HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.d. Proposed Legislation Accexation Rules � : t -
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
EXECUTIVE SUN�SARY FOR ACTION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: MARCH 2, 1993
AGENDA ITEM: PROPOSED LEGISLATION, AGENDA SECTION:
ANNEXATION RULES NEW BUSINESS
PREPARED BY s STEPHAN JILK, CITY ADMINISTRATOR AGENDA ���„�'�; �r.' �.�
�i'
ATTACHMENTS: RESOLUTION, LMC ARTICLE, AP B : �
FARMINGTdN LETTER ` '�,��. ��,
t4'
Legislation has been introduced by Senator Pat Pariseau to change
legislation adopted in 1992 regarding annexation and the authority vested
in cities by that 1992 legislation.
Though annexation is not currently an issue before the City of Rosemount I
would ask the City Council ' s consideration in support of defeating the new
legislatian! Also, the cities of Farmington and Lakeville have taken
action in this same manner :and have asked for our support.
_: Wa.t:hout much ex�lax�ation on this matte� I would simply say that to reverse ':
the legislat�on--pas�ed--in 1592 would mean-a major step backward in bringing
a logical anc� common sense approach to bringing good planning and providing
quality and efficient services to the public.
Please refer tc the LMC memo on this for a full explanation. -
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
MOTION to adopt A RESOLUTION OPPOSING LEGISLATION RELATING T0
RESTRICTING CITY ANNEXATION RIGHTS.
COUNCIL ACTION:
t .
CITY OF ROSEMOIIN'r
DAKOTA COQNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLtJTION 1993 -
A RESOLIITION OPPOSING LEGISLATION
RELATING TO RESTRICTING CITY ANNEXATION RTGHTS
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 556 of the 1992 Session Laws, cities
were given the right to annex property by ordinance if the
following conditions are met:
1) the property is adjacent to city boundaries;
2) the property is 60 acres of less;
3) the city receives a petition for annexation from all property
owners of the land;
4? the property has been developed or is in need of city
services to develop. _ _ _ _
- ---- _ 4R: _ __ . _
_r_ _
—
- � `� 1) .-The city- owns the land, or if a11�� the landov�mers. petition
' ---- - .and the land is located within an orderly annexa�ion area;
._ WHEREAS, the legislation was agreed to by the Township Officers--.
__ Association at least at one point during deliberation; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the law was to streamline the process by
_._ eliminating the hearing before the_ Municipal Board and a subsequent
- - election in the area which could overturn the Board's decision; and
wHEREAS, the existing legislation is consistent with State planning
and annexation policy which is to preserve agricultural land and
. promote ..stable and logical growth of urban areas; and -
WHEREAS, cities' experience acting under the new streamlined
procedure has been limited and, therefore, any repeal of the
provisions would be premature at this time, and
WHEREAS, legislation has been introduced which would repeal the
aforementioned provisions of Chapter 556, 1992 Sessions Law.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Council of the City
of Rosemount that the City strongly opposes any legislation which
would restrict and eliminate the provisions of Chapter 556, 1992
Session Laws, and urges its area representatives to argue and vote
against passage of the Bill .
. f . � . . . . . .
S
s
! ,
� `
RESOLLTTION 19 9 3 -
PAGE 2
BE IT FURTBER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be forwarded
to area representatives, authors of the Bill and members of the
Senate Metropolitan and Loca1 Government Committee.
Adopted this 2nd day of Ma.rch, 1993 .
ATTEST: E. B. McMenomy, Mayor
Susan M. Walsh, City Clerk
- _ �__
_ _ _ -- , ;
,
Motion by: Seconded by:
Voted in favor:
. Y � . • . . . � .
� Vated against•
League of Minnesata Cities
r-., �
• • �
Number 5 February 5, 1993
;..� .: .x ....
.�:�;r.� �:;:��at���;��":�:�:? �:
v�- �:.v . .; � . . .
..,���� ::..:��.
� . .� .. �.
. .... �. . .....n.... � �:
. . .. ....�..::. .,��..:...:.
