HomeMy WebLinkAbout7A - Annexation Report
iJl
STAFF AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT:
7A
FRANK BOYLES, CITY MANAGER
CONSIDERATION OF ANNEXATION TASK FORCE
REPORT.
APRIL 7, 1997
DATE:
BACKGROUND:
In December of 1996, the City Council established a Task
Force to investigate the issue of Annexation and make a
report to the City Council with recommendations on how
to proceed with this matter. Attached is a report which
was prepared by the Annexation Task Force for City
Council consideration.
DISCUSSION:
The attached Annexation Task Force report recommends
that generally speaking, the southerly most areas in the
Orderly Annexation area be deleted from present
consideration for annexation. Second, that a number of
other areas be considered for annexation along a five to
nine year timeline, subject to certain procedural steps and
safeguards. The final recommendation is that two
properties, e.g. the 270 acre Mesenbrink-Gensmer parcel
and the area known as Area 8 containing the old Dunn
subdivision be annexed immediately. A sample joint
resolution is attached which could be considered by both
the City and Township Board for one or both areas.
In accordance with previous Council direction, the
procedural safeguards provide that prior to any
annexation, a financial analysis be done to assure that the
annexation will not have a negative impact on the City
and its taxpayers in the long term. For the purposes of
this report, that financial analysis has been done for the
270 acres since it is the only area which would appear to
have a substantial immediate impact on Prior Lake.
According to that financial analysis, and the assumptions
it makes, the 270 acre parcel will have a beneficial impact
on City tax base when viewed over a 20 year time frame.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
ISSUES:
One of the most important issues facing the City of Prior
Lake is the Annexation question. It is important that this
issue be resolved with some level of permanency in one
fashion or another.
ALTERNATIVES:
The Council has the following alternatives:
1. Adopt the Annexation Task Force recommendations as
submitted, or with amendments as the Council deems
appropriate.
2. Direct that the City staff prepare additional
information not addressed in the report.
3. Direct that the report be conveyed to the Township
Board with a recommendation that the Board conduct one
or more Public Hearings to apprise Township Citizens of
the Proposals and convey their position to the City
Council.
4. Do Nothing and direct that the Task Force abandon
any further efforts regarding annexation.
RECOMMENDATION: Alternatives 1 and 3.
ACTION REQUIRED: Motion and second to adopt the Annexation Task Force
Recommendations, direct that the report by solicited to the
Spring Lake Township Board with the suggestion that
they conduct one or more Public Hearings for their
residents.
Attachment
4797AN.DOC
.._f:i.':::.I.~:.g.l.g::.Ii..H:I::.::
:;:::;:;:;:;:;:::::;:::::;::.
....................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.................
.......................
......................
.......................
.....................
..... ........
.... .......
.... ........ .. ...
..............................
.:' ... ~:::~:~:~:~r:r;:::::::::::::~:~:~:}~{::::::::::::.:.:-......
.................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
:::::::;:;:;:::::::;:;:;;;:;:::
.................................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
... .......... ......
....... .' '.;.;.
.. .....................
...........................................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.................:...........:.:..... ..
... :.;:~:~~;:;~~~~~::::~r~tjf~/tfr){r{!~~(~
.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: .. r\jt:~:ri;!i?ti/}tf
.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.:.:.:.;.
..
............. . ....
. . . . . . . . .
...... .... ...
... ... ..
................................
..................
................. .
..................
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::....;.;.:.:.:.
... .. .. ..... " .::::;;:::.:.::::::::::::;:::
. ....... :::i:;:i;.::;:i:~:::i:;:i::::::;:i??::~::;;;:f:t:::::. ...........
.;::;::;::::::::::;:.:::::::.:
f(((~(((:::
.................,...............................................
...............................
.................
...............................
. . .. . ..... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.......................................
..............................-.........
.......................................
........................................
.......................................
.................................. ..
. ..... ..........
.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.;.:.:.:.:.:.
.....................
................... .
.....................
....................
.....................
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
April 4, 1997
The Mayor and City Council
Annexation Task Force
Annexation Recommendations for Council and Township Discussion
BACKGROUND AND HISTORY:
The present City of Prior Lake itself is the originally incorporated City changed by
numerous annexations which have occurred over the last two score years. In 1972,
the City of Prior Lake entered into an orderly annexation agreement with Spring
Lake Township, anticipating that a significant portion of the township would be
annexed into Prior Lake. The agreement was amended in 1991 to accommodate a
request by the City and Woodridge Subdivision's developer to incorporate that
residential development within the City's limits. Since 1991, the three person
Annexation Board created by the agreement has been the responsible party for
acting on zoning and variance requests in the Orderly Annexation Area.
