner Jennings was absent as this was a special meeting called for a date she was not able to attend. The majority of three agreed to move the language on.

Okay, that's bad enough, but, in my opinion, further damage was done. Without a requirement for an IUP from the get-go, there are various thresholds which, when surpassed, require the operator to come in of his own volition (sans complaints) and request an IUP. (This in itself is problematic for many.) The Task Force on Agritourism, six people, had agreed and submitted threshold language referencing, among other things, the number of cars and the number of people.

In what I would call an ill-reasoned and inappropriate move, the three male Commissioners decided that they wanted to remove those particular thresholds for both Agritourism AND Direct Marketing and replace them. What did they choose to replace them with? The Outdoor Assembly Ordinance!  Reason given?  "It's already on the books."  So are dog kennels and swimming pools, but that doesn't mean they fit here!!!

The Outdoor Assembly Ordinance (once I got them to stop calling it the Large Gathering Ordinance) is what has been dubbed "The Woodstock Ordinance." No, not that one, the muddy one! The reason is obvious: it is an assembly of people for an outdoor event.  Eureka's ordinance closely follows the County Ordinance.  When the County reduced the number of people from 500 to 300, Eureka followed suit. If someone proposes to hold such an event and anticipates 300 people at it OR 100 people for eight consecutive hours, that person must apply for a permit.

So, just on the face of it, this move by Hansen, Novacek, and Cleminson greatly increased the number of people allowed from 100 on a daily basis to 300 before a threshold is crossed and a permit is required.  The part referring to the lesser number over eight hours could be interpreted by some as allowing quite a few more as people come and go throughout the day for their Agritourism activities.  I don't agree with that, but I do have enough imagination (and experience) to envision someone making the argument.

They also took out the threshold for the number of cars as well. The argument was that it wasn't enforceable.  Sherri Buss of TKDA and Chad Lemmons had suggested a means by which it would be enforceable: change car trips to cars parked on the property.  Easily counted, right? Traffic was supposed to have been a concern that was addressed and the Ordinance now is silent on this.

So for the reason of increasing the numbers alone, I object to the Commissioners (two of whom were on the Task Force) overriding that group's recommendation. You should know that this idea of using the Outdoor Assembly Ordinance was discussed and rejected at Task Force meetings. The group of six agreed to submit the language, including the two thresholds that these three Commissioners want to remove.

It doesn't stop there, though. That Ordinance requires a number of other things fitting for an outdoor assembly but certainly not for Agritourism and Agricultural Direct Marketing.  Commissioner Barfknecht pointed this out, but she might as well have been speaking Hungarian!

What are those things?  Well, some of them are:

    ** A license for each "event"

    **Security guards

    **Physician and nurse and an enclosed facility for treatment

    **A fence surrounding the grounds to keep people from entering (without a ticket)

    **Ambulances

    **A BOND!!!

    

All so appropriate for corn mazes and selling ag products!!

At a subsequent (regular) meeting when she was able to attend, Commissioner Jennings asked what about the people inside?  The Agritourism Ordinance addresses how many square feet of a building can be open to the public, after all. Where do those numbers come in?  How is Agritourism an Outdoor Assembly?

More Hungarian.

More telling to me: At one point, Commissioner Novacek stated, "We're just trying to keep in place what already exists." Hmmmm...  He also came up with an exemption for the prohibition on outdoor lighting for such uses other than what may be required under building code. He suggested that seasonal, decorative lighting be exempt.  Such as Christmas lights. Putting aside the merits of the argument. I was struck by his foresight to even THINK of this...

LAST POINT FOR NOW:  The Agritourism Ordinance Public Hearing has been rescheduled for Tuesday, February 17th, at 7:00 p.m.

If the Board is actually going to get its opportunity to review the language at its regular meeting this coming Monday night, how do you, the citizens, get ten days' time in which to review the language? Ten days' published notice of the hearing is required by law, but the language isn't even ready yet.

        

HOLY HYDROCHLOROTHIAZIDE, BATMAN!!!!!

