Thumbs Up, Thumbs Down; Highlights and Lowlights of the Eureka, August 11, 2014, Town Board Meeting

     On Monday, August 11, the Eureka Town Board conducted its monthly meeting.  The following are a few of the topics addressed at the meeting:

ROAD CONTRACTOR:
     Supervisor Ceminsky reported to the Board that Class 5 gravel had been applied to 235th street. He stated that he received calls from several citizens and he investigated the area. Jason Otte, the Road Contractor, was present and stated that he had not applied any Class 5 gravel. Supervisor Ceminsky did not provide any samples or photos to support his claim.
      Supervisor Ceminsky is NOT a Road Supervisor.  It is his responsibility to direct citizen calls and e-mails to the current Road Supervisors for a complaint response and inspection if appropriate.  Supervisor Ceminsky stated that citizens were unable to contact the current Road Supervisors, Vice Chair Behrendt and Supervisor Budenski.  Both Road Supervisors replied that no one had tried to contact them and requested Supervisor Ceminsky to forward all citizen calls and e-mails. Supervisor Budenski stated that he was in contact with Otte Excavating, Inc. almost daily. Supervisor Ceminsky did not provide the e-mails or phone numbers at the meeting.
     The contact information for road Supervisors is as follows and can also be found on the Eureka Website and the Newsletter.    
     Supervisor Budenski - 952 292 6028, brianjbud@gmail.com and Supervisor Behrendt - 952 985-5411,  corybehrendt@frontiernet.net.

ATTORNEY BILL:
     The Board reviewed the current attorney invoice and found three unauthorized phone calls by Supervisor Ceminsky to the Township attorney, Mr. Lemmons. The Attorney Engagement Policy states "It shall
be the sole responsibility of the primary (Vice-Chair Behrendt) and secondary ( Chair Miller) attorney liaison to be in communication with the attorney and done in a matter consistent with the Open Meeting Law. "  The attorney agreed to dismiss the fee for the three unauthorized calls. (I suggest that Supervisor Ceminsky and any other Supervisors who are not familiar with the Policy review it.)

JOEY MILLER INVOICE:
     An invoice in the approximate amount of $19,000.00 submitted by Joey Miller for his work on the  new Town Hall storage facility was misplaced. The Board approved the invoice for payment; however, the invoice for payment will be an additional claim on the August Claim list.

CULVERT CLEANING:
     Supervisor Budenski reported that the Town Board has secured a permit and "okay" from the DNR Hydrologist to remove debris from the culverts on 225th Street. The property owner has given permission to enter his property.

WESTWIND SCHOOL:
     Representatives from the Westwind School have withdrawn all applications for permanent/temporary structures until the end of the 2014 school year

IT CONTRACT:.
     At the August 11,2014, Town Board meeting, Supervisor Ceminsky expressed his concerns regarding the IT contract which the Township has with Buds and Bytes and Supervisor Behrendt's role in the IT updating process. Supervisor Behrendt explained that the Board agreed, at a previous Town Board meeting, to accept Mr. Behrendt's offer to correct IT issues at no expense to the Township and work with Buds and Bytes as needed. The volunteer work that would be done by Supervisor Behrendt would save the Township thousands of dollars. (Supervisor Behrendt is currently employed as an IT Director for Clifton, Larson, Allen and has degrees in Electrical Engineering and Information System Management. As a professional he is responsible for creating business and technology plans that support the daily needs of a diverse and dynamic organization.)
     Referring to the April 8, 2013, Town Board meeting minutes, the Board, at the direction of Chair Storlie, (Supervisor Behrendt was not then on the Board) authorized the Clerk to call Buds and Bytes on a "as needed basis" for computer support. The  Board also discussed entering into an IT contract with Buds and Bytes to keep computer equipment running efficiently.

