By: SDHO on 1/12/10
I'm not clear. If the annexation agreement is invalid, isn't it invalid for all purposes? That is, isn't the original Sheldahl annexation illegitimate if the annexation agreement wasn't kosher? (Not sure if there are any consequences to that.)

It seems odd that the City is eager to question this agreement only as it pertains to its obligations to Waterford.

Sean Hayford O'Leary

By: Patrick_Enders on 1/12/10
Sean,
As I understand it, without a compact, MN cities have fairly broad powers to annex adjacent township lands.

"Under Minnesota Statute 414.033, cities may annex land simply by passing an ordinance declaring that specific parcels of land are now part of the city, so long as certain conditions are met. The ordinance process may be initiated either by the city or by petition of property owners. This is the most common form of annexation."

From: http://www.mnplan.state.mn.us/pdf/annex.pdf#3 (page 2). The PDF subsequently enumerates the required conditions.

If I follow correctly, the Northfield-Waterford annexation agreement is part of an alternative to "annexation by ordinance," which is referred to as "orderly annexation" in the same reference:

"Orderly annexation lets the city and township address annexation more cooperatively and give more thought to the needs of the broader area. It encourages joint planning for the area where annexations are expected and helps in timing annexations to coincide with new development and the need for city services. The process is intended to avoid piecemeal annexations while giving local governments more time to prepare for future annexations and to direct growth in a more orderly fashion."
(same reference, page 3.)

I have to admit, I don't fully understand the advantages/disadvantages of one vs. the other generally, but this action seems to be the city's way of asserting its powers of unilateral annexation by ordinance, rather than continuing with "orderly annexation" under the old agreement, which it asserts was not properly legally constructed.

As to your specific question, I'm not sure how that would work out. I assume that the city is only trying to nullify the agreement from this date forward, so as not to nullify the original annexation.

By: SDHO on 1/12/10
You're right, Patrick, that without an agreement in place, city's have a lot of power. In the fact the City of Nfld used to have protections for the townships in their own ordinances, removed by "staff recommendation" last spring despite the protest of a slew of residents of the surrounding townships. It went disgracefully unquestioned by the council, and I think we're seeing step #2 here towards what would appear to be a land grab.

I'm not opposed to annexation, and I think it's especially preferable for Northfield to be annexing already-developed areas like the Hwy 3/Northfield Blvd corridor (John Deere, Northfield Lines, etc). However, Waterford should have the say that they were promised. The City is instead pushing them out of the negotiation.

Without question, this is unethical, but it also seems risky for Northfield. What do they do if Waterford incorporates? It seems like they're potentially shooting themselves in the foot just to avoid coming up with annexation proposals that are beneficial to all.

Sean Hayford O'Leary

By: Patrick_Enders on 1/12/10
It is indeed risky, particularly regarding incorporation. I hope that the city has correctly anticipated how this will play out - while I know little about MN annexation law, I know even less about MN incorporation law.

By: chuck on 1/13/10
The City's have a lot of power for a reason, the State has determined a long time ago that Municipal services such as sewer treatment and clean water were a benifit to the population in general! Orderly Annexation agreements were set up with the understanding that the City would eventually annex the entire township. With waterford they used the agreement so that they would never be annexed. Waterford dose not have enough population to incorporate. If they ever attracted enough people to live in Waterford to incorporate they would have to build and provide sewer treatment and potable water service which is exactly the expense they are trying to avoid!

By: Patrick_Enders on 1/13/10
I found this interesting paper on the subject: PROS AND CONS OF TOWNSHIP INCORPORATION, ANNEXATION AND MERGER

"To be considered for incorporation, the Township must meet the necessary factors to be
incorporated into a City. At a minimum the Township will need to provide evidence to
the ALJ that for several years the Township has successfully handled planning and
zoning activities within the Township. Further, the Township would need to have a plan
for the provision of municipal services such as sanitary sewer and municipal water.

"Finally, remember that attempting to incorporate as a city is not a sure means of avoiding
the loss of township land through annexation.... In Forest Lake, the entire township was ordered annexed into the city rather
than being incorporated as a new separate city. Part of the rationale for this outcome was
that in order to incorporate, the township must argue that it is or is about to become urban
or suburban in nature, which is the same basic criteria to trigger an annexation.

"Combined with the current preference by the State to encourage consolidations and thus fewer local
units of government instead of more, the chances of a township successfully
incorporating as a new city are pretty slim and an annexation of the whole into the
existing city is likely."

http://www.courimacarthur.com/files/Pros_and_Cons_of_Incorporation.pdf