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 .