� Bills would rollback 1992 annegation amendments
Joel Jamnik formal hearing by the state Municipal determine if aanexation was in the best
'Iivc�bills introduced in the �����be�election within interest of the city and the area to be
Minnesota Senate would repeal pro- �e���determiaed by the annexed aad aa election in the area
city amendments to the state's annex- board to be primarily aad substantiaily which could overtuin the order of the
ation stawtes which the Lcgislature �terested in or affected by the board Municipal Boazd. Such a procedure in
passed in 1992. The bills,S.F.138 and Qrder." effect wrns the board's order into a;
= S.F fl43�(se�summaries{�a�e'�do no¢ Last year's Ltgis[ature agreed_t}�at �� recommendation. It also raises
hade House companians yet,but we it did not make sense co have a ful� extremely difficult questions reg;arding, -
hearing before the Municipal Boatd W
expect prompt introduction. _ SeeAnnexa�ivn,pa�,�e 3,
�-_� T6e L,eague opposes these
�� proposals and urges city officials to
�°n`�``�'�'�'�°�.�req'��'� Governor's ro osal funds state
���Y���t for���o���� P P
�°���°����°�°f�e� agency programs with LGA funds
bills or members of the Senatc •
Metropolitaa and Local Government .
Committee. Tha,t committee will hold ,Toel.Iamnik Y�,Pe�aPs�PIY�g an intent to .
the initial heazings an the pmposals. The Govemor's proposed atate change department staffing with
See�e lists for room numbers and de artmenYs ��t'0���•
p appropriarions bill, ��a total of$446,800 is
phone numbers for these legislators. S.F,168(Frederickson)(Governmental
Both bills propose reversing the Operations-and Reform) would Proposed W be spent,again from
gains cities achieved during the 1992 continue the past practice offunding LGA,"in order to reimburse the
session,when the L.ebislature passed several state agency programs out of generai fund for the services of the
Chapter 556, 1992 Session Laws. The local�overnment aid funds. 8a�rnment information division and
" provisions of Chapter 556 were agreed First,the biFl wouid spend �'e parts ot'tlie constitution.�!ofl'ice
� to by the Township O�cer's Associa- $181,OQ0 the first year of the bien- ��related to the government
, tion,at least at one point durinb the nium,and$185,000 the second year, �nformation function"of U�e o�'ice of
last session. Now,they and others are out of LGA in order to fund the local �e state auditoc
seeking to recant on that agreement for government records program aad the �s it make sense for the
reform of the annexaxion laws. intergovernmental information systems �°���10°�d�'e Legislahue to
Both bills se�k the repeal of two ��Nty, decide to spend a certain amount of
sections of law wluch facilitate Second,the bill proposes to use revenues on LGA and�then to reduce
aanexations by ordinance of the $56,000 of the LGA appropriation �e amount they think they are
neighboring city. S.F.138 proposcs aa in the first year to"offset the cost of �n�g�'�p1O��ly$1 million?
additional section which would restore the local government pay equity DO�leaders think they're fooling
;,✓. the requirement,repealed by last yeaz's function"of the department of city officials or taxpayers?Scarier
Legislature,that following the initia- employee relatians. No money is �����'ey successfiully fooling
tion of an annexation,and a full, proposed in the bill for the second �emselves?
•
Annexat�on: Proposals axe anti-city, continued from page l
ar'� what area is primarily and substantially Further,tlie above example difficult discnssion on ho�w to prev�ent
�� interested in or affected by the board demonstrates the existing inefficiency further deterioraiion of the urbaa core
; order. and ineffediveness of state planning a�hav to address a v�iety of service
� The logic aad public policies aad aaaexarion statutes,which are delivery aad environmental�oblems,
favoring repeai of the ele�tion require- supposed to oonsern aad presern many of which can be traced W unwise
ment which were the basis for the 1992 nual land aad pmmote stable and development activities.
L I,egislature�action still exist. The logical grawth of our w�ban areas. Please coatact y�our legislators
only chaage from last yeaz to this year Urban sprawl and t6e problems nouv,aad continue to caatact them
is the position of the Minnesota inevitably resulting from sprawl or periodically,and urge that they not
Association of Tawnship Officers. leap-frog development are not unique pass S.F.138,S.F. 143,or other
The two sections of law wluch the to the metropolitaa area,wluch is annexation law amendments which
bilts propose to repeat were adopted currendy engaged in a complicated, make annexation more difficult.
. last year in an effort W streamline the
annexation of property which abuts
� city boundaries or is within two miles Authors of anti-city annezation legislation
of cacisting city boundaries,and has S.F.138 would require elections aad municipal board hearings;repeal
either been developed or is in need of ��on by ordinaace authority for abutting land which is b0 acres or
city services in order W develop. less upon property awncr petition;aad npeal annexation by ordinaace of
One section currently allaws cities city wvned properiy or privately awned property upon o�wner petition,if the
to by ordinaace declare laad annexed ��,is within aa orderly aanexation area.
