BRRRRRRRRRRRR!

Several former Eureka Supervisors and Commissioners attended the last meeting of the Board on April 23rd. As a citizen in the audience, I again found the atmosphere significantly chilled.

Under the Open Meeting Law, the public has the right to observe and listen to all discussion and any decision making. This is unlike a public hearing when the public has a right to speak. Every Board and Commission during my 20 years' experience of being very much involved in Township meetings of all kinds has known this. However, the practice has always been to allow the public to ask questions and have opportunity for input, even outside of the public comment period of Board meetings.

I believe this was the practice in the spirit of transparency and even a sort of respectful neighborliness in our small community. Yes, it doesn't have to be allowed, but the Board always has the option to allow it. At times, the Chair of either body would ask if the entire body were open to calling on audience members with their hands raised. I do not recall an instance where this was denied. I believe those audience members appreciated the chance to speak. It seemed the right thing to do. Even with a thorough explanation of how not allowing comment is actually within officials' ability would have surely left a disgruntled citizenry.

Now under Chair Storlie's term the practice has been abruptly changed to a very definite "no" to giving opportunity for input outside of three minutes of public comment. Even from experienced people who would have something informative to offer. Again, let me stress that I understand this is within the Board's authority under the law. Unfortunately, this has recently resulted in a trend to what are to me several troubling decisions or near-decisions.

In an unprecedented move, this Board made the Clerk the primary liaison for most of the entities for which supervisors have always volunteered to be the primary or secondary contact, such as the Building Inspector, fire contractors, or the Sheriff. What was the motivation for this change? To limit your elected officials' workload? To increase that for the already very busy Clerk? 

When the matter of liaison to the North Cannon River Watershed Management Organization (NCRWMO) came up, everyone shied away from that commitment. Storlie said the Clerk could do that. I stated, "I know you don't want me to speak, Mr. Chair, but if Liz is to be the liaison for that, SHE has to go to the meetings and vote." Storlie basically ignored my comment. I'm not sure if a non-elected clerk can even fulfill this role for the citizens. Without a liaison present at those meetings, Eureka has NO representation and no say in how that watershed is managed. Perhaps there is a failure of understanding what a WMO actually is. 

Supervisor Pope moved that all recordings of meetings be kept for 20 years. This is the latest of his multiple attempts to do so. He was already informed several times by Supervisor Barfknecht and Yours Truly on the former Board that the Minnesota Association of Townships (MAT) has specifically recommended that boards do NOT do this. Those recordings have been available for citizens to request any copies they are interested in up until the written minutes, the actual official record for meetings, are approved. At that point, the recommendation is to erase the recording itself. This what the Township has done. (As a supervisor, Pope could himself request such a copy for every meeting during his term without charge.) It's possible that this changed practice could leave the Township open to lawsuits. No matter, the Board approved his motion.

At this juncture, I could have informed the Board to check into a required filing of an amended retention schedule with the Secretary of State's office. I remember then-Supervisor Cory Behrendt bringing this to the Board's attention in the past after he went to a MAT training. In the current chilled atmosphere, I opted to send an email to the Clerk. We'll see what happens. Maybe.

Another example is Supervisor Ceminsky's suggesting that citizen complaints be limited to those living within 1,000 feet of the "offending" property. No one else would have any business complaining about a property clearly in violation of our Ordinances such as a junkyard unless one were close by. He said he thought he remembered that this used to be in the Citizen Complaint Policy. He admitted it has been "a long time," but that was his asserted belief. I could have informed the Board that this has never been the case. There is a requirement to notify property owners within 1,000 feet of a property applying for a Conditional Use Permit or an Interim Use Permit. Perhaps Supervisor Ceminsky confused this. Having already been shut down in recent meetings, I did not attempt to correct his statement.

Thankfully, Supervisor Barfknecht argued that Eureka is everyone's community and as such every citizen has an interest in the Ordinances being enforced. One may not live next to the junkyard, but perhaps drives past it frequently. Perhaps limiting the citizenry's ability to file complaints results in more junkyards. Interesting that Supervisor Ceminsky has to be tutored in this. Thankfully, due to Supervisor Barfknecht's logic this was averted.

