DOES THE MINNESOTA STATE BUILDING CODE REALLY MATTER?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"JUST THE FACTS, MA'AM!"

FIRST, a little background:
While yours truly was still on the Board, I reported to it that, at a County Commissioners meeting I had attended, the Assistant Dakota County Attorney had advised the Commissioners that the Sheriff's Department did not have the authority to enforce local ordinances without a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) between the County/Sheriff and the Local Governmental Unit-- that is, Eureka Township, or any other of our townships.  The Sheriff and his Deputies are empowered by the state to enforce state statutes, but they must be empowered by the County to do so for local township laws as townships do not have authority over the Sheriff's Department..Shortly after that meeting, then-Commissioner Joe Harris came to one of the Eureka Board meetings and officially informed us of that.  He was going to each of the townships in Dakota County to tell them the same thing. The Board then moved forward, with the assistance of the Township Attorney and the Clerk, to explore entering into a JPA with the Sheriff.  This entailed, among other things, sending the Sheriff all the local Ordinances that the Township wished them to enforce for us. They would then determine which of those they would agree to enforce.

During this time, when the updated nuisance/noise ordinance was adopted, I asked that the Sheriff attend one of our Board meetings to be sure it was clear what was wanted with that law and others under the JPA.  Part of this nuisance/noise ordinance provided for its enforcement in a more informal manner that was nonetheless based on Minnesota standards regarding noise. The idea had been to make it more practical to determine whether a violation was occurring in a given instance.  I wanted to be sure this process was understood well by the Sheriff so that ordinance that we had worked so hard on could be appropriately enforced.  The Sheriff did attend, along with, I believe, the Chief Deputy, or perhaps it was a sergeant.  I asked them directly if they had any questions about that ordinance or any of the others; they replied, no, they did not.  They accepted the expanded nuisance/noise ordinance as one that would fall under the JPA.  A JPA was entered into for the course of one year.

The JPA was renewed the following year for another year.  Recently, it has come up again for yet another renewal.  (The renewal requirement is from the County's end of things to allow them to easily make changes as they see necessary.)

Since that time, a number of things have happened:
1. The Township was billed in the thousands of dollars for following up with their investigation of a complaint that was filed.  The rate per hour was $65/hour, so that seemed a little high to those of us on the Board who expressed a comment.  At the advice of the Attorney, however, the bill incurred under the JPA was paid as remitted. Not complaining, just saying.

2. Following a model airplane noise complaint, there was a lengthy conversation at a Board meeting between the Supervisors, the Attorney, and the complainants about the nuisance/noise ordinance as it would apply to this circumstance.  It appeared to be very unclear to the Board, in my opinion, as to how that Ordinance they had passed could be enforced (again, as it was deliberately written and discussed) without having to bring in noise decibel readers..  As then an audience member, I tried again and again to clear this up from my perspective as a former Supervisor and as the Attorney Liaison at the time of the ordinance's passage.  I am still not sure I got anywhere in that effort, as following discussions have since showed me.

3. There have been a number of informal in-person citizen complaints to the Board regarding the Sheriff's Deputies, seemingly to the citizen, not doing much, if anything, to enforce the local laws when called upon to do so.  This citizen reported that he was told a number of times that perhaps he should "just move" if he does not "get along" with his neighbor.  Personally, if this is true, I find that somewhat shocking and certainly not what I would expect from my law enforcement body.

4. On the issue of enforcing the "No Trucks" sign on local Township roads, I spoke to the Sheriff's representative at a recent Board meeting, again as an audience member.  I said that, in the past, Deputies have informed attendees at Board meetings that they are about "education first," before actually issuing a citation for a violation.  Fine; not a problem, sounds reasonable.  However, I said, this sign in question, and others like it, have been posted, collectively, for years already.  Further, the Board has adopted a Resolution regarding the roads in question (enforceable just as an Ordinance is, according to the Township Attorney).  I stated that, if, for example, as I have many times observed, a gravel truck driver on such a posted road heads east empty, returns going west with a load, heads east empty, returns going west with a load, PERHAPS the "education" he needs is that his actions have consequences! The Sheriff's rep immediately agreed with me.

