DEVIL'S IN THE DETAILS...

A few details from the Town Board meeting of June 11th:


Meetings with Lakeville and MAC will continue for a possible orderly annexation of the airport. Be interesting to see if they want to "play ball." Yes, they would be able get the entire airport in one shot under a friendly annexation, but are they willing to provide what the Township is asking for this accommodation? Jody Arman-Jones, editor of the newsletter, was told not to include any details discussed at the meeting in the current issue, so I won't here either, but it IS public information because it was discussed at the public meeting. Evidently, Hansen had wanted to discuss it at a closed meeting, but was advised that the Board cannot close a meeting for that purpose.

Maybe he should try reading the Minnesota Association of Townships handbook for statute references as to when a closed meeting can legally happen. This has come up so many times, I would think he would know that by now just by hearing it so many times, but he apparently still doesn't. This a little concerning that he wanted to close the meeting to the public when he can't even do so legally. Thankfully, he was corrected on this matter. Why does he want to keep the discussion out of an open meeting and thus out of your reach? This has been freely discussed at Annual Meetings, so what's the problem? Lakeville and MAC are either going to go for it, or they won't. Is this the accountability and openness you expect from one of your supervisors?

Concerning the incorrect advice two Board Supervisors (guess who?) gave Sibley Aggregates about bringing in outside concrete for crushing all summer long, Hansen seemed to excuse himself by stating that he had "called the Attorney the very next morning (after the Commission meeting)" about it. He then "discovered" that this requested use is not allowed under the Ordinances. I asked "Why didn't you already KNOW this?" He had no answer. I made the point that had the attorney been in attendance at Commission meetings as requested by the Commission but denied by the Board, there would not be any additional charges to receive information Hansen should have already had.

Not to mention that I had explained to Hansen at the Commission meeting that this use is not allowed and was purposefully not allowed by the Task Force and Board when the Mining Ordinance was written. In order to have a chance at doing so, Sibley Aggregates would have to apply for a Text Amendment and a public hearing would have to be held. Yet the two representatives from Sibley were told otherwise by these two supervisors. Are they so intent in trying to be "Go-To Guys" who will "get it done" for you that they are willing to ignore the Ordinances!?? Or are they just that ignorant of what proper procedures are? Either way, it's not good. (My opinion.)

Hansen seems to have a problem in accepting input from a person who was on the Planning Commission twice, on the Board, who has attended MANY trainings and public hearings, and who has actually read the Ordinances. What he is afraid of? No, instead of realizing that the person MAY know what she is talking about, he calls the attorney (Did he even have the go-ahead from the Primary Attorney Contact to do so?) to be told the exact same thing he was told the night before and  which he should have already known anyway. Where has he been at meetings? Does he even listen to others? And he had the audacity as Board Liaison to tell the Commission that they "should read [their] Ordinances!" Perhaps you could practice what you preach, Mr. Hansen.




When asked at the Board meeting whether any requirement for the clerk to be someone who lives outside the Township is in the Ordinances, Hansen immediately stated "Yes, it is!" NO, it is not. And yet he said it with such authority...

Thank heaven we have the Board Chair we do. He has very evenly and respectfully called on everyone wishing to contribute. At the last meeting (9:07 pm) Hansen said to Chair Murphy, "If you can control her (meaning me and my comments or questions as a citizen), good luck with that." I replied, "Nice way to talk to a citizen, Butch." So citizens are to be CONTROLLED? And whatever happened to that respect that he keeps saying he must be treated with? One-way street, I guess.



Further on that point, at the April Board meeting, Hansen, as a Supervisor, said to me, "Nancy, you are just a citizen now. You won't get your way." JUST A CITIZEN? Really? That's what you are supposed to be all about, Mr. Hansen,----the citizens! On what basis is the decision being made as to whether you, Reader, as "just" a citizen, are being heard or not? I find this attitude toward people Hansen just doesn't like to be troublesome...

On other occasions, Hansen has actually stated publicly as a Supervisor that this blog is "full of slander and lies." He has also stated that we blog authors "have claimed to be the official Township website." ALL OF THIS IS SIMPLY UNTRUE! We are a citizen blog and are labeled as such. Everything we report here is backed up by disc recordings, minutes. If we have an opinion it is stated as such. Why do he and Ceminsky dislike this blog so much that they have repeatedly tried to have it shut down? Ask yourself that; would this unconstitutional censorship be a good thing for our Township?