During the Roads portion of the agenda, Supervisor Ceminsky proposed adding eight additional road projects to the tune of over $100,000. There is a law regulating the spending of taxpayer money. This law stipulates that anything reaching $175,000 requires a sealed bid and not a quote. Without getting into the weeds, this limits a board to accepting the "lowest responsible bidder," not a discretionary choice of anyone submitting a quote. His proposal would push the dollar amount for gravel for this year into the sealed bid category as it would have totaled more than $200,000. 

When Supervisor Barfknecht raised this point (The former Board has just recently been through this very issue.) Ceminsky said, well, this addition was "not known" then, so it should be okay because his proposal by itself was under the triggering amount. This ignores the fact that the plan for proposed road projects for the year is discussed before looking for gravel providers. It also ignores the fact that the proposed 2024 projects were the result of the Road Committee's work with Board approval. Ceminsky has stated that this committee is a vauable one, yet he doesn't seem to be aware of the facts of the situation. I believe that the correct process would be to suggest these road projects for the following year as Ceminsky was not in office at the time the 2024 projects were proposed. Barfknecht asked that the attorney be questioned about this. HOW the question is put to him could very well influence his answer. 

Thanks for hanging in there this long. I believe this is just the beginning. Look for more updates from the igloo.

DIVERSITY OF OPINION ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION?

 

At its special meeting on April 9th, the Town Board interviewed five applicants for two openings on the Planning Commission: Debbie Burkhardt, Melanie Storlie, Bill Roske, Brian Storlie, and Dan Heyda.

During the interviews, Supervisor Tim Pope repeatedly said he had no questions of the applicants, although he said he enjoyed reading their applications. 

Supervisor Allen Novacek asked each applicant what he billed as "a loaded question:" Does a Planning Commissioner work for the Town Board or for the residents? In each case he stated that the obvious answer was "both," but since he was already telling the applicants that, he said he was looking for something else. 

Based on his public comments in previous meetings, in my opinion he was looking for the answer that the Commission works for the Board and should work (only) at its direction. Now, it is true that the Board appoints the Commission, but the Commission has several goals and responsibilities under the Ordinances. It must maintain the Comprehensive Plan, review applications for zoning compliance, and hold public hearings, for example. It can also, on its own, suggest text amendments to the Ordinances. It can take on many subjects it believes to be of importance for the Township. Ultimately, their work is submitted to the Board for approval, but the Planning Commission has historically taken on a lot of work for Eureka citizens.

Supervisor Novacek has stated several times in public that the Commission works for the Board. He has appeared not to appreciate any initiative taken by the Commission such as reducing speed limits in rural residential districts, which the Township is clearly authorized to do under State statute. He and Supervisor Pope fought this whole idea of reasonable speed limits in the denser areas multiple times. The Board majority at the time, however, supported the Commission's effort. 

In fact, this reduction in the speed limit was done some years ago in the past on a portion of Highview Avenue when there is sufficiently dense residential use. As I remember it as a supervisor at the time, the citizens in that district were in favor of the initiative.

The Commission under the leadership of Chair Bill Clancy is to be commended for the job it has done. I do believe they saw themselves as working for your benefit, and they saw themselves as an independent body, which they are. Yes, their recommendations are advisory, not dispositive, but the Commission can play a vital part in your Town government.

Commissioner Burkhardt did an excellent job on the Commission. Yours truly witnessed her in action meeting after meeting. She was fair-minded, thoughtful and always did her "homework" and research. She worked diligently. However, she was passed over for other applicants. Not only that, the Board did not even thank her for her three years of service after they appointed others.

Melanie Storlie and Brian Storlie have been appointed apparently by Supervisors Storlie, Novacek, Ceminsky, and Pope. I say apparently as the vote is a paper ballot counted by the Clerk. There was one vote for Bill Roske and one vote for Debbie Burkhardt for the two positions. On the very first ballot cast, all of the other four votes went to Storlie and Storlie.

$$$ CHANGE/ADJUSTMENT

 Apparently the Board’s compensation per meeting issue from the March 26 meeting needed a resolution to be official. It was newly stated at the April 9 meeting that the Board per meeting pay will stay at $100 for Supervisors and for Chair will stay at $110. The amounts were peeled back to what they had been. THAT resolution passed. 

