|
|
OAH NO. 2-0330-18032-BA |
STATE
OF
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
|
In
the Matter of the Petition of
the City of Statutes 414.031(A-7431) |
FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER |
The above entitled matter came on for hearing before Administrative
Law Judge Raymond R. Krause at 8:30 a.m. on Monday, June 18, 2007 at
Chad Sterle and John P. Dimich, Dimich, Swanson &
Sterle,
Mitchell Brunfelt, Colosimo, Patchin, Kearney &
Brunfelt, Ltd.,
Kent E. Nyberg, Kent E. Nyberg Law Office,
Ltd.,
STATEMENT OF
ISSUE
The
issue in this proceeding is whether the Petition for Annexation should be
granted based upon the factors set out in statute.[1] The ALJ finds that the Petition should be
denied.
Based
upon all of the testimony, exhibits and the record in the proceeding, the
Administrative Law Judge makes the following:
FINDINGS OF
FACT
Procedural
History
1.
On May 11, 2006, the
City of Bovey filed a petition with the Municipal Boundary Adjustment Unit
(“MBA”) seeking the annexation of approximately 720 acres of property located
in Trout Lake Township and Iron Range Township (“Subject Properties”). The area proposed for annexation is described
as follows:
The
following parcels (“Iron Range Property”) in Itasca County, State of Minnesota,
Township 56, Range 24:
(1)
Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NW ¼ SW ¼), Section 27
(2) Southwest
Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (SW ¼ SW ¼), Section 27
(3)
Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter (NW ¼ SE ¼), Section 28
(4)
Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter (SW ¼ SE ¼), Section 28
(5)
Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter (NE ¼ SE ¼), Section 28
(6)
Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter (SE ¼, SE ¼), Section 28
(7)
Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (NE ¼, NE ¼), Section 33
(8)
Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (SE ¼ NE ¼), Section 33
(9)
Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter (NE ¼ SE ¼), Section 33
(10)
Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter (SE ¼ SE ¼), Section 33
(11)
Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (NW ¼ NW ¼), Section 34
(12)
Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SW ¼ NW ¼), Section 34
(13)
Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NW ¼ SW ¼), Section 34
(14)
Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (SW ¼ SW ¼), Section 34
The
following parcels (“Trout Lake Property”) in Itasca County, State of Minnesota,
Township 55, Range 24:
(1)
Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (NW ¼ NW ¼), Section 3
(2)
Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SW ¼ NW ¼), Section 3
(3)
Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (NE ¼ NE ¼), Section 4
(4)
Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (SE ¼ NE ¼), Section 4
2.
The Petition for
Annexation incorrectly described all of the Subject Property as being located
in Township 56, which is
3.
On May 30, 2006,
the City of Taconite and Iron Range Township filed with the MBA a joint
resolution designating and requesting the immediate annexation, pursuant to
Minn. Stat. § 414.0325, of the 560 acres of Iron Range Township included in the
A-7431 Bovey docket. The joint
resolution, which was signed on May 5, 2006 by the Township Board and on May 8,
2006 by the City of
4.
On June 1, 2006,
a Notice of Hearing was issued by the MBA and duly published by the Scenic
Range NewsForum for two successive weeks, on June 22, 2006 and June 29, 2006.
5.
On June 19, 2006,
the Director issued a memorandum stating that he was declining to issue an
order pursuant to the City of
6.
The hearing was
opened on July 6, 2006 and was immediately continued to an indefinite date.
7.
On July 7, 2006,
the City of
8.
The parties were
unable to resolve the contested issues through mediation.
9.
In a letter dated
April 16, 2007, Larry C. Minton, the mediator for the parties in this matter,
contacted the Municipal Boundary Adjustments Office informing that office that
the mediation had reached an impasse.
10.
On April 24,
2007, this matter was referred to Administrative Law Judge Raymond R. Krause
for a hearing.
11.
A pre-hearing
conference was held on May 10, 2007. At
that time the hearing was scheduled for June 18 and 19, 2007.
12.
On May 17, 2006,
a Notice of Reconvened Hearing was issued by the Office of Administrative
Hearings and duly published by the Scenic Range NewsForum for two successive
weeks, on June 7, 2007 and June 14, 2007.