More recently, the City Council has wrestled with the possibility of annexation as
provided for in the Orderly Annexation Agreement. At the City Manager's
recommendation, the City Council constituted a Task Force for the purpose of
studying and making recommendations on this issue. The Task Force consists of
City Councilmember Tom Kedrowski, former City Councilmember Doug Larsen,
and City Engineer Greg Ilkka, Planning Director Don Rye, and City Manager Frank
Boyles.
The objective of the subcommittee is to provide a report containing findings and
recommendations with respect to annexation to the Council and Township Board.
The recommendations, once approved by the Council, are intended. to be the basis
for any future City actions with respect to annexation.
OVERVIEW:
As part of its activity, the task force has completed the following:
H:\CMANAGER\MEMO\ANNEXA. DOC
1
. Review a variety of information, historical and otherwise relating to the subject
of annexation.
. Identified a proposed set of action steps and timeline for the preparation of this
report.
. Prepared a matrix and map of potential annexation areas, some within and
some outside of the Orderly Annexation area for consideration.
. Reviewed each of the ten areas to have a better sense of the desirability of each
land area for annexation.
. Walked the properties identified on the maps, observed the terrain, existing
developments, transportation ways, and other features.
. Conducted a public meeting inviting township officials from Spring Lake and
Credit River to garner their input on the subject.
. Discussed annexation processes, legal issues, and practical considerations with
Terry Merritt, attorney and former Executive Director of the Minnesota
Municipal Board.
. Solicited and received informal input from the Township Boardmembers, School
District officials, Metropolitan Council staff, and landowners with substantial
holdings.
. Prepared this report for City Council and Township Board consideration.
DISCUSSION:
All of the potential annexation areas are affected by the issue of Metropolitan Sewer
Capacity. The City is connected to the Metropolitan Council of Environmental
Services (MCES) Sewer System. Capacity of the MCES's interceptor is estimated to
serve a population equivalent (PE) of 50,000 PE which is the population estimate for
the ultimate development of the City of Prior Lake City limits including the current
Orderly Annexation Area. This does not mean that the City pipes currently have
the capacity to serve this development density.
The PE number is calculated based on the gross acreage minus existing wetland
acreage, this net acreage is multiplied by a density of 2.5 units/acre and 2.6
persons/unit or 6.5 persons per net acre. Based upon the current population of Prior
Lake at 13,000 and multiplying 6.5 x the remaining buildable acreage within the
City limits and the proposed 10 annexation areas, a PE total of 53,500 was
calculated. Further analysis and future monitoring of sewage flow would need to be
done (if all ten annexation areas were brought into the City) so as not to overburden
the MCES interceptor line.
A second issue affecting the annexation question is ground water. The Department
of Natural Resources and state statute eliminate the City's ability to draw
additional water from the Jordan aquifer, which is where virtually all of the City's
water is derived. The City will be limited to use of the Mount Simon / Hinckley
aquifer which is also a restricted source because of its protracted recharge
characteristics.
H:\CMAN AGER\MEMO\ANNEXA. DOC
2
- -- -- ---, --
'9'
,'j;
A third issue relates to annexation versus sewer and water extension. There may
be areas which only wish to be annexed without receiving sewer and water. This
report recognizes this potential and provides procedural steps through which
annexation could be initiated. A separate set of procedural steps are included to
determine if sewer, water, and streets are to be extended to any area once annexed.
Areas 2 through 9 are all located in Spring Lake Township and are within an
Orderly Annexation area which is governed both by statute, case law and an
Orderly Annexation Agreement. Within this area, there are property owners who
strongly support annexation and utility extension and others who strongly oppose
such action.
Area 10 is also within the Spring Lake Township but is not within the Orderly
Annexation area and not subject to the Orderly Annexation Agreement.
The Annexation Task Force findings are organized by annexation area. Please refer
to the attached map (Exhibit 1) for a visual depiction of each area.