to the ciry if the laad abuts the city, �n,Tim vckermaa 226 Cap. 296-5650
the area to be aanexed is 60 acres or _ Sen.Betty Adkins 309 Cap, - 296-5981
_ less,aad the city receives apetition for �g�er Mce 208 Cap. 296-25'77
aianexation from all the property �,�ug..dohnson 205 Cap. 296-8881
o�wners of the land. Sen.D.E.Johnson 147 SOB 296-3826
� The other section specifies that if
the city awns the land or if all of the S.F.143 would repeal annexation by ordinance authority for abutting land
landowners periuon for annexation, �ch is 60 acres or less upon property awner petition,and repeal annex-
and the land is within an existing �on by ordinance of city awned property or privately awned property
orderly annexation area,then the city upon owner petition,if the property is within an orderty annexation azea.
rsaay deeDare tt�e land annexed by �n. Pat Pariseau 109 Cap. 296-5252 .
passing an ordinance to that effect. �n.Duane Benson L 19 SOB 29b-3903
The League feels that any action �n.Jim Vickerman 22G Cap. 296-5650
to repeal or modify last year's amend- �n.Betty Adkins 309 Ca}�. 29�5981
ments is premature. Cities'experience
acting under the new streamlined �aate Metropolitan and Local Government Committee
procedwes has been limited,and w�at �n.Betty Adkins,Chair 309 Cap. 296-5981
experience we do have seems to �n.Ted Moadale,V'ic�Chair 309 Cap. 297-8065
indicate that cities are acring responsi- - ���n Betzold G-24 Cap. 296-2556
bly and in accord with long-standing �n.Dick Day 105 SOB 296�9457
state policy 8►at t�rban uses of property �n.Carol Flynn G-29 Cap. 296-4274
_ be located within,cities. Tax Div Chair
The tawnship association bas . �n.John Hottinger G-29 Cap. 29b-b153
stated that one eacample of an"abuse" Tax Div Yce-Chair
under the new law is the annexation of �n.Jerry Jaaezich 328 Cap. 296-8017
a large hotel located ai a freeway �n.Keith Langseth G-24 Cap. 296-32Q5
interchange just outside a city's �n.Bob Lcssard 1 l l Cap. 296-4136
bovndaries. It is the League's opinion �n,�Oliver 121 Cap. 296-4837
that a 50-plus room hotel probably �n.Sandy Pappas G-27 Cap. 296-1802
meets the definition of land which"is �n.Pat Pariseau 109 SOB 296-5252
urban or suburban in cfiaracter or Sen. Martha Robertson 109 Cap. 296-4314
� about to become so"and thus properly
� located within a eity,rather than �n. Linda Runbeck 107 Cap. 296-1253
remaining part of the township. �n. Deanna wiener 303 Cap. 297-8073
February 5, 1993 Page 3
FEE-�a-1993 12:20 FROM CITY OF FARMINGT�N TO 4235283 P.�1
' .� . �} l�.cc 5�. r�c�t-� a�,{
, ' �ost It'TM brarui.fax transmittal mema 7�71 �a a�a�' N��.y�yyt�y�,-f"'•
To c^ ., From �i0� ', L��
�
� Co. _
pept: Phonefk 1/1_`7�,,,!'���/
T fIJ r
��" �x� ;�� --�aa� �X" �t�.�- s-��
, February 4, 1993
�
t
Senatar Pat Pariseaa
109 State Office Building
st. Paui, i�r' 55155
!
Dear Sen�.tor Pariseau,
As Mayors of the G�.ties of Lakeviile, Roseiaaunt, and Farma.ngtoa, we were extramely
dism�yed that �ou had introduced a Bill which would repeal certain amendments
ta the State Asi�exation Law. -
As you may be awsre, cities have fought hard to streamline the ann�xation gr�cess
� for ar�as which are developed, or a�e about ta develop, and th� �vrners ot the a
grcperty wish to be annexed. The cities final�y �ade hea.dway during the last
� Iegisiati.on, which now appears to be in je�pardy oy the introduction of yc�ur
�i11.
What we find mos� disappo#.nt+ng is that the cit:�s, which constitute ovcr 70�
of the populatia�x of your d�.s�rict, wexe not even consulted. -
- We would strongly urge you to reconsider your position vn this Bi12, or at a
, u�inimum, �ppear before aur respective Cauncils to explain your gas�tion and xat3���ale
;"or i�.�ra�lu..in� the Bil7..
RespecCfully yours,
__ ' ,
Du�Ae Zaun E, B. Mc:i�leiiu�uy Eugen� "Babc" Ku�hera ',
Mayoz, City af Lakeville Mayar, City of Rose�aunt Mayor, Ci�y of Parmingtort
Ct� @� �ttliiK�K�f4it 325 Ock SE�! � Fn�,w:wg6e� K{K 55024 � (6i�) »63•7!(I �
�-.