HOW'S YOUR "VISION?" 20/20???

A recent Lakeville Sun ThisWeek issue (Sept. 29, 2017) contains a story about the AirLake airport annexation by Lakeville.

There are a number of things in that article on which I would like to comment.

It states: "After decades of failed negotiations, Airlake Airport is poised to annex into Lakeville to accommodate growth and receive city water and sewer."

"Decades of negotiations" is something of an overstatement, in my opinion. Any actual negotiations have been relatively recent and followed the Metropolitan Airports Commission's (MAC's) letting Eureka know it wanted city sewer and water services and now desired to be annexed in order to receive those services.

While it may be true that a possible annexation of the airport by Lakeville has been on the radar screen as a topic of concern and discussion off and on for quite a while, there certainly have not been negotiations for a decade. When Gary Schmidt of MAC came before the Town Board some months ago to inform them that the airport would be asking to be annexed by Lakeville so it could receive city sewer and water, his visit triggered the Board to direct the Planning Commission to conduct a Boundary Protection Study.  The Commission undertook this study with the assistance of Chad Lemmons, the Township Attorney, and Sherri Buss, Senior Planner at TKDA, to see what options may be open to Eureka as an alternative to having the airport be annexed. (The study is posted on the Township website for your information.)



After those special meetings were held, the report went to the Board. Then there were actually two meetings with Board-designated Supervisors Jennings and Behrendt and the other parties exploring especially the idea of a Joint Powers Agreement with Lakeville. (This has been explained in other blog posts.) Lakeville was ultimately not interested in entering into such an agreement with Eureka Township. 

After the elections and a change in the Board, there were then two more meetings with the Board-designated Supervisors, Jennings and Palmquist, and the Township Attorney with MAC and the City of Lakeville. These latter two Supervisors requested a third meeting, which was never arranged. 

Supervisor Hansen then stepped in to "save this mess" at a meeting also attended by Supervisor Jennings, Chad Lemmons, Township Attorney, and MAC. The Board had required that the Attorney accompany Hansen and that he not go alone. Jennings also attended when she was notified of the meeting by MAC. Hansen even complained about her attendance at this meeting at the last Board meeting. 

The article then states:
"Hansen said he was selected by the town board to meet with MAC representatives 'to save the airport' and he proposed multiple ways to provide the airport sewer and water, but the board did not want to act on them."

Whatever "saving proposal" Hansen presented at the meeting with MAC was apparently met without any actual/real buy-in by Gary Schmidt of MAC, because even Hansen (at least at first) certainly did not allege Schmidt was in agreement, even if the Board was not. Maybe that is due to the fact (correctly reported) that MAC's adopted policy requires hookup of all its airports to sewer and water within a certain timeline when it becomes available. This policy was discussed at an earlier-mentioned Special Planning Commission meeting with the Met Council reps, Boylan and Colvin, with Gary Schmidt and the Board also in attendance. (The only approach Hansen has brought up before the Board of late is the well and access of the sewer interceptor. I do not actually recall any other suggestions from him. Not quite sure where "multiple" comes from?) 

So Hansen did propose to the Board that the Township provide the well and also access the sewer interceptor. He still doesn't seem to want to acknowledge that this ability to access is an involved process with the Met Council. In fact, I don't think I have ever heard him address that directly. This motion was one of two motions failing for lack of a second. (See previous two posts.)

The next portion of the article I would like to comment on is:

"He said the airport would have stayed in the township if the town board had been willing to consider allowing commercial development on its northern edge, but without making that change the township will eventually get annexed by Lakeville and Farmington."

I would like to know, Supervisor Hansen, exactly when and where Gary Schmidt of MAC ever said anything like this. The airport is not concerning itself with what Eureka does with its land on the northern border. It is concerning itself with its own needs for sewer and water.

Last, the article states:
“'At the end of the day, the board has no vision for our future,' Hansen said. 'We are on the edge of major development, and if we keep those people happy, they have no reason to go to Lakeville. If we continue to have a lack of vision for our northern corridor, Lakeville’s going to just keep coming.'"

