"TAG TEAM" ON THE LOOSE AGAIN! COULD YOU BE "IT"?

Another item from the July Board meeting was a request for an Interim Use Permit (IUP). It was for storage at a Eureka gravel pit of bagged product from another use in the Township that produces bagged mulch and other products.

Butch Hansen and Mark Ceminsky spoke strongly in favor of this application. One wonders what they may have said previously about trying to get it done for the applicant. Perhaps just get it past the Planning Commission and we'll take care of it at the Board.  Only problem is that Eureka does not issue IUPs for such a use.

See Ordinance 3, Chapter 2, Section 1 Agricultural District, A. Intent (reason we have this Ordinance), and D. Interim Uses (to see the TWO IUPs Eureka can currently issue). That would be airstrips and gravel mining.

Gravel mining, as stated there, is governed by Ordinance 6. Ordinance 6, Chapter 7, Section 1 Performance Standards, B. 2, states that the only minerals that can be brought in from outside the subject property have to be for the purpose of mixing with minerals excavated on the site and cannot exceed 25% of the total product excavated on an annual basis.

"E." of Ordinance 3, Chapter 2, Section 1 Agricultural District explains that any other use or structure not specifically permitted by right or Conditional Use Permit (CUP) or IUP is prohibited.

The interesting thing is that this very use for the specific properties involved has all been brought up before. It was explained to the gravel site landowner why this is not permitted. At some point, this bagged product actually showed up at the gravel mine site! The Town Board followed up on a complaint and had to order that it all be removed and gave a deadline date.

It's already been explained in depth to the bagging concern why it is limited, by settlement agreement, to the acreage covered by that settlement. They have been advised that the Township does not allow off-site outside storage for a business.

Kudos to the Planning Commission for having dealt with this accurately, citing parts of the Ordinance, and recommending that the application be denied as not permissible under Ordinance. Or at least I give kudos to four out of five of the commission: Fredlund, Larson, Funk, and Wood. (Remember Sibley Aggregates and "two supervisors" who told them they could apply for an IUP to be able to crush concrete from outside the Township for a whole summer? Another IUP that doesn't exist! Required a Text Amendment. See earlier post on the "Dynamic Duo" on that one.)



Then this application goes to the Board and Hansen and Ceminsky seem to think it is totally reasonable to do this "because an IUP expires," as opposed to a CUP which "runs with the land" and does not normally go away. But, an IUP may not expire for 30 years, for example; depends on limit set by Board or an event that renders it closed, such as having mined all the gravel from a pit.

Since this has all been through the wringer before, why are Hansen and Ceminsky still pushing what currently amounts to an illegal use?

Think about this: if any person with his own "bright idea" could come in and be granted a CUP or even an IUP for anything as long as the majority of the Board agrees, why even have zoning? Why have Ordinances? Why have government? Anything goes if one can convince three supervisors?




WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! The Township would have spot zoning in effect all over the place in reality. NOT a good plan for future development, not to mention life for the neighbors in the meantime.

Supervisors are sworn to uphold the Ordinances before they take office. Apparently, the catch is that they have to understand the ordinances and government in general. I submit that Ceminsky and Hansen appear woefully short on that knowledge and bear watching. Thankfully, we still have three Supervisors who will listen to and accept legal explanations.




                                     
And I haven't even mentioned that an IUP has to go through a public hearing set by the Commission and is never granted outright by the Board at the time of application.

                             HOLD ONTO YOUR HATS!

HOW LOW CAN YOU GO?

There was so much that went on at the 5 1/2 hour (!) July Town Board meeting, that we are going to take it one issue at a time. So check back for more!

First, you need to know that Chair Tim Murphy was on a previously planned vacation and unable to be at the meeting. Due to that, Butch Hansen chaired the meeting.

I had placed myself on the agenda as I had questions about the Board being adequately prepared for the meeting regarding a matter that concerned my property. The very first thing that the tag team of Mark Ceminsky and Butch Hansen did was to try to remove my item from the agenda.

Supervisor Lu Barfknecht patiently explained (once again) what the policy is on items being placed by citizens on the agenda for Board discussion. Hansen said, "Then, I guess it's a question of whether the Board wants to leave it on there." Barfknecht replied, "We have to." (Per adopted policy) So my item stayed on the agenda.