How's YOUR blood pressure doing?  Mine is cookin' away!  Let me tell you why:


For the Board meeting of September 8th, I had requested under the Citizen Input Policy to be placed on the agenda concerning "Ordinance issues."  Those of you who are longer-time readers might recall I have done this in the past. "Public comments," which occur separately on the agenda are limited in length to three minutes.  Not much time to make a point. (You might recall Chair Storlie's moving my requested agenda item to the three-minute public comment section of the agenda, thus effectively reducing the time I as a citizen had to make my argument.  It seemed to me at the time that perhaps he didn't really want to hear from me at all?!?  I strongly objected to his moving of my item.)     The Citizen Input Policy states "Citizens or groups wishing to address the Board are encouraged to complete Agenda Request Form and request that an item be placed on the agenda  for discussion
at a regular Township Board meeting. Although the policy addresses the time limit on "public comments" at the beginning of a meeting and "random" comments "during a meeting," a close read reveals that there is no time limit given for agenda items that are requested. Bear that in mind: in the normal course of things, people on the agenda are not cut off before they can even present their comments, much less can expect any "discussion" as mentioned in this Board-adopted policy.


Chair Kenny Miller "permitted" me to go through my first Ordinance issue comments without interruption.(Without any discussion at that time, either, I might add.) My comments were regarding the Transfer of Building Rights Ordinance procedure.  I had served on that Task Force, attending all the meetings at which very few Supervisors were ever present and wanted to follow up on a pertinent question that had come up at the Planning Commission meeting the week before.   

However, when I embarked upon my second area of comment which quoted Board and Commission comments from the June 10th Roundtable between the two bodies in regard to the VRWJPO

Water Ordinance, I was quite rudely interrupted.  I was just a few minutes in on my comments as a whole and barely a minute or so on the Water Ordinance item when I became aware of  "sounds of objection" coming from the vicinity of Commissioners Hansen and Cleminson at the side table, as well as Chair Miller cutting me off, saying I had gone beyond my "time limit."  Further, Miller then said emphatically in the direction of the two Commissioners, "She has 40 seconds!"   40 seconds, Mr. Chair, as much as that?

Okay, so this is a Board meeting and the Board Chair responds to two Commissioners who seem to think he should not let me, a concerned citizen, continue to quote the discussion of the Water Ordinance at an OPEN, PUBLIC MEETING of the two bodies, illustrating my concerns. I don't believe they were even recognized by the Chair before the sounds came from their direction. Is this the tail wagging the dog? How conversant is the Board with the adopted policies they are supposed to be following?

My intent in quoting from the Roundtable Meeting was to point out that Commissioners Hansen, Cleminson, and Novacek seemingly "forgot" the Board's directive from that meeting at their September 1 Commission meeting.  On June 10th, the Board had requested "information, fact-finding, individual opinions from the Commission" so that the Board could "responsibly" consider the input and "be educated" on the topic. But what the three Caballeros did was to move to pass the Ordinance on to the Board for adoption, plain and simple, no report.  Commissioner Jennings, supported by Commissioner Barfknecht, had moved to table the vote at least until the minutes from the Special Meeting with the water specialists were complete and approved. WELL, that was voted down 3-2.  Commissioner Novacek's motion was then approved 3-2. (Strangely, the VRWJPO Ordinance matter was not even on the Board agenda for their meeting on the 8th.)

Chair Miller indicated that he thought my comments (which he had scarcely heard the start of) were more appropriate "for a public hearing."  No, Mr. Miller, I would submit to you that that would be way too late if you, as Board Chair, joined by the other supervisors, are not even going to insist beforehand that the Commission provide what you asked for and which Hansen's motion stated they would do.

Is it really too much to ask that Eureka public officials do what they say they are going to do?  Why are some seemingly so uncomfortable at being reminded what they said at a public meeting?

Below are the comments that I had wished to present to the Board:

The second ordinance matter I wish to bring before the Board is that of the Vermillion River Watershed Ordinance.  I speak here as a former Supervisor and a contact person to the VRWJPO.  At the June 10th Roundtable meeting between the Board and the Commission, it was determined that the Planning Commission would review the Ordinance and report to the Board.  When it was raised that a certain Commissioner felt she would just be out-voted, no matter what she contributes, Chair Kenny Miller (starting at approximately 1:42:10) stated, "To respond to one member being out-voted or outweighed, I don't think that there's any vote or out-vote to happen here.  We're looking for information from the panel.  We, responsibly, should weigh one Commission member's fact-finding with what is good for the Township, not against each others' comments.  I want to get from you as a Commission...as a Board, we want to see your individual thoughts so we can weigh them when we make our decision...I think we need to review each member's position and their [sic] input for our own education.  We are going to depend on you to give us information, whether it is singly or as a board. [sic]  You should view all points of it, and you may disagree on whether we should or shouldn't do it, but I am asking you for supporting information, for the pros and cons of this...I would ask that we look at each of your positions and weigh those positions, the pros and the cons.  We want information in front of us."  Butch Hansen made a motion (seconded by Cleminson) that the Planning Commssion "take over the VRWJPO Ordinance review and come back with the information that the Board is seeking."  In the following discussion, Chair Miller again restated that "We are asking you to be an information-gathering [body]."