     Supervisor Ceminsky admitted he had a private conversation with Chris of Buds and Bytes and questioned why Supervisor Behrendt was not communicating with Chris. Supervisor Behrendt explained that he attempted to communicate with Buds and Bytes via several e-mails over the past 2 months without a response. (Supervisor Behrendt had copies of the e-mails.) He stated that he finally received an e-mail from Chris about a week ago (apparently after Supervisor Ceminsky, without Board agreement, called Buds and Bytes.)) (Perhaps Supervisor Ceminsky ignored his responsibility to first communicate with Supervisor Behrendt, a common courtesy, before calling Buds and Bytes with his concerns. This would not violate the Open Meeting Law. In my opinion, Supervisor Ceminsky should speak with the Board before designating himself as the Buds and Bytes contact. Eureka has a Board of five, not one.) ) Supervisor Behrendt reminded Supervisor Ceminsky that there needs to be communication with him if there is an issue. The response from Buds and Bytes answered only about one-half of Supervisor Behrendt's questions.
     Supervisor Ceminsky stated that Supervisor Behrendt was doing "stuff" on the office computer with files and data. Ceminsky stated he wants to keep the process "clean" and does not feel a Supervisor should be working on computers. Supervisor Behrendt reminded Supervisor Ceminsky that Nanett, the previous clerk who was training in a new clerk, was rearranging files and that Supervisor Ceminsky had agreed to allow him to work with Buds and Bytes to resolve issues. He explained that he was not dealing with data, but the presumption is that he would not be malicious and only effectively work with the hardware entity as a professional IT person. His intent was to utilize his IT experience to save the Township money. He stated he was never working on the computer without someone else in the office, adding that if Supervisor Ceminsky did not "trust" him, someone else was welcome to carry on in his place. Supervisor Behrendt then stated that he was "done" with his volunteer time due to the lack of trust and that engaging Buds and Bytes to complete the process would cost the Township thousands of dollars that the Township did not budget for.
     Supervisor Behrendt donated computers and equipment to the Township to replace the outdated equipment that was being utilized. Commissioner Hansen, on more than one occasion, questioned why the Township was not purchasing new equipment as allowed by vote at the Annual Meeting.  Supervisor Behrendt explained that the equipment that was donated by his company was new; however, the equipment could be returned and the Township could purchase other equipment.
     Supervisor Behrendt donated time away from his professional position during his work day to start the process of updating a mixed bag of eight year's of complex codes. The Township will now have to pay thousands of dollars to engage Buds and Bytes to manage the website/webmaster and they will have unfettered access to the Township data.
     Chair Miller indicated that the Township would prefer to keep the donated new equipment. He stated that Supervisor Behrendt had done a good job putting everything together and that he "did not deserve this abuse." Chair Miller acknowledged that Supervisor Behrendt was authorized to donate and install the new equipment, and to tie together various obsolete programs. Buds and Bytes' contract will be reviewed.
     My comment:  Supervisor Ceminsky, are you on the Board to cost the Township money or to save the Township unnecessary spending due to the generous efforts of a financially conscientious Supervisor and citizen?  The majority of the time it is better to work with someone to accomplish a result rather than spend energy trying to make others look incompetent. Commissioner Hansen, please obtain the facts before making assumptions and public statements.
     My comment: Supervisor Behrendt, I appreciate and value your commitment of time and your generous donation of new computer equipment. You conduct the business of the Township with a voice of reason, fiscal responsibility and integrity. Is it possible that a few of the other Board members are there to "carry the water bucket" for their buddies? At times, I wonder. I believe the majority of citizens would agree that you take your Oath as an official seriously. Thank you.

