Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7A - Spring Lake Township Annexation Report AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT JULY 20, 1998 \~ ;~ BOYLES, CITY MANAGE~ 1.)1 PRESENTATION: SPRING LAKE TOWNSHIP ANNEXATION REPORT. Historv The Prior Lake City Council previously requested that the Spring Lake Township Board conduct Public Information Meetings with Township residents in each of the proposed Orderly Annexation areas. The Township completed these meetings. The City Council also asked that the township prepare a report to the City Council based upon information received at the meetings. Attached is the report prepared by the Township Board. Current Circumstances The Township Board has asked for time on the City Council agenda to share the contents of its report. Issues This is not an action item. The City Council previously established an annexation task force to review such issues and make recommendations to the City Council. Councilmembers Kedrowski and Wuellner serve on the Task Force together with Doug Larsen and members of the staff. Conclusion The Council should hear the report and refer the matter to the Annexation Task Force. 162000091NCIrJe\AONRP$ffiA.W<DOO~St4inadwta 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER '. ..... '0 William S. Radzwill Andrew J. MacArthur Michael C. Couri RADZWILL & COURl Attorneys at Law 705 Central Avenue East PO Box 369 St. Michael, MN 55376 (612) 497-1930 (612) 497-2599 (FAX) June 24, 1998 City Council Members City of Prior Lake C/o Frank Boyles, City Manager Prior Lake City Hall 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 RE: Orderly Annexation Agreement Between the City of Prior Lake and Spring Lake Township Dear Council Members: A little less than one year ago Spring Lake Township initiated a series of public hearings to gauge public response both to the existing annexation agreement and the City of Prior Lake's Task Force Report on annexation. Since that time the two communities have been involved in a number of annexation related matters, including an agreement to annex the industrial park area, a petition from individuals within the township seeking incorporation and subsequent hearing, and the Municipal Board's assuming jurisdiction over the South Shore Drive Area. As you are aware, these matters have drawn much public attention. Prior Lake City staff were asked to appear at the various public hearings and respond to questions from township residents regarding the Task Force Report and the city's plans to implement the recommendations made in that report. City staff did attend the hearings as promised and did a good job of fielding questions, in a sometimes hostile environment. The township appreciates the efforts and cooperation of the City in this regard. All Town Board Supervisors prepared reports' summarizing the various hearings and the public response. The Supervisor's individual reports are attached to this letter. The hearings were noticed for the various areas as they were delineated within the City's task force report. An additional hearing was also held to receive general township response. " Letter to Prior Lake City Council June 24, 1998 Page 2 The areas set forth in your report were established in reference to the most economical individual areas for delivery of services from the City's perspective. The township does not necessarily agree with the criteria established for defining these areas, nor does it agree that a discussion of the issue of annexation should take place based upon those areas defmed within the City's Annexation Task Force Report. However, for purposes of simplicity, this report will refer to those areas defined by the City. The public meetings held by the Township were also noticed in reference to the areas set forth by the City only for convenience sake. The response of the citizens was mixed within those areas previously under Municipal Boardjurisdiction, the "South Shore Drive Area". Outside of that area the response was heavily negative, as summarized below. Based upon that Summary, and the Town Board's duty to represent the wishes of its constituency, it is the Town Board's request and recommendation that the City of Prior Lake and Spring Lake Township terminate the existing Agreement between the two local units of government for the following reasons: 1. The original agreement has been in existence since 1972. It was virtually ignored for the last twenty years. It was sporadically relied upon for small, isolated, annexations. In fact, it was only after a court case, which incidentally included a stipulation to the validity of the Agreement, that the three- man board, as set forth in the agreement, was reconstituted to handle planning and zoning matters within the OAA (Orderly Annexation Area). It is the township's understanding that the City would desire that the three- man board not control zoning within the area immediately adjacent to the City. 2. The City's Task Force On Annexation Report and municipal Board records, indicate that while there have been five (5) annexations pursuant to the agreement since its inception, the vast majority of land actually annexed occurred prior to 1975, with only two annexations under the agreement (1983 and 1991) after that date. The original agreement set forth certain time limitations on annexation which have not been adhered to. The original agreement indicates that affected property owners could reasonably rely upon receiving City sewer and water services within the time frame set forth in that agreement. It has become obvious during the course of township public hearings that the public has little or no confidence in the original agreement; nor would they have any confidence in the amended time frames presented by the City in the most recent report. 3. The original agreement was established partially to give notice to persons purchasing property in the OAA as to when they could count upon receiving City services. This "-' ",,, ~," .,JI,- --.~~, : .;,:11., '.. 1lI11l-,.'~ 'i......... .-~'~'-'""'"",i8: . ......" '.;~ fl'i ~'; \.;,....::Ji.aq.-iii..lloil,;;.;,..;,..,_. ~~iiir..~ a.-t., <~~ t..