Apparently Hansen's "vision" for the "northern corridor" was to let it be annexed to Lakeville in return for paving a road, among a few other things that there has been no indication that Lakeville would even be open to. That's what he proposed to the Board. 

For some strange reason, the Board "did not want to act," as he told the reporter, to release hundreds of acres to Lakeville, as that motion died for lack of a second also! I STILL don't see how this is of benefit to Eureka.

To Be Continued...

WRAP YOUR HEADS AROUND IT...

Continuing with information from the September 11, 2017, Town Board meeting:

Under "Old Business" was item "E. Airlake Airport Annexation-Report Regarding Meeting with MAC."

During the Board discussion of this item, Mark Ceminsky came from the back of the room and "plunked" himself down at the table and mic before the Board. He did not ask to be recognized and to come forward, just went up there and sat. And talked.

I believe Supervisor and Chair Barfknecht handled this respectfully and calmly even though she would have been well within her role and responsibilities to ask him to please return to his seat and wait to be recognized.

Remember, the Board has given the public the opportunity to speak at Public Comment time and it can always put itself on the Board agenda for discussion of an item. The Board does not have to allow any general audience input at these public meetings (not public hearings, which are a totally different case), but it almost always has. What I am stating here is totally in keeping with the Open Meeting Law.

I feel Ceminsky's actions were very disrespectful to the Board and the Township proceedings. I doubt heartily that he would have been tolerant of such an action by another when he was on the Board himself.

At any rate, he brought up to the Board certain input such as the Township would be losing not only taxes but also the building permit fees for new hangars if the airport is annexed.

Well, that is true. Does he really think no one understands that? Did he think the Board wasn't listening on the other occasions he has said the same thing? Does he think that there is a realistic solution to keep the airport in Eureka and the Board is just stubbornly unwilling for some obscure reason to do that?

If there were a feasible solution, I am confident the Board would follow it. Members have already met and tried to negotiate a Joint Powers Agreement with Lakeville whereby Lakeville would sell sewer and water to MAC and the airport would remain in the Township. It was worth a try. Lakeville wasn't interested. MAC isn't interested in a well. It wants CITY sewer and water! We can't tap into the sewer interceptor without the process the Metropolitan Council has outlined and refenced in my last blog. Annexation law favors cities, that is the cold, hard fact. Yet, Supervisor Hansen continues to proclaim that the Board "has done nothing." He even proposed a Board letter to MAC that he wanted to say "Eureka has no interest in the airport." Well, yes, we do, but wishing doesn't make it so.

Supervisor Butch Hansen has promoted "at least asking" the Met Council if it would allow Eureka to access the interceptor. Sounds reasonable, doesn't it? The problem with that is that he doesn't seem to understand and/or accept what has to be done by the Township preceding any Met Council CONSIDERATION of such a request, with absolutely no guarantee that Eureka could make a case that the Council would buy into. It is not going to tell any LGU (Local Government Unit) ahead of time what it is going to do. It says, "Submit this (detailed plan) and we'll consider it." The detailed plan is expensive to generate.

All this was discussed with Eureka's Council area rep and the person who oversees sewer for the Council at a Planning Commission Special Meeting that Mr. Hansen attended before he was on the Board. (He, himself, incidentally, came up front from the audience and stood next to the Met Council reps and started talking without being recognized by the Chair as well! Pattern.) Eureka is slated as ag until 2040. Had the recession not happened, the open land in Lakeville and Farmington, some of which is just now being developed, would perhaps have already been developed; things may have been different. But that is water under the bridge.

Hansen proposed a motion to access the sewer interceptor for airport use. Died for lack of a second.

Then he proposed another motion to give all the Eureka land north of 225th St. W. that borders on Lakeville TO Lakeville as has been put forth by Ceminsky and Hansen in the recent past. Died for lack of a second.