AUDIENCE DISTURBANCE:
     Supervisor Madden, with the encouragement of Supervisor Ceminsky, reminded the Board that a citizen in the audience was "creating a disturbance." (A citizen moved from one seat to sit next to another citizen and whispered two words to the citizen in front of her.)  He stated the Board needed to concentrate on "what they were trying to do here." He said he brought it up because "he was having a hard time following the discussion."
     At a previous meeting, four Supervisors were engaged in a discussion (See the photo at the top of the Blog) regarding a very large issue in the Township. Supervisor Madden was too busy laughing and writing notes to the clerk on the back of his agenda to get involved in the discussion.
     My Opinion: "I find this behavior  of Mr. Madden's very distracting. I also find it very distracting when a Planning Commission member, while sitting next to the attorney, continues to engage Mr. Lemmons in a conversation; not allowing the attorney to focus on the Board discussion. This member, in particular, speaks and interrupts without being recognized, whenever he so desires as if he is a "sixth member of the Board."  Supervisor Madden, please focus on the more important issues.
     Citizens take time out of their busy schedules to attend meetings in order to conduct business or to become informed of decisions being made by our public officials. Citizens should be treated with dignity and respect.  It is unfair to expect citizens to sit for four hours and not speak to another citizen sitting next to them.  If the conversation is going to be loud and lengthy, requesting the citizen/citizens to step outside the meeting room is reasonable.
     Supervisor Ceminsky had the small tables, which citizens utilized to work on computers etc. during the meetings, removed from the building. He explained that "he felt everyone should sit together." Now that the storage facility may soon be completed, it is a good time to bring a couple of tables out of the storage unit and allow the citizens to utilize what rightfully belongs to them in spite of Supervisor Ceminsky's "feelings."

AGRI-TOURISM:
     The Board engaged in a discussion regarding developing an agri-tourism ordinance.  Attorney Lemmons provided the Board with a draft report he developed utilizing input submitted by the Task Force and individual Task Force members. Attorney Lemmons did state he was concerned about making Agri-tourism a permitted use because of all the potential uses.  He stated he felt an Interim Use Permit for Agri-tourism would be much better. Supervisor Behrendt expressed several valid concerns and stated he felt the Board should have the option of reviewing the proposed ordinance following an Open House before moving forward with a Public Hearing. He had concerns the Board is taking what is a very complex issue too lightly, as well as the possible effects Agri-tourism might have regarding zoning.
     Expenditures were approved to allow the Planning Commission, Task Force members and Sherri Busse from TKDA to host an Open House allowing citizens to participate in an informational Agri-tourism discussion. Within 60 days a Public Hearing will be held to address the citizen concerns and make a decision on the feasibility of an ordinance to be presented to the Town Board for discussion.  Be alert for a posted Open House date.

TOWN HALL GARAGE/STORAGE BUILDING
     The storage building is not complete at this time. The Town hall property where the current storage unit is located has been sold to Atina and Martin Diffley. Chair Miller agreed to to move the storage unit onto the current Town hall property for a fee of $100.00.  The unit will be moved by the end of August.
Chair Miller asked as to when the new storage building will be completed. Commissioner Hansen was unable to answer this question. Commissioner Hansen stated that an amount around $4,100 would be needed to complete the next step. (No quotes were provided to support the dollar amount.) The Board authorized up to $4,100 for completion of this portion of the project.
     I reviewed the Town Board minutes from April, 2014, when Supervisor Ceminsky made a motion to move forward with the building project. Commissioner Hansen is listed as the general contractor on the building permit application.  He offered to manage the project free of charge. Pete Storlie was the Board Chair during this period. 
     The Commercial Inspection Record  states that the "permit holder/contractor/owners is responsible to call for inspections."  I found, in the project file, one inspection report dated 5/29/14 by Inspector Darrell Gilmer. The Commercial Inspection Record also states that the "permit packet, including the approved plan, and this inspection record must be posted in an accessible location before calling for inspections. No inspection will be performed and a re-inspection fee will be charged if this card and the approved plans are not available to the inspector."
      The Township Building Inspector, Darrell Gilmer, reminded Commissioner Hansen at the August Town Board meeting that only one inspection had been requested and that the required inspections need to be completed.  The Commercial Inspection Record was not posted in the building, but was filed away in the project file in the Office as of August 19, 2014, when I reviewed the file at the Town Hall.
I was also unable to locate a construction schedule. Is it not appropriate to expect the Contractor/Project Manager to provide to the Board a construction schedule at the beginning of the project and also call for inspections when required during the construction period? 
     My opinion: Perhaps, for future projects, hiring and paying a project manager/contractor would keep the process "clean" and professional. The project folder was void of quotes and, in specific, competing quotes, as well as lien waivers. Is it possible competing quotes were not obtained? Perhaps they are filed in another area. Is the Township Project Manager/Contractor following the proper procedure? If not, why would the Township Officials expect citizens to do so throughout the duration of their building process? I believe this is an issue to be concerned about rather than a couple of citizens chatting a few words during a meeting or a generous Supervisor donating his time and expertise to the citizens of the Township.  While I was sifting through a couple of files in the Town Hall Office, a citizen told me " Eureka not only has a reputation in Dakota County, but all over  the State."