At the last Planning Commission meeting:

1. The minutes from the Special Meeting of August 18th with Zabel, Slavik, and Watson, were deemed incomplete and were not approved.  Some of the information that was missing from the minutes, for example, was Brian Watson's statements that Eureka has many more challenges than any other township in Dakota County.

2.  It was stated by Chair Hansen that it was "clear" to him that the guests that evening wanted the Township to take over the permitting. It was stated by the guests, more than once, that it does not make a difference to them who does the permitting.  It only matters that the standards are implemented and enforced.  This position of theirs was clear to me as an audience member.

3. It was stated and argued incorrectly by Chair Hansen that the Township review process does not take place side by side with the JPO's review, but, rather, that their review adds much more time.  At each meeting that I have been at, different residents have had their VRWJPO letter in hand.  I have not heard one of them complain about time matters.  AND, as it happens, I was the individual who spoke to the JPO after which they agreed that the Planning Commission could go forward with its review of an application concurrent with the JPO's review, as long as the Board did not approve anything until it had heard from the JPO.  This information and Travis Thiel's email confirming all this has been sent out by me thru the clerk on more than one occasion.

4. Commissioner Hansen even stated that the Board "didn't care" about the Township's taking on the Ordinance--only one Supervisor was in attendance at the meeting all the way thru, he said, and one came a half hour late.  Liaison Behrendt said he did care, but that the meeting was scheduled when he was out of town for a business meeting and he was not able to attend.

5.  Commissoner Novacek made a motion to send the Ordinance to the Board for it to approve it.  Carrie Jennings moved to table that motion at least until the minutes from the special meeting were completed and reviewed.  Her motion failed in a 3-2 vote.  Mr. Novacek's motion passed by a 3-2 vote.

My question is:

WHERE IS THE INFORMATION THAT THE BOARD ASKED BE PRESENTED TO THEM?

                    What's in YOUR medicine cabinet?

TAKE A NOTE, PLEASE...

Just a quick Update on the Clerk:

The Town Board most recently hired Mira Broyles as Town Clerk.  Mira has some government background, having worked, for example, as clerk for the city of Eagan. She has had a lot to learn on the job as Township Clerk.  Her role involves many different aspects of Township government.  The different procedures don't come up every day, so the "practice" in learning them is intermittent. This makes feeling comfortable with them more difficult.

Former Clerk/Treasurer, Nanett Sandstrom did spend two days with Mira, going over her duties and has continued to be of help over the phone most recently.

 At a recent Board Report at the August Planning Commission meeting, Supervisor and Chair Kenny Miller disclosed that Ms. Broyles had lately desired to resign, but decided to keep on, at least for the time being. (I would expect that feeling somewhat overwhelmed in spite of her background and skills and being the sort of person who wants to do a good job was behind the resignation idea.)  Supervisor Miller indicated that he has been stopping in a couple of times a week to answer questions, which Mira has told me she has had plenty of!  Miller asked the Planning Commission to "work with" Ms. Broyles as she becomes more familiar with her position.

Commissioner Lu Barfknecht offered that, even when a person is hired for a part time job, it is typically full time as the person is trained in.  This, I believe, would have been a good way to go, but was dependent on the availability of Ms. Sandstrom, which was limited by that time, unfortunately.

I have found Mira to be a very pleasant person with a professional demeanor.  Stop in and introduce yourself if you are driving by.  Welcome her to the Township.  Be patient with her as she tries to serve you. Hopefully, she will be here for a long time to come.

OF IMPORTANCE:  As Clerk, Mira is empowered to hire a Deputy Clerk.  Supervisor Behrendt and Supervisor Budenski are aiding her in this respect, having passed on interview information with original applicants.  The hope is that one of those applicants might be interested in the assistant job, which pays up to $16.00/hr.  It would include night meetings, taking notes for the Planning Commission and writing their minutes for approval, in addition, I believe, to daytime office hours. Once a Deputy Clerk is hired, then permits can be handled more easily and so on.  The position of Clerk has been advertised in the newspaper, and the Deputy Clerk position may have to be as well, if no one "comes to the surface" soon.