Hansen raised an objection that people were "getting information" from the blog. Is not more information a good thing? Did you know that Hansen and Ceminsky want to have a "policy" of reducing minutes to bare-bones motions and votes ONLY, not even including the discussion or the rationale for the votes?  Hansen has abstained from votes on many occasions recently, yet does not give any reason for his abstention. Makes me wonder what's going on...

It is difficult to sit through meetings when even a couple of the Supervisors seem to have so little regard for the proper and respectful way to do things. It seems to me that the personal agendas they have are what is important to them and drive their actions-not the good of the Township. But that is my opinion...and that of many others as well.

Other bits of info:
The Board approved another $5,500 in addition to the $4,000 from last year to remove trees along 235th.

No Clerk hired yet. Feelers out. The Township needs to find someone who understands the Ordinances and the Clerk's role as Zoning Administrator.

The RFP for a Building Inspector has apparently not gone out yet. In fact, it wasn't even brought up at the meeting. Darrel Gilmer was okayed as a short term fill-in, nothing longer. We need to act on this NOW and get in place someone who can professionally and fairly do the job for the longer term.

YOU DON'T NEED A WEATHERMAN TO KNOW WHICH WAY THE WIND BLOWS...

I just attended the Planning Commission meeting last night. As part of the audience, what struck me most about the meeting was that part of the atmosphere that Commissioner Al Novacek appeared to try to set.
Listening to him, one might think he is the only one up there trying to help citizens. "What are we here for? We're supposed to be helping people ...I think we shouldn't apply those (longstanding) rules in this case...I'M going to 'advocate' for the citizen here..." or words very close to that.

The end effect of his posturing, in my opinion, was to make the Commission look dysfunctional, to unnecessarily upset the citizen, and to leave hanging a nasty and unjustified question about the rest of the Commission's motivations. NOT helpful!




Yes, we are without clerical assistance right now. There is still the website which holds the Ordinances, application forms, instruction sheets and even a site plan example. It clearly states that all materials must be submitted ten days before the Planning Commission meetings.

For a citizen to come in with one application form not appropriate to his project, to change the project itself right there in front of the Commission, to have lots of missing information on the site plan, and to not avail the entire Commission an ability to view the "new" application isn't really reasonable. Again in my opinion. The citizen meant no ill will and of course wants to starts his projects ASAP--like everyone who comes before the Commission/Board. He was just very unprepared. Had we an experienced clerk in place, he/she would have pointed out all the items which made his application incomplete and would not even have forwarded it to the Planning Commission in the first place in the state it was in. That's a vital part of the clerk's role.

But the rules are there for a reason. The Planning Commission is supposed to check all points of zoning on the application before sending it on to the Board. To circumvent that, as I believe Novacek was proposing, really states that the Board can just do this work for themselves and add to their already looooong meetings. Getting all the ducks in a row for the Board is part of what the Commission does.

I did talk to the citizen before he left the Town Hall and unofficially pointed out to him what information he was still missing and how the form should have been filled out. I reinforced that he should visit the website. He left in a better mood and with greater understanding.

If I were an fellow Commissioner of Mr. Novacek's, I would be offended at his implication that he was the "knight in shining armor" to "rescue" the citizen (from...?). As it was, he gave out wrong information to the applicant when he stated that there are no limits on his projects of this sort. That hole in the Ordinances was closed MONTHS ago.

WHISTLING IN THE DARK...?????

During public comment at the recent Board meeting on May 14th, I spoke to the Board on several points that I feel have been not been handled appropriately very recently. Due to a policy limiting citizen input time at meetings to three minutes, I wasn't able to cover all the points I had. They are as follows:

1. Reasons to Continue Attorney input to PC as before:
The Board has recently removed the Planning Commission Chair's ability to speak directly to the attorney and to have his presence at Commission meetings as a matter of course. I do not feel this is in service to the citizens for the following reasons:

a. Transfer of Building Rights:
In all Transfer of Building Rights (TBR) situations, stub abstracts for both the sending and receiving parcels are required. As was recently experienced, the Commission needs the practiced, professional eye of the attorney to decipher these abstracts or tract checks to ensure that the building right status is acceptable. This is not the sort of expertise citizen Commissioners typically possess. This is a crucial factor in TBRs. The Board has voted to not track restrictions on parcels in any other way, so it falls to a correct reading of these stub abstracts. The attorney is needed. This serves the Township as a Local Governing Unit (LGU).

b. "Resident Inquiry" Agenda Item: 

Without the attorney present to confirm Commission answers to citizens' questions, the Commission can give only a tentative answer. These questions can arise the night of the meeting at the meeting. Their content need not be known ahead of time. It would be more beneficial to citizens to know that the attorney is reading things as the Commission is when such a question arises.

