The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutUntitled rd} Y'd'a9 Q z a:1"s'z�I..1,fs k.o 1i,•r r..," a Y P}. E �s � t'.. '.u 1 ti k k I ?. , £4� 3" „r to'�i�a s w [ P' F 1 atf ;',/-..,41{a ; Pia? �A t f _.,:1 '�t E a; € 7 h`• l�q�3 zaJ 2S iC N F e P f p Ja r '€a „ r + d 1 ; W. � Lr R l �' P�I ' �, H � <<4, 1: . �3 a x c,, r - k � Fh v � S `+Y ` a P��s f�t x ti Ay x u � y,t n 3 'd � 'k r (x t 3 T a � k 3 1 t �x ;*h t " i 4 � t r 1, � k�z" �� t i � a et P � n� 4 � t 1� k C&fix A a 9s4S i, - ti :'-° 3 t` ' t IY , i ka * } '� t'P P`s,a a .I ,s . j ' ; r 19 � � Csill C - `, i` ^� tge{e#�� *a 8,C 1('6 "k' v e s sL� -N a }� fi Fkk PkCr � aw t . }N s f` ,2� a 1. ek? of L4wtt u4 r_:fie e�i F" ' r j } t x+ ,�l �l ,. 1 ,,,,,,'"(.‘,1,..''s,fi s: e na� t c`n. Pc ?F ..ar s b, d-5,, q Sri d } a^p s-?F, ,p $ b®lg_ & s t P' 4 2zs ,� 4 M F , E • x x� !,P P u 1 > >ar 'hP� ?i 4,,.. .i - r i� k i'''''''-'2''''-',&'''''',;' ,-.- JP , yP '- x e 4 # ° � a bwl y 7ii;:ii; st "} S ' l> i is F , ` '* h„w j x. a a .s ' :,, 'tF ''a r st ';'- l ste4* 4C 1 '$" ',�. i * ' . 1/ { v. s n a la : f a :'-- bS7 ,, g - i Cs 3 a r 0 'q t tt e r,- .'. 4 -'r 1 t- x " `� " 7 o F .9. a r ''w x 5� s r ' a " '? r: # w g 5 �m+ " ..,, R c)a " b -w Yi N L ,ww d k 7 e ' x ' .1f tU s ''4 ,t S 4' t #""l- � 5 l4,' a „ :fix'''' ;e c 3�r� Vy a° ,->m P a n' - _i411.0:'-',-'''',. ' F q w ° r,- f r-, `+ 's ..� w - 7 ° [ ,' tfi s„.yt S , , ,:>s ° a ;te 1 s.; t a'a .r,- : s :-'; s T+3 „ 'Y+: n.mafa. a.a ;-,..* rM?fir, S TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Table of Authorities ii Argument 2 A. A Declaratory Judgment Action Is an Appro- priate Method to Challenge an Annexation Order of the Minnesota Municipal Commission 2 B. Denial of Respondents' Right to a Declaratory Judgment Action Would Cause Irreparable Harm 10 C. Filing of Appeal Notice Under M.S.A. 414 Does Not Foreclose Right to Declaratory Judgment Action 13 D. A Justiciable Controversy Is Presented by the Declaratory Judgment Action 17 E. A Declaratory Judgment Action Will Terminate the Issue 19 Conclusion 20 i F • TABLE OF AUTHORITIES PAGE Statutes: M.S.A. 414 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 19 M.S.A. 555 2, 3,4 M.S.A. 414.07 2,9, 11, 18, 19 M.S.A. 414.03 (2) 6 M.S.A. 555.02 9 Constitutions: Minn. Const. Art. 6, Sec. 5 3 Rules of Procedure: Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 57 4 Minnesota Cases: Barron v. City of Minneapolis, 212 Minn. 566, 4 N.W.2d 622 (1942) 4 City of Glencoe v. Beneke, 288 Minn. 190, 179 N.W. 2d 279 (1970) 4, 5, 6, 17, 19 Land O'Lakes Dairy Co. v. Village of Sebeka, 225 Minn. 540, 31 N.W. 2nd 660 (1948) 9 Leighton v. City of Minneapolis,222 Minn. 516, 25 N.W. 2d 263 (1946) 4 Montgomery v. Minneapolis Fire Department Relief Association, 218 Minn. 27, 15 N.W. 2d 122 (1944) 3 Town of Burnsville v. City of Bloomington, 268 Minn. 84, 128 N.W. 2d 97 (1964) 7, 18 Town of Burnsville et al v. City of Bloomington, 264 Minn. 133, 117 N.W. 2d 746 (1962) 6, 7, 8 ii PAGE Foreign Cases: Butterick Publishing Co. v. Rose, 141 Wis. 533, 124 N.W. 647 10 Portland General Electric Co. v. City of Estacada, 194 Or. 145, 241 P. 2nd 1129 (1952) 8, 9 Town of Blooming Grove v. City of Madison, 275 Wis. 328, 81 N.W. 2d 713 (1957) 10 Welfare Employees Union v. Michigan Civil Service Commission, 28 McA 343, 184 N.W. 2d 247 (1970) 15, 16, 17 Wisconsin Fertilizer Association v. Karns, 39 Wis. 2d 95, 158 N.W. 2d 294 (1968) . . . 15, 16 Attorney General's Opinions: Op. Atty. Gen. 484e-1, June 7, 1968 11 Secondary Authorities: Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 18 3 Anderson on Declaratory Judgments, Vol. 1 (2nd Ed.) 7, 10 Borchard, Edwin,Declaratory Judgments (1934 Ed.) 8 iii STATE OF MINNESOTA In Supreme Court THE MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL COMMISSION, an agency of the State of Minnesota; and THE CITY OF STILLWATER, Appellants, vs. THE TOWN OF STILLWATER, and H. CLAY NEWMAN, individually and on behalf of others; THE VILLAGE OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS; and RAMONA J. CANFIELD, VIRGIL CAN- FIELD, JOSEPH J. UEHLING, MAHLON WAHLER, OSCAR BENSON, LLOYD ANEZ, and GARDY THOMAS, Respondents. BRIEF OF THE RESPONDENT THE VILLAGE OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS 411 2 ARGUMENT THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION INVOLVED HEREIN MAY BE MAINTAINED TO CHALLENGE OR- DERS OF THE MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL COMMISSION ANNEXING TERRITORY TO A MUNICIPALITY PURSU- ANT TO M.S.A. 414. A. A Declaratory Judgment Action Is an Appropriate Method to Challenge an Annexation Order of the Minnesota Munici- pal Commission. Pursuant to M.S.A. 555 the Village of Oak Park Heights, which has intervened in the action commenced by Respondent, The Town of Stillwater, seeks through a declaratory judg- ment action a determination of its rights and an adjudication that the annexation proceedings in Minnesota Municipal Com- mission Proceedings A-1985 and A-2056 were conducted in complete disregard of the procedural requirements of M.S.A. 414. Appellants have asserted the position that the District Court lacked jurisdiction in this matter, that the action is not authorized by law, and that M.S.A. 414.07 is the exclusive method of review. It is Respondents' position that not only is M.S.A. 414.07 an inexclusive method of review but that it is also a completely inadequate method of review in the present case. Appellants' basic objection to proceeding under M.S.A. 414.07 is the provision that "The appeal shall not stay the ef- fect of the order." The consequence of this provision is that while Respondents' attempt to overturn the annexation order, the process of an- nexation is allowed to take place unimpaired. If the order is not stayed, imminent and irreparable harm will result to The 3 Town of Stillwater, to its residents, and to The Village of Oak Park Heights. That the Respondents are entitled to maintain a declaratory judgment action challenging an annexation order of the Min- nesota Municipal Commission is abundantly clear under exist- ing Minnesota law. Under the Minnesota Constitution, Art. 6, Sec. 5, the District Courts of the State are deemed compe- tent and authorized to hear justiciable issues arising under the Declaratory Judgment Act, M.S.A. 555. See Montgomery v. Minneapolis Fire Department Relief Association, 218 Minn. 27, 15 N.W.2d 122 (1944). In this case the Minnesota Supreme Court quoted, with approval, Professor Edwin Borchard's proposition,as stated in 18 Minn. L. Rev. 239, that the general purpose of the Declaratory Judgment Act is to afford an alter- native remedy which can be used whether or not further relief is or could be claimed. It is erroneous to allege that a declaratory judgment action is an extraordinary remedy which is not to be employed where another remedy is available. In Montgomery v. Minneapolis Fire Department Relief Association, supra, the Court stated: The remedy afforded by the act is sometimes mis- takenly characterized as if it were an extraordinary remedy, not to be employed where another remedy is available, a conclusion which cannot be too firmly repudiated as in conflict with the statutes and with the history and practice in England and the United States generally. Rather, it is an alternative remedy, another established remedy. Montgomery v. Minne- apolis Fire Department Relief Association, supra, pp. 30, 18. 1 The statute is reproduced in its entirety in Appellants' Appendix at A-9. 4 The Court had previously stated the principle that the existence of another adequate remedy does not pre- clude a judgment for declaratory relief in cases where it is appropriate. Barron v. City of Minneap- olis, 212 Minn. 566, 569; 4 N.W. 2d 622, 624 (1942). See also Leighton v. City of Minneapolis, 222 Minn. 516, 25 N.W. 2d, 263 (1946). This principle is explicitly set forth in Rule 57 of The Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure which reads as follows: The procedure for obtaining a declaratory judgment pursuant to M.S.A. 1959, c. 555, shall be in accor- dance with these rules, and the right to trial by jury is retained under the circumstances and in the man- ner provided in Rules 38 and 39. The existence of another adequate remedy does not preclude a judg- ment for declaratory relief in cases where it is ap- propriate. The court may order a speedy hearing of an action for a declaratory judgment and may ad- vance it on the calendar (emphasis added). Authority for the proposition that a declaratory judgment action is an appropriate action for challenging an annexation order of the Minnesota Municipal Commission is set forth in City of Glencoe v. Beneke, 288 Minn. 190, 179 N.W. 2d 279 (1970). This case involved an appeal from an order of the Minnesota Municipal Commission by which the Commission had ordered part of the Town of Glencoe annexed to the City of Glencoe. The annexation proceeding had been commenced by the City of Glencoe serving notice upon the Town of Glen- coe of its intention to annex the subject parcel. The Town of Glencoe objected, hearings were held before the Minne- sota Municipal Commission, and the Commission issued the 5 annexation order. No vote by the affected residents was re- quired to make the annexation order effective, since more than 75% 2 of the subject parcel was contiguous to the City of Glencoe. The contiguous subject parcel had been created by a previous annexation pursuant to Ordinance No. 213 of the City of Glencoe. The annexation by Ordinance No. 213 had not been appealed within the prescribed statutory period. The second annexation order was appealed to the District Court by several resident landowners of the subject parcel and they were appellants before the Supreme Court. The Court denied the relief requested by the appellants in City of Glencoe v. Beneke, supra, on the grounds that the ap- peal period for the first annexation had expired and that to permit a collateral challenge to the first annexation by appeal from the second annexation order would make the limitation statute a nullity. The Court did state, however, that when an appeal is timely brought, a declaratory judgment action is a proper type of action. More precisely the Court said: A declaratory judgment action is a proper proceed- ings to test the validity of an annexation proceeding. City of Glencoe v. Beneke, supra, p. 194, p. 281. Appellants attempt to distinguish the holding of the Court in City of Glencoe v. Beneke, supra, by alleging that it applies only where there is an annexation by ordinance. This theory is erroneous. The court stated: C Since the right to vote is removed by the legislature when annexation by ordinance is the procedure in- 2 M.S.A. 414 formerly provided that areas 75% surrounded by a mu- nicipality might be annexed by ordinance. The statute presently provides that areas 60% surrounded by a municipality may be an- nexed by ordinance. 