Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3. Annexation Status Report 11~05!9i WED 18:11 FAX 612 452 5550 CAMPBELL [4J 004 CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association Attorneys at Law . .. . Jm:!]. J;lIl1l1ik Andr~" McDllweli !?llehlel' M:Hth",w K. I3rokl"' John F Kc:lly Macth<:w 1, Fl1li M:"q~II"rir" M. Mc(:"mm G",-,r~t: T. Stt::phemun ,jo^'~IIIi<.'':ll,~~~! ill Wi.\(.:(III.~iH Thom<1s J. Cllnpbell Roger N. KnUCSc.'D 'l'hom",:; M. Scott James R. Walswn Elliott H. Kncr,ch Sut:s~lI\ L",\ P,Ke (612) 452~5000 Fax (612) 4S2-5550 Writer's Direct Dial:234-6226 Writer's Fax: 452-5550 ..... ::.~,I ( :'.J'''1~..t: (J:'"'Y l J. hK:h, November 5 l 1997 ~CTtNO~ NO,: J TO: Mayor, City Council and City Manager FROM: Sues an Lea Pace RE: Negotiations Concerning Annexation Petition At the last City Council work session on October 13, 1997, Frank Boyles and I reported on the status of the "Meet and Confer" meetings that were ordered by the Minnesota Municipal Board in connection with the petition for annexation in the area generally depicted on Attaclunent I as Areas 7E & 7F, We provided you with a financial analysis, prepared by Mr. Teschner, of the area_ We also told you that the discussions during the Meet and Confer meeting have focused almost exclusively on the question of how, and at what cost, sewer and water might be provided to this area. Some participants in the meetings have said that the annexation petition was initiated as a means to obtain sewer and water and not because the property owners want to be residents of the City for some other reason. Based on the foregoing and for the following reasons, we asked the Council if it would consider entering into a contract with Spring Lake Township to provide sewer and water to the area, in lieu of annexing the property: 1. Assuring a means to replace the failing septic systems on properties along South Shore Drive is the envirorunentally responsible thing to do. Some of the septic systems on South Shore Drive are failing, The Watershed District has expressed concern that these failures create the potential for contaminating Spring Lake. Assuring sewer and water ultimately benefits and protects Upper and Lower Prior Lake. 2. Members of the Council have expressed their opinion that the residents of South Shore Drive, if annex.ed, should be subject to the same policies and practices as current City residents. It is the City's practice to assess 100% of the cost of sewer and water to the benefitted properties, The assessments on individual propenies, especially the non- riparian properties on South Shore Drive whose septic systems are not failing, may exceed the benefit. Under Minnesota law the benefit to a property must equal or exceed Slllte 31 7 . E3gamlale Office Cenrtr · USO Corporate Center Curve · Eagan, MN 55121 11/D5/97 WED 18:11 FAX 612 452 5550 CAMPBELL I4l 005 Mayor Andren Councilmembers November 5, 1997 Pal!e 2 of 4 the assessment, Frank and I have concerns that the City's assessment policy (100% assessment of the cost) could not be applied to all properties served by the improvement, because the assessment would exceed the benefit, 3. Based on the feasibility reports on the proposed project, it was our opinion that the cost of the project might be less costly for the township than if the City constructed the project because the scope of the project would be different. If constructed by the City the project would involve sewer, water, curb, gutter and paving to City standards. The township may have more flexibility in defining the scope of the project than the City has. 4. The Township has the statutory authority to create Special Service Districts which would permit it to levy, versus assess, the cost of the public improvement against all of the properties in the Special Service District. The City does not have the authority to establish a Special Service District for the purpose of providing sewer and water in a residential area. 5. The Annexation Task Force Report does not recommend the irrunediate annexation of this area. The report predicts annexation in five years, at which time the extension of sewer and water to the area would be eligible for inclusion in the City's CIP. 6. There is a general anti-annexation sentiment in Spring Lake Township, particularly in light of the recently failed petition for incorporation. The Council authorized us to discuss the idea of contracting with Spring Lake Township to provide sewer and water to the area under consideration for annexation. The two Spring Lake Township Supervisors participating in the Meet and Confer meetings have indicated they would contract with the City to provide sewer and water if the City would agree to: 1, Agree to not initiate annexation in the areas which receive sewer and water from the City. In order to construct the project the Township would have to issue its bonds to fund the cost of construction. The Township must maintain its taX base, for the life of the debt instrument, to assure its ability to repay the bonds. 2. The City agree, if asked, to contractually provide sewer and water to properties around Spring Lake. These areas are depicted as 7A,B,C and D on Attachment 1. The only economically realistic and feasible means to eventually provide sewer and water to these areas is to extend whatever pipe is constructed to serve the area in 7E & 7F. From the City's perspective we represented that: 1. Any contract would have to be for both sewer and water. 11/05/97 WED 18:12 FAX 612 452 5550 CAMPBELL !4J 006 Mayor Andren Councilmembers November 5, 1997 Page 3 of 4 2. The Township would have to build the sewer and water to City specifications. 