     Can the citizens expect the storage facility to be completed by the next Annual Meeting?
   
   


     

 

  

IS IT IN EUREKA'S BEST INTEREST TO ADMINISTER THE VRWJPO ORDINANCE?

Vermillion River Watershed Joint Power Organization

​The Vermillion River Watershed is administered through a Joint Powers Agreement. Dakota and Scott Counties formed a Joint Powers Organization to exercise leadership in the development of policies, programs and projects that protect and preserve water resources in the Vermillion River Watershed.

At the April, 2014, Town Board meeting, the Supervisors engaged in a discussion regarding the permitting process administered by the Dakota County Vermillion River Watershed Board. Supervisor Ceminsky commented that the VRWJPO is in the process of updating the Vermillion River Watershed Plan. Ceminsky stated that County Commissioner Mike Slavik and “some of the people on the Vermillion River Watershed Board would like to give the permitting process back to Eureka.” Supervisor Behrendt reminded Supervisor Ceminsky that Eureka declined previously to administer the permitting process. He feels the ordinance is very difficult and complex to administer and enforce, requiring a level of expertise to implement the ordinance requirements. Supervisor Ceminsky stated the Vermillion Ordinance is no more difficult to administer than the North Cannon Ordinance. Behrendt and Budenski disagreed with Ceminsky, indicating that, although the intent is the same, the administration is more complex. (I spoke with Travis Thiel, Watershed Specialist with the Vermillion Watershed. During my discussion with him regarding Supervisor Ceminsky’s concerns as expressed at the Board meeting, I did not get the impression that there is any sense of urgency regarding this issue.)


Supervisor Ceminsky stated, “It costs the County $8,000 a year to administer the permitting process for Eureka citizens and they will have to recoup the fees at a cost to the citizens.” He indicated the cost might be less for the citizens if Eureka administered the permitting. (I believe this is only speculation: does Ceminsky have any concrete idea what fees would be charged at the Township level? He had no numbers to offer. This Ordinance was always to be a “pass through” on the expense to the applicant, regardless of who hired the engineer, etc.)


Supervisor Behrendt asked who would administer and monitor the permitting process in Eureka. Supervisor Ceminsky responded that the Building Inspector would have the authority to do so. The Planning Commission would first review the permit application before the Inspector would be involved in the process. Fees would have to be charged by the Building Inspector and, at a minimum, Eureka’s ordinance language would have to be modified concerning the necessary fees in the fee schedule. Concerns that some requirements might be outside the scope of what the Building Inspector can do are valid, in my opinion. Other concerns addressed were the licensing requirements for the Building Inspector and the possibility of engaging TDKA regarding engineering concerns and related costs. Supervisor Miller stated that it might be just as cost-effective to continue to allow the County to administer the permitting process.