If the Board will not allow the attorney to be present at Commission meetings, perhaps this agenda item should be transferred to the Board's already full agenda when the attorney presumably is to be present.

c. Cost:
Some have raised an objection to the cost to have the attorney attend a Commission meeting. If the attorney is asked questions ahead of time and answers them, this also costs money. A disadvantage is that not all pertinent questions may in fact be asked of the attorney ahead of the meeting. Some of these questions may easily arise after all Commissioners have heard the issue further discussed at the meeting. Or an applicant may have an additional question which requires legal input. Without an attorney present to consult on these further questions, this could then still cause a delay for attorney input to be obtained. I don't think this serves the citizens well.

d. Citizen confidence in opinions rendered and actions taken:
Without the attorney present to affirm Commission opinions as they may be offered, the citizen is perhaps left without full confidence that what they have been told is accurate and that they can move forward on it.




e. Proper and timely representation of the Township:
Citizens frequently are accompanied by their attorneys or realtors. It is important that the Township be similarly represented.

The attorney provides continuity and a knowledge of Township history so that issues are dealt with appropriately. Newer Commissioners may not even be aware of settlement agreements and the like. This could result in something being granted or denied that isn't in sync with such an agreement.

The attorney has also had a role in assuring that state statutes are followed correctly. Appointed officials may not even be aware of the statutes backing up our local authority. They must be followed.

All these points serve not only those citizens applying for uses or structures, but also the community at large. That community deserves some confidence that operations are being performed correctly and according to the Ordinances that we have all enacted. Too many mistakes can be made. Citizens should not be left with their only recourse being legal action to correct a wrong.

2. Ordinances not being followed appropriately:

At the last Commission meeting, several errors were made in regard to this alone, and the errors were NOT the Planning Commission's.

a. What Mining Uses are permitted:

"Two Board Supervisors" had misinformed applicants from Sibley Aggregates about a use they wanted. The idea was to crush concrete from Lakeville demolition for the whole summer. Now if you know anything about the Mining Ordinance, neither concrete crushing from projects outside of the Township nor crushing beyond fifteen days is allowed. To be able to accomplish this an Ordinance Text Amendment would have to be proposed and passed first. This was unsuccessfully attempted not that long ago. There was concern expressed about the crushing of concrete.

When the Mining Ordinance Task Force wrote the language some years ago, it very deliberately put those restrictions on mines: no outside crushing of concrete, only from Eureka projects and then only for fifteen days. This fact was brought up by task force members at the last public hearing on this subject.

Yet the two gentlemen from Sibley had been told to come before the Commission, which would pass their request on to the Board and the Board, as Supervisor Hansen told the Commission, "would take care of it." Wrong, Mr. Hansen! This sort of change requires a public hearing for starters. And Hansen made that statement about the Commission passing it on to the Board and the Board "taking care of it" even after the requirement for a public hearing was raised, which he totally ignored. Had an attorney been present, this could have been cleared up in a definitive manner.

SEE BELOW:

Ordinance 6 Ch. 7: Mineral Extraction Performance Standards
Section 1 - PERFORMANCE STANDARDS The following performance standards apply to all mineral extraction facilities in the Township:

B. Source of Materials. Only minerals from the site shall be processed at the mineral extraction facility subject, however, to the following exceptions:
1. Recyclable concrete and recyclable asphalt may be crushed and mixed on site if the crushing and mixing do not exceed fifteen (15) working days per calendar year and if the recyclable concrete and recyclable asphalt originated from a road demolition or road repair project in the Township of Eureka. 

b. Length of building permit's duration: 
Supervisor Hansen was heard telling a building permit applicant that "building permits are good for a year." Wrong again, Mr. Hansen!

SEE BELOW
Ordinance 3 Ch. 4 Section 5 - BUILDING PERMITS
A. Permit
3. Every permit issued shall become invalid unless the work authorized by the permit is commenced within 180 days after its issuance, or if the work authorized by the permit is suspended or abandoned for a period of 180 days after the time the work is commenced. The Building Official may grant, in writing, one or more extensions of time, for periods not more than 180 days each. The extension shall be requested in writing and justifiable cause demonstrated. (Resolution 59, 8-13-2007)

c. What requires a building permit:
An individual came in to go through the process for a "hoop" building. During the discussion for this,  Supervisor Hansen actually advised the Commission to "refer to your Ordinances" and that such a building does not require a building permit.
Hat Trick! Wrong a third time!!!

