HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-03-19 CA Ltr to OPHCOPY
-,,R 212002
LAW OFFICES OF
Eckber Lammers, Bri Wolff & Vierlin P.L.L.P.
1835 North-western Avenue
J ames F. Lammers
Stillwater, Minnesota 55082
Paul A. Wolff
Robert G. Bri *
(1944-1996)
Mark J . Vierhn + �
Thomas J . Weidner
(651) 439-2878
------------------------
L J . Eckber
Susan D. Olson �
FAX (651) 439-2923
Of Counsel
David K. Sn
+ Neutral Arbitrator
Timoth M. Kelle
'Writer's Direct Dial: ( 651 ) 351-2118
*Certified Real Estate Specialist
� Neutral Mediator
March 19, 2002
Ms. Kimberl Kamper
Actin Cit Administrator
Cit of Oak Park Hei
14168 Oak- Park Boulevard North
P. 0. Box 2007
Oak Park Hei Minnesota 55082
Re: Valle Senior Services Alliance Re for Shared Services A
On McKean S East
Our File No. 0 01-99 84
Dear Ms. Kamper:
You have asked our offices to review the various impacts of the re as submitted
b Mr. Dan Lindh in his letter of March 7, 2002 to the Ma and Council re consideration
of a j oint powers or shared services a permittin Valle S enior S ervices Alliance to
construct facilities within Ba Township that would be proposed to be served b Oak Park
Hei municipal services.
Pursuant to State law, the Cit ma not re relative to the utilization or
enforcement of fees on its municipal services that are extended be its boundaries. An form of
re or enforcement would have to be b wa of joint powers or shared a with the
jurisdiction into which those set-vices would be extended. This would mean not onl ajpint powers
a that would have to be entered into between the Cit of Oak Park Hei and the
nei jurisdiction or subdivision, but it would also re the adoption of Oak Park Hei
re ordinances, specificall re water and sewer facilities, buildin inspections, fire
suppression s and related development matters b the jurisdiction in which the facilities
would be proposed to be built. Even then, should that jurisdiction decline to enforce pursuant to the
terms of the j oint powers a or modif or chan their ordinances patterned after the Cit
of Oak Park Hei so as to disable them from collectin revenues, water rates, sewer rates, etc. the
Cit would have no effective enforcement mechanism other than to enter into liti a the
adjoinin political subdivision for breach or non-performance of the j oint powers or shared service
a This, of course, places the Cit at considerable risk in the advent of non-perforinance of
the nei jurisdiction and, also, places the communit at risk in the advent that the
nei or adjoinin political subdivision, which is a township, should ever be incorporated or
annexed to another g overnmental unit whose g overnin g bod ma not share the same philosophies
or wish to be bound b or enforce the terms and provisions of the joint powers agreement.
Ms. Kimberly Kamper
March 19, 2002
Page 2
In addition to the lack of control and the risk of loss relating to the regulatory
functions of water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer management by the City of Oak Park Heights,
there would be the loss of revenue consisting of park dedication fees, sewer, water and storm sewer
connection fees, and the lack of tax revenue generated from the property over which the
development was made possible by the City of oak Park Heights to the extent that it was located
beyond our borders. If in future years the City of oak Park Heights and the proposed neighboring
jurisdiction would ever cease using common services for fire protection, the subject area could be
the victim of some degree of confusion between fire service providers in the event of an emergency
or service call. Additionally, police function and prosecutorial enforcement would differ between
the oak Park Heights Police Department and the Washington County Sheriff s Department which
now p rov* des criminal enforcement for the unincorporated areas of Washington County inclusive of
Baytown Township. Additional changes or confusion could occur at the time of elections for
persons residing in the VSSA in Baytown Township as they would have to be directed to Baytown
electoral services as opposed to oak Park Heights services when the balance of that development
would be served by and provided with election services from the City of oak Park Heights.
In addition to the initial development and the future development of the site, once
water and sewer facilities were extended, they would be subject to Washington County or the
Baytown Township Building Department, who would not be familiar with or accustomed to oak
Park Heights development issues as it affects water and sewer capacities, fire suppression systems,
etc. as the same may be impacted by future modifications, additions or other building changes that
would occur over the years.
In short, we see a multitude of differences and confusions that may occur, both
between the City and the Township and the public to be served in this area, and , would recommend
against extending City water and sewer services beyond its borders unless there is a compelling
public service need that requires that extension. The extension of water and sewer facilities beyond
the City's border to satisfy the request of a property owner or the political desire of a governmental
unit as opposed to serving and fulfilling a defined public safety or public service need is not in the
City's best interest, in our view.
Yours very truly,
Mark J, Vierling
MJVldcb
M. Kris Danielson
Dennis Postler
Scott Richards