13.
The Reconvened
Hearing was conducted on June 18, 2007 and the hearing record closed on June 20,
2007 with the receipt of the post hearing briefs submitted by the City of
Population
14.
According to a
2006 census, the population of Bovey is approximately 715.[3]
15.
The population of
Taconite is approximately 315.[4]
16.
There are no
people living in the subject Trout Lake Property.
17.
There is one
person living in the subject Iron Range Property.
Physical
Features Generally
18.
The Subject
Properties are located in the part of northern
19.
Much of the land
on the Subject Properties is filled with mine pits, tailings piles and
wetlands, rendering the land unsuitable for development.
20.
Bovey and
Taconite are small cities; however, most of the Subject Properties are
uninhabited and rural in character.
21.
The eastern
boundary of Bovey’s corporate limits is contiguous with the western boundary of
the Subject Properties.[6]
22.
The boundary of
the platted area of the City of
23.
The nearest
platted section of the City of
24.
The southern
boundary of Taconite’s corporate limits is contiguous with the northern
boundary of the Iron Range Property.[9]
25.
The boundary of the
platted area of the City of
26.
Minnesota Steel
and Excelsior Energy each have proposed projects in the area of the Subject
Properties. The Minnesota Steel project
would be built in Nashwauk and the Excelsior Energy project would be built in
Taconite. If those projects proceed,
officials anticipate that the projects and their associated supporting business
will require about 6,000 new housing units.[11]
TROUT
Physical
Features of
27.
The terrain in
the Trout Lake Property is composed generally of rough mine dumps, tailings
ponds, fields and woods.[12]
28.
The soils in the
Trout Lake Property are described as “mine dumps and Warba series soil, which
consists of deep, well-drained, moderately, slowly permeable soils on glacial
moraine and glacial till plains.”[13]
Physical
Development, Planning and Intended Uses for
29.
The southwest
quarter of the northwest quarter, section 3 (southern quarter of section 3
property) in the Trout Lake Property is used primarily as a disposal site for
the sludge by-product created by the nearby waste water treatment facility
owned by the Coleraine-Bovey-Taconite Joint Wastewater Commission (Commission). [14]
30.
The Commission
has used the southern quarter of the section 3 property to dispose of the
sludge for approximately 20 years.[15]
31.
The northern
quarter of the section 3 property is undeveloped and used by some for hunting
or other casual recreation.[16]
32.
The two properties
located in the northeast and southeast quarters of the northeast quarter,
section 4 (section 4 properties) in
33.
The City of
34.
An expansion is
currently planned for the wastewater treatment plant which will bring the plant
into compliance with environmental regulations. The Commission anticipates increased long-term
need for the sludge disposal site on both of the section 3 properties.[19]
35.
Sludge is
transported by manure-spreading truck and spread over approximately 60 acres of
the section 3 properties. The section 4
properties are also considered prime land for spreading the sludge.[20]
36.
The Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency regulates and permits the Commission’s disposal of
waste water treatment sludge.[21]
37.
There are no
houses or businesses on the Trout Lake Property.[22]
38.
The City of
Transportation
39.
There are no
transportation issues connected to the Trout Lake Property.
Land Use
Controls, Planning and Comprehensive Plans
40.
All of the land
in the Trout Lake Property is vacant, and currently used only for mine dumps
and agricultural purposes.[24]
41.
Zoning in
42.
The City of
Government
Services
43.
Bovey has a
police department and has a Joint Powers Agreement with the City of
44.
Primary law
enforcement for the Trout Lake Property is currently provided by the Itasca
County Sheriff’s Department.[28]
45.
The Trout Lake
Property is in the “east end” of the Itasca County Sheriff’s service area. Coverage of this area is generally handled by
“up to two” deputies who live within that service area.[29]
46.
The “east end”
service area is approximately 48 miles long and varies in width from 6 to 24
miles wide, with an average width of about 12 miles.[30]
47.
Bovey police
coverage extends to the corporate limits of Bovey in the east, which form the
western boundary of the Trout Lake Property.[31]
48.