SEE BELOW
Ordinance 3 Ch. 4 Section 5 - BUILDING PERMITS
A. Permit
1. For the purpose of regulating the location, size, and height of buildings on lots and the density of population in the Township of Eureka, and to provide separate districts for the purpose of carrying out the aforesaid regulations, building permits shall be required for all buildings, whether temporary or permanent in nature. No person or persons, firm, or corporation shall construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure; erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert, or replace any gas, mechanical, electrical, plumbing system, or other equipment, the installation of which is regulated by the Minnesota State Building Code; or cause any such work to be done, before first making application for

What Mr. Hansen still hasn't gotten straight is that he thinks if a building is "portable" it is "temporary" and further, he thinks temporary buildings don't require permits.

"Temporary" has to do with less than 180 days that a building is there. After 180 days, taxation enters in. AND temporary structures are limited as can be seen below:

Ordinance 3 Ch. 4 Section 11 – TEMPORARY STRUCTURES
A. The building official may issue a permit for those temporary structures and temporary uses specified below. The permit shall be limited as to time of service, but shall not be permitted for more than 180 days. The building official may grant extensions in writing for demonstrated cause. (Resolution 59, 8-13-2007)

B. The following temporary structures or uses are permitted:
1. Any one temporary building or stand exclusively for the sale of agricultural or horticultural products produced on the premises, provided that such building shall be no less than twenty (20) feet from the road right-of-way and further provided that adequate off-street parking shall be available. (Resolution 59, 8-13-2007)
2. Any temporary building for uses incidental to construction work, provided that such building shall be removed upon the completion of the construction work. (Resolution 59, 8-13-2007)
3. A garage may be occupied as a temporary dwelling for a period of not more than six (6) months if construction of a permanent dwelling is actually under way and in active progress during occupancy of the garage. Said garage shall be provided and equipped with garage doors. In the event that any person shall reside in any such temporary garage home for a period of time Ordinance 3 Ch. 4 71 exceeding that permitted by the building official, the Town Board shall proceed to have such extended use abated as a nuisance. (Resolution 59, 8-13-2007) C. All other temporary uses or structures are prohibited in Eureka Township. (Resolution 59, 8-13-2007)

TWO FURTHER POINTS:
1. The policy regarding meetings is that they are to be recorded and the recordings kept to facilitate with minutes until the minutes are approved. Apparently, no recording from the special Board meeting of 4-23-18 exists. More important, the draft minutes submitted by Supervisor Ceminsky do not give his own full motion involving the reduced payment to Darrel Gilmer, the Building Official. Ceminsky's original, fully stated motion actually included the original invoice amount submitted by Gilmer, but the draft minutes reflect only the amount approved to be paid, without any indication that this was a greatly reduced amount. I was there and heard the motion in real time, but this was not included and now no recording exists to verify this. Perhaps other Supervisors will remember Ceminsky's full motion.

Mr. Hansen has been insisting that minutes have only motions and votes and not much else. Motions and votes are what is required, but it is up to the body in question how much detail it wants in its minutes.

In the case of these draft minutes, not only are no details given, an incomplete motion is recorded and the public would have no way to know through these minutes what transpired regarding the Gilmer invoice. Why shouldn't that be "out there for public consumption?"

ANOTHER REASON THE BLOG IS SO IMPORTANT! WE REPORT WHAT HAPPENS AT YOUR TOWNSHIP MEETINGS, INCLUDING DETAILS YOU WOULD PROBABLY THINK IT IMPORTANT TO KNOW ABOUT!!!

AND ON A HUMOROUS NOTE
2. The Township website has our Ordinances dated as 11-17-2103. That means I am 153 years old! Who knew?

THANK YOU, CAPTAIN OBVIOUS!!!! THE CAPTAIN WAS IN FULL REGALIA AT THE RECENT SPECIAL BOARD MEETING...

First, did you even know that there was a Town Board Special Meeting on April 23rd? NOT SO OBVIOUS! Unfortunately, it appears that only some, not all, individuals on the special notification list received their notice of this meeting. It was also reported to NOT be on the Township Calendar on the website. Since the Township is operating without any clerk, this could be a reason.

Did you know that being on this list and being notified of certain topics or special meetings is not a local courtesy, but a state requirement of the Township? The new Board Chair has been apprised of this. Look for improvement in the very near future! How can citizens be up-to-date on meetings' content if they do not even know of all the meetings?



