Dec. 17 Open House – “More Considerations” Part 2

When I was on Board and Chaired it two years, I had the old-fashioned philosophy that public servants should actually help serve the public. I’m sorry, you may tire of my bringing it up again, but my property database was demonstrated to Board and deputy clerk Amy showing 4 reports I thought would be very helpful references to put on the Eureka website.  Besides a catalog of all the properties in Eureka, their acreage, school district, watershed, and construction year of current houses in place, it identifies every available housing right by type of right and whether any form of business permit may be in play.  Another report lists all 180 likely grandfathered housing rights (which can be accidentally destroyed).  How many owners do you think even KNOW they may have a grandfathered housing right?

 Some of You need to talk to Board, because I’m no longer inclined to waste my time trying to help them help YOU. I’ve tried to tell them, 3 times in written detail, flaws that still exist in the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, the needed steps to accept my unique custom database, coordinate with their tech support, copy my backup worksheets, and training on its use that necessarily includes learning Zoning Ordinance features.  Nobody on Board or PC for 2 years now would even bother to respond, ask any questions, and discuss it in a meeting.

 I admit I realized, when a Town Attorney pointed it out, I couldn’t simply donate it as planned. I would need to be a contractor so Township liability insurance would protect me if any of them made a mistake with it.  Liz even made a draft based on another contract making two changes:  the software license would be $1 per month and my technical support and training would be another $1 per month.  The program and all the analysis of about 950 properties would easily cost $100,000 to hire outsiders to produce, not counting someone with my knowledge to guide them and explain Ordinance features. No free help goes unpunished.

 Taxes and gravel road maintenance. Yes, this is a more immediate concern because our levies have not kept up with national inflation the past 4 years, possibly aided by unusual wet weather timing as well.  Remember that next March when we consider the next levy at the Annual Meeting.

 Many of the small businesses in Eureka are not recognized by the County Assessor’s office, and that’s fine because most are very low impact and many are home businesses that no one has any issue with. But most also pay similar or less property tax than single family residences on a per-acre basis. No, of course I am not suggesting some crazy way to tax them higher.

 Why “tax per acre”?  Because that is the best way to understand the value of zoning changes, especially where greater traffic impact, for example, may enter the consideration. But at the same time, the lower tax on ag land is critical to maintain economic viability. Ag land and operation is fundamental to our Comprehensive Plan goals and commitment, strongly endorsed by the MET Council’s oversight authority at least through 2040. Large ag acreage also generates less road wear than more houses or businesses per mile. And we also have a lot of gravel under some of that land needed long-term for continuing development and replacement construction throughout the region, including highways and bridges. MET Council is aware of that, too.

 So what kinds of investments will increase tax income over our current situation? Let’s walk through some actual numbers, not sweeping guesses.

 An important example is housing density.  First, terminology is important.  Eureka’s (and most township) zoning is not “1 per 40 acres”, but “1 per quarter-quarter-Section”, which happens to be approximately 40 acres square. Where this is important is when we talk about a higher density using a misleading expression such as “1 per 10” acres.  Some also think this means minimum lot size of 10 acres.

 This is the worst possible idea that needlessly destroys both ag land and future growth potential. This also, by the way,  would create 102 more lots (between 2 and 9.99 acres) that are routinely buildable today that would fall into “grandfathered” status. This requires expensive property research and proof from Dakota County records in Hastings that the property qualifies for grandfather status under State guidelines. The approximately 180 grandfathered lots existing today are important because it is protection of 180 housing rights, but no value to push 102 more properties into this administrative category for no good reason.

 Think about it: Current minimum lot size is 2 acres, of which we have many. With our flexibility to transfer or sell housing rights (unique among Minnesota townships), 4 houses can be built in a quarter-quarter-Section using as little as 8 acres if desired, preserving as much as 32 acres that may be desirable ag land – and nice rural scenery.

 Out of curiosity, I looked at a typical middle-class house in Lakeville comparable to many in Eureka in terms of size, number of bedrooms, and number of baths.  Land, house, and total assessed valuation same ballpark as in Eureka, so same approximate property tax. 

 Oh, did I mention the Lakeville house is on a ¼-acre lot and the Eureka house is on 2.5 acres?  For the same house and property tax, maybe some of us think the extra 2-1/4 acres might be nice for the kids to play in, bird or deer watch, or host your friends for a backyard barbeque without being walled in by houses on either side and rear….  Do your property taxes look so high now?

 What price quality of life? Taxes are higher everywhere.

 Our current zoning preserves a “Cap of 4” housing density within State and MET Council allowances without creating new housing rights that MET Council will not approve until 2040 or later.  Why? Because we still have about 380 rights available and new housing in Eureka has only been going up at the rate of 3-6 per year.

