YOU HAD TO BE THERE...

...at the December Planning Commission Meeting.  What was said was hard for me to believe, but there it was!

You remember Agritourism, right? You remember that it started as an individual's proposed text amendment and was "taken over" by the Board under Pete Storlie's chairmanship. Two separate public hearings were held. Many concerns were expressed. The proposed text amendments offered little in language and perhaps even less in development of concept, in my opinion. Ultimately, a task force was appointed by the Board to look into it further.

The task force, at any rate, met for months and hours and hours and hours. You might remember that there were also two open houses for citizens to ask questions and offer input by means of questionnaires and verbal comment. These open houses were not a given; people had to press for the opportunity for those of you who came.  It makes sense to me that community input should be sought and that people should be given multiple ways to give their feedback.


This feedback should be considered carefully and thoroughly by the Commission and the Board. After all, they represent all of you! The Township Attorney was also asked to take the task force language and come up with the ordinance. So we have spent much time, effort and funds on this topic.


Now, to the December Commission meeting. When the four Commissioners (Commissioner Barfknecht was absent) were starting to discuss the proposed ordinance language, Commissioner Novacek objected to it. He used the example of the provision for up to 100 sq. ft. of retail space to be allowed for sale of non-ag items before an Interim Use Permit (IUP) would be required.  (I remind you that the Attorney actually advised that all agritourism have an IUP so that the Township could better control this use through conditions specific to each instance.  His language did not reflect this as that is not what the Board asked him to do.)

Novacek stated that he thought that 10,000 sq. ft. would be better!!!  The other three Commissioners, which included two task force members, Hansen and Cleminson, responded, "That's a Wal-Mart!"  Novacek indicated that he didn't see their point.  Commissioner Jennings said, "We are zoned ag!" Novacek's response?  "That's arbitrary."

I seem to remember a township-wide vote back in the early '80s whereby the citizenry determined that it wanted to keep the one house per quarter-quarter zoning that would allow agriculture.  That's not arbitrary.

Zoning started, if I remember training sessions correctly, back in the 1920s. Before that pollution-spewing factories could be right next to residences.  It was better for people's quality of life if these uses were separated. That's what government's duty to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens is about.






Novacek went on to say that he thought everyone should be "able to live the way he wants to."  I don't think he has followed this to its logical conclusion. If Person A wants to live in Manner X, and say Manner X is owning a big box store alongside his house, what about Person B's  ability to live as he wants to if Manner X is objectionable to him and he lives right next to Person A? What if Novacek is Person B? What might he say then?  You see where it goes.  Our community has self-determined that it is ag.  That means certain uses do not fit in the zone, although we do allow certain non-ag uses such as churches and schools under Conditional Use Permits. But that was also done through public input and ordinance adoption.

At any rate, Commissioner Novacek said he was going to do his "own research" on the topics to be regulated by the Agritourism Ordinance and bring it to the January meeting coming up this Monday, the 5th. I sincerely hope that the other Commissioners remember all that has gone before and all the discussion it took for the task force to get to its conclusion.  Even the task force, just the six of them, had a hard time agreeing.  I don't think it should all come down to a Committee of One, do you?

MAKE HAY WHILE THE SUN SHINES...AND OTHER OPPORTUNITIES

We're well past haying season, but you can still take advantage of some political "fair weather."  That is, you still have an opportunity to weigh in on the proposed agritourism ordinance language and even shape it before it goes the required publc hearing.

Recently, a second open house on this subject was held. About 30-40 people attended, as also happened at the first open house held some months ago. That there even WAS a second open house was an accomplishment, in my opinion. Supervisor Cory Behrendt, Task Force member Fritz Frana, and Yours Truly spoke in support of having one. The thought was the Township (Task Force, Planning Commission, Town Board) needs to get back to the people to tell them how their input came into play in drawing up the currently proposed language.


Not all were in favor of having such a public gathering.  Commission Chair Butch Hansen was not and opined that "we'll just be back at square one," and the Township should just move on to the public hearing. I was surprised that as a member of the Task Force he would apparently have so little faith in the language that they had labored over for months or that he felt that the public did not need to be heard from again outside of a hearing. The point of the first open house was to inform the public and also to gather its feedback on the topic.  If the public is worth hearing from in the first place (and indeed they are!), shouldn't they also find out how the Task Force chosen by the Town Board on their behalf worked with their feedback? Certainly, it is entirely possible (probable) that at least some "tweaks" might be needed!