ANALYSIS BY AREA:
Shown below are our findings for each of the ten potential annexations areas
identified:
AREA 1:
A. This property is within Credit River Township. Township officials originally
asked the City to consider annexation of this area as one potential solution to
sewer and water problems. More recently, they have been less interested in the
subject of annexation. They have not placed a high priority on an immediate
decision, but would like to know the City's position for planning purposes.
B. This 576 acre area includes almost 400 developed residential lots, many of which
have been built upon and some of whom are experiencing septic problems.
Those not presently experiencing septic problems are concerned about their
ability to comply with state and county septic system requirements now and in
the future.
C. The Task Force recommends that the staff continue to work with Credit River
Township to further discuss annexation and service extension issues.
Final recommendation would be made in a separate report.
AREA 2:
H:\CM A NAGER\MEMO\ANNEXA. DOC
3
A. This approximately 270-Acre parcel is undeveloped with a mix of both
undevelopable and undeveloped land. Sewer and water extension to this area
can protect the large wetland area which is part of this property.
B. The current estimated land and building value is approximately $861,400.
There is one house and three residents of the area. The total tax capacity of the
area is $19,501, which would generate about $6,611 in City Property Taxes in
1996. Complete development of the parcel is anticipated over the next fifteen
years. Tax impacts now, in five years, and in fifteen years have been included
for this parcel on Exhibit 2.
C. The owners of this property have requested annexation from the City and
Township. This land is adjacent to the City's Waterfront Passage Business
Park, and is considered to be a good area where a mix of residential, business,
and possibly a new high school could be developed immediately if a Municipal
Sewer and Water is available. The high school would benefit both the City and
the Township.
D. Sewer lines are in place along Prior Lake's borders adjacent to this land. We
estimate City costs for oversizing trunk sewer and water through Area #2 is
$340,000. The estimated trunk sewer and water area charge would generate
approximately $750,000. The Metropolitan Council has advised the City that
the lift station and force main serving this area would not require improvement
if this property is developed. The sewer capacity to serve this area would be
drawn from the City's current 500 acre allocation with a credit given for the
acreage which will house the high school.
E. A preliminary and final plat for the 50+ acre Deerfield Industrial Park was
recently approved by the Three Person Annexation Board. The property owners
are concerned both about the speed with which this can develop and the public
utilities to serve this site.
F. This area is recommended for immediate annexation and consideration for
utility extension following receipt of a petition from the owners.
AREA 3:
A. This 243 acre area is immediately south of Area 2. It abuts Cleary Park in the
east, and Mushtown Road on the west.
B. The property has been fully subdivided into 2 1/2 acre, 5 acre, and 10 acre lots.
C. The current land and building value in this area is $4,025,800. There are 19
housing units with an estimated population of 60. Total tax capacity is $61,415,
which would generate about $20,820 in City Property Taxes in 1996.
H:\CMA NAGER\MEMO\ANNEXA. DOC
4
D. If this area is sewered, approximately one-half of the flow would go to the MCES
lift station. This lift station and force main would need to be upgraded to allow
for the additional flowage at an estimated cost of $600,000. This cost would be
shared with Area #1 if Area #1 was annexed into the City.
E. The City cost to provide utility services to Area #3, including one-half the cost of
upgrading Mushtown Road, are estimated to be $600,000. The revenue
generated from the trunk acreage charge would be approximately $300,000.
F. This area is not presently recommended for annexation in the foreseeable future.
AREA 4:
A. This 450 acre area is bordered on the east by Mushtown Road, and on the west
by a line projected northerly and southerly through Rice Lake.
B. The property is almost fully divided into 2 1/2 acre, 5 acre, and 10 acre parcels.
C. The estimated land and building value is $9,662,600 with a total of 70 housing
units and approximately 200 population. The total tax capacity here is
$141,148, which would generate about $47,851 in 1996 City taxes.
D. City costs to provide trunk sewer, water and one-half the cost to upgrade
Mushtown Road are estimated to be $910,000. The revenue generated from the
trunk acreage charge is approximately $1,100,000.
E. Area 4A as shone on Exhibit 1 is recommended for consideration for annexation
in nine years subject to the procedural steps and safeguards set forth in the
procedural steps and safeguards section of this report. Area 4B is not presently
recommended for annexation in the foreseeable future.
AREA 5:
A. Area 5 is immediately south of Highway 13, west of Rice Lake and east of CSAH
81.