The StarTribune article of September 15, 2017, which says that "...at least one township supervisor fears that it (the airport annexation) will accelerate the end of Eureka," somehow doesn't reveal that Mr. Hansen has repeatedly actually supported the idea that Eureka should just "give away" all the land north of 225th bordering Lakeville if it can't access the interceptor and keep the airport. What has been his (and Ceminsky's) stated reason? "They are going to take it anyway. Let's just give it to them. Then we can 'regroup' and figure out how to stop this (annexation)." Or words very close to that. I frankly do not see how this would be of any benefit to the Township. In fact, on page 3-14, the Comprehensive Plan lists no. 5 under "Land Use Goals: Maintain the geographic boundaries of the Township." To propose giving all the land north of 225th to Lakeville is actually in direct opposition to the Comprehensive Plan, that publicly adopted document that is to guide Township decisions! How deep does Supervisor Hansen's understanding of the Comprehensive Plan go?

That same article quotes Hansen as saying, "I think it's foolish of us to throw away the airport to Lakeville. If we can keep the airport happy, they'll stay." The very next paragraph says that Gary Schmidt of MAC stated that the airport "needs city sewer and water to stay viable" and that "obtaining city sewer and water has been a goal for decades." That's city services, Mr. Hansen. The airport won't BE happy with a well. In the article Hansen is credited with saying that he wants "the township to get county permission to dig a well for Airlake and to hook up to the sewer line." As referenced in the article Commissioner Mike Slavik has said and as it was said at the last Board meeting, the County doesn't have a say in this. The County is NOT the Met Council. AND the airport doesn't want a well! Again, how deep does the understanding of oversight bodies and their realm of influence go for Supervisor Hansen, I ask?

The article also quotes Hansen as saying, "It (the annexation) opens the door to future annexation down the road." News Flash: That "door," because of annexation law, has always been open.
Opinion: So the way to "close the door" to future annexation is to concede right now and hand over hundreds of acres so we "can have a peaceful annexation?" Don't see it.

By now, I am tired of explaining it and the reader is probably tired of reading it. At the last Annual Meeting the citizens in attendance agreed that the Board should do what it could to keep the airport in the Township. It has now done that, in spite of Mr. Hansen's proclaiming again and again that "the Board has done nothing." In spite of the fact that Mr. Hansen stated he was going "to have to step in and clean up this mess."

IS IT REALLY THAT HARD TO UNDERSTAND...?

Not if one has been paying attention. "Paying attention" means to ALL the data, not just what one wants to hear.

At the last Town Board meeting, Allen Novacek had placed himself on the agenda as wanting to address the "Airport Issue." During the course of his presentation to the Board, Mr. Novacek stated that in order to be able to access the sewer interceptor to serve the airport Eureka would need to put 1,000 acres into commercial/industrial land.

Sorry, wrong. The Metropolitan Council would require that Eureka set aside 1,000 acres for (much) higher-density housing and other uses as well, not just commercial/industrial before it would even consider allowing access to the interceptor.  Such a proposal would require expensive planning and engineering work up front. And that does not mean that the Council would even accept this proposal after Eureka spent all the money since it sees Eureka as ag until 2040.



Mr. Novacek went on to say that making the northern portion of the Township commercial/industrial would provide a "buffer" to Lakeville.

Sorry, wrong. All indications from both the Commercial/Industrial Study and the recent Boundary Protection Study (which includes sound advice from other townships that have been in similar situations) are that putting such a use along our northern border would serve as an enticement for Lakeville to want to annex more of Eureka land, not to discourage it. (Uses such as churches along the border would be a deterrent because of the non-tax status.)



Another point made by Mr. Novacek was that "it has been said" that an area with fewer than 5,000 people is "too small" for commercial/industrial uses.

Sorry, wrong. No one has ever said this that I know of. What has been said in reference to  a population of 5,000 is that 5,000 is probably the minimum size to make incorporation as a city financially feasible. Since the County has different expectations of cities for road expenses than it does of townships, the resulting increase in taxes with fewer people would not be welcome. (I believe Sherri Buss, from TKDA, has told us during one meeting with her of one instance whereby an Local Government Unit (LGU) of fewer than 5,000 people did incorporate, but they agreed ahead of time that they were willing to pay the higher taxes. From what I have heard at Eureka meetings of all sorts over many years leads me to think that the Eureka citizenry would object to that.