Bovey police have
responded to calls involving vandalism and car accidents over the years in the
eastern edges of their coverage.[32]
49.
If police
presence is required in the area of the Trout Lake Property, the Itasca County
Sheriff is called. Depending on the
nature of the call, a Sheriff’s Deputy will be called; if the matter is urgent,
a police officer from Bovey or Coleraine will be called because they are
generally closer and can arrive in that area more quickly than an Itasca County
Deputy can.[33]
50.
In his 11 years
as a police officer and chief for the City of
51.
Bovey’s water and
sewer services end at the boundary of Bovey’s current edge of business and
residential development, approximately 1 ½ miles from the edge of the Trout
Lake Property.[35]
52.
Bovey has its own
fire department with sufficient equipment to provide fire protection for itself
as well as to provide services for
53.
Bovey currently
provides fire protection services for the Trout Lake Property through a
contract with
Plans for
Providing Services within Reasonable Time after Annexation
54.
The City of
55.
The City of
Fiscal
Impact
56.
Currently,
Adequacy of
Town Government to Deliver Services
57.
58.
59.
The City of
IRON RANGE
PROPERTY
Transportation
60.
State Highway 169
currently runs along the southern edge of the platted area of the City of
61.
State Highway 169
is being re-routed further to the south of Bovey. The new Highway 169 is expected to open in
the fall of 2007. The entrance to the
City of Bovey off the new 169 will be about 1 ½ miles east of Bovey, just
beyond Dead Man’s Curve about ¾ of a mile within the Iron Range Property.[44]
62.
The old Highway
169 will become a county road and will be the access road from new Highway 169
into Bovey.[45]
63.
The City of
Physical
Features of
64.
All of
65.
Two 40-acre
quarters in the southern part of the Iron Range Property may be suitable for
future development because they are on high ground. Bovey is not certain who owns these two
40-acre quarters or whether the land is or could be available for development.[48]
66.
It is possible
that some of the land north and west of the old Highway 169 within the Iron
Range Property could be developed. Most
of that land is owned by mining interests or their successors.[49]
67.
Because of wetlands,
a large swamp, tailings ponds and railroad tracks, the remainder of the Iron
Range Property is largely not susceptible to development.[50]
68.
There are two
structures in the Iron Range Property.
They are houses at the northern end of the Iron Range Property, just
north of the part of old Highway 169 known as “Dead Man’s Curve” and just south
of the southern end of the City of
69.
An unused
railroad bed extends south from the new location of Highway 169 within the
70.
There is a second
railroad grade within the corporation limits of Bovey. That railroad grade goes south of the new Highway
169 about ¾ of a mile east of the southeastern corner of the platted area of
the City of
Land Use
Controls, Planning and Comprehensive Plans
71.
The City of
72.
Bovey has its own
zoning authority and utilizes residential, industrial and commercial districts.[55]
73.
74.
Bovey’s biggest
concern at the current time is the new eastern entrance to Bovey from the
re-routed Highway 169. Bovey does not
own or otherwise control that land, but sees it as the “front door” to the city
and is concerned about how that entrance will be developed. They are particularly concerned about lighting,
signage and development.[57]
75.
76.
The Bovey City
Council approached the
77.
Taconite has not
indicated in any way that it wants to prevent Bovey from being involved in the
development of its eastern entrance from the new Highway 169.[60]
78.
Within the
corporate limits of Bovey, Hoffman Developers have proposals for both
commercial and residential development along the new Highway 169. Hoffman Developers are planning two exits for
residential properties and five exits on each side of the highway for
commercial properties. It is unclear
whether the highway will be limited access.[61] Hoffman is getting permits in place for development
along new 169 in Bovey, but is not apparently planning to start building anything
before 2008.[62]
79.
Bovey’s options
for growth are limited by physical restrictions. There has been some housing development in
the past five years to the north and northwest.
Other than that development, Bovey cannot grow to the north because of
railroad tracks, a large mine pit and mining dumps. It cannot grow to the west because it is
bounded by the City of
80.