Indeed, at a Special Planning Commission meeting the night before the open house, Supervisor and Board Liaison for the Commission meeting, Kenny Miller, stated that he "thought the open house was to inform the public about the ordinance that we are going to enact."  To employ another rural saying, I think that is "putting the cart before the horse."  Mr. Miller is fond of saying how long it took to update the Mining Ordinance, one time stating it took "two years," so I

wonder what's the rush with the Agritourism Ordinance?  Also, I think one should keep an open mind since there is still a public hearing to be held.

Since the ordinance will affect all the public, I think the public should be involved in its formation, don't you?  Giving people the opportunity to weigh in on zoning laws that will affect them, even starting in the early stages and onward, should just be a matter of course in government, in my opinion. This need not be relegated to a onetime event such as a public hearing after the language might be argued to be already "half-set in cement" and some people might be non-receptive to changes, even good changes.


You may remember that this agritourism ordinance all started with one individual applying for a Text Amendment, as individuals are welcome and able to do. The public hearing for this change in the zoning was published as is required by state statute.  However, when people showed up at that hearing and many spoke against the language and even the idea itself, the Board, under Chair Pete Storlie, decided that it would "take it on." In earlier posts, you were informed of his attempts at the language; not much of an improvement on the first submission in my and many others' opinions.

Eventually, the current Board saw fit to appoint a Special Committee or Task Force as it can do under the Ordinance.  This group was made up of six individuals who, as it happened, in many instances did not agree with each other on facets of the proposed law.  All the more reason to hear again from the public at large.



At the open house, a number of people offered input and all were invited to submit a comment card provided by the Planning Commission, who hosted the evening.  (According to Deputy Clerk Cheryl Murphy, about 35 of these latter were turned in.) Sherri Buss, Senior Planner at TKDA, who had worked with the Task Force, facilitated the meeting with a PowerPoint and information from other communities she has worked with and their experiences with this use.

Just a few of the comments made that night were:

***The Township seems to have considerable trouble enforcing the Ordinances that we already have, so why add another to the mix?
***The attorney has recommended that all agritourism be by Interim Use Permit.  Where is the Board on this?
***Many did not like the possibility of weddings being held every weekend near their homes.  One person even described it as "moving in the American Legion down the road from me."
***It was questioned how is a wedding even agritourism in the first place?
***There are many levels of intensity possible with this use. Do we want them all?

When asked, the Planning Commission stated that they would be willing to take any further input beyond the comment cards that evening.  This topic will be discussed in depth at their December meeting. That meeting is on the 1st of December, so normally any feedback that you may wish to submit should be in by the Thursday before. BUT that happens to be Thanksgiving.  Not sure if the clerk will be working on the Friday or perhaps (more likely?) will shift office hours to the Wednesday. To be on the safe side, earlier is better so that she can be sure to get your information in the packets for the Monday meeting of the Commission. Written comments may be mailed, dropped off during office hours at the Town Hall, dropped in the Drop Box at the Town Hall at any time, or, of course, emailed to the Clerk, Mira Broyles.

The draft of the proposed Ordinance is available on the Town website.  There is actually more than one there, but perhaps the attorney's version is the one to look at.  The attorney's task, as given to him by the Board, was to put the other text proposals and further minority reports into suitable language for an ordinance. His comment about Interim Use Permits being advisable was made during a Town Board meeting.

Consider giving your input now so that down the road we won't be faced with "closing the barn door after the horse is gone!"

Where The Rubber Meets The Road!

As a citizen in Eureka Township, do you at times wonder how your tax money is spent? For those who have concerns or questions, are unable to attend Township meetings, or have not had access to the Budget,
allow me to offer you "food for thought" regarding $'s spent on the Township roads above and beyond the road contractor's budget.

Eureka Township has two Board-appointed road supervisors: Mark Ceminsky and Board Chair, Peter Storlie. To the best of my knowledge there is no Policy adopted
which would define the responsibilities of a road supervisor. The Township also has a contract with Mark Henry, a State-Certified Road Contractor.

I have concerns regarding the 2013 road-related mileage and meeting charges which have been submitted to the Township per our road supervisors. The Town Board supervisors engage in a road review trip
every year to determine what road work needs to be done regarding culverts, road conditions, ditch issues etc.  The Planning Commission members also conduct a road review trip once every year after which they make recommendations to the Board. If citizens have a complaint regarding the road or road right-of-way, they contact a road supervisor who will then contact the road contractor.