B. This 498 acre area has about 50 housing units, with an estimated population of
150. The estimated market value for land and building is $7,532,600 with a
total tax capacity of $89,442, which would generate $30, 322 in 1996 City Taxes.
C. The property includes Rice Lake and most of Crystal Lake. There are a fair
number of large parcels of developable land. Also, there are sections of the area
where because of topography, sewer would be difficult to provide. Most of those
areas lie in 5B.
H:\CMANAGER\MEMO\ANNEXA. DOC
5
D. Estimated sewer and water trunk costs to serve this area is $250,000. The
southern portion of this property has been substantially subdivided. The
estimated revenue generated from the trunk acreage fee is $1,000,000.
E. Annexation of area 5A is proposed for five years subject to the procedural steps
and safeguards set forth in this report. Annexation of Area 5B is not
recommended in the foreseeable future.
AREA 6:
A. This is a triangular property lying immediately south and east of TH 13, and
north of 180th.
B. This 96 acre parcel has been completely subdivided.
C. The total land and building market is $3,535,200. It contains approximately 20
housing units and 60 persons. The total tax capacity is $51,047 which would
generate about $17,305 in 1996 City Taxes.
D. The City cost for providing trunk sewer and water is approximately $50,000.
The revenue generated from the trunk acreage fee is approximately $170,000.
E. This area is not presently recommended for annexation in the foreseeable future.
AREA 7:
A. This area is bounded on the south by TH 13 and 180th street, on the west by the
Orderly Annexation Area westerly boundary, and on the north by areas 8 and 9
and on the east/northeast by Prior Lake.
B. This 1085 acre area includes the Shoreland property around Spring Lake not
already within the City of Prior Lake.
C. The total estimated land and building value for the area is $27,338,300. A total
of 187 housing units on lots varying from 50 foot widths and larger are included
on this area. An estimated population of 560 people reside there.
D. The total tax capacity of the area is $396,142, which would generate about
$134,296 in 1996 City Taxes.
E. This area is immediately adjacent to the City's southwestern boundary. As
such, pipes are terminated at our boundaries with capacity included to serve
this area. It is estimated that the sewer and water extension and streets on the
north side of the lake would amount to an approximately $2,300,000 project, and
H:\CMANAGER\MEMO\ANNEXA. DOC
6
on the south side approximately $3,000,000 project. The estimated assessments
for extending sewer and water for each parcel in this area are estimated to be
between $15,000 - $20,000 for a 50' lot.
F. The area has been broken into six sub-areas which correspond with potential
sewer and water extension project areas. Areas A and B are recommended for
annexation in the next 7 years while Areas C, D, E, and F are recommended for
consideration in 5 years. Each annexation would be subject to the procedural
steps and safeguards set forth in this report.
AREA 8
A. This area includes the six lot Dunn parcel together with undeveloped Spring
Lake Regional Park.
B. This 350 acre parcel contains a total land and building value of $1,192,800,
dollars, with six housing units and a population of approximately 18. The tax
capacity for the property is $12,819, which would generate about $4,346 in 1996
City taxes.
C. Sewer services would come from the east off of Northwood Road utilizing the
driveway easement westerly to the property. A cost sharing agreement for
utility extension through the park would be pursued with the County.
D. The entire area 8 is recommended for immediate annexation if the Council
accepts the recommendations for area 7 A and B above since utilities for those
areas must come through this area. If no annexation of 7 A and B is
contemplated, then annexation in Area 8 should be confined to the Dunn
Subdivision.
AREA 9
A. The area lies immediately south of the City's current boundary and west of
Spring Lake Regional Park. This area abuts areas 7, 8 and 10.
B. This 265 acre area includes a land and building value of $197,200, with one
housing unit and 3 persons. The total tax capacity is estimated at $17,495,
which would generate $5,931 in 1996 City taxes.
C. The cost to provide utilities to this area estimated at $460,000. The trunk
acreage fee will generate approximately $580,000.
D. This area is not presently recommended for annexation in the foreseeable future.
H:\CMA N AGER\MEMO\./I.NNEXA. DOC
7
AREA 10
A. Area 10 is outside of the Orderly Annexation area, but is being raised for
discussion purposes. This 1,918 acre area immediately adjacent to the westerly
boundaries of Areas 7 and 9.