- Letter to Prior Lake City Council June 24, 1998 Page 3 information was vital for individual property owners to make informed decisions on whether or not to invest in new or upgraded septic systems or wells. Throughout the township hearings it was apparent, not just from those opposing annexation, that this Agreement has woefully failed to give persons within the township proper notice of when and if they could expect to receive such services. Investments have been made as needed, creating a situation which will make it difficult to provide delivery of services in an economical manner. Thus, there is little confidence in the current projections as set forth in your Task Force report. Unfortunately, no matter how well done or complete a report is, and the City is commended for doing a comprehensive exploration of the subject, past performance always heavily shades the interpretation of any proposal. 4. The Task Force report itself sets out no definite time for proposed annexation of the following areas: A. Area No.3 B. Area No. 4B C. Area No.6 D. Area No.9 As such, the City evidences no real interest in these areas and it seems unfair to include them in any proposed agreement with no realistic plan for annexation in the foreseeable future. 5. The area near Spring Lake (Areas C, D, E & F), are scheduled for annexation in 5 years. Areas 7E & 7F are the subject of the recently executed agreement for delivery of sewer and water services from the City of Prior Lake. Delivery of such services necessarily means that 7C & 7D (and possibly 7A & 7B) must remain in the township, since delivery of services will most likely have to occur through areas 7E & 7F. Pursuant to that agreement, there can be no annexation of the area receiving services during the term of bonds sold to pay for construction of the facilities. 6. Areas 1 and 10 are outside of the existing orderly annexation area. Area 1 is within Credit River Township and thus is not referenced in this response. Area 10 was simply inserted into the report by the City of Prior Lake. The Township has no interest in considering Area 10 for inclusion in the existing or any Agreement. " Letter to Prior Lake City Council June 24, 1998 Page 4 7. Outside of the above, and Area 2 which was mostly annexed by agreement, the only areas in which Prior Lake in its report shows real interest in are the following areas, within the following time frames: A. Area 4A, planned annexation within 9 years B. Area 5A planned annexation within 5 years C. Areas 7 A &7B planned annexation within 5 years. D. Area 8, planned for immediate annexation, assuming intent to annex 7A & 7B. If the City does not intend to annex those areas, only the Dunn subdivision is planned for annexation. RESULTS OF PUBLIC HEARINGS With the cooperation of the City, the Township held public hearings within each of the areas set forth in the City's Task Force report on annexation. Attached are the reports of each Town Board Supervisor holding office during the hearings. (As you may know the Town Board has had one change due to elections since the hearings.) The response was negative in most areas except for the previously referenced South Shore Drive Area. Public response within that area was mixed. Following is a summary of public response by area: 1. Area #2 (See attached Supervisors' reports) 2. Area #3 (See attached Supervisors ' reports) 3. Area #4 (See attached Supervisors' reports) 5. Area#5 (See attached Supervisors' reports) 6. Area # 6 (See attached Supervisors' reports) 7. Area #7 (See attached Supervisors' reports) 8. Area #8 (See attached Supervisors' reports) .::.. 1lII.. _1iiJI..:'" ,c.. .. lIiii .......''''' ,,:'.,J, :"E:~J:.":B; Jl<, .., .;'::S:E~I:nt1llll!:ll!::;: ~' :: .. Letter to Prior Lake City Council June 24, 1998 . Page 5 9. Area#9 (See attached Supervisors ' reports) OVERALL CONCERNS OF TOWNSIDP RESIDENTS The following were some of the various concerns most frequently brought forward by residents at the hearings: 1. Want to remain under Township form of government. 2. Cannot afford the increased taxes that would result from annexation into the City. 3. Based upon experience with previous agreement, residents do not believe that they will receive City services within the near future. 4. Many residents feel that they are properly served within the township and have no need for additional services. For instance, many people have substantial investments in septic systems and wells, which investments have been made partially because of the resident's good faith belief that no City services would be forthcoming in the foreseeable future. 5. Many residents simply do not want to be governed by the City of Prior Lake. Various City employees appeared at the public hearings and will be able to attest to the emotional testimony presented at these meetings. EXISTING ORDERLY ANNEXATION AGREEMENT Orderly annexation agreements are a tool for joint planning between a city and a township. They are encouraged by the state because it is preferred that such issues be resolved at the 10ca11eve1, if possible. Problems arise when such agreements are entered into in anticipation of facts that do not occur as anticipated. The Orderly Annexation Agreement between Spring Lake Township and Prior Lake is similar to other agreements that were entered into around the same time period. Typical of those agreements was that the amount of land area anticipated to need City services was greatly out of proportion to what was actually needed within the proposed time frame for annexation. Also typical of these agreements was that they contained various provisions that nobody really paid much attention to. Letter to Prior Lake City Council . June 24, 1998 Page 6 In this case, the three- man planning and zoning board was such a "detail" of the agreement. REASONS FOR RECINDING Tl1.E CURRENT ORDERLY ANNEXA nON AGREEMENT The overwhelming sense of the citizens of Spring Lake Township was that they oppose annexation at this time. As elected representatives, the Town Board must listen to what the people of the township say, and take policy positions based partially upon that input, as well as a reasoned evaluation of all of the facts. The following are the major reasons for terminating the existing orderly annexation agreement: 1. The majority of the people within the affected area appear not to favor annexation. 2. Annexations desired by citizens can be affected under current state statutes with no need for an Orderly Annexation Agreement. 3. The concept of an area designated for future annexation injects unneeded confusion into relationships between the City and the Township and their respective residents. 4. Continuation of the Orderly Annexation Agreement means continuation of three- man board zoning authority. 