First some of the more positive news:
The Board approved $4,000 for a planner (
Sherri Buss of TKDA who has worked well with the Township before) to work with the
agritourism task force and also $1,000 for them to consult the Township Attorney with their questions thus far. The money will come from the professional services escrow funds. Surprisingly, the Board has also left it open for possibly more money if deemed needed. (Other task forces have cost more.) The current six task force members were willing to continue their work, so the Board approved their doing so. Sherri has been doing work on agritourism in other communities and so will bring valuable information and experience to the group.
The less positive aspect: those of you who have been following this know that not once, BUT TWICE, a Planning Commission majority of 3 had asked for this very thing: a task force with planner and attorney assistance, but was
denied twice by the Board! At that time, the Board repeatedly expressed a desire to "move this along". In fact, Chair Storlie, as you might recall, wrote
a definition only with a couple of regulations embedded in it that was presented at a public hearing. Some of the Board also voiced that having a planner would just "slow things down" --as if that were necessarily a bad thing. (Act in haste: repent at leisure?) Had they granted the Commission's requests in the first place, it would have saved a lot of time which they find such a precious commodity.
Indeed, they recently allowed a bare 60 days for the committee to come back with a recommendation. Other than a break at the holidays, the committee has been
meeting for two or more hours every week. Having served on the Transfer Task Force which did the same thing because of the Board's "sense of urgency," and having attended the agritourism meetings, I know that
that is a lot to ask of citizens. (I sincerely doubt the Board itself would agree to meet that often!!!) Even now, the Board
wants results for the Annual Meeting. I think it is good to have at least
a report of progress for the Annual Meeting, but do not understand the big rush to conclude this so quickly.
Or perhaps I understand it all too well...
Older, but
an important piece of information, is the fact that the
polls for the March Election will be open 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. This will allow citizens to vote on their way to work just they can during the November elections. Mark your calendars for
Tuesday, March 11th.
Another "mixed confection": At the January Board meeting, the Board approved
hiring a tech person to get the website going again. Not a moment too soon for
somebody to do so! I communicated with one citizen who attended this meeting simply
so he could find out what was happening. He typically receives an agenda via email, but hasn't since Nanett resigned. When he got to the meeting, he told me that there were no agendas to be had at the table where one enters.
If this ever happens to you, immediately ask the Clerk for more agendas.
I applaud his dedication, but not everyone can physically come to a meeting just to find out what is going to be discussed. That is why it is so important that the website get up ASAP so that you can read agendas, minutes, agritourism info, etc. This is taking way too long, folks!
The light bulb went off and
Chair Storlie (finally) proposed that an ad be placed in the newspaper to start the process of finding a new Clerk/Treasurer. He said he recalled that in the past, it took a couple publications to get some applicants. No kidding!
Not as sweet... Do you think that a Supervisor
should be paid for the time he will spend
to go through his earlier charges with the Clerk so that they can be allocated to the proper budget line? If you were a Supervisor, wouldn't you "tag" those charges
as you submitted them, so that the accounts would be correct as possible at all times and escrow or other accounts that are involved could be billed as necessary? Granted, supervisors
can spend a lot of time doing their jobs and, strictly speaking, I guess
can charge for each minute and each and every mile, but I don't believe that to do so would be in keeping with the generous sense of volunteerism that carried the day in the past. It used to be that no one charged for mileage except for Township road reviews or in isolated cases where one had to travel a fair distance for a training, but
many did not charge even then. As reported before, the payment for "special meetings" ($70) was applied for those supervisors attending, say, an NCRWMO
meeting as part of their responsibilities, though, again, some did not charge for this either. The intent when it was passed (and I know this because I was there for the discussion) was that these extra meetings can take a few hours each, just as a special meeting of the Board locally can, and supervisors are paid for that. The idea was not to pay for, as an example, a fifteen-minute discussion with an agency rep, but was for
a full-fledged meeting with the VRWJPO or NCRWMO bodies and the like.
Now, this is just my personal opinion; you may disagree. All citizens should know that what each Supervisor is paid and what for is public information which can be accessed at any time
via a request of the Clerk. Stay tuned for more information...
In a previous blog, I reported the 3rd quarter 2013 payroll dollars spent by the Eureka Township citizens. The following is the 4th Quarter Payroll dollars paid the Town Board and Planning Commission members. Of course, it is my opinion that our elected and appointed officials should be compensated for the work they do for the Township if justified and submitted appropriately. Does a Town Board Supervisor really need to submit a $70 charge to consult with the Clerk and/or Clerk/Treasurer? 
Special Town Board Meetings $210.00
.JPG)
.JPG)