B. The estimated land and building value of this area is $1,195,200. Total tax
capacity of the area is $14,380, which would generate about $4,875 in City
Taxes.
C. In order to serve this area, three trunk lines would need to be extended to meet
the capacity requirements of this area. To serve the 10,000 PE of this area
another well should be drilled at an estimated cost of $500,000. It was assumed
that the well would be located near Area #10. Total trunk utility services for
this area are estimated to be $6,000,000. The revenue generated from the trunk
acreage fee would be approximately $5,300,000
D. Service of this area with sewer and water may exceed the capacity of the lines
extended through the Spring Lake Township area, and consequently further
increase trunk costs.
E. The area is not presently recommended for annexation in the foreseeable future.
RATIONALE FOR THE PHASED PLAN:
Exhibit 1 shows the proposed areas to be annexed over the next nine years to
include: Areas 2 and 8, immediate; Area 5A and 7C, D, E, F, within 5 years; Area 7A
and B within 7 years; and Area 4A within 9 years.
This phased plan is recommended for a number of reasons:
1. The vast majority of the areas recommended for annexation represent actual or
high potential areas for environmental problems.
2. Annexation in those areas which are not presently developed have the potential
of preventing additional rural subdivisions and additional environmental
problems.
3. Each area can be serviced by the City utility extensions without major
infrastructure or trunk upgrades and consequently preventing prohibitive costs
to the City and property owners.
4. The phasing provides substantial advance notification to existing or potential
property owners so that they can plan accordingly.
5. The phasing does not create a financial hardship to the City or township because
by phasing the annexations the City and Township can plan for the service
needs and financial impacts over a nine year period.
6. The plan slows or eliminates leapfrog development.
H:\CMANAGER\MEMO\ANNEXA. DOC
8
PROCEDURAL STEPS AND SAFEGUARDS:
All of the areas proposed for immediate annexation are part of the Orderly
Annexation Agreement. For the proposed phasing of the annexation process to
work, it must attempt to address the concerns of the residents of the affected areas,
the township and the City and its citizenry. Shown below by annexation area are
the procedural steps and safeguards which are recommended.
Areas 2 and 8
1. A Joint Resolution (sample attached) should be considered by the City and
Township jointly requesting the annexation of one or both areas.
2. In the case of area two, annexation is desirable because the property owners are
requesting annexation and sewer and water service which can only be provided
by the City.
3. In the case of Area 8, the residents of this area receive their municipal services
through the City of Prior Lake. Sewer and water and streets would be
completed upon petition by a majority of the property owners and confirmation
by the City that the project is feasible both financially and from an engineering
perspective. Extension of sewer and water to serve areas 7 A and B would be
conditioned upon the County agreeing to pay their share of the assessment costs
across the Spring Lake Park property.
4. The Township would collect all property taxes generated by each area for 1997.
The City would collect the taxes thereafter.
5. Property tax payers in any area annexed will have their taxes increase to one
half of the municipal level the first year after annexation and to 100% of the
municipal level the second year. The impact of this revenue feathering will be
included in the calculation set forth in 2 (a). Residents of an area may waive the
feathering if they wish to assure that the financial feasibility condition set forth
in 3 above is met so that annexation may take place without delay.
Areas 4A. SA. and 7A. B. C. D. E. F
There are a number of safeguards that should be incorporated into the Orderly
Annexation agreement for those areas to be annexed in 5 to 9 years:
1. Until annexed, each area should have City zoning regulations extended to it.
The town board would be responsible by adoption of such regulations and
reviewing and acting upon land use within the O.A.A..
2. For areas scheduled to be annexed within a specific period of years, in the
final year, the agreement would allow that the land be annexed by a 30 day
review and comment petition to the Minnesota Municipal Board. In
determining whether to proceed with such a petition the City would consider
the following:
a) An analysis to determine if annexation will not have a negative
financial impact upon the City based upon a present case, five year,
and fifteen year Tax Revenue analysis.
H:\CMA NAGER\J'vfEMO\ANNEXA. DOC
9
b) That sewer, water and street extension is feasible from an
engineering and financial perspective and can be accomplished within
a reasonable time period.
3. A majority of residents in an area anticipated for annexation may accelerate
the Annexation process by filing a petition with the City and Township
containing the names of at least 51% of the residents of the area.
Annexation would be jointly undertaken if the criteria in 2 (a) above are met.