Why the action was taken differently, I couldn’t say. However, I will say it was a (considered) step in the right direction. 

THEY'RE OFF TO THE RACES! ......WAY OFF!!!

You may or may not be aware that this year at the Annual Meeting in March, the citizens present passed the Board's proposed levy for 2025 by two votes. Sixteen (16) yes votes and fourteen (14) no votes. That's not much, is it? Are you comfortable leaving something so important basically to chance? It could have so easily gone the other way, and there could be significant cuts in your important services. As has been repeated so often, your vote does matter and can make the difference. Why does this happen?

First, a little history. At the Annual Meeting in March 2023, new/now-Board Chair Pete Storlie moved to keep the levy for 2024 at the same amount it had been in the previous year: a 0% increase. That motion passed by a small majority of the citizens who were present at that meeting. It turns out that the average statewide levy increase passed by others that same year was 6.8%.

Fast forward to this year's Annual Meeting. Pete Storlie again moved to keep the levy at the same amount it had been in the previous year. Another 0% increase! This motion failed by a narrow margin. After some discussion, the motion to approve the Board-proposed levy was passed as noted above. The proposed levy was only a little over a 5% increase on the zero increased levy baseline from the year before, 2024. So it is even less than one might at first think.

Does Eureka exist in some fantasy land? Do our costs not go up as the rest of the state's do? Are Township costs exempt from increases even though your household expenses have risen noticeably recently and continue to rise? 

I ventured the opinion at the Annual Meeting that this trend over the years to drastically cut revenue to the Township has been done with the intent of eliminating attorney fees. Cut enough, and the Township is lucky to have money available to maintain the roads. These reductions disable our local unit of government, otherwise known as our Township, in meeting the costs of doing business.

Those who are against attorney input complain and complain about spending any money for it. Attorney advice is necessary if only to keep the Township from being sued! The attorney's services are valuable for adjusting existing ordinances, crafting wholly new ordinances such as the cannabis moratorium, and enforcing the Ordinances. In many instances, some Eureka officials have taken little, if any, of the training available to them. There have been officials who couldn't possibly even have read through our Ordinances. It shows. Officials have unwittingly promoted actions which would have been in violation of State statutes or even local law. I have heard supposedly wise individuals questioning why are we spending money on THAT, referring to enforcement concerning flagrant violations. If those violations suddenly pop up closer to home, that tune quickly changes, believe me. If we protect one landowner through enforcement, we protect all landowners in Eureka.

Road Superintendent Mark Henry polled gravel sources and reported to the former Board that the costs of gravel alone are very likely to go up 8-10%. Never mind costs for delivery, spreading the gravel, fuel surcharges, etc. 

Ironically, at their first meeting as a new Board on March 26, one of the very first things Supervisors Pete Storlie, Mark Ceminsky, Allen Novacek and Tim Pope did was to give themselves a substantial raise in their per meeting payment. Supervisor Lu Barfknecht was not present for the vote as she was out of town for work. 

Before making and approving the motion, Storlie asked Clerk Atwater when these amounts were last raised. The Clerk informed the Board that this had been done just two years ago. This took away any rationale that these amounts haven't been raised "in such a long time," but the four officials gave themselves a significant increase anyway. Per meeting pay for Supervisors went from $100 to $120, while payment per meeting for the Chair (now Storlie) went from $110 to $130.

So we don't have money for a reasonable and even moderate proposed levy, but we do have money to give ourselves a raise.

STAY TUNED FOR MORE UPDATES! 

ARE YOU PLUGGED IN?

 

A lot has been going on in Eureka lately!

The ordinances for Subdivision, Housing Rights, and Mining have been reviewed. Open Houses and public hearings have been and are being held for the public. See Township calendar

All-day rain events have done a number on our gravel roads. When that happens, we get potholes. When we get potholes, the roads are graded when they are not frozen! Some have experienced icy conditions. Our weather has been quite variable and even unusual for this time of year. The Road Superintendent, Mark Henry, and the Road Contractor, TJ Grossman, along with the Road Supervisors, Fredlund and Palmquist, are well aware of conditions. The roads are checked frequently. Please be patient as those with road duties try to serve you.