Over the past
five years, the City of
81.
To the north of Highway
169 within its corporate limits, Bovey plans to develop the 18.75 acres it owns
and the 20 acres it hopes to acquire from the county. This development is still in the planning
stages and is the next phase of development for Bovey. [65]
82.
Bovey officials
think that, once they develop the 18.75 acres they own and the county’s 20
acres, development of 80 acres in the Iron Range Property “might be the
direction [they] are going” to accommodate future growth.[66]
83.
If the Minnesota
Steel and Excelsior Energy projects are approved and are built, Bovey
anticipates that the portion of Iron Range Property that can be developed could
become urban or suburban in character.[67]
84.
Excelsior
Energy’s new plant, if built, is planned for an area north of the platted
limits of the City of
Government Services
85.
A sewer line,
owned by the Commission, takes waste water from the City of
86.
Based on existing
locations of water and sewer lines, Bovey anticipates that potential future
sanitary sewer lines could be brought to within ¼ mile of the Iron Range
Property.[70]
87.
It would cost
about 1.5 million dollars to run water and sewer into the Iron Range Property
for at most 80 acres of development.[71]
88.
Initial review of
soil, topography and environmental factors show that there may be some
constraints to sewer and water development in the Iron Range Property.[72]
89.
90.
Bovey
occasionally responds to fire department calls in the Iron Range Property
area. Such calls are in a mutual aid
situation, two or three times per year, for car accidents, generally in the
“Dead Man’s Curve” area of old Highway 169, or west of that point along Highway
169. Taconite generally responds to
calls from “Dead Man’s Curve” and to the east.[74]
91.
Taconite would
respond to a fire call at either of the two structures in the Iron Range
Property.[75]
92.
If Bovey were to
be called to a fire at either of the structures in the Iron Range Property, its
fire trucks would have to travel east from Bovey along Highway 169, continuing
southeast of the burning structures, then travel north and west through
Taconite, past the Taconite fire station and finally south into the Iron Range
Property area where the structures are located.[76]
93.
94.
Bovey officials
are concerned that, once old Highway 169 is turned over to the county, the
portion where the eastern Bovey entrance is located, which is about ¾ of a mile
into the Iron Range Property, will be on the “end of [the county’s] agenda” for
plowing. The nearest county maintenance
garages are in Warba, which is 16-17 miles away; or in Balsam, which is 12-14
miles away.[78]
95.
Bovey’s street
department is prepared to service any new roads which may be built in the Iron
Range Property.[79]
96.
Bovey offers a
variety of recreational services and facilities: ball fields, tennis courts and
a hockey rink. More ball fields are
planned for the future in the northwest section of the city.[80]
97.
If Bovey’s
annexation petition is granted, it is prepared to provide infrastructure and
fire and police protection to the Iron Range Property.[81]
98.
A forced water
main goes from Taconite through the Iron Range Property and continues south of
the City of
99.
Taconite does not
have its own police department, so the
100.
101.
In anticipation
of development accompanying the Excelsior Energy project, Taconite has had a
water distribution analysis and sanitary sewer study done for the area within
its corporate limits. The studies did
not specifically include the needs of the Iron Range Property.[85]
102.
Taconite’s water
distribution plan extends to the northern boundary of the Iron Range
Property. The current water line extends
to about ½ mile away from that boundary.
The sanitary sewer goes right past the northern boundary of the Iron
Range Property and could easily be tapped to go into the Iron Range Property.[86]
103.
Taconite’s water
and sewer systems are adequate for now, but would need to be upgraded if the
Excelsior project moves forward.[87]
104.
Taconite has a
park, ball field and an ice rink.
105.
Taconite has also
developed a comprehensive plan, which includes the annexation of
106.
Taconite is not
opposed to commercial development along the old Highway 169 and has the ability
to provide municipal services to such potential development.[90]
Previous
Annexation Agreements and Orders
107.
108.
With the
cooperation of
109.
Environmental
Problems
110.