OKAY, SO WHAT'S THE ISSUE, you might ask?
Very simply it is this:

Throughout all this time, various Sheriff's representatives, whether deputies or what-have-you, have shown repeatedly in different venues that they apparently are not quite certain as to what they are being asked to do regarding our various local ordinances and their enforcement!  For example, they have repeatedly questioned (not just at the meeting mentioned above when at least that rep seemed to "get it") whether the "No Trucks" signs are even enforceable at all. This happened most recently at the last Board meeting.  At that time, the Deputy then representing the Sheriff said he was unclear and "confused" (his word) about the "no trucks" signage mentioned above and whether he could actually enforce it or not.  Roll out the "a-Resolution-is-as-good-as-an-Ordinance" explanation from the earlier meeting-again!  He had referred to different state statutes regarding the issue of trucks on roads, but that is not the point of the JPA; our local laws ARE..


Finally, when called upon in the audience by the Chair, I said I was confused myself. Why, after what must be three years' of JPAs, is the Sheriff still confused?  Dave Bellows attended our meeting as I had requested, the Ordinances were submitted to the Sheriff a long time ago, and yet the Deputy is referring to state statutes which they already enforce anyway, rather than our local ordinances.

Now, as I stated at the meeting, my nephew and godson is a lieutenant with the Rice County Sheriff, so I understand they do not have an easy job, and I am really not trying to "beat up on" the Sheriff and his Deputies, but, really, why are we still confused?

I would like the Board to take a more active role in this than they have instead of letting it drag on and on as it appears to me it has done and, at last report, continues to do.  Why not have Sheriff Bellows in again for a chat and clear this up once and for all?  (This regrettably reminds me of the unfortunate frustration I experienced in trying to get the aides in my mom's nursing home to actually do what the nurses in charge had agreed to regarding her care. It's the hands-on people that make the difference!)

I asked the Deputy and I ask the Board that this be resolved once and for all and moved along in as quick a fashion as possible.  In the meantime, the JPA is worth very little to me, my neighbors, and the rest of the citizens if the Sheriff's Department is not enforcing local laws as they are required to do under that agreement.

Respectfully,
MN 4th regiment descendant!

HOW FAR CAN WE SEE?

When contemplating changes in our community, is it not wise for us to take the time to look at surrounding communities and examine their visions and the process that is utilized to guide their principles for future development? We might not be Wayzata, Stillwater or other towns, but we are a community that has the zoning responsibility and opportunity to demonstrate quality growth while still maintaining a high quality of life that will make Eureka exceptional. It would be wise and advantageous for Eureka to recognize other communities as possible role models rather than adversaries and perhaps build on their development strategies that have proved to be successful. After all, are we not all in some way large or small, in this together?


The Sunday, September 15, StarTribune dakotacounty, Section N, printed an article "Lakeville drafts vision for future". The article "Envision Lakeville" is worthy of Eureka's attention. It demonstrates the necessity of engaging a task force and bringing citizens together to share opinions and ideas regarding how they view their community. Community surveys are utilized; town hall forums are included as well as focus group meetings. Data is gathered and analyzed; the task force then uses the community input with the facilitation of a professional consultant and knowledgeable speakers to propose a unified community vision. Sounds reasonable, right?   

 

As this community engages in the study and feasibility of Agri-tourism, I recommend the Eureka Town Board members and Planning Commission members review the summary of the process utilized by Lakeville to develop their vision. I feel quite confident in stating that this is a process familiar TO and adopted by most communities who are cognizant of the most logical and long-term uses as established in their comprehensive plans. The guiding principles will address the need to
protect the public health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience and general welfare of its citizens; while promoting well-managed and staged development of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public areas. Specific to Eureka, our guiding principles are to protect and preserve lands for agricultural use, conserve and manage the natural resources, and provide for the compatibility and most appropriate use of the land throughout the Township.