Eureka could have "rural commercial/industrial" (no city sewer and water), but that, as often stated, (Are you listening?) would attract "lesser" uses such as truck depots, contractors' yards, outdoor storage, and the like. Such uses would take up land and provide lower revenue than some seem to envision. When the time came for the Township to move ahead with uses that require city sewer and water, these rural uses would be unlikely to want to move further out for "better" (read higher tax revenue) uses to move in as they would have had a pretty good deal on land prices and location. Roseville has had a similar experience with truck depots.

Further, townships that have had rural commercial/industrial uses have often experienced problems with them to the point that most of their complaints are centered around these uses. For example, such townships have experienced an approved use selling and a new use taking over. However, the new use does not recognize or perhaps has been misinformed about what its limits are in what it is allowed to do and proceeds to do what it defends as "financial business common sense." Problem is, what it is doing is not permitted, and such a use may create many more negative impacts to surrounding property, such as noise, pollution, etc.. than the first use did.

In such a case a township can find itself in a situation whereby legal action may be necessary to right things. Does that sound familiar ?????

My next blog will continue with information from the last Board meeting on this topic, including what a "couple of other people" who also do not seem to be listening said. (Otherwise, this post would get rather long.) Until later...

THE BIG MAC!

                      ADDITIONAL FACTS 

                 August 07, 2017, Town Board Meeting  

                           
            

At the August 07, 2017, Town Board
Meeting, Supervisor

Jennings, discussed  an Email from
Gary Schmidt, of the

Metropolitan Airport Commission
(MAC), which expressed MAC's interest in requesting
Lakeville's annexation of the Airlake Airport.

Attorney Lemmons stated MAC's intent is for Lakeville

to Annex by Ordinance.  Before Lakeville can adopt the
Ordinance, Lakeville would be required, by Statute, to
submit a written notice to Eureka of their intent 30 days
prior to the proposed Ordinance to be adopted.

Mr. Schmidt has not been responding to meeting requests 

from the Town Board representatives. Supervisor Jennings

stated that Eureka had very little leverage in the negotiations.

Supervisor Jennings stated very few entities, not

even the Governor, have leverage over MAC, which is 

similar to the considerable autonomy of the Met Council;

having a Board appointed by the Governor, but they

operate on their own. (Supervisor Jennings read from the

Office of the Legislative Auditor's website).

Supervisor Jennings reported she engaged in a discussion

with a Supervisor from Lakeland Township located near the

Lake Elmo Airport. Lakeland Township is further along

in their negotiations with MAC and are quite frustrated

with the process. They also acknowledged that there is no

State level oversight on what MAC does. 

Supervisor Hansen stated "for a year and a half we have done

nothing." Supervisor Jennings reminded Mr. Hansen that

meetings and discussions have taken place.

Members of the Town Board have made an effort to promote

the Township retaining ownership of the Airport through

a Joint Powers Agreement similar to the agreement 

between Empire Township and the City of Farmington. 

                              

Supervisors Jennings and Palmquist met twice with MAC.

A third meeting was never agreed to.

MAC held an Open House in Lakeville AND at the Eureka

Town Hall. 

Supervisor Hansen stated "there is another way to handle 

this. We chose not to handle it this way so the Airport will

go to Lakeville. That is a fact."

Supervisor Jennings suggested an annexation conversation

is needed with preparation and legal advice. Supervisor 

Hansen stated "Carrie, this is a LOUSY excuse! At this

point we might just as well make a motion to let Lakeville

have EVERYTHING  just North of 225th street and a peaceful

annexation. Just let them have it because they are going

to take it ANYHOW. We can regroup and do something

to stop it from happening in the future. That is where I 

think it is at."

Supervisor Jennings asked Supervisor Hansen what His

proposal would be.