As part of its
planning process for further development, Taconite has engaged in a wellhead
protection study required by the state. This study determines how water flows
into the city well and what areas are especially sensitive as the city attempts
to protect the quality of its water. For
the study, the Minnesota Department of Health consulted with the
Plans for
Providing Services within Reasonable Time after Annexation
111.
Bovey has done no
studies to determine whether the land Bovey wants to annex is developable or
whether wetlands, or natural or man-made obstacles would prohibit or limit
development.[96]
112.
Bovey has no
comprehensive plan for development.[97]
113.
Bovey has not
approached DM&IR or other rail companies to inquire about getting rail
crossing permits, or even the procedure or cost for getting such crossing
rights, to get access to land on the north side of the railroad tracks in the
Iron Range Property.[98]
114.
The City of
115.
City of
116.
Much needs to be
done before Bovey can develop the land it already owns or is negotiating for
within its corporate limits. No water or
sewer studies have been done yet for development of 18.75 acres which are just
to the east of city. There is no developer
with a contract or agreement to develop the land, and no engineering study for
the 18.75 acres or the 20 acres the city hopes to acquire from the county. There is no firm agreement to purchase the
county’s 20 acres.[101]
117.
To get services
to the 18.75 acres to be developed, Bovey will need to borrow money, but no
financing is yet in place.[102]
118.
Iron
119.
120.
Taconite is
working with the railroad to get a crossing between Taconite junction, where
the single resident of the Iron Range Property lives, and Highway 169.[105]
121.
Neither Bovey nor
Taconite presented any evidence that either has any immediate plans to develop
the Iron Range Property.[106]
Fiscal
Impact
122.
Bovey’s 2005
audited financial statement shows investments and cash on hand of approximately
$700,000 and bonded indebtedness of approximately $500,000. The bonded indebtedness includes two
outstanding bonds, both for residential development: bonds for the Trailview Addition
were taken out in 2003 and will be paid back over 15 years; and bonds for the
North Addition Second were taken out in 2005 and will also be paid over 15
years. The bonds are paid by a
combination of special assessments, tax levy and ratepayer collection. None of this indebtedness includes the
development anticipated within the current corporation limits or any potential
development within the Iron Range Property. [107]
123.
All taxes levied
by
124.
Because Taconite
pays taxes to
125.
Whether
Services are Best Provided through Petition or Alternative
126.
Taconite and
127.
In 2005, Iron
Range Township developed a “Problem Statement” because Taconite and Iron Range
Township depend on each other, work together “like an arm and a leg” of a
single body and were concerned that others were coming in to split them up. They are working together to protect their tax
capacity.[112]
128.
The residents of
Taconite vote in
129.
130.
The only resident
of the Iron Range Property lives just north of Dead Man’s Curve. The area where that resident lives has long
been known as Taconite junction.[115] The only access to that property is through
Taconite on a township road which is maintained jointly by Taconite and
131.
Conversations
between Taconite and
132.
133.
The sole resident
of the Iron Range Property has lived in his house in the Iron Range Property
for 14 years. Taconite and
CONCLUSIONS
1.
The
Administrative Law Judge has jurisdiction in this matter through the MBA under
Minn. Stat. §§ 414.09, 414.02, 414.031, and 414.12.
2.
The proper notice
of the hearing in this matter has been given.
3.
The subject areas
described in the Petition A-7431 are not urban or suburban in character and are
not likely to be in the foreseeable future.
4.
Annexation of the
subject areas in
5.
Annexation by the
City of
6.
The ALJ makes no
finding or conclusion as to whether the
ORDER
1.
IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that the Petition for Annexation be DENIED.
2.
IT IS FURTHER
ORDERED that the costs of this proceeding are divided as follows: 60 percent to
the City of
Dated: July
5, 2007
s/Raymond R. Krause
|
RAYMOND R. KRAUSE |
|
Chief Administrative Law
Judge |
NOTICE
This is the final administrative decision
in this case under Minn. Stat. §§ 414.061, 414.09, and 414.12. Any person
aggrieved by this Order may appeal to Itasca County District Court by filing an
Application for Review with the Court Administrator within 30 days of the date
of this Order. An appeal does not stay
the effect of this Order.
