No preview available
 /
     
Document - Historical information/data - Granting Village Powers to Eagan Township - 2/18/1971Patch T/ Transfer Patch LAW OFFICES STALLAND Be HAU G E SUITE 2340, DAIN TOWER MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 65402 LUTHER M. STALLAND MAUL H. IIACOE GEOHOE H. HOEY February 18, 1971 Beard of Supervisors Town of Eagan 3795 Pilot Knob Road St. Paul, Minnesota 55111 Gentlemen: AREA CODE al_ PHONE 336-03(il I am herewith enclosing copies of the following bills proposed for submission to the 1971 legislature: 1. The overall granting of village powers to Eagan Township. As I mentioned, Eagan is the only township in the state which has a papule* tioa in excess of 10,000 sad there is only one other township •- White Bear -- which has a population of over 5,000 (5700). 2. The amendment to the local option section of the liquor lasts giving Eagan the right to opt for liquor licensing. 3.ndraent to the bond statute, which bill was proposed, as you may recall, at the 1969 session. No matter what else happens, this is imperative for the continuation of our township operation. 4. An amendment to the implied consent law. I am also enclosing a copy of resolution which covers these bills individually which met be submitted with them at the time they are presented. I assume that under the blanket authority which you gave me at the Pebruary 2nd Board meeting, this resolution is appropriate, and 1 ask that the original be signed by the Chairman and Clerk and a certifi& copy returned to me so that we can send copies to the Revisor of Statutes with these bills. Yours very truly, Luther M. Stailand LMS:mijj Enclosures cc: Mrs. Alyce Bolke Mr. Herbert Polzin LAW OPPICEN STALLAND 8e HAUGE SUITE 2040, DAIN TOWER MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 5540C Luruun M. STAI.LAND PAVL N. Hatton Juno 5, 1969 Mr.,Bruce Ranmuasen Minnesota Ifunicipel Commission State Capital • St. Paul, :atutccotn 55101 AILA cuN: um PHONE 3J0 -0:10I Ea: Blouse Pile 2150 - Eagan Incorporation Bill Dear Mr. Pasmussen: The Eagan Beard of Cuperviaora has asked that wet mite you concerning action taken by the Eagan Board at its meting on May 27th of this year., At that meeting the' Board adopted a re:iolution approving tite Incorporation 3ii1 pursuant to Section 645.021 of the Minnesota 3eatutes and hao fcresarded a copy o2 the reoolu'tion to the Secretary of State., At its regular meeting on June 3rd, the :^,card upon motion directed that a letter be gent to the Commission requcoting.the Commieaion that formal action not be commenced by the Cot -mission until fall. Tho reason for thin request is that it w.o the feeling of the Board that in the event that the Commission decides under the statute • to hold hearingp Which it will undoubtedly do, that the hearings be scheduled after the normal summer vacation menthe. If you have any questions do not hesitate to call us at any time. Yours very truly, Paul $aui. ge8auge PEA/cic cc: Eagan Board of Cuperviaora Alyce Spike, Tone Clerk 4 PD - ,*424kjz-e r/j �( u r AbetTreex C/lam �r / 3-7A r z. L ort_.�b v-2 Dvt. vvz.��•j roc J4 t 0GI c-/ rL j d� ' -h — } ec, fa-8 - .4pp-44-L. 4v-z,/ s4;/"-- f erv,z1.. ir:2 "7/71 Ovt. 8,494,e,ent,- „sho,,z,„e ,e17‘7.-keez-u—ez_e__ Api`ie_, 2. � J .147-r‘ik ? akr-4-75--c7 Ag#47 jilyz t 2 �- CC�d// ©e v, _oar .7._ye, 6*/0/707._ RESOLUTION WHEREAS, a regular =sting of the Lod of Supervisors. Town of Eagan, Dakota'County. Stete of Mir_La0ota vas duly Feld on February tad. 1971 at 7:30 P.M. cc the Tarn Fell at which all nenbere wero present; and minus, itvca ,,roposad that additional special and/or gcc ral legislation be prepared en behalf of Taman of Eagan by its Town Attorney for cub_lssica to the 1V71 Pfirsecata Legislature in order to give To -an of Eagan additional powers coo:luourate with its at.t:ua iu the metropolitan area; 77 R7 THEREFORE. E. upon motion duly made and seconded. it woo RESOLVED that the Tema Attorney be, and he hereby is. cut razed aM directed to prepare and cttbiit cp tcprieta leginlation to a hanca the powers of To:m of Er,"en and cpccificcliy in the arena of liquor licensing, implied consent, transit truck lic0asing, bonding end taming pacers equal to villages and/or in lieu thereof granting to Town of Eagcn,all po ers of villages. Doted: Februa:: 2nd, 1971 w RD oi' SUPERVISORS ATTEST: WYE OF EttGAPN, DAKO)TA COUNTY By Clerk Chairman 4191 THE WESTERN CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY THE WESTERN FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY PLYMOUTH BUILDING 0 12 SOUTH 6th STREET 0 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 TELEPHONE: 612339.0481 May 15, 1969 Stalland 6 Hauge Attorneys at Law Suite 2340 Dain Tower Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Attention: Paul H. Hauge RE: Township of Egan AGC 397 405 Dear Mr. Hauge: Mr. Robert G. Toombs of the Toombs Insurance Agency at Rosemount has requested that I review the coverage provided the township of Egan under policy number AGC 397 405 and respond to the inquiry set forth in your letter of May 5. The comprehensive general liability coverage provides limits of coverage in the amount of $50,000.00 for injuries to one person and limits of coverage in the amount of $100,000.00 for injuries arising out of any one occurrence and $25,000.00 aggregate. Under the automobile liability section the township of Egan is provided with coverage limits of $50,000.00 for injuries to one person, $100,000.00 for all injuries resulting from each occurrence and $10,000.00 property damage. You will observe that the township's liability is adequately covered for each individual wrongful death claim and for each individual injury claim in accord with the 1967 revised statute. However, the coverage for each single occurrence is not adequate so far as the liability of $300,000.00 as set forth by the statute is concerned. We assume that it is the desire of the township to increase its limits to conform with the liability imposed by statute both under the automobile and the general liability coverage. We suggest, •therefore that if increased limits are desired that Mr. Toombs be directly contacted by you or oat of the other township authorities. If you have any question feel free to write or phone the undersigned. Sincerely yours, I\/ �J,rt�l c J L. Corcoran -1 Claims Manager 'CC:: Toombs Insurance Agency GOOFY • TELEPHONE CA ITAL d-90E1 JURAN & MOODY, INC. MUNICIPAL BONDS EXCLUSIVELY SAINT PAUL 7, MINNESOTA NOVEMBER 20, 1961 MR. LUTHER STALLAND ATTORNEY AT LkW RANG TOWER i,91NNEAPOL.IS 2, MINNESOTA DEAR LUTHER: TELETYPE ST P 100 93 EAST SIXTH STREET ITH REFERENCE TO OUR DELIBERATIONS CONCERNING INCORPOR— PO1ATION, I UNDERSTAND THAT IF EAGAN TOWNSHIP REQUESTS THE MUNICIPAL COMMISStOr! TO CONSIDER INCORPORATING THE TOWNSHIP, THE COMMISSION WILL HOLD ITS HEARING ON: THAT POINT ONLY. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF WE ALLOW THE COMMISSION TO CALL THE HEARING WITHOUT ANY RECOMMENDATION FROM US, I UNDER— STAND THAT THEY THEN CAN CONSIDER THE PROBLEM EITHER OF INCORPORATING ALL OR PART OF THE TOWNSHIP OR CONSIDERING ANNEXATION TO AN ADJOINING MUNICIPALITY. THIS MIGHT BE A POINT FOR US TO KEEP IN MIND AT OUR CONCLUDING COMMITTEE MEETINGS. JU TRULY YOURS, & MOODY, INC. 4 JEK: PM JAM s E. KI' t 1dG�t. CC: tJR. ARTHUR RAHN FRANK J. DELMONT, INC. GENERAL INSURANCE Arthur F. Rahn, Chairman Eagan Town Board Eagan Court House Eagan Township St.Paul 18, Minnesota Mldway 5-6421 5-6422 2397 University Avenue ST. PAUL 14, MINNESOTA October 30, 1961 Dictated October 30, 1961 Re: Report on Merits or Incorporation of Eagan Township Dear Mr. Rahn: Please be advised that I am definitely against incorporations. The reason I moved out and built in Eagan Township was so that I could enjoy the privilege of living in a Township. Cordially, DELMONT AGENCY, INC. Frhnk J. Delmont President FJD/hc Daiwa (seam Peaauruc, 6 da4n OFFICERS CHAIRMAN RALPH W. FARNSWORTH LAKEVILLE TOWNSHIP VICE CHAIRMAN GEORGE J. BASSINGWAITE SOUTH 5T. PAUL CITY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY CLYDE N. RYBERG BURNSVILLE TOWNSHIP COUNTY COMMISSIONER JEROME AKIN FARMINGTON ' .392o / [L /L/L �� 2->e_ , a 1. _e /7, 4(6,..L.- County Court House HASTINGS, MINNESOTA CHAIRMEN STANDING COMMITTEES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HAROLD H. RAAK INVER GROVE TOWNSHIP HEALTH AND WELFARE ARTHUR KUMMER DOUGLAS TOWNSHIP PUBLIC SERVICE RAY ROTHER HAMPTON TOWNSHIP PARKS ERNEST J. ALTMAN WEST 5T. PAUL The recently released opinion from the Minnesota Municipal Commission has given the whole problem back to the people and governments of this area. In effect, the opinion states "You find an acceptable solution or we will make an arbritnary one for you". The immediate areas involved are Inver Grove, Eagan, Burnsville and Lake- ville Townships. However, the problems extend to and affect Lebanon and Rosemount Townships, Inver Grove Village, Sunfth Lake, Mendota Heights, Rosemount Village and Lakeville Village. Also directly affected are the School Districts serving all these units. Any problem (or problems) affecting this many units also affects the County as a whole. For this reason the County has requested all named governments to meet jointly to initiate what will probably be a long term solution. It is our feel- ing that our time-honored concept of government OF, BY AND FOR the people is at stake. Either we recognize, understand and solve our problems of rapid growth or some higher unit of Government will do it for us — without our agreement or acceptance. The meeting will be held in the Burnsville High School on Highway #13 on Thursday, 14ay 24 at 8:00 P.M. All officials of your government are urged to be present. This is an extremely important meeting. To assist in eventually solving this problem, you will get a complete copy of the Annexation -Incorporation laws — a copy of this recent Municipal Commission release and some factual statistics on the area involved. It is hoped that every- one will be an active participant at this meeting. For the Chairman Ralph W. Farnsworth 1yd e% ' -C CNR/vms Yberg Yocutive Secretary • Eagan Civic Association Eagan Township, Dakota County Minnesota May 23, 19b2 Dear Member: The problem of incorporation is no longer a remote possibility. The Minnesota Municipal Commission has brought it into the scope of immediate probability. As you may know, the Commission recommended the incorporation of Eagan and three neighboring townships into one village, to be ultimately developed into one giant suburban city. The next Eagan Civic Association meeting will be held May 28th at 7:30 p.m. in McKee's Hall - Highway 55 near Lexington. we intend to give an account of Mr. Robbie's reasons, as chairman of the M.M.(:., for this suggested joint incorporation. The supervisors of the involved townships have been invited to attend a meeting on May 24th to try to find a solution to the Northern Dakota County incorporation problem. The members of our Town board have been invited to our May 28th meeting to offer their opinions on the subject. As our elected representatives, it is important that they know what you are thinking. if you have some ideas on this question, bring them to our meeting and express them, Persuade your interested friends and neighbors to come too. The urgency of this issue compels us to look into it immediately, before we must resolve it with our vote. Very truly J•h,JY J. Klein ai an 495 Lone Oak koad / St. l'aul 11, Minnesota PAUL A. THUET, Jr. JOHN J. TODD FRANCIS L. SARTHOLET El . Arthur Rahn 3920 Rahn Road St. Paul 11, Minnesota rar Mr. Rahn: warded to the Govornoe as of this date. Vert ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS 228 GLAND AY[NUII SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNIOOTA T[L[PHOH! GLeNvlew 1.6411 August 24, 1962 I am enclosing herewith L letter which I have for- y yours, Pa A. Thue , Jr. State Senato 20th Legisla ive District • o *avast 23, 1962 The Saroerabl• Blair L. £ndorsan Ooverhor of the State of Minnesota State Capitol Building Stz p.ml , Mt rneaeeta Dear Governor £ndersent It Is my andorstemadimg Bopae•se•ttattve ammo has written a 1•tter to the eta. NamIsapol Commission asking that tom► man of such Commission /*maga sad has indioated that such abatement Is not tit to serve, ate. t am writing this letter to Sots, as grief Saesutive of the &tato st Idas•set•. Loeimmtsh se I do mot aeli•ve the cotpstesos or t*sortpstssse of this &halms* or may oteeab•r of this Commission is the real Issas. It is vs, position that Cho law itself is not adequate mud needs revision. tho his- tory of this erawttrr is as follows t In 1 a;,9, a Ism was pasao'x ewe as Chapter 606 of the Law of 1959, the ett•at of whith wan to net up • t1unioip•i Commission to hear petitions tor in•orpor.t lore of property late villages, eta. At the timp of Cho passage of this law, moor of the armb•ra of tilt Le .slr� atua, Lnsl* the writer, had •s■isid• erabl* reservatista about the advisability of passing .*cb 104141- latian and amoadmeats ware made in an attempt to oorrs.% some of the more obvious shortcomings of taro dot. Is 1961, taws mottor agwiq same b.for• this Losiole1tre ..,nl hems winos` eta war.. approvods t►h• years l iS sad l i t of thin low was note obvious until wit�Debota County woe* sub oetpt s Booties 2 sad ism of this Lot 4i.vin ; tthe Commissioa brood powers to iaoorposste townahtga ova. 2,000 into Villages. ♦ number of petitions ore Bled including t petition on ()ob*U of the Ytilaij,• of dloonlagten to mesa a township in Dakota County. Thor after, some of *a townships Mod petitions to insorpo'a►te. All of these s rs assf per* It was ttbo trrdrrata►dlai of the bra of the Logistatur• that the Commissima would Ire ossentialls one chubs wade lavoetigatiens sad reoos seadatiwu mad would attempt gemorelly Tha U n rsblo Slaw L. ioderssa Page t. to rich them• srsas wkiah night ba ready for iasorporatioa. the Northern portion of Dakota Count is witbia sash •atsry, how - over, prior to too p a of thigs Law, the various local sovera- most bodies hal attom 4 and had, for the most part, solved their wr within the £ t ted township arias in soopsratioa with County Hoard of Dakota Comity. In other *rims . it was the Le ,slaturs's understanding that titers were real is .diwts problems and it would be the � add infett of the Commission to aid those areas tans*. ths result in D*keta County, hew - over, has boob to oastrai•y. The Commission has, rather than bringing order out of Chaos, has orou+pt about ohaos has pleas of ardor. hearings wawa held. the *Means ware adtia•d be wont out their problem $ and bring bash- a solution to the Commissiw. his was done. however. the semmiasion then advised the people that they did not fool that this visa a *arrest Solution. Tbo alterna- tives suggested j the omission were unraalistie and demonstrated a leak of understanding of the entire problem. ? &rthor, it re- o Mp`asised a tear which we bars all harbored seaaseraiag tie ad- ministrative bodies -- ghat the rights and paters of the people may be sub ogat•d to the whim and *sprig* et a three ~ember Heard. the remelt of this lack of ososideratire. 4La►•atis* and decision msuu breasht about a situation in eta Coati whisk is intolerable. Csa■sesatal end industrial esterpri$ea sv indie*t•d a real dasir• to losat* in this area in close proximity to the Twin Cities. how- ever, have gone to other locations beesmieo of the oeitusles brought about by the salamis of the Mmoisipal Commission. this boa also been true in the residential field, pmrtle*ely where theta has born a desire to ereate subdivisions sad entstraot homes an a iroad base. £ugµ$t no 1962 Tits ottiswis of Dakota County arc aatrewsl►y upaot and the •ooneal* stability of to entir* area is belie seriously a►tfeotsd. A rsviaw of the figures will show that Dakota County is a fast growing area with virtually unliaitod industrial and sideati*1 oepet,iiitios. Ms seed only point to r tow of the ia- :ustrisl asnte s much as the ail rstinsri•s and mistrial complex at Pine Ltd, Broadway Glass at aosemoaot, the laINag tadootrlr at South St. Paul and various light .sa tset*tt*i plants througbwi the *minty. It is interesting to riots that In tin~ area river uadsr sooaideration by the Commission, a number of light industrial plant* wars built prior to this present situation, cad 1 ace sure. a thrtnar nua►bsr would be built in the future. As a result of this pretest awnei ties, it is obvious that this die law us*ds a detailed Wady by the Lev isLatnre with • • The Conera+as Slaw L. Andersen rage 3. smon mgts that will remove the so-called grey *roes from the law and will sere Glearly define the Commission's pw.r and at the some tine, issues the people st the area of seatrrel ever their ems des- tiny. We aamaot over opOhasise the seriousness of the present situation and ask that your arises sums an investigetion of this matter and request the Cemtissiem is withheld any drastie minion Shanaing bLeteria township ovormsont and boundaries until this matter cam be brought before the Senate end Sew Committees in the next session of the Legislators. Ms, in Debate County, feel that if the Commission proeesds as is has done in this area, is ether arras of tau state, the satire waoarban eatropelitan ea■■owity will suffer iamaaaarrabl• hare, partiwlarly with referees* to miss trisi, cawumrsisl end residea$ail growth. As 1 hems Stated pr.vioasly, the umfortemate result of this Cesatlasion's nations has been to ssmfu,se and complicate a serious matter, twit) metropolitan firth. 1 ■i t add that the ventures) of this Commission have not been •s t• say the least, and cello,. a halt shatld be milled to farther ewes, oat 'Chaos ntil the Legislature sae 'to* ozonise this entire sitstation. cc t tinmaieta Municipal Coomissioa Mate C pital at. Paul, Minnesota Angus t 23, / 962 Very truly yaera, Paul A. Thuet yeaator 20th Lesitalb ttv. Aiattrtet • • eayan Civic ASJociaiion EAGAN TOWNSHIP DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA Oot. g, 19S2 Governor Eleer. L. Andersen State Capitol Bldg. St. Paul 1, Minnesota. The n mbsre of tee E,3gan Civic Association are greatly concerned oath the antiolpated decisions of the Minnesota Municipal Commission. We believe that our adshes, as expressed through our eieoted repre- sentatives, have not been ,-riven due and proper consideration during current INC hearinrs. The Commission is interfering with effeottve exercise of local government by Its unwarranted interposition of ito authority in Dakota County. Through its autocratic and dictatorial approach to municipal plan- ning it is directly responsible for the oonfusion, hostility, ar::i auspicion it has oreated. It has pitted neighbor against neighbor, and oo ennity against community rith one area attemptinrr, to improve Its tax uaae at the expense of another, and all trying desperately to retain what economic stability they may now have. Tha teeny actions of the M` O ar3 against the nest principles of community planning, and without justifi:ation or precedent in a democratic; society. W3 heartily support those legislative representatives who have ex- pressed faith in the ability of the people to self govern, and rho seek changes in those laws which deny the right ht cf self determination. We further urge Governor Andersen to suspend the functions of the WAG until the legislature assembles, at which tiee we will ask our elected officials to re-examine the oonatitutionelity of the law ehieh ornate untaitieated power to the tdMC and infringes upon individual rights and local government, and of that law which permits one community to annex all or part of another without determining the wishes of the people affected taxwise by the boundary ch• gin- e . As reaieents of Eagan Township we have no ambitious plans for aoluiring property of our neighboring toonshipa, and we will resist any attempt to annex part of this territory. The M1C should exist in edvisrry onpecity only. When e government believes its people are incapable of wise self government, we no longer have a denocraoy; and when a commission oan dtoi to to the contod. • Committee to Study the Merits of Remaining a Town or Incorporating RECOMMENDATION It is the unanimous opinion of the committee that the Home Rule Charter City form of government can best serve our community needs. Following are some of the reasons: 1. As our community grows, more services will be required regardless of what form of government we have and the Home Rule Charter City is, in our opinion, the best means of providing for these services. 2. It provides for a ward system which is of the greatest benefit to all of the people, for as the population centers shift within the town, it ensures representation for each area. 3. It provides for a Standing Charter Reform Commission that can change the structure of government to meet the specialized needs of the community and tailor the original charter to best fit Eagan's unique situation. 4. It provides for Initiative, Referendum, and Recall as well as Open Meetings. 5. It will relieve the elected officials of minor administrative duties and leave them free for policy making decisions as well as allowing for even better communications between the people and the municipal officials. The committee unanimously recommends that the Town of Eagan be incorporated as a Home Rule Charter City. In order that this might be accomplished, we further recommend that the Town Board of Supervisors request special legislation which will allow us the opportunity of going directly to this form of government. Because the 1969 legislature is now in session, we strongly urge that the neces- sary steps be taken immediately to provide our community with the opportunity of Home Rule Charter City status prior to the highly probable 1970 incorporation vote. It is our further opinion that timely execution of this recommendation will ensure a smooth and efficient transition to a more effective governmental unit. Subsequent to this report to the people presented in an open meeting on February 6, 1969, a bill was enacted by the legislature permitting Eagan to incorporate, by vote, directly as a Home Rule Charter City pending hearings and approval by the M.M.C. Page 1 of 6 pages In March of 1967, the electors of Eagan Township, at their Annual Meeting, requested the Board of Supervisors to appoint a committee to study the advisability of incorporation of the township. A committee of seven residents was appointed by the Board and this report is a result of the Committee's study. The committee members are: Donald Jerome Donald Knight, Chairman Adam Chapdelaine Wallace Potter Roger Sperling Roger Weierke Mrs. Marjorie Simecek Alfred Shadduck 1455 Highview Avenue - 454-1842 2077 Marble Lane - 454-3679 575 Chapel Lane - 454-2533 2004 Emerald Lane - 454-3226 1421 Highview Avenue - 454-3512 - Cliff Road, Rosemount - 454-3626 (moved & replaced by:) Highway 31, Rosemount - 454-4234 Page 2 of 6 pages Resource people who presented materials for review by the committee and/or appeared at committee meetings and are also present tonight as invited guests include Rey Boezi, staff member of the Metropolitan Council; Orville Peterson, Executive Secretary of the League of Minnesota Municipalities; Bruce Rasmussen, Executive Secretary of the Minnesota Municipal Commission; Representative Howard Knutson, representing Legislative District 12B, including Eagan, in the State House of Representatives; members of your Town Board, John Klein and Art Rahn; your township attorneys, Luther Stalland and Paul Hauge; and Alyce Bolke, the Town Clerk. The charts are intended to serve as a guide to certain powers which, in the judgment of the committee, are available to three forms of local government in Minnesota; namely, Urban Town, Village, and Home Rule Charter City. The following is a general description of each of the three governmental forms studied by this committee: URBAN TOWN (Eagan) Eagan's location within the Twin Cities metropolitan area together with numerous special legislative bills offers Eagan many of the powers of a village. The Annual Meeting is retained at which the public is given an opportunity to express itself and determine major policy including fixing the budget. The Town Board of three members implements these policies. The town has been said to be the only remaining place where the mass of the people can get direct experience in local self-government. VILLAGE The village council is elected by the people - it is comprised of five (5) members. The council alone sets the budget and approves it. The present method for a town to become a village is to petition the Minnesota Municipal Commission (MMC) which after hearing(s), issues an order approving or denying the petition. If approved, an election is held in the area to be incorporated. In 1970, the MMC must determine whether all metropolitan area townships, including Eagan, are eligible for incorporation. For our particular situation and with a population well in excess of 2,000, it is highly probable the MMC will order hearings and a vote on the issue of incorporation. The MMC is further empowered to initiate annexation proceedings whereby parts of Eagan could be combined with adjoining municipalities. HOME RULE CHARTER CITY This form offers the broadest discretion in governmental structure. The senior district judge in the county appoints 15 qualified voters in the municipality as members of the charter commission. The members serve on . 4 year over -lapping terms. The charter is submitted by the commission and must be passed by 557. of those voting on the issue. Wide latitude is given by the commission in formation of the governmental structure and many of the advantages of township or village government may be retained. Home Rule Charter City status may be obtained by becoming a village and petitioning the senior district judge or possibly through submitting a special bill to the Minnesota Legislature for adoption. Page 3 of 6 pages AVAILABLE POWERS & RIGHTS COMMON TO ALL THREE GOVERNMENTAL FORMS ARE: 1. Permits a manager and independent departments (a) 2. Establish and operate fire and police departments. 3. Can sue and be sued and provide liability insurance protection. 4. May establish voting precincts and voter registration. 5. Can contract for equipment and services. 6. Establish parking facilities and tourist camps. 7. Build and maintain hospitals. 8. Establish Board of Health. 9. Purchase and manage cemeteries. 10. Carry on municipal planning including regulating zoning and platting. 11. Regulate building construction. 12. Create and maintain parks and playgrounds. 13. Construct, maintain and vacate streets. 14. Exercise the right of condemnation. 15. Employees and officials are subject to Public Employees Retirement Act (PERA)(b) 16. Operate a Justice Court system (c). 17. Adopt & enforce ordinances (includes right to adopt by reference to state statute). 18. Fines for ordinance violations paid to local municipality. 19. Control nuisances and vice. 20. Control the keeping of animals. 21. License transient merchants. 22. May framhise private sewer & water utitlities. 23. May tax real estate for municipal purposes (d). 24. Make local improvements and assess against benefited property (e) 25. Share in distribution of state sales, cigarette and liquor taxes. 26. License taxicabs, drayage equipment, etc. 27. License amusements. 28. Construct and operate water, sewage disposal and storm sewer systems. Page 4 of 6 pages AVAILABLE POWERS & RIGHTS THAT VARY WITH GOVERNMENTAL FORM AVAILABLE POWERS & RIGHTS ' FORM OF GOVERNMENT (Affirmative powers available marked with an X 1. Number of voting members on governing body 2. Offers optional plans of government (f) 3. Permits urban trucks to deliver, pick up & travel through without special license (g) 4. Civil service and merit system available 5. Establish municipal court 6. Receive highway gas tax revenue from state directly (h) 7. Own and operate gas and electric utilities URBAN :TOWN 3 8. May issue bonds for financing capital improvements (limited i) 9. Power to approve state & federal highway design 10. Can hold annual meeting (j) 11. Salaries of elected officials may be varied without state statutory limits (k) 12. Maintain present boundary lines & annex other areas 13. Establish municipal liquor store and issue private liquor licenses (1) 14. Representation by wards 15. Iniative, referendum & recall available (m) 16. Permits standing committee for governmental reform (charter commission) 17. State legislation required for governmental changes Page 5 of 6 pages x x VILLAG$ 5 HOME RULE CHARTER CITY FOOTNOTES a) All forms currently permit the • appointment of an administrative manager and department heads but the village council and urban town board are directly responsible for hiring and firing of employees. b) Employees of all forms of government are subject to the PERA retirement provisions with contributions being made by the employer and employee to the fund. A tax levy or other revenue may be used to pay the employer's portion. Elected officials may choose to be subject to PERA. c) Both villages and home rule cities may have justice court provided municipal court has not been established. d) A town may tax up to 17 mills for general revenue, 25 mills for road and bridge, separate levies to retire bonds for local improvements and additional levies for certain purposes such as PERA. Villages may levy up to 30 mills for general purposes together with other levies similar to towns. City charter may limit taxation power. e) The town board, village or city council can order improvements for public projects such as streets, water or sewer facilities and parks and determine whether to assess part or all of the project to benefited property. f) Cities which adopt home rule charters are given wide latitude in the type of governmental structure including authority delegated to departments. Following 1970, village government will have optional village forms A & B. g) A special bill was enacted by the 1967 Legislature permitting trucks to travel through Eagan and enter Eagan (as a township) for repairs without the need • for a special truck license. This would not presently apply if Eagan was incorporated. h) Nine percent (97.) of the highway user fund, including vehicle licenses and gasoline tax, is paid to cities and villages over 5,000 population to be used for the municipal state aid road fund. One-half (1/2) of the 97. goes to cities according to population. The other one-half (1/2) of the 9% is appropriated according to money needs. Twenty-one percent (217.) of the highway user fund is paid to counties for the county state aid fund. In addition, Dakota County currently levies nineteen (19) mills on all county real estate for road purposes with a small portion going directly back to townships, 35% of the first 14 mills going back to cities and villages of over 5,000 population, and further requires villages and cities to pay for 457. of the construction cost of county roads within cities and villages. i) Bonding purposes for a township include storm sewer facilities, town hall, fire equipment and road construction and maintenance. Bonds may not be issued by townships for other public buildings. j) A city charter can include a provision for numerous open meetings similar to the town annual meeting. k) Subject to a referendum vote of the people in case of village form. 1) The council in any village with not more than 10,000 residents may establish and operate municipal liquor stores. As a township, Eagan currently is entitled to one private liquor license for each 2,000 population. These licenses are issued at the discretion of the County Board. m) This power permits initiation of government action for a vote by the people, a referendum to the electors by an election and a recall of officials through vote under certain circumstances. Paee 6 of 6 oases • • contod. people box they are to be -overned, and what their boundaries v;ii1 be without t vote of the peoi le, our basis freedoms as American citizens have been forfeited. let /John J. Klein Ch a i r mran tngan Civic Assn. I'# y` ; Lone Oak Rd . Rt. P-.ul 11, i irn. Walter F. Ylatie Joe t3ev.k Paul A. 