Supervisor Ceminsky also stated that Brian Watson of the SWCD, administrator of the Wetlands, also suggested Eureka take responsibility for administrating the Vermillion River Watershed permitting process. Supervisor Miller asked if Brian Watson’s office would be willing to step in and help Eureka if necessary. Butch Hansen stated that “Brian Watson has to at our request.”


Nancy Sauber reminded the Board that the VRWMJPO is in the process of updating the Vermillion Watershed Plan, as is required every 10 years. A third public meeting was held by the VRWJPO in April at the Farmington Extension office, which was the closest location of their three open meetings for citizen input. Five citizens from Eureka were in attendance to engage in and offer input regarding the Plan update. No one from the Planning Commission or Town Board attended. Information on the Watershed updating process regarding Plan objectives and goals can be found on the VRWJPO website. Supervisor Miller felt it necessary for the Town Board to be aware of the Watershed’s updated objectives and goals before considering administrating the permitting process and ordinance. (As a citizen, I agree. How can the Board have a conversation with the Building Inspector if the updated Watershed Plan has not been adopted by the County? Is someone on the Board putting “the cart before the horse” without engaging in a reasonable and intelligent thought process?)


Commissioner Hansen was concerned that the Planning Commission needs to enforce the wetland ordinance. He stated
“Eureka does not go through the process as they are supposed to, so ...” and “We brung [sic] up to the Board before as a Planning Commission telling you that we needed to enforce the Wetland ordinances.” (It is my opinion that this is a very good indicator as to the importance of allowing the County to continue to administer the permitting process utilizing their experience and expertise to make certain it is administrated and enforced properly.)

Supervisor Madden stated “I know a lot of people who live on the Vermillion River who would like to be on an Advisory Board.” (What Advisory Board?) Supervisor Madden was taking selective photos of audience citizens during the discussion. Was he engaged in the discussion process, or was he working on his photo album? He turned over his name tag and later in the meeting took his belongings and walked out before the meeting was finished. (Have you ever been to a City Council meeting where a Council member takes photos of citizens during a robust and vital discussion?)


Chair Miller asked Supervisor Ceminsky to contact the Building Inspector, Darrel Gilmer, and engage in a discussion regarding the concerns that were discussed and Gilmer’s ability to administer and enforce the Vermillion Watershed Ordinance.


(As a citizen, I would encourage the Building Inspector to come before the entire Town Board to allow for an unbiased and clear conversation as to his capabilities regarding administration and enforcement, thus allowing questions and follow-up from all Board members.)

THE LINEUP HAS CHANGED...

At the last Town Board meeting various appointments and hirings took place:

At the last Township election, you voted to separate the position of Clerk/Treasurer.  This has been enacted.

A new Town Clerk was hired: Barb North.  I cannot give you any more information about her such as past work experience, as the Board did not share this with the public.  Introduce yourself next you're in.

A new Town Treasurer was also hired: Marsha Wilson.  Again, I cannot give you any more info than that as the Board did not share such details as past work experience with the public. "Welcome" to Marsha.



If you have followed the blog, you are aware of the "upheaval," and I would say controversy, regarding the Building Inspector position.

Darrel Gilmer, Township Septic Inspector, was hired as the Township Building Official.  Darrel has been active in this field for quite some time.  He did ultimately agree to the two-year term of the contract, instead of only the 90 days he was willing to commit to previously.

The Township can have only one Building Official, by statute.  Mr. Gilmer does not do commercial inspections.  The Board hired Greg Staber as Deputy Building Official, in charge of commercial inspections. Greg asked for a one-year contract term, with an option to renew for the second year.  This is due to Eureka's low volume of such inspections and his accompanying insurance cost increases.


Two Planning Commission seats were up for appointment, those vacated by Commissioner Jennings and Commissioner Frana. Many thanks for the time and commitment over the past three years! 

There were four applicants for these two postitions: Philip Cleminson, Fritz Frana, Bob Frederickson, and Carrie Jennings.