Let's take the most obvious item from the meeting first, which happened to be the third agenda item that evening. For the longest time, the Board has asked Darrel Gilmer, Building Official, to turn in his list of open permits. After many months, that was finally done.

We all owe Supervisor Lu Barfknecht a big THANK YOU as apparently she alone took the initiative to go through all the items on the submitted invoice of $8,758.22. Upon doing so, she noticed quite a few discrepancies and errors. She discussed all these with the Board on the 23rd.



By motion, the Board adjusted the invoice amount from $8,758.22 to $1,869.12!! That's a difference of $6,889.10, Folks.

Supervisor Ceminsky is the primary Building Official contact person for the Board. His comment? "Darrel realizes he made some mistakes."

Now, that DID seem obvious! The primary attorney contact person on the Board reviews the attorney's bills; why doesn't the primary Building Official contact person do the same? It was only after Supervisor Barfknecht alerted the Board to the problem that Ceminsky aided her in examining the bill. (It is of interest that Supervisor Butch Hansen didn't seem to think Barfknecht should even be involved in examining the bill more closely! This, after she did all that work! And no one else seems to have done so! I don't get the logic.)

Of course, ultimately, the entire Board is responsible for approving any expenditures, whether for a light bulb or a litigation. Yet another reason that Barfknecht could and should be involved.


OBVIOUS #2

The Board's second agenda item was to approve a job description for the clerk openings. One of the main challenges that the previous clerks had was in fulfilling the role of Zoning Administrator. 

First, know that under the Ordinances, the Clerk IS the Zoning Administrator. This requires familiarity with planning and zoning and a thorough knowledge of Eureka's Ordinances. This enables the Clerk (and the Deputy Clerk in the Clerk's absence) to answer questions, to be sure all applications are completely filled out and ready for Planning Commission (PC) review, and to refer persons to the appropriate portion of the Ordinances.

Without someone reliably doing those jobs thoroughly, the Planning Commission was left in the position of checking all applications for completeness ahead of its meetings (not its job), which very frequently resulted in having to ask the Clerk to contact applicants to alert them ahead of the PC meeting that something was missing from their applications. Applicants then often had a narrow window (Thursday, PC "packet day" to the meeting day five days later with a weekend in between) to complete the application forms. When an application comes before the Planning Commission, they should not have the unfortunate task of informing the applicant that information is missing and delaying action. This makes the Commission appear obstructive when it certainly is NOT.

So without someone to fulfill the Zoning Administrator (ZA) duties, the Commission's work (especially the Chair's) becomes that much harder than it should be. I also believe that this is not providing citizens with responsible government.



OKAY, SO FAST FORWARD TO TO THE JOB DESCRIPTION. Instead of making absolutely sure this aspect was clear to position applicants before they applied, the job description had NO MENTION of the Zoning Administrator role! I have spoken to this point publicly at meetings and still there was no mention that the Clerk functions as the ZA.

What did Supervisor Hansen say to the Chair about my question? "We'll handle that in the interview." More Captain Obvious. The interview is a LITTLE LATE to inform applicants that the job they have applied for also encompasses this whole other aspect. Ultimately, the Board agreed to add "Zoning Administrator" to the description.


LAST "OBVIOUS" FROM THIS MEETING

One of the items on the agenda for this special meeting was the Building Official contract. If you have been in the loop, you would know that the Board immediately before the current one had already by motion hired MNSpect as the official. However, in what I and other observers considered an OBVIOUS ploy, "certain individuals" dragged their feet and dragged their feet, objecting to this or that and not being ready to approve the contract until the new Board was in place. Because of the delays, the contract had been pretty much finalized, but not actually signed yet. The new Board membership then decided that they wanted to send out a Request For Professional Services (RFP) for Building Officials even though this had already been done. It happens that Scott Qualle of MNSpect was the only one responding to that RFP. Again, it was OBVIOUS to any attendees at meetings from their words and actions that "certain individuals" did not like this situation.

One citizen, a former Commissioner and Supervisor, even stated at a recent meeting that the Board hadn't sent out a "proper" RFP in the first place. OF COURSE it was a "proper" RFP; it just happens that this particular person seems to have an issue with the one responding firm! He has even made public derogatory statements about Mr. Qualle on more than one occasion. There's a whole history to that which has been discussed at Board meetings of late.