I would like to believe our Town Board and Planning Commission members will take great pride in knowing that they utilized the most applicable guiding principles in a timely manner to develop and envision each and every challenge that can be managed by present and all future Boards..
Can we see that FAR as we envision agri-tourism and other uses?  


 The summary of the Lakeville process can be found at www.lakeville.mn.us and click on "Envision Lakeville." The full draft is at http://tinyurl.com/oxws7dg.

         

Sleeping teen is bitten by wolf near Lake Winnibigoshish

• Article by: JOSEPHINE MARCOTTY , Star Tribune
• Updated: August 26, 2013 - 10:41 PM

  Sleeping teen is bitten by wolf near Lake Winnibigoshish

  Article | Updated: Aug 26, 2013 - 10:41 PM
  ... The teenager, who was staying at a campground in the ... An adult wolf is capable
  of biting with a force of ... through a moose femur in six to eight

16-year-old attacked near Lake Winnibigoshish is state’s first such recorded victim.

A solitary wolf bit a 16-year-old-old boy sleeping outside his tent near Lake Winnibigoshish on Sunday, the first documented wolf attack in Minnesota history.

The unidentified boy, who is reportedly from Solway, Minn., stood up and kicked at the wolf, which then ran away, according to state wildlife officials.

The teenager, who was staying at a campground in the Chippewa National Forest, was driven to a hospital near Bemidji, where he was treated for a gash on the back of his head and canine punctures on either side of his face.

A 75-pound adult male wolf that matched the description provided by the boy and others at the campground was trapped and killed Monday morning by federal wildlife officials.

The wolf’s body was taken to the University of Minnesota veterinary school, where it is being tested for rabies and dissected. Investigators will collect DNA in an effort to match it to saliva samples on the victim.

“This is a rare occurrence,” said Tom Provost, enforcement manager for the Department of Natural Resources. He said there have been no other recorded cases in Minnesota of a wild wolf attacking a human, though it has occurred elsewhere in the United States and Canada, and more frequently in India.

The wolf that was killed Monday had a deformed jaw. The top and bottom were out of alignment, and it was missing a canine tooth, Provost said, meaning the animal likely had learned to survive by hanging around campgrounds.

In order to hunt successfully, wolves must be able to exert tremendous force on their prey, Provost said. An adult wolf is capable of biting with a force of 1,000 to 1,500 pounds of pressure per square inch, a strength that makes it possible to chomp through a moose femur in six to eight bites. A German shepherd has a biting pressure of 750 pounds per square inch.

(ref. Mpls. Star and Tribune for complete story)

          

2 wheels or 4?

Have you run across the peloton of cyclists that uses the Town Hall parking lot as an assembly point on Wednesday evenings?  Chairman Miller has-- kind of literally--and he was seeing red at the last Board meeting.

He let the Dakota County Sheriff representative know that he sees this activity as a threat to the safety of Township residents.  At a previous meeting, Commissioner Hansen reported that he had to wait to turn into his driveway because of the cyclists.

The officer said he was used to being a sounding board for misdirected anger, but this went on long enough that even Chairman Storlie tried to shut it down and a citizen attending the meeting spoke in support of the officer.

Why lay into the Sheriff?  The cyclists are warned in their registration materials that roads are open to traffic and that they must obey rules of the road.  But as a safety precaution, the club hires off-duty Dakota County officers.  On the night in question, Mr. Miller didn't see any.   

The Silver Cycling non-profit club has hosted 5 time trials on Wednesday evenings along 250th and Highview and one Saturday race in May.
They moved their long-standing event series to the County roads in Eureka after being forced to abandon their preferred, Black Dog route owing to frequent flooding and road degradation.  In appreciation for the use of the Town Hall parking lot, they recently donated $100 to the Township. 

Many in the Township like that cyclists are taking advantage of our wide County Road shoulders.  Some residents even participate in these events.  