Any party may submit a written request for
an amendment of these Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order within 7
days from the date of the mailing of the Order.[120]
However, no request for amendment shall extend the time of appeal from these
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order.
MEMORANDUM
This is a petition for annexation of
portions of
Analysis
of Statutory Factors
Annexation of township property by a city
is governed by Minn. Stat. § 414.031. In arriving at a determination in such a case,
sixteen factors are to be considered. The
following discussion relates these factors to the evidence in this hearing
record.
a.
Present population and number of households, past
population and projected population growth of the annexing municipality and
subject area and adjacent units of local government.
The population of Bovey is 715. The city has grown very slowly over the past
20 years. But for the possibility of the
Minnesota Steel and Excelsior Energy projects, there would be little growth
projected for Bovey. Neither of these
industrial projects is confirmed and at least one has significant legal hurdles
to overcome before it is approved.
There is currently no one living in the
portion of
The Excelsior Energy project, if built,
will be in the City of
b.
Quantity of land within the subject area and adjacent
units of local government; and natural terrain.
The petition delineates a subject area of
720 acres within both
c.
Degree of continuity of the boundaries between the
annexing municipality and the subject area.
The eastern boundary of the City of
d.
Present pattern of physical development, planning, and
intended land uses in the subject area.
There is little planned development in the
surrounding area that is more than speculative at this time. Bovey has no plan to develop any of the
property it wishes to annex. Bovey has
no comprehensive plan for the city and no expectation that much of the subject
area could ever be developed. Some
development may be possible along the route of the new Highway 169 and possibly
some of the property in the southern portion of the
The prospect of any of these Subject Properties
being available for development as housing in the relatively short term in
order to meet demand from Excelsior or Minnesota Steel is remote. Furthermore, Bovey has several parcels within its
current city boundaries that are available for development.
e.
The present transportation network and potential
transportation issues.
Highway 169 is the main arterial in the
area. It is currently undergoing
significant changes. The route, which
currently runs through the center of Bovey is being moved to arc south of the
downtown area to the northeast past Taconite. It is possible, although not official, that
Highway 169 as rerouted will become four- lane, limited access. If so, the highway exit for Bovey is likely to
be outside its corporate limits.
f.
Land use controls and planning presently being
utilized in the annexing municipality.
The City of
g.
The impact of the proposed annexation on the delivery
of government services.
Bovey has its own police department that operates jointly with
the police department of Coleraine. Both townships depend on the Itasca County
Sheriff for police protection. Under current mutual aid agreements
Bovey has a fire department as does the
City of
Water and sewer are provided through the Bovey-Coleraine-Taconite
Joint Wastewater Commission. There would
be no impact on the subject area since all three cities have access to the same
services. Currently, the nearest water
and sewer connection to the subject property would be from Taconite.
h.
The implementation of previous annexation orders.
A prior annexation order allowed the
annexation of part of
i.
Existing or potential environmental problems.
The environmental issue that is driving
this annexation petition, at least in part, is the need to continue to have a
site available upon which the sludge from the water treatment facility may be
spread. The Trout Lake Town Board has
taken no action to prevent the sludge spreading in their township. They have not charged for the right to do
this.
Apparently, according to Mr. Bibich, the
street commissioner of Bovey, the concern that led to the petition for
annexation arose from a rumor that
The other environmental issue in this
matter is the need by the City of
j.
Plans and programs by the annexing municipality for
providing needed and enhanced governmental services to the subject area.
There are few services needed in such an
uninhabited and undeveloped area. Those
that are needed are currently being provided by largely the same entities that
would provide them if annexation were approved. Bovey has no plans to provide enhanced
services to this area. In fact, the sole
resident in the subject area feels strongly that he already receives more
services from Taconite than he would from Bovey.
k.
Analysis of the fiscal impact.
There is little fiscal impact. The total property tax on the 720 acres is
estimated to be less than $1000. If
Bovey were to annex the subject area and attempt to bring sewer and water to
the developable portions, it would have to significantly increase its bonded
indebtedness.
l.
Effect on
All of the subject area and both cities
are in the same school district. No impact on the district is anticipated due
to annexation.
m.
