Loading...
1996-02-08 Proposed Frankfort Annexation for Golf Course MEMORANDUM TO: GARY HALE, CITY ADMINISTRATOR; ALBERTVILLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: MIKE COURI, CITY ATTORNEY SUBJECT: PROPOSED FRANKFORT ORDERLY ANNEXATION AGREEMENT DATE: FEBRUARY 8, 1996 ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- I have reviewed the proposed Frankfort orderly annexation agreement and recommend that the City not sign the agreement in its current form. While I strongly recommend orderly annexation agreements as an efficient, cooperative annexation vehicle, several provisions in this agreement are not necessary to the proposed annexation. The property proposed to be annexed is that portion of the proposed Kenco Golf Course PUD which lies in Frankfort Township (approximately 80 acres). To the best of my knowledge, the Developer has not formally asked the City to annex this property nor has the City requested that Frankfort allow this annexation. Frankfort appears to be taking the ini tiati ve in addressing an issue which it believes will arise in the near future. Under current law, the City could annex the Kenco property by ordinance if 100% of the property owners petition the city to annex the property and if the annexations occur in 60-acre chunks or less (i. e. the property can be annexed by passing two successi ve ordinances, one annexing 60 acres and the other annexing 20 acres) . The City must notice the Township of the proposed annexation and hold a public hearing, but there is no Municipal Board hearing and minimal expense. If annexed under the 60-acre law, the city will have to share future taxes over the next five years with the Township, but these taxes would be based upon the tax revenue the City received at the time of the annexation, not the tax revenue received from the development which occurs on the property after the annexation. As discussed in prior correspondence, the annexation agreement between the City and Frankfort that was entered into in the mid- 1980's (which prohibits the City from annexing Frankfort property until December, 1996) is most likely not enforceable, and therefore should not prohibit the City from annexing under the 60-acre law. The items in the proposed orderly agreement which I believe present problems are as follows: Paraqraph 8. Frankfort is proposing a property tax sharing scheme which would give Frankfort all of the tax revenue in the first two years, followed by a declining percentage in each of the 1 next 5 years. Tax sharing period under this agreement. under this agreement would annexation taxes (i.e. after would occur over a seven-year Further, the tax revenue shared be a percentage of the post- development occurs). Under the GO-acre law, the Frankfort would receive all of the tax revenue in the first year, followed by a declining percentage in each of the next 5 years, for a total of six years, not seven. In addition, Frankfort's share would be calculated based upon the pre-annexation taxes, and Frankfort would recei ve no portion of the tax revenue that post- annexation development generates. I recommend that the City propose the tax sharing scheme as would apply to a GO-acre annexation. Paraqraph 9. This paragraph would attempt to prohibit the City from annexing any additional Frankfort property for a period of ten years . Given the small amount of developable land in the City, and the level of growth experienced in the area over the last few years, this ten-year limitation would severely limit the City's future growth options. Under the GO-acre annexation law, no such prohibition would apply. While the 10-year limitation is probably not enforceable under current law, a recent bill introduced in the Legislature would make these types of limitations enforceable in the future. I recommend that the City delete paragraph 9 in its entirety in any future discussions/drafts. Paraqraph 10. This paragraph would require the City to enter into an agreement to serve Green Haven Estates with sanitary sewer. The current language sets out none of the parameters of how these services would be delivered or paid for, or why sanitary sewer service should be extended to this area. Even if the City decided that it did want to extend its services to Frankfort, an agreement to this effect will undoubtedly be very detailed, very complicated and will take a long time to work out. One sentence in an orderly annexation agreement can not hope to adequately address these issues. In addition, Green Haven Estates has nothing to do with the proposed annexation of the Kenco property, and need not be addressed as part of this annexation agreement. I recommend that the City delete paragraph 10 in its entirety in any future discussions/drafts, and should address this as a separate issue in separate discussions if the City wishes to pursue joint services with Frankfort. 2 If the recommended changes to paragraph 8 and the deletion of paragraphs 9 and 10 are made to this agreement, I would recommend that the City sign the agreement. In the interest of efficiently addressing this matter, I would suggest that the City appoint two of its Council Members and its City administrator to meet with two members of the Frankfort Town Board and its clerk to discuss a possible orderly annexation agreement. Because there are few issues to discuss, I would expect that the City and Township will know very quickly whether an agreement can be reached. If one cannot be reached, it would be up to Kenco and the underlying landowner to petition the City for annexation if they wish to bring this property into the City. 3 IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR Roman J. & Donna Mae Becker for annexation, pursuant to Minnesota statutes 414.033, Subd. 2(3). TO: Council of the City of Albertville, Minnesota, and Minnesota Municipal Board 475 McColl Building 366 Jackson street st. Paul, MN 55101-1925 PETITIONERS STATE: It is hereby requested by Roman J. & Donna Mae Becker, the sole property owners, to annex certain property described herein lying in the Town of Frankfort, to the City of Albertville, County of Wright, Minnesota. The area proposed for annexation is described as follows: The West Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 2, Township 120, Range 24, Wright County, Minnesota, except therefrom that part lying south of the centerline of Wright County Highway Number 118. The population of the annexation area is O. Said property is unincorporated, abuts on the city's west boundary, and is not incl uded wi thin any other municipal i ty . The area of land to be annexed is 59.6 acres, unplatted. The reason for the requested annexation is single family residential and golf course. All of the annexation area is or is about to become urban or suburban in character. The area proposed for annexation is not included in any area that has already been designated for orderly annexation pursuant to M.S. 414.0325. PETITIONERS REQUEST: That pursuant to M.S. 414.033, the property described herein be annexed to and included within the City of Albertville, Minnesota. Dated: Signed: D raJ -I- '/10 r 2-- %--%