5. The existing agreement does not provide the Township with proper compensation for loss of tax base. 6. The existing OAA Agreement is perceived by many residents as a continuing threat, since annexation can theoretically occur even if the majority of people in a specific area do not want it. 7. As evidenced by the South Shore Drive area, annexation does not guarantee that the City will be willing or able to provide needed services within a reasonable time-frame. It is acknowledged that the township has formally requested that the Orderly Annexation Agreement be dropped at one point, and has also conveyed that request in the course of the negotiations involving South Shore Drive. The response to both of these requests was that the City would not consider abrogating the Agreement. However, the City has not provided the township with reasons for that position at this time. , ,~; J:.J[;~- -4"~'l-I:Jll:. . .~.-_,.aE.::'::"';;.:"'~:=::':;=:~".=:zm::' ;.:' ';:k'.:JlJ~'~~""""'W;: ]1. =1:. . .-,." Letter to Prior Lake CitY Council June 24, 1998 Page 7 CURRENT LAW Under Minn.Stat. 414.033, subds. 2 & 3, annexation of any parcel of land sixty acres or under can be initiated by 100% of the property owners by petition to the City. The property can then be annexed into the City by ordinance after a public hearing within the City. This procedure would seem to address the vast number of annexations that would be proposed within the current orderly annexation area. A larger annexation, if pursued by the property owner, can be accomplished by obtaining concurrence from the Township and the City. The previous history between the City and Township indicates that the City and Township have been able to agree upon annexation on a case by case basis. Since shortly after the commencement of the existing agreement, the issue has been primarily driven by property owners, not the City or the Township. Under the current Orderly Annexation Agreement the township is to receive no percentage of the tax revenues from property annexed to the City. On the contrary, the agreement requires that the township must deliver to the City within 15 days a proportionate share of tax revenues to the City, and then reimburse itself from the County at the time that taxes are paid. Under current statutory guidelines a Township is entitled to a declining percentage of the tax base from the property annexed based upon the taxes paid in the year of annexation. This is to acknowledge the lost tax base to the township inherent in every annexation. While the agreement contains provision for the property owners tax rate stepping up to the City rate, there is nothing that provides proper reimbursement to the township. TOWNSIUY POSITION The Township position is, as stated earlier, that the Orderly Annexation should be mutually terminated since the existing state law should suffice to address ongoing issues of annexation. That would place the issue of annexation in the hands of the property owner. The City has no obligation to approve an annexation by ordinance that does not meet its established criteria. It is understood that the City has responded negatively to the previous request from the Township for mutual recession of the existing Agreement. This, of course, was done prior to receipt of this report. Letter to Prior Lake City Council June 24, 1998 Page 8 SUMMARY The Town Board has conducted extensive hearings within the Orderly Annexation Area and pursuant to the Areas set forth in the City of Prior Lake's Task Force Report. The results of those hearings generally were that the affected citizens are not interested in annexation. The area around South Shore Drive, which is currently under the jurisdiction of the Minnesota Municipal Board, was generally split on the issue of annexation. The Town Board, just as the City Council of Prior Lake, must heavily weigh the concerns of its citizens when making a public policy determination. In this case, those most affected by the issue, the property owners within Spring Lake Township, are overwhelmingly opposed to annexation except for those specifically noted in this report and the attached Supervisor's reports. Annexations can be left to the decision of individual property owner's under current state law. The sixty- acre annexations were not available at the time the original agreement was drafted. Elimination of the agreement would also terminate the need for the present three- man board. Therefore, the Township would request that the City reconsider the issue in light of this report. The Township and its Supervisors would be glad to meet with the City Council regarding this matter at any time. EncIs. Cc: Suesan Pace, Prior Lake City Attorney Jim Lerschen, Town Clerk Town Board Supervisors ..... . lIIl~ ,M~:,.,,;.;:t,,-, . ,.., ,j .. 1IIIiiIil..lil~""""_""'.'~':;:;"~,,; .' : ,li1Dii11liilililiiiliil.l ,i:; ,;" ..:.; .;I;': , . .' . (- r REPORT ON SPRING LAKE TOWNSHIP It is clear that the overwhelming sentiment in the township is opposed to annexation. Any sentiment in favor of annexation is limited to one small neighborhood - a portion of this neighborhood is experiencing septic problems, In my opinion the desire of the people in this neighborhood that support annexation stems from their lack of faith in the capability of the Township Board to resolve their problems , rather than a favoring of annexation of and by itself. As a Township Supervisor I believe it is my duty to serve the best interests of the entire Township. This encompasses not only what is pressing in current issues but also what are the priorities for the future. There are some 3350 people that make Spring Lake Township its home. Spring Lake itself serves as the Township namesake. Through a multitude of public hearings, Township Board meetings and Special meetings we have discussed and heard opinions on the issues of Annexation and Incorporation. It is evident to me that a substantial majority of our citizens are delivering clear communications to us as Board members: 1. Be proactive in representing what is best for Spring Lake Township. Protect its borders, allow its citizens together to plan for its future, take assertive action in dealing with septic issues that need addressing throughout the Township. 2. Clearly preserve and protect our tax base. 3. Maintain the quality of living that its residents enjoy as much as possible. This includes protecting wetlands, lakes and groundwater. Protect the natural assets we enjoy and preserve open space. Allow development to proceed in a planned manner that takes into account the many natural assets we value, allow and plan for economic opportunity to proceed in an integrated fashion. 