Dr. Carrie Jennings, geologist and former Board Supervisor as well as Commissioner, was reappointed.  As a geologist, she has valuable background, knowledge, and experience that is unusual in a Township Planning Commissioner.

Phil Cleminson, former and current Task Force member (Transfer and Agritourism), was appointed to the other position.  During his interview, Phil stated that he has "absolutely no agenda." 



And the pitch...

YOUR EUREKA SCORECARD:

I write this as one Eureka citizen concerned about the state of the Township.

Clerk/Treasurer:  We had a veteran of fourteen years who left us.  You can ask her why. When she was persuaded to return at least for a couple of months just as Treasurer, she was then, in my opinion, insulted by the then-Board's offer of a much-reduced hourly salary, even though she would be doing the same amount of work as Treasurer and just not as Clerk any longer. See "The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight?" post.

Interim Treasurer:  A person from a neighboring township agreed to fill in for a while, but only temporarily.  My question about her stay here: Did any Board member (How about the Chair?) make sure she knew for which meeting they needed the budget from her so they weren't "scrambling" the night before the Annual Meeting? In my opinion it is the Board's responsibility to be well-prepared for the Annual meeting, and personally I wouldn't take it for granted that anyone filling in would know exactly what was expected. This person has now found full-time employment elsewhere

Deputy Clerk who became Clerk: At the last Planning Commission meeting and at Monday's Board meeting there was/will be an announcement that she is resigning her post. She has had enough. She has also stated that she stayed on as long as she did because she "felt sorry" for the townspeople who were trying to get permits and didn't want to leave them in the lurch.  She doesn't even live here, but she cares about you!

Building Official: As a Commissioner who waded through all of the former Building Inspector's files, the Board at the time asked me to help interview new people, which I was happy to do.  Of the three candidates, it wasn't even close. Scott Qualle was definitely "Qualle-fied" and very professional. I remember describing him as "a breath of fresh air." You can refer to earlier posts for more detail, but I then sat through a number of meetings in the last year or two during which I was actually embarrassed for the Township at the way in which Scott was treated.  Board members didn't even understand for a while where their authority ended and his began. (One citizen had actually stated at a meeting that, "The Building Inspector (Mr. Qualle) should be 'reined in.' " Clearly, he did not understand the Building Official's authority either.)

When the time came that Mr. Qualle's contract expired, the Board put out a call for applicants.  Scott was the only one who responded by the deadline.  But the deadline was extended.  One more applicant eventually responded, but he was willing to commit to only 90 days, not the 2 years asked for.  This time problem was going to be "negotiated."  That individual still was willing to sign for 90 days only.  Could the Board's earlier treatment of Mr. Qualle have weighed in on his decision, I wonder? (Newly-elected Supervisor Behrendt has asked to see all the paperwork that was involved in this matter. We'll see where we end up.)

Again, it is just my opinion, but I don't think someone should be "let go" for doing his job according to his sworn duty and his license. I also think that if qualified persons apply and are willing to serve for the time period asked for, someone should probably be hired.  Ask yourself why this didn't happen.

Township Attorney: At the Reorg Meeting, at Supervisor Ceminsky's instigation, the Board will continue with Kelly and Lemmons for the short time being, but will again look at other firms. We are talking about a "Superlawyer" law firm here (Mpls./St. Paul magazine), but apparently that isn't good enough for Eureka? (This isn't the first time for that, either.)  Ask yourself why.

Former Board Supervisors, including me, have often discussed how, because Commissions and Boards come and go, the Attorney is the logical source for institutional memory.  Once we have a good firm that has become familiar with our Township, as we do once again now, it actually costs the Township more money to change and bring any new law firm "up to speed."  And to what end? Could it be that the appropriate advice isn't always what "some" want to hear perhaps?



Well, I hope that this is a "seventh inning stretch," and that we will have our act together before the end of the ninth.  I just wish we hadn't worked ourselves into such a deficit.

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!

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