He stated "Let me go to MAC and see if I can't SALVAGE

this mess. I talk with these people ALL the time!"

Supervisor Jennings made a motion to end the discussion

until Eureka has a letter from Lakeville indicating their

intent. She suggested the Town Board members and the

attorney should be prepared to have a conversation about

Annexation which differs from an Airlake Airport

update.

                                   

After more discussion, Supervisor Jennings suggested
Supervisor Hansen schedule a meeting with Lakeville
and she would attend also as she is the Board-designated
contact person on the annexation matter. 

                               

Supervisor Hansen disagreed stating he "would just as
soon she would NOT attend because they do not
get along. What is the point?"

Supervisor Barfknecht made a motion that Supervisor

Hansen schedule a meeting with MAC since he stated he

has frequent contact with MAC. The attorney would attend

the meeting with Supervisor Hansen.

Supervisor Rogers seconded the motion. Supervisors

Rogers, Palmquist and Barfknecht voted YAY,

Supervisor Jennings voted NAY and Supervisor

Hansen ABSTAINED.
                                

WILL SUPERVISOR HANSEN "SAVE THIS MESS?"

                          

          STAY TUNED!  

  (Information taken from the August 7, 2017, Town Board 
Mtg. CD)

LET'S CLEAR THE FOG...OR IS IT SMOG???

Following are comments I made during Public Comment time at the August Board meeting, including the rest of what I wanted to say but couldn't because my three minutes were up. You may find it of interest. I post it here for your convenience.

I have a concern about "WRONG FACTS" being given by some to the public at these meetings.

At the last couple of meetings, the Launch Park First Addition on Cedar Avenue (very large warehouse/office) has been a subject of discussion.

This property was annexed into Lakeville in 2007 at the request of the property owners because they wanted city sewer and water for their proposed development there, services that only Lakeville could provide them.

This fact was correctly asserted by Supervisor Rogers at the last meeting, only to be contradicted directly and vigorously by Supervisor Hansen. Hansen asserted that it could have been handled differently and the property would still be in Eureka. Supervisor Rogers, I, and many citizens, including people in this room tonight (at the meeting), know that Hat Trick (later Launch Properties) wanted sewer and water services and Eureka couldn't provide that for them.

It wasn't for a lack of trying. The Township has looked into bonding, which isn't available to us. The Township offered the owners alternatives to city sewer and water as Supervisor Rogers has stated. This was rejected. It wasn't enough.

The true and unavoidable fact of the matter is that annexation law favors cities. In the end, the best that Eureka could do was to get an agreement that it would receive payments in the thousands of dollars for a certain number of years under the annexation to Lakeville.

It has taken 10 years or so, but the property is now being developed. MORE WRONG FACTS were given at a recent Board meeting. It was stated by Supervisor Hansen, in direct response to a citizen's question, that this development does NOT have sewer and water. This went unchallenged.

Since I knew sewer and water availability was the determining factor in the annexation, I visited Lakeville City Hall last week. I spoke to Dave Olson, Community and Economic Development Director for the City. He assured me that Launch Park IS having sewer and water. In fact, he said,

"We would never have approved the project without it."

I looked at and have a copy of the documents accompanying this property's final plat approval. These documents talk about sewer; they talk about water; and they even talk about the construction of a new street. All of these can be provided through the City of Lakeville and all are at cost to the developer. There are many other details in the documents.

At the public comment from last month it was asked by someone representing a corporation in words to the effect of, "Wouldn't it be nice to still have that property in the Township? Think of all the tax money it would yield!"

TRUE FACT: Without the annexation to Lakeville and all the attendant improvements that a city within the MUSA line can offer, it would still be a cornfield if it were still in Eureka. In a REALITY CHECK, Eureka is not in a position to offer the services that would suffice and keep certain uses, and thus their taxes, in the Township.

BUT THAT'S NOT ALL...