The Board is offering a one-year contract that has a thirty-day notice for termination. The intent-at least at ONE meeting- was stated to be to continue with Darrel Gilmer on a short-term, monthly basis until a new Building Official can be interviewed and hired. Supervisor Ceminsky stated that Gilmer "did not want to have to come in and sign a contract every month." Gilmer would presumably be stopping in often with inspections reports anyway, so I don't see the hardship.

I do not think that the RFP has gone out yet; it is possible that Gilmer could be around for another full year. SEE OBVIOUS NUMBER 1!!

Also of note is that it was stated at the special Board meeting that Gilmer wanted to deal with Ceminsky and Hansen only. Supervisor Barfknecht pointed out that Supervisor Palmquist was the secondary Building Official contact person, not Hansen. Again, is it not OBVIOUS that the supervisors that the Building Official would work with are the contact persons for that governmental function? Apparently, not immediately. Eventually Ceminsky and Palmquist were designated (once AGAIN) to be the two Gilmer would work with.

Supervisor Barfknecht raised the interesting question that was in my mind as well-Why would the Township hire a tail to wag the dog in an inspector who says he wants to deal with just two specific supervisors ONLY? The Building Official is ultimately answerable to the entire Board. He doesn't have the role of narrowing with whom he is willing to work, surely.

THE EUREKA NEWS!

April Eureka News!

If you attended the April Town Board

meeting you would have noticed that

the Township has engaged a temporary

Township Clerk. The Deputy Clerk

resigned before the April Re-
organizational meeting and the Clerk
resigned after the meeting.

If citizens are not able to attend the 

Township meetings they will find
that at this time there is not a
Clerk who will be posting the
minutes of the Planning Commission
and Town Board meetings on the
Township Web site.

At this time the Web site is not current as it hopefully was in the past.  This blog

will try and keep you informed as to the happenings in the Township.

On March 26, 2018, Chair Barfknecht called the Re-organizational meeting
to order. Before her lips could dry and before Supervisor Barfknecht
could explain the nomination procedure, Supervisor Ceminsky made a
motion to nominate Mr. Hansen for the position of Chair and Supervisor
Murphy for Vice Chair. The motion was executed so quickly, it almost
seemed like it was orchestrated and well planned. Butch second the motion.
Supervisor Palmquist nominated Supervisor Murphy as Chair and Supervisor
Barfknecht as Vice Chair.

There was much discussion as to the qualifications and reasons nominees
were interested or not in taking on the responsibility of Chair and Vice Chair.
It was felt by some that the Chair has the best opportunity of bringing a
team together.

There was, which seemed to be quite unusual, input taken from attending
citizens.

Donald Storlie felt that Mr. Hansen is the most qualified as "he knows more
about what is going on with the Board than anyone he knows." He also made
the comment that in the past it has been "like coming to a Town Board
meeting that Hitler was running." Imagine a citizen making a
comment that is so offensive! He stated he would appreciate it if "Butch
was put in as Chair."

Ralph Friedland stated he was in favor of Supervisor Murphy being selected
as Chair. He felt Supervisor Murphy would be unbiased and that past Boards
had allowed too many illegal operations to exist by ignoring the Ordinances.
Supervisor Ceminsky interrupted and took offense to Friedland's comment.
Mr. Friedland restated his intent.

Nancy Sauber commented that Supervisor Murphy would be more likely to
bring about harmony and unity to the Board.  She stated that the Ordinances
were written for legitimate reasons. She was very dismayed to witness
undermining and side meetings in the lobby. She felt Supervisor Murphy
would be neutral.
Supervisor Ceminsky once again took offense
and rudely interrupted Ms. Sauber and stated
that he wanted to be treated with respect.
In my opinion he was out out of line.

Supervisor Ceminsky felt that Butch would be
 "good" in a leadership role. "Butch needs to be
Chair; Tim is new to the Board."

Jody Arman-Jones reminded the Board that
she believes Supervisor Murphy's election
result was the largest majority in the Township that she could remember.
The citizens spoke and she felt Supervisor Murphy should be the Chair.

Supervisor Hansen spoke very highly of himself stating that he has always
been an advocate for citizens and stated there should be compassion for all
citizens. He felt the past year has been rough. In my opinion ALL
Supervisors should be advocates for All citizens. Those with integrity have
done so. However, there is one caveat; while advocating for citizens,
the ordinances, procedures and policies must be followed in order for
ALL citizens to be treated fairly.