6 volved, this right of appeal to the Courts is even more valuable. City of Glencoe v. Beneke, supra, p. 194, ! p. 281 (emphasis added). What the Court did hold was that a declaratory judgment action is a proper means to test the validity of all annexation proceedings, and when the annexation is by ordinance this right of appeal to the district court is even more valuable. When the decision is viewed in this context it is clear that the right to the declaratory judgment action exists even though M.S.A. 414 provides other means of appeal. As authority for its position on the propriety of a declara- tory judgment action to contest the validity of annexation orders, the Court cited the case of Town of Burnsville et al v. City of Bloomington, 264 Minn. 133, 117 N.W. 2d 746 (1962). In this case Northern States Power Company had petitioned the City of Bloomington, pursuant to M.S.A. 414.03 (2), requesting that Bloomington annex the company's prop- erty located in the Town of Burnsville. The City of Blooming- ton complied with the company's request. The Town of Burns- ville, seeking a determination that the annexation was void, commenced an action in district court for declaratory judg- ment and sought injunctive relief to restrain the City of 4 Bloomington from doing any further acts to carry out the an- nexation ordinance. The district court denied a motion brought by the City of Bloomington to dissolve a temporary restrain- ing ing order and granted a temporary injunction. The City of Bloomington appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court. The Court in its opinion stated that The crucial question then is whether the validity of a de facto annexation may be tested by an action 7 brought for a declaratory judgment by the town from which the territory is to be detached. Town of Burns- ville v. City of Bloomington, supra, p. 137, p. 749. The Supreme Court held that the validity of an annexation may be tested by an action for declaratory judgment and that the trial court may grant injunctive relief to preserve the status quo. In support of its decision the Court cited Ander- son on Declaratory Judgments, Vol. 1 2d 396 § 195, in which Anderson said: The holdings that a declaratory judgment action may be entertained without regard to the existence of another remedy, are not only sustained by better rea- sons, but are more in harmony with the true spirit and purpose of declaratory procedure. Town of Burnsville v. City of Bloomington, supra, p. 143, r p. 753. The Court went on to say that "an action for declaratory judgment is not a collateral but a direct attack on the annexa- tion." Town of Burnsville v. City of Bloomington, supra, p. 143, p. 753. The right to maintain this declaratory judgment action to contest the annexation was also cited by the Court with approval in Town of Burnsville v. City of Bloomington, 268 Minn. 84, 128 N.W. 2d 97, 99 (1964). The Glencoe case and the two Burnsville cases serve as strong authority for the proposition that a declaratory judg- ment is an appropriate and established remedy in a case such as the one at issue. It is important to note that these cases were decided subsequent to the enactment of M.S.A. 414 with its statutory appeal provision. The Glencoe case and the two Burnsville cases are good law in Minnesota today, and, as the declaratory judgment method of testing the validity of an I • 8 annexation was deemed proper in those cases, so should it be p , in the present case. Of major importance is the Minnesota Supreme Court's ref- erence to Portland General Electric Co. v. City of Estacada, 194 Or. 145, 241 P. 2nd 1129 (1952) in Town of Burnsville v. City of Bloomington (1962), supra. In Portland General Electric Co., the Oregon Supreme Court, in an exhaustive and definitive opinion, supported the propriety of a declaratory judgment action to challenge an annexation, even when an- other established remedy, such as quo warranto, existed. The court stated: Over a period of 18 years, this court has adhered to the rule that the declaratory judgment act could be employed to test the validity of annexation proceed- ings, which rule has attained a stare decisis status. . . . Our Court is committed to the proposition that the declaratory judgment act may be employed to test the validity of annexation proceedings, and that quo warranto is not the sole remedy. Portland General Electric Co. v. City of Estacada, supra, p. 155, p. 1133. The Oregon Supreme Court went on to cite Professor Edwin Borchard, Declaratory Judgments 1934 edition p. 341, as to the reason why a declaratory judgment action is appropriate and necessary: . . . With the ever-greater interference by govern- ment in the affairs of private individuals, it often becomes important to the individual to test the valid- ity of the interference, present or proposed, before it is applied or invoked against him. . . . As a rule, the mere enactment of a statute or ordinance impos- ing restraints on an individual and implying enforce- ment by prosecuting officials threatens and hampers • 9 the plaintiff's freedom, peace of mind or pecuniary interests, and creates that justiciability of the issue which sustains a proceeding for an injunction and, a fortiori, for a declaratory judgment. Portland General Electric Co. v. City of Estacada, supra, p. 150, p. 1131. It should be noted that the language of the Oregon declaratory judgment statute, cited in the Portland case, is exactly the same as M.S.A. 555.02. See Portland General Electric Co. v. City of Estacada, supra, p. 148, p. 1131. It is important to note that the main case cited by Appel- lants in support of the proposition that a declaratory judgment action is inappropriate, Land O'Lakes Dairy Co. v. Village of Sebeka, 225 Minn. 540, 31 N.W. 2d 660 (1948), is a case in which the Court held a declaratory judgment action to be proper. Although the court in Land O'Lakes said that declara- tory judgment actions were not designed to supplant other remedies that were "well established and working satisfac- torily" it recognized that in the case before it no such remedies existed. Based upon the opinions of this Court in Glencoe and Burnsville, it is apparent that the Court does not accept the proposition that the relief provided by M.S.A. 414.07 is suffi- ciently well established or working satisfactorily. In fact, an application of M.S.A. 414.07 can cause irreparable harm. Fur- thermore, Appellants admit in their brief that the general rule is that the availability of other adequate legal remedies does not preclude an action for declaratory judgment.3 In order to bar the use of a declaratory judgment action, a clear excep- tion to the general rule must be shown. No such exception has been shown. 3 See Appellants' brief page 22. • I 10 B. Denial of Respondents' Right to a Declaratory Judgment Action Would Cause Irreparable Harm. The inability of the Respondents to test the validity of an annexation order of the Minnesota Municipal Commission by means of a declaratory judgment action would result in ir- reparable harm. To be enjoined as irreparable, an injury must be of such a nature that it cannot be adequately compensated in damages or cannot be measured by any certain pecuniary standard. Butterick Publishing Co. v. Rose, 141 Wis. 533, 124 N.W. 647 (1910). Furthermore, according to Anderson on Declaratory Judgments, Vol. 1 2nd ed. at § 195 (1959 Supp. p. 151), . . . where it is shown that damage would result if the ordinary remedy was used, then the court will avail itself of the declaratory judgment. The failure of the Minnesota Municipal Commission to comply with the procedural safeguards of M.S.A. 414 can only result in the unauthorized dismemberment of the Town of Stillwater and will consequently result in irreparable harm. The Wisconsin Supreme Court in the case of Town of Bloom- ' ing Grove v. City of Madison, 275 Wis. 328, 81 N.W. 2d 713 (1957), held that, since the annexation statutes grant to the towns the right to compel strict compliance with the required procedure, . the pertinent legislation recognizes that unau- thorized dismemberment of a town is an injury to the town's interest. Such injury is of course irrep- arable (emphasis added). Moreover . . . the right to live in a particular municipal unit should be protected by all the safe- guards that the law provides. Town of Blooming Grove v. City of Madison, 253 Wis. 215, 218; 33 N.W. • • 11 2d 312, 314. Thus, unlawful transfer from one mu- nicipal unit to another may be an irreparable injury to residents in an annexed area. Town of Blooming Grove v. City of Madison, supra, p. 337, p. 713. Therefore, if an improper annexation order is permitted to take effect, the town residents who are dismembered will suffer some irreparable harm unless some relief besides the statutory appeal is available. This is especially so in the State of Minnesota where M.S.A. 414.07 does not stay the effect of the annexation order and where the Attorney General has ruled that, during the pendency of a M.S.A. 414 appeal, the annexed area is legally part of the annexing municipality and that said annexing municipality may issue building permits, furnish municipal services and recover expenses incurred thereupon and recieve the real estate taxes upon said annexed area. Op. Atty. Gen. 484e-1, June 7, 1968. Without the availability of a declaratory judgment and the injunctive relief that it contemplates, the wheels of annexa- tion will be allowed to grind on unmolested, despite the exis- tence of a justiciable issue. The assets and the property in that portion of the Town of Stillwater ordered annexed to the City of Stillwater will become completely vulnerable to the whims of the Stillwater City Council. The City will have free rein to govern in an area in which it has a questionable right. Given this free rein, the City can proceed to rezone the annexed area for a use that the Town of Stillwater and/or the County of Washington would not contemplate or permit. Rezoning is one of the key motivating elements in petitioners' move to be an- nexed to the City of Stillwater. If the area is rezoned and land- owners take actions based upon said rezoning, the Town of Stillwater and the landowners would suffer irreparable harm, • 12 if and when the area is returned to the Town of Stillwater. In accordance with the City of Stillwater's zoning for the area, the questionable "benefits" that the City would be able to bestow upon the annexed area are municipal sewer and water service. Suppose the Court ultimately rules that the Commission failed to comply with the requirements of M.S.A. 414 and that the annexation should not have taken place. What then becomes of the sewer pipes and water mains that have been installed? In essence, should respondents prevail, the unavoidable consequence of any activity by the City of Still- water in this area would be unnecessary and irreparable loss and damage to Respondents. To put it more succinctly, "How are you going to unscramble an egg that has been scrambled?" The answer is obvious, and equity demands that the egg be left intact pending the outcome of the action. The propriety of a declaratory judgment action is shown by the fact that it allows for a preservation of the status quo pending the action. A further damage caused by the annexation order is that its implementation permits the City of Stillwater to proceed with annexations by ordinance since the annexation creates areas which are either 100% or more than 60% surrounded by the City of Stillwater. It is the intent and purpose of the City of Stillwater to proceed with ordinance annexations which are made available by the annexation in question. (See letter of Harold Kimmel, attorney for the City of Stillwater, to Minnesota Municipal Commission dated December 8, 1972.)4 The rights of the Town of Stillwater and its residents 4 A copy of this letter was entered as Plaintiff's Exhibit H at the hearing on January 25, 1973. In said letter Mr. Kimmel said: . affirmative action at the present time on the Hooley- Feeley petition (A-2056) will, because of the very nature of the boundaries created by such Order, make available to the Commission and the City of Stillwater provisions of the An- nexation Statute which would make possible a more complete and final solution to the annexation problem, which provi- sions of the Statute the City would be willing to invoke if it is the Commission's desire that it do so. • S 13 would be further harmed, if the City of Stillwater were able to compound the error, committed by annexation order A- I 2056, by using the boundaries created by it as a basis for sub- sequent annexations by ordinance in which residents would not have a right to vote. C. Filing of Appeal Notice Under M.S.A. 414 Does Not Fore- close Right to Declaratory Judgment Action. Appellants maintain that, because Respondents subse- quently filed notices of appeal under M.S.A. 414 from the Min- nesota Municipal Commission order, they are foreclosed from maintaining the Declaratory Judgment action. Said argument cannot be made without considering the procedural history of annexation A-2056 and without considering the capricious actions of the Minnesota Municipal Commission. On January 5, 1973 the Minnesota Municipal Commission issued an order annexing the "Hooley-Feeley" tract to the City of Stillwater; however, in its rush to file the order the commission had not made a previous determination as to whether or not an elec- tion would be required under the statute. The order of Janu- ary 5, 1973 was entered, despite the Commission's position that it was opposed to any further piecemeal annexation j and a In a memorandum attached to its Order in A-1985 the Commission stated: In February of this year the commission issued a memoran- dum in connection with a Farmington annexation which con- tains language that bears repeating in the Stillwater situation: However, we wish to emphatically express our intention to discourage further piecemeal annexations in the Farm- ington area. A long range boundary solution is needed. Procedures, such as orderly annexation, are available to bring about long range solutions. Local officials must accept the fact that boundary changes are necessary and