'Must Harry P. Schoen 'ta.on Tern Fo,lrc Minn. Municipal Commission Pt. Paul Dispatch- Piioaeer Press West Rt. Pr-ui Boaster errs Dakota County Tr ibuni Minnesota Valley Review REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO STUDY THE MERITS OF REMAINING A TOWNSHIP OR INCORPORATING AS A MUNICIPALITY Submitted to the Electors of Eagan Township, Dakota County, Minnesota on March 12, 1968 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Donald Knight, Chairmen Jerome 0. Adam' Donald Chapdelaine / ✓ Wallace I. Potter Mre. Marjorie Simmcek Roger L. Sperling Roger F. Weierke er 1e. In March, 1967, the electors of Eagan Twnship at their annual meeting requested the Board of Supervisors to appoint a committee to study the advisability of incorporation of the township. A committee of seven residents was appointed by the Board and this report is the result of the committee's study. Resource people who presented materials for review by the committee and who appeared at committee meetings included Raymond Boeszi, staff member of the Metropolitan Council; Orville C. Peterson, Executive Secretary of the League of Minnesota Municipalities; Representative Howard Knutson, representing the Eagan area in the State House of RepresentAtives; members of the Eagan Town Board and other Eagan officials including Paul H. Hauge, one of the town attorneys. The chart on pages 3 and 4 of this report is intended to serve as a guide to certain powers which, in the judgment of the committee, are available to three forms of local government in Minnesota, namely urban town, village, and home rule charter city. 2 CHART INDICATING RELATIVE POWERS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL. STRUCTURES IN MINNESOTA (See Appendix for explanation of lettered footnotes) AVAILABLE POWERS (Affirmative powers available marked with an X) 1. Number of voting members on governing body 2. Offers optional plans of government (d) 3, Permits a manager and independent departments(e) 4. Can hold annual meeting (f) 5.. Salaries of elected officials may be varied without state statutory limits 6. Maintain present boundary lines and annex other areas 7. Establish municipal liquor store and issue private liquor licenses (g) 8. Establish and operate fire and police depts. 9. Initiative, referendum & recall available (h) 10. Permits standing committee for governmental reform (charter commission) 11. State legislation required for governmental changes 12. Local consent required to effect special legislation for single municipality (i) 13. Can sue and be sued and provide liability insurance protection 14. Representation by wards 15. May establish voting precincts and voter registration 16. Can contract for equipment and services 17. Permits urban trucks to deliver, pick up and travel through without special license (j) 18. Establish parking facilities a -tourist camps 19. Build and maintain hospitals 20. Establish board of health 21. Purchase and manage cemeteries FORM OF GOVERNMENT Urban Village Home Rule(c) Town (a) (b) Chatter City 3 5 x x x x x x x x x x ep �a�iAt x x x x x x x x 3 AVAILABLE POWERS Urban Village Home Rule (c) Town (a) (b) Charter city 22. Power to approve state & federal highway design 23. Carry on municipal planning including regulating zoning and platting 24. Regulate building construction 25. Create and maintain parka and playgrounds 26. Construct, maintain and vacate streets 27. Exercise the right of condemnation 28. Employees and officials are subject to Public Employees Retirement Act (PBRA) (k) 29. Civil service and merit system available 30. Establish municipal court 31. Operate a Justice Court system 32. Adopt 6:':enforce ordinances (Includes right to adopt by reference to state statute) 33. Fines for ordinance violations paid.to local municipality 34. Control nuisances and vice 35. Control the keeping of animals 36. License transient merchants 37. License taxicabs, drayage equipment, etc. 38. License amusements 39. Construct and operate water, sewage disposal end storm sewer systems 40. Own and operate gas and electric utilities 41. May franchise private sewer & water utilities 42. Make local improvements and assess against benefited property (1) 43. Receive highway gas tax revenue from state directly (m) 44. May tax real estate for municipal purposes (n) 45. May issue bonds for financing (limited see o ) 46. Share in distribution of state sales, cigarette and liquor taxes - 4 - • APPEND I X (a) The Urban Town which includes Eagan Township. Eagan's location within the twin cities metropolitan area together with numerous special legislative bills offers Eagan many of the powers of a village. The annual meeting is retained at which the public is given an opportunity to express itself and determine major policy including fixing the budget. The Town Board of three members implements these policies. The Town has been said to be the only remaining place where the mass of the people can get direct experience in local self-government. (b) Village. The Village Council is elected by the people - it is usually comprised of-5 or 7 members. The Council alone sets the budget and approves it. The present method for a town to become a village is to petition the Minnesota Municipal Commission (MMC) which after hearing, issues an order approving or denying the petition. If approved, an election is held in the area to be incorporated. In 1970 the MMC must determine whether all metropolitan area townships including Eagan, if it remains a township, are eligible for incorporation. If so, hearings and an election will be held within each township as ordered by the MMC. (C) Nome Rule Charter City.' This form offers the broadest discretion in governmental structure. The senior district judge in the county appoints 15 qualified voters in the municipality as members of the charter commission. The members serve on 4-year over -lapping terms. The charter is submitted by the commission and must be passed by 557. of the voting residents. Wide lattitude is given by the commission in formation of the governmental structure and many of the advantages of township or village government may be retained. Home Rule Charter City status may be obtained by becoming a village and petitioning the County Board or possibly through submitting a special bill to the Minnesota Legislature for adoption. -5- (d) Cities which adopt home rule charters are given wide latitude in the type of governmental structure including authority delegated to departments. Following 1970 village government will no longer have optional forms with the clerk and treasurer becoming non -voting appointed village officials. (e) All forma currently permit the appointment of an administrative manager end department heads but the village council and urban town board are directly responsible for hiring and firing of employees. (f) A city charter can include a provision for open meetings similar to those of a town annual meeting. (g) The council in any village with not more than 10,000 residents may establish and operate municipal liquor stores. The two year waiting period after incorporation for issuance of private liquor licenses or creation of a municipal liquor store does not apply to Eagan. As a township, Eagan currently is entitled.'to one private liquor license for each ?,000 population which licenses are issued at the discretion of the County Board. (h) This power permits initiation of government action for a vote by the people, a referendum to the electors by an election and a recall of officials through vote under certain circumstances. (i) Special legislation affecting a single governmental unit or several unite must be approved by the local governing body to become effective. The governing body may determine that the electors shall vote on the issue. (j) A special bill was enacted by the 1967 Legislature permitting trucks to travel through Eagan and enter Eagan for repairs without the need for the special truck license. (Ic) Employees of all forms of government are subject to the PERA retire - went provisions with contributions being made by the employer and employee to the fund. .A tax levy or other revenue may be used to pay the employer's portion. Elected officials may choose to be subject to PERA. (1) The town board, village or city council can order improvements for public projects such as streets, water or sewer facilities and parks and determine whether to assess part or all of the project to benefitted property. (m) Nine percent of the highway user fund including vehicle licenses and gas tax is paid to cities and villages.in the state according to population to be used for the municipal state aid road fund. Twenty-nine percent of the highway user fund is paid to counties for the county state aid fund. In addition Dakota County currently levies 14 mills on all county real estate for road pruposes with a small portion going back directly to townships and further requires villages and cities to pay for 557. of the construction cost of county roads within cities and villages. (n) A town may tax up to 17 mills for general revenue, 25 mills for road and bridge, separate levies to retire bonds for local improvements and additional levies for certain special purposes such as PERA. Villages may levy up to 30 mills for general purposes together with other levies similar to towns. City charter may limit taxation power. (o) Bonding purposes for a township include storm sewer facilities town hall, fire equipment and road construction and maintenance. Bonds may not be issued by townships for other public buildings. - 7 - TO: Eagan Town Board 1 December 1968 FROM: Committee to Study the Merits of Remaining a Township or Incorporating as a Municipality SUBJECT: Synopsis of Meetings Held by the Committee During the period following the Annual Town Meeting in March, 1968, one of the members of this Committee, Mrs. Marjorie Simecek, moved away from the township. In fairness to a replacement for this member, Chairman Don Knight felt that it world not he apropos to hold meetings of this com- mittee until such time as the Town Board had named a replacement. In August,1968 he appeared before the Tovn Board and requested that an appointment be made and at the second regular meeting of the Town Board in September, Mr. Alfred Shadduck was appointed to fill this vacancy. The Committee has met on three occasions, once in October and twice in November. The attendance was complete at all three meetings with the ex- ceptions of Mr. Jerome Adam at the October meeting and Mr. Wally Potter at the last meeting in November. A significant amount of time was given apprisi.ig Mr. Shadduck of the previous activities of the Committee and also providing him with background material that the Committee had available. After discussions, the Committee agreed that no great benefit would be derived from further time-consuming investigati?ns with experts in the field and/or other governmental units. Since the Committee was charged at the Annual Meeting with making a recommendation to the electors of the township, the members of the Committee individually expressed their opinions as to the future fowl of government for the Town of Eagan and their supporting reasons. It was interesting to note that the collective opinions of the Committee had shifted dramatically from those given in an off-the-record straw poll taken at the first meeting of this committee on January 9, 1968. Considerable time and discussion has been given to the content and format to be used in conducting a Public Hearing for the benefit of the electors of the township. The content, format and suggested dates (December 4th, 5th, 11th or 12th) for a Public Hearing were decided upon%and are set down in the attached report. It was further decided by the Committee that Chairman Don Knight should appear before the Town Board asking that the Board set the date for the Public Hearing and arrange the publicizing of same and also invite the Town Board to meet with this Committee at a date prior to the Public Hearing. Don Knight, Chairman Jerome Adam Don Chapdelaine Wallace Potter Alfred Shadduck Roger Sperling Roger Weierke Attach.(1) DWK, vk ti CONTENT & FORMAT FOR A P`PBLIC HEARING TO BE CONDUCTED BY TIE COi2ITTEE TO STUDY THE MERITS OF REMAINING A TOWNSHIP OR INCORPORATING INTO A MUNICIPALITY I SEATING ARRANGEMENTS: The members of the Committee will be seated at a table directly in front of the electors. The members of the Town Board and special guests invited by the Committee are to be seated at a table placed directly to the right of the Committee. II CONDUCT OF THE '•FETING: The meeting will be chaired by Don Knight. The Committee will review point - by -point the report made to the electors at the Annual Meeting on March 12, 1968. The Committee will invite questions and comments from the floor dur.ing the process of this review. Persons wishing to question or comment from the floor will rise and be recognized by the Chair, give their name and address, and direct their question to the Chair. The Chairman will then direct the question either to a member(s) of the Committee or he may invite comment from members of the Board and other special guests. No person rising to speak on a given subject will be al- lowed to speak again until all other electors desiring to do so have had an op- portunity to question or speak on a given subject. The Chair reserves the right to rule a question or comment out of order if at the discretion of the Chair, it is felt that the particular subject mentioned or questioned has been adequately covered. At the conclusion of the above -mentioned report review, the Committee will express its recommendation to the electors. III RECOMMENDATION: The Committee will unanimously recommend that the Town of Fsgan be incorporated as a Home Rule Charter City. In order that this might be accomplished, we further recommend that the Town Board of Supervisors request special legislation which will allow us the opportunity of going directly to this form of government. Because the 1969 legislative session will very shortly be upon us, we strongly urge that the necessar• steps be taken immediately. If we do not act now to accomplish these ends, we may very well find ourselves forced into a vote on incorporation as a Village early in 1970 at which time the Minnesota Municipal Commission is required by law to review the status of all metropolitan area towns. At that time, if the Municipal Commission deems it advisable that we incorporate, they will, after holding Public Hearing(s), order an election and we will then have only the choice between the present township form of government and the village form of government with no guarantee that we would ever reach what the Committee believes to be the much more desirable status of Home Rule Charter City. Page -1- CONTENT & FORYATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO BE CONDUCTED BY THE COMMITTEE TO STUDY THE MERITS OF REMAINING A TOWNSHIP OR INCORPORATING INTO A MUNICIPALITY Page -2- III RECOMMENDATION: (Can't.) We feel the Home Rule Charter City form of government is the best and fol- lowing are some of the reasons: 1. As our Community grows,more services will be required regardless of what form of government we have and the Home Rule Charter City is the best means of providing for these services. 2. It provides for a ward system which is of the greatest benefit to all of the people as the population centers shift within the town. 3. It provides for a Standing Charter Reform Commission that can change the structure of government to meet the specialized needs of the community and tailor the original charter to best fit Eagan's unique situation. 4. It provides for an Initiative Referendum and Recall as well as Open Meetings. 5. It will relieve the elected officials of minor administrative duties and leave them free for policy making decisions as well as allowing for even better communications between the people and the Municipal officials. 12/1/68 :? SU8VEY ).; BEING CON EAGAN JAYCEES AS A COMMUNITY A v.tt y:.;u 111 t,a ur r f ; r1 �, ,i•�:'_ tcfl9 P1erse c'i.rc le Ye9 No 2 Po yr..0 ,'eei Ss;u.r pra';8nt f,'n of j:rr a. Yeq rlr. government w tr:fin t,1, needs Q('' ru.r c-omman1!•y7 Wou) i you 9tippt']r t. a yhange +:ri n1;ro.rp Tat" Eagan into a 'j.age a .'ity? Yeg No Ye" NE 4.> VmU13 you favor going lirertly }c- a Fciuo Y•ea No Ru.;.e Charter (dr- y) farm of gnuernmerJt an.:i by • pang .he village form ', f rha lave wa`j thanged? 5,. Po you feel the LBW sh(>1i13 be "hangei *.a al t ow townsh ipP to .bt a i n a Home tt;ale Charter wItlIcu' firs'. b' a mlog a ':r111age? If t.t:e Xaw anneq,: he ilanged:. would you toe lv faior of inr,orp.rating a4 a ,J ; ?. ,age and Than applying for a Rome Hu e Charter P eaE„ 1.rE1 ate !.he era s. rea..rin y-+:-u are f L'r Dr agat the rat—. ,)f Eagan, Ye ct N I-36 Eagan BEFORE TF!E T4INNESOTA MUNICIPAL COT.M4ISSION ROBERT 1'7. JOHNSON, CHAIR'iAW ARTHUR R. SWAN, VICE CHAIR'4AN ROBERT J. FORD, MEMBER ERNEST W. AHLBERG, EX-OFFICIO MIETBER THOMAS FREILING, EX-OFFICIO MEMBER IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF THE TOWN OF EAGAN FOR INCORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF EAGAN AS A HOME RULE CHARTER CITY NOTICE OF HEARING Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held pursuant to Laws of Minnesota 1969, Chapter 444, and Minnesota Statutes 1967. Chapter 414, as amended, before the Minnesota Municipal Commission in the above -entitled matter in the Eagan Township Hall, 3795 Pilot Knob Road, St. Paul, Minnesota on the 6th day of January, 1970. The hearing will commence at 10:00 o'clock a.m. and will be for the purpose of entering appearances of record, receiving stipulations from the parties, marking exhibits, defining the issues, and receiving :notions. Oral and written evidence, statements, and arguments concerning the above -entitled matter will be received at a continued hearing the date of which will be established at this hearing. The property in the above -entitled matter is the Township of Eagan. Dated this 17th day of November, 1969 MImJFSOTA MUNICIPAL COMMISSION 610 Capitol Square Building St. Paul. Minnesota 55101 Bruce Rasmussen Secretary r MINUTES OF COMMITTEE TO STUDY MERITS OF REMAINING A TOWNSHIP OR INCORPORATING AS A VILLAGE January 9, 1968 The Committee selected by the Board of Supervisors met on January 9, 1968, at 7:30 P. M. at the Town Hall. Temporary Chairman, Donald Knight, convened the meeting. Those members present were Don Knight, Roger Wierke, Mrs. Marjorie Simecek, Wally Potter, Roger Sperling, and Don Chapdelaine. Jerome Adam was absent. Paul Hauge, attorney was also present. Don Knight was elected permanent chairman. The Committee discussed the purpose of establishing the study committee and it was determined advisable to prepare certain recommendations for the Eagan electors at the annual meeting on the second Tuesday of March, 1968. The Committee also discussed the need to gather material for ccmplete study of the matter, a possible poll of residents in the area and proposed guest speakers to be invited to discuss village and township functions. It was determined to meet at the town hall at 7:30 P. M. on Tuesday, January 23, and to meet further on Tuesday, January 30 at 7:30 P. M. at which time Ray Boezi would be invited to attend. The review of the earlier incorporation proceedings by Eagan Township was made and it was determined to prepare a summary of legislation concerning the township specifically relating to Eagan. Upon motion the meeting adjourned. • COMMITTEE TO STUDY IDE MERIT? •JF R i4:i i!NG A 'i:arelAT'C(ii' OR INCORPORATING AS A VILLAGE Town of Eag.en, Dzkota County, Minat_so::ri Donald Knight, Chairw<oa 1455 Highview Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55118 Phone 454- Tcrome 0. Adam 2077 Marble Lane St. Paul, Minnesota 55111 Phone 454-3679 Donald Chapdelaine 575 Chapel Lane St. Paul, Minnesota 55111 Phone 454-2533 'w,::;.a^e I 7r,ttcr 2004 Emerald Lane St. Paul., FE.nnesota 55111 Phone 454-3226 Mrs. Marjorie Simecek 3017 Woodlark Lane St. Paul, Minnesota 55111 Phone 454-1874 Roger L, Sperling 1421 Highview Avenue St. Pnul, Minnasota 55118 Phone 454.3512 Rcgcr P. Weiecke Bou_c, #°. . Rosennunt, Minnesota 55068 Phone. 4.54- 362( • P• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE TO STUDY THE MERITS OFF REMAINING A TOWJNSHIP OR INCORPORATING AS A VILLA(:EE, EAGAN 707:!NSHIP. DAROTA COUNTY, MINNESOT.A February 16, 1968 A meeting of the CTSTMOIAAVORAT was held at the town hen 3'r. 7:33 m. on February 16, 1968. All members were present. The committee first discussed the issue of liquor licenses nudes totmahip, village and city status. It was requested that the. ic''.t+. attorney dete:nine the procedure for granting municipal and private licenses under the village set-up and also under home rule charter. The town attorney was also requested to determine the present set-up concerning allocatio of gasoline tax funds by the state to counties, villages and townships. particularly Eagan. The committee then went on to discuss a proposed format for a report to be submitted to the electors at the annual meeting on March 12, 1968. Discussion also centered around whether to make a recommendation as to incorporation at the meeting. The committee also covered the possibility of becoming a village and then moving into a home rule charter city as a next step. The issue of township and village powers to tax was discussed and it was noted that the township has a 17 mill general levy provision, 25 Rill road and bridge, an emergency provision and the right to assess property owners for beneui.t:; such as utilities and roads. Several advantages of home rule government were noted including (a) The right to have wards; (b) Power to initiate referendum for. change in the charter; and (c) The right to maintain a charter reform committee as standing committee. 1 It was decided that a report be prepared for the +:.+a! ...wing including a chart on the first page iu:aic_ti.ng wnmery .f,.m rel,tivc powers of a town, village and city and that an explanation on. of c.t.=h 1: included in an appendix to the report. linon further motion made and seconded it was determined t:' : t^,. n•erfor: s crepare a list of items that each deternincl, Lt: impo'.•.:r.t tc h, i.::c1udcd in the report for the next meeting to be held on ii-:r:de• . :.... .. _ J2G8, at 7:30 at the town hall. Jpon motion the meeting adjourned. Dated: February 16, 1968 - 2 - a un ivic iJociation EAGAN TOWNSHIP DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA January 21, 1969 Eagan Town Board. Eagan Town Hall 3795 Pilot Knob Road St. Paul, Minn. Gentlemen: At our meeting of January 20 a motion was passed that our organization go on record with the Town Board that we advocate Mr. John Klein run again for another term as Town Board Supervisor. Since Mr. Jacobson has indicated he will resign, it is our desire that we have more than one experienced man on our Town Board for the coning term to insure a continuity of experience. The Board is further urged to promptly appoint a temporary replacement to fill the unexpired term of the resigning member. This letter is not intended to supersede the consti- tution of this organization, which states that we are non -political and not in a position of endorsement of any public office seeker. Very truly your r c.! Don Knight Chairman DK : dg LAW OFFICES STALLAND & HAUGE SUITE 2340, DAIN TOWER MINNEXPOLIS, MINNESOTA 5 402 LUTHER M. STALLAND PAUL II. IIAUOE Board of Supervisors Eagan Township, Minnesota Gentlemen: AREA CODE CA2 PHONE 330 -6361 March 20, 1969 RE: Town of Eagan Incorporation Bill I am enclosing a copy of the bill that was submitted to Representative Howard Knutson and Senator Glewwe for submission to the 1969 Legislature covering Incorporation of Eagan to a City. You will note the first paragraph provides that the Minnesota Municipal Commission will hold hearings similar to those held when a township becomes a village. Although there may be some question in the resolution drafted by the electors at the annual meeting whether this is what was intended, after discussing the matter with many people including Board members and it was suggested that this wording be used. It should also be noted, however, that M. S. A. 412.02 may not apply in all particulars for the type of hearings, order, etc. involved in our situation but to avoid getting into a lot of detail inthe bill this was suggested by Bruce Rasmussen of the MMC. When broad wording of this nature is used it is always possible that there may be disputes during the incorporation procedure and the possibility of appeals,etc. to the courts. In Section 2, you will note that the wording provides that the Town of Eagan will hold the election after the MMC has determined the appropriateness of Eagan becoming a home rule charter city. This varies somewhat from the resolution which seems to indicate that the Municipal Commission should hold the hearing. However it has been felt by many that because the town has provision for this that logically the town would conduct the election. Section 3 again covers the type of election and the ballot to be used. Section 4 simply sets up a provision for appointing the Charter Commission which is done by the District Court and finally authorizes the Town of Eagan to become a Home Rule Charter City if, after the first election, the voters vote in favor of the city status. Then as you know, under Chapter 410 after the Charter has been drawn and submitted the electors again will vote on the city charter. Page 2 Board of Supervisors In the interim until a city charter has been adopted by the electorate the township form of government under this bill would continue. It is my understanding that the bill will be sent to the revisor of statute's office and I will be in touch with that office to attempt to keep the original intent as far as possible in the bill. Yours very truly, Paul H. Hauge PHH:daw CC: Mrs. Alyce Bolke Mr. Roger Sperling Mr. Donald Knight A bill for an act relating to the Town of Eagan; providing an election to the electors of the Town of Eagan to determine whether to change the form of government of the Town of Eagan to a Home Rule Charter City; and granting the Town of Eagan power to become a city. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: Section 1. The Board of Supervisors of the Town of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota, is hereby authorized to request the Minnesota Municipal Commission to determine the appropriateness of incorporating the Town of Eagan as a Home Rule Charter City or remaining a town. Such determination shall be made by the Minnesota Municipal Commission so far as is practical in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Annotated Section 414.02 governing incorporation of a village. Section 2. If the Minnesota Municipal Commission determines that it is appropriate the the Town of Eagan incorporate as a Home Rule Charter City, then the Board of Supervisors of said Town is hereby authorized to conduct an election by the voters of said Town to determine whether the electors desire to change their form of government to a Home Rule Charter City. Section 3. Such election shall be held in accordance with the manner provided for the conduct of Special Town Meetings. The ballot shall be marked as follows: "Shall the Town of Eagan become incorporated as a Home Rule Charter City? Yes _ No Section 4. In the event that a majority of the electors vote in favor of such question then a charter commission shall be appointed and the Town of Eagan is authorized to become a Home Rule Charter City under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Annotated Chapter 410. STALLAND & HAUGE Attorneys for Eagan Township 2340 pain Tower Minneapolis, Minne moto 55402 Phone: 336-8361 By 1967, the issue of incorporating Eagan as a village was again raised. That year the Board of Supervisors appointed a committee with the self-explana- tory title of "Committee to Study the Merits of Incorporating as a Village or Remaining a Township." The committee's recommendation, made in 1968, was that Eagan should incorporate as a Home Rule Charter City. This issue again had to go before the Minnesota Municipal Commission. However, by law, the MMC could only order the incorporation of an area as a village. Special legislation was obtained in 1969 which would allow the MMC to order Eagan's incorporation as a Home Rule Charter City if the affected voters approved. But at the November 1970 election, this question of incorporation was defeated. Prior to 1969, the state law included the provision that affected residents could vote as to whether or not they were in favor of incorporation. Amendments to the law in 1969 excluded this election provision, so that -- after appropriate public hearings --the MMC could order an incorporation as a village without a vote being taken. In April 1971, a petition was submitted to the MMC by a group of Eagan residents, this time to have Eagan incorporated as a village. By majority decision, the Town Board initiated legal action in Dakota County District Court to block this incorporation proceeding because the local residents were now not able to express their opinion on the matter through an election. _The public hearing before_the MMC was continued pending the cour-t's_decision,-and late in 1971 the judge ruled that an order to incorporate would be legal. After hearings were conducted in March 1972 at the Town Hall, the Minnesota Municipal Commission later issued the order that Eagan should be incorporated as a village. The election of village officials was held on October 19, 1972. Organized under Option Plan A of the Municipal Code, the elected officials of Eagan now include a mayor and four council members. Herb Polzin was elected as the first Mayor of Eagan in 1972. A life -time resident of Eagan, Herb had served as Township Treasurer since 1944 and had also been a member of the Planning Commission since its creation in 1956. The first meeting of the new Village Council was held November 6, 1972. Shortly thereafter, the state legislature revised the laws affecting villages in Minnesota, so that since January 1, 1974, Eagan has officially been designated as a City. LAw OFFICES LI THER M. STnra.aiD SUITE 1400, RAND TOWER MINNEAPOLIS 2. MIN NESOTA February ?m, 1961 Board of Supervisors Eagan Township St. Paul 11, Minnesota Re: Incorporation for City Gentlemen: In my recent conferences with Mr. Bonestroo and Mr. Rosene it appears that a confidential move is a foot to prepare and submit to the 1961 Legislature a bill for special enabling legislation permit- ting certain townships in the state to incorporate as cities of the Fourth Class. Heretofore townships, by law, were only permitted to incorporate initially as villages. The purpose of this legislation would be to permit townships as authorized under the special act to have a ward system for elect- ing the governing body of the city which could be so arranged as to insure a continuity of interest from the present complex of the com- munity. In other words, as the matter now stands, if Eagan Township were to incorporate, the risk is great that the newly developed areas could control the village council. This would not be fair to the rural areas of the township and the older inhabitants. An interested group in addition to representatives of the League of Minnesota Municipalities has recently met on this project and has authorized one of its committee members to draft the neces- sary legislation. If Eagan desires to come under this enabling legislation we must make our wishes known. The method is by lobby- ing so that first, the original draft will include Eagan Township, and secondly,efforts are made to insure the bill's success in the Legislature. The advantages of being a city of the Fourth Class are greater than those which would be derived from incorporating as a village in that the city council has broader powers, the city has greater bonded indebtedness limits and is entitled to collect a greater por- tion of tax monies for its operating funds. As you are aware, Mr. Bonestroo is a member of the Municipal Commission. He has expressed to me his favor of this idea for Eagan Township. The enabling legislation simply gives to the township the option to incorporate as a city of the fourth class; it is not PI: 0-U301 Board of Supervisors Page two Eagan Township mandatory that the township do this. Assuming the new legislation to be passed, it yet requires the matter to be submitted to the voters of the township. It is my thought that this should be brought to your attention at this time because of our previous activity under consider- ation for incorporating as a village and also because we must act quickly if we are to be included in the,450 legislation. Yo4is glry ly, 1 f 44r M. Stallan LMS:dr INFORMATION SERVICE: Municipal Reference Bureau, League of Minnesota Municipalities 15 University of Minnesota Library, Minneapolis 14, Minnesota 390b May, 1959 NEW ANNEXATION AND INCORPORATION LAW .1. Text of the Law (Laws 1959. Chapter 686) Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Minnesota: Section 1. Creation of a Commission. A commission is hereby created to hear petitions for the incorporation of property into villages; the detachment of property from municipalities; and the annexation of property to municipalities. The term "municipalities" as used herein includes villages and cities of all classes. The commission shall be composed of a chairman, vice-chairman, and secretary appointed by the governor. The chairman shall be learned in the law and shall have the powers and duties prescribed by the general law applicable to the heads of departments and agencies of the state. In proceedings for the incorporation of a village pursuant to petition and the annexation of a municipality or municipalities to a contiguous municipality, the chairman of the board of county commissioners and the county auditor of the county in which all or a majority of the property to be annexed or incorporated is located, shall serve as additional ex officio members of the commission for the purpose of such proceedings. All those appointed shall have been residents of the state for at least five years prior to the appointment. All appointments shall be made within thirty days after the effective date of this law. Each appointed member shall serve for four years and until his successor is appointed and has qualified, or until he is re- moved by the governor for cause after notice and hearing. In case any of the positions shall become vacant, the governor shall appoint a member for the unexpired term who shall thereupon immediately take office and carry on all the duties of the office. The commission shall meet once each month at a regular time to be established by the chairman. 2 • It is authorized to transact business and conduct hearings by a majority of its members. The chairman, in his discretion, may order the consolidation of separate hearings in the interest of economy and expedience. In those proceed- ings in which the commission is composed of five members, no ordez' of the commission shall be final unless approved by three of the five members, and.in all other proceedings unless approved by two of the three members. Each member of the commission excluding ex officio members shall recaive $50 per day while in attendance at hearings, except the secretary who shall receive a salary of $7,200 per year payable semimonthly and shall dev.te full time to the duties of his office. Each member of the commallion shall be reim- bursed for actual expenses incurred in accordance with re guations relative to travel of state officers and employees. All correspondence and petitions shall be addressedto the secretary who shall be charged with conducting the administrative affairs of the commission, . notifying the members of hearings, and making arrangements for the hearings as to time and place, giving proper notice in the areas affected as hereinafter provided, keeping records and minutes, and providing secretarial service. The commission shall have authority to hire expert consultants to provide specialized information and assistance, and any member of the commission, except those who are ex officio, conducting or participating in the ponduct of any hear- ings shall have the power to administer oaths and affirmations, to issue_sub poenas, and to compel. the attendance and testimony of witnesses, and the pro- duction of'papers, books, and documents. Subpoenas shall be issued to any of the parties upon request upon a showing of general relevance and reasonable scope of the evidence sought. In order to carry out the duties and powers imposed upon the commission it shall have the power to make such rules and regulations, as are reasonably necessary, in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the general laws relating to departments and agencies of the state. .i Subdivision 1. Initiating the petition. This section provides the exclusive method of incorporatinga village in any county containing a city of the first or second class and in any county within any metropolitan areas as defined in Minnesota Statutes 1957, Section 473.02, Subdivision 5. It shall not apply to incorporations in any other area in Minnesota. In any other area in Minnesota if a petition is filed to incorporate a new municipality within one mile of the boundary of an existing municipality, suchexisting municipality may petition the district court to refer the petition to the commission to determine whether or not the existing municipality has such a substantial interest in the proposed incorporation that the petition should be referred to the commission. If the petition is referred to the commission by the district court, the commission shall proceed in accordance with the provisions of this section. , Three or more freeholders residing within an area containing a resident population of not less than 500 persons, and which is not included within the limits of any incorporated municipality and which area includes land that has been platted into lots and blocks in the manner provid- ed by law, may initiate proceedings for incorporation as a village. They shall take a census of the resident population in the area and make a census list show- ing the buildings in the area used for residence and the people living in each. Sec. 2. Incorporation of a village. • 3 • If the population of the proposed area is found to be 500 or more a petition may be prepared and submitted to the secretary of the commission requesting the commission to hold a hearing on the proposed incorporation. The petition shall be attached to the census list and shall state the quantity of land embraced in it, platted and unplatted land, the assessed valuation of the property, both platted and unplatted, the number of actual residents, the proposed nate of the village, a brief description of the existing facilities as to water, sewage dis- posal, and fire and police protection, and shall include a map setting f rth the boundaries of the territory. It shall be signed by at least 100 freeholders who are residents of the area to be incorporated, and it shall be verified, by the oaths of the census takers declaring that the census was accurately taken, specifying the dates when it was begun and completed, and that the statements in the petition are true. Subd. 2. Commission's hearing and notice. Upon receipt of a petition, made pursuant to subdivision 1 of this section, the secretary of the commission shall designate a time and place for a hearing on the petition, such‘time to be not less than 30 nor more than 40 days from the date the petition was`repeived. The place of the hearing shall be within the county in which the greapte area of the property to be incorporated is located and is to be established fox the con- venience of the parties concerned. The secretary shall cause,a copy of the petition together with a notice of the hearing to be sent to each menIler of the commission, to the chairman of the county board and the town board irk which all or a part of the property to be incorporated is located, and any d constituted municipal or regional planning commission exercising authority over a1 or part of the area. They may submit briefs, prior to the hearing, for or agai, st the proposed incorporation, stating clearly and succinctly the reasons .0 erefor. Notice shall be posted not less than 20 days before the hearing in t ee public places in the area described in the petition, and the secretary sh 1 cause two weeks notice of the hearing to be published in a newspaper qualifie as a medium of official and legal publication of general circulation in the area to be incorporated. Subd. 3. Commission's order. Pursuant to a hearing on a petition for the incorporation of a village under subdivision 1, the commission shall approve the petition for incorporation if it finds that the property to be incorporated is so conditioned as to be properly subjected to municipal government. As a guide in arriving at a determination, the commission shall make findings as to the follow- ing factors: (1) The population of the area within the boundarie$ of the propos- ed incorporation. (2) The area of the proposed incorporation. ( ) The area of platted land relative to unplatted land. (4) The character of the buildings on the platted and unplatted lands. (5) Past expansion in terms of population and construction. (6) Prospective future expansion. (7) The assessed value of platted land relative to the assessed value of the unplatted areas. (8) TYIe present and expected necessity and feasibility of providing governmental services such as sewage disposal, water system, zoning, street planning, police, and fire protection. The commission shall have authority to alter the boundaries of the proposed incorporation by increasing or decreasing the area to be incorporated so as to include only that property which is so conditioned as to be properly subjected to municipal government. In the event the boundaries are to be increas- ed, notice shall be given to the property owners encompassed within the area to be added, by mail within five days, and the hearing shall reconvene within 30 days after the transmittal of such notice, unless within the 30 days those en- titled to notice give their written consent to such action. The petition shall be denied if it appears that annexation to an adjoining municipality would better serve the interests of the area. If the proposed incorporation includes a part of an organized township, the commission shall apportion such property, and obligations in such manner as shall he lust and equitable having in view the value of the township property,' if any, .located in the area to be incorporated, the assessed value of all the taxable property in the township, both within and without the area to be, incorporated, the indebtedness, the taxes due Feld delinquent and other revenue accrued but not paid to the township. The order of the commission shall be final. It shall be issued by the commissiod within a reasonable time after the termination of the hearing. An oracr approving; a petition made pursuant to subdivision 1 shall fix a day not less than 20 days nor more than 30 days after the entry of such order when an. election shall be held at a place designated by the commission within the area to be incorporated. The secretary shall cause a copy of the order affirming the petition, as submitted or as amended by the commission,, including notice of the election, to be posted not less than 20 days before the election in three public places in the area described in the petition, and shall cause two weeks notice of the election to be published in a newspaper qualified as a medium of official and legal publication, of general circulation in the area to be incorporated. The commission shall also appoint three electors resident in the area to act as judges of election and shall fix a time, not less than six hours and until at least 7 o'clock p.m., when the polls shall be open at the election. The judges shall conduct the election so far as practicable in accordance with the laws regulating the election of town officers. Only voters residing within the ter- ritory described in the commission's order shall be entitled to vote. The ballot shall bear the words "For Incorporation" and "Against Incorporation" with a square before each of the phrases in ono of which the voter shall make a cross to express his choice. The ballots and election supplies shall be provided by the petitioners. Subdo /4. Filing of incorporation document. Immediately upon the completion of the counting of the ballots, the judges of the election shall make a signed and verified certificate declaring the time and the place of holding the election, that they have canvassed the ballots cast, and the number cast both for and against the proposition, and they shall then file the certificate with the secretary of the commission. The secretary shall attach the certificate to the original petition, the original order affirming the petition as submitted or as amended'in the order, and the original proofs of the posting of the election notice, ,If the certificate.shows that a majority of the votes cast were "For Incorporation" the secretary shall forthwith make and transmit to the secretary of state and to the county auditor or auditors of the county or counties in which the property is located, a certified copy of the documents to be then filed as a public record, at which time the incorporation shall be deemed complete. If the vote is adverse, no subsequent petition to incorporate the same territory shall be entertained by the commission within two years after the election and the expense of the attempted incorporation shall be borne by the petitioners. If the vote is favorable, all proper expenses incurred in the incorporation shall be a charge upon the village. Sec. 3. Annexation of unincorporated property to a municipality. Subdivision 1. Initiating petition. A petition for the annexation of adjoining unincorporated property may be initiated by resolution of the annexing village or city or by twenty percent of the freeholders or 100 freeholders, which- ever is less, residing in the area to be annexed. If initiated by resolution, .the village or city council shall cause a census to be taken of the area showing the buildings in the area used for residences and the mciber of people living in each, or, if initiated by twenty percent of the freeholders or 100 freeholders, • 5 • whichever is lose, residing in the area, they shall take a census containing the same information. The census liet shall be attached to the petition which re- quests the commission to hold a hearing on the proposed annexation.' The petition shall set forth the boundaries of the territory, the quantity of land embraced in it, the number of actual residents, the number and character of the existing `,buildings in the.area and the existing facilities such as water -.system, zoning, street planning, sewage --disposal, fire and police protection. Under both methods of initiating the petition it shall be verified by the oaths of the census takers declaring that the census was accurately taken, specifying the dates when it was begun and completed, and that the statements in the petition are true. Subd`` 2. Hearing and notice. Where the property to be annexed is owned by -or completbly within the boundaries of the annexing municipality no hearing is necessary and the annexation shall be deemed complete upon issuance of an order approving the petition and resolution by the annexing municipality approving the. annexation. If the petition has been initiated by all or a majority of the land owners, in area and number, no hearing is necessary and the commission may proceed to a decision, unless the commission exercises its authority pursuant to this section by increasing the area to be annexed by including additional owners which inclu- sion eliminates the required majority, the newly included owners shall be noti- fied within five days and a hearing shall be .conducted as hereinafter provided unless within 10 days after transmittal of such notice written assent is received from the new owners in sufficient number to provide the required majority. In all other proceedings, upon receipt of a petition for annexation, the secretary of the commission shall desitnate a time and place for a hearing on the petition, such time to be not less than 30 nor more than 40 days from the date the petition was received. The place of the hearing shall be within the annexing village or city, or the area to be annexed, depending on which best serve* the interest of the parties. The secretary shall cause a copy of the petition together with a notice of the hearing to be sent to each member of the commission, and to the chairman of the county board and the town hoard in which al]; or a part of the property to be annexed is located, and any duly constituted mu�icipal or regional planning_ commission exercising authority over all or a part of the area They may submit briefs prior to the hearing, for or against the proposed annexation stating clearly and succinctly the reasons therefor. Notice shall be posted not less than 20 days before the hearing in three public places in the area described in the petition and in three public places in the annexing village or city, and the commission secretary shall also cause two weeks notice of the hearing to be published in a newspaper, qualified as a medium of official and legal publication of general circulation in the area to be annexed. Subd. 3. Commission's order. Pursuant to a hearing on a petition for the annexation of unincorporated property to a village or city, or if no hearing was required under the foregoing provisions, the commission shall approve if it finds that the property to be annexed is so conditioned as to be properly subjected to municipal government and if it finds that the annexation would be to the best interest of the village or city and of the territory affected. As a guide in arriving at a determination, the commission shall make findings as to the following factors: (1) The relative population of the annexing area to the annexed territory. (2) The relative area of the two territories. (3) The relative assessed valuation. (4) The past and future probable expansion of the annexing area with respect to population increase and construction. (5) The availability of space to accommodate that expansion. (6) Whether the taxes can 6 • be.reasonably expected to increase in the annexed territory, and whether the expected increase will be proportional to the expected benefit inuring to the annexed territory as a result of the annexation. (7) •The presence of an exist- ing or reasonablyy anticipated need for governmental services in•.the annexed territory such as water system, sewage disposal, zoning, street planning, police' and fire protection. (8) The' feasibility and practicability of the annexing territory to provide these governmental services presently or when'they become necessary.' (9) The existence of all or a part of an organized township within the area to be annexed and its ability and necessity of continuing after the annexation. If a complete organized township is included within 'the area to be annexed, its residents shall remain liable for any existing indebtedness of the township existing prior to the annexation. In the event only a portion of an organized township is ultimately included in the area to.be annexed, the commis- sion shall apportion such property and obligations in such manner as shall be just and equitable having in view the value of the township property, • if any, located in the area to be annexed, the .assessed value•of all the taxable, property in the township, both within and without the .area to be annexed, the indebtedness, and•the taxes due and delinquent. The commission shall have authority to alter the boundaries of the area to be annexed by increasing or de- creasing the area so as to include only that property which is so conditioned as to be properly subjected to municipal government and to preserve the symmetry of the area. The petition shall•be denied if it appears•that the primary motive for the •annexation is to increase revenues for the annexing municipality and such increase bears no reasonable relation to the value of benefits conferred upon the annexed area. The order of the commission shall.be final and it shall be issued by the commission within a reasonable timeafter the termination of the hearing. Subd. 4. 'Where the petition for annexation has not teen initiated by a majority'of the landowners in number within the area to be annexed, the order of the commission affirming the petition for annexation shall fix a day, not less than 20 days -nor more than.30.days, after the entry of such order, when an • election shall be held at a place designated by the commission within the area to be annexed. The secretary shall cause a copy of the order approving the petition, including the notice of the election, to be posted not less than 20 days before the election in three public places in the area to be annexed, and shall cause two weeks notice of the election to be published in a newspaper qualified as a medium of official and legal publication, of general circulation in the area to be annexed. The commission shall also appoint three electors resident in the area to act as judges of election and shall fix the time, not less than'six hours and until at least 7 o'clock p.m., when the polls shall be open at the election. The judges shall conduct the election so far as practicable in accordance with the laws re- gulating the election of town officers. Only voters residing within the territory described in the commission's order shall be entitled to.vote. The ballot shall bear the words "For Annexation" and "Against Annexation" with a square before each of the phrases in one of which the voter shall makea cross'to express his choice. The ballots and election supplies shall be provided by the petitioners. Immediately•upon the completion of the counting of the ballots, the judges of the election shall make a signed and verified certificate declaring the time and place of holding the election, that' they have canvassed the ballots cast, and the number cast both for and against the proposition, and'they shall then file the certifi- cate with the secretary of the commission. The secretary shall attach the certifi- cate to the original petition, tho original order affirming the petition as sub-' mitted or as amended in the order, -and the Original proofs of the posting of the election notice. If the certificate shows the majority of the votes cast were "For Annexation" the annexation shall be deemed complete and the commission shall proceed in accordance with subdivision 5 of this section. . • 7 • Subd. 5. Filing of annexation order. Immediately upon the execution of the annexation order, a certified copy shall be sent to the council of the annexing village or city and to the individual petitioners if initiated in. that manner. If the order approves the petition for annexation in whole or ii part, a certified copy shall be sent to the secretary of state and the county auditor of the county or counties in which the property annexed is 'located; The annexation shall be deemed final as of the date of such filingi or on such.later date as is fixed in the annexation order. Subd. 6. In the event the annexation hereunder is initiated by the free- holders, such annexation shall not be deemed final until approved by the majority of the governing body of the municipality. A certified copy of such approval shall be sent to the secretary of state and the county auditor .of the county or counties in which the property annexed is located. In the event the governing body does not act hereunder within three months after the issuance of the order of the commission, such action shall be construed as a disapproval of the annexation. Subd. 7. Territory abutting on any municipality and not included in any other municipality may be annexed to the municipality without an order of the commission in the manner prescribed in this subdivision if it is so conditioners as properly to be subjected to municipal government. If the land is owned by the municipality, the governing body may by ordinance declare the land annexed to the municipality, and any such land is deemed to be suitably conditioned for municipal government. If the land is completely surrounded by land within the municipal limits, the governing body may adopt a resolution stating its intention to annex the property and fixing a time and place for a hearing. A copy of the resolution shall be served in the manner provided for the service of a summons in a civil action upon all owners of the land to be annexed at least ten days tiefore•'the date of the hearing. If after such hearing the council determines that the annexation will be to the best interests of the municipality and of the territory affected, it may by ordinance declare the land annexed to the municipality. If the land is platted or, if unplatted, does not exceed 200 acres, the owner or a majority of the owners in number may petition the governing body of the municipality to have such land included within the municipality. If the governing body determines that the annexation will be to the best interests of the municipality and of the territory affected, it may by ordinance declare such land annexed to the municipality, but if the petition is not signed by all the owners of the land proposed to be annexed, the ordinance shall not be passed until the governing body has held a hearing on the proposed annexation after at least 30 days posted notice. Any annexation provided for in this subdivision shall be deemed final upon filing a copy of the ordinance with the commission, the county auditor, and the secretary of state. Sec. 4. Annexation of incorporated property to a municipality. Subdivision 1. Initiating the petition. This section provides the exclusive method of annexing one municipality to another municipality in any county containing a city of the first or second class and in any county within any metropolitan area as defined in Minnesota Statutes 1957, Section 473.02, Subdivision 5. It shall not apply to such annexations in any other area in Minnesota. Incorporated municipalities may 'be annexed to contiguous municipalities which have a greater population in accordance with the following procedure: A petition for a hearing on the subject of annexation of a municipality to a contiguous municipality may be initiated by resolution, either by the proposed annexed or annexing, municipality, or by resident legal voters of the proposed annexed municipality equivalent in number to 10 percent or more of the legal voters of the municipality, according to the number of votes cast for mayor at the last municipal election, or where no mayor is elected, five percent or more of the legal voters of the municipality who voted for governor at the last general election. The term "contiguous" for the purposes of this section shall include municipalities sharing a common boundary. The term shall also include a situation where three or more municipalities are the subject of a single petition and are all connected by common boundaries, so that each municipality shares a common boundary with at least one of the included municipalities and with the annexing municipality sharing.a common boundary with at least one of the municipalities to he annexed, in which case the municipal- ities to be annexed shall be deemed contiguous to the annexing municipality. The petition shall include maps indicating the boundaries of the proposed annexed municipality and of the annexing municipality and shall set forth the quantity of land embraced in each municipality, the number of actual residents based on'the last federal decennial census and the estimate of population based on the computations contained in the county auditor's office in the county werein the municipalities are located, the existing governmental facilities such as water system, sewage disposal, zoning, street planning, fire and police protection, and the existing debts and assessed valuation of each municipality. Subd. 2. Hearing and notice. Upon receipt of a petition for the annexation of an incorporated municipality made pursuant to subdivision 1 of this section, the secretary of the commission shall designate a time and place for a hearing on the petition, such time to be not less than 30 nor more than 40 days from the date the petition was received. The place of the hearing shall be within the county in which the greater area of the property to be incorporated is located and is to be established forthe convenience of the parties concerned. The secretary shall cause a copy of the petition together witn a notice of the hearing to be sent to each member of the commission, and to the chairman of the county board in which all or a part of the municipality to be annexed is located, and any duly constituted municipal or regional planning commission exercising authority or advisory jurisdiction over all or a part of the area. Notice shall be posted not leas than 20 days before the hearing in throe public places in the area described in the petition, and the commission secretary shall also cause two weeks notice of the hearing to be published in a newspaper qualified as a medium of official and legal publication of general circulation in the area to be annexed. Subd. 3. Commission's order. Pursuant to a hearing on a petition for the annexation of a municipality to an adjoining municipality, the commission shall approve the petition if it finds that the annexed municipality is so conditioned and so located as properly to be made a part of the annexing municipality, and if it finds that the annexation will be for the best interests of the municipal- ities. As a guide in arriving at a determination, the commission shall make findings on the factory as enumerated in subdivision 1 of this section and in addition thereto: (1) Whether the results of the annexation will be to provide More economical and efficient governmentalservices such as water system, sewage disposal, road maintenance, public recreation and planning, fire, and police protection. (2) 'The existing indebtedness of both municipalities. 