 OK, let’s get back to housing taxes. A typical house is on a 2 to 2-1/2 acre lot (Eureka Estates was platted with 2-1/2, since then the minimum was reduced to 2 acres.  Put a typical nice middle-class home on it and the property tax will be in the range of 4000-5000 dollars, and an accessory building may bring it to the 5000-6000 range. Still in 1500-2500 dollars per acre range.

 Eureka’s share of property tax is about 20%, the rest going to the County and whichever school district you are in. So Eureka gets $300-$500 per acre in this typical example.

 The only real addition to tax revenue is if the building constructed, by whatever zoning  name or type, is valued 2-3 times higher than the average house with a modest accessory building like my 32x40 storage building.

 And, gee, if we are so concerned about squeezing every penny, as we should be, why do we pay $995 a year for simple software to hold our ordinances on our website? Then we pay hundreds extra for the service provider  to “review” each amendment. No, they don’t have the knowledge to actually review our language and features.  No other township and only three small cities in the entire State contract with them. Putting ordinances up as simple downloadable pdf files and having a table of contents linking to each section is NOT rocket science. The hard work is creating the actual text for public hearing and Board approval BEFORE sending it to them. Come to think of it, that isn’t even done diligently here anymore….

 A Merry Christmas and a Safe and Happy New Year to all as we give thanks for all we have that matters. 😊

 

 

DO THEY REALLY WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU THINK?

 Why would a governmental body schedule an important informational meeting during the holidays, a week from Christmas Eve no less, and over the dinner hour: 5:30-7:30 pm? Eureka officials are holding such a meeting about significant possible changes to zoning on December 17.

In the past, over the many years I served on the Commission and the Board, we were always careful to avoid such timing. We wanted good turnouts and for the people to be informed about whatever the issues were.

I’ve been checking the Township website for some time and only just now have seen the Open House mentioned on News and Notices. It still wasn’t on the Township Calendar even tonight. Only office hours are listed there for the 17th.

The Planner the Board hired is presenting, I believe, at the beginning of the meeting. If true, if you are late or think you can come from 6:30 to 7:30, you could miss the information the Board says it wants you to weigh in on.  

I do know that Pete Storlie earlier said he wanted the Open House “done before the end of the year.” Too bad it is this late; it interferes with family time during the holidays. The notice was evidently sent December 5. Not even two full weeks before the event  

If few people come to this meeting because of scanty promotion and unfortunate timing, how does that help your public officials? Will it be said that nobody must care because so few attended? How does this afford the Board with the opinions it claims to want to receive? How does this inform them? And WHAT do they go forward with?

What ever happened to the idea of sending a survey such as was done in the past? It was mentioned for a little while and then I believe the idea was dropped. Have you received a survey? We haven’t. 

I have yet to hear the Commission or the Board mention the oversight the Metropolitan Council will have and the history of the Township’s interaction with Met Council representatives on these very topics. Former officials have brought these up, but were largely ignored. 

I’m hoping students’ Christmas concerts aren’t held that evening! If at all possible, PLEASE ATTEND!

Cannabis Ordinance Hearing - Monday night 12/9/2024

Beware What Your State Wishes for YOUR Neighborhood!

What follows is written to be included in our Eureka public record of this hearing. 

I understand the structure of this Ordinance is based on recent Minnesota Statutes forcing cannabis operations and businesses on all local government units in the State, usurping local zoning authority on this subject. Basically, this means we are powerless to stop it.

This is the most egregious example of overreach and ill-considered legislation ever put forth by Minnesota. I know there are certain prescribed benefits in carefully controlled, medical contexts, but this goes far beyond into the realm of so-called recreational use overseen by non-medical monitors and bureaucracy.

 The balance of my comments, for our public record, are direct quotes from actual medical authorities and researchers studying some of the concerns about widespread cannabis use without medical oversight. The underlined blue words and name are links to the actual sources.

 From the Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio:

 “As cannabis is legalized and is more accessible in various forms across the country, there is increasing concern among health care providers about potential impact on children. Researchers at Nationwide Children’s Hospital have new findings to add to the existing evidence that cannabis exposure before birth can negatively impact children.

 “In a study published October 28, 2024, in JAMA Pediatrics, researchers found prenatal cannabis exposure was associated in early childhood with poorer thinking skills and behaviors such as impulse control, paying attention, planning ability, and more aggressive behavior, all of which play a vital role in how children perform in school and interact with others.