If anyone out there missed the ad, is qualified and interested or might know of someone who is, might I suggest as a citizen, that you let the interest be known to Ms. Broyles?  We wish her luck in finding a suitable assistant.

Heeeeeere's Johnny!!!!

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the Eureka Planning Commission, here is a brief introduction:

Lu Barfknecht

The current Chair of the Planning Commission is Lu Barfknecht, who is serving her second term which expires on April 30, 2016.  She grew up in Anoka, 7th in a family of 12 children. She has been married to her husband, Dan, for 35 years; has 4 children and 3 grandchildren; and lives in Eureka Estates.  Lu has held a variety of jobs over the years, from waitress and secretary, to various positions in the banking business, to different roles in the insurance business.  She is currently employed as a Field Agent in Marketing at Blue Cross Blue Shield, where she has been for nearly 13 years.  Lu loves fishing and being outdoors.

Dr. Carrie Jennings

Vice Chair Carrie Jennings is a geologist, with degrees from Northwestern and the University of Minnesota, the latter including an M.S. and a Ph.D. She enjoys teaching and has done so at various institutions, such as Carleton and Macalester, including 20 years' instruction in glacial geology at the U of M.  Carrie has worked for the Minnesota Geological Society, the National Center for Earth Surface Dynamics, and is currently employed by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Lands and Minerals. She and husband, Charlie Mahler, live on the former Borg farm in the southernmost part of the Township. Having been among those facilitating the purchase of the Chub Lake Wildlife Management Area by the DNR in the late 1990's, Carrie went on to file an application for her own property with the Farmland and Natural Areas Program, resulting in a 110-acre easement acquisition by that program in 2010.  Carrie has also served as Board Supervisor; her current term as Commissioner expires in April, 2014.

Fritz Frana

Frederick "Fritz" Frana has been a resident of Eureka Township for over 25 years.  His educational background includes a BA in Sociology at the University of Northern Iowa. Now retired, Fritz has over 35 years in the defense industry in a high-tech environment, with extensive Human Resources management, project management, and consulting experience. Currently a member of the Agritourism Task Force, Fritz lives in Rice Lake Heights on the western side of Eureka. His term is until April, 2014.

Butch Hansen          Al Novacek        

Charles "Butch" Hansen is a self-employed business owner and farmer who lives on Highview Avenue, south of 250th Street.  Butch served for two years on the Planning Commission at an earlier time; his current term expires on April 30, 2015.  Butch was a member of the Town Hall Task Force, which worked on the planning and construction of the "new" Town Hall. He was also a member of the Transfer Task Force and is currently on the Agritourism Committee.



Allen Novacek (pictured above) is the owner and president of the family business Nova-Chek Auto Body. It is located in Lakeville and employs several people.  Relatively new to local government, Al served as member on the Transfer Task Force. He resides in Eureka Estates; his term as Commissioner expires on April 30, 2015.

ALICE (AL is?) DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE?

     Another "transparent" moment or perhaps "imaginative twist" unfolding
at Eureka's August 12, 2013 Town Board meeting. 



"Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?"  "That depends a great deal on where you want to get to." "I don't think...." then you shouldn't talk." Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland                        

                                                                                     

      Public comment from two Planning Commissioners addressed to the Town Board on August 12, 2013. (Refer to the Township CD of the 

Al Novacek

8-12-2013, Town Board Meeting for the entire discussion of the issue.)     Listen to Commissioner Al Novacek's seemingly "transparent" moment; 
and Commissioner Barfknecht's well-prepared recollection and response.                          

            

                     Click below to view Clip

                                                                 Board Meeting Clip

CLEAR AS A BELL, PLAIN AS THE NOSE...

At a well-attended public hearing on September 3rd, the Planning Commission heard loud and clear as a bell once again from the public regarding the proposed Ordinance language on agritourism.

The OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of those tesitfying who had given the subject any critical thought, as evidenced by their comments, were against the Ordinance language as currently written.