9 • The commission shall not have authority to alter the boundaries of the municipality or municipalities to be annexed. The petition shall be denied if it appears that the primary motive for the annexation is to increase the revenues of the annexing municipality and such increase bears no reasonable relation to the value of benefits conferred upon the annexed municipality. The order of the commission shall be final and if the petition is denied, no petition for the annexation of the same municipality or municipalities may be submitted within two years after the date of the commissions order, which shall be issued by the commission within a reasonable time after the termination of the hearing. Upon completion of the annexation proceeding, the newly formed municipality shall be liable as a whole for any indebtedness thereafter incurred. The order shall provide that each municipality shall remain separately liable for its debts existing and outstanding at the time of the annexation. Where the ward system of electing councilmen exists in an annexing municipal- ity, the commission shall establish wards in the annexed municipality consistent with the existing wards or the prescribed method of establishing wards of the annexing municipality. Where the petition for annexation has not been initiated by the annexing municipality, an order affirming a petition for the annexation of a municipality to a contiguous municipality shall submit the order to the annexing municipality for approval or rejection by resolution within 30 days, and where the proceeding contemplates the annexation of more than one municipality the approval by resolu- tion may be conditioned upon an election, as hereinafter provided, in favor of annexation in part or all of the municipalities to be annexed. Where the petition is initiated by the annexing municipality an order approving the petition shall submit the order to the governing body or bodies of the municipality or municipalities to be annexed for approval by resolution within 30 days. If re- jected by such resolution or resolutions, the proceedings are then terminated as to the :municipality or municipalities rejecting. If approved, and in all other cases, the order shall then fix a day not less than 20 days nor more than 30 days, after the entry of such order, when an election shall be held at a place designated by the commission within the municipality to be annexed. The secretary shall cause a copy of the order approving the petition, including the notice of the election, to be posted not less than 20 days before the election in three public places in the municipality to be annexed, and shall cause two weeks notice of the hearing to be published in a newspaper qualified as a medium of official and legal publication, of general circulation, in the municipality to be annexed. The commission shall also appoint three electors resident in the area to act as judges of election and shall fix the time, not less than six hours and until at least 7 o'clock p.m., when the polls shall be open at the election. The judges from each municipality shall conduct the election in accordance with the laws or charter formerly regulating the election of municipal officers in the annexed municipality. Only voters residing within the municipal- ity or municipalities to be annexed shall be entitled to vote. The ballot shall bear the words "For Annexation" and "Against Annexation" with a square before each of the phrases in one of which the voter shall make a cross to express his choice. The ballots and election supplies shall be provided by the petitioners or the municipality in which the petitioners reside. Subd. 4. Filing of annexation order. Immediately upon the completion of the counting of the ballots, the judges of the election shall make a signed and verified certificate declaring the time and place of holding the election, that they have canvassed the ballotscast, and the number cast both for and against 10 • the proposition and they shall then file the certificate with the secretary of the commission. The secretary shall attach the certificate to the criginal petition, the original order approving the petition as submitted or as amended in the order, and the original proofs of the posting of the election notioe. If the certificate shows that a majority of the votes cast were "For Annexa- tion' the secretary shall forthwith make and transmit to the secretary of state and to the county auditor or auditors of the county or counties in which both municipalities are located, a certified copy of the documents to be then filets as a public record, at which time the annexation shall be deemed complete and the annexing municipality shall assume and be charged with all the outstanding bonds and obligations of such annexed municipality unless the commission has provided otherwise and in either event all moneys, claims, and properties, including real estate. and the proceeds of all taxes levied and collected and to be collected belcnging to, owned, held, or possessed by such annexed muni- cipality shall become and be the properties of such annexing municipality with full power and authority to use and dispose of the same for public purposes as the council of such annexing municipality may deem best. The new municipality shall assume the name of the annexing municipality unless previous to the election another name is chosen by joint resolution of a majority of the municipalities involved in the petition. Subsequent to the election, a municipality which only shares a common boundary with a municipality which has voted against annexation, may not be annexed to the annexing municipality even though a majority of the votes were "}7 or Annexation". The number of license privileges existing in the municipalities prior to annexation and pursuant to state law shall not be diminished as a result of the single municipality created by the annexation. All proper expenses incurred in the annexation proceedings shall be a charge upon the municipality initiating the proceeding. If the vote is adverse, no subsequent petition to annex the same municipal- ity shall be entertained by the commission within two years after the election; and the expenses of the attempted annexation shall be borne by the petitioners, except where the petitioners are individuals, in which case the expense shall be borne by the municipality in which they reside. Subd. 5. In any area not included in Subdivision 1 of this section, when- ever the boundary line of any municipality is coincident with the boundary line of any other municipality for any part of its length or where any two or more municipalities are separated in any part of their boundaries by any meandered body of water, such municipalities may be consolidated as one municipality under this subdivision. A resolution proposing consolidation shall be submitted to the council of the two municipalities. If it is approved in identical form by the two councils, it shall be referred to the voters of each municipality at any general or special election for approval or rejection. If a majority of the voters in each municipality voting on the question vote in favor of the proposal, a certificate of the results of the election and a certified copy of the resolu- tion shall be filed by the clerk of each municipality in the office of the county auditor of the county or counties in which the municipalities are located, and similar certification shall be filed in the office of the secretary of state. The consolidation shall thereupon take effect in accordance with the terms of the resolution. Every resolution proposing consolidation shall contain: (1) the proposed name of the consolidated municipality; (2) the date when such • 11 0 consolidation shall be effective; (3) if the municipalities are villages, provisions for operation of the consolidated village under either the standard plan or any optional plan authorized by Minnesota Statutes 1957, Chapter 412 for a village of similar size; (4) provisions on what happens to incumbent officers; (5) such other provisions relating to consolidation, not inconsistent with this section, as the councils deem necessary to effect consolidation. Where two villages are consolidated the -resolution may also constitute each constituent village as a separate ward and provide for the election of at least one trustee from each ward; but any any time after four years from the effective date of consolidation, the council of the village may, by resolution adopted by a four -fifths vote and approved by a majority of the voters voting on the question of approval at a general or special election, abolish the ward system and provide for the election of al]. trustees at large as in other villages. Sec. 5. Incorporating or annexing townships according to population. Subdivision 1. Within one month after the effective date of each federal or state census, the commission shall cause to be determined the townships which have a population in excess of. 2,000 exclusive of any municipality or part of a municipality within the township. Subd. 2. Applying the standards fixed by law for the incorporation of municipalities and the annexation of land to municipalities.pursuant to petition, the commission shall determine whether all or a part of the area will best be served by incorporation, annexation, or to remain as a township. Subd. 3. If the commission determines that incorporation as a village will best serve the area, it shall issue its order incorporating the town or part thereof as described in the order, as a village, under the same name or in the event of duplication under a name selected by the commission, within six months after notice is given to the town board and county board in which the township is located, or only the county board if there is no organized town board. If only a part of the township is to be incorporated the order shall apportion such prop- erty and obligations in such manner as shall be just and equitable having in view the value of the township property, if any, located in the area to be incorporat- ed, the assessed value of the taxable property in the township, both within and without the area to be incorporated, the indebtedness, the taxes due and de- linquent, and other revenues accrued but not paid to the township. The municipal commission, at the termination of the six month period, shall provide an election to be governed by the terms of Section 2, Subd. 3 and 4 of this act, and, if the majority of the votes cast are for incorporation, they shall appoint three electors resident in the area to act as judges of election and the first election of village officers shall be controlled by the law applicable to the first election of officers in villages newly incorporated pursuant to petition. No such election on incorporation shall be held if within the six month period a petition for incorporation is submitted which includes all or a part of the township affected by the order at which time the latter proceedings shall control. Subd. 4. If it is determined that annexation to an adjoining municipality will best serve the interest of the area, it shall, upon the termination of the six month period and in the absence of a duly submitted petition for the annex- ation of unincorporated area, during that six month period, which includes all or a part of the township, initiate proceedings for annexation which shall be controlled as near as is practical by the law relative to the annexation of unincorporated areas. 12 • Sec. 6. Detachment of property from a municipality. Subdivision 1. Petition for detachment. Property which is situated within the corporate limits of and adjacent to the municipal boundary, unplatted, and occupied and used exclusively for agricultural purposes may be detached from the municipality according to the following procedure: The petition may be initiated by resolution of the municipality to which the land is attached or by all of the land owners of land to be detached if the area is less than 40 acres and by 75 percent of the owners if over 40 acres. The petition shall_ set forth the boundaries and the area of the land to be detached, the number and character of the buildings, the resident population, and the municipal improvements, if any, in the area. Subd. 2. Property over which a municipality possesses an easement may be detached by resolution of its council and petition to the commission if it is to be concurrently annexed by an adjoining municipality and that intention is signifi- ed by resolution. A11 other property which is to be detached and annexed con- currently by an adjoining municipality and such intention is indicated by re- .spective resolutions, may also be so detached and annexed by order of the commission ;if the owners of two --thirds of the area of the property affected give their consent in writing. Subd. 3. Rearing and notice. If identical petitions are submitted by the municipality and the owners of the land to be detached as provided in subdivision 1 of this section or in situations covered by subdivision 2 in this section, no hearing is necessary. In any other case, upon receipt of a petition, the secretary of the commission shall designate a time and place for a hearing on the petition, such time to be not less than 30 nor more than 40 days from the date the petition was received. The place of the hearing shall be within the munici pality to which the land is attached as the secretary may direct. The secretary shall cause a copy of the petition and notice of hearing to be sent to each member of the commission and to be sent to the council of the municipality to which the property is attached and to at least 75 percent of the owners of the property proposed for detachment, and shall cause two weeks notice of the hearing to be published in a newspaper qualified as a medium of official and legal public- ation, of general circulation, within the municipality. Subd. 4. Commissionta order. Pursuant to a hearing under this section or without hearing if none is required under this section, the commission shall grant the petition for detachment if it finds that the requisite number of proper- ty owners have signed the petition if initiated by the property owners, that the property is unplatted and used and occupied exclusively for agricultural purposes, that the property is within the boundaries of the municipalities and is adjacent to a boundary, that the detachment would not unreasonably affect the symmetry of the settled municipality, and that the land is not needed for reasonably antici- pated future development. The commission shall have authority to decrease the arca of property to be detached and may include only a part of the proposed area in its order. If the tract adjoins more than one town, it shall become a part of each town, being divided by projecting through it the boundary line between the towns. The detached area may he relieved of the existing indebtedness of the municipality and he required to assume the indebtedness of the township of which it becomes a part, in such proportion as the commission shall deem just and equitable having in view the amount of taxes due and delinquent and the indebted- ness of each township, and the municipality affected, if any, and for what pur- pose the same was incurred, all in relation to the benefit inuring to the detached area as a result of the indebtedness and the last assessed value of the taxable property in each township, and the municipality. • �3 The commission shall enter an order to effectuate those concurrent detach- ments and annexations as provided in subdivision 2. The order of the commission shall be final and shall be issued within a reasonable time after the termination of the hearings or the adoption of the resolution under subdivision 2. Subd. 5. Filing of detachment order. Upon completion of the order, the secretary of the commission shall transmit a copy thereof to the secretary of state, the county auditor or auditors of the county or counties, town board, school district, and municipality in which the land is situated. Thereupon the order is to be deemed final. Sec. 7. Appeals. Any person aggrieved by any final order, rule, regula- tions, or final decision of the commission may appeal to the district court upon the following grounds: 1. That the commission had no jurisdiction to act; 2. That the commission exceeded its jurisdiction; 3. 'Eat the order, rule, regulations, or final decision of the commission is arbitrary, fraudulent, capricious or oppressive or in unreasonable disregard of the best interests of the territory affected; 4. That the order, rule, regulations, or decision is based upon an erroneous theory of law. The appeal shall be taken in the district court in the county in which the majority of the area is located. The court of its own motion, or on application of any party, may, in its discretion, take additional testimony on any issue of fact, or may try any or all of such issues de novo, but no jury trial shall be had. If the court shall determine that the action of the commission involved is lawful and reasonable and is warranted by the evidence in case an issue of fact is involved, the action of the commission shall be approved; otherwise the court may vacate or suspend the action of the commission involved, in whole or in part, as the case may require, and thereupon the matter shall be remanded to the commission for further action in conformity with the decision of the court. To render a review effectual, the aggrieved person shall file with the clerk of the district court of the county wherein the majority of the area is located, within date of such final order, rule, regulation, or decision an application for review together with the grounds upon which the review is sought. An appeal lies from the district court to the supreme court in accordance with the provisions of the Minnesota Statutes 1957, Chap. 605. Sec. 8. There is hereby appropriated out of any funds in the state treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $35,000. Sec. 9. Minnesota Statutes 1957, to read: Section 411.01, Subdivision 1, is amended 411.01 Incorporation; petition; first election. Subdivision 1. Population. Inhabitants of contiguous territory not organized as a city but, organized as a village, and having not less than 1,000 nor more than 10,000 inhabitants, may become incorporated, as a city of the fourth class, as provided in subdivisions 2to6. 11+ • Spc. 10. Minnesota Statutes 1957, Section 41.1.01, Subdivision 2, is amended to read: Subd. 2. Petition. A petition addressed to the county board of the county in which the whole or the larger part of the vinnare is situated, which is sign- ed by one-fourth of the number of legally qualified voters residing in the village proposed to be incorporated as a city that voted in the village at the last preceding general election for state officers, may be filed with the auditor of the county praying that the existing village be incorporated as a city of the fourth class, and that an election be called to determine whether or not such city shall be incorporated. Such petition shall set forth the metes and bounds of the existing+ vi.nare, and the population thereof, and the number of voters voting in the village at the last general election for village officers, and of the proposed wards thereof. The residence of each signer shall be stated opposite the signature, but the signatures to the petition need not be appended to one paper. The petition shall be verified by the oaths of at least three of the petitoners, declaring the statements made in the petition to be true. In addition thereto the petitioner procuring the signatures to each paper and petition shall make an oath before a person competent to administer oaths, that each signature is the genuine signature of the elector whose name purports to be thereto subscribed, and that each signer is an elector duly qualified to vote within the village designated in the petition as the village proposed to be incorporated as a city of the fourth class. Sec. 11. Minnesota Statutes 1957, Section 411.01, Subdivision 3, is amended to read: Subd. 3. Resolution of county board. If it shall appear that such petition is in due form, complies with the provisions hereof, and is signed by the proper number electors residing in the village sought to be incorporated as a fourth class city, of which latter fact the affidavit of the petitioners procuring signatures on such paper and petition shall be prima facie evidence, the county board shall adopt a resolution approving the petition and in the resolution shall designate the time and place of holding a special election upon the proposi- tion, which election shall take place not less than 30, nor more than 40,' days from the time of presenting and filing the petition with the county auditor; and the county board, in the resolution, shall specify the location of the polling place in each ward, and that the polls will be open from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., and shall prescribe a form of notice of such special election, a copy of which shall be attached to the resolution, in which notice shall be stated the time of such special election, the location of the polling place in each ward, the hours during which the polls shall he open, together with a statement of the question to be voted upon. Thereupon the county auditor shall cause a copy of the petition, resolution, and notice to be posted in at least five conspicuous places in the proposed city, at least 20 days prior to the date of such election, and shall cause the notice to be published in some legal newspaper published in the proposed city at least once each week for two consecutive weeks prior thereto, and if there be no newspaper published therein, then in a newspaper published in the same county. Sec. 12. Minnesota Statutes 1957, Section 412.013, is amended to read: 412.013 Any village containing within its limits a plant for the concentra- tion of taconite, either under construction or in operation, by resolution of its village council may lease or purchase from the owners thereof sewer or water facilities or both and operate the same. Any such lease made by such village prior hereto, by action of the village council, is hereby validated and such 15 village may continue to provide sewer and water services to its inhabitants thereunder. Sec. 13. Minnesota Statutes 1957, Section 412.021, Subdivision 1, is amended to read: 412.021 Subdivision 1. Upon the filing of the certificate with the secretary of state, if the vote is in favor of incorporation, the judges of election appointed by the municipal commission shall fix a day at least 15 and not more than 30 days thereafter and a place for the holding of an election for village officers. The judges shall also fix the time, not less than three hours, during which the polls shall remain open at the election and shall post a notice setting forth the time and place of such election in three public places in the village for at least ten days preceding the election. Sec. 14. Repealer. Minnesota Statutes 1957, Sections 340.11, Subdivision 15, 366.02 to 366.022, 412.012, 412.041, 412.051, 412.071, 412.921, 413.03, 413.12, 413.13 to 413.137, 413.14 to 413.143, 413.15 to 413.26, 413.30 to 413.34 are hereby repealed. Sec. 15. Effective date. This act shall become effective upon final enactment. II. Summary of the Law Ch. 686 is a comprehensive law on annexation, incorporation and detach- ment embodying with substantial modifications adopted in the course of passage, the recommendations of the interim commission on that subject. It creates a state commission to hear petitions for the incorporation of property into villages, the detachment of property from municipalities, and the annexation of property to municipalities. The three members of the commission are to be appointed by the governor for four-year terms. The chairman must be a lawyer. All are part-time except the executive secretary. In proceedings for incorpo- ration of a village and for the annexation of a municipality to a contiguous municipality, there is added to the three-man board the chairman of the county commissioners and the county auditor. With reference to incorporation of new villages the previous law remains intact except in its application to any county containing a city of the first or second class and any other county within the area of operation of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Planning Commission. The only exception is that if a proposed village contains land within one mile of an existing municipality the existing municipality may petition the district court.for an order refer- ring the proposed incorporation to the new commission which would then have jurisdiction to act as in the case of proposed villages in the metropolitan area and in other counties containing cities of the first or second class. In this area all proposals for incorporation or for consolidation of existing municipalities require' proceedings before the commission. Minimum population for a new village in these cases is increased from 100 to 500. Proceedings -16- are commenced by petition circulated'by.three freeholders after a census has been taken, with signatures of at least 100 freeholders attached. Following a hearing after public notice and a notice to county and town boards and municipal regional planning commissions in the area, the commission must affirm the petition if it finds that the property to be incorporated is so conditioned as to be properly subjected to municipal government. Findings on eight enumerated factors having to do with the degree of organization and suitability for village government are required as a guide in arriving at a determination. -The commission is authorized to change the boundaries of the proposed village, giving -notice as in the case of the original if the bound- aries are enlarged. The petition is to be denied if it appears that annexation will better serve the interest of the area. If -the petition is affirmed, an election must be held following substantially the same procedure as formerly provided by law and the incorporation will be complete upon approval of a majority of those voting on the question and the filing of the necessary