A resolution has also been presented to the Board by citizen Mark Ceminsky, supported by Supervisor Hansen, for Eureka to tap into the sewer interceptor line to serve the airport, the latest annexation dilemma. Just like Launch Properties, MAC wants city sewer and water. Unless Lakeville were somehow agreeable to a proposed Joint Powers Agreement involving sewer and water, which it appears not to be, this cannot be accomplished without annexation. Why not?

In the course of the recent Boundary Protection Study, it was outlined what Eureka would have to do to be allowed to access the sewer interceptor line. We would have to set aside 1,000 acres for higher density housing and other uses, not just commercial/industrial use and do lots of planning work and mapping. That's just one thing.

Perhaps the biggest obstacle is that, even if Eureka were ready and willing to set aside the 1,000 acres and do and pay for all of the planning that would be required, the Metropolitan Council would still have to be sold on the idea that there is a NEED for urbanization to extend into our Township. With all the available land yet open in cities to our north and east, that argument cannot currently stand. We surely don't want to spend large amounts of money preparing a proposal only to be told "no."

THERE ARE REASONS THE MET COUNCIL CONTINUES, AS IT DOES, TO SEE EUREKA AS AG AT LEAST UNTIL 2040. The Council forecasts slow and modest growth here into 2040

On another avenue, Eureka has not reached a population that history shows would even make incorporation as a city financially feasible. That number is about 5,000 people.
Once you are a city, you can no longer be annexed, true, but the County also expects a city to fund roads in a different way than it does townships. Unless the population is at least 5k, we have been advised the tax increases to meet this added cost would likely be undesirably high.

Our Township has done various studies on these matters which have resulted in valuable information for us to consider for our future.

Yet there are those among us who continue to scoff at the studies' results and are ever ready to ignore this information and to tell others that they "have their heads in the sand." (If I had a nickel for every time...) Again, these people seem to want to just ignore the facts as determined by market and border studies and professional experience and expertise.

BUT, you can't just MAKE UP your own facts and expect them to fly! Without sewer and water services, good, high-revenue-yielding development cannot and will not occur. Eureka can't currently provide these services and properties like Launch Park want and need it! As stated many times, "lesser" uses such as open storage, contractors' yards, and truck depots would only serve to occupy what some think is desirable property for the future of Eureka and would obstruct its development in the future as well. In the meanwhile, these uses would yield lower tax revenue than envisioned by many. A really nice home could bring in more taxes!

Please do no let anyone tell you that Launch Properties is not going to have sewer and water. They are going to have it and much more. That's a TRUE FACT.



On a further note, it will be of interest to many of you that, again put forward by Mark Ceminsky and supported by Supervisor Hansen, another proposed resolution (reportedly to be used if the airport resolution mentioned above isn't adopted!) promotes the annexation by Lakeville of all the Eureka land north of 225th Street W. where it abuts the City of Lakeville!

So we've gone from being upset about likely losing the Airport to Lakeville as we have the Hat Trick/Launch Properties 98 acres, to wanting Lakeville to annex all the Township land north of 225th that touches its southern border! Does this make any sense to you? 

In exchange, Ceminsky and Hansen have proposed that Lakeville turn over all taxes for this land (for seven years), agree to pay all involved fees of any sort including engineering, pay to pave all of 225th, shoulder all future improvement costs to the road as well as plow snow from it in alternate years, (with no end in sight)-- also all at no cost to Eureka.

Note that this "resolution" states that Lakeville will annex the property north of 225th. Presumably, this would include the north half of 225th since property lines go to mid-road. (The southern half of the road would go with the properties to the south of 225th, again, presumably.) Somehow, it is envisioned that Lakeville would be okay with all this, pay to pave the road, pay for all improvements to the road going forward, and share its winter upkeep with no end date.   LIKELY??????????

What reason was given by Hansen at a recent meeting for why this would be attractive to Eureka?
...Wait for it...He said, "We'd get rid of all our problems."

 As one of many homeowners on the north side of 225th, I find this verrrrrrrrrrry interesting!

THIS BLOG SITE SERVES TO EDUCATE!