Time and again, it was stated that the person was not against agritourism as a concept and that it could be a plus for the Township.  What was problematic for people was:
1. Overly broad language, "but not limited to..." leaves the Township wide open to many uses that may not be to our benefit and which could drastically change our way of life.
2. Minimal regulations included in a definition.. Highly irregular; if you're serious about it, do it right!
3. Agritourism to be allowed as a "straight permitted use," which allows little recourse for the public when problems arise.
    a.As it is, alleged lack of Sheriff enforcement of loose dog ordinance has been a problem for some!
    b.Board has had complaints on the agenda for years at a time and has appeared to some unwilling to move forward in a reasonable time frame. Many in Eureka feel there is a big problem with ordinance enforcement already; why add to it when we don't have the staff for it?
    c. In the ensuing discussion by the Commission, Township Attorney, Chad Lemmons, advised them that, under a straight permitted use, any enforcement falls under whatever ordinances are in place for noise, nuisance, etc., generally. He further stated that this scenario of enforcement can lead to further legal bills for the Township
4. Allow only under a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).  This follows a public hearing and the placement of reasonable, related conditions tailored to each specific use for the protection of all, including the permit holder.  (We have a CUP for cemeteries, folks.  When was the last time you heard about a problem with a cemetery?  Shouldn't we have a CUP for this complex land use?)
Again, Chad Lemmons later advised the Commission that a CUP would allow conditions that would streamline enforcement.  A permit holder must abide by the conditions attached.
5.. Board refused multiple requests from a majority of the Planning Commission for more in-depth study, a task force as been used for other Ordinance changes,  planning assistance (we have an escrow with money in it just for that), legal advice.  Why didn't they listen to the Planning Commission that they, themselves, appointed and grant this repeated request ?
6. Little opportunity for public comment and discussion outside of a "it's a done deal" public hearing.
7. No mention of this topic in the newsletter to alert citizens.  It's not that ordinance matters haven't been addressed there before.  Is the Board selective in what it directs the editor to include for the public?  Why not be as sure as you can that people know what's going on ? That was the rationale used before for putting ordinance issues in the newsletter.  Makes sense to me!

  Not to sound like Tom Cruise, but 
       

        ARE WE CRYSTAL YET ?
         



It is true that a number of what the Commission Chair Barfknecht called "blanket statements" were submitted by one individual to the Commission, gathered by her and signed by residents in support.  First, some signatures were illegible, which may be problematic.  But much more importantly, there were no additional comments made that would necessarily assure anyone that signatories understood the ordinance and what they were signing.  Indeed, the statement read "I support agriTOURS."

Agri-TOURS is not agriTOURISM, and, no, I am not making a mountain out of a molehill.  Agri-TOURS is pretty much one-dimensional; agriTOURISM is highly complex and varied.  Google it and you'll see what I mean.

What is really important about what people say when they testify at a public hearing goes beyond "I am in favor" or "I am against."
What should really matter are THE REASONS that they give for their opinions.  Do they understand the matter thoroughly?  Have they thought it through and are able to offer fact-specific suggestions or comments?  Are they knowledgeable about such matters? (Note that at both public hearings on this topic, former Planning Commissioners and former Board Supervisors, representing years of experience, weighed in on the side of "do this right, have a task force, STUDY this in more depth." Their comments would seem to have been ignored by the Board in its push to get this done.)
Are those testifying against it just because they are against change, even positive change?  A number of longtime residents said they could endorse the change if it were done correctly with adequate limitations and public input.  That's a long way from "If you don't like it, move back to Edina!" as one citizen stated. That comment sure doesn't rank there for me as a thoughtful response.  What about those longtime residents mentioned above?  They are not people who moved here and now don't want change and don't want "those who were here first" to have any opportunity, are they!?  They simply want a responsive Planning Commission and Board who understand their concerns and who have the political will to do this properly.

The Planning Commission, by a 3-1-1 vote to not recommend the current language and to have at least recommended to the Board that this be done under a CUP.  Commissioners Barfknecht, Jennings, and Frana voted in favor of not going with the proposed language, but instead having a CUP; Commissioner Novacek against the motion, thus in favor of the proposed language; while Commissioner Hansen abstained.  The dissenting Commissioner, Novacek, said that adding regulations was taking people's rights away.  Do the people living next to one of these uses have any rights, I wonder?  This is the same Commissioner who rejected the draft agritourism language submitted by two other Commissioners and their ad hoc committee of concerned residents as "too complex."  It had regulations.



THE BOARD CONSIDERS THE COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION AT THEIR MEETING THIS COMING MONDAY NIGHT, SEPTEMBER 9TH.

IT WILL BE AS PLAIN AS THE NOSE ON YOUR FACE IF THEY ARE FINALLY LISTENING AND WHETHER THEY HAVE THE INTERESTS OF ALL OF US AT HEART...

STAY TUNED...