4. Following annexation, the extension of sewer, water and streets could be
scheduled in the City's five year capital improvement program if the project
is feasible from an engineering and special assessment perspective as
demonstrated by the submission of a petition for special assessment and
waiver of appeal by at least 60% of the property owners of the project area.
5. Property taxes for each area will continue to be collected by the township for
each area until the area is annexed by the City. Thereafter, the City will
collect the property taxes for the area.
6. Property tax payers in any area annexed will have their taxes increase to one
half of the municipal level the first year after annexation and to 100% of the
municipal level the second year. The impact of this revenue feathering will
be included in the calculation set forth in 2 (a). Residents of an area may
waive the feathering if they wish to assure that the financial feasibility
condition set forth in 2A above is met so that Annexation may take place
without delay.
Areas 3. 4B. 5B. 6 and 9
Since none of these areas is presently contemplated for Annexation in the
foreseeable future, no further action is required.
CONCLUSION
It is the recommendation of the Annexation Task Force that this report be made
available to interested parties on April 4th. At the April 7 City Council meeting, it
is recommended that the City Council request clarification from the Task Force as
appropriate and determine whether the recommendations set forth herein are
appropriate.
If additional information is required, the Task Force should be directed to prepare
and submit that additional information to the City Council. If the Council concurs
with the report recommendations, the Task Force recommends that the report be
officially conveyed to the Township Board. The Township Board could then
determine if it wishes to further discuss the recommendations and/or conduct one or
more Public Hearings to discuss the report recommendations area by area with
Township citizens. City staff members could be present at the Hearings for
information purposes. Following the Public Hearings, the Township Board could
determine whether and to what degree they concur with the recommendations
contained herein. Once differences are discussed and resolved, the orderly
annexation agreement could be amended and executed.
H:\CMANAGER\MEMO\ANNEXA. DOC
10
If the Township Board opposed the recommendations in their entirety, then it would
be appropriate for the Task Force to study the issues and return to the City Council
for direction.
H:\CMANAGER\MEMO\ANNEXA. DOC
11
-+-
-
~.
~ll ' Proposed
,Area
year
I Future
2 Immediate
3 Future
4A 9
48 Future
5A 5
58 Future
6 Fulure
7A 7
78 7
7C 5
70 5
7E 5
7F 5
8 Immediate
9 Future
10 Future
.------
I
I
I
I
I
I
: 10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
...------
~l.uJ J
- 'I
. . .- I....,
.' -..
~ \; oj __
Ii.
F'
_.. --I:
------1
I
I
.
1 ~
I
I
I
" I
" I
" I
'Ill
CITY OF PRKJill.AKE
BASE MAP
fWvI~
. - -
EXHIBIT 2
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Frank Boyles, City Manger
Ralph Teschner, Finance Director
Annexation Area #2 Fiscal Impact
April 4,1997
The following table indicate approximate tax revenue and service expenditures that might reasonably be
projected during the 5th and 15th year of existence for properties located in Annexation Area 2 adjacent to
the Business Office Park. In order to arrive at valid comparisons it was necessary for a number of
assumptions to be determined as indicated below.
1 Year Tax Stream/Service Demands
..... ...........
....................... ....
:-:::::::::::::::/t~~m]l:m\rmffr)f: .... ..... . ............................. .....:.:-:.:.:.:-:.:-:-:-:.;.;.:.;.;.:.:.;.;.:.;.:.;.:.;.:.;.:.;.;-:.;.:-:.:.:-:-:.:-:<.;.:.::::::.:::::::.::;.;.:.:.:-:.::;.:::-:.::::::::::::::.:.:....
Tax Capacity Valuation
..............................................
............................................
........................................ .
.....................................
...................................
................................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
.........................
............................................-:-:.:.:-:...:-:-:.:.:-:-:-:-:.;.:-:.:.;.;.;.:.:.:.:.;-:.:.;.;.;.;.;.:.:::::-:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.;::-:-:.:.-.... .... .................
Service Cost
$17,495.00
:::::;:;:;:;;;;::;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:::::::::::;:::::::::::;:::;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:::::;:;:;:;:;:::;:;:::::::::::::::::::;:;:::::::;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:
::::;:::;;;::;:;;:::;;:;:;;;;;;:;;;:;:::~;:;::~;::;:~:~:~:~~~:~::~:~:~~:~:~~:~:::::~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~::~~~~:~~~::~::~:~~::;~:~;~;:;~;;;:;;:::::;:;::::::::
$5,931.00
..................................