will occur, and in good faith work for changes that will benefit the people of the entire area. We have yet to see evidence of this kind of attitude. We have reached the same conclusion with redoubled empha- • • 14 that the need for a comprehensive study of this whole area existed.s By adopting this procedure the Commission put Re- spondents in a legal quandry as to the exact effect of the January 5, 1973 order. Was this a final order which must be appealed within 30 days, or would the order determining whether or not an election was necessary be the final order? What if the Commission subsequently determined an election was not necessary? Would that mean that only the election aspect of said order was appealable and that appeal of other aspects of the Commission's proceedings would be foreclosed with the expiration of 30 days from the date of the January 5, 1973 order? Inquiries by Respondents' attorneys to the at- torney for the Minnesota Municipal Commission failed to elicit any definitive answer as to the intent and effect of this order; therefore, in order to protect their rights, it was necessary that Respondent file the notice of appeal. As previously stated, however, the existence of this alternative remedy does sis in the Stillwater area. All of the planners called as expert witnesses at the hearings regardless of other disagreements were unanimous in recommending orderly annexation over the piecemeal approach. The Washington County Planning Commission and the staff of the Metropolitan Council even urged denial of the pending petitions for this reason. While we have not taken the drastic step of denying the pending petitions solely on this basis, the commission will give in- creased weight to such recommendations in the future. and in a memorandum accompanying its Order in A-2056 the Com- mission stated: We wish to emphatically re-emphasize our intention to dis- courage further piecemeal annexation in the Stillwater area. 6 See M.M.C. memorandum accompanying order A-2056 in which a subsequent action (Commission Docket No. C11-mt) was postponed to permit further study of the whole area and to permit the Metro- politan Council to conduct a special study of this area. Also on October 30,1972 a motion made by Commissioner Dahl and seconded by Commissioner Ford was passed to tentatively postpone action on annexation A-2056 for a period of six months in order to allow a comprehensive study of the area in conjunction with Commission Docket No. C11-mt. • • 15 not affect Respondents' right to a declaratory judgment action. The confusion as to the final effect of this order was com- pounded on January 30, 1973 when the Minnesota Municipal Commission filed an amended order and on March 22, 1973 when the Commission, after holding a court-decreed rehearing on March 1, 1973, filed a supplementary order. Since the fi- nality of the Commission's order was made questionable by the Commission's actions, a pressing issue arose as to the ap- propriate time to initiate rehearing or appeal processes, which Appellants claim are necessary to exhaust administrative remedies. There was a substantial ambiguity as to what action was necessary to guide Respondents' conduct to preserve their legal rights. In the case of Welfare Employees Union v. Michigan Civil Service Commission, 28 McA 343, 184 N.W. 2d 247 (1970), the Michigan Supreme Court upheld the right to pursue a declaratory judgment action when an actual controversy exists where a declaratory judg- ment or decree is necessary to guide plaintiffs fur- ther conduct in order to preserve its legal rights. (p. 350, p. 251) The Appellant, Minnesota Municipal. Commission, does not approach the Court with "clean hands" on this issue; because of its unexplained and unjustifiable rush to file some type of order, it precipitated the confusion in this matter and its ac- tions necessitated that a declaratory judgment be sought. Other courts have also held that where it would be futile to exhaust an administrative remedy, the failure to exhaust said remedy is not a bar to a declaratory judgment action. In the case of Wisconsin Fertilizer Association v. Karns, 39 Wis. 2d 95, 158 N.W. 2d 294 (1968), appellants were challenging a determination by the Wisconsin Commissioner of Motor • • 16 Vehicles that a particular vehicle was improperly determined not to be an implement of husbandry. Statutory law provided a means to seek a declaratory ruling from the Commissioner. Instead, appellants chose to bring a declaratory judgment ac- tion. The Commissioner sought to have the declaratory judg- ment action dismissed on the grounds that the statutory pro- cedure was not followed. In holding the declaratory judgment action proper the court said: . . . In this case the plaintiffs claim the Commis- sioner has misconstrued and misapplied a statute and, consequently, acts in excess of statutory author- ity. . . . While plaintiffs in this situation undoubt- edly could have sought redress under sec. 227.06(1), we find no authority that requires them to do so. It is understandable why the plaintiffs chose not to seek a declaratory ruling from the Commissioner as to an application of a statute when he had already made that determination and indicated he intended to prosecute for violation of the statute. Wisconsin Fertilizer Assn. v. Karns, supra, p. 107, p. 300. In Welfare Employees Union v. Michigan Civil Service Com- mission, supra, the Michigan Court held that it is not nec- essary in all cases to exhaust administrative remedies in order to seek relief of the Court. Where said recourse would be a use- less effort, or in vain, the exhaustion of the remedy is not re- quired. In the instant case the Minnesota Municipal Commission has, by its course of conduct, manifested its intent to proceed with A-2056, and review by it of the matter on rehearing would be an exercise in futility; therefore exhaustion of this remedy is not required for a declaratory judgment action to be maintained. The futility of this course of action was illus- • • 17 trated when the Minnesota Municipal Commission, after hold- ing a court-ordered rehearing on March 1, 1973, decided to proceed with A-2056, although it did reduce the area encom- passed by the order. Further, the point should be made that since the Commission held a rehearing on March 1, 1973, the whole question of exhaustion of this remedy has been rendered moot. D. A Justiciable Controversy Is Presented by the Declaratory Judgment Action. As previously stated an actual controversy exists where a declaratory judgment or decree is necessary to guide plain- tiff's future conduct in order to preserve its legal rights. Welfare Employees Union v. Michigan Civil Service Conimis- sian, supra. If Respondents are to preserve their rights it is necessary to have the Court make a declaratory judgment rul- ing. Respondents have raised the question as to the right of resi- dents of the Town of Stillwater to vote on the annexation pro- ceedings. Appellants state that there is no constitutional right of the residents to vote and, therefore, there is no controversy. What Appellants fail to take into account is that the Minne- sota Legislature in M.S.A. 414 granted residents a specific right to vote on annexations in certain situations. It is Respon- dent's contention that the Commission by its arbitrary and capricious approach to the A-2056 annexation has denied this right to vote to residents in areas which will be 60% sur- rounded by the City of Stillwater as a result of said annexa- tion. It will be too late to challenge, on these grounds, the an- nexation of the areas that are 60% surrounded by the City of Stillwater if the Respondents wait until an annexation or- dinance is passed and heard. See City of Glencoe v. Beneke, • S 18 supra. The court in Glencoe held that the controversy exists at the time the 60% contiguous area is fashioned and that if the controversy is not adjudicated at that time, it will be fore- closed by the statute of limitations. The court in Glencoe said that a declaratory judgment action would be a proper means of contesting the issue. Based on the court's decision in Glen- coe, Respondents' declaratory judgment action is timely and appropriate. In light of the Commission's stated policy against piece- meal annexation in this area and the Commission's admission that comprehensive study of the area is needed,7 there is also the issue of the arbitrary and capricious nature of the an- nexation proceeding. The Commission has failed to make a determination as to the effect of the annexation on the sur- rounding area and as to whether the "best interests of the ter- ritory affected"8 are served by said annexation. That the in- terests of the "territory affected" include the interests of the Town of Stillwater and those of the Village of Oak Park Heights is supported by the holding of the Court in Town of Burnsville v. City of Bloomington (1964), supra. There the Court said: We have held that words "territory affected" in- cluded the entire territory and not only the territory to be detached. p. 93, p. 104. The proposition that the interests of the entire affected terri- tory are relevant and that an arbitrary, capricious or unrea- 7 See footnotes 5 and 6. Also see letter of William Schwab, Washing- ton County Planning Coordinator, to the M.M.C. dated July 27, 1972 in which Mr. Schwab recommended the M.M.C. reject all proposed annexations in Washington County that are not part of a complete comprehensive approach to the en- tire problem. 8 Language taken from M.S.A. 414.07 (2)c. • 19 sonable disregard of said interests presents a justiciable issue should be given added credence because the language setting forth these considerations is taken directly from M.S.A. 414.07. Therefore, there are justiciable issues presented and the district court, in exercising the broad scope of review that is available to it in a declaratory judgment action, has made this determination. Appellants' contentions that there is no justiciable controversy are without merit, if the Court finds that a declaratory judgment action is a proper action by which the annexation orders of the Minnesota Municipal Commission may be challenged. E. A Declaratory Judgment Action Will Terminate the Issue. Appellants maintain that a judgment or decree of the dis- trict court will not terminate the controversy, for a ruling of the district court will only result in the matter's being re- manded to the Minnesota Municipal Commission. This argu- ment is without merit. The issue to be resolved is whether or not the Commission violated the procedures of M.S.A. 414 in A-1985 and A-2056 and whether or not the rights of Respon- dents were violated by the orders of the Commission in these matters. In a declaratory judgment decree the district court will, with finality, make a determination of these issues and enter a decree accordingly. The district court may not make a determination as to which territory is annexed to which mu- nicipality, but it will terminate the issue as to the validity of the Commission's action. That this argument of Appellants is without merit is supported by the rulings of this Court in City of Glencoe v. Beneke, supra, where a declaratory judg- ment action challenging the Minnesota Municipal Commis- sion's action was held to be valid. 20 CONCLUSION The declaratory judgment action involved herein is a proper method to challenge the annexation orders of the Minnesota Municipal Commission in Commission Proceedings A-1985 and A-2056. The district court should proceed to hear said ac- tion within the confines of the broad scope of review available to it in declaratory judgment proceedings. Respondent, The Village of Oak Park Heights, therefore prays that the order of the district court denying Appellants' motion to dismiss this action be affirmed. Respectfully submitted, LeVANDER, GILLEN, MILLER & MAGNUSON By Paul H.Anderson Attorneys for Respondent The Village of Oak Park Heights 201 North Concord St. South St. Paul,Minn. 55075 Telephone (612) 451-1831 DRAFT PROPOSAL FOR ORDERLY ANNEXATION AGREEMENT 1. All property locatedaptt of County Road No. 5 which is contiguous to the City and developed for commercial or industrial purposes is to be annexed to the City in 1975 . 2. The remainder of the property in this area is to be placed in an Orderly Annexation status. These properries shall be annexed to the City at the request of their owners or at the request of the City if they are developed or about to become developed for Residential , Commercial or Industrial purposes . Any property in this area not annexed to the City by 1980 may then be annexed at the request of the City. 3 . The Jackson/Thompson property now being considered in annexation hearings shall be annexed to the City in 1975 . 