Adequacy of town government to deliver services to the
subject area.
Few services are needed for this vacant
land. Those services that are needed are
adequately provided by the respective towns, usually via the county or by contract.
n.
Analysis of whether necessary government services can
best be provided through the proposed action or another type of boundary
adjustment.
Because the needs of the subject area are
few, annexation to Bovey is not required to provide services now. Should either or both of the proposed
industrial developments occur, there may be pressure on these communities to
provide more housing, more amenities and more services such as sewer and water.
Should that be the case, Taconite is
better positioned to deal with the service demands than is Bovey. Taconite would be the home to one of the
projects and would be closer to the other. Because Excelsior Energy would be in Taconite,
Taconite will have the property tax resources to respond to the demands new development
will place on it.
In addition, Taconite has done a
Comprehensive Plan that anticipates the development needs in
Although the ALJ did not have before him
enough evidence to make a recommendation, it would seem likely that orderly
annexation of
o.
If only a part of a township is annexed, the ability
of the remainder to continue or the feasibility of it being incorporated or
annexed to a different municipality.
The Subject Property is not critical to
the survival of either township. The
land has little value currently or for the foreseeable future. There is no serious proposal to incorporate;
however, there is a petition to have an orderly annexation to Taconite of the
Annexation
Standard
Based upon an analysis of the factors, Minn. Stat. § 414.031 allows annexation upon a finding,
1)
That the subject
area is now, or is about to become, urban or suburban in character;
2)
That municipal
government in the area proposed for annexation is required to protect the
public health, safety, and welfare; or
3)
That annexation
would be in the best interest of the subject area.
The subject area does not meet any of
these criteria. The subject is raw,
undeveloped land. It is uninhabited,
save for one lone resident. Furthermore,
it is likely to stay undeveloped and uninhabited. Much of the area is unusable due to mine
pits, tailings ponds, tailing dumps and wetlands. Bovey’s real interest is not in this land’s
development potential, but rather to protect its sludge dumping ability and
control the access to the city from Highway 169 once completed. The land is never likely to become urban and
unlikely to be suburban in the foreseeable future.
Given
the state of the subject area, annexation is not necessary for the public
health, safety or welfare. The services
that ensure those goals will largely be the same regardless of annexation. Because it is virtually uninhabited, there are
few public health and safety needs and the lone resident would be safer, from a
fire standpoint, as part of the City of
On the
whole, it cannot be said that annexation of the subject area is in the best
interest of the subject area. Although
the petition for orderly annexation between Taconite and
Failure of
Notice
Bovey
argues that this was a mere clerical oversight and that
Because of the decision to deny the
petition on the merits, there is no need to reach this issue.
Conclusion
Bovey expressed some understandable reasons for its desire to annex
portions of two townships. Unfortunately,
protecting the ability to spread sludge, protecting the esthetics of the
highway entrance to the city, and vague thoughts of someday perhaps needing to
expand beyond their current borders are not statutory reasons to allow
annexation.
Bovey has not shown that the subject land
is, or is about to become, urban or suburban in character nor that annexation
is necessary for the health, safety and welfare of the area. These are the statutorily allowable reasons
for annexation. There are no facts on
this record to support a conclusion that annexation by Bovey is in the best
interests of the subject area. The
petition must, therefore, be denied.
R.R.K.
[1]
[2] Hearing Ex. W (Respondents’ hearing exhibits are designated with letters; Petitioner’s hearing exhibits are designated with numbers).
[3] Testimony of Tiffany Johnson.
[4] Hearing Ex. X.; Testimony of Michael Troumbly.
[5] Hearing Ex. 3.
[6] Hearing Ex. 1.
[7]
[8] Testimony of Michael Bibich and Hearing Ex. 1.
[9] Test. of M. Troumbly.
[10]
[11] Testimony of John Mattonen and Test. of M. Bibich.
[12] Hearing Ex. A.
[13] Hearing Exs. A, G and H.
[14] Hearing Ex. A, P and Q.; Test of M. Bibich.
[15] Testimony of Kevin Odden.
[16] Test. of T. Johnson.