4. Solve our own issues - we have a capable Board. Utilize the powers and capabilities we have as a Township and plan for incorporation in the future (this will help us better manage our priorities and prevent erosion of tax base, block unwanted acquisitions of our land). We have the ability to contract an administrator that can manage things like bond issues, assessments, planning commissions, and any other joint powers authority the Township may have reason to administrate. 5. People of the Township are not interested in paying Prior lake Taxes 6. Maintain a healthy relationship with surrounding communities. Surrounding Townships and Cities. " i r ( We unanimouslv asked via letter to the City of Prior Lake to drop the Orderl\{ . Annexation Aareement. I believe we should continue to assert this position to the current council and the new members and mayor that will be elected by the citizens of Prior Lake in November. Although we held public hearings in regards to Prior Lakes Annexation report I don't feel we need to be bound by geographies that are predefined for us. I believe we need to be looking out for our whole township.My opinions are as follows: A. Deerfield Industrial Park: We have concluded a bad business deal. We need to initiate neaotiations to secure a better revenue sharinq basis if the decision of the Municipal Board is to hold. To let go of a 57 acre industrial area which has an estimated built value of $23 million and an approximate tax revenue of $920,000 per year for $60,000 (5 - $12,000 payments) is off the mark. This is not to mention the additional tax revenue loss of an additional 202 acres of residential property. B. South Shore Drive:. We need to be focused on solvina the problem seotic areas along South Shore Drive and for that matter the rest of the Spring Lake - as it is a system. There are 32 homeowners who are demanding a long term solution. An additional 26 homeowners currently do not have septic problems and are receptive of helping solve the issues in an economically prudent and fair manner. There are no imminent health threats ( per statute definition) that I am aware of on South Shore Drive. Also, of the 26 homes which are not experiencing problems ,14 of them are on the Lake side of the road. These 26 homes represent roughly 53 acres of land versus 27 acres for the group of 32 homes. We should solve the issues here without annexing and in cooperation' with The Citv of Prior lake for contract sewer and water services. At this time it appears both feasible and economically cost effective to be strongly looking at an alternative to the normal gravity sewer hookup. Pressurized systems or a Vacuum system which would connect to Prior Lake look most promising. By tackling this area head on I believe we can deliver a long term solution more quickly - as it will be a high priority for the township - and by being efficient in our solution we can deliver added benefit as we address other areas of the township. ...:....,~,",..,~, E~'j..~:;Lati _....<'l \S".-.,~n~,,:.iO';.~~" ,If" ."':L...........~......... liio uc ,u, " ( r C. The rest of the area around Spring Lake and the area north of County 12 and west of North wood road to Marshall road: No annexation. Continue development of a sewer and water solution around Spring Lake in a phased manner. For both South Shore Drive and the rest of the area defined we should seriously look at utilizina Environmental Subordinate Sanitarv District Statues to implement. This to be accomplished as soon as possible but no later than 2002. Priorities for this area should be established with the citizens via the Planning Advisory Committee as to which areas should be phased in first, second etc... D. The rest of the "Orderly Annexation Area" and Township No Annexation. Take initiatives to make loans I arants available for septics that need upgrading and or fixing. Look at applying solutions selected around Spring lake in a prompt manner to those that need it around Crystal lake, Fish lake, Cynthia Lake. This also may include looking at Greywater Systems connected to Package systems or common drainfield as appropriate. In conclusion: The citizens of Spring Lake Township with the exception of a group in one neighborhood only are stronalv opposed to annexation. The residents of the Township would much prefer that the abilitv to auide the townshios destiny remain in their own hands. Workina coooerativelv with Prior Lake to mange our areas growth, rather than abdicating our responsibility by turning over vast areas of the township is definitely the preferred alternative. r r Summary Notes and Tally from Spring Lake Township Public Hearings TOWNSHIP WIDE Counts: 21 Spoke in Opposition and 5 Spoke in Favor Comments: · Annexation agreement has not served the best interest of the Township . Need to provide services as quickly as possible . Question of whether or not the OAA is binding . There are no guarantees by Prior Lake · Be mindful that people personal responsibilities to maintain and fix their own septic systems · Annexation issue is breaking apart township - we should be future oriented and solve our issues · OAA was only option to solve sewer issues in 1972 - now newer proven technologies have provided other alternatives · Bring the township together and focus on helping the township · If annexed many people - for financial reasons alone would be forced to move (single parents, fixed incomes, families ect.) · Prior Lake has responsibility to serve its citizens first · Prior Lake it appears - has been calling the shots - we are reacting to Prior Lake rather than being proactive as a Township and Board · A majority of the issue is developer driven not resident/citizen driven · Solve the issue for the entirety of the township and stay in the township · Prior Lake has the 6th highest taxes in the state, Spring Lake township 71 st - where are the extra dollars going · Why wont Prior lake drop the entire OAA when the Board has unanimously requested it. · No actions should be taken that negatively impacts the tax base and natural resources of our area. · When calls to action have been requested of the Board - they have been denied · A voters referendum is an appropriate way to handle township sentiment · Prior Lake has not done a good job in planning for its industrial/commercial base - such as other communities as Lakeville - thus they are acting in a more desperate manner now · Majority rules - we have excluded 2/3s of the township . We need long term solutions · An open citizen hearing was never allowed by Prior Lake City Council · The tax consequences and fees associated with annexation and assessments are very substantial, lifestyles will be changed and we need to solve issues without impairing the rest of the township. Find a solution for all members of the entire township ,'''<.. ""~..",.. . rm:m' ~" ,-~" .... ..""'" ....... r,...".. ~" , .