 “Although cannabis is a natural product, there are still many risks to using it during pregnancy,” said Sarah Keim, PhD, principal investigator in the Center for Biobehavioral Health at Nationwide Children’s, and lead author of the study. “Some women may turn to cannabis to help deal with some common issues of pregnancy including nausea, sleep problems and stress. This is not recommended. Consulting with a health care provider to find safer options to help with these issues during pregnancy is important.

“Our findings were not surprising – they actually confirm and expand on longstanding evidence from previous research,” said Dr. Keim. “With our more contemporary and diverse sample of women and children, and with much higher potency of cannabis now than in past decades, this study validates previous research and supports existing clinical recommendations for patients.”

The JAMA Pediatrics researchers analyzed data on cannabis exposure at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center. The study was titled “Prenatal Cannabis Exposure and Executive Function and Aggressive Behavior at Age 5 Years”.  80 children born of mothers who had used cannabis were evaluated among a group of 250 children.

 A democracy is run by those who show up.  This is a truism that has been valid for centuries.  It applies to all levels of government, even a township. Time for more of us to pay attention, please.

Sorry, there is much to catch up on I think you will want to know, but I have a life outside Township actions, too.  😆

The current Board is on an accelerating pace with little time being allowed for research on complex choices, shortened by relying on shallow opinions pushed forward. Early evidence of this began last spring when policy changes cut off any comments from experienced residents familiar with past history based on legal advice at the time. Instead we watch discussions thrash around, encouraged by some members of Board (and PC) obviously doing little advance reading on some subjects. Board Chair even made a comment recently chastising other members about need for meeting preparation.

Did you know the Deputy Clerk asked for a change in procedure that adds another month to the process of doing a lot split and housing right transfer over a minor administrative task that is easily managed without the delay? How come no one understood this and it was referred to attorney? It was in Ordinance and procedure because I cleared it years ago and wrote the text. But knowledge of history no longer relevant so don't dare ask or allow comment. Easily explained, too.

Did you know that at the hearing about the Ag Tourism text amendment, about 10 people expressed concern that the overly simplistic language was a wide open door to virtually anything. This because it was a lazy cut-and-paste of a Minnesota statute intended to allow municipalities and counties with full-time experienced zoning staff to do serious planning.  After hearing the concerns and constructive comments, the applicant, Mrs. Parranto herself asked that the well-considered draft ordinance presented about 10 years ago (that included her husband on the task force) be given consideration for added protections from things like amusement parks. But the Planning Commission and the two Board members in attendence conveniently left this point out and the Board comment was made it would be a bait-and-switch tactic not to be considered.  When the applicant herself added recommendation for broader consideration after hearing others? 

We all said at the time, we had nothing but praise for what the Parranto's had accomplished that was good for Eureka families and surrounding communities. That was never the issue, only the simplistic wide-open nature of the original draft text.  The Board changed a few words but the key phrases that left the door wide open were left intact.

State legislatures around the country are dominated by cities and high-population counties, not low population townships.  Merely copying broad state language is not appropriate for townships with differing goals, such as preserving ag land and peaceful country living for families. This Board seems to think easy way is to hide behind broad State language.  Sorry, I think current attorney contributes to this, as did previous attorney who added ordinance language that directly contradicted a key County requirement. This is one of many Ordinance problems I have advised about and offered to draft simple, corrective language for PC and Board consideration. Free help on complex issues is not wanted. 

Now another cut-and-paste of extensive state language is being put forth as a broad ordinance regarding cannabis businesses, with extensive definitions. Gee, we haven't even figured out where we may want commercial zoning yet. 

Did you know that there was just a long-term study published a few weeks ago about the harm being found in young children born of cannabis users, including reduced learning ability and more aggressive behavior?  The peer-reviewed study, published in JAMA Pediatrics on Oct. 28, investigated how cannabis use among pregnant women affected children. Maybe that alone should be reason to slow down on quick copy-cat actions. 

Did you know hearing on this cannibis amendment is already scheduled for Dec. 9 at 7pm?

The Board also wants to look at major zoning changes to allow commercial, light industrial, and higher density development.  OK, a new fresh look may be appropriate. Did you know that the two prior studies on the subject were branded as head-in-the-sand do-nothing efforts?  Many people attending open houses those times expressed strong opposition, but that seems of no interest to this Board.

 But don't look at those studies to see why.  TKDA, a national consulting firm in infrastructure engineering and development planning aided the efforts.  Now it has been said a TKDA person is supposed to have made a private comment of surprise that nothing was done with the second study.  I don't know if true or not.  I do know that the only criterion expressed at the Board meeting talking about a consultant was simply that it not be TKDA. No other consideration? 