[17] Hearing Ex. A, N and O; Test of M. Bibich.
[18] Test of M. Bibich.
[19]
[20] Test. of K. Odden.
[21] Hearing Ex. A and Test. of M. Bibich.
[22]
Hearing Exs. J, K, L and M; Test. of M. Bibich.
[23] Test of M. Bibich.
[24] Hearing Ex. A.
[25] Test. of M. Bibich.
[26]
[27] Testimony of William Hollom.
[28]
Test. of M. Bibich.
[29] Test. of W. Hollom, Hearing Ex. 3 (the “east end” service area is denoted as area “1” on the map which is Ex. 3.).
[30] Hearing Ex. 3.
[31] Test. of W. Hollom.
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35] Test. of M. Bibich.
[36]
[37]
[38] Test. of K. Odden.
[39] Test. of M. Bibich.
[40] Testimony of Karen Burthwick .
[41]
[42]
[43] Hearing Ex. 1.
[44] Hearing Ex. 1 and Test. of T. Johnson, Test of M. Bibich and Test of K. Odden.
[45] Hearing Ex. 1 and Test of T. Johnson.
[46] Test. of M. Troumbly.
[47] Testimony of Edward Johnson.
[48] Test. of M. Bibich.
[49] Test. of M. Troumbly.
[50] Test. of M. Bibich.
[51] Test. of K. Odden.
[52] Test of M. Bibich and Test. of K. Odden.
[53] Test. of M. Bibich.
[54] Test. of K. Odden.
[55]
[56] Test. of E. Johnson.
[57] Testimony of James Gareri.
[58] Test. of M. Bibich.
[59] Test. of E. Johnson.
[60] Test. of M. Troumbly.
[61] Test. of M. Bibich.
[62] Test. of E. Johnson.
[63] Test. of M. Bibich, Test. of K. Odden and testimony of Test. of J. Gareri.
[64] Test. of M. Bibich.
[65]
[66]
[67]
[68] Test. of E. Johnson.
[69] Test. of M. Bibich and Test. of K. Odden.
[70] Hearing Ex. 1 and Testimony of John Mattonen (the green lines on Ex. 1 indicating sewer and water lines are potential future lines not lines currently in existence).
[71] Test. of J. Gareri.
[72] Test. of J. Mattonen.
[73] Test. of E. Johnson and Test. of M. Troumbly.
[74] Test. of K. Odden
[75] Test. of K. Odden and Test. of M. Troumbly.
[76] Test. of M. Troumbley.
[77] Test. of K. Odden and Test. of M. Bibich.
[78] Test. of M. Bibich.
[79] Test. of J. Gareri.
[80]
[81]
[82] Test. of K. Odden.
[83] Test. of W. Hollom.
[84] Test. of E. Johnson.
[85] Hearing Exs. Y and Z; Test. of M. Troumbly.
[86] Test. of M. Troumbly.
[87] Hearing Exs. Y and Z.
[88] Test. of E. Johnson.
[89] Hearing Ex. X; Test. of M. Troumbly.
[90] Test. of M. Troumbly.
[91] Test. of E. Johnson, Hearing Ex. X.
[92] Test. of E. Johnson.
[93]
[94] Test. of M. Troumbly T.
[95] Hearing Ex. CC and Test. of M. Troumbly.
[96] Test. of K. Odden.
[97]
[98]
[99]
[100] Test. of M. Bibich.
[101] Test. of J. Gareri.
[102]
[103] Test. of E. Johnson.
[104]
[105] Test. of M. Troumbly.
[106]
[107] Test. of T. Johnson and Hearing Ex. 4.
[108] Test. of M. Troumbly.
[109] Test. of E. Johnson.
[110]
[111] Hearing Ex. AA and Test. of E. Johnson.
[112] Test. of M. Troumbly.
[113] Test. of E. Johnson.
[114]
[115] Test. of M. Troumbly.
[116] Test. of E. Johnson.
[117] Test. of E. Johnson and Test. of M. Troumbly T.
[118] Test. of E. Johnson.
[119] Test. of M. Troumbly.
[120]