Supervisor Barfknecht suggested voting for a Chair and utilizing one
ballot to vote for Chair.  After this position was filled and one nominee
was eliminated, another ballot should be utilized to vote for a Vice Chair.
Supervisor Ceminsky disagreed and wanted to vote as a group which
is what happened. A mistake in my opinion.  This led to much confusion,
Supervisor Murphy was selected as Chair and Supervisor Hansen as
Vice Chair.

The following were addressed and voted on by the Board.

Meeting Minutes and CD copies: Supervisor Hansen felt that the minutes
should ONLY be kept to motions and action. Supervisor Ceminsky agreed
with Supervisor Hansen. It is my opinion that citizens would NOT be well
served with such minimal information in the minutes. The minutes should
be posted on the web site for citizens who cannot attend meetings and should
include enough detail to keep citizens informed.  Supervisor
Hansen felt if citizens would like to be informed with more information
they can purchase a CD for $5.00. The Minnesota Association of Townships
has recommended not keeping the CD recording after the written minutes are
approved. For those who do not know, the Township must adhere to the
Data Practices Act. Both Nancy Sauber and Jody Arman-Jones correctly
stated that the minutes are the legal record. In my opinion, Supervisors
need to be able to access past minutes to prepare for future issues that might be
addressed. I hope this is not an attempt to keep citizens in the dark regarding
what is happening in the Township as well as their ability to hold their
representatives accountable for their actions.

Abstained ??????

Posting Place: Town Hall Bulletin Board and also
post on the Web site as a courtesy. Supervisor
Hansen abstained from voting.
No reason given.

Official Newspaper: Dakota County Tribune,
Farmington, Rosemont, Eagen, Lakeville and
Sun This Week . Supervisor Hansen abstained.

Official Bank:  Castle Rock Bank. Supervisor
Hansen abstained.

Town Board Check Signers:  Treasurer, Clerk and Chair. Supervisor
Hansen abstained.

Visa Credit Card Signers:  Clerk, Treasurer and Chair. Supervisor Hansen
abstained.

Financial Report Form: Treasurer will submit to the State after the
2018 Board Review at the March Town Board meeting.

Meeting Pay Scale for Commission and Town Board Members:
After much discussion, Chair Murphy suggested a small
committee meet to clarify and define various meetings, Supervisor
Hansen stated he is not into committees. Supervisor Palmquist
was asked to work on the issue and clarify. Supervisor
Hansen abstained.

Mileage Rate reimbursed:  54.5 cents for mileage reimbursement.
Supervisor Hansen abstained.

Town Hall Expenses: Authorized reimbursement for appropriate repairs.
Supervisor Hansen abstained.

Approval of Bond for Clerk: Bond comes from the Minnesota
Association of Township Insurance. Supervisor Hansen abstained.

Benefits Program: No one is currently utilizing the program.

Payment For Training Opportunities: Must have prior approval.
$50 will be paid per training plus the Training Session fee and IRS
mileage.

Professional Services: The Board voted to retain the Law
Firm of Kelly & Lemmons. Supervisors Hansen and Ceminsky
abstained.

Attorney Review Date: Prior to the August 13 Board meeting.

Other Professional Services: Currently the TKDA Planning and
Engineering Firm is being utilized. RFPs will be sent out to
solicit Planning and Engineering Firms to check on the current
status of charges.

Policies: Motion was made to approve the current policies listed as
ABC - 1,2,3,4. To avoid a possible Conflict of Interest, Planning
Commissioners and Board members should not be considered
for any work awarded by the Township.

Supervisor Hansen abstained from voting on 10 of the above, mostly
mundane and non controversial topics which are routinely addressed
and clarified at every re-organizational.meeting. Basic housekeeping!

Board Assignments: 

Fire Service:   Lakeville and Farmington - Supervisor
Barfknecht, #1; Supervisor Murphy #2

Roads:  Supervisor Ceminsky #1; Supervisor Hansen #2

Airport:  Supervisor Murphy #1, Supervisor Hansen #2

Dakota County:  Supervisor Barfknecht #1; Supervisor Hansen #2

Building Inspector Contact:  Supervisor Ceminsky #1; Supervisor
Palmquist #2 ((Contact Supervisors; not co-inspectors).

Town Hall Contact:  Supervisor Barfknecht #1; Supervisor
Ceminsky #2

Ambulance Service:  Supervisor Barfknecht #1; Supervisor
Murphy #2

Weed inspection: Supervisor Palmquist #1; Supervisor Murphy
#2.