During the time that I was speaking to the Board on this item, Hansen interrupted me and called for a recess! I said, "Butch, I am talking in a calm voice. Just because you don't like what you are hearing is not a [valid] reason to shut me down." The recess did not take place.

So let's stop right there and take a look at this. You, as a citizen, are able to ask to be placed on the agenda to discuss something with the Board about a question you have. Yet two uninformed Supervisors think they can stop you from expressing your concern and your question to your very own elected officials. Even though those elected officials have adopted this policy as a means by which you can be heard. If you aren't perceived positively by these two supervisors, they think they can selectively keep you from speaking. They have no authority to do that.

Then, if you are actually allowed to speak, the acting Chair thinks he can shut down that discussion by calling for a recess. Calling for a recess is a method which the Minnesota Association of Townships (MAT) suggests can be used for a "cooling off period" when things become too heated. The only thing heating up was Butch. He doesn't like what I was saying, he doesn't like being presented with THE FACTS, so let's just gag the citizen and keep her from being heard. This should be alarming to you. 

                                     YOUR FACE HERE.

These two supervisors have presented themselves again and again as being "for the citizens," "treating people with respect," and making sure "the rules apply to everybody." How benign sounding! Butter wouldn't melt!

What happens if there are THREE such supervisors (a majority) which want to limit certain people from being heard? What is your recourse if YOU should fall prey to such inexcusable behavior? What if three of your elected officials just don't want to hear from you? Is that what they are elected to do? How do you stop it?

We must all be/stay vigilant to protect our rights.

Township Business, Mysterious Registration, Citizen Input and More - June Board Meeting!

The Eureka Board of Supervisors held its

meeting on Monday, June 11. The following are discussions, sometimes
spirited, on issues and topics of interest.

Contractor Time:  Dust coating, repair of roads and grading has been delayed
due to heavy rains. $4,000 was approved last year for tree removal on 235th
Street. A total of $9,500 is needed which takes about one half of the
tree budget. A motion was made by Ceminsky to approve an additional
$5,000. Chair Murphy seconded the motion. Hansen abstained (???). The
motion passed.  Gravel bids should be awarded in February and the Board
should consider next Fall.

                                         
Airport: Chair Murphy and Butch Hansen met with Lakeville and MAC
representatives to discuss a friendly annexation. Lakeville has requested a
letter from the Township stating the roads the Township would like
blacktopped as part of the friendly annexation.

Hansen stated Lakeville was very reluctant to consider the proposal. He stated
their answer was "We do not have to do that; we will just take 120 acres next
year and 120 acres after that." Butch stated his comment was "You can do that
but those annexations are not going to go smooth as the first one." Not sure
what Hansen is alluding to.

MAC plans to pay for the entrance to the airplane hangars.
The intent is to blacktop the hangars on the southwest corner first,
as soon as next year. The extension of the runway and paving of the road
would not be done until 2022.
The Board approved and requested the attorney to send a letter to MAC and
copy Lakeville stating the Township's request for the paving of
specified roads regarding the possible friendly
annexation.

Sheriff's Department: The Sheriff who was present
stated there was "not much going on" in Eureka
Township at this time. In Castle Rock
a man was trying to lure young girls into a vehicle.
The Deputy stated that if anyone sees anything, get a
license number or any other pertinent information and
call the Sheriff's Department (911) immediately.

Township Logo:  Jody Arman-Jones engaged in a discussion with the
Board regarding the Township logo which was created by Carolyn Papke,
a very talented artist and past resident of Eureka Township. Carolyn
donated the logo to the Township. The logo CANNOT be utilized on
campaign letters, etc. without the permission of the Township. Jody, the
Newsletter editor, acknowledged Ms. Papke on the Newsletter draft.
Butch Hansen was against acknowledging Carolyn Papke's name under
the logo.

Township Clerk and Deputy Clerk: Yes, the Township is still without
a Clerk and Deputy Clerk!!!  Requests have been posted on Craig's List,
LinkedIn and in the Sun Newspaper South. The Township will utilize a
recruitment service as a last option as a contract of a 10% fee would be
applicable. As of this meeting there were 6 applications and an interview
had been scheduled for the 18th. Chair Murphy has also been working
with the Minnesota Association of Townships and networking. The
advertising is for an Executive Administrative Town Clerk. Applicants
should be from outside the Township. Thank you, Chair Murphy.