The initial map proposing commercial zoning looks like a pin-the-tail-on-the-Township effort.  Do you know if your land or your next door neighbor's land is proposed - for what? Will it affect your property value, traffic congestion, or noise or air pollution?  It included clear examples of spot zoning individual properties, which is illegal in Minnesota, by the way.

How about a novel concept of not changing underlying zoning but then allowing a property owner to unilaterally choose to go commercial?  That of course is no zoning at all. It's anarchy. Zoning was specifically created decades ago to prevent property conversion with out public leadership, impact, and planning consideration.  But one or our "leaders" actually suggested this and there was no push-back.

Did you know an Open House is already planned for Dec. 17 to get your input? Have you started thinking about it yet or looked into potential adverse effects? Oh, that's right, Board decided you don't need even a postcard notice because you all have the opportunity to be on email list or read the minutes on the town website at least a couple times every month to learn what is happening, or depend on word of mouth. Right, I don't do that regularly, either.

 It is to run from 5:30 to 7:30pm the 17th, with consultant supposed to make a presentation up front, then break out to discussion groups milling around.  Better get there at 5:30 if you want overview, unless you're still working or commuting or getting dinner ready for the kids.....

There was talk of buffered levels of zoning to transition from light industrial down to ag, but the draft map did none of that. The joint Board and Planning Commission meeting on this subject included one comment to just have the consultant focus on commercial only to save time so the study could be finalized in 3-4 months, which sounds like just before the Annual Meeting. Is that a coincidence?  I don't know, I only have questions. But public not allowed to ask except 3 minutes before meeting agenda rolls out later, so you have to guess how discussion may go.

First question I have for any consultant is if they have seen actual annexation impact because of any type of zoning as a defense?  I have a hard time thinking commercial zoning next to Lakeville commercial zoning is a defense. If I were on Lakeville side, I'd say thank you for doing some of our recruiting for us. I want to hear from a consultant who has been on both sides of issue elsewhere to answer that before I blindly accept local Board or PC opinion.

The annexations that have occurred so far have been because the owner asked to be annexed.   The only exception I know was way back when (60's?) Airlake Airport expanded under MAC authority granted by State.  A municipality can take up to 120 acres per year or boundary straighten, townships can't stop it. 

So question worth asking, but defense not at all clear except if a township organized to become a municipality itself. Not a cheap move, but possible. Eureka also did a study on that just a few years ago. Any current leader look at any of that as a starting point?

By the way, changing zoning from Agriculture's 1 residence per quarter-quarter section to Rural Residential of 4 per quarter-quarter section, maybe with 10-acre lot minimum, would immediately add 102 currently buildable properties to Grandfather status, meaning to build the owner would now have to provide certified property evidence to prove it from the County's Hasting location.This adds to the current 180 in such status.  Would this affect you?  Be careful what you wish for. It is a protection but at administrative cost in time and money. And if there were 2,3, or 5 properties already in a given quarter-quarter section, how would you fairly allocate the additional housing rights?  We already have the ability to transfer or even sell housing rights, with about 400 still available. Small market because some who have them are saving for family members. Is that bad?

Those who fail to learn from history...  Sorry, guess that is out of date now. Please show up to help defend your values.

 

   

 Complicated Eureka Paper Files Cost Property Owner Time and Money

Let me be clear - this is NOT the fault of our clerks.  

Liz (the newest) and Amy (also relatively new) have inherited a mountain of paper files accumulated over decades that have not always been consistently filed by prior clerks, all of whom have been dealing with critical deadline work every month plus helping resident questions, leaving little to no time for taking on a major file review and possible reorganization effort.  It is to Liz and Amy's credit that some of this HAS been initiated, but the 10/8/2024 Board meeting surfaced an example of a situation "lost in the files" in part because it was a rare and unusual circumstance.

This is an example of a situation that could have been headed off by utilizing a  modern database of Eureka properties that catalogs all significant Town records related to each property (housing rights, lot splits, business-related permits, not minor over-the-counter permits). Yes, the Property Database I was creating was (is) such a tool that was known but not implemented (with the final necessary steps including training) by the 2022, 2023, and so far the 2024 Board.

I voluntarily undertook this database task at no cost to the Township  (until late advice from the 2023 Town Attorney raised the liability risk to me, easily resolved by my simple proposal totaling $2/month to make me a contractor providing and supporting the database and its "license".)  I did this because I knew the time and reliability value of a computerized tool and that there was no way such a tool could be afforded by Eureka to hire outside resources to create.  Central to its creation is a thorough understanding of our Zoning with unique Housing Right Transfer capability made complicated by the State-mandated requirement to recognize grandfathered lots with housing rights.