4. The Township portion of Cochrane' s Long Lake Addition shall be annexed to the City in 1975. 5. That part of the east 1/2 of Section 31 which is located west of County Road No. 5 shall be placed in an Orderly Annexation status and shall be annexed to the City at the request of their owners , when the property is about to be developed for Residential, Commercial or Industrial purposes or in any case after 1980 at the request of the City. 6. All undeveloped non-urban lands annexed to the City shall be placed in the City' s Rural Taxing District until such time as they actually are developed. In the Rural Taxing District, the City' s property tax levy will be 100% of the Bonded Indebtedness levy and 10% of the General Levy. For purposes of clarification, in 1974 the City' s Urban Levy was 28. 98 mills and the Rural District levy was only 6 . 64 mills . By contrast the 1974 Stillwater Township levy was 8 . 98 mills plus an additional 1. 17 mills for the county Library. 1'1:31'0.>AL i Oi URDERLY • tXA'i'ION ALi:EE 1EN'i' 2 . 7 . All properties annexed to the City and not placed in the Rural Taxing District will be taxed at a graduated rate over five years to raise their taxes to the rate levied by the City. Thus , these properties will be taxed in accordance with the following schedule: Year after Maximum Increase not to exceed Actual Annexation % amount between City & Town Levies 1 20% of difference 2 25% of difference 3 33% of difference 4 50% of difference 5 100% of difference Properties annexed and placed in the Rural Taxing District will not benefit from the graduated steps unless a Homestead is main- tained on the property after it has developed and lost the rural status . If the latter is the case, the Homestead will be eligible for the graduated increase. 8. The City agrees to compensate the Township for lost tax revenue over a five year period to ease the financial adjustment burden on the remainder of the Township . Cash payments will be made to the Township based on the assessed value of the annexed properties on January 1, 1975 as applied to the Township ' s mill rate for the year of the payment. Year After % of Tax Actual Annexation to be returned to the Township 1 100% 2 80% 3 60% 4 40% 5 20% For purposes of information, if all of the land located east of County Road No. 5 were annexed to the City in 1975 , the financial loss to the Township would be $5 ,049. This is based on a total assessed valuation for the Town in 1974 of $3 , 575 , 554 and a O&DERLY ,NEXAIIOiv • valuation of $562 , 339 for the area east of County Road No. 5 . This loss if it came at one time would cause a 1. 77 increase in the total Township levy (school , County, Metro , Township) . 9. The City agrees not to extend sanitary sewer into any other areas of the Township without the permission of the Town Board. All extensions will be in accordance with the City' s approved Com- prehensive Sewer Plan. The section shall not apply if the City is ordered to extend sewer to abate a public health nuisance by an order of the Pollution Control Agency or the State Health Department. 10. The City agrees to assume the maintenance of all sewer lines currently located in the Township . 11 . The City agrees to assist the Town Board in petitioning the Metropolitan Sewer Board to restrict the size of the area in which the Town Board must collect SAC charges and if possible to obtain reabes for those who have already paid SAC charges but who in all probability will never have sanitary sewer services available to them. 12. The City agrees not to accept any further annexation petitions until after 1980 without Township approval. 13 . The Town Board agrees not to approve any plats with or building permits on lots of less than 22 acres in size without central sewer and water being available to them. 14. The City Council and the Town Board agree to enter into a joint powers agreement for the Planning and Zoning of the South 1/2 of Section 31 , 32 and 33 of what is now Stillwater Township . Said agreement shall last until 1980 and may be extended if b uh parties so desire. This agreement will delegate the complete authority of both parties to plan and zone together with administrative and enforcement responsibilities to a seven man board. This board t PRoPoSAL 1�OR ORDERLY •EXAT ION AGREE ENT + will be composed of three City residents , three Township residents and the County Planning Coordinator. Washington County will be responsible for the administration, enforcement and costs of the agreement. 15. Both the City and the Town shall enter into discussions with the owners of lots in what is called Penthouse Acres and the unplatted but developed area of the Township immediately to the west of the City in the vicinity of St. Croix Avenue , Sycamore and Owens Streets . 16. The City agrees to investigate the possibility of sharing facilities , equipment and manpower with the Township to forestall the duplication of facilities and to reduce the overall costs of government in the area. i •• _ Cr": L __- . �~ Town of Stillwater 1,6,7 coo.° BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Thomas J. Simmons Chairman Robert W. Johnson Vice Chairman Gerald J. Isaacs Member Idor A. Pederson Ex-Officio Member Don L. Cafferty Ex-Officio Member IN THE MATTER OF THE RESOLUTIONS ) FOR THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE ) NOTICE OF CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS AND THE ) DISMISSAL TOWN OF STILLWATER ) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the above-entitled proceeding is hereby dismissed pursuant to a formal request from the City of Oak Park Heights and the Town of Stillwater seeking to withdraw the resolutions . The property involved is described as follows : r- r V- The entire City of Oak Park Heights and the entire Town of Stillwater Dated this 8th day of January, 1975 MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL COMMISSION 304 Capitol Square Building St. Paul , Minnesota 55101 Patricia D. Lundy Asst. Executive Secretary 410 C 1.l -mL City of Oak Park Heights Town of Stillwater BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Thomas J. Simmons Chairman Robert W. Johnson Vice Chairman Gerald J. Isaacs Member Idor A. Pederson Ex-Officio Member Don L. Cafferty Ex-Officio Member IN THE MATTER OF THE RESOLUTIONS ) FOR THE CONSOLIT)A.TION OF THE ) NOTICE OF CONTINUED HEARING CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS AND THE ) TOWN OF STILLWATER ) Notice is hereby given that a continued hearing will be held pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414 , as amended, before the Minnesota Municipal Commission in the above-entitled matter. The continued hearing will be held on the 20th day of August, 1974 in. the Washington County Office Building, Conference Room, Stillwater, Minnesota commencing at 10 : 00 a.m. All persons shall be given an opportunity to be heard orally, and to submit written data, statements , or arguments concern- ing the above-entitled matter. The right to testify and the admission of testimony and other evidence shall be governed by the Rules of the Minnesota Municipal Commission. (The rules of the Minnesota Municipal Commission are found in Minnesota Statutes Annotated, at the end of Chapter 414. They may also be obtained from the Minnesota Municipal Commission upon request. ) The property proposed for consolidation is the entire City of Oak Park Heights and the entire Town of Stillwater . Dated this 2nd day of August , 1974 MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL COMMISSION 304 Capitol Square Building St . Paul , Minnesota 5 .01 Patricia D. Lundy Asst. Executive Secretary • LAW OFFICES HAROLD LEVANDER ARTHUR GILLEN LeVander, Gillen, Miller & Magnuson ROGER C. MILLER PAUL A. MAGNUSON HAROLD LEVANDER, JR. 402 DROVERS BANK BUILDING • 633 SOUTH CONCORD STREET PAUL H, ANDERSON WILLIAM G. SWANSON SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075 • TELEPHONE (6121 451.1031 June 27, 1974 Mayor and Members of the Council City of Oak Park Heights Oak Park Heights Village Hall Oak Park Heights, Minnesota 55082 Re: Annexation Matters - Village of Oak Park Heights Gentlemen: I am writing this letter in an effort to review and clarify the many facets of the pending annexation proceedings with the hope that this will expedite the resolution of the problem. As I informed you at the June 11 Council meeting, the Supreme Court ruled against the position of the City in the appeal but did hold that the District Court did have the authority to grant injunctive relief pending a statutory appeal. The dispute was then returned to the District Court for action on the statutory appeal, which had been timely filed by the City of Oak Park Heights. Mr. Gordon Moosbrugger, on behalf of the Township of Stillwater, has filed a motion to remand the matter to the Minnesota Municipal Commission for the taking of additional testimony and to enjoin further proceedings on the annexation. It is my intent to appear as counsel for Oak Park Heights at the hear- ing of this motion and request that it be granted. This motion was originally scheduled to be heard on June 13, 1974, however an affi- davit of prejudice was filed against Judge Johnson and this necessitated re-scheduling the hearing of the motion for July 11, 1974. The hearing on the consolidation proceedings between the City and the Township of Stillwater has been continued to August 20, 1974. This is the last continuation to be granted by the Minnesota Municipal Commission and the City will have to be prepared to submit testimony at that time or have the matter dismissed. As I informed you at the Council meeting, we will be encountering some major problems in presenting a case for consolidation, especially after the Baytown annexation was rejected. In • • rt June 27, 1974 , `„� tA r Page 2 zi1°f ° sa any case a decision whether or not to proceed with the consolidation should b, r.dde as soon as possible. I suggest that some communication be made l th the Township of Stillwater regarding the consolidation. This is recommended because I do not believe any unilateral action re- garding the consolidation would be wise without first consulting the Township and also I am in doubt as to the most recent attitude of the Township toward the consolidation. There is a second reason why I recommend communication with the Town- ship of Stillwater, and also the City of Stillwater. As I stated before, the prospects of winning the annexation appeals are not that favorable and the attitude of the Minnesota Municipal Commission toward annexing additional parcels north of Highway 212 to Oak Park Heights is not en- couraging. Therefore, the City's best hope may be to work out a three party agreement for orderly annexation. I know the past history of such attempts has been bleak; however, I do believe that the interests of the City are such that another attempt should be made. I shall make myself available to participate in any such meetings if this is the desire of the Council. I hope that some decision can be made with respect to the pending con- solidation proceedings prior to July 19, 1974 for I am getting married on July 20 and will not return from a trip to Norway until August 14. 1 If the City is to present testimony I shall have to arrange my schedule. accordingly. You should be made aware that the Attorney General's office attempted to tax the costs and disbursements of its Supreme Court appeal against the City, Township and the individual intervenors. The costs to be taxed were in excess of $1500.00. I submitted an objection on behalf of the City and the Clerk removed the taxation of costs against the City and Township but did not remove the obligation from the individual intervenors. The individual intervenors are presently appealing this ruling. k a very truly yours, . r. s !: LeVANDER, GILLEN, MILLER & MAGNUSON ver' Paul H. Anderson ..4i,5= °”kip ?l PHA:em cc Kenneth Heuer Lyle Eckberg � y�[} e` v^v 4 4 erg � ��,,,,, .i.4,,ift,.---, r 4-, 41,41 ,, - ,la ka .;a x ,i,5 - his, ' - 'ab HAROLD LEVAMDER s � a:, a �. 7�k "r, ak � 7k12YHU R GI L.IoN.. 4 � A * ' F 1„„ t z", w',a ROGER; , • MILLER s ".' # A Y k YX kk 5 �,? � � � � � � "§ � 4 —�� . � � PAUL A. MAGNUSON a .- ''! `'-'e% o 4/ ' P a 1 '5 6 o HAl2dLD $EVAI EVER JR iY k _ _ ,, ° e s °' . .