The Township has been experiencing problems with its website. The Deputy Clerk has been working hard to resolve this. Research for other website managers has been ongoing. Be aware that the Township has always met State law requirements regarding posting and publishing various meetings and public hearings. The requirements involve posting on the outside bulletin board at Town Hall and, in the case of public hearings, publishing in the official newspapers for the Township. The posting on our website is done as a courtesy and a convenience; some townships have NO websites! Information regarding the proposed changes for the above ordinance adoption and other items has been posted faithfully by the Clerk. Because of the website problems, its availability has been spotty. The issues have been resolved at this point. Be assured, the Board wants its citizens to be well informed of current happenings.

If you haven't yet, but would like to avail yourself of email notices about meetings, please give the Clerk your email address. This will get to you regardless of any website problems.

The Township has hired a new Clerk/Treasurer named Elizabeth (Liz) Atwater. Liz has been working diligently with past Clerk/Treasurer, Ranee Solis, training and learning the job. Liz has taken training for these positions through the Minnesota Association of Townships. Please stop in and say hi!

                            CONNECT!

IT'S BEEN A WHILE...

 

The new Eureka Code has been adopted and published and is now effect. It will be added to the Township website. In the meantime, here is a link for your convenience: Code Link Here

At a recent public hearing on the Code update, some questions arose. It was questioned, mainly by two citizens, whether, since the Township Attorney has determined that Eureka does not fit the definition of an "Urban Town," the Township even has the authority to enact any such Ordinances at all. As in, even, going back in time. As in, did the Township ever have such authority?

The question was checked again with the attorney who had already researched the topic for the Board before the hearing, as was stated at the public hearing. There is legislation from 1977 that gives Eureka and all other Dakota County townships such authority. A link to this law is under "News and Notices" on the Township website. Quick Link Here. This law is also quoted at the beginning of the new Code on the Code link above. Also, if you click on "10-27-22 Public Hearing-Ordinance Recodification" you can access more information including an explanation of the recodification, and "Schedule A" which delineates the changes. It was stated at the hearing by one citizen that this information regarding changes proposed was not available, although it was. Quick Link 2 Here.

An even better source for info is the minutes from the 10-27 public hearing found under Town Board Minutes. (The Town Board, not the Planning Commission was the body to properly hold the hearing.) Quick Link 3 Here.

A FEW UPDATES FOR YOU!

The Eureka application for federal funds for broadband was denied.

The Board met with Ben Blomgren from JTN on August 2 regarding an application for an application for state funds for internet connectivity. The app was due August 4. If this goes through, the Township will be able to use ARPA funds for its share of the project. Keep your fingers crossed! Internet access has been an issue in the Township for a long, long time. We suffer from low density and being close to Lakeville as impediments to getting better service.

The Township has received two more house permit applications. Our beautiful community continues to attract. WELCOME!

When requesting a lot split, there are several factors to consider: 

The minimum lot size of two acres must be met.

If there are structures on the property, all setbacks must be met.

If there is a house on the property, the lot must have 250' width at the location of the house.

All houses must have garages, under the Ordinances. This has affected some recent splits.

If there are ag buildings and houses owned by separate entities, the 250' distance between such structures must be met. The ag building does not have to house animals for this setback; it just has to be an ag building. This requirement is to protect from odors, noise, dust, and other such complaints in this Right to Farm state.

Even if not taxed as ag, and therefore, no ag buildings, any enclosure of animals must be 175' from a neighboring residence.

Space for a primary and a secondary septic must be available.

Road access. New Ordinance language coming up, if enacted, will affect this factor.

Be on the lookout for a message from the Township regarding a Special Town Meeting on September 15th. 

The electorate will be asked to vote on an important issue regarding the ordinances and their enforcement. One must be present to vote; you are not eligible to vote via Zoom on this agenda item. Much more information to follow.