documents. Annexation of. unincorporated property may be accomplished anywhere in the state without going to the commission if the lanth to be annexed are (1) owned by the municipality, (2) completely surrounded by land within the municipal limits, or (3) are proposed to be annexed by a petition signed by the owners or a majority of the owners if the land is unplatted, or if un- .platted, consists of less than 200 acres. Here the procedure is the same as formerly provided in the village code for the annexation of similar land to villages. As an alternative procedure and as the only procedure in other cases, a petition to the commission for the annexation of adjoining, unincor- porated property to a municipality may be initiated -by resolution of the annexing municipality or by 20 per cent of the resident freeholders, or 100 freeholders, whichever is less. A census is required in either case. After a hearing the commission must affirm the petition if it finds the property conditioned for municipal government and if the annexation is to the best interest of the village or the city and.the territory affected. However, this is subject to approval or disapproval at an' election held in the annexed territory. A majority of those voting on the question is required for approval. The commission may change the boundaries as in the case of an original incorporation and it is authorized to apportion the existing indebtedness if only part of the township is annexed. The petition is -to be denied if the primary motive for the annexation is to increase revenues for the annexing municipalities and the increase bears no reasonable relationship to the value of benefits conferred. The order of the commission is made final, subject, however,.to court review. • A petition for consolidation of two municipalities in any county where the commission has jurisdiction over incorporation of municipalities may be initiated by resolution adopted by either of the municipalities affected or by resident legal voters of the proposed annexed municipality equivalent in number.to ten per cent or more of the legal voters according to the last vote for mayor. More than two municipalities forming a connected territory may be combined in a single proceeding. Following a hearing and after public notice as in the case of incorporation,' the commission must affirm the _. petition if it finds the annexed municipality to be so conditioned and so located as properly to be made a part of the annexing municipality and if it finds that -the annexation will be for the best interests of the municipalities. Boundaries may not be changed in such consolidation proceedings. • = 17 - If the proceedings are not initiated by the annexing municipality, the order must be approved by the annexing municipality, following which approval of the electorate of the municipality to be annexed is required. In any other area of the state, consolidation may be affected without com- mission .action by the same procedure by which villages could be consolidated formerly - by the adoption of identical resolutions by the two councils followed by the approval of the voters of each of the municipalities. Unplatted land used exclusively for agricultural purposes may be detached from the municipality by the commission if it is adjacent to the municipal boundary. This is done by a petition initiated by a resolution of the music- ipality or by land owners. Proceedings before the commission resulting in the order of detachment by the commission provide the only method now for such detachments. Land may be detached from one municipality and annexed to an adjoining one by resolutions of both councils and order of the commission. In this case written consent of the owners of two-thirds of the area affected must be secured. The new act proposes a new procedure for determining the local government future of townships having a population of more than 2,000. Within a month after the effective date of each census, the commission is required to determine the townships of this size and, applying the standards fixed for incorporation and annexation, it will determine whether all or part of the area may best be served by annexation or by remaining as a township. In either case, if it proposes a change in the existing status, its proposed order is subjected to approval or disapproval of the town voters. The act also limits incorporation of cities under Chapter 411 (under which North Mankato and Waconia now act) to villages; previously unincorporated territory or a village plus adjoining unincorporated land could be incorporated as a city under that chapter if it had 1,000 inhabitants. An appropriation of $35,000 is made to support the work of the commission for the ensuing biennium. The act became effective on approval (April 24). It repealed all prior laws except the village incorporation statute. Orville C. Peterson League Attorney hay, 1959 CCP: haw JOSEPH ROBBIE MINMBAPOL I• CHAIRMAN ROBERT W. JOHNSON •NORA VICE CHAIRMAN NN C714XIMOMIW RICNnELo ORCRErARV STATE OF MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL COMMISSION 51 S STATE OFFICE BUILDING ST. PAUL 1. MINNESOTA January 15, 1962 Mr. Arthur Rahn Chairman of the Town Board Eagan Township 3920 Rahn Road St. Paul 11, Minnesota Dear I1r. Rahn: I am enclosing one (1) copy of the Notice of Hearing dated January 15, 1962, on. the Township of Lakeville. If there are any questions or problems, please tele- phone me at Ca. 2-3013, extension 2409. Cordially, MUNICIPAL COPI ISSION Robert Edman Exec. Secretary Encl. CAPITAL 2-3013 ExT. 2409 One (1) copy Notice of Hearing - Lakeville Township JOSEPH ROBBIE MINK APOLIS CHAIRMAN ROBERT W. JOHNSON ANOKA VVyJ'f��VVIl(IC�O CHAIRMAN y��-y Jammix each . RICNI16LD •OCRITARV STATE OF MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL COMMISSION 5�- rSTATE OFFICE BUILDING ST. PAUL 1. MINNESOTA December 19, 1961 Mr. Arthur Rahn Chairman of the Town Board Eagan Township 3920 Rahn Road St. Paul 11, Minnesota Dear Mr. Rahn: CAPITAL 2-3013 Exr. 2409 Attached is a copy of the petition and Notice of Hearing for the proposed incorporation of Eagan Township. If there are any questions or problems, please call me at Ca. 2-3013, extension 2409. Cordially, MUNICIPAL COMINIISSION F. Robert Edman Exec. Secretary Encls. (1) copy petition regarding incorporation of Eagan (1) copy Notice of Hearing regarding incorporation of Eagan Lsw OFFICES LATHER M. STALLAND Score 2340.RAND Tawsa MINNEAPoLIS 2, MINNESOTA, PA YL If. B.AIIOE The Town of Eagan Dakota County, Minnesota September 1, 1964 : Eagan Township vs. Minnesota Municipal Commission Legal Services $ 7,500.00 Preparation of M&MC Amended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and appearance before AMC; Instigating and preparation of Motion for Temporary Injunction; Declaratory Judgment action and supporting Affidavits and exhibits; execution of Order to Show Cause; District Court hearing on motion; Preparation of second Motion for Temporary injunction and .lotion papers, supporting affidavits and exhibits; drafting Petition for Review; Dist_ict Court hearing on appeal; drafting Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order for Judgment; drafting Amended Complaint in Declaratory Judgment action; obtaining favorable District Court Order Amending the Order of the Municipal Commission; drafting writ of Prohibition and supporting papers; preparation and filing of Motion papers to Dismiss Supreme Court appeal by MMC, respondent's original brief and reply brief; legal research; obtaining dismissal of M C's appeal. Preparation of report on incorporation; meetings and conferences with APC and Eagan Board; Attorney General; Dakota County Officials; Judge of District Court; Judges of Supreme Court; and others between 5-7-64 and 8-31-64. Total Due $ 7.500.00 YE o-&3tii STATE OF MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL COMMISSION 51 State Office Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Hon. District Judge Bruenig Dakota County Hastings, Minnesota The Minnesota Municipal Commission by order dated the 27th day of May, 1964, approved for incorporation the following described area of Burnsville, Eagan and Lebanon Townships; (1) All of Burnsville Township. (2) That part of Eagan Township in Sections 19, 30 and the portion of Section 31 lying north and west from the north light -of -way of Minnesota Trunk Highway 35E as finally established. (3) That part of Lebanon Township in Section 16, 17 and 20 lying north of the north right-of-way of Minnesota Trunk Highway 35E as finally established. The area above desc-ribed was incorporated as a village effective ,Tune 18, 1964 and the name of the village is Burnsville. On June 30, 1964, you issued an order to the Minnesota Municipal Commission ordering the Commission to amend the incorporation order. dated May 27, 1964 and to remove any and all parts of Eagan so mentioned from said orginal order. The three permanent members of the Commission met secretly without notifying us on numerous occasions to consider an appeal from your order. On July 13, 1964, the following telegram was sent to Joseph Robbie, Robert W. Johnson and Terrance S. O'Toole, members of the Commission, at also to Irving R. Keldsen, Commission's Secretary: To comply with Judge Bruenig's Order dated June 30, 1964, we demand and call a meeting for 4:00 P.M. July 13, 1964 at the Dakota County Court House, Hastings, Minnesota.- /s/ Carl D. Onischuk /s/ Jerome Akin The meeting was held at 4:00 P.M. and those present were Onischuk and Akin. Mr. Johnson did call and said he couldn't be present. We, Cnischuk and Akin, both agree to, by this letter, comply with your order removing Eagan from the original incorporation order filed with the Dakota County Auditor and Secretary of State on June 18, 1964. /s/, Carl D. Onischuk Carl D. Onischuk, Dakota County Auditor /s/ Jerome Akin Dated this 14th day of July, 1964. (Seal Auditor) Jerome Akin, County Board Chairman Exhibit "B • 1 REPORT 0 F EAGAN TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE ON INCORPORATION Arthur F. Rahn, Chairman Eagan Town Board James Klingel, Chairman Advisory Planning Committee Bonestroo, Rosene & Associates, Town Engineer Luther M. Stalland Town Attorney REPORT ON MERITS OF INCORPORATION OF EAGAN TOWNSHIP INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared for the purpose of advising the Board of Supervisors, the Advisory Planning Committee and the residents of Eagan Township of the relative merits of the present township form of government and the village form of gov- ernment. The Board and Planning Committee have been considering the problem of whether to initiate proceedings ever since the legislative enactment in 1959 of special laws relating to incor- poration of townships. Until recently when the Village of Bloom- ington annexed a portion of Burnsville Township, public opinion in Eagan Township appeared to generally be negative on the pro- position of incorporation. Now, however, it is apparent that the residents are more favorably inclined toward considering it. Because of the complexity of the laws relating to these two forms of government and the lack of generally circularized information regarding the advantages and disadvantages of each, the Board of Supervisors appointed a committee to study the en- tire matter and prepare a factual and impartial report so that in the event an election were held on incorporation the residents of Eagan Township could vote on the issue intelligently. For the sake of brevity and clarity, the Committee has divided this report into three main sections: 1. Relative Powers of Townships and Villages, 2. Advantages and Disadvantages of Incorporation, and 3. Procedural Aspects of Incorporation. It should be appreciated that no attempt has been made to cover the fine, technical points of law involved in arriving at any result for the reason that to do so would compel a much more ex- haustive report. Rather, the approach has been to cover the points of greatest interest to the residents of Eagan Township and to give them full opportunity to weigh the matter carefully before voting on the basic issue. Your attention is called to the fact that because of Eagan Township's proximity to cities of the first class, i.e. Minneapolis and St. Paul, it has many of the same powers as 1 villages by virtue of special laws applying only to towns such as Eagan situated within the metropolitan area. This report will be made available to all Eagan residents. The Board of Supervisors at a later date intends to call a pub- lic meeting to discuss the report and related matters in which the people are interested. Thereafter the Board will initiate such action as it deems warranted under the circumstances. I. RELATIVE POWERS OF TOWNSHIPS AND VILLAGES 1. GOVERNING BODY TOWNSHIP: Three supervisors compose the Board who, in turn, elect their own chairman. Each supervisor is elected for a three year term on a staggered basis so that one super- visor is elected each year at the annual town meeting. In addi- tion, townships elect a Clerk, Treasurer, Assessor, two Justices of the Peace and two Constables, each for two year terms. All town officials are elected at large. (367.03) VILLAGE: The village council is composed of five members - mayor, clerk and three trustees. The three trustees are elected for 3 year terms and all other officers for two . year terms. If a municipal court is organized, the judge is elected for a four year term. Village officers are likewise elected at large, or under ward system if appropriate action is taken (414.02 (Subd. 3) 2. GENERAL POWERS TOWJNSHIP AND VILLAGE: Each system of government has the right to provide for and regulate the use of streets, sewers, sidewalks, public grounds, trees, cemeteries, waterworks, tourist camps, parking facilities, hospitals and street naming and number- ing; to establish a fire department; to regulate transient deal- ers, taxis, the keeping of animals, health, nuisances, construc- tion of buildings, amusements, vice, zoning and the general wel- fare. (412.221) 3. SPECIFIC POWERS TOWNSHIP AND VILLAGE: Other comparable powers in- clude the authority to create special boards as park boards and to appoint special officers as temporary policeman; (412.111) to enact ordinances (412.191(4) and provide for penalties for vio- lation of these ordinances; (412.231) to establish parks and recreational facilities (412.491) and to provide for vacation of streets. (412.851) - 2 - 4. JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS TOWNSHIP AND VILLAGE: Two or more governmental units as two townships or a village and a township may exercise jointly any power common to both such as establishing a fire department. (471.59) 5. REVENUE POWERS TOWNSHIP AND VILLAGE: a. Fines collected for violations of township ordinances previously paid to the county may now be paid directly into the township treasury comparable to the procedure in use by villages. (412.871) b. Certain license, permit and inspection fees imposed on such things as transient dealers, taxis and amusements are now equally available to both forms of government. (412.221) c. Metropolitan area townships are also ble for part of the state cigarette tax otherwise only to cities and villages. (297.13) d. Further, the limitations formerly placed upon townships in raising revenue through special assess- ments have largely been eliminated by legislation enacted in 1961. (429.011) eligi- accorded TOWNSHIP: This unit of government has no authority to establish a municipal liquor store or to issue hard liquor licenses to individuals and participate in the apportionment of the state liquor tax only indirectly through the county. (340.60(2)) VILLAGE: A municipal or hard liquor licenses issued to tion an incorporated municipality the liquor tax apportioned by the 6. BONDED INDEBTEDNESS liquor store may be provided for private individuals and in addi- acquires a direct proportion of state. TOWNSHIP: Areas in which a township has authority to incur bonded indebtedness include acquisition and betterment of the town hall, town roads and bridges, nursing homes and homes for the aged, and for acquisition of equipment for snow removal, road construction or maintenance and fire fighting. (475.52 Subd. 4) VILLAGE: In addition to powers comparable to these of the township listed above, a village may issue bonds for gar- -3- bage disposal, schools, libraries, parks, playgrounds, sewers, sewage disposal, streets, sidewalks and other utilities and public conveniences. (475.52 Subd. 1) 7. DEBT LIMITATIONS TOWNSHIP AND VILLAGE: The amount of net debt which either a town or village may incur (except those receiving spe- cial state aid) cannot exceed 20 % of the assessed value of its real property. (475.53) However, there are some areas where additional indebtedness can be incurred in excess of this lim- itation as, for example, road drainage, waterworks and street lights. Both towns and villages have what appear to be unlimited powers to fund through the issuance of bonds those improvements for which benefited property can be assessed. Such indebtedness theoretically would not be included within the 20%limitation mentioned above. (429.01 et seq.) 8. POLICE AND FIRE PROTECTION TOWNSHIP AND VILLAGE: Townships may now appoint policemen for law enforcement purposes similar to the power for- merly held only by villages and cities. (412.111) A township similarly has the authority to provide for fire protection for its residents. (412.221) 9. CONTRACT RIGHTS TOWNSHIP: Although a township can make contracts necessary for the exercise of its corporate powers, neither elec- tors at the town meeting nor the Town Board, for example, has the power to contract to provide electrical service to its inhabi- tants. (412.221(2) VILLAGE: The village council has authority to make such contracts as may be deemed necessary or desirable to make effective all powers possessed by the council which are some- what broader than those of the township. 10. INCORPORATION TOWNSHIP: The Minnesota Legislature has enacted a provision whereby a township that is largely rural but with cer- tain residential concentrations may proceed to incorporate the entire township and set up a system of wards which will help to create an equilization of voting power as well as to assure more equitable expenditures for all the residents of the township. (414.02 Subd. 3) -4 11. ANNEXATION TOWNSHIP: Under the new annexation provisions, a petition may be filed with the Minnesota Municipal Commission for annexation of a township or of a part thereof to an incor- porated municipality by either the annexing municipality or by the residents of the township without an election, whereas a majority of the voters of an incorporated area must consent to annexation of that area to another municipality. If the land to be annexed does not exceed 200 acres, no petition need be filed with the Commission. Consent of a majority of the land- owners within the 200 acre area is sufficient for annexation. (414,03 et seq.) 12. TAX STRUCTURE TOWNSHIP: The mill rate applicable to townships is limited to a 17 mill maximum for all general and special pur- poses including payment of indebtedness and bonds. A town- ship may however,levy a tax in excess of 17 mills if total town taxes do not exceed the sum of $1,000 multiplied by the number of sections of land in the township. (275.10) (275.32) VILLAGE: Eagan Township, with a current assessed valuation of approximately $2,000,000, could, if it were to in- corporate, impose a maximum mill rate of 30 mills for general village purposes. However, a village may levy additional taxes within certain prescribed limits for such expenditures as prin- cipal and interest on outstanding obligations, payment of judg- ments, support and relief of the poor, musical entertainment, a municipal forest, advertising purposes, forest fire protec- tion, a fund designed to pay for utilities supplied to the vil- lage, support for a public library and a fireman's relief asso- ciation. (412.251) The services offered by the village may, therefore, afoot the lower tax rate of the township. XI. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF INCORPORATION Whether incorporation of Eagan Township is advantageous or not depends to a large extent on the impact of future growth of the town, and how the electorate and its governing officers react to both existing and potential problems confronting them. It should be appreciated that what one person considers an advantage, another will consider a disadvantage. This should be kept in mind when weighing the lists below. Based upon the comparisons set forth in part I., the ad- vantages and disadvantages theoretically appear as follows: 5 ADVANTAGES 1. A village council, per se, has broader powers than a town board to act with respect to making contracts, in- curring indebtedness and providing better protection and ser- vices. 2. A village council can act upon some matters that a town board cannot act upon without approval from the voters. This can be an advantage because the council usually is better informed about matters to be acted upon and can make decisions quickly and efficiently. 3. By incorporating, annexation of up to 200 acres of a town to an adjacent city or village, as in the manner of Burnsville, could not occur. 4. I, village csnliccnee the sale of intoxicating liquors and/or operate a municipal liquor store if it feels this is an advantage, whereas a town cannot. 5. A village has greater taxing power through greater mill rate limitation. 6. Village real estate values are likely to be higher because of the increased services available. This is evidenced by the attitude of F.H.A. and V.A. in financing by increased mort- gage committments. DISADVANTAGES 1. Voters have less control in village than in town in controlling expenditures. 2. Taxes may become higher in villages than in towns because of the extension of public services. 3. Unless a ward system for voting were established, one or more highly populated areas could control the election of public officers. 4. The direct personal contact between voters and town board is lost in village form of government. III. PROCEDURE FOR INCORPORATION 1. The steps necessary for the incorporation of Eagan Township include the following:** a. Three free holders may initiate the proceedings by providing for a census of residents and residential buildings in the township. b. A map of the township must be prepared setting forth the boundaries and designating residential struc- tures of the territory proposed to be incorporated. c. A petition is then prepared and signed by at least 100 freeholders and submitted to the Municipal Commission requesting that a hearing be held. d. The Commission shall then set a time and place for a hearing to be held between 30 to 45 days from the date the petition was received. e. If the Commission approves the incorporation, it then fixes a date for an election to be held within 40 days from the date that it enters its approval order. f. If a majority of the voters favor incorporation, • the Commission then enters an order of incorporation. ••It may be possible for the Municipal Commission to begin pro- ceedings on its own to determine whether the area should be in- corporated. COMMIT:via ON INC0RP0RATI0N A bill for an act relating to the Town of Eagan; providing an election to the electors of the Town of Eagan to determine whether to change the form of government of the Town of Eagan to a Home Rule Charter City; and granting the Town of Eagan power to become a city. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: Section 1. The Board of Supervisors of the Town of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota, is hereby authorized to request the Minnesota Municipal Commission to determine the appropriateness of incorporating the Town of Eagan as a Home Rule Charter City or remaining a town. Such determination shall be made by the Minnesota Municipal Commission so far as is practical in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Annotated Section 414.02 governing incorporation of a village. Section 2. If the Minnesota Municipal Commission determines that it is appropriate tha the Town of Eagan incorporate as a Home Rule Charter City, then the Board of Supervisors of said Town is hereby authorized to conduct an election by the voters of said Town to determine whether the electors desire to change their form of government to a Home Rule Charter City. Section 3. Such election shall be held in accordance with the manner provided for the conduct of Special Town Meetings. The ballot shall be marked as follows: "Shall the Town of Eagan become incorporated as a Home Rule Charter City? Yes _ No Section 4. In the event that a majority of the electors vote in favor of such question then a charter commission shall be appointed and the Town of Eagan is authorized to become a Home Rule Charter City under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Annotated Chapter 410. STALLAND & HAUGE Attorneys for Eagan Township 2340 pain Tower Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Phone: 336-8361 ♦ va sea L?ea o Pew-meat?eu iam OFFICERS CHAIRMAN RALPH W. FARNSWORTH LAKEVILLE TOWNSHIP VICE CHAIRMAN GEORGE J. BASSINGWAITE SOUTH ST. PAUL CITY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY CLYOE N. RYSERO DURNSVILLL TOWNSHIP COUNTY COMMISSIONER JEROME AKIN FARMINGTON s Q,f.t-C.c e c 1. reittCLe- 1/ /'-c.c-( County Court House HASTINGS, MINNESOTA CHAIRMEN STANDING COMMITTEES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HAROLD H. RAAK INVER GROVE TOWNSHIP HEALTH AND WELFARE ARTHUR KUMMER DOUGLAS TOWNSHIP PUBLIC SERVICE RAY ROTHER HAMPTON TOWNSHIP PARKS ERNEST J. ALTMAN WEST ST. PAUL The recently released opinion from the Minnesota Municipal Commission has given the whole problem back to the people and governments of this area. In effect, the opinion states "You find an acceptable solution or we will make an arbritnary one for you". The immediate areas involved are Inver Grove, Eagan, Burnsville and Lake- ville Townships. However, the problems extend to and affect Lebanon and Rosemount Townships, Inver Grove Village, Sunfsh Lake, Mendota Heights, :;osemount Village and Lakeville Village. Also directly affected are the School Districts serving all these units. Any problem (or problems) affecting this many units also affects the County as a whole. For this reason the County has requested all named governments to meet jointly to initiate what will probably be a long term solution. It is our feel- ing that our time-honored concept of government OF, BY AND FOR the people is at stake. Either we recognize, understand and solve our problems of rapid growth or some higher unit of Government will do it for us — without our agreement or acceptance. The meeting will be held in the Burnsville High School on Highway #13 on Thursday, May 24 at 8:00 P.M. All officials of your government are urged to be present. This is an extremely important meeting. To assist in eventually solving this problem, you will get a complete copy of the Annexation -Incorporation laws — a copy of this recent Municipal Commission release and some factual statistics on the area involved. It is hoped that every- one will be an active participant at this meeting. For the Chairman Ralph W. Farnsworth • ydeN.R.be g xecutive Secretary Ze CNR/vms CITY OF BLOOMINGTOt 10200 PENN AVENUE SOUTH BLOOMINGTON 20, MINNESOTA TELEPHONE! TLJREOO 1-5811 The Town Board Eagan Township P.Q. St. Paul 11, Minnesota Gentlemen: May 8, 1962 At its May 7 meeting the City Council of Bloomington passed the attached policy statement concerning the current incor- poration proceedings. The City Council of the City of Bloomington conveys its best wishes to your township in these deliberations, which so gravely affect the future course of our metropolitan area. Sincerely, CITY OF BLOOMINGTON Herbert Knudsen, Mayor r Enc. COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY ARE INVITED TO INVESTIGATE ADVANTAGES OF OUR PLANNED COMMUNITY POLICY STATEMENT OF THE BLOOMINGTON CITY COUNCIL May 7, 1962 In view of the report issued by the Minnesota Municipal Commission, it is essential that the City of Bloom- ington clarify its position at this time. The Minnesota Municipal Commission, after hclding numerous hearings on the proposed incorporation of areas of Northern: Dakota County as several separate municipalities, has issued a tentative report -which in effect recommends that those units of government applying for -incorporation get to- getherand arrive at a feasible plan for a larger area which will provide for the long range economic development of that entire sector. The City of Bloomington will not interfere in any manner with whatever course the area, covered by the report of the Minnesota Municipal Commission, decides to take. The City Council of Bloomington extends their best wishes for the successful determination of a course that will make this area an attractive and prosperous community. MEMO TO: Eagan City Council FROM: Paul H. Hauge RE: Change of name of Eagan Dated: May 24, 1974 A question has recently arisen as to whether the name of the City of Eagan should be changed to indicate its true identity in the minds of those familiar with Eagan. The reasoning is that because its name has been in existence for somewhat over 100 years, that the name "Eagan" is foreign to most people living within the limits and with those who are familiar with it living outside its boundaries. Should the voters of Eagan be given the right to determine whether Eagan should be changed to a name which it has been commonly known by during the past century or more. It has been suggested that the questions be placed on the next general election ballot in compliance with Minnesota Law whereby the electors of Eagan be given the choice of one of the following three names or more in the event there are other suggestions made for the name of the city: 1. Eagan 2. Eagan Town 3. Eagan Township 4. Other . One reason that apparently surfaced for offering the option for the change of name is that great confusion has set in amongst the residents of the Twin City Metropolitan area, let alone residents of the City of Eagan, as to its true name. Commonly we hear individuals who are familiar with the area call it the Village of Eagan Township or some such name. If this issue were to be put on the ballot, it would be necessary to take the following steps: 1. Twenty per cent of all legal votes of the City shall petition the Council for change of name. MEMO TO: Eagan City Council FROM: Paul H. Hauge RE: Change of name of Eagan Dated: May 24, 1974 2. If a majority of votes cast at a general or special election favor the change, the Council may by ordinance, by a 4/5ths vote of all members, change the name. 3. Upon filing a certified copy of the ordinance with the County Auditor, State Auditor and Secretary of State, the change becomes effective. REPORT ON MERITS OF INCORPORATION oF EAGAN TOWN Si! I P • COMMITTEE ON INCOPPORATION Arthur F. Rahn, Chairman Eagan Town Board James Klingel, Chairman Advisory Planning Committee Robert Rosene, Town Engineer Luther M. Stalland, Town Attorney • i REPORT ON MERITS OF INCORPORATION EAGAN TOWNSHIP INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared for the purpose of advising the Board of Supervisors, the Advisory Planning Committee and the residents of Eagan Township of the relative merits of the present township form of government and the village form of gov- ernment. The Board and Planning Committee have been considering the problem of whether to initiate proceedings over since the legis- lative enactment in 1959 of special laws relating to incorporation of townships. Until recently when the Village of Bloomington an- nexed a portion of Burnsville Township, public opinion in Eagan Township appeared to generally be negative on the proposition of incorporation. Now, however, it is apparent that the residents are more favorably inciinsd toward considering it. Because of the complexity of the laws relating to these two forms of government and the lack of generally circularized infor- mation regarding the advantages and disadvantages of each, the Board of Supervisors appointed a committee to study the entire matter and prepare a factual and impartial report so that in the event an election were held on incorporation the residents of Eagan Township could vote on the issue intelligently. 