` 4 v e b ,, ! PAUL H. ANDER8@Ml s , „� ,. '44 E W ' : WILLIAM % SWA 4soN ' 'f June.r10, 1914 Mr. Raymond 14, Johnson • 14922 North 80th Street • - ' Oak Psrk`Heights, Mintxeaota ;' '« RKK y. .. Re: City Council Meets • J‘trke 4. -1974 Dear Mr. Johnson: , n Pursuant to our converaation last week,.- L.plan on attending a your :council a►eeting on Tuesday, June 11, -1914 At that ' time I would app;eeiate it if I could,have the"opp►ortufi.ty to review and. disetiss the following items with the Oak PBrk Council, to-with <, «a 1. Recent Supreme Court decision — /51 4Ea.y �/C4.11'442,1 J 2. z Proposed act3,on, on annexation appeal e A�1985 "and A-2036 3. Proposed,action on"`annexxasion appeal - A-1981 .v 4, Proposed°consol ation between ;Ink Park --- Heights and the Town of Stiliwater. Very»truly yours,. n . . ,_,' LeVAND G/U81i 1tILLRR 6 MIlG�NU8t8i 4 Paul H. Anderson cc: M . Kinetb Hen,.r . '` PHAe lc M 'e ,., ' ,4 v , May 16, 19714 Stillwater Gazette Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Gentlemen: Pleas. publish the enclosed Notice of . Fearing 04 May 22nd and May 29th in the daily Gazette. Very tray yours, Ken Heuer* Clerk«Treasurer City of Oak Park Heights KH;bh Knelosure Notice of Continued Hearing City of Oak Park Heights Town of Stillwater A An E q ual Opportunity Employer '''=4;N Phone: 296-2428 STATE OF MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL COMMISSION 304 Capitol Square Building 10th & Cedar Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 April 24 , 1974 s r, i,,` Mr. Ken Heuer, Clk,-Treas . k '‘" City Hall 6141 Panama Ave. N. Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Vie: C11-ant Consolidation City of Oak Park Heights/ Town of Stillwater 1 Dear Mr. Heuer: The Municipal Commission has scheduled a hearing in the above matter as per the enclosed Notices of Continued Hearing. Please publish this Notice of Continued Hearing for two successive weeks before the hearing in the newspaper qualified as a medium of official publication in the area to be considered and send the Commission an Affidavit of Publication at the expense of the petitioners . Sincerely yours, MUNICIPAL COMMISSION ‘: *gClAce-;-.K.//k: ‘ ....___. Patricia D. Lundy Asst. Executive Secretary PL/mg Enc. 4 C11-mt City of Oak Pa Heights Town of Stillw r BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Robert W. Johnson Chairman Thomas J. Simmons Vice Chairman Gerald J. Isaacs Member Idor A. Pederson Ex-Officio Member Don L. Cafferty Ex-Officio Member IN THE MATTER OF THE RESOLUTIONS ) FOR THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE ) NOTICE OF CONTINUED HEARING CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS AND THE ) TOWN OF STILLWATER ) Notice is hereby given that a continued hearing will be held pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414, as amended, before, the Minnesota Municipal Commission in the above-entitled matter. The continued hearing will be held on the 5th day of June , 1974 in the Washington County Office Building, Conference Room, Stillwater, Minnesota commencing at 10 : 00 a.m. All persons shall be given an opportunity to be heard orally, and to submit written data, statements , or arguments concerning the above-entitled matter. The right to testify and the admission of testimony and other evidence shall be governed by the Rules of the Minnesota Municipal Commission. (The rules of the Minnesota Municipal Commission are found in Minnesota Statutes Annotated, at the end of Chapter 414 . They may also be obtained from the Minnesota Municipal Commission upon request . ) The property proposed for consolidation is the entire City of Oak Park Heights and the entire Town of Stillwater. Dated this 24th day of April, 1974 MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL COMMISSION 304 Capitol Square Building St Paul , MaResota755101 • Patricia D. Lundy Asst. Executive Secretary C117mt City of Oak Paeights IIM Town of Stillwa r BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Robert W. Johnson Chairman Thomas J. Simmons Vice Chairman Gerald J. Isaacs Member Idor A. Pederson Ex-Officio Member Don L. Cafferty Ex-Officio Member IN THE MATTER OF THE RESOLUTIONS ) FOR THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE ) NOTICE OF CONTINUED HEARING CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS AND THE ) TOWN OF STILLWATER ) • Notice is hereby given that a continued hearing will be held pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414, as amended, before the Minnesota Municipal Commission in the above-entitled matter. The continued hearing will be held on the 5th day of June, 1974 in the Washington County Office Building, Conference Room, Stillwater, Minnesota commencing at 10: 00 a.m. All persons shall be given an opportunity to be heard orally, and to submit written data, statements , or arguments concerning the above-entitled matter. The right to testify and the admission of testimony and other evidence shall be governed by the Rules of the Minnesota Municipal Commission. (The rules of the Minnesota Municipal Commission are found in Minnesota Statutes Annotated, at the end of Chapter 414 . They may also be obtained from the Minnesota Municipal Commission upon request. ) The property proposed for consolidation is the entire City of Oak Park Heights and the entire Town of Stillwater. Dated this 24th day of April , 1974 MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL COMMISSION 304 Capitol Square Building S Paul , MpoLesota 55101 *W. Patricia D. Lundy Asst. Executive Secretary C11-mgt City of Oak Pa eights Town of Stillwa`t■-r BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Robert W. Johnson Chairman Thomas J. Simmons Vice Chairman Gerald J. Isaacs Member Idor A. Pederson Ex-Officio Member Don L. Cafferty Ex-Officio Member IN THE MATTER OF THE RESOLUTIONS ) FOR THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE NOTICE OF CONTINUED HEARING CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS AND THE ) TOWN OF STILLWATER ) Notice is hereby given that a continued hearing will be held pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414 , as amended, beforq the Minnesota Municipal Commission in the above-entitled matter. The continued hearing will be held on the 5th day of June, 1974 in the Washington County Office Building, Conference Room, Stillwater, Minnesota commencing at 10: 00 a.m. All persons shall be given an opportunity to be heard orally, and to submit written data, statements , or arguments concerning the above-entitled matter. The right to testify and the admission of testimony and other evidence shall be governed by the Rules of the Minnesota Municipal Commission. (The rules of the Minnesota Municipal Commission are found in Minnesota Statutes Annotated, at the end of Chapter 414 . They may also be obtained from the Minnesota Municipal Commission upon request. ) The property proposed for consolidation is the entire City of Oak Park Heights and the entire Town of Stillwater. Dated this 24th day of April, 1974 MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL COMMISSION 304 Capitol Square Building S Paul , Mj esota 55101 Patricia D. Lundy Asst. Executive Secretary C11-mt Village of Oak P1011 Heights Town of Stiliwate BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Robert W. Johnson Chairman Thomas J. Simmons Vice Chairman Robert J. Ford Member Idor A. Pederson Ex-Officio Member Don L. Cafferty Ex-Officio Member IN THE MATTER OF THE RESOLUTIONS ) FOR THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE ) NOTICE OF CONTINUED HEARING VILLAGE OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS AND ) THE TOWN OF STILLWATER ) Notice is hereby given that the continued hearing scheduled for October 19, 1973 before the Minnesota Municipal Commission in the above-entitled matter has been continued. The continued hearing will be held on the 30th day of November, 1973 in the Washington County Office Building, Conference Room, Stillwater, Minnesota commencing at 10 : 00 a.m. All persons shall be given an opportunity to be heard orally, and to submit written data, statements , or arguments concerning the above-entitled matter. The right to testify and the admission of testimony and other evidence shall be governed by the Rules of the Minnesota Municipal Commission. (The rules of the Minnesota Municipal Commission are found in Minnesota Statutes Annotated, at the end of Chapter 414 . They may also be obtained from the Minnesota Municipal Commission upon request . ) The property proposed for consolidation is the entire Village of Oak Park Heights and the entire Town of Stillwater. Dated this 16th day of October, 1973 MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL COMMISSION 304 Capitol Square Building St . Paul , Minnesota 55101 Patricia D. Lundy Asst . Executive Secretary LAW OFF10ES HAROLD LEVANDER ARTHUR GILLEN ROGER C MILLER R p ander Gillen, Miller W Magnuson 9 PAUL A. MAGNUSON HAROLD LEVANDER, JR. 402 DROVERS BANK BUILDINO • 633 SOUTH CONCORD STREET PAUL H. ANDERSON WILLIAM G. SWANSON SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA S5075 0 TELEPHONE '(812) 4514831 1 February 26, 1974 Mr. Raymond N. Johnson 14922 North 60th Street Oak Park Heights Minnesota 55082 Re: Annexation Appeal, Village of 01k Park Heights E111 Dear Mr. Johnson: Please be advised that the argument before the Minnesota Supreme Court on the annexation appeal of the Minnesota Municipal Coe- mission is set for 2:00 P.M. on Monday, March 4, 1974. The matter is being held in the temporary quarters of the Minnesota Supreme Court on the 5th floor of the Federal Court Building, 316 North Robert Street, St. Paul, Minnesota. You or other members of the Village Council may wish to be in attendance during the argument. Very truly yours, LeVANDER, GILLEN, MILLER & MAGNUSON Paul H. Anderson PHA:is cc: Mr. Kenneth Heuer • • Septearber 27, 1973 Stillwater Casette Sti�]a+ater, aialnessota 55082 Glent .ensas Please publish the enclosed Notice of Continued acs ring in your daftly paper on October q, 1973 and October 11, 1973. and send Affidavit of Publication. Very truly yours, r Len lie •r, Clerk.Trearrurer ViUage of Oak Park Heights KHsbh Enclosure . v • Phoney -2428 STATE OF MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL COMMISSION 304 Capitol Square Building 10th & Cedar Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Sept. 19 , 1973 Mr. Ken Heuer, Clk.-Treas . Village Hall 6141 Panama Ave. N. Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Re: Docket Number C11-mt Village of Oak Park Heights and Uc Town of Stillwater Consolidation 1>z�- Dear Mr. Heuer: The Municipal Commission has scheduled a continued hearing in the above matter as per the enclosed Notices of Continued Hearing. Please publish this Notice of Continued Hearing for two successive weeks before the hearing in the newspaper qualified as a medium of official publication in the area to be considered and send the Commission an Affidavit of Publication at the expense of the petitioners . Sincerely yours , MUNICIPAL COMMISSION 1/4."4/4441441,47)// Howard L. Kaibel , Jr. g/ Executive Secretary HK/mg Enc . r - C11-nrt: Village of Oak P Heights • Town of Stillwat BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Robert W. Johnson Chairman Thomas J. Simmons Vice Chairman Robert J. Ford Member Idor A. Pederson Ex-Officio Member Don L. Cafferty Ex-Officio Member IN THE MATTER OF THE RESOLUTIONS ) FOR THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE ) VILLAGE OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS AND ) NOTICE OF CONTINUED HEARING THE TOWN OF STILLWATER ) Notice is hereby given that the continued hearing scheduled for September 6 , 1973 before the Minnesota Municipal Commission in the above-entitled matter has been continued. The continued hearing will be held on the 19thday of October, 1973 in the Washington County Office Building, Conference Room, Stillwater, Minnesota commencing at 10: 00 a.m. All persons shall be given an opportunity to be heard orally, and to submit written data, statements , or arguments concerning the above-entitled matter. The right to testify and the admission of testimony and other evidence shall be governed by the Rules of the Minnesota Municipal Commission. (The rules of the Minnesota Municipal Commission are found in Minnesota Statutes Annotated, at the end of Chapter 414 , They may also be nes to Municipal Commission upon request . ) from the M�.n uest . )o p p Q The property proposed for consolidation is the entire Village of Oak Park Heights and the entire Town of Stillwater. Dated this 28th day of August , 1973 MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL COMMISSION Square Building Capitol qu g St. Paul, Minne to 5 101 N�• .GGfi Patricia D. Lundy Asst. Executive Secretary C11-mt Village of Oak Park Heights Town of Stillwater BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Robert W. Johnson Chairman Thomas J. Simmons Vice Chairman Robert J. Ford Member Idor• A. Pederson Ex-Officio Member Don L. Cafferty Ex-Officio Member IN THE MATTER OF THE RESOLUTIONS ) . FOR THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE ) NOTICE OF CONTINUED HEARING VILLAGE OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS AND ) THE TOWN OF STILLWATER ) Notice is hereby given that a continued hearing will be held pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414 , as amended, before the Minnesota Municipal Commission in the above-entitled matter. The continued hearing will be held on the 6th day of September, 1973 in the Washington County Office Building, Conference Room, Stillwater, Minnesota commencing at 10: 00 a.m. All persons shall be given an opportunity to be heard orally, and to submit written data, statements , or arguments concerning the above-entitled matter. The right to testify and the admission of testimony and other evidence shall be governed by the Rules of the Minnesota Municipal Commission. (The rules of the Minnesota Municipal Commission are found in Minnesota Statutes Annotated, at the end of Chapter 414 . They may also be obtained from the Minnesota Municipal Commission upon request. ) The property proposed for consolidation is the entire Village of Oak Park Heights and the entire Town of Stillwater. Dated this 13th day of August , 1973 MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL COMMISSION 304 Capitol Square Building St. Paul, Minneso 5510 Patricia D. Lund - AMP` Asst. Executive S'c-etary Ii LEMMONS and MOOSBRUGGER Attorneys at Law 206 First Federal Bldg. 50 East Fifth St. Saint Paul,Minnesota 55101 Raymond L.Lemmons 227-0627 Gordon C.Moosbrugger 224-3879 rebrusty 1 MS Mr. tionard AO** , toosinfors • emit ., *04 O000lootoi • pit ^ x 4_ 441410g :taint # titmee0446 mar Mr. ., .t 11;01,1.41th plonae !Jed new 02 t # i entered on beteg' et atins**, reenebtp . tO beerAng on trbrati7 2, 19720 obit :. t.; * pr sup *brae a • *1 I " merreeetet by tbe new beentbtrien et the WY statemaat d000ribing tbe atone ; id th0 `` ilV4totiJu. truly.Tomo* eery C. Mensbruggor aCtilejt Ancleemee col Mt. X4,4 Lineal* St11.1mitter UMW, Attotsol . Pod Andersook vinao ot Ge> >s Clerk et Ottilentot G ► • s • BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA IN THE MATTER OF THE TOWN OF STILLWATER'S EXHIBIT _ PETITION TO ANNEX CERTAIN PURSUANT TO A HEARING ON LAND TO THE CITY OF STILLWATER FEBRUARY 2, 1973 A-2056 and A-1985 The Town of Stillwater herewith files this exhibit consisting of this page and the attached map showing the area of Stillwater Township and adjacent areas affected directly by the annexations in A-1985 and A-2056, and illustrating the three portions or areas of the Township which are completely surrounded by the newly established boundaries of the City of Stillwater, which areas together with the population are more particularly described and set forth below: Area Number 1: Located in the North East quarter of Section 31 and the North West quarter of Section 32, T. 30, R. 20, which tract is occupied by the Joseph Uehling family consisting of three persons; Area Number 2: A tract of land situated in the North West quarter of Section 32, T. 30, R. 20, lying Easterly of County Road 5 (Stillwater Boulevard) which is occupied by the Mahlon Waller family of four persons, the Edward Behrman family of five persons, and the Kenneth Oswald family of five persons; Area Number 3: Consisting of a tract of land in the North East quarter of Section 32, T. 30, R. 20, lying South-Westerly of Lily Lake and occupied by the Gilbert Benson family of two persons, the Oscar Benson family of two persons, and the Earl Benson family of seven persons. DATED: February 7, 1973 47 6 'Gordon C. Moosbrugger a' Attorney for Stillwater Township�•� 206 First Federal Building Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 2-� s.,. -a f � 1. • •• • •• . .,. , . ...,..,... . k �^ �VBNJND ANON:WCE'KLY �z- ti, •Scii.. VVilage of. Oak Park lie•ght8 ry+.• , •,.Ta••••_. StiIIwater, Minnesota, ry 1`f� F brua 19? • Feb.sr•l Pub11 b.:,Not ice of continued;1.ear ,-:.,:;.:'. az' F 'w 97 .ayr•� r �F ' ..''•'��. �" p,xta'lw}.�wqy fiv• .•,i, s• xy, � rx ,w� n ,• �, M r •. .....,-".1•......'•...'.•:-., q ''.1. w,. y � r�q 69 v ., _ i .r • ., '• u, *! ye",... •,�a"�•F',• 1:. ,7 {{ � 4 t . 0-x i., '� r xr art- - ..,' r 2 .'. 4•ce ti� - ^gw7• .5 .` 'r 5., :may 7P ti ,t ` :'7"''.''. ,.f ",.• '-.-:',.:...i5;:!,.,:-.:. :..1.",: ,.'-tf,.:,-,,L7',0,ilf,-0°'.'"4"*"4-:-‘4%...;;•;"*:..',-.•••-•''.,.' :-.• '.•.-..*'••-f::•,:..-:-•"--.:..?'-..' . ' ,-;.-.''., '''••.. i L 1.- '"x �' :r? +T tai �'"':�.' 4 ,s:'„,.% Y a �, : 7 � a N-71,-•J f. . Ta; `� -.� 'r4-.:.an.Y j y •'":• :•a. e- k .... .:. x --t r a .rr iy i..„� '71:7. •- c :aY a rw ,� ,v�"7 yi�t } wi .� x' : t `4? a t ti -, F•p� ''' '� ,t�fi„ .� ��' nr x 'C.,�`, ,�x �.�"' S� *�ti i ��,.! .•:01" .��. �a4:..I y,-.ink j. (� s-a''. g, �. 1 L R rw x q �1t1416.^� .Iii.'-'2' n +�.:1' s k �, ,,4w i.. k�` y :27 .r�F, . is ' :'' Ltti*'.Wilk � 1. ta • - •'. �accot 1� c '�",i .••.''..-•-...'Z •f. A c�x 4wek fu asa ed ifi t t' t of said:'arfi..,,,, hats bee�tt paid, ``•�F S� ' • `be n, me.sit- 21.7!,:,..;':' P197. S Aiii 1w ; ^i i s � " �,y'` Y•.F. r f •` .',•:‘-;:,-,-L,'•';',', ..(aciilwatec'Gaieua) `xti Y • 'UN. ",'� r ' s Pubic, Washington County, Minneaota. , My Camuniaeon Expires May 17,„,1974 . /5266 a-re-IL /7-4-f-e---62/rj c3L--' _cz_e_62_.tei_e_.) .,2-c,-e_-, -_,er-r-li c3-2-4-, I0,—e)- -,--era-,---4*--z-cg, 3. a .c -t � i c�7 .,..1 .tic.,p __-,2--,-,_-,_,-/ /t.;:..._.,,,, oc_a_4..., (?....a.,...„, i -• ' . _�, — February 8, 1973 ati,llwater Gazette Stillwater, Kinnes4a 55082 Gentlemen: Please publish the enolosed Notice of Continued Hearing in your Daily paper on February 14, 1973 and February 21, 1973. Thank you. Very truly yours, KenHeuer, Clerk-Treasurer Village of Oak Park Heights K ;bhg 73 Enclosure �'�J 4.4** 0". "% Phonet 421-2428 `tea.., OZ.; STATE OF MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL COMMISSION 304 Capitol Square Building 10th & Cedar Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Jan. 15 , 1973 Mr. Ken Heuer, Clk.-Treas . Village Hall 6141 Panama Ave. N. Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Re: Cul-mt Oak Park Heights - Stillwater Township Consolidation Dear Mr. Heuer: The Municipal Commission has scheduled a continued hearing in the above matter as per the enclosed Notices of Continued Hearing. Please publish this Notice of Continued Hearing for two successive weeks before the hearing in the newspaper qualified as a medium of official publication in the area to be considered and send the Commission an Affidavit of Publication at the expense of the petitioners . Sincerely yours, MUNICIPAL COMMISSION / I *� J e t Mr / toward L. Kaibel, Jr. Executive Secretary HK/mg Enc . C11--mt Village of Oakiiiirk Heights. ' �1 Town of Stillw r 4 �� ,;)= -- till BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSION f e /0 a1 OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Robert W. Johnson Chairman Robert J. Ford Member Thomas J. Simmons Member I. A. Pederson Ex-Officio Member Don L. Cafferty Ex-Officio Member IN THE MATTER OF THE RESOLUTIONS ) FOR THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE ) VILLAGE OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS AND ) NOTICE OF CONTINUED HEARING THE TOWN OF STILLWATER ) Notice is hereby given that a continued hearing will be held pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414 , as amended, before the Minnesota Municipal Commission in the above-entitled matter. J The continued hearing will be held on the 7th day of March, 1973 in the Washington County Office Building, Conference Room, Stillwater, Minnesota commencing at 2 : 00 p.m. All persons shall be given an opportunity to be heard orally, and to submit written data, statements , or arguments concerning the above-entitled matter. The right to testify and the admission of testimony and other evidence shall be governed by the Rules of the Minnesota Municipal Commission. (The rules of the Minnesota Municipal Commission are found in Minnesota Statutes Annotated, at the end of Chapter 414. They may also be obtained from the Minnesota Municipal Commission upon request. ) The property proposed for consolidation is the entire Village of Oak Park Heights and the entire Town of Stillwater. Dated this 15th day of January, 1973 MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL COMMISSION 304 Capitol Square Building St. ,;ul , itnesota 55101 r A ./ � ,r ....... . Howard L. al )el , r. Executive Secretary December++tber 2', dig!F Minnesota Municipakl Commission Mr. Howard Keibel, Executive f, re tary* 304 1tol Square Aull4ing Sto Flo Minnesota, 33101. Res Consolidation of lOwn of Stillwater sad Village of Oak Fork Oslights Dear Mx. Faibel a Enclosed herewith for the consideration of the Commission la a motion in the above matter by which ! ask on behalf of the Town of Stillwater thot the ri Jesuitry 30, 19/3 be limited in scope as set forth therein. It is imperative that vol ha a an avower to this request by January S, use if it is not granted we arc Sow to have to bring witnesses in froa as far away ea Hawaii and Florida, sadly* are going to hive to prepare all of our witnesses for tats hearings 'Yours very truly, Coate C. i Attornay At law Enclosure act Village of Otk Park Height*, • • In the Matter of the Petition of the Township of Stillwater and MOTION the Village of Oak Park Heights for Consolidation The Town of Stillwater moves for an order of the Commission limiting the hearing scheduled January 10, 1972 on the consolidation of said Town and the Village of Oak Park Heights to the following matters: (a) determining the factors to be covered in planning study provided for in the joint resolutions of the Town and Village for consolidation (b) establishing a date for completion of said planning study (c) resolving any jurisdictional issues which may be raised at said hearing (d) setting a date for hearing testimony for and against said consolidation. The grounds of this motion are: (1) The Town has many witnesses who will be called when a full evidentiary hearing is set, but who cannot be produced on January 10 as one of them is in Florida, one in Hawaii, and others are elsewhere outside of Minnesota, and all of them require more advance notice than has been provided for the hearing January 10. (2) It is unfeasable to make a presentation such as is required by M. S. A. Sec. 414.021, Subd. 3, on the short notice provided for the hearing January 10. (3) The Town and the Village have possed joint resolutions to conduct a planning study at a cost of $23,000.00 to be completed June 30, 1973, and such study is necessary to present the data required by M. S. A. Sec. 414.021 to be considered. Dated December 29, 1972 / Gordon C. Moosbrugger 7/,4 Attorney for Town of Stillwater 206 First Federal Building St. Paul, Minnesota, 55101 • • December 15, 1972 NASON associates WEHRMAN roy a.anderson CHAPMAN John o.bergly gN ASSOCIATES richard d.fredlund Mayor and Council INC charges a wittenberg Village of Oak Park Heights planning engineering landscape architecture Chairman and Townboard Supervisors Stillwater Township Gentlemen: The enclosed is the refined "Definition of Study" for the upcoming planning effort for the consolidation of the Town of Stillwater with the Village of Oak Park Heights. In 9 g addition, we have enclosed a program for a method that the two communities may wish to follow during the study time. In reviewing these two items, please remember that the amount of time given to perform a study of this nature is critical. If the Municipal Commission grants you a six month period to come up with a solution, we feel this allotment of time would be adequate. Our intent is to present to the Municipal Commission a report that they will use and rely upon ig reaching their decisions. In order to achieve this goal, we feel it neces- sary to expend the time indicated in the cost estimate following each stage. The cost estimate reflects the use of two special consultants to our firm. Bruce Rasmussen, former executive secretary to the MMC and practicing attorney, will provide us with Technical Assistance and guidance in the formulation