Specifically, this recent situation involved a current property owner planning to sell a property, but the title search at Dakota County Records turned up a unique 1995 restriction on the property group and housing by the original owner. This original owner's preference was within the general 1990 Clustering feature and was legal at the time. 

In 2013, I led the amendment process to increase the flexibility to be able to "transfer" housing rights while preserving a key feature of the older Cluster regulations to not allow more than 4 houses per quarter-quarter section. This made the special 1995 private restriction obsolete and unnecessary, but I was not aware of this unique restriction if it existed somewhere in town files. But apparently to be sure, the current owner had his attorney research and determine that the restriction was no longer relevant, so produced a letter requesting Eureka to remove the restriction.  Need I say this attorney work was not likely done for free. At least the Board did approve the restriction removal last night (10/8/2024).

It is my opinion that this could have been resolved easily as early as 2014 by the new owner bringing it to the Township directly and asking, if known by him.  

During 2021-2022, as part of my analysis of all Eureka properties, deputy clerk Amy had been scanning documents on file as time permitted and sending me copies of the scans which I catalogued in my database.  I also used those scans to verify other sources of lot splits and transfers, such as the famous "property map" on the wall considered an official summary record of pre-2013 Cluster moves. I discovered along the way that sometimes a lot split and housing right transfer were filed together (making it harder to find if looking for one), plus a few errors and missing documents were revealed that I was mostly able to resolve by further analysis, such as noting houses being built and new Property ID numbers appearing in County website map. The database makes it practical to associate all relevant documents with all affected properties for quick retrieval, including printing a copy in seconds of anything desired.

The 2022 Board suddenly cancelled this development process in 2/2023 along with rushing the incomplete  Zoning and Subdivision amendments out the door, errors and all (another topic). If this unique restriction was on file and the scanning process had been completed, I would have recognized it as an odd and obsolete restriction. I then would have advanced it to the Board with recommendation to officially withdraw it, for similar reasons the private attorney stated, and notify the current owner. A modest County recording fee would be needed, but private attorney involvement on this detail should not have been needed.

Yeah, I'm old school.  I still think local government should help residents when potential issues are discovered that are easily corrected.

Meanwhile, the clerks are saddled with yanking the reins to drive our clumsy old paper file buggy...     

Who's next?

 

 

I encourage you all to start following a major topic for the joint Board and Planning Commission Roundtable discussion this Wednesday night. Joining on Zoom makes it easy to follow - see clerk email notices with the Zoom link.

The Board and PC are exploring re-making the character of Eureka, including increasing housing density and bringing in various levels of commercial and industrial zones with "buffers".  Let's start first with housing density, since it is a simpler subject than complex business development layers.

Here are some questions that would be helpful as a base line to be answered for any serious consideration of housing density:

1. Approximately how many houses exist in Eureka?

2. About how many new houses are built per year?

3. How many unused housing rights are available currently?

4. If our current base of Agricultural zoning of one housing right per quarter-quarter section (approx. 40 acres) is increased to 4, how many additional housing rights would be created in Eureka?

5. Would there be a corresponding new minimum lot size?

 OK, I'll apologize for sand-bagging you a bit.  I already know the answers to those questions. It is all cataloged in my database of Eureka properties created from County and Eureka records based on our Zoning ordinance features. I created it with the intent that Eureka would adopt it and assume upkeep by the clerical staff after being trained by me (free).

Ask your Board those 5 questions and see how they answer.  In a few days, I'll provide the answers and you can grade the Board.

My plan of a free donation of the database had to be slightly changed due to a Eureka Town Attorney pointing out that I could be included in any legal dispute but wouldn't be covered by township liability insurance. I'll get into more background on this as a separate post subject. But the 2022 Board, then 2023, and so far the 2024 Board have not been interested in pursuing this nearly free, huge time saving tool for the clerks and Planning Commission. It enables much faster response (as in minutes instead of hours potentially spread over days as clerks have the time) to questions property owners may raise versus rummaging through paper files. 

There are about 170 properties that MAY have a grandfathered housing right. Do you have 1 or 2 of them? I have a report listing them all that I showed to the Board at the beginning of 2023, but they chose not to share it on the Eureka website with you, the public.  (Note - the Township does not have the property records to certify - only Dakota County property records in Hastings can provide the legal documents needed to prove grandfathering. But most do prove true.)

 Back on topic: After this first step of 5 questions above, wouldn't it then be prudent to consider the traffic impact of substantial growth generating higher maintenance needs? This can then be translated to property tax impact on current property owners during the "accelerated" growth years.  You've seen school districts translate their budget requests to property tax impact, shouldn't we expect the same?

Be careful what you wish for.