My concerns are the following charges submitted for payment in 2013:

• First Quarter 2013 - Supervisor Ceminsky submitted 414 miles for payment at the Federal rate. Supervisor Storlie submitted 20 miles for payment and Supervisor Madden requested 20.4 miles for payment.
• Second Quarter 2013 - Supervisor Ceminsky submitted 921 miles for payment; no one else claimed mileage.
• Third Quarter 2013 - Supervisor Ceminsky submitted 1,112 miles for payment for road miles and "mileage supervisor." Supervisor Storlie submitted 20 miles for payment. Ninety-one additional miles were submitted pertaining to CAPX which should be reimbursed by the CAPX escrow.
• Fourth Quarter 2013 - Supervisor Ceminsky submitted payment for 20 "road-related" meetings = $1, 400.00 with no mileage shown.  An additional twenty-three meeting charges were submitted by Supervisor Ceminsky which should also be reimbursed by CAPX.

Charges like these, other than similar ones made by Supervisor Ceminsky in 2012, have been unprecedented.

The recent Eureka Newsletter stated that "with the hard work of our road contractor, the roads have improved "tremendously." Do you agree with this? Most would think that the State-Certified Road Contractor is quite competent in completing the road work in Eureka. Are the Township road supervisors, logging 2,487 miles and a multitude of "road-related" meetings in 2013, micro-managing the road contractor at the expense of the taxpayers? Who has oversight regarding the

actions of the road supervisors? Are all road expenditures preapproved by a roll call of the Town Board supervisors or only after the fact on the claims list?

Keep in mind, Eureka is a Township of only approximately 35.9 square miles containing County roads maintained by Dakota County as well as road maintenance shared with Castle Rock Township.

Bye-bye bicycles

The Silver Cycling club of Lakeville is being told that they cannot return to Eureka.

Pete Storlie

As you may recall, they had been using the parking lot of the town hall to gather a few times a summer for their evening time trials.

They were using the County Roads and we have no control on whether they cycle there but the current
Board, led by Pete Storlie decided that we would not allow them to use our parking lot.

Butch Hansen

The reason given?  Butch Hansen will be leading the construction of the Township storage building so the parking lot will not be available.

All summer?  To build a garage?  The garage that was supposed to have been built last year?

What's the real reason, guys? Just tired of what you perceive as inconveniences?





Does anyone want to volunteer the parking lot at Highview Church for this club?

AS EUREKA TURNS!

As of January 31, 2014, Scott Qualle of  MNSPECT Inspections is no longer Eureka's Building Inspector. Mr. Qualle contracted with Eureka as the Building Inspector on January 1, 2009. His role as our Building Inspector was to protect the health, safety, and welfare of residents by ensuring that all buildings are constructed and improved in compliance with the Minnesota State Building Code and the Eureka Ordinances. In my opinion, Mr.Qualle conducted his responsibilities with integrity and a strict adherence to the Building Code in spite of a somewhat contentious climate to work in within the community.

Following are relevant excerpts from the Township minutes and correspondence:
      
At the April 8, 2013, Town Board Meeting, Supervisor Steve Madden commented that "he does not feel that the Building Official should have the authority to write citations. He should only be able to write citations with permission of a Town Board Supervisor or a vote from the Town Board." Controlling and uninformed?  I believe Supervisor Madden would be well-served by reading the letter from the Eureka attorney, Trevor Oliver, dated February 11, 2012, which states "the Town does have an ongoing duty to ensure that existing buildings are maintained in a safe condition. The Building Official is primarily responsible for carrying out this duty." The Township attorney also stated during a meeting that the Building Inspector has the authority to carry out his contractual obligations independently and does not require "Board permission'' to do so.

Steve Madden, Mark Ceminsky and Pete Storlie

During a Town Board meeting (refer to previous blog) Supervisor Storlie admitted in the presence of Scott Qualle that he had advised a citizen to IGNORE a letter asking him to bring his buildings into compliance.
Perhaps Supervisor Storlie should also refer to the above-mentioned letter from the attorney where Oliver states "To carry out this authority, the Building Inspector has an obligation to pursue an inspection of a building when the official has reasonable cause to believe that there exists in a structure or upon a premises a condition contrary to or in violation of the code that makes the structure or premises unsafe, dangerous, or hazardous. If the Building Official believes an inspection is warranted, the official may request entry to the premises to conduct the inspection.  If entry is denied, the Building Official may obtain an administrative warrant from a District Court judge to secure entry to the building. Minn. R. 1300.0110, subp.7." The Building Official's job is difficult and he deserves to be supported by a Supervisor, not undermined by him.

Supervisor Ceminsky demonstrated such support when he stated in the February 2013 Town Board minutes, "Mr. Qualle was experiencing difficulties in working with incomplete and, in some cases, missing records of permits from the previous Building Inspector." "Missing past permits and records are sketchy. Scott is not sure he is getting all the correct information he needs prior to inspections. We (the Board) know his (Scott's) records are straight."