       THE FIRST 10 AMENDMENTS TO THE
CONSTITUTION ARE KNOWN AS THE BILL
OF RIGHTS AND WERE PASSED BY CONGRESS 
ON SEPTEMBER 25, 1789 AND RATIFIED ON
DECEMBER 15, 1791.

      THE FIRST AMENDMENT

"Congress shall make no law respecting an

establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free 

exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of 

speech, or of the press; or the right of the people

peacebly to assemble, and to petition the government

for a redress of grievences." 



             

BITS AND PIECES

When SCOTTS Miracle-Gro, representing Friedges
Holdings, came before the Planning Commission
on June 6 of 2017 to apply for a new storage/office
building on the site at 225th and Highview, the 
Commission recommended denial of the application
to the Board. Reason given is that the property is 
controlled by the SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 
entered into by the Township and Country
Stone/Friedges Holdings on September 28, 2010. This
agreement, which ended the litigation, does not allow
further structures to be built.


Before the Commission meeting, Commission Chair Sauber
asked Attorney Chad Lemmons to confer with Attorney
Patrick Kelly of Kelly and Lemmons concerning the 
application vis-a-vis the agreement. Mr. Lemmons had
consulted with Mr. Kelly as the attorney acting for Eureka
Township at the time of the negotiation and the settlement
agreement. Therefore, Mr. Lemmons was assured in what
he represented to the Board about this property at its
meeting of June 12, 2017. 

The property is limited to the structures and the site plan
that was drawn at the time of the agreement. That is,
the structures are limited to what was present on the site
at the time of the agreement in 2010.

Even though informed otherwise by the attorney and advised
by the Commission Chair that the Board would have no 
legal basis upon which to approve the building application,
at the June Board meeting, this situation was disputed by the
applicant, Alex Allen, and his attorney, Matt Duffy.
The subject was discussed for a time. Audience members 
reminded the Board what they believed had been represented
in the initial building application for the currently 
existing structure and the subsequent agreement after 
litigation. (Now-Supervisor Hansen had represented the 
matter of a new (first) building application for Friedges
Holdings, Inc. at the property in 2005.) Activities
taking place at the operation, both before and after that
building construction, were also described.

                                          
The opinion was put forth that to build another building now
would actually constitute an expansion/intensification of the
use and would violate the settlement agreement. Much time,
much energy and professional assistance were expended on
the agreement, trying to get the best possible conditions
for the Township. It was felt by the Board members at the
time that to let it end up with the judge would likely not
end with suitable conditions from the Township's point
of view were the judge to allow the business to continue to
exist.

The further opinion was asserted that, even if what some
allege was represented in the very beginning in 2005, 
simply putting outside materials inside a new building, 
supposedly reducing noise and dust, were what had actually
happened at the site, this too, would have been an
expansion. (There is a ruling by the Minnesota Supreme
Court to this effect on another, allegedly very similar, case.)
Note that what ultimately did occur at the site was very 
different from what the Board at the time of the initial
building application understood. See minutes from the
November, 2005, Planning Commission meeting, the
November, 2005, Board meeting, the January, 2006,
Board meeting, and the January 18, 2006, Special Board
meeting for background. Be aware, however, that what
is represented in the minutes from these meetings 
contains errors, in my opinion, such as the part about
alteration, not expansion. As stated this is wrong under
MN Supreme Court ruling.

When asked by Supervisor Jennings at the June 2017
meeting if he were going to recuse himself since he
represented Friedges a number of times, Supervisor 
Hansen replied that he would not do so.

After further discussion, the Board voted. Supervisors
Rogers, Palmquist, Jennings, and Barfknecht ALL
voted to deny the application, following attorney
comment.

Supervisor Hansen, in DIRECT CONFLICT with
attorney advisement, voted against the motion to
deny the application.  The minutes did not state he
gave any reason for his vote of "nay."     

                       FAST FORWARD    

Eureka Town Board Meeting, July 10, 2017

Alex Allen, representing Scotts Miracle-Gro, came
before the Board to request a reconsideration of the
building permit which was denied at the June Board
meeting.