1 • • For the sake of brevity and clarity, the Committee has divided this report into three main sections: 1. Relative Powers of Townships and Villages, 2. Advantages and disadvantages of incorporation, and 3. Procedural aspeots of incorporation. It should be appreciated that no attempt has been made to cover the fine, technical points of law involved in arriving at any re- sult for the.reason that to do so would compel a much more ex- haustive report. Rather the approach has been to cover the points of greatest interest to the residents of Eagan Township, and to give them full opportunity to neigh the matter carefully before voting on the basic issue. Your attention is called to the fact that because of Eagan Township's proximity to cities of the first clans, i.e. Minneapolis and St. Paul, it has many of the same powers as vil- lages do by virtue of special laws applying only to towns such as Eagan situated within the metropolitan area. This report will be pallid to all Eagan residents. The Board of Supervisors at a later date intends to call a public meeting to discuss the report and related matters in which the people are interested. Thereafter the Board will initiate such action as it deems warranted under the circumstances. I. RELATIVE POWERS OF TOtJNSiIIPS AND VILLAGES 1. GOVERNING BODY TOWNSHIP: Three supervisors compose the Board who, in turn, elect their own chairman. Each supervisor is elected for • • a three year term on a staggered basis so that one supervisor is elected each year at the annual town meeting. In addition townships elect a clerk, treasurer, assessor, two justices of the peace and two constables, each for two year terms. All town officials are elected at large. (367.03) VI_: The village council is composed of five members - mayor, clerk and three trustees. The three trustees are elected for 3 year terms and all other officers for two year terms. If a municipal court is organized, the judge is elected for a four year term. Village officers are likewise elected at large. (412.02) �� #,(,"�` �r�✓v u.�";.� S c�i,� �d" 2. GENERAL PO R, $ TOWNSHIP :;ND VILL.':G : Both system; of government have the right to provide for and regulate the use of streets, sewers, sidewalke, public grounds, trees, cemeteries, waterworks, tourist camps, parking facilities, hoepitale and street naming and numbering; to establish a fire department; to regulate tran- sient dealers, taxis, the keeping of animals, health, nuisances, construction of buildings, amusements, vice, zoning and the gen- eral welfare. (412.221) SPECIFIC POWERS TOWNSHIP AND VILLAGE: Other comparable powers elude the authority to create special boards as park boards to appoint special officers as temporary policemen; (412.111) to enact ordinances (412.191(4) and provide for penalties for viola- tion of these ordinances; (412.231) to establish parks and recre- ational facilities (412.491) and to provide for vacation of streets. (412.851) • • 4. JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS WNMI? ANI) VILLAGE: Two or more governmental units as two townships or a village and a townuhip may exercise jointly any power common to both Such as establishing a fire de- partment. (471.59) 5. REVENUE P0IiR TOWN:HIP AND VILLAGE: a. Fines collected for violations of township ordinances previously paid to the county may now be paid directly into the township treasury comparable to the pro- cedure in use by villages. (412.871) b. Certain license, permit and inspection fees imposed on such things as transient dealers, taxi and amusements are now equally available to both forms of government. (412.221) c. Metropolitan area townships are also eligible for part of the state cigarette tax otherwise accorded only to cities and villages. (297.13) d. Further, the limitations formerly placed upon townships in raining revenue through special assessments have largely been eliminated by legislation enacted in 1961. (429.011) TOWNSHIP: `.EIII6 unit of government has no authority to establish a municipal liquor store and participates in the ap- portionment of the state liquor tax only indirectly through the county. (340.60(2) V1LLkG2: .1 municipal liquor store may be provided for and in addition an incorporated municipality acquires a direct • • proportion of the liquor tax apportioned by the state. 6. BONDW INDLBTEDnS6 TOtvNaiIIP: Xroas in which a township h_ s authority to incur bonded indebtedness include acquisition and betterment of the town hall, town roads and bridges, nursing homes and homes for the aged, and for acquisition of egoipment for snow removal, road construction or maintenance and fire fighting. (475.52 ;ubd. 4) VI1u:A13: In addition to pone' :> comparable to these of the townshi,, listed above, a village may issue bonds for gar- bage disposal, schools, libraries, parks, playgrounds, sewers, sewage disposal, streets, sidewalks and other utilities and public conveniences. (4+75.52 z"subd. 1) 2. :)i::tu`2 LIMITATIONS TOWN H:iP .' ) VILI:_'JE:: The .amount of net debt which either a town or village may incur (except those receiving spe- cial state aid) cannot exceed 20% of the assessed value of its real property. (475.53) However, there are some areas where ad-) ditional indebtedness can be incurred in rxceso of this limiter"' tio:i as, for example, road drainage and waterworks. 8. i'OLICi AOr1TXTIJN 1'UZ;`,IIIP ::ND VTLLAGZ: Township„ may now appoint policetnent for law enforcement purposes similar to the power for- merly held only by villages and cities. (412.111) 9. C)NTR ACT RIGHTS TOINRSHIP: Although a township can make contract:; necessary for the exercise of its corporate powers, neither • • electors at the town meeting nor the Town Board, for example, has the power to contract to provide electrical service to its inhabitants. (412.221(2) VILLAGE: The village council has authority to make such contracts as may be deemed necessary or desirable to make effective all powers possessed by the council which are some- what broader than those of the township. 10. INCORPORATION TOWNSHIP: The Minnesota Legislature has enacted a provision whereby a township that is largoly rural but with certain residential concentrations may proceed to inoorporate the entire township and set up a system of wards which will help to, create an equilization of voting power as well as to assure more equitable expenditures for all the residents of the township. (414.02 4ubd.3) 11. ANNEXATION TOWNSHIP: Under the new annexation provisions, a petition may be filed with the Minnesota Municipal Commission for annexation of a township to an incorporated municipality by either the annexing municipality or by the signature of 20 % of the resi- dents of the township without an election, whereas a majority of the voters of an incorporated area must consent to annexation of that area to another municipality. (414.03 et seq) 12. TAX STRUCCUIiI. TOWNSHIP: The millrate applicable to townships is limited to a 17 mill maximum for all general and special purposes including payment of indebtedness and bonds. A township may how- • • ever, levy a tax in excess of 17 mills if total town taxes do not exceed -the sum of 61,000 multiplied by the number of sec- tions of land in the township. (275.10) (275.32) VILLAGE: Eagan Township, with a ourrent.assoased valuation of approximately 3)2,000,000, could, if it were to in- corporate, impose a maximum mill rate of 30 mills for general village purposes. However, a village may levy additional taxes within certain prescribed limits for such expenditures as prin- cipal and interest on outstanding obligations, payment of judg- ments, support and relief of the poor, musical entertainment, a municipal forest, advertising purposes, forest fire protection, a fund designed to pay for utilities supplied to the village, support for a public library and a fireman's relief association. (412.251) The service offered by the village may, therefore, offset the lower tax rate of the township. II. ADVANTA6r:S AND DISADVANTAOUS OF INCORPORATION Whether incorporation of Eagan Township is advantageous or not depends to a large extent on the future growth of the town, and how the electorate and its governing oflicera react to the problems confronting them. It should be appreciated that what one person considers an advantage, another will consider a disadvantage. This should be kept in mind when weighing the lists below. Based upon the comparisons met forth in part I., the ad- vantages and disadvantages theoretically appear as follows: 7 • ILDt mi 1. ;riLJ._.ge council, per se, has broader powers than a town board to act with respect to making contracts, incur- ring indebtedness and spending money. 2. A village council can act upon some matters that a town board cannot act upon without approval from the voters. This can be an advantage because the council usually is better informed about matters to be acted upon and can make de- cisions quickly and efficiently. 3. By incorporating, annexation in the manner of Burnsville could not occur. 4. t, village can operate a municipal liquor store, if it feels this is an advantage, whereas a town cannot. 5. A villat;s has greater taxing power through greater mill rate limitation. 6. Village real estate values are likely to be higher because of the increased services available. This is evi- denced by the attitude of F.H.A. and. V.Al financing. DI6.+DV,'iNTAGF:S 1. Voters have less control in village than in town in controlling exyienditures. 2. Taxes may be higher in village than in town be- cause of the tendency to extend public services. 3. -Fiore government -regulation through ordinances and local rules -and regulations are likely under village than in town. 4. Unless a ward system for voting were established, • • one or more highly populated areas could control the election of public officers. 5• jnoi41 ed; ?Q4- ljactieeisProvements and ser c 1 dad iiiaag ..% III. L k 00EJli-e ; _h'UR INCORPORATION 1. The steps necess_-ry for the incorporation of 'ligan Township include the followings ** s. Three freeholders may initiate the proceedings by providing for a census of residents and residential buildings in the township. b. A map of the township iiuet be arepared setting forth the boundaries of the territory. c. epetition is then prepared and eiened by at least 100 freeholders and submitted to the iMunicipa7, Commission, requeeti.ng that a hearing be held. a. .she Commission ~hall then, set a time and place for a hearing to be held between 30 to 45 days from the date the petition eras received. e. If the Conimisaion aeeroves the incorporation, it then fixes a date for an election to be held within 40 days from the date that at enters its approval order. f. If a majority of the voters favor :incorporation, the Commieeioii then enters an order of incorporation. ** It nay be possible for the Municipal Commission to begin pro- ceedin s on ite own to determine whether the ,erea should be in- corporated. COMMITTEE. ON INCORPORATION -9- TO: Eagan Town Board 1 December 1968 FRO: Committee to Study the Merits of Remaining a Township or Incorporating as a Municipality SUBJECT: Svnonsis of Meetings Held by the Committee During the period following the Annual Town Meeting in March, 1968, one of the members of this Committee, Mrs. -Marjorie Simecek, moved away from the township. In fairness to a replacement for this member, Chairman Don Knight felt that it would not be apropos to hold meetings of this com- mittee until such tiTe as the Town Board had named a replacement. In August,1968 he appeared before the Town- Board and requested that an appointment be made and at, the second regular meeting of the Town Board in September, Mlr. Alfred Shadduck was appointed to fill this vacancy. The Committee has met on three occasions, once in October and twice in November. The attendance was complete at all three meetings with the ex- ceptions of Mr. Jerome Adam at the October meeting and Mr. Wally Potter at the last meeting in November. A significant amount of time was given apprising Mr. Shadduck of the previous activities of the Committee and also providing him with bac::ground material that the Committee had available. After discussions, the Committee agreed that no great benefit would be derived from further time-consuming investigatiDns with experts in the field and/or other governmental units. Since the Committee was charged at the Annual Meeting with making a recommendation to the electors of the township, the members of the Committee individually expressed their opinions as to the future form of government for the Town of Eagan and their supporting reasons. It was interesting to note that the collective opinions of the Committee had shifted dramatically from those given in an off-the-record straw poll taken at the first meeting of this committee on January 9, 1963. Considerable time and discussion has been given to the content and format to be used in conducting a Public Hearing for the benefit of the electors of the township. The content, format and suggested dates (December 4th, 5th, 11th or 12th) for a Public Hearing were decided upon and are set down in the attached report. It was further decided by the Committee that Chairman Don Knight should appear before the Town Board asking that the Board set the date for the Public Hearing and arrange the publicizing of same and also invite the Town Board to meet with this Committee at a date prior to the Public Hearing. Don Knight, Chairman Jerome Adam Don Chapdelaine Wallace Potter Alfred Shadduck Roger Sperling Roger Weierke Attach.(1) Dl:'K/vk CONTENT & FORMAT FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO BE COidD'_(:i''_o BY THE COaSITTEE TO STUDY T-T, 'GRITS OF it'':AIN r'O A TOIi:IS_-!fP OR Ii!COIP0_t:.Ti"G P.1TO A A11UICIP:ALITY SEATING ARRANGEMENTS: The members of the Committee will be seated at a table directly in front of the electors. The members of the Town Board and special guests invited by the Committee are to be seated at a table placed directly to the right of the Committee. II CONDUCT OF THE ETING: - The meeting will be chaired by Don Knight. The Committee will review point - by -point the report made to the electors at the Annual Meeting on March 12, 1963. The Committee rill invite questions and comments from the floor during the process of this review. Persons wishing to question or comment from the floor will rise and be recognized by the Chair, give their new a and address, and direct their question to the Chair. The Chairman will then direct the question either to a member(s) of the Committee or he may invite comment from members of the Board and other special guests. Ho person rising to speak on a given subject will be al- lowed to speak again until all other electors desiring to do so have had an op- -portunity to question or speak on a given subject. The Chair reserves the right to rule a question or comment out of order if at the discretion of the Chair, it is felt that the particular subject mentioned or questioned has been adequately covered. At the conclusion of the above -mentioned report review, the Committee will express its recommendation to the electors. III RE OiC'f2lDATIO!'1: The Committee will unanimously recommend that the Town of Eagan be incorporated as a Home Rule Charter City. In order that this might be accomplished, we further recommend that the Town Board of Supervisors request special legislation which will allow us the opportunity of going directly to this form of government. Because the 1969 legislative session will very shortly be upon us, we strongly urge that the necessar: steps be taken immediately. - If we do not act now to ac-nomplish these ends, we may very well find ourselves forced into a vote on incorporation as a Village early in 1970 at which time the Minnesota Municipal Commission is required by law to review the status of all metropolitan area towns. At that time, if the i;unicipal Commission deems it advisable that we incorporate, they will, after holding Public Hearing(s), order an election and -we will then have only the choice between the present township form of government and the village form of government- with no guarantee that we would ever reach what the Committee believes to be the much more desirable status of Home Rule Charter City. Page -1- CONTENT L• FORMATE Pal A P'!BLIC HEARIYC TO 3'd C YiDUCT D BY THE Cil."MITTsi TO STUDY THE r2,RTfS 0F REvATNINO A T0':•!FS!!IP OR INC0 ' ''•T"i`!C IH20 A tUi'!ICIPAIITY Page -2- III R}Y;OM!DATI0N: (Cdn't.) ide feel the Home Rule Charter City form of government is the best and fol- lowing are some of the reasons: 1. As our Community grows,more services will be required regardless of what for-: of govern:.:ent we have and the Home Rule Charter City is the best means of providing for these services. - 2. It provides for a word syste- which is of the greatest benefit to all of the people as the population centers shift within the town. 3. It provides for a Standing Charter Reform Commission that can change the structure of govern-•ent to meet the specialized needs of the community and tailor the original charter to best fit Eagan's unique situation. 4. It provides for an Initiative Referendum and Recall as well as Open Meetings. 5. It will relieve the elected officials of minor administrative duties and leave them free for policy making decisions as well as allowing for even better communications between the people and the Municipal officials. 12/1/68 • MEMORANDUM TO: EAGAN TOWNSHIP BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ADVISORY PLANNING COMMITTEE, TOWN OFFICERS AND OFFICIALS, CONSULTANTS, ADVISORS AND INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS. 1FROM: TOWN ATTORNEY As you are no doubt aware, the 1969 Legislature passed special legislation (Minnesota Session Laws, Chapter 444) permitting the Board of Supervisors to request the MMC (Minnesota Municipal Commission) to determine whether or not an election should be held to allow the electors to vote on the proposition of whether Eagan should become a home rule charter city. Pursuant to that law the Town Board on September 29, 1959 adopted a resolution requesting the MMC to proceed in that determination. Prior to that date I met with MMC Chairman Robert Johnson to discuss and determine legal procedures to be followed --since the law is unprecedented-- and the schedule for these procedures. Briefly, the first step is the filing of the Board's September 29th resolution which has been done. The' MMC will then schedule a pre- trial hearing, before which time I must determine and prepare all the evidence which will be produced ultimately at the MMC's public hearing. The purpose of the pre-trial is to acquaint the MMC with the issues involved, to resolve any preliminary motions which may be in order, and to stipulate to those facts and evidence on which there is no dispute so as to expedite the later public hearings. After the pre-trial hearing and the disposition of any motions, the MMC will notice the public hearings after which it will no doubt take the matter under advisement and make its determination in due course whether or not to permissively order an election. Thereafter the Board • • • can order an election. This must be legally noticed, the ballots pre- pared, judges appointed and other necessary election procedures in the manner of a special town election accomplished. As you are also no doubt aware, there is considerable diver- gence of opinion among you and the townspeople at large as to whether Eagan should remain a town, become a village, or become a charter city. This presents a rather unique situation for me as town attorney in that I must present to the MMC evidence on all sides of the question so that it will be fully informed on the primary issue before it, i.e. whether it is appropriate for Eagan in the MMC's judgment to become a charter city. This I discussed with Chairman Johnson who is of the opinion that. this is the proper and desirable way to present the matter tb the MMC. Thus in preparation for the hearing I will need to know who our witnesses will be, and to a degree, what they will testify to and what their opinions will be so that we can obtain as impartial and as balanced a presentation as possible in fairness to everyone. To this end I have prepared the attached questionnaire to be completed and returned to me by all of you who receive this. Naturally, much of the evidence will be of a non -controversial nature as, for example, maps, population statistics etc. with which I alone need be concerned. However, if any of you have any suggestions for witnesses or evidence you would like to see produced at the hearing, kindly convey this to me and, if relevant, it will be used. 10-8-69 LUTHER M. STALLAND 4. I-41 Eagan BEFORE TIIE MUNICIPAL COMMISSION OF TIIE STATE OF MINNESOTA Robert W. Johnson Arthur R. Swan Robert J. Ford Ernest W. Ahlbcrg Gerald E. HolLenkamp Chairman Vice Chairman Member Ex-0fficio Member Ex-Officio Member IN THE MATTER OF TIIE PETITION FOR) THE INCORPORATION OF TIIE TOWN OF ) EAGAN AS TIIE VILLAGE OF E: CA N ) NOTICE OF HEARING Notice is hereby given that the hearing scheduled for August 25, 1971, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 41.4, as amended, before the Minnesota Municipal Commission in the above -entitled matter has been continued. The continued hearing will be held on the 14°h day of October, 1971, in the Eagan Town Hall, 3795 Pilot Knob Road, St. Paul, Minnesota, commencing at 9:00 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 Commission. (The rules of the Commission are found in Minnesota Statutes Annotated, at the end of Chapter 414. They may also be obtained from the Commission upon request.) The property proposed for incorporation Town of Eagan. Dated this 17'h day of August, 1971 MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL COMMISSION 304 Capitol Square Building is the entire St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 /C . J-j_(' et-/.;Z Bruce Rnsmussen Executive Secretary FAGAN TOWNSHIP 3795 Pilot Knob Road ST. PAUL, MINN. 55111 3RD CLASS Mr. & Mrs. Teddy H. Wachter 4550 Blackhawk Road St. Paul, D1I 55111 AGENDA EAGAN INCORPORATION INFORMATIONAL MEETING October 21, 1970 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 2. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS John J. Klein, Chairman, Board of Supervisors i 3. FOR INCORPORATION AS A HOME RULE CHARTER CITY -- Presentation by' Donald Knight, Chairman,:'Incorporation Committee 4. FOR TOWNSHIP FORM OF. GOVERNMENT -- Presentation by John J. Klein, Chairman, Board'of Supervisors 5. STATEMENTS, QUESTIONS & ANSWERS FROM'FLOOR -- 'METING RULES a. The presentations for incorporation and for township shall be limited .to 30 minutes. b. Statements, questions and answers shall be limited to 3 minutes per person. c. The meeting will open at 8:00 P.M. and end at 10:00 P.M. d. Each person before making a statement or asking a question shall first be recognized by the Chairman of the meeting and then state his name and address. 10-21-70 Those of us comprising the Study Committee come from all walks of life; a general manager of an electronic control firm, an oil company assistant manager, a research scientist, a service technician, a contractor, a sales- man, and a deputy sheriff. None of us has any financial interest in this community other than home ownership. All of us have a deep concern for sound economical community development. We are as concerned about the pro- blems, present and future, facing this community as you. In addition, we serve in various capacities within this community, such as, Park Committee, Fire Department, Assessment Committee, and Planning Committee. When first selected by the Town Board to serve on the Study Committee, we had little division of opinion. Almost unanimously we favored the town- ship form of government. For two years, we studied and discussed all of the facets of the various forms of government as well as the specific problems facing our township's growth. We arrived at the unanimous conclusion that an early start on city government would, in the long run, best serve the community needs, save the community trouble and money, and help toprevent irreparable mistakes. The report was prepared and presented to the electorate in an open meet- ing on February 6, 1969. Subsequently, a bill was enacted by the state legis- lature permitting Eagan to incorporate, by vote, directly to a Home Rule Charter City pending hearings and approval by the Minnesota Municipal Com- mission (MMC). The MMC held an official hearing on this matter on March 12, 1970. Your Study Committee members testified at this hearing under oath. Included below are the conclusions and order of the MMC dated June 30, 1970: "CONCLUSIONS OF LAW" 1. That the Town of Eagan is now partially urban or suburban in character and contains undeveloped areas which are about to become urban or suburban in character. 2. That the area proposed for incorporation is fit to be governed by a single municipal government. 3. That the area proposed for incorporation presently has and will con- tinue to have a sufficient assessed valuation to provide the tax revenue needed to pay for required municipal services. 4. That the area proposed for incorporation presently contains a suffi- cient number of people to allow efficient and economical provision of munic- ipal services. 5. That pursuant to Laws of Minnesota 1969, Chapter 444, the Minnesota Municipal Commission determines as a matter of law that it is appropriate for the Town of Eagan to incorporate as a Home Rule Charter City provided a ma- jority of the electors residing therein vote affirmatively that the Town of Eagan should become so incorporated. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: That the Minnesota Municipal Commission determines that it is appropriate that the Town of Eagan, County of Dakota, State of Minnesota incorporate as a Home Rule Charter City; and, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: That the Board of Supervisors of Town of Eagan are hereby authorized in accordance with Laws of Minnesota 1969, Chapter 444, to conduct an :lection by the voters of said town to determine whether they desire to change their form of government to a Home Rule Charter City." We feel the decision reached by this impartial and knowledgeable body further strengthens our recommendation to you, the voter. We urge YOU to vote FOR the CITY FORM of government when you go to the polls on November 3rd. Donald Knight, Chairman Jerome Adam Donald Chapdelaine Wallace Potter Roger Sperling Roger Weierke Marjorie Simecek Alfred Shadduck 1455 Highview Avenue 2077 Marble Lane 575 Chapel Lane 2004 Emerald Lane 1421 Highview Avenue Cliff Road, Rosemount (moved and replaced by:) Highway #31, Rosemount October 12, 1970 To: Eagan Voters 10/21/70 From: Roger Sperling, Member of Incorporation Study Committee and Member of Eagan Planning committee The half-truths, misrepresentation of the facts, and illogical reason- ing expressed in the Town Board Chairman's letter to you must not go unchallenged. The following is only a partial rebuttal of that letter: 1. As the chairman most certainly realizes, no one requested or sought endorsement of the town board. His statement implies the board is against our recommendation. To the best of my knowledge, two of the board members are in favor of a change. 2. He states all 90 charter cities have problems; of course they do - AND SO DO TOWNSHIPS - PARTICULARLY THIS ONE, We are continually trying to be a village or city by asking, through special legislation, for powers granted only to villages or cities. 3. He insists no man is so wise as to create a panacea; and, yet he envisions 100,000 people governed by a style of government suited for 1,000, 4. The worst infraction of logic is, of course, the condemnation of representative government, For some unknown reason, the chairman apparently,believes, three board members supposedly do not or cannot represent segments of the community. He states a town board must.repre- sent all of the people. NOT SO: It can represent special interests just like any other governing body and can probably do it more easily having fewer elected members. In this community especially represen- tation is probably needed until that time when a uniform distribution of people eliminates localized needs. 