If the Board members find 2-wheeled, silent cycling so dangerous and detrimental to the quality of life in Eureka Township, then why, you may ask, did they listen to a group who are proposing to create an off-road, 4-wheel drive, recreational area (like Lake Ore-Be-Gone in Gilbert, Minn) in an abandoned, 13-acre gravel pit on the west side of the Township and tell them to approach the Planning Commission with a proposal?

The general concept is for a group of local clubs to apply for Grant In Aid money to develop a 4x4 recreation area with trails comprised of varying artifical hazards created from old road and construction debris. The clubs can't apply for the money themselves, they need a government body to partner with and that is where Eureka comes in.   After 20 years, we would own this modified gravel pit.

The park acquistion and development process would be facilitated by DNR Parks and Trails but there would be no staffing or policing of the grounds.  Club members would self-police.  A sticker would be required to use the park.  The number of users would be controlled by the size of the parking lot.   

Maybe I'm forcing you to make a false choice here--cyclists or off-road vehicles. But both are supported by local recreational clubs.  If the issue to consider is the impact of the proposed use on Township residents, where do you stand?  (Actually, in the case of people using the county roads, we have no control but we could take away the use of our parking lot.)

                                     THE VOTE IS IN!           

Eureka Town Board Meeting August 12, 2013:

 Multiple complaints have been filed with the Eureka Township via formal complaints from citizens, letters to the Board from citizens and attorney correspondence, asking the Board to
enforce the Township Ordinance 3, Chapter 7, Section 3 - EXOTIC ANIMALS.
The intent of the ordinance is to protect against the health and safety risks of the exotic animals that are held in private possession. The agenda item to be discussed at the August 12 Town Board meeting requested the Board to enforce its ordinance and in particular not allow Ms. Terri Petter and Dan Storlie to continue to harbor and exhibit exotic animals.  The issue was discussed and the Board of Supervisors voted:

SUPERVISORS MARK CEMINSKY, PETE STORLIE AND STEVE MADDEN VOTED   YES! (To allow Ms. Petter to harbor her exotic animals)

SUPERVISORS KENNY MILLER AND BRIAN BUDENSKI VOTED    NO!

ARE THE SUPERVISORS WHO VOTED YES PROTECTING CITIZENS AGAINST THE HEALTH AND SAFETY RISKS OF EXOTIC ANIMALS IN THIS TOWNSHIP WHEN THERE WERE VALID REASONS PRESENTED TO ENFORCE OUR ORDINANCE?  YOUR TOWNSHIP - YOU DECIDE!

 

 

 

A Sign Which States "Fine For Dumping Garbage" Should Not Be Confused With "It Is Okay To Dump Trash Here."

Most people would not dream of dumping refuse along rivers, ditches, ravines, wooded areas and wetlands. However, illegal trash dumping is increasingly becoming a problem in Eureka.  It is against the law to dump trash or large discards in rural ditches and other prohibited areas. 

It is becoming common place to find illegal dumping of furniture,tires, carpet, roof materials, wallboard, lumber, construction and demolition debris, tires, electronic equipment, appliances, auto fluids, batteries, mattresses and bags full of trash in our ditches as people prefer not to pay for legal disposal. These are very selfish acts and have created a chronic problem.  

The financial burden of cleanup of illegal dumping by uncaring individuals becomes the responsibility of all taxpayers while creating a very aesthetically unpleasing environment.   The trash is also a public health hazard and can create public safety problems.  One quart of used oil can contaminate a quarter million gallons of water.  Many of the items dumped are toxic and can become breeding grounds for mosquitos, rats and animals such as skunks which spread disease and can destroy wildlife habitats.

Each piece of discarded video equipment contains 2-8 pounds of lead and small amounts of other harmful pollutants like mercury and cadmium (MPR News).

Citizens who partake in illegal dumping try to protect themselves from citations by removing identification markings.  In spite of attempts to do so, County Officers are successful in tracing the trash back to its owner. In another Minnesota County, a trail camera was used by a property owner which captured a photo of a suspect and his vehicle in the act of dumping trash. Live video and photographs can speak for themselves.