The Board members had received in their packet a 
DRAFT letter from Attorney Chad Lemmons
which was a response to a letter from Scott's
Miracle-Gro explaining why the application
was denied based on the Settlement Agreement.
Mr. Hansen requested time to review
the letter (usually this is done in preparation for
the meeting). Chair Barfknecht made a motion to
accept the DRAFT letter from Attorney Lemmons.
The motion was seconded. Supervisor Hansen and
Supervisor Rogers voted NOT to accept the draft
letter. (Why would a Supervisor vote to not accept
legal advice from the Township attorney as a response 
to a letter from the Scotts Miracle-Gro attorney when
this was an issue they were discussing?)

Supervisor Hansen argued with the attorney and 
stated the Settlement Agreement "should have been
drafted better." He was adamant regarding
allowing Commissioner Sauber to submit FACTS
and stated she "was muddying the waters."
He wanted to go on record that "when this ends up
in Court, we are going to lose."

Supervisor Hansen stated "I will make it simple for you;
I make a motion to approve their building application."
When Attorney Norder reminded Supervisor Hansen
that he did not feel that this was a proper motion,
Supervisor Hansen stated "It doesn't matter; I made 
the motion." "The attorney does not run the Township,
we do." "The attorney has been wrong numerous
numbers of times." After boisterous discussion,
 Supervisor Rogers made the motion to approve
the building permit. 
Supervisor Hansen 2nd the motion. They offered
NO facts to support their motions.
Supervisor Hansen stated he "would like to request
a letter from Attorney Lemmons in 48 hours, not
2 months, that he cannot do that."
Supervisor Hansen stated he "would go on the record 
as the 2nd motion.


An audience member asked to speak regarding the 
permit application issue. Butch stated the member of the
audience could not enter the discussion "as it had
been discussed to death for 15 years." He felt the
Settlement Agreement was "foolish" and the Township
should be paid for their fees. He stated "he does not
care what the attorney advised and that he is not the
Mayor of Eureka; that would be us."
(Could someone please show me when Eureka acquired a 
MAYOR?)

The motion failed to approve the building application
which was previously denied by the Town Board.
Alex Allen asked what the next step would be. 
Supervisor Hansen stated "Dakota County at the Court
House." Attorney Norder stated the Town Board should 
not be giving legal advice about anything.

The next step for Scott's Miracle-Gro was to appear
before the Planning Commission regarding an appeal
for a recommendation to the Town Board.

MY OPINION:  The disrespect shown by one of the 
Supervisors at the July Town Board meeting was
appalling!  The attorney's advice was not only
ignored, but defied.  The attorney was verbally 
assaulted.

I believe Supervisors and Commissioners are
to act as advocates for the best interests of the
Township.  When they become advocates for
the applicants, they need to recuse themselves.
This appears to happen too many times at
meetings.

If a Supervisor is afraid of the Township being sued,
embrace the Township attorney's legal advice.
I believe Supervisors should know their level of 
competence. When he/she has reached it, defer to
the attorney for legal opinions and respect them.
I believe it is quite possible that no one on the
Board or Commission is more competent regarding
legalities than the Township attorney. Citizens
pay for this advice.

Supervisors should follow and enforce the Ordinances,
follow policies, make decisions based on facts and avoid
situations such as possible racial slurs or disrespect
to contractors who are hired by the Township.

The Minnesota Association of Townships provides 
valuable workshops on various subjects including
legal seminars. Although Supervisors are not required
to attend, I believe they have an obligation to the
citizens to do so. The Township will pay for the 
workshops.

I thank the members of the Town Board and Planning
Commission who take their responsibilities seriously,
are respectful to everyone, act with dignity and are
professional.

I attended a City Council meeting for a reality check.
Yes, I witnessed, professionalism, civility,respect
for the attorney and guest speakers, and a Council
who came well read and prepared for the issues to be
discussed. The meeting started at 7:00 p.m. and
adjourned around 7:40.  A very pleasant experience.

This is a CITIZEN BLOG!  (Portions of the information were taken
from meeting CDs.)