During the Town Board meeting on September 2013, Supervisor Storlie stated that the Town Board
"should not re-sign the current contract which expires December 31, 2013. If the Town Board does sign another contract with MNSPECT, it is a contract that represents both sides and is fair with opt-out clauses for both sides as well." The Town Board agreed to develop a new Building Inspector contract.

At the November 12, 2013, Town Board meeting, Scott Qualle graciously, when asked, granted the Township a 30-day contract extension so it would not have to do without inspector services. The Board agreed to publish a RFP (Request For Proposal) to be published in the newspaper for building inspectors to submit a proposal if interested in working as a Building Inspector in Eureka.

I believe 15 RFPs were mailed to various inspectors and only Mr. Qualle of MNSPECT, our current Building Inspector, submitted a proposal to be considered by the Town Board by the deadline posted. Chair Storlie requested time to "shake the bushes" (my term) and extend the deadline.

I attended and video recorded the January 30 special Town Board Meeting. Mr Qualle was present to represent his RFP. Chair Storlie opened the sealed envelope which contained Mr. Qualle's submitted proposal for consideration. Mr. Gilmer's proposal was not in an envelope, but on the desk in the front of each Supervisor. Chair Storlie distributed 5 copies of Mr. Qualle's proposal to each Supevisor. Chair Storlie placed his copy of Mr. Qualle's RFP next to his waterbottle and NEVER opened or reviewed Mr, Qualle's proposal. It appeared Chair Storlie's mind was made up before he came to the meeting. Butch Hansen, Phil Cleminson and Allen Novacek attended the meeting.

It is my understanding that Chair Storlie and Supervisor Ceminsky encouraged Darrell Gilmer, our current Septic Inspector, to apply. Mr. Gilmer was not present to answer any questions the Board might have regarding his proposal. Mr. Gilmer submitted a proposal agreeing to a 90 day contract with an option to negotiate after 90 days rather than the requested 24 month contract. A discussion took place regarding the time discrepancy and it was decided to communicate further with Mr. Gilmer regarding the issue. Supervisor Ceminsky stated that Mr. Gilmer and an inspector from Prior Lake stated to Ceminsky that Scott had told ALL (Mark's words) inspectors not to apply as it is difficult to work in the Township. Mr. Qualle approached the Board and stated that this was not accurate. Supervisor Budenski stated that Mr. Ceminsky's comments were only hearsay and should not be considered. Supervisor Ceminsky said "Who should we believe?  Without asking Mr. Qualle to represent his proposal, Chair Storlie quickly made a motion to accept Mr. Gilmer's proposal and arrange a meeting with Mr. Gilmer to negotiate his terms. Supervisors Ceminsky, Storlie and Madden voted yes; Supervisors Budenski and Miller voted no.

Mr. Qualle's contract expired the following day, January 31, and his obligation to the Township also ended.  Chair Storlie asked Mr. Qualle if he would complete his open permits. Mr. Qualle stated that he would like to continue as the Township Building Inspector; however two building inspectors in one Township was not allowed.  Chair Storlie stated "that is not what I asked." Mr. Qualle acknowledged that "of course" he would provide the Township with the necessary paperwork for the outstanding permits.

The following day I had a conversation with Mr. Gilmer, our current Septic Inspector. I believe Mr. Gilmer is a very competent inspector and conducts his inspections with integrity while following the Building Code. Mr. Gilmer stated that he had only seen Mr Qualle in passing in the past and never had a conversation with Mr. Qualle as stated by Supervisor Ceminsky. He stated that Mr. Qualle is a very intelligent and competent inspector who completes his job with integrity and adhers to the Building Code. As of this date I have not had the opportunity to speak with the Prior Lake inspector. This is on my "bucket list."

Thank you Supervisors Budenski and Miller for doing what responsible Supervisors are obligated to do; review all information and ask pertinent questions to make an educated decision based on facts.

Were the two proposals treated equally and addressed professionally? Was the Building Inspector who was present to represent his proposal treated with respect? After all, he did work with Township citizens since 2009, fulfilling his contract obligations.  I asked the clerk if there were any formal complaints against Mr. Qualle,and she stated she was not aware of any. Because of this I do not understand why the Board would not renew Mr. Qualle's contract. Mr. Qualle was not "fired" as some choose to believe. For clarification his contract was not renewed. I would like to believe that this was not just a DELIRIOUS POWER OF THE PODIUM.

A link to the video of the Building Inspector Contract discussion will be posted at a later date!

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

"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?