~.....- -""'.'" -....._. ...... .",. .~.''''.~'~ ... ~ _ '1"4 . . . c- r . It is worth more effort for the township to do its homework - solve the problem - cheaper and sooner by taking initiative. · Look at taking back what has been taken from us 7E and 7F. Count: 10 in Opposition and 10 in Favor Comments: · The economic impacts of assessments and subdividing could be devastating financially (emphasis larger lots on S Shore Drive.) · How much will citizens of Prior Lake subsidize? · Heavy Pumping on septics that have problems S Shore Drive . Mediate a solution and figure a way to get it done . Prevent any discharges to Spring Lake . Follow OAA all the way through · Allocate costs of solution on a unit cost basis . Annexation for clean water and sewer . Move ahead with a solution ASAP . Spring Lake has shown water quality improvements 7C and 70 Count: 16 in Opposition 2 in Favor Comments: · We are stuck in limbo until the issue of annexation is resolved . Solve our own issues . Increased taxes are no benefit · Choose Rural type life - People may be forced to sell . Prior Lake wants/needs to increase tax base · Find the most cost effective way to solve the issue (septic) r ( 7Aand 78 Count: 10 Opposed and 4 in Favor Comments: . Annexation is not in the best interest of the township . Preserve township boundaries . Take responsibility as a Township · People with unworking systems have a responsibility to fix and maintain their systems · Preliminary development plans for high value development requires sewer and water- indication of annexation. · Heavier development changes the whole nature and atmosphere of our lifestyles . Get sewer and water to improve lake quality · We as a township can do much more on our own without additional hierarchy- we enjoy personal touch and access- lets look at another approach to annexation . Either now or never · The whole process is backwards - need to know costs before evaluating annexation · How many times has Prior Lake used other methods and means of assessments? Section SA Count: 5 spoke in opposition and a letter was provided in unanimous opposition Comments: · No interest or advantage in being annexed · No property owners speculated with smaller lots in mind · There are Tamarac wetlands and other natural features t . hat are important · Require a full disclosure by Prior Lake of plans and how properties assessed . Question as to the validity of the OAA. " ::.. iiil. A, -- 1,ldlh":a,' ~ .k:','~ ~., :a;-:a ....'it 1,;.. ,.;.;. ";"'0;' -ii.iiIii:W:~II."~"'''', W\ . ,~c .j' if .,'.~ :~.Ji~~;~r-"n--- .~,;.;...tifil -,..: ~...".W .', ( ( Section 2 Count: 3 spoke in favor and 3 spoke in opposition Comments · Additional property owners in area 2 favor annexation of the section · In township Industrial Park up to 100K square feet and 28 homes in remainder of 200 acres, In Prior Lake 270-360 housing units not 700 homes · The original intent of the Industrial Park was to have a less expensive ($5M) option to house buses and light business. Urge not to allow this to go to Prior lake and fight it. · OM exempts the industrial park and required a legal review. · Provide for the future of the township - it is a substantial tax revenue loss to the township by any scenario. · It is premature to look a any MUSA extention based on Met Councils policies and Comprehensive Planning requirements. Section 4A and SA Count: 6 in opposition Comments: · Enjoy country living - with 180 houses across the street will lose the wildlife area · All people around this area have good functioning wells and septic - if they fail then they - the owners should upgrade · Explain the purpose of annexation if not to provide services (Answer: growth- Prior Lake) Section 48 and 4A Count: 9 spoke in opposition Comments: · Annexation does absolutely nothing for them · The township should pursue any and all avenues to abandon the OM · Disgust at developer driven nature of things versus resident driven - not one word said about revenue sharing (Messenbrink property in Section 2) - township should be compensated to keep the rest of the township going. · Want commitment that the City of Prior lake will not annex in 9 years (Answer - request that of the City) ( ( · Several people mentioned that they did their homework and researched and there was no talk of annexation - they choose this country lifestyle and several plan on retiring there - without annexation. · They made plans based on what they were told by the City. · One person stated that PL was one of the worst managed cities in his view - has done nothing to works things through with the people - all they want is to get bigger -lots of people opposed. Town Board has done nothing for us yet. · Did not get notified when their land was reclassified to 2.5 Acres and should have been - this is no different than if a neighbor builds a new building - what is the legal process to go back to 10 acres · Want to see survey of all people of the township in regards to annexation issue · The passivity of the Township Board has let annexation be driven by the City. I,,,, . , 'iIlIIIli~,,_:::< ;., i6.. .'IIIIIilIII;,l,t~,..,..~'''';M''''-liI.)j;o . ,i'l,:.;,;jtl~b\illl.iln~ a,a a.tIi..rt: ,~.....,......tl \ --- JOHN P HENSCHEL TOWNSHIP SUPERVISOR SPRING LAKE TOWNSHIP 17665 VERGUS AVENUE JORDAN, MN. 55352 HOME PHONE: (612) 440-3341 WORK PHONE: (612) 559-3850 FACSIMILE: (612) 559-3852 EMAIL: JHENSc1068@AOL.COM RADZWILL & COURI 705 CENTRAL AVENUE EAST PO BOX 369 ST. MICHAEL, MN 55376 ATTENTION ANDREW J. MacARTHUR RE: RESPONSE TO PRIOR LAKE ANNEXATION TASK PORCE REPORT. DEAR ANDY: AS PER YOUR REQUEST PLEASE FIND ATTACHED MY PERSPECTIVE ON PRIOR LAKE'S ANNEXATION TASK FORCE REPORT DATED APRIL 4. 1997, THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE AITACHED DOCUMENT IS BASED IN PART ON CITIZEN INPUT RECEIVED AT A SERIES OF PUBLIC HEARINGS CONDUCTED IN THE ORDERLY ANNEXATION AREA AND THE ENTIRE TOWNSHIP. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS BASED ON COMMENTS MADE BY TOWNSHIP RESIDENTS AT REGULAR TOWNSHIP MEETINGS AS WELL AS CONVERSATIONS AND LETTERS I HAVE RECEIVED FROM LOCAL RESIDENTS, I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU AND MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS (DUANE BORKA & PETER YEARNEAU) IN DRAFTING OUR FORMAL RESPONSE TO THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE. PLEASE DO ADVISE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. ~7~1. Q) o P HENSCHEL S NG LAKE TOWNSHIP SUPERVISOR cc: DUANE BORKA, PETER YEARNEAU AND JIM LERSHEN JOHN P HENSCHEL TOWNSHIP SUPERVISOR SPRING LAKE TOWNSHIP 17665 VERGUS AVENUE JORDAN, MN. 55352 HOME PHONE: (612) 440-3341 WORK PHONE: (612) 559-3850 FACSIMILE: (612) 559-3852 EMAIL: MJ@USINTERNET.COM TO: ANDREW J, MacARHTUR FROM: JOHN P HENSCHEL - SPRING LAKE TOWNSHIP SUPERVISOR SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO PRIOR LAKE'S ANNEXATION TASK FORCE REPORT OF APRIL 7, 1997 BACKGROUND: IN NOVEMBER OF 1996 THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED ITS DESIRE TO ANNEX A PORTION OF SPRING LAKE TOWNSHIP UNDER AN ORDERLY ANNEXATION AGREEMENT THAT HAD BEEN IN EFFECT SINCE 1972. AT THAT TIME THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE DID NOT ANNOUNCE WHAT PORTION OF LAND CONTAINED IN THE ORDERLY ANNEXATION AREA THEY WISHED TO TAKE INTO THE CITY. THE TOTAL LAND AREA IN THE ORDERLY ANNEXATION AREA REPRESENTS A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE ENTIRE TOWNSHIP. THIS AREA ALSO REPRESENTS APPROXIMATELY 30% OF THE TOWNSHIP'S TAX BASE. IN DECEMBER OF 1996 THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE ESTABLISHED A TASK FORCE TO INVESTIGATE THE ISSUE OF ANNEXATION AND MAKE A REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL. THE REPORT WAS PREPARED BY THE TASK FORCE AND APPROVED BY THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL ON APRIL 4. 1997. IN A LEITER FROM FRANK BOYLES. CITY MANAGER OF PRIOR LAKE, DATED APRIL 9.1997 THE TASK FORCE REPORT WAS OFFICIALLY CONVEYED TO THE TOWNSHIP. IN THE LETTER FROM MR. BOYLES, ALONG WITH THE TASK FORCE REPORT, IT WAS RECOMMENDED THAT SPRING LAKE TOWNSHIP CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARINGS TO SOLICIT TOWNSHIP CITIZEN FEEDBACK ON THE REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS WITH THE IDEA THAT THE TOWNSHIP WOULD OFFER ITS RESPONSE TO THE TASK FORCE REPORT. TOWNSHIP BOARD ACTIONS THE TASK FORCE REPORT CONTAINED A MAP AND MATRIX OF POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREAS BROKEN DOWN INTO 10 SEPARATE AREAS. WITH SOME OF THESE AREAS FURTHER BROKEN DOWN INTO SUB AREAS. THE MATRIX CONTAINS A SHORT REPORT ON EACH AREA WITH A RECOMMENDATION AS TO WHEN THE SPECIFIC AREA WOULD BE ANNEXED AND WHEN THE AREA WOULD RECEIVE SEWER AND WATER, IF AT ALL. THE SPRING LAKE TOWN BOARD DECIDED TO USE THE SAME MAP AND MATRIX TO CONDUCT A SERIES OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WITHIN THE TOWNSHIP IN ORDER TO OBTAIN FEED BACK FROM THE TOWNSHIP RESIDENTS. EIGHT PUBLIC HEARINGS WERE HELD. NOTED BELOW IS A BRIEF SUMMARY OF EACH AREA: AREA 1 THIS PROPERTY IS WITHIN CREDIT RIVER TOWNSHIP AND WILL NOT BE ADDRESSED IN THIS REPORT, AREA 2 PUBLIC HEARING HELD WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23,1997 X'JJi!iJn=-r~..,.- .PR1',p;""~::xi;:,:...' f :,,1lI '. 'llIi lllIr.... ;.. :c.'., ...~:;;.:lil,;:;.. ,'jl., .' X;;,,':,'J,,'JI.l:IJIIZm: .:1:. .:z: :::j"'- .~' ~ ~.. COMMONLY CALLED DEERFIELD DEVELOPMENT A 270 ACRE PARCEL ADJACENT TO THE CITY'S WATERFRONT PASSAGE BUSINESS PARK. OWNER INITIATED ANNEXATION. JOINT ~SOLUTION FOR ORDERLY ANNEXATION BETWEEN THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE AND SPRING LAKE SIGNED IN MAY. SPRING LAKE TOWNSHIP TO RECEIVE $60.000.00 OVER 5 YEARS IN INSTALLMENTS OF $12.000,00 PER YEAR. AREA 8 PUBLIC HEARING HELD WEDNESDAY. MAY 7. 1997 THIS IS A 350 ACRE PARCEL AND INCLUDES THE SIX LOT DUNN PARCEL ALONG WITH THE UNDEVELOPED SPRING LAKE REGIONAL PARK PRIOR LAKE HAS THE ENTIRE AREA RECOMMENDED FOR IMMEDIATE ANNEXATION. THIS AREA HAS A TOTAL OF SIX LANDOWNERS, A LETTER WAS PRESENTED THAT WAS SIGNED BY FIVE OF THE SIX LANDOWNERS STATING THAT THEY HAVE NO INTENTION OF BECOMING PART OF PRIOR LAKE AND WISH TO STAY IN SPRING LAKE TOWNSHIP. (COPY ATTACHED) A NUMBER OF RESIDENTS OF THIS AREA COMMENTED THAT THEY ARE OPPOSED TO ANNEXATION AND ASKED PRIOR LAKES PLANNING DIRECTOR. DON RYE. NUMEROUS TIMES WHY THE CITY WANTED TO ANNEX THEM, IN MY OPINION A REASONABLE ANSWER WAS NEVER GIVEN. SEVERAL OTHER RESIDENTS OF THE TOWNSHIP WHO DO NOT RESIDE IN AREA 8 EXPRESSED THEIR DESIRE TO HAVE THIS AREA STAY IN THE TOWNSHIP, VIRTUALLY EVERY RESIDENT WHO COMMENTED AT THIS HEARING WAS OPPOSED TO ANNEXATION. THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO SUPPORT OF PRIOR LAKES PROPOSAL. AREA 7E &: 7F PUBLIC HEARING HELD THURSDAY. MAY 29. 1997 COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS SOUTH SHORE DRIVE. APPROXIMATELY 24 RESIDENTS OF THIS AREA OFFERED COMMENTARY AT THIS HEARING, APPROXIMATELY HALF OF THE RESIDENTS COMMENTING WANT TO BE ANNEXED. APPROXIMATELY 25 PERCENT OF THE INDIVIDUALS COMMENTING WERE OPPOSED TO ANNEXATION. THE REMAINING 25 PERCENT OF INDIVIDUALS COMMENTING WERE SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE AS IT WAS DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE IF THEY WERE PRO OR CON. THIS GROUPS COMMENTS CENTERED AROUND ISSUES LIKE GETTING EVERYONE TO WORK TOGETHER AND COME UP WITH A WORKABLE SOLUTION FOR EVERYONE. IN JANUARY THE TOWNSHIP SEND A QUESTIONNAIRE TO ALL RESIDENTS WITHIN THE ORDERLY ANNEXATION AREA NOT SURPRISINGLY OF THE 320 RESPONSES RECEIVED OVER 73% WERE OPPOSED TO ANNEXATION. ONE MUST TAKE NOTE OF THE FACT THAT IN AREA 7F 64% OF THE RESPONSES RECEIVED FROM RESIDENTS IN THIS AREA WERE IN FAVOR OF ANNEXATION. ON MAY 16. 1997 A PETITION AND WRu lLN REQUEST SIGNED BY ALMOST 63% OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS OF SOUTH SHORE DRIVE (116 TOTAL PROPERTY OWNERS) WAS SUBMU lLD TO PRIOR LAKES CITY MANAGER FRANK BOYLES SEEKING ANNEXATION INTO THE CITY, THE ISSUE OF ANNEXATION ON THIS STREET IS PARTICULARLY HEATED WITH RESIDENTS ON OPPOSITE SIDES OF THE STREET AT ODDS WITH EACH OTHER. BASICALLY THE RESIDENTS ON THE LAKE SIDE OF THE STREET HAVE SMALLER LOTS AND SEPTIC PROBLEMS. MANY WITHOUT SOLUTIONS OTHER THAN INSTALLING HOLDING TANKS. THE NON LAKE SIDE OF THE STREET HAS LARGER LOTS CAPABLE OF INSTALLING ALTERNATIVE SEPTIC SITES. AREAS 7C &70 PUBLIC HEARING HELD THURSDAY. JULY 24. 1997 THIS AREA ENCOMPASSES THE SOUTHWESTERN SHORE OF SPRING LAKE A MAJOR PORTION OF THIS AREA IS LOCATED ON VERGUS AVENUE AND SPRING LAKE CIRCLE. MANY OF THE SAME PROBLEMS THAT PLAGUE SOUTH SHORE DRIVE ARE COMMON IN THIS AREA.. A NUMBER OF SMALL LOTS ON THE LAKE SIDE OF THE ROAD WITH OLDER HOMES NEEDING UPGRADED SEWER AND WATER SYSTEMS. ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROAD ACREAGE LOTS WITH NEWER HOMES NOT REQUIRING SEPTIC UPGRADES. COMMENTS GIVEN AT THIS MEETING BY RESIDENTS OPPOSED TO ANNEXATION OUTNUMBERED COMMENTS BY RESIDENTS IN FAVOR OF ANNEXATION. MANY OF THE NEGATIVE COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM RESIDENTS WERE CONCERNED ABOUT INCREASE IN TAXES AS WELL AS ASSESSMENT CHARGES SHOULD THE AREA BE PROVIDED WITH SEWER AND WATER. COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM RESIDENTS DESIRING TO BE ANNEXED INTO THE CITY SEEMED TO CENTER AROUND THE NEED FOR MUNICIPAL SERVICES, I LIVE IN THIS AREA AND STATED THAT I WAS OPPOSED TO ANNEXATION, ANOTHER SUPERVISOR ALSO RESIDES IN THIS AREA AND EXPRESSED SIMILAR SENTIMENTS. IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT AT OUR SEPTEMBER 11. 1997 REGULAR TOWNSHIP MEETING A LETIER WAS SUBMITIED BY 4 PROPERTY OWNERS REQUESTING ANNEXATION INTO PRIOR LAKE. AREAS 7A & 7B PUBLIC HEARING HELD THURSDAY. JULY 31. 1997 NORTHWESTERN SIDE OF SPRING LAKE. COMMENTS GIVEN BY RESIDENTS OPPOSED TO ANNEXATION OUT NUMBERED COMMENTS IN FAVOR OF ANNEXATION BY MORE THAN TWO TO ONE. REASONS GIVEN BY INDMDUALS OPPOSED WERE CONCERNS ABOUT ASSESSMENT FEES. INCREASE IN TAXES AND CONCERNS ABOUT DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD FOLLOW. MANY EXPRESSED A DESIRE TO MAINTAIN THE RURAL NATURE OF THE AREA. ONE INDMDUAL THAT SPOKE IN FAVOR OF ANNEXATION MENTIONED IiIS STREET HAS MANY FAILING SEPTIC SYSTEMS AND THAT THE MAJORITY OF RESIDENTS ON HIS STREET WANTED ANNEXATION TO SOLVE SEWER PROBLEMS. IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT NONE OF HIS NEIGHBORS COMMENTED AT THIS HEARING. TWO OTHER INDMDUALS COMMENTING WERE LAND OWNERS OF ACREAGE IN BOTH CASES THEY COMMENTED THAT THEY Wfu~ED TO BE ANNEXED SO THAT THEY COULD DEVELOP THEIR PROPERTY. ONE OF THESE INDMDUALS COMMENTED THAT THEY HAD SENT LETIERS TO PRIOR LAKE REQUESTING TO BE ANNEXED. AREAS 4A & SA PUBLIC HEARING HELD THURSDAY. AUGUST 7.1997 -. liJ.;.' ~ -'Uii'l(:;~1i;. )~i#.!.:..IIItiil:,;tjf'&.l.liliIH~,dW.~:~~ ..'\~~ .. ;.,;.,.&:~~~~~.... a.. .-i&..ri. ,'f~' """',"."1 " AREA 4A IS CONSIDERED FOR ANNEXATION IN 9 YEARS. AREA 5A IS CONSIDERED FOR ANNEXATION IN 5 YEARS ALL RESIDENTS AT THIS MEETING THAT OFFERED COMMENTS WERE OPPOSED TO ANNEXATION. THERE WAS VIRTUALLY NO SUPPORT FOR PRIOR LAKES PROPOSAL. AREAS 3. 4B. 5B. 8l: 9 PUBLIC HEARING HELD THURSDAY, AUGUST 21. 1997 AREA 3 IS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR ANNEXATION. AREA 4B IS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR ANNEXATION, AREA 5B IS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR ANNEXATION, AREA 6 IS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR ANNEXATION. AREA 9 IS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR ANNEXATION. VIRTUALLY EVERY RESIDENT WHO COMMENTED AT THIS HEARING WAS OPPOSED TO ANNEXATION. ONE RESIDENT ASKED PRIOR LAKE PLANNING DIRECTOR. DON RYE TO EXPLAIN THE TASK FORCE REPORT WITH REGARDS TO AREAS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR ANNEXATION. MR. RYE COMMENTED THAT ALL AREAS INCLUDED IN THIS HEARING WERE NOT SLATED IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE. WHEN PRESSED BY RESIDENTS WHAT THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE MEANT MR. RYE'S ANSWER WAS NOT FOR AT LEAST NINE YEARS. ENTIRE TOWNSHIP PUBLIC HEARING HELD THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1997 THIS WAS THE LAST OF THE SERIES OF MEETINGS AND WAS OPEN TO ALL RESIDENTS OF THE TOWNSHIP, COMMENTS GIVEN BY RESIDENTS AT THIS MEETING IN OPPOSITION TO ANNEXATION OUT NUMBERED THOSE IN FAVOR OF ANNEXATION BY MORE THAN 2 TO 1. ONE RESIDENT COMMENTED THAT HE WAS NOT NECESSARILY OPPOSED TO ANNEXATION BUT DID OPPOSE PRIOR LAKES CURRENT PROPOSAL. MANY RESIDENTS THAT COMMENTED WERE SYMPATHETIC TO THE SEPTIC PROBLEMS BEING ENCOUNTERED ON SOUTH SHORE DRIVE BUT EXPRESSED A DESIRE FOR THE TOWNSHIP TO FIND A SOLUTION AND KEEP THE AREA IN THE TOWNSHIP. A NUMBER OF RESIDENTS EXPRESSED CONCERNS ABOUT THE INCREASE IN TAXES IF THEY ARE ANNEXED INTO PRIOR LAKE. SOME STATED THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO MOVE IF THEIR TAXES INCREASED, COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM RESIDENTS IN SUPPORT OF ANNEXATION CAME MOSTLY FROM RESIDENTS EXPERIENCING SEPTIC PROBLEMS AROUND SPRING LAKE. THE COMMENTS CENTERED AROUND THE FACT THAT SOME OF THESE RESIDENTS HAVE BEEN WAITING AS LONG AS 25 YEARS FOR A SOLUTION TO THEIR PROBLEMS AND IF THEY WERE ANNEXED INTO THE CITY THEY WOULD AT LEAST HAVE ACCESS TO CITY SEWER AND WATER. IN FACT ONE RESIDENT OF VERGUS AVENUE PRESENTED A LEITER SIGNED BY FOUR HOMEOWNERS REQUESTING TO BE ANNEXED INTO PRIOR LAKE. CONCLUSION THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE HAS PUT THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE. IN THE TASK FORCE REPORT IT IS MENTIONED SEVERAL TIMES THAT THE CITY NEEDS TO DO A FINANCIAL ANALYSIS PRIOR TO ANNEXATION OF ANY AREA TO INSURE THAT THE ANNEXATION WILL NOT HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE CITY AND ITS TAXPAYERS. WITH REGARDS TO AREAS 4A, 5, 7A, 7B, 7C, 7D, 7E AND 7F THE REPORT STATES THAT EXTENDING SEWER, WATER AND STREET .. EXTENSION WOULD HAVE TO BE FEASIBLE FROM AN ENGINEERING AND FINANCIAL PERSPECTIVE. WHY HAS THE CITY NOT CONDUCTED THE FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY STUDY AND DONE THE ENGINEERING PRIOR TO ANNOUNCING THEIR PLANS FOR ANNEXATION? TInS ENTIRE PROCESS IS BACKWARDS. THE TASK FORCE REPORT ALSO STATES THAT THERE MAY BE AREAS WHICH ONLY WISH TO BE ANNEXED WITHOUT RECEIVING SEWER AND WATER. I WOULD LIKE THE CITY TO EXPLAIN WHERE THIS AREA IS, IF YOU TAKE AWAY SEWER AND WATER FROM ANNEXATION WHAT CAN THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE OFFER RESIDENTS THAT THEY DO NOT ALREADY HAVE. THROUGHOUT THE TASK FORCE REPORT IT IS MENTIONED THAT A FINANCIAL ANALYSIS BE DONE TO ASSURE THAT ANNEXATION WILL NOT HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE TAXPAYERS OF THE CITY. WITH THE ORDERLY ANNEXATION AREA REPRESENTING APPROXIMATELY 1/3 OF THE TOWNSHIPS TAX BASE ONE HAS TO WONDER WHAT WILL THE FINANCIAL IMPACT BE TO THE TOWNSHIP? MANY OF THE RESIDENTS THAT HAVE EXPRESSED A DESIRE TO BE ANNEXED HAVE DONE SO WITH THE BELIEF THAT IT IS THE ONLY WAY TO RECEIVE MUNICIPAL SERVICES. SOME HAVE PUBLICLY STATED THAT IF THE TOWNSHIP WERE ABLE TO PROVIDE THESE SERVICES THEY WOULD PREFER TO REMAIN IN THE TOWNSHIP. THE TASK FORCE REPORT STATES THAT AREAS 7E AND 7F (WHERE MANY OF THESE RESIDENTS ARE LOCATED) IS SLATED FOR CONSIDERATION OF ANNEXATION IN THE NEXT 5 YEARS. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT THIS AREA WILL RECEIVE MUNICIPAL SERVICES FROM THE CITY IF ANNEXED. WHEN PRIOR LAKE ORIGINALLY ANNOUNCED THEIR PLANS FOR ANNEXATION THEY STATED NUMEROUS TIMES THAT THEY WOULD NOT EXTEND MUNICIPAL SERVICES BEYOND THEIR BORDERS. SINCE THAT TIME THEY HAVE SOFTENED ON THIS POSITION AND SEEM WILLING TO MAKE THESE SERVICES AVAILABLE TO AT LEAST A PORTION OF THE TOWNSHIP - SOUTH SHORE DRIVE. IT IS MY OPINION THAT SPRING LAKE TOWNSHIP SHOULD NEGOTIATE WITH PRIOR LAKE FOR THE EXTENSION OF MUNICIPAL SERVICES TO AREAS 7E & 7F WITH THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE FOLLOWING POINTS: · THIS AREA REMAIN IN THE TOWNSHIP AND THAT IT BE DROPPED FROM THE ORDERLY ANNEXATION AREA · THAT THE CHARGES FOR USE OF THESE SERVICES BE SIMILAR TO THE RATES CHARGED TO PRIOR LAKE RESIDENTS. · THAT THE SEWER AND WATER PIPES ARE SIZED IN SUCH A MANNER TO ALLOW FOR FUTURE EXPANSION TO OTHER AREAS OF THE LAKE. · THAT IT IS FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE FOR THE RESIDENTS OF THIS AREA TO ACQUIRE THESE SERVICES. IT IS ALSO MY OPINION THAT THE TOWNSHIP OF SPRING LAKE AGAIN APPROACH THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE AND REQUEST THEM TO RECONSIDER OUR REQUEST FOR MUTUAL RESCISSION OF THE ORDERLY ANNEXATION AGREEMENT. IF THE CITY REFUSES TO CONSIDER OUR ABOVE REQUEST IT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION TO REJECT THE RECOMMENDATION'S IN THE TASK FORCE REPORT AND REQUEST THAT THE TASK FORCE STUDY THE ISSUES AND RETURN TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR DIRECTION. ~ -.' .~_,_,,,,,~~.>._,,,,_,,,Jl'ilI""~"; \f''!:' ,.-. ft ~:!'""W';'~"W~--""""-~T'Ii"'<<'F"'_ ,tq; I ,.- c" ":"'~ ".~_~_._ -. "W. -. l' '. . , '. r r " .;' RESPONSE TO PRIOR LAKE'S CONSIDERATION OF ANNEXATION TASK FORCE REPORT BY DUANE BORKA 1.) AREA 1 & 10 ARE NOT IN THE ANNEXATION AREA AND WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR ANNEXATION BY THE TOWNSHIP. IT WILL REMAIN IN THE TOWNSHIP. 2.) WEDNESDAY APRIL 23, 1997 AREA 2, PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ANNEXATION APPROXITMATEL Y 30 PEOPLE IN Al U:tiIDANCE THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN Al u~.rIDANCE (FAVOR) ANNEXATION SPECIAL NOTE: THE MAJORITY OF AREA 2, HAS ALLREADY BEEN ANNEXED INTO THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE BY REQUEST OF TIlE MAJORITY OF THE LAND OWNERS. 3,) WEDNESDAYMAY7,1997 AREA 8, PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ANNEXATION APPROXITMATEL Y 20 PEOPLE IN AII~IDANCE THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN Al I.J::.IIDANCE (DO NOT FAVOR) ANNEXATION 4.) THURSDAY MAY 29, 1997 AREA'S 7E & 7F, PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ANNEXATION APPROXIMATELY 70 PEOPLE IN AII.J::.IIDANCE THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN Al l.J::.NUANCE (FAVOR) ANNEXATION SPECIAL NOTE: TInS AREA IS UNDER THE MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARDS ORDER TO RESOLVE THE PROBLEMS OF TIllS AREA, AND SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN OUR REPORT TO THE \...u i OF PRIOR LAKE. THIS AREA WILL RESOLVE IT'S PROBLEMS WITH THE MINNESOTA MUNICIPAl BOARD IN CHARGE. , 5.) THURSDAY JULY 24, 1997 AREA'S 7C &7D, PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ANNEXATION APPROXIMATELY 50 PEOPLE IN AII.J::.IIDANCE THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN Al l.J::.rIDANCE (DO NOT FAVOR) ANNEXATION . . r ( 6.) TIruRSDAY JULY 31,1997 AREA'S 7A & 7B, PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ANNEXATION APPROXIMATELY 50 PEOPLE IN All~lIDANCE TIlE MAJORIY OF PEOPLE IN AllelIDANCE (DO NOT FAVOR) ANNEXATION 7.) THURSDAY AUGUST 7, 1997 AREA'S 4A & S~ PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ANNEXATION APPROXIMATELY 30 PEOPLE IN All~lIDANCE TIlE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN All~!IDANCE (DO NOT FAVOR) ANNEXATION 8.) THURSDAY AUGUST 21, 1997 AREA'S 3 4B SB 6 9, PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ANNEXATION APPROXIMATELY 40 PEOPLE IN All~.rIDANCE TIlE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN Ai i~Il/uANCE (DO NOT FAVOR) ANNEXATION 9.) TIruRSDAY Set' U~.~lDtK 18, 1997 ALL OF SPRING LAKE TOWNSHIP, PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ANNEXATION APPROXIMATELY ZfJ.. PEOPLE IN All.e.lIDANCE THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN Al J.e!-IDANCE (lk2A/JJ[.fe.tr) ANNEXATION "" .,---_!,,:~ _,. .. 'tII!!i'1"r;'lI'~,"'II:",~-, !t :'!' J"~..m"_~,! l! '!' ..., ~" . . r. ( MAJOR REASONS FOR ANNEXATION 1.) FIRST ;:)1ti' FORREClVEING CITY SERVICES. (SEWER& WATER) 2.) CLEANING UP 11"1.h LAKES, (SPRlNG& PRIOR LAKE) AGAIN BY RECIEVEING CITY SERVICES, 3.) NEED \..11 i W AT.ER. PRESURES FOR FIRE CODE OF COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 4.) Ii,_ . . r ( MAJOR REASONS AGAlNEST ANNEXATION 1.) mGHER TAXES 2.) SMALLER LOTS SIZES, IF ANNEXED INTO l~ CITY, LOT SIZES COULD BE MUCH SMALLER THEN THE TOWNSHIP WOULD ALLOW. 3.) PEOPLE WANT TO REMAIN IN THE TOWNSHIP, NOT THE \.,l.l Y. 4.) PEOPLE IN THE TOWNSHIP DISTRUST THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE. 5.) HARDSHIP ON THE REMAINING TOWNSHIP IF TO MUCH TAX BASE IS LOST. 6.) TOWNSHIP SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO SOL VB THEIR OWN PROBLEMS. 7.) -~'iA( :ii=& ... .. _,..~.-.,..IlJIIIi-~- 11\", . .:'.l,llIiIilo~'---_ .";"'Ii >il\ ~'.~,1 (f ( CONCLUSION: IT IS MY POSSITION At< l~K ALL THE PUBLIC HEARINGS AND CONVERSATIONS WITH TOWNSHIP RESIDENTS. (EXCLUDING AREA'S 7E &1F) THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF RESIDENTS IN THE TOWNSHIP, ( DO NOT ) WANT TO BE ANNXEDINTO THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE. THEIRFOR, IT IS MY PossmON AS TOWNSIDP SU.l:"~KVISOR AND CHAIRMAN, THAT WE THE TOWNSIDP,DO NOT WANT, AND WILL NOT ALLOW, (EXCLUDING AREA 7E &1F) ANY PART OF THE TOWNSHIP TO BE ANNEXED INTO InJ!, \..J1 I OF PRIOR LAKE. NOT IN 5, 7, OR 9YEARS IN THE FURTURE IN ACCORDANCE TO THE ANNEXATION TASK FORCE REPORT SET FORTH BY THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE. TIllS IN NO WAY STOPS ANY RESIDENT OF mE TOWNSHIP FRON PAII110NING FOR ANNEXATION INTO THE \,,11 r OF PRIOR LAKE., WHICH IS THEIR RIGHT UNDER THE LAW, '" a'"-'.'.a""'~'"""I}1 ,.. ." -;.. a.a .1lIIN,_.,,,,IIIIlIlI"'~ iii,;" '.'.,,~liliii"''''-",iiIi atilo'll: ,,~'''','' t .