Wetlands - DNR:  Supervisor Hansen #1; Supervisor
Ceminsky #2

Vermillion River Wastershed:  Supervisor Ceminsky #1; 
Supervisor Hansen #2

Professional Services:  TKDA - Supervisor Ceminsky #1; 
Supervisor Hansen #2

IT Consultant:  Supervisor Murphy #1; Supervisor Barfknecht #2

The Clerk Will be Directed to forward the Officer Form to the
Minnesota Association of Townships

North Cannon Contact: Supervisor Ceminsky #1; Supervisor
Hansen #2

There was much discussion regarding who should be the contact
person for the North Cannon Watershed Board. The North Cannon 
Watershed Board requested past Supervisor Carrie Jennings be 
appointed via a letter to the Township. 
Carrie was very involved in representing the Township in the past, is
very knowledgeable and a very good representative for the Township.
Ms. Jennings has been involved with One Watershed, One Plan
from its beginning.
Supervisor Hansen stated that this has not been done in the past.
Is it possible that he could think out of the box and honor who
is the best choice to represent the Township? There is no logical
reason why honoring the North Cannon Watershed request 
should not be considered. After all,  this is Ms. Jennings' 
area of expertise. Supervisor Hansen stated he was 
UNCOMFORTABLE with the Board appointing Carrie Jennings. 
He stated Supervisor Ceminsky won the election and it would not
be "FAIR" to Supervisor Ceminsky to appoint Carrie Jennings.
I am Not sure what that has to do with the Board decision. Perhaps 
personal! Decisions should be made on who is the most qualified
to represent Eureka Township.

Planning Commission monthly meeting dates and the request by
the Planning Commission members to engage the Attorney
at Planning Commission  meetings will be discussed at a
later Town Board meeting.

After the meeting adjourned, the Clerk, Mira Broyles, resigned.
The Township is utilizing a temporary person to help in the
office until a Deputy Clerk and Clerk can be hired. Please be
patient.

                                                 Stay Tuned!    

• 

                                           


.

DON'T LET THOSE PRETTY COLORS FOOL YOU...

About a month ago, you probably received some very colorful candidate mailings covered with American flags and other inspiring symbols and statements. On the surface, this can look so wonderfully rosy...HOWEVER:

A person can "wrap himself in the flag" and still try repeatedly to shut down another's right to free speech. Do rights evaporate because of dislike and disagreement? Do rights evaporate when the light of day is shed upon the outrageous things one does at a public meeting, always with the confidence that what you said and did will not show up in the Township minutes? Does the truth hurt when it's out in the open?

One can claim to act with integrity, yet apparently have his campaign flyers attached to the outside of mailboxes in lieu of required postage and contrary to federal regulations.. If that person doesn't respect federal authority, how are things going to go on a local level?

One can accuse others of "venom" even though he has told another he wants to "knock you off your chair." WHY? Because that person didn't agree with the opinion expressed or the action supported! Is a man threatening to knock another off her chair something one wants to see in a public official? Is this the level of civility in our Township today? I surely hope not!



One can accuse others of "venom" and yet enter baseless complaints against someone you simply dislike and don't agree with, about an event you weren't even witness to and which you have all wrong. But that doesn't stop you. Inaccurate hearsay appears to be good enough for your purposes. This constant and repeated effort to remove responsible people from office while falsely accusing them of impropriety and bad motivations should be alarming to you as a Eureka citizen.






Dr. Carrie Jennings, a person who has integrity, experience and knowledge and who has served Eureka ably and faithfully, was recently defeated in the Township election. She has so much more to offer than the person who was chosen over her ever will!

The person worthy of being your representative is the person who does NOT have a self-interested agenda in, say, Ordinance changes, who has respect for the law (our Ordinances), and who fully understands that, yes, a citizen does have a right to what is permitted under Ordinances, but that those Ordinances' processes must be followed and respected. That is what is fair for all and that is what should be followed by all.

Yet I have personally witnessed efforts (yes, plural) to push through certain matters for certain people in direct contradiction of Ordinance requirements. These very requirements were deliberately put in place, understood by at least some of the citizens on a task force, with attorney assistance, to protect the Township and avoid unintended and harmful consequences. These changes were unanimously approved by the task force, yet seem to be forgotten by certain people who were members of that committee. These very persons trying to push things through to look good to constituents (my opinion) have actually claimed to have "written" the Ordinance they seem to be so poorly informed about! Is this your idea of good government?

So don't let those pretty colors fool you! 

Sometimes it's just camouflage! What the true colors are is more important!