of viable alternatives to the existing modes of government in your area. The second consultant, Gene Sylvestre Associates, specializes in community develop- ment organization. We feel Mr. Sylvestre will provide us with the much needed citizen involvement within the study area. A brief resume' of Mr. Sylvestre's activities is in- cluded for your review. Because the new community of Oak Park Heights, if indeed that's what it will be called, will encompass the Township of Stillwater, the present Village and a portion of Baytown Township, our proposal includes all r'r ',use subdivisions. If the enclosed proposal and method is acceptable, we would urge that the study be started as soon as possible in order that we may meet the deadline established by the Municipal Commission. We look forward to working with you on this most important item. Sincerely, Otto Schmid offices in minneapolis and fargo-moorhead—phone 1-612-546-4303-1415 lilac drive,minneapolis,minnesota 55422 i • i Exhibit A Definition of Program Comprehensive Community Study Oak Park Heights, Minnesota Stillwater Township, Minnesota November, 1972 Amended December, 1972 This planning program is intended to provide a Community Development Plan together with an Action Program designed to assure the implementation of the plan. Reports submitted will be printed reports, with maps of a suitable reduced size reflecting plans for the various phases of the study. The study will include coordination with local officials and citizenry, the purpose of which is to develop an understanding and support for the plan. 100 copies of the finished report will be submitted to the communities for distriEJtion as they see fit. The study program will be performed over a 6 month period and will involve monthly meetings with the communities officials and citizenry. The consultant will also meet with any and all interested citizen groups as deemed appropriate by the study group. Ap- pearances will be made before the Minnesota Municipal Commission as requested. Re- visions of the proposed Development Guide and resultant Political Subdivision-Structure and Form proposals will be made prior to final printing. A community action program designed for the purpose of implementing the study proposals will be suggested. STAGE I INVENTORY MAPS AND STUDIES 1 . Natural Environment Map - Existing physiographic data including but not limited to soils, land forms, streams, waterways, lakes, forested areas, etc. 2. Existing Land Use Map - Existing land use data will be obtained from the County, from the communities, from aerial photos and from field check. The map will show graphically the present pattern of development including existing streets, highways, thoroughfares, and commercial, industrial, residential and institutional land uses. 3. Land Use Study - A review of land use information and a survey as necessary of land uses (residential, commercial, industrial, public, vacant land, etc.) in the Planning Area will be made to determine use and general suitability for urban • • development. Schools, public buildings, parks and other municipal facilities will be reviewed to determine the general adequacy and use of land areas. This in- formation will serve to bring up-to-date basic existing use information. 4. Land Use Controls Study - Review traditional and innovative land use control tech- niques. The topics included in this survey will include, but will not be limited to, the following: Comprehensive planning; Zoning; Subdivision regulations; Building code; Official map; Capital improvements program; Advanced land acquisition in fee simple and by easement; Sequential growth techniques such as the " Ramapo Plan "; Utility extension policies, both local and metro; Highway construction; Floodplain and shoreland zoning; Inter-relationship of local planning with county and metro planning; Join' powers possibilities and judicial interpretations of the foregoing. 5. Population Base Study - Thr growth characteristics of the community with respect to the Metropolitan Area will be evaluated. Analysis will include population pro- jections into the 21st Century. 6. Development Plan Study - A Preliminary Guide Plan will be prepared utilizing a- bove information together with information supplied by Metropolitan and State Agencies. This Guide Plan will be prepared in map and in brief narrative form for local consideration and discussion. This Plan will serve as a discussion base for a preliminary community guide of uses, of facilities and of circulation patterns. 7. Fiscal Financial Planning Study - Review traditional and innovative methods of obtaining revenue needed to pay for municipal services. This review will include suggested policies relating to fire and police protection; parks and open space; utilities; roads; pedestrian ways; housing and transit. Sources for revenue con- sidered will include, but not be limited to, Local taxing authority, State rebates and Federal revenue sharing. STAGE II DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1 . Land Use - The detailed study of land use will contain an examination of present characteristics, and a recommended pattern for future land use. Proposals for future land use will consider existing land use, land suitability and the relationship and effect of different land uses upon each other. The Land Use Plan will designate specific areas for different uses in a pattern which will efficiently utilize the re- sources of the community and provide a sound environment for people. 2. Transportation - A plan for thoroughfares derived from knowledge of traffic and transportation in the community and metropolitan area will be prepared which will conform to and encourage the land development and Land Use Plan for the corn- • munity. This plan will contain a general analysis of the characteristics of motor flow on the basis of available information and the facilities for moving such traf- fic in the Planning Area. The major characteristics of traffic facilities -- such as location, condition, func- tion and impact on land development -- will also be considered. A system of thoroughfares will be delineated, and design standards for the various types and classifications of streets and thoroughfares will be recommended. 3. Community Facilities - A plan will be prepared which will make recommendations for the general location of public facilities (such as schools, parks, fire and police stations, the library and municipal facilities). Existing facilities will be studied, and future requirements for the community will be projected on the basis of the projected population and the present and anticipated needs. Special emphasis will be given to park study and park recommendations in order to provide a basis for needed park areas and a framework for park improvement. 4. Summary Guide Plan and Report - The Land Use, Transportation and Community Faciliies information and studies will be combined to form the Summary Guide Plan. This summary will include the Plan and a brief text stating the panning objectives for broad local distribution. 5. Political Subdivision Form and Powers - The consultant will present to the com- munities a recommended system of land use controls, and recommended alterna- tives to existing political subdivision structure and form. These recommendations will be based on the goals, policies and priorities established at the conclusion of Stage I. Alternatives will be based on the dictates of the development plan study as well as political - social norms of the area studied. In addition, infor- mation will be presented concerning urbanization, public service requirements, . possible logical community limits and projected development patterns. STAGE III TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND EFFECTUATION ACTIVITIES 1 . To be determined following the order of the Minnesota Municipal Commission. • • Firm Cost Estimate December, 1972 Comprehensive Community Study Oak Park Heights - Stillwater Township STAGE I, Inventory Maps and Special Studies `Jason, Wehrman, Chapman Associates $ 6,000 Bruce A. Rasmussen 3,750 Gene Sylvestre Associates 1,800 Total - STAGE I $11,550 STAGE II. Development Plan Nason, Wehrman, Chapman Associates $ 5,000 Bruce A. Rasmussen 3,750 Gene Sylvestre Associates 2,700 Total - STAGE I I $11,450 STAGE III. Technical Assistance and Effectuation Activities Cost estimate for continuing activities contingent on action taken by Minnesota Municipal Commission. Completion of STAGE I and II activities will constitute documentation neces- sary for consolidation activities. Total Cost $23,000 ,¢S C S'S (�rJt _�,: .. FV Levu ,�"�1 1 .fT t-�3 oiL use , ,2.-3/7 CJ, EC/ 3 6,5"i YO, c)(04 `24' ,20 7/471, )!.. G c 2£�5 ....,.. _ 3000. wb • 4110 AEI INTRODUCTION TO GENE SYLVE STRE ASSOCIATES Gene Sylvestre Associates is a community development organization with special interest and experience in assisting clients to develop citizen involvement in planning. We organize and supervise a team of selected professionals who have special competence for a particular project. We draw from all groups of people concerned with the physical and social environ- ment of an area - community planning groups, agencies, organizations,clubs, institutions and groups. Our work includes complete coordination and supervision of citizen development and involvement including: 1. CONDUCTING RESEARCH ON NEEDS Through public opinion studies we assemble objective information. To this base of up-to-date research we add special purpose studies as needed. We serve both as the instigator of research and the channel through which research done by others is integrated, presented and discussed. 2. ESTABLISHING COALS FOR AWARENESS We give assistance in establishing clear goals based on research - research on existing facts and opinions designed to uncover opportunities to realize these goals. This calls for surveying, analyzing and perfecting resources. 3. DEVELOPING COMMUNICATIONS ABOUT TEE FUTURE We keep abreast of developments and communicate new information necessary to meet changing requirea nts. We create and supervise citizen forums, workshops, seminars and "Town Meetings" to help citizens to: . . . isolate and synthesize the issues . . . outline alternative solutions . . . present recommendations to all those responsible for making decisions. 4. STIMULATING ACTION ABOUT THE FUTURE We provide a sound base of information, communicate this information, help develop common agreements on its use and assist in stimulation action on the basis of agreed-upon goals. This includes helping clients and citizens work cooperatively to: a) Establish policies b) Establish priorities c) Allocate resources d) Select alternatives December 26, 1972 Stillwater Gazette Stillwater, Minnesota 5,082 Gentlgment Please publish attached notice of Nearing in your daily Gazette on December 28, 1972 and on January 4, 197J. Forward statement and Affidavit of Publication to undersigned Clerk. Very truly yours, Ken Heuer, Clerk.arbasurer • Village of Oak Park Heights Ku:bh Enclosure a • • 4'6 Phone:22T-2428 Vr0-71744 STATE OFMINNESOTA MUNICIPAL COMMISSION 304 Capitol Square Building 10th & Cedar Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Dec. 21, 1972 Mr. Ken Heuer, Clerk Village Hall 6141 Panama Ave. N. Stillwater, Minnesota 550$2 Re: Village of Oak Park Heights and Town of Stillwater Consolidation Cll-mt Dear Mr. Heuer: The Municipal Commission has scheduled a hearing in the above matter as per the enclosed Notices of Hearing. Please publish this Notice of Hearing for two successive weeks before the hearing in the newspaper qualified as a medium of official publication in the area to be considered and send the Commission an Affidavit of Publication at the expense of the Petitioners. Sincerely yours, MUNICIPAL COMMISSION fp. tHop 111Pli■ 414. Howard L. ai.e , Jr. Executive Secretary HK/mg Enc. Cl71x mt Village of Oak Park Heights/ Town of Stillwer 1I0 BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Robert W. Johnson Chairman Harold J. Dahl Vice Chairman Robert J. Ford Member Two County Commissioners Ex-Officio Members IN THE MATTER OF THE RESOLUTIONS ) FOR THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE NOTICE OF HEARING VILLAGE OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS AND THE TOWN OF STILLWATER ) Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414, as amended, before the Minnesota Municipal Commission in the above-entitled matter. The hearing will be held on the 10th day of January, 1973 in the Washington County Courthouse, Commissioner' s Room, Stillwater, Minnesota commencing at 10:00 a.m. All persons shall be given an opportunity to be heard orally, and to submit written data, statements, or arguments concerning the above-entitled matter. The right to testify and the admission of testimony and other evidence shall be governed by the Rules of the Minnesota Municipal Commission. (The rules of the Minnesota Municipal Commission are found in Minnesota Statutes Annotated, at the end of Chapter 414. They may also be obtained from the Minnesota Municipal Commission upon request. ) The property proposed for consolidation is the entire Village of Oak Park Heights and the entire Town of Stillwater. Dated this 21st day of December, 1972 MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL COMMISSION 304 Capitol Square Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 47/,/, () 1 . 