Sample Permits:  Butch Hansen stated that "better than a year ago a
motion was made to direct the Planning Commission to come up
with sample permits in a packet." He indicated that this had not been
done and if the PC cannot do it the Board will." Nancy Sauber, past
Planning Commission Chair, corrected Hansen and reminded him
that the PC had worked on and forwarded sample forms to the Board
over the past year. The Board approved ALL forwarded samples.
These samples were given to the Clerk who obviously dropped the ball.
(Supervisors need to come prepared with facts!)
                                             

Mystery Legal Non-conforming Registration:
Butch stated he was hoping to discuss this behind closed doors but
was told it had to be done at a public meeting. A Mysterious
non conforming use registration showed up at the Town Hall
in an envelope to"me"(Butch) and Ceminsky
also received one at his front door as well.
Terri Petter was present and stated "This is
about me." The registration
was for Farm Tours! (On Ms. Petter's Facebook page on May 24, 2018,
she stated "We still have all the farm animals, one wolf hybrid, one raccoon, 
one fisher, one skunk, goats, whitetail, chickens, mini horses, pigs and other 
animals NOT on the exotic list. This is why we have redone everything and
became The Farm. We have turned the farm into a more hands on 
experience with unlisted animals" ).

Hansen stated the registration process that transpired in the past. Nancy
Sauber stated her recollection of the process
and also reminded the Board that the registrations were accepted
and there are minutes that will support which non-conforming
use registrations were accepted. Nancy reminded the Board that
Peter Tiede, a past Township Attorney, stated that all those that
were legal before can continue as legal non-conforming
but does not make any illegal businesses legal.
The Township cannot circumvent State Statute. Butch initiated a "heated"
discussion and disagreed with Nancy Sauber stating to Chair Murphy
"If you can control Nancy, good luck with that! ( How rude of a
Supervisor!  Is this how citizens who attend meetings and have something
of value to state for clarification should be treated?) (My opinion)

Ceminsky stated all were accepted in a sweeping
motion as legal non-conforming and questioned why the (Mysterious)
registration that surfaced years later should not be a part of the legal non-
conforming registration. (I have copies of past non-conforming
meeting minutes from 2002 through 2005-research of the minutes does
not show this is true!)


My Questions: On what date did the 
"mysterious" registration appear on the
doorstep of Ceminsky and in the hands of 
Butch Hansen?  Why only Two Supervisors?
Who submitted the registration form to the attorney and when?
Why would the applicant not attend a Town Board
meeting represented by an attorney with facts to 
support the claim after so many years have passed.
Was there a related circumstance at the time the mysterious
registration appeared? It is of interest that this mysterious
registration was not brought up in Court in the beginning of the 
legal process.
Perhaps something to ponder!!!!

The February 7, 2005, minutes state "Motion by Francie Madden
to pass the remainder of registrations with attachments. The 
accepting for filing of the registrations does not constitute a
statement by the Planning Commission that the registration
 is LEGAL. Motion was seconded by Butch Hansen." 

The "mystery" application for Farm Tours was not seen in the
January 3, 2005, (Butch Hansen made a motion to accept all
these registrations.) OR the February 7, 2005, accepted
non-conforming registrations by the Planning Commission.
(See above paragraph.)

Attorney Lemmons referenced Ordinance 2, Section 5, Chapter 1, and
stated that all Planning Commission and Town Board minutes which
dealt with the non-conforming registrations should be reviewed and
kept with the book of Registrations.

Hansen said he would be happy to review the minutes! He would like
Shirley, the temporary Clerk, to give HIM the minutes. (It is my hope that
Mystery minutes do not appear on doorsteps!)

Attorney Lemmons stated that until there is a Township Clerk, no one
should touch the records which can not be certified until there is
a Township Clerk. Hansen disagreed with the attorney. On what basis??


Chair Murphy and Butch Hansen will audit the records when a
Administrative Clerk position is filled. Chair Murphy
felt more time is needed due to circumstances.

Ceminsky made the motion "If we have to have Supervisors look at
records for the public, the Chair and Vice-Chair will both go together
to pull minutes". Hansen seconded the motion and it passed.

IT Website Designer:  Ceminsky made a motion to engage a new
IT Website Designer, Hansen seconded the motion and it passed.

                                   STAY TUNED!
Information taken from the Board meeting CD, Facebook and includes
my opinions.

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.