This living room brown couch set was nicely arranged on my property on the South in the wetlands and a garage sale sign was placed next to it; they went beyond ditch dumping. Who do you think paid for this removal?  That is correct!  Tax payers' $'s at work.  Does anyone in Eureka recognize this comfy furniture!   

Illegal dumping of waste material, appliances and items mentioned above is a criminal offense.

If you notice anyone disposing of their possessions in a ditch or area on private property

call the Road Supervisors and if possible obtain license plate numbers and description of vehicle.

Road Supervisor:  Mark Ceminsky  612-819-1334 
                      

Road Supervisor: Pete Storlie  952-469-3668

Dakota County Recycling Zone
3365 Dodd Road
Eagan MN 55122
p: 651-905-4520
web: http://www.co.dakota.mn.us/EnvironmentRoads/RecyclingZone/default.htm

 

                                   

                                                          

                                                                 

  

 

What's in your outbuildings?

When I bought my farm, built  in the 1880s and still owned by the descendants of the homesteaders, there was over 100 years of stuff in those outbuildings.  It was all laid out for every one to see at the auction.

The good stuff went fast.  There were horse-drawn sleighs; an anvil and blacksmith tools; a fainting couch. We were left with the stuff that no one wanted.  There was a chicken coop with its roof held up by twine-tied stacks of Farmer's Wife magazines.  The next coop was a museum to the history of vacuum cleaners.  A room in the barn was filled with bread bags stuffed in other bread bags and jars of straightened baggie twisters. The hayloft was a church with  lectern, two pianos, dozens of pews, and boxes of psalm books in Norwegian, plus lots of pigeon poo. The milking parlor archived hundreds of windows and extra panes of glass; straightened nails, tin ceiling panels, and doors from somewhere else entirely. You get the picture, and there were over a dozen buildings.

We eventually dealt with most of it, finding appropriate homes, renting dumpsters and trying to learn  how much could be amassed in a lifetime or two and keeping an eye on our stashes of yarn, washed ziplock bags, wine corks, canoes, bikes and yes, straightened baggie twisters.

Why does the Township get involved with what we have in our outbuildings?   Well, the short answer is, they don't if we are an agricultural property or if we are using them for personal storage.  What we keep, hoard or save for a rainy day is our business and our childrens' problem (or embarrassment at the auction).


But are all accessory-use structures used for personal property?  Even the really big (and getting bigger) ones?  Can we trust the current Board to enforce our ordinances and make sure that they remain for personal use?  What do they keep in their outbuildings?  What are we to think when a current Planning Commission member said that, as long as what's being done is under the radar, its okay."?  Or when a long-time Board member said,  "We don't want to know about that.  Don't tell us that.  That has been a 'problematic' property."   with regard to how to represent a well-known property to prospective buyers.  The real estate agent was present at the June Board meeting with two potential buyers when that statement was made.  Everyone knew that the place for sale had been operating commercially as a number of things over the years...most recently as a furniture and second-hand store with food for sale.    Even the County acknowledged it was a commercial interest and had been taxing it as such.  So why do we allow this to happen?  Why should we care?


The Township should care because it has ordinances that protect the health, safety and welfare of its residents.  Home occupations are allowed but are to be limited to the home.  Businesses are not to be run from accessory use structures. Even storing business equipment or materials there, as recently clarified at the June meeting by the Township Attorney, Chad Lemmons is not permitted. We do not have sewers, fire response, road infrastructure, or the setting to allow businesses to operate from accessory use structures.  We do not have a commercial zone that isolates and separates people's homes and backyards from back-up beeps, delivery trucks, motorized equipment, bus parking lots, waste piles....  There are simply things that should not go on, be stored, used, heard or dumped on the ground in a non-sewered, rural community.  We lay it all out in the ordinances and comprehensive plan.

It is also laid out for display at those auctions.  We can't pretend to not know what's going on.   If you have a complaint, use link to the form on the right side of the blog.  Your name will be protected and the complaint will have to be addressed by the Board.