4 � , . ;[r t Howard L. Kaibel , Jr. Executive Secretary //11""111""""Pwil JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF STILLWATER, THE VILLAGE OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS, AND THE CITY OF STILLWATER DESIGNATING CERTAIN TERRITORY WITHIN SAID TOWN AS IN NEED OF ORDERLY ANNEXATION • WHEREAS, there is currently pending before the Minnesota Municipal Commission a proceeding requesting the annexation of certain territory within the Town of Stillwater to the City of Stillwater, which property abuts the Village of Oak Park Heights , • and has been designated by said Commission as Docket A- and WHEREAS, said proceeding is a continuation of a series of proceedings which have occurred over a period of many years ; and WHEREAS, these proceedings have resulted in the expenditure of an excessive amount of taxpayers ' money and public officials ' time, and have not resolved the underlying differences ; and WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to resolve their differ- ences so that further wasteful expenditures can be avoided, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the following described property be designated as in need of orderly annexation: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the parties hereto join in moving that proceeding A- be dismissed; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the parties hereto agree that none of them will initiate an annexation of any part of the territory designated. as in need of orderly annexa- tion for a period of one year, except with the express written consent of the other parties ; and - 1 - IL I • . • BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the parties hereto agree to jointly contract for and supervise a study for the purpose of determining the ultimate. boundaries of the area herein for presentation to the Minnesota Municipal Commission at the end of a one year period; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the conclusions of said study will be presented to the Municipal Commission as • recommendations if all parties agree, but that all parties are free to present evidence contrary to the conclusions of the study if they so desire . • TOWN OF STILLWATER By VILLAGE OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS By CITY OF STILLWATER By ■ • - I - 2 - A • • NASON associates WEHRMAN roy a.anderson November 22, 1972 CHAPMAN john o.bergly ASSOCIATES richard d.fredlund INC charles a.wittenberg planning engineering Mayor and Council landscape architecture Village of Oak Park Heights Chairman and Townboard Stillwater Township Gentlemen: As per the joint request of the Village of Oak Park Heights and the Township of Stillwater, we are pleased to present to you, for review and comment, our definition for the upcoming Comprehensive Community Study. The legislation which enables a municipality and a township to consolidate requires that certain basic planning data be obtained. This data is used as a guide by the Minnesota Municipal Commission in making its determination. The enclosed study definition is geared to meeting the data requirements called for in the enabling legislation. We believe this joint undertaking on the part of the two communities will result in a posi- tive solution to the problems surrounding recent short sighted annexation attempts. The beneficiaries of this study will be not only those who presently reside in your area, but also the residents yet to come. Sincerely, NASON, WEHRMAN, CHAPMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. 1\\,.) #177 1/C -9 Otto Schmid OS:ce Enclosure offices in minneapolis and fargo-moorhead—phone 1-612-546-4303-1415 lilac drive,minneapolis,minnesota 55422 • • • Exhibit A Definition of Program Comprehensive Community Study Oak Park Heights, Minnesota Stillwater Township, Minnesota November, 1972 This planning program is intended to provide a Community Development Plan together with an Action Program designed to assure the implementation of the plan. Reports submitted will be printed reports, with maps of a suitable reduced size reflecting plans for the various phases of the study. The study will include coordination with local officials and citizenry, the purpose of which is to develop an understanding and support for the plan. 100 copies of the finished report will be submitted to the communities for distribution as they see fit. The study program will be performed over a 12 month period and will invove monthly meetings with the communities officials and citizenry. STAGE INVENTORY MAPS AND STUDIES 1 . Natural Environment Map - Existing physiographic data including but not limited to soils, land forms, streams, waterways, lakes, forested areas, etc. 2. Existing Land Use Map - Existing land use data will be obtained from the County, from the communities, from aerial photos and from field check. The map will show graphically the present pattern of development including existing streets, highways, thoroughfares, and commercial, industrial, residential and institutional land uses. 3. Land Use Study - A review of land use information and a survey as necessary of land uses (residential, commercial, industrial, mining, public, vacant land, etc.) in the Planning Area will be made to determine use and general suitability for urban development. Schools, public buildings, parks and other municipal facilities will be reviewed to determine the general adequacy and use of land areas. This information will serve to bring up-to-date basic existing use information. 4. Population Base Study - The growth characteristics of the community with respect to the Metropolitan Area will be evaluated. Analysis will include population projec- tions into the 21st Century. 110 • 5. Development Plan Study - A Preliminary Guide Plan will be prepared utilizing above information together with information supplied by Metropolitan and State Agencies. This Guide Plan will be prepared in mop and in brief narrative form for local con- sideration and discussion. This Plan will serve as a discussion base for a preliminary community guide of uses, of facilities and of circulation patterns. 6. Political Subdivision —Structure and Form - The Consultant will present to the com- munities alternatives to the existing Political Subdivision structure and form. Al- ternatives will be based on the dictates of the development plan study as well as political - social norms of the area studied. In addition, information will be pre- sented concerning urbanization, public service requirements, possible logical com- munity limits and projected development patterns. Economic consideration will be given to state taxation practices and other factors relating to the alternatives pre- sented. STAGE II DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1. Land Use - The detailed study of land use will contain an examination of present characteristics, and a recommended pattern for future land use. Proposals for future land use will consider existing land use, land suitability and the relationship and effect of different land uses upon each other. The Land Use Plan will designate specific areas for different uses in a pattern which will efficiently utilize the re- sources of the community and provide a sound environment for people. 2. Transportation - A plan for thoroughfares derived from knowledge of traffic and transportation in the community and metropolitan area will be prepared which will conform to and encourage the land development and Land Use Plan for the com- munity. This plan will contain a general analysis of the characteristics of motor flow on the basis of available information and the facilities for moving such traf- fic in the Planning Area. The major characteristics of traffic facilities -- such as location, condition, func- tion and impact on land development -- will also be considered. A system of thoroughfares will be delineated, and design standards for the various types and classifications of streets and thoroughfares will be recommended. 3. Community Facilities - A plan will be prepared which will make recommendations for the general location of public facilities (such as schools, parks, fire and police stations, the library and municipal facilities). Existing facilities will be studied, and future requirements for the community will be projected on the basis of the projected population and the present and anticipated needs. Special emphasis will be given to park study and park recommendations in order to provide a basis for needed park areas and a framework for park improvement. • • • 4. Summary Guide Plan and Report - The Land Use, Transportation and Community Facilities information and studies will be combined to form the Summary Guide Plan. This Summary will include the Plan and a brief text stating the planning objectives for broad local distribution. STAGE III TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND EFFECTUATION ACTIVITIES The Consultant will with the approval of the communities, establish a time schedule for completion of the foregoing studies. As a matter of course, the consultant will meet with the study group as necessary to meet deadlines established. The consultant will also meet with any and all interested citizen groups as deemed appropriate by the study group. Appearances will be made before the Minnesota Municipal Commission as re- quested. Revisions of the proposed Development Guide and resultant Political Subdivision- Structure and Form proposals will be made prior to final printing. A community action program designed for the purpose of implementing the study proposals will be suggested. The Consultant will be available, on a continuing basis as requested, to provide technical assistance to the action program. l 110 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS STILLWATER TOWNSHIP SPECIAL MEETING - NOVEMBER 16, 1972 Resolved, that Stillwater Township hereby petitions the Minnesota Municipal Commission for approval of consolidation with the Village of Oak Park Heights. It is further resolved that the Township of Stillwater will consolidate with ' the Village of Oak Park Heights. It is further resolved that Stillwater Township shall commence a planning study jointly with the Village of Oak Park Heights for the new consolidated community. Vote Yea 2 Nay 0 Absent 1 I certify this is a true copy of the resolution adopted on November 16, 1972. 1,7 Loreen J. Clayton, Cerk r Town of Stillwater NASON associates November 9, WEHRMAN roya.anderson i CHAPMAN john o.bergly ASSOCIATES richard d.fredlund INC charles a wittenberg planning engineering Mr. Ray N. Johnson landscape architecture 14922 60th Street North Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Dear Ray: I thought the meeting last night was constructive and I am hopeful something positive will result. As I understand the situation, the Village is going to attempt to obtain a joint resolution with the town of Stillwater on initiating orderly annexation proceedings as It relates to the area lying south of Orleans Street extended westerly to County Road 15 (Orchard Road). This resolution should be conditioned on the basis that all annexations in that area will be suspended for one year so that study findings can be submitted to the MMC. I will mail Lyle the other procedure Bruce Rasmussen said he would put together as soon as I have it. !et me know how Stillwater Town reacts to the orderly annexation pro- posal. We'll need some sort of answer by next week. l by Sincerely, NASON, WEHRMAN, CHAPMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. Otto Schmid OS:ce cc: Lyle Eckberg. Ken Heuer offices in minneapolis and fargo-moorhead—phone 1-612-546-4303-1415 lilac drive,minneapolis,minnesota 55422