..................................
...............................
.............................
..........................
.......... ...-..........
............ .-.....
Net Impact
.................................... .
..................................
..................... ........
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..
......................
............... .
$1,134.00
$4,797.00
..........................................~........................
~\@r[\~~r]f~f~]\~[fj][~f]]]i~[~~~t][f]]t~~~r]H1\~~ff:[[~f]]:[~~?U[~[~]~]rr?~
.....~~~~~~~~~t)'Valuatio~;~~g~~J:~~~~~~~~~: Service Cost ...............N."et.IIl1pac~..
:;:::::;;;:::;;:;:;::;:;;;;:;::::::::::::;;;;;::;;::;;:;;;:::::::;:::::::::::::;;::::::;;:;:;:;::;:::;;;: ::::::;;:;;:;::::::::::::::::::::;:::::;:::;;::;;;:;;;;;;;;:;::::;::::::;::::::::::;:::;:;:;::::::;;;:;:::;;:::::::::;:::::::::::::::.:.:.:.:.:.
$836,495.00 (Res) $283,572.00 (Res) $298,620.00 ($15,048.00)
.. ..::$g$p;MQ~Qq(@l:D~,':1iQ;P9:(G!Dm< ...... . ............. ................. ....... ..
5 Year Tax Stream/Service Demands
15 Year Tax Stream/Service Demands
Service Cost
$1,655,495.00 (Res) $561,213.00 (Res)
::~:::~:::$49.~;~~;~:(~01)~~mm:~~12;;2~2;;~$;H(;iW::
$873,445.00 (total)
$596,484.00
$276,961.00
Assumptions:
. $17,495 beginning tax capacity valuation
. 70 housing units constructed per year
. $150,000 market value average
. $2,340 per household tax capacity valuation
. Municipal tax rate of .3390 held constant
. Commercial/industrial tax valuation:
zero in year 5 due to TIF
$10,000,000 in year 15 (market value)
$460,000 tax capacity valuation (4.6%)
$312,232.00 c/i property tax per county fiscal disparity worksheet
. Service cost:
$440 per capita ($6,153,718/14,000)
$378 per capita (86% ofTCV residential)
. Population:
2.25 per household
700 additional housing units
1997 - 3
2002 - 790
2012 - 1,578
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
H:\MEMOIMEM9703.DOC
IN THE MATTER OF THE
JOINT RESOLUTION FOR ORDERLY ANNEXATION
BETWEEN THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
AND SPRING LAKE TOWNSHIP, MINNESOTA
PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES 4140325
To: Minnesota Municipal Board
Suite 225 Bandana Square
1021 Bandana Boulevard East
St. Paul, MN 55108
The Town of Spring Lake (Town) and the City of Prior Lake (City) hereby jointly agree
to the following:
1. That the following described area in Spring Lake Township is in need of
orderly annexation pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 4140325. and the City and Town
designate the following area for orderly annexation.
Insert description.
2. That the Town and City upon passage and adoption of this resolution
and upon the acceptance by the Minnesota Municipal Board (Board). confer jurisdiction
upon the Board over the various provisions contained in this Agreement.
3. That the subject area is or is about to become urban or suburban and is
in need of or will be in need of municipal services, and the City is capable of providing
them to the subject area.
.
4. There is no population in the orderly annexation area.
5. The tax rate on the area to be annexed shall be the same as if it had
been onginally a part of the City. The tax rate of the area to be annexed shall not
increased in substantially equal proportions, but shall be the City tax rate applicable to
similar property.
6. Both the Town and the City agree that no alteration of the stated
boundaries of this agreement is appropriate, and that no consideration by the
Minnesota Municipal Board (Board) is necessary. Upon receipt of this Resolution, the
Board may review and comment, but shall, within 30 (thirty) days. order the annexation
in accordance with the terms of this joint resolution. ,
-r;
Approved by the Town of Spring Lake this
day of
,1997.
Town of Spring Lake
BY:
Town Board Chair
BY:
Town Board Clerk
Approved by the City of Prior Lake this _ day of . 1997.
ATTEST
City Administrator
..
City of Prior Lake
BY:
Mayor