3, The Township would be responsible for all inspections and ongoing maintenance of the sewer and water pipes. 4, The City would bill the Township for the cost of the services and receive payment from the Township, similar to the Agreement with Savage. 5, The cost of me services would be calculated on an equitable basis, which would include an admlni~trative fee. 6. The Metropolitan Council would have to agree that for purpose of MUSA allocation, there would be no net loss of acreage to the City. The Township Supervisors have asked whether the Township or property owners would be required to pay the City's acreage fee and water tower fees. The acreage fee was established to reimburse the City for sizing the system to serve its ultimate population. The water tower fees finance the construction of these facilities. Whether to collect these fees is a policy question, We need direction on how to respond to these inquiries, These costs are paid directly by City residents and not assessed as part of the project. There are several ways (propeny owner pays as part of connection charge or costs built into contract price charged for sewer and water) the payment of these fees could be strUctured and recovered depending on the direction we receive from the Council. The parties participating in the "Meet and Confer" meetings include a representative of the property owners who initiated the annexation petition, property owners who are opposed to the annexation petition, two Township Supervisors and a representative for the City. The idea of providing the services to the Township contractually appears to be acceptable to the parties. The Minnesota Municipal Board ("Municipal Board") granted the parties an additional thirty (30) days beyond the original sixty (60) to try to agree on a solution. The additional thirty (30) days expires on November 17, 1997, at which time we expect the Municipal Board to schedule the hearing on the annexation. If the City and Township can agree on the general terms outlined above, it would be our intention to present a joint recommendation to the Municipal Board. Under this scenario, the City and Township would join in opposing the proposed annexation for the following reasons : 1, The area in question does not presently meet the statutory criteria for annexation; 2. The environmental issues involved in this matter go beyond the area presently under consideration for annexation by the Municipal Board; 3. The petitioners for annexation stated that their purpose for seeking annexation to the City was to be eligible to receive sewer and water; 11/05/97 WED 18:12 FAX 612 452 5550 CAMPBELL 141007 Mayor Andren Councilmembers November S, 1997 Page 4 of 4 4. The City has agreed to contractually provide the Township with sewer and water services to the area under consideration for this area and have approved an agreement in principle; and S. The City has agreed to delete this area from the area encompassed by the Orderly Annexation Agreement and to discuss with the Township further amendments to the Orderly Annexation Agreement. Please provide direction accordingly. If we do not present a solution to the Municipal Board, in my opinion it is likely they will order the area annexed. If we can't agree in concept on the approach outlined above, please provide us with direction on what position to take with the Municipal Board when it hears this matter. r---------------~ I I I .... I I 0 I I I I I I I " ";-" .---.. ."'- '" . ,." .~. '~::-~ .;-;-' ;:-~~\ .-~~ '~1 1 ~ ,"'0 . ? .., i ! ~~ -~S -}iq~ '" , I , I I ... I , I " I I I .---- - -- - ...----.... 9 r\\ l.i' ~ - J J J ~I Uti ;;:::.::;-:,: .... .... .... 'J'I .;:.. ..,., > il 01 '00 co ml r. > C\ Cl > ::: > ..... I'-.J - "1 ""' l") :; iO K= - I ~... ~ ~ ~ ~ :; ~ ~ = '~..' (ll Ut V. 'J> 'J> .... .... v. '00 (ii l") - j\~. .- .- - Co :; - - ::; ::; ::; Co ::; - (ll <'II :i" <'II t'll t'll <'II ;;J' <'II - ~ J~ (i' (i' l") ;.;..:-:....,: C. $~~j~ 'I ~'~-\\ rii ~H ~! ." I 't, , . !~i -~, . "I ~ ~ : . t -;-. '11 ,- 'c\ . 2:~) -- 'i---.. " /'/ ; ~:;:-.-- ---......,.... 2 j h . (" (:f'"'-"' ~ 'f __~. ,~:~ ;~ .- '~-"T'- /: ~~~:~--)~'~ -~ :'; j, - ~~. . ~~ --..:--/ , ~-,l..~~fA;'~; <J · ~~" ~ --"/.--"'" -.-,.-- ", !! .~' , , ; 1 '--"-'.- ". , _- I 'L . I :,' \ r ~ " ~ j." \.-..- . --=_~' i : ~ ,:-;-;-0 ' .,- , "!~~ ....:'!. ,.~. , ~. f"'-o..J . y - __""'r ,_ ... .. 1/- 1"".I#t!,.-..- ~~ [ '~_~~: '~f lc:=:~ (~: --g:.,,? , "'. . . .~/,./' --' :-::-.....c:. .. ,~ ./~- ......: 't -"'-'....=!-- 1/ ....-. r-- I . ., ~ \ ,-;-~ V:::? /r. ~. l..::;';""'" ~..r:- \ -~ ~ - ~. .tr-- ~~ ~ ~ ISSUES: NEGOTIATIONS CONCERNING ANNEXATION PETITION 11/10/97 Work Session Agenda Item 3 . As part of the sewer and water contract would the Council agree not to annex the area served until the bonds are repaid or forever? . Should water be required with sewer as it has been for other extensions (Savage, Maple Hills). . Should the sewer and water lines in 7E and 7F be "oversized" so that sewer and water could eventually be extended by similar agreement to the entire southerly shoreline of the lake? . Would the City Council expect the residents receiving sewer and water services to pay acreage fees and Water Tower Fees? . As part of the agreement, amendments would be made to the Orderly Annexation agreement to address concerns about annexation of area 7E and F. Does the Council concur? . Are there any other concerns the Council has about these "Meet and Confer" issues, processes or proposals as set forth in the report? i:\council\works\ III Oanx.doc