5. A little homework by the town board chairman would have been appropriate prior to his statement regarding Initiative, Referendum, and Recall. For the record: Initiative - citizens, by petition, may compel the governing body to undertake hearings for consideration of making local improvements. Referendum - a similar device (to Initiative) whereby the operation of an ordinance enacted by the governing body may be suspended until approved by the voters. Recall - a device whereby a special election may be enacted for the recall of an elected official. These are valuable powers which should be available to the voters. Many cities have these provisions. These devices have been used. The important fact is that the governing officials have to be wise, impar- tial, and reasonable throughout their entire term of office and not just at election time. 6. I would agree that the charter reform commission is not an omnip- otent body. It is, instead, a body which people can use to effect change in their government according to their collective judgment and not that of one official. 7. His quote of the average mill rates of township vs municipal government certainly deserves comment. Ninety (or so) cities in this state represent probably 95% of the population on 10% of the land with 98% of the headaches and problems created by those people living near industrial -commercial development. Lastly, he condemns fear and then promptly practices it through- out his letter. The study committee, of which I am a member, at no time suggested fear as a basis for change. The report, our conclusion, and our actions are based on the best information we could obtain from people having no vested interest in the specific community. Our judgment and conclusion is just as well founded today as a year ago. VOTE YES FOR CITY - NOW Roger Sperling October 12, 1970 To the Citizens of Eagan Township: At the annual meeting, March 1967, a question arose on the merits of re- maining a town or incorporating into a village. A seven man committee was formed to study the question. During the course of this study, an alternate of charter city government was introduced. This study was received, but not endorsed by the town board. On February 6, 1969, a public meeting was held to discuss the report and recommendations of the committee. At the annual meeting of March 1969, a group of people asked that the town request our legislators for permissive legislation to enable Eagan to go directly to a charter city if the electorate so indicated by vote. I firmly believe that you should have the right to determine your government, and we have followed the necessary legal procedures to permit you to do so. I DO NOT, HOWEVER, BELIEVE THAT THE PEOPLE WILL BE BEST SERVED BY A CHARTER CITY GOVERNMENT. My following comments on the committee report and recommendation support this position. On Item 1: There are 90 charter cities in this state, and every one of them is in trouble. There is an attempt to mislead the people into thinking they can have everything they want with a charter city form of government. No man in this day is so wise that he can create a panacea for the problems of government with a charter. On Item 2: It is my belief that where there are more councilmen the people do not actually benefit from what appears on the surface to be greater represen- tation. The reason for this is that councilmen usually represent either a segment of the government, i. e., police or fire, or a segment of the community, i. e., wards. There then develops a competition for the tax dollar to satisfy a ward of people, or a department of employees. The three men on a town board share these responsibilities, know best what they can spend, and where they must cut, without suffering the friction of this competition. Government is only as good as the men in it. By its very nature, a town board must represent all the people. On Item 3: A standing charter reform commission is not the omnipotent body it is cracked up to be. Examine your neighboring communities. Minneapolis has temporarily postponed offering the people its charter recommendations; St. Paul is in the process of revising theirs to be presented to the people in November; South St. Paul is holding hearings on changes right now. West St. Paul has just rejected all six proposals for change. As one community rejects a condition as unworkable, another jumps upon it as the answer. One wants ward representation, another wants aldermen at large. One wants a strong mayor, another believo the mayor should vote only in a tie. The constant change, or proposals for change, leave the people mired in confusion. J On Item 4: Eagan has never has a closed meeting. All meetings are open. As for the advantages of Initiative, Referendum, and Recall, how many times, if ever, can any of you remember an elected official being removed under this provision? On Item 5: It is argued that we are burdened with hiring and firing all personnel. We act on the recommendations of our department heads, and I do not consider this task burdensome. I personally do not believe in the form of govern- ment that provides for a city manager. It is my opinion that the elected officials abdicate their responsibility to the people, and turn it over to a manager who is well paid to take the flak. By this, I do not intend to criticize our neighbors. It is a matter of my own personal conviction. The statement that city charter may limit taxation power might lead some to believe your taxes would diminish under city form. Page 34 of the 1970 Citizens League Revenue Sharing report states: "The average property tax rate for town government in 1969 was 18 mills, compared with 97 mills for municipal government." I refuse to succumb to the overtones of fear employed by the proponents of charter government. Fear is a powerful persuasive, and our people are being told, "Our neighbors can annex us. Our town is being run by one man; what if something happens to him? You may not be represented if you don't elect by wards. You may not get all the money you should from the state", and others, daily. I am not afraid. The MMC has determined, "That annexation of all or a part of the area herein (Eagan) to an adjoining municipality would not better serve the interests of the area." Eagan is run by a board of three men, and if I dropped dead tomorrow, this town would be run smoothly, and efficiently, by its department heads, just as it is designed to do. (Do you imagine the fire department wouldn't put out your fires, or the police enforce your laws?) Contrary to city charter arguments there would be no chaos at all. We have witnessed difficult times in this country with government because more complexities are being written into it. Some have decided the answer is to consolidate governmental units, further compounding the problems. With things continually worsening under the philosophy of governmental expansion, isn't it about time we took another avenue governmental simplification? Town- ship government is the simplest, most democratic, and most efficient. You can change from township to charter city or village at any time you feel town government isn't doing the job, but you can never go back to being a township once you change and realize a mistake has been made. Adcyourself: (1) Have these larger governments ever really become more representative or less costly? (2) Do you believe they provide more opportunity to determine how your dollar is to be spent? Finally, working together we have done exactly what many government experts said couldn't be done. We have built a fine community as a township, and maintained a stable mill rate for seven years. With patience, we will have everything we need, and common sense in government. It is my earnest hope that our people will examine the trend in government today, and vote NO on the charter city issue. J J. Klein, Chairman Eagan Town Board NOTICE EAGAN INCORPORATION MEETING TO: ALL REGISTERED VOTERS OF EAGAN TOWNSHIP FROM: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a public informational meeting will be held on October 21st, 1970, at the Cedar Elementary School, Cedar Grove, at 8:00 P.M. to discuss the merits of Eagan's remaining a township vs. incor- porating as a home rule charter city. Both proponents and opponents will present views on the matter after which the meeting will be open to public discussion. Since a time limit on the meeting will have to be set, it is suggested that a.) you bring with you to the meeting the enclosed reports and, b.) that if you have any questions or public statements to make you prepare them in writing beforehand. The time limit on statements is 3 minutes. 10-15-70 Board of Supervisors Eagan Township COMMITTEE ON INCORPORATION REPORT & RECOMMENDATIONS In March of 1967, the electors of Eagan Township, at their Annual Meeting, requested the Board of Supervisors to appoint a committee to study the advisability of incorporation of the township. A committee of seven residents was appointed by the Board and this report is a result of the Committee's study. The Committee members are: Donald Knight, Chairman Jerome Adam Donald Chapdelaine Wallace Potter Roger Sperling Roger Weierke Marjorie Simecek Alfred Shadduck - 1455 Highview Avenue 2077 Marble Lane 575 Chapel Lane 2004 Emerald Lane 1421 Highview Avenue Cliff Road, Rosemount (moved and replaced by:) Highway #31, Rosemount RECOMMENDATION It is the unanimous opinion of the committee that the Home Rule Charter City form of government can best serve our community needs. Following are some of the reasons: 1. As our community grows, more services will be required regardless of what form of government we have and the Home Rule Charter City is, in our opinion, the best means of providing for these services. 2. It provides for a ward system which is of the greatest benefit to all of the people, for as the population centers shift within the Town, it insures representation for each area. 3. It provides for a Standing Charter Reform Commission that can change the structure of government to meet the specialized needs of the community and tailor the original charter to best fit Eagan's unique situation. 4. It provides for Initiative, Referendum, and Recall as well as Open Meetings. 5. It will relieve the elected officials of minor administrative duties and leave them free for policy malting decisions as well as allowing for even better communications between the people and the municipal officials. The committee unanimously recommends that the Town of Eagan be incorporated as a Home Rule Charter City. In order that this might be accomplished, we further recommend that the Town Board of Supervisors request special legislation which will allow us the opportunity of going directly to this form of government. Because the 1969 legislature is now in session, we strongly urge that the nec- essary steps be taken immediately to provide our community with the opportunity of Home Rule Charter City status prior to the highly probable 1970 incorporation vote. It is our further opinion that timely execution of this recommendation will insure a smooth and efficient transition to a more effective governmental unit. Subsequent to this report presented to the people presented in an open meeting on February 6, 1969, a bill was enacted by the legislature permitting Eagan to incorporate, by vote, directly as a Home Rule Charter City pending hearings and approval by the MMC. REPORT Resource people who presented materials for review by the committee and/or appeared at committee meetings and are also present tonight as invited guests include Rey Boezi, staff member of the Metropolitan Council; Orville Peterson, Executive Secretary of the League of Minnesota Municipalities; Bruce Rasmussen, Executive Secretary of the Minnesota Municipal Commission; Representative Howard Knutson, representing Legislative District 12B, including Eagan, in the State House of Representatives; members of your Town Board, John Klein and Art Rahn; your township attorneys, Luther Stalland and Paul Hauge; and Alyce Bolke, the Town Clerk. The charts are intended to serve as a guide to certain powers which, in the judgment of the committee, are available to three forms of local government in Minnesota, namely, Urban Town, Village and Home Rule Charter City. The following is a general description of each of the three governmental forms studied by this committee: URBAN TOWN (Eagan) Eagan's location within the Twin Cities metropolitan area together with numerous special legislation bills offers Eagan many of the powers of a village. The Annual Meeting is retained at which the public is given an opportunity to express itself and determine major policy including fixing the budget. The Town Board of three members implements these policies. The town has been said to be the only remaining place where the mass of the people can get direct experience in local self-government. VILLAGE The village council is elected by the people - it is comprised of five (5) members. The council alone sets the budget and approves it. The present method for a town to become a village is to petition the Minnesota Municipal Commission (MMC) which after hearing(s), issues an order approving or denying the petition. If approved, an election is held in the area to be incorporated. In 1970, the [M1C must determine whether all metropolitan area townships, including Eagan, are eligible for incorporation. For our particular situation and with a population well in excess of 2,000, it is highly probable the I4WC will order hearing and a vote on the issue of incorporation. The MUC is further empowered to initiate annexation proceedings whereby parts of Eagan could be combined with adjoining municipalities. HOME RULE CHARTER CITY This form offers the broadest discretion in governmental structure. The senior district judge in the county appoints 15 qualified voters in the munici- pality as members of the charter commission. The members serve on four year over- lapping terms. The charter is submitted by the commission and must be passed by 55% of those voting on the issue. Wide latitude is given by the commission in formation of the governmental structure and many of the advantages of township or village government may be retained. Home Rule Charter City status may be obtained by becoming a village and petitioning the senior district judge or possibly through submitting a special bill to the Minnesota Legislature for adoption. AVAILABLE POWERS & RIGHTS COMMON TO ALL THREE GOVERNMENTAL FORMS ARE: 1. Permits a manager and independent departments (a). 2. Establish and operate fire and police departments. 3. Can sue and be sued and provide liability insurance protection. 4. May establish voting precincts and voter registration. 5. Can contract for equipment and services. 6. Establish parking facilities and tourist camps. 7. Build and maintain hospitals. 8. Establish Board of Health. 9. Purchase and manage cemetaries. 10. Carry on municipal planning including regulating zoning and platting. 11. Regulate building construction. 12. Create and maintain parks and playgrounds. 13. Construct and maintain and vacate streets. 14. Exercise the right of condemnation. 15. Employees and officials are subject to Public Employees Retirement Act (PERA)(b) 16. Operate a Justice Court system (c). 17. Adopt and enforce ordinances (includes right to adopt by reference to state statute). 1E. Fines for ordinance violations paid to local municipality. 19. Control nuisances and vice. 20. Control the keeping of animals. 21. License transient merchants. 22. May franchise private sewer & water utilities. 23. May tax real estate for municipal purposes (d). 24. Make local improvements and assess against benefited property (e). 25. Share in distribution of state sales, cigarette and liquor taxes. 26. License taxicabs, drayage equipment, etc. 27. License amusements. 28. Construct and operate water, sewage disposal and storm sewer systems. AVAILABLE POWERS & RIGHTS THAT VARY WITH GOVERNMENTAL FORM AVAILABLE POWERS & RIGHTS (Affirmative powers available marked with an X) FORM OF GOVERNMENT URBAN HOME RULE TOWN VILLAGE CHARTER CITY 1. Number of voting members on governing body. 2. Offers optional plans of government (f). z. n..,.,.rn urban trucks to deliver, pick up & travel through without special license (g). 4. Civil service and merit system available. 5. Establish municipal court. 6. Receive highway gas tax revenue from state directly (h). 7. Own and operate gas and electric utilities. 8. May issue bonds for financing capital improve- ments. 3 Limited (i) 9. Power to approve state and federal highway desi;n. 10. Can hold annual meeting (j). 11. Salaries of elected officials may be varied without state statutory limits (k). 12. Maintain present boundary lines & annex other areas. 13. Establish municipal liquor store and issue private liquor licenses (1). 14. Representation by wards. 15. Iniative, referendum & recall available (m). 16. Permits standing committee for governmental reform (charter commission). 17. State legislation required for governmental changes. X 5 X Optional X X X X X X X I x X I X X X X X X X X FOOTNOTES a.) All forms currently permit the appointment of an administrative manager and department heads but the village council and urban town board are directly responsible for hiring and firing of employees. b.) Employees of all forms of government are subject to the PERA retirement provisions with contributions being made by the employer and employee to the fund. A tax levy or other revenue may be used to pay the employer's portion. Elected officials may choose to be subject to PERA. c.) Both villages and home rule cities may have justice courts provided municipal courts have not been established. d.) A town may tax up to 17 mills for general revenue, 25 mills for road and bridge. separate levies to retire bonds for local improvements and additional levies for certain purposes such as PERA. Villages may levy up to 30 mills for general purposes together with other levies similar to towns. City charter may limit taxation power. e.) g•) Tlie town board, village or city council can order improvements for public projects such as streets, water or sewer facilities and parks and determine whether to assess part or all of the project to benefited property. f.) Cities which adopt home rule charters are given wide latitude in the type of governmental structure including authority delegated to departments. Following 1970, village government will have optional village forms A and B. A special bill was enacted by the 1967 Legislature permitting trucks to travel through Eagan and enter Eagan (as a township) for repairs without the need for a special truck license. This would not presently apply if Eagan was incorporated. h.) Nine percent (9%) of the highway user fund, including vehicle licenses and gasoline tax, is paid to cities and villages over 5,000 population to be used for municipal state aid road fund. One-half (2) of the 9% goes to cities according to population. The other one-half (%) of the 9% is appropriated according to money needs. Twenty-one percent (21%) of the highway user fund is paid to counties for the county state aid fund. In addition, Dakota County currently levies 19 mills on all county real estate for road purposes with a small portion going directly back to townships, 35% of the first 14 mills going back to cities and villages of over 5,000 population, and further re- quires villages and cities to pay for 45% of the construction cost of county roads within cities and villages. i.) Bonding purposes for a township include utilities, town hall, fire equipment, road construction and'maintenance and parks. Bonds may not be issued by townships for other public buildings. j.) A city charter can include a provision for numerous open meetings similar to the town annual meeting. k.) Subject to a referendum vote of the people in case of village form. 1.) The council in any village with not more than 10,000 residents may establish and operate municipal liquor stores. As a township, Eagan currently is entitled to one private liquor license for each 2,000 population. These licenses are issued at the discretion of the County Board. This power permits initiation of government action for a vote by the people, a referendum to the electors by an electionand a recall of officials through vote under certain circumstances. MOTION made at Regular Meeting of Board of Supervisors on August 3, 1.971. It is my firm belief and conviction that the people should have the right to determine their form of government through an election. I believe this to be one of our basic rights in this Democracy, and provided by the Constitution. I make a motion that we direct the Town attorney to enjoin the MMC Hearings on incorporation until such time as the Courts have determined the constitutionality of the law relating to incorporation from town to village, because the law now does not provide for an election by the people of Eagan Township; and, further, to authorize him steps which he deems necessary and appropriate of this further to take any and all legal to insure that the people Town have the opportunity to vote on this proceedings are had before the MMC. question before any Motion by Chairman John Klein, seconded by Supervisor Arthur Rahn, Supervisor Paul Uselmann voted a nay, and motion carried. LAN.. O199ccs STA LI:.tNI) & 13A1.7c:>I SIIITE ao. I)AIN TOWER MINNEAPOI.Is. )IIYYI:KOTA 35•1o2 I.I:TOE11 M. STA MAN 11 PACT. 11. IIAI7.oc Cot 4444 11. IIo1:T February 25, 1972 Mr. Bruce Rasmussen Executive Secretary Minnesota Municipal Commission 304 Capitol Square Building loth and Cedar Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Dear Mr. Rasmussen: AI/EA COTE w_ rnuae O:m-flag i It has been determined by the Eagan Town Board that no appeal will be taken from the recent judgment of the Dakota County District Court in re Town of Eagan v. MMC provided that the State of Minnesota will waive all costs incurred in connection with this action and that the Town will be prepared to proceed with the scheduled hearing before the MMC for incorporation of Eagan on March 16, 1972 at 9:00 o'clock A.M. at the Town Hall. I anticipate that the Town's case in chief will not take up more than that day. I am not aware of any additional evidence that Mr. Jack Wallace or Mr. Philip Getts may wish to present, but I intend to consult with -them prior to the hearing and if there appears to be anything unusual in the offing, I will contact you prior to March 16th. Yours very truly, Luther M. Stalland LMS:mjj cc: Mr. Philip Carts Mr. Jack Wallace Mrs. Alyce Bolke c I-41 Eagan BEFORE TIIE MUNICIPAL COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF !1I.NNESOTA Robert Y. Johnson Robert J. ford Harold J. Dahl Ernest W. Ahlberg Gerald E. Hollenkamp Chairman .Vice Chairman Member Ex-Of.ficio Member Ex-Officio Member IN THE MATTER 0P THE PETITION FOR) THE INCORPORATION OF THE TO'.!N OP ) EACAN AS TIIE VILLAGE OP ,EACAN ) NOTICE OF CONTINUED HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the hearing scheduled for February 2, 1972, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414, as amended, before the Minnesota Municipal Commission in the above -entitled matter has been continued. The continued hearing wit' be held on the 1Gch day of March, 1972, in the Eagan Town Hall, 3795 Pilot KnoS Road, St. Paul, Minnesota, commencing at.9:00 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 Commission. (The rules arc found in Minnesota Statutes Annotated, at the end of Chapter 414. They upon request). The property proposed for Eagan. may also be obtained from the Commission incorporation is the entire Town of Dated this 25"" day of January, 1972 MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL C0?:MISS10N 304 Capitol Square Building ' St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Bruce ita s:nussen Executive Secretary I-41 Eagan BEFORE TIIE MUNICIPAL COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF Robert W. Johnson Robert J. Ford Harold J. Dahl Ernest W. AhLberg Gerald E. Ilollenkamp IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR) THE INCORPORATION OF TFIE TOWN OF ) EAGAN AS THE VILLAGE OF EAGAN ) MINNESOTA Chairman Vice Chairman Member Ex-Officio Member Ex-Officio Member NOTICE OF CONTINUED HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the hearing scheduled for February 2, 1972, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414, as amended, before the Minnesota Municipal Commission in the above -entitled matter has been continued. The continued hearing will be held on the 16Vh day of March, 1972, in the Eagan Town Hall, 3795 Pilot Knob Road, St. Paul, Minnesota, commencing at.9:00 A.I. 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 Commission. (The rules are found in Minnesota Statutes Annotated, at the end of Chapter 414. They may also be obtained from the Commission upon request). The property proposed for incorporation is the entire Town of Eagan. Dated this 25th day of January, 1972 MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL COMMISSION 304 Capitol Square Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 • 2.-/.--C f-cam (.l =i'7� .� Z --C ' Bruce Rasmussen Executive Secretary Boote4144a, / adeote, olosckei4Iih Adaci� , ./rsc. eams4d1409 eKgioaciid .2335 W. (ltiunh ,Ii hwacj 36 �l. Paul, Alissnesala 551/3 /Atone: 636-4600 February 18, 1972 Mr. Stanley Finnemore 614 W. Broadway Minneapolis, Minnesota 55411 Re: Municipal Commission Hearing on Incorporation Ragan, Minnesota File No. 6049 Dear Stan, Otto G. Bonestroo, P.E. Robert W. Rosene, P.E. Joseph C. Anderlik, P.E. Bradford A. Lemberg. P.E. Robert D. Frigaard, P.E. Richard E. Turner. P.E. James C. Olson, P.E. Lawrence F. Feldaien, P.E. Glenn R. Cook, P.E. Charles A. Erickson Richard W. Foster Keith A. Gordon Donald J. Grover Thomas E. Noyes Under separate cover we are sending you the revised Master Plan of the sanitary sewer in Eagan Township. All other maps were given to you yesterday at our meeting. There are 675 additional platted acres since 1969. This provides the following: 3,775 Acres, Platted Area 17,825 Acres, Unplatted Area Total 21,600 Acres If you need any additional information for these exhibits, please contact me. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Robert W. Rosene RWR:li cc: J. Klein. / A. Bo1keY L. Stalland I-41 Eagan Robert Robert Harold Ernest Gerald BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA W. Johnson J. Ford J. Dahl W. Ahlberg E. Hollenkamp Chairman Vice Chairman Member Ex-0fficio Member Ex-Officio Member 'IN TIIE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR) TIIE INCORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF ) EAGAN AS THE VILLAGE OF EAGAN ) NOTICE OF CONTINUED HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the hearing scheduled for March 16, 1972, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414, as amended, before the Minnesota Municipal Commission in the above -entitled matter has been continued. The continued hearing will be held on the 10°" day of May, 1972, in the Eagan Town Hall, 3795 Pilot Knob Road, St. Paul, Minnesota, commencing at 9:00 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 Commission. (The rules are found in Minnesota Statutes Annotated, at the end of Chapter 414.) The property proposed for incorporation is the entire Town of Eagan. Dated this 7C° day of March, 1972 MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL COMMISSION 304 Capitol Square Building St. Paul, Minnesota 5510L //['� Bruce Rasmussen Executive Secretary October 12, 1970 To the Citizens of Eagan Township: At the annual meeting, March 1967, a question arose on the merits of re- maining a town or incorporating into a village. A seven man committee was formed to study the question. During the course of this study, an alternate of charter city government was introduced. This study was received, but not endorsed by the town board. On February 6, 1969, a public meeting was held to discuss the report and recommendations of the committee. At the annual meeting of March 1969, a group of people asked that the town request our legislators for permissive legislation to enable Eagan to go directly to a charter city if the electorate so indicated by vote. I firmly believe that you should have the right to determine your government, and we have followed the necessary legal procedures to permit you to do so. I DO NOT, HOWEVER, BELIEVE THAT THE PEOPLE WILL BE BEST SERVED BY A CHARTER CITY GOVERNMENT. My following comments on the committee report and recommendation support this position. On Item 1: There are 90 charter cities in this state, and every one of them is in trouble. There is an attempt to mislead the people into thinking they can have everything they want with a charter city form of government. No man in this day is so wise that he can create a panacea for the problems of government with a charter. On Item 2: It is my belief that where there are more councilmen the people do not actually benefit from what appears on the surface to be greater represen- tation. The reason for this is that councilmen usually represent either a segment of the government, i. e., police or fire, or a segment of the community, i. e., wards. There then develops a competition for the tax dollar to satisfy a ward of people, or a department of employees. The three men on a town board share these responsibilities, know beat what they can spend, and where they must cut, without suffering the friction of this competition. Government is only as good as the men in it. By its very nature, a town board must represent all the people. On Item 3: A standing charter reform commission is not the omnipotent body it is cracked up to be. Examine your neighboring communities. Minneapolis has temporarily postponed offering the people its charter recommendations; St. Paul is in the process of revising theirs to be presented to the people in November; South St. Paul is holding hearings on changes right now. West St. Paul has just rejected all six proposals for change. As one community rejects a condition as unworkable, another jumps upon it as the answer. One wants ward representation, another wants aldermen at large. One wants a strong mayor, another believe; the mayor should vote only in a tie. The constant change, or proposals for change, leave the people mired in confusion. On Item 4: Eagan has never has a closed meeting. All meetings are open. As for the advantages of Initiative, Referendum, and Recall, how many times, if ever, can any of you remember an elected official being removed under this provision? On Item 5: It is argued that we are burdened with hiring and firing all personnel. We act on the recommendations of our department heads, and I do not consider this task burdensome. I personally do not believe in the form of govern- ment that provides for a city manager. It is my opinion that the elected officials abdicate their responsibility to the people, and turn it over to a manager who is well paid to take the flak. By this, I do not intend to criticize our neighbors. It is a matter of my own personal conviction. The statement that city charter may limit taxation power might lead some to believe your taxes would diminish under city form. Page 34 of the 1970 Citizens League Revenue Sharing report states: "The average property tax rate for town government in 1969 was 18 mills, compared with 97 mills for municipal government." I refuse to succumb to the overtones of fear employed by the proponents of charter government. Fear is a powerful persuasive, and our people are being told, "Our neighbors can annex us. Our town is being run by one man; what if something happens to him? You may not be represented if you don't elect by wards. You may not get all the money you should from the state", and others, daily. I am not afraid. The MMC has determined, "That annexation of all or a part of the area herein (Eagan) to an adjoining municipality would not better serve the interests of the area." Eagan is run by a board of three men, and if I dropped dead tomorrow, this town would be run smoothly, and efficiently, by its department heads, just as it is designed to do. (Do you imagine the fire department wouldn't put out your fires, or the police enforce your laws?) Contrary to city charter arguments there would be no chaos at all. We have witnessed difficult times in this country with government because more complexities are being written into it. Some have decided the answer is to consolidate governmental units, further compounding the problems. With things continually worsening under the philosophy of governmental expansion, isn't it about time we took anothet avenue, governmental simplification? Town- ship government is the simplest, most democratic, and most efficient. You can change from township to charter city or village at any time you feel town government isn't doing the job, but you can never go back to being a township once you change and realize a mistake has been made. Adcyourself: (1) Have these larger governments ever really become more representative or less costly? (2) Do you believe they provide more opportunity to determine how your dollar is to be spent? Finally, working together we have done exactly what many government experts said couldn't be done. We have built a fine community as a township, and maintained a stable mill rate for seven years. With patience, we will have everything we need, and common sense in government. It is my earnest hope that our people will examine the trend in government today, and vote NO,on the charter city issue. J. Klein, Chairman Eagan Town Board NOTICE EAGAN INCORPORATION MEETING TO: ALL REGISTERED VOTERS OF EAGAN TOWNSHIP FROM: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a public informational meeting will be held on October 21st, 1970, at the Cedar Elementary School, Cedar Grove, at 8:00 P.M. to discuss the merits of Eagan's remaining a township vs. incor- porating as a home rule charter city. Both proponents and opponents will present views on the matter after which the meeting will be open to public discussion. Since a time limit on the meeting will have to be set, it is suggested that a.) you bring with you to the meeting the enclosed reports and, b.) that if you have any questions or public statements to make you prepare them in writing beforehand. The time limit on statements is 3 minutes. 10-15-70 Board of Supervisors Eagan Township COMMITTEE ON INCORPORATION REPORT h RECOMMENDATIONS In March of 1967, the electors of Eagan Township, at their Annual Meeting, requested the Board of Supervisors to appoint a committee to study the advisability of incorporation of the township. A committee of seven residents was appointed by the Board and this report is a result of the Committee's study. The Committee members are: Donald Knight, Chairman - Jerome Adam Donald Chapdelaine Wallace Potter Roger Sperling Roger Weierke Marjorie Simecek Alfred Shadduck 1455 Highview Avenue 2077 Marble Lane 575 Chapel Lane 2004 Emerald Lane 1421 Highview Avenue Cliff Road, Rosemount (moved and replaced by:) Highway #31, Rosemount RECOMMENDATION It is the unanimous opinion of the committee that the Home Rule Charter City form of government can best serve our community needs. Following are some of the reasons: 1. As our community grows, more services will be required regardless of what form of government we have and the Home Rule Charter City is, in our opinion, the best means of providing for these services. 2. It provides for a ward system which is of the greatest benefit to all of the people, for as the population centers shift within the Town, it insures representation for each area. 3. It provides for a Standing Charter Reform Commission that can change the structure of government to meet the specialized needs of the community and tailor the original charter to best fit Eagan's unique situation. 4. It provides for Initiative, Referendum, and Recall as well as Open Meetings. 5. It will relieve the elected officials of minor administrative duties and leave them free for policy making decisions as well as allowing for even better communications between the people and the municipal officials. The committee unanimously recommends that the Town of Eagan be incorporated as a Home Rule Charter City. In order that this might be accomplished, we further recommend that the Town Board of Supervisors request special legislation which will allow us the opportunity of going directly to this form of government. Because the 1969 legislature is now in session, we strongly urge that the nec- essary steps be taken immediately to provide our community with the opportunity of Home Rule Charter City status prior to the highly probable 1970 incorporation vote. It is our further opinion that timely execution of this recommendation will insure a smooth and efficient transition to a more effective governmental unit. Subsequent to this report presented to the people presented in an open meeting on February 6, 1969, a bill was enacted by the legislature permitting Eagan to incorporate, by vote, directly as a Home Rule Charter City pending hearings and approval by the MMC. REPORT Resource people who presented materials for review by the committee and/or appeared at committee meetings and are also present tonight as invited guests include Rey Boezi, staff member of the Metropolitan Council; Orville Peterson, Executive Secretary of the League of Minnesota Municipalities; Bruce Rasmussen, Executive Secretary of the Minnesota Municipal Commission; Representative Howard Knutson, representing Legislative District 12B, including Eagan, in the State House of Representatives; members of your Town Board, John Klein and Art Rahn; your township attorneys, Luther Stalland and Paul Hauge; and Alyce Bolke, the Town Clerk. The charts are intended to serve as a guide to certain powers which, in the judgment of the committee, are available to three forms of local government in Minnesota, namely, Urban Town, Village and Home Rule Charter City. The following is a general description of each of the three governmental forms studied by this committee: URBAN TOWN (Eagan) Eagan's location within the Twin Cities metropolitan area together with numerous special legislation bills offers Eagan many of the powers of a village. The Annual Meeting is retained at which the public is given an opportunity to express itself and determine major policy including fixing the budget. The Town Board of three members implements these policies. The town has been said to be the only remaining place where the mass of the people can get direct experience in local self-government. VILLAGE The village council is elected by the people - it is comprised of five (5) members. The council alone sets the budget and approves it. The present method for a town to become a village is to petition the Minnesota Municipal Commission (MMC) which after hearing(s), issues an order approving or denying the petition. If approved, an election is held in the area to be incorporated. In 1970, the MMC must determine whether all metropolitan area townships, including Eagan, are eligible for incorporation. For our particular situation and with a population well in excess of 2,000, it is highly probable the MMC will order hearing and a vote on the issue of incorporation. The NIIC is further empowered to initiate annexation proceedings whereby parts of Eagan could be combined with adjoining municipalities. HOME RULE CHARTER CITY This form offers the broadest discretion in governmental structure. The senior district judge in the county appoints 15 qualified voters in the munici- pality as members of the charter commission. The members serve on four year over- lapping terms. The charter is submitted by the commission and must be passed by 55% of those voting on the issue. Wide latitude is given by the commission in formation of the governmental structure and many of the advantages of township or village government may be retained. Home Rule Charter City status may be obtained by becoming a village and petitioning the senior district judge or possibly through submitting a special bill to the Minnesota Legislature for adoption. -2- AVAILABLE POWERS & RIGHTS COMMON TO ALL THREE GOVERNMENTAL FORMS ARE: 1. Permits a manager and independent departments (a). 2. Establish and operate fire and police departments. 3. Can sue and be sued and provide liability insurance protection. 4. May establish voting precincts and voter registration. 5. Can contract for equipment and services. 6. Establish parking facilities and tourist camps. 7. Build and maintain hospitals. 8. Establish Board of Health. 9. Purchase and manage cemetaries. 10. Carry on municipal planning including regulating zoning and platting. 11. Regulate building construction. 12. Create and maintain parks and playgrounds. 13. Construct and maintain and vacate streets. 14. Exercise the right of condemnation. 15. Employees and officials are subject to Public Employees Retirement Act (PERA)(b) 16. Operate a Justice Court system (c). 17. Adopt and enforce ordinances (includes right to adopt by reference to state statute). 1C. Fines for ordinance violations paid to local municipality. 19. Control nuisances and vice. 20. Control the keeping of animals. 21. License transient merchants. 22. May franchise private sewer & water utilities. 23. May tax real estate for municipal purposes (d). 24. Make local improvements and assess against benefited property (e). 25. Share in distribution of state sales, cigarette and liquor taxes. 26. License taxicabs, drayage equipment, etc. 27. License amusements. 28. Construct and operate water, sewage disposal and storm sewer systems. AVAILABLE POWERS & RIGHTS THAT VARY WITH GOVERNMENTAL FORM AVAILABLE POWERS & RIGHTS (Affirmative powers available marked with an X) FORM OF GOVERNMENT URBAN HOME RULE TOWN VILLAGE CHARTER CITY 1. Number of voting members on governing body. 2. Offers optional plans of government (f). �- pr..; en «rban trucks to deliver, pick up & travel through without special license (g). 4. Civil service and merit system available. 5. Establish municipal court. 6. Receive highway gas tax revenue from state directly (h). 7. Own and operate gas and electric utilities. 8. May issue bonds for financing capital improve- ments. 3 Limited (i) 9. Power to approve state and federal highway desi:n. 10. Can hold annual meeting (j). 11. Salaries of elected officials may be varied without state statutory limits (k). 12. Maintain present boundary lines & annex other areas. 13. Establish municipal liquor store and issue private liquor licenses (1). 14. Representation by wards. 15. Iniative, referendum & recall available (m). 16. Permits standing committee for governmental reform (charter commission). 17. State legislation required for governmental changes. 5 X Optional X X X X X X X X I X X X X X X X X FOOTNOTES a.) All forms currently permit the appointment of an administrative manager and department heads but the village council and urban town board are directly responsible for hiring and firing of employees. b.) Employees of all forms of government are subject to the PERA retirement provisions with contributions being made by the employer and employee to the fund. A tax levy or other revenue may be used to pay the employer's portion. Elected officials may choose to be subject to PERA. c.) Both villages and home rule cities may have justice courts provided municipal courts have not been established. d.) A town may tax up to 17 mills for general revenue, 25 mills for road and bridge. separate levies to retire bonds for local improvements and additional levies for certain purposes such as PERA. Villages may levy up to 30 mills for general purposes together with other levies similar to towns. City charter may limit taxation power. �.) The town board, village or city council can order improvements for public projects such as streets, water or sewer facilities and parks and determine whether to assess part or all of the project to benefited property. f.) Cities which adopt home rule charters are given wide latitude in the type of governmental structure including authority delegated to departments. Following 1970, village government will have optional village forms A and B. g.) A special bill was enacted by the 1967 Legislature permitting trucks to travel through Eagan and enter Eagan (as a township) for repairs without the need for a special truck license. This would not presently apply if Eagan was incorporated. h.) Nine percent (9%) of the highway user fund, including vehicle licenses and gasoline tax, is paid to cities and villages over 5,000 population to be used for municipal state aid road fund. One-half (%) of the 9% goes to cities according to population. The other one-half (1) of the 9% is appropriated according to money needs. Twenty-one percent (21%) of the highway user fund is paid to counties for the county state aid fund. In addition, Dakota County currently levies 19 mills on all county real estate for road purposes with a small portion going directly back to townships, 35% of the first 14 mills going back to cities and villages of over 5,000 population, and further re- quires villages and cities to pay for 457, of the construction cost of county roads within cities and villages. i.) Bonding purposes for a township include utilities, town hall, fire equipment, road construction and maintenance and parks. Bonds may not be issued by townships for other public buildings. j.) A city charter can include a provision for numerous open meetings similar to the town annual meeting. k.) Subject to a referendum vote of the people in case of village form. 1.) The council in any village with not more than 10,000 residents may establish and operate municipal liquor stores. As a township, Eagan currently is entitled to one private liquor license for each 2,000 population. These licenses are issued at the discretion of the County Board. This power permits initiation of government action for a vote by the people, a referendum to the electors by an election and a recall of officials through vote under certain circumstances. PEOPLE OF EAGAN ':ALL THAT GLITTERS ISN'T GOLD!" Burnsville Chamber of Commerce is not telling all the true facts: 1. The new Eagan Fire Department will be split apart. All but two of the volunteer fireman live in Cedar Grove. Result if Cedar Grove goes to Burnsville: Cedar G-ove (Burnsville) has no adequate five protection, and Eagan has a Fire Department with two firemen. 2. The 9.68 mill rate was last year's mill rate for Burnsville. Burnsville's 1964 budget is $222,988, almost twice that of last year's. Eagan's 1964 budget is about $45,000. 3. We feel that Eagan's police protection is adequate for its population but if you feel additional protection is necessary, voice your opinion ac thn Annual Town Meeting. 4. Eagan began its planning activities in 1956 with an Advisory Planning Commission and zoning ordinances whereas Burnsville had no Planning Commission or planning activities until 1961 when Bloomington threatened their community status. 5. The proposed incorporation boundary in Eagan is completely arbitrary and is contrary to all expert testimony presented to the MMC during its numerous hearings. 6. If the election wins, Eagan is on record to fight the Order and taxpayers (you) pay for this. 7. Key legislators have assured your town officials that substantial changes will be made at the next session of the Legislature in January, 1965. One of them will be to permit new petitions to be filed in less than two years of a previous petition, which would permit Burnsville to refile next year along its present boundaries. 8. Eagan respects Burnsville's desire and right to incorporate itself. Burnsville should respect Eagan's desire and give it the opportunity to do likewise. Only by voting NO can this be accomplished. 9. As a township, you do;eceive a return from cigarette and liquor tax, another untruth from the Burnsville Chamber of Commerce. 10. Cur urban township has all the powers of a village except greater taxing powers and the right to issue liquor licenses. 11. Who benefits if Burnsville spends more money for township streets, sewers and water? It won't be you. But you will be made to share the burden of paying for them. DON'T BE THE BIRD IN BURNSVILLE'S GILDED CAGE: STICK AND STAY.' IT'S BOUND TO PAY: VOTE AGAINST INCORPORATION June 16th, 1964 - Cedar Grove Elementary School 7 A.M. to 8 P.M. Prepared by: Citizens Committee Against MMC QUESTIONNAIRE (full name) (address) (Home and office telephone) (official or unofficial position in relation to Eagan Township) (occupation and where employed other than as an official of Eagan) I favor town--village--city charter (circle one) form of government for Eagan. I will --will not (circle one) be available to testify at the publi: hearing. I do --do not (circle one) wish to testify at the public hearing. If called to testify, my testimony will relate specifically --generally (circle one) to: I consider myself an expert (yes -no) in the field of Describe any particular evidence or give other witnesses you would like to see used at the hearing: Suggestions or Commentz: Date: Signature Law OPPICEs STALLAXD & HAUGL SUITE U040, DAIN Towcu )IINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 56402 LViur.E 14. STALLANO PAUL 11. 11A000 November 19, 1969 Mr. Gene Clay Editor Dakota County Tribune Farmington, Minnesota 55024 Re: Eagan Township - M1C Hearing .UI CA COWS OII PHONE .ao-eao, Dear Mr. Clay: I.am herewith enclosing a copy of the Notice of Hearing on the petition of Eagan Township for consideration of its corporate status, which has been set by the 1"'1C for January 6, 1970. Would you kindly publish this Notice of Hearing for two (2) successive weeks in December, 1969, but not less than ten (10) days before the date of hearing mentioned above. Kindly forward to my office the affidavit of publication along with your bill for publication costs. LMS/cic Enclosure cc: Alyce Dolke Yours very truly, Luther M. Stalland iORANDUM TO: EAGAN TOWNSHIP BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ADVISORY PLANNING COMMITTEE, TOWN OFFICIALS AND OFFICERS, CONSULTANTS, hiV1:SORs AID INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS FROM: TOWN ATTORNEY Since my earlier memo to you of October 8th it has become apparent that some of the interested parties in Eagan are apprehensive about the procedures to be followed in the charter city matter and my role in prose- cuting same on behalf of the Township. To dispel these doubts once and for all, please be advised that, as in all matters I have handled for Eagan in the past 14 years, I will proceed with the city charter matter before the MIC in a completely impartial manner and concerned. My personal views are irrevelant to the pro - they may be, and I assure you that they will have no bearing the proceedings. My sole intention is to present the facts the MMC so that it may make its determination as contemplated legislation, i. e. whether Eagan should be permitted to vote in fairness to all ceedings, whatever upon my conduct of required by law to by Eagan's special on the question:of a home rule charter. It is not my intention to give undue ihasis to anyone's individual view or opinion of the matter. Nor will I delay matters beyond:.what..is:itormal procedure. However, you should realize that we are proceeding under M.S.A. Section 414.02 and that, like any legal hearing, things don't just happen over- night. I need time to prepare the evidence. The NMC requires pre-trial hearings to determine the evidence to be presented so that it can intelligently schedule the public hearing and allocate the necessary time so that continued hearings can be avoided and thereby expedite the entire proceedings. The NMC is interested in hearing evidence on all sides of the question of whether Eagan should be a charter city or otherwise. It will be up to the ?21C a t the hearing to determine what evidence is relevant and what is not. As for all of you, I will appreciate your backing and cooperation in answering my questionnaire to the end that everyone's views, whatever they may be, can be given the weight and respect they deserve in these upcoming proceedings. 10/14/69 LUTHER M. STALLAND QUESTIONNAIRE (full name) (address) (Home and office telephone) (official or unofficial position in relation to Eagan Township) (occupation and where employed other than as an official of Eagan) I favor town--village--city charter (circle one) form of government for Eagan. I will --will not (circle one) be available to testify at the publi: hearing. I do --do not (circle one) wish to testify at the public hearing. If called to testify, my testimony will relate specifically --generally (circle one) to: I consider myself an expert (yes -no) in the field of Describe any particular evidence or give other witnesses you would like to see used at the hearing: Suggestions or Comments: Date: Signature REPORT 0 N MERITS OF INCORPORATION 0 F EAGAN TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE ON INCORPORATION Arthur F. Rahn, Chairman Eagan Town Board James Klingel, Chairman Advisory Planning Committee Bonestroo, Rosene & Associates, Town Engineer Luther M. Stalland Town, Attorney REPORT ON MERITS OF INCORPORATION OF EAGAN TOWNSHIP INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared for the purpose of advising the Board of Supervisors, the Advisory Planning Committee and the residents of Eagan Township of the relative merits of the present township form of government and the village form of gov- ernment. The Board and Planning Committee have been considering the problem of whether to initiate proceedings ever since the legislative enactment in 1959 of special laws relating to incor- poration of townships. Until recently when the Village of Bloom- ington annexed a portion of Burnsville Township, public opinion in Eagan Township appeared to generally be negative on the pro- position of incorporation. Now, however, it is apparent that the residents are more favorably inclined toward considering it. Because of the complexity of the laws relating to these two forms of government and the lack of generally circularized information regarding the advantages and disadvantages of each, the Board of Supervisors appointed a committee to study the en- tire matter and prepare a factual and impartial report so that in the event an election were held on incorporation the residents of Eagan Township could vote on the issue intelligently. For the sake of brevity and clarity, the Committee has divided this report into three main sections: 1. Relative Powers of Townships and Villages, 2. Advantages and Disadvantages of Incorporation, and 3. Procedural Aspects of Incorporation. It should be appreciated that no attempt has been made to cover the fine, technical points of law involved in arriving at any result for the reason that to do so would compel a much more ex- haustive report. Rather, the approach has been to cover the points of greatest interest to the residents of Eagan Township and to give them full opportunity to weigh the matter carefully before voting on the basic issue. Your attention is called to the fact that because of Eagan Township's proximity to cities of the first class, i.e. Minneapolis and St. Paul, it has many of the same powers as 1 villages by virtue of special laws applying only to towns such as Eagan situated within the metropolitan area. This report will be made available to all Eagan residents. The Board of Supervisors at a later date intends to call a pub- lic meeting to discuss the report and related matters in which the people are interested. Thereafter the Board will initiate such action as it deems warranted under the circumstances. I. RELATIVE POWERS OF TOWNSHIPS AND VILLAGES 1. GOVERNING BODY TOWNSHIP: Three supervisors compose the Board who, in turn, elect their own chairman. Each supervisor is elected for a three year term on a staggered basis so that one super- visor is elected each year at the annual town meeting. In addi- tion, townships elect a Clerk, Treasurer, Assessor, two Justices of the Peace and two Constables, each for two year terms. All town officials are elected at large. (367.03) VILLAGE: The village council is composed of five members - mayor, clerk and three trustees. The three trustees are elected for 3 year terms and all other officers for two . year terms. If a municipal court is organized, the judge is elected for a four year term. Village officers are likewise elected at large, or under ward system if appropriate action is taken (414.02 (Subd. 3) 2. GENERAL POWERS TOWNSHIP AND VILLAGE: Each system of government has the right to provide for and regulate the use of streets, sewers, sidewalks, public grounds, trees, cemeteries, waterworks, tourist camps, parking facilities, hospitals and street naming and number- ing; to establish a fire department; to regulate transient deal- ers, taxis, the keeping of animals, health, nuisances, construc- tion of buildings, amusements, vice, zoning and the general wel- fare. (412.221) 3• SPECIFIC POWERS TOWNSHIP AND VILLAGE: Other comparable powers in- clude the authority to create special boards as park boards and to appoint special officers as temporary policeman; (412.111) to enact ordinances (412.191(4) and provide for penalties for vio- lation of these ordinances; (412.231) to establish parks and recreational facilities (412.491) and to provide for vacation of streets. (412.851) 2 4. JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS TOWNSHIP AND VILLAGE: Two or more governmental units as two townships or a village and a township may exercise jointly any power common to both such as establishing a fire department. (471.59) 5. REVENUE POWERS TOWNSHIP AND VILLAGE: a. Fines collected for violations of township ordinances previously paid to the county may now be paid directly into the township treasury comparable to the procedure in use by villages. (412.871) b. Certain license, permit and inspection fees imposed on such things as transient dealers, taxis and amusements are now equally available to both forms of government. (412.221) c. Metropolitan area townships are also eligi- ble for part of the state cigarette tax otherwise accorded only to cities and villages. (297.13) d. Further, the limitations formerly placed upon townships in raising revenue through special assess- ments have largely been eliminated by legislation enacted in 1961. (429.011) TOWNSHIP: This unit of government has no authority to establish a municipal liquor store or to issue hard liquor licenses to individuals and participate in the apportionment of the state liquor tax only indirectly through the county. (340.60(2)) VILLAGE: A municipal or hard liquor licenses issued to tion an incorporated municipality the liquor tax apportioned by the 6. BONDED INDEBTEDNESS liquor store may be provided for private individuals and in addi- acquires a direct proportion of state. TOWNSHIP: Areas in which a township has authority to incur bonded indebtedness include acquisition and betterment of the town hall, town roads and bridges, nursing homes and homes for the aged, and for acquisition of equipment for snow removal, road construction or maintenance and fire fighting. (475.52 Subd. 4) VILLAGE: In addition to powers comparable to these of the township listed above, a village may issue bonds for gar- -3— bage disposal, schools, libraries, parks, playgrounds, sewers, sewage disposal, streets, sidewalks and other utilities and public conveniences. (475.52 Subd. 1) 7. DEBT LIMITATIONS TOWNSHIP AND VILLAGE: The amount of net debt which either a town or village may incur (except those receiving spe- cial state aid) cannot exceed 20% of the assessed value of its real property. (475.53) However, there are some areas where additional indebtedness can be incurred in excess of this lim- itation as, for example, road drainage, waterworks and street lights. Both towns and villages have what appear to be unlimited powers to fund through the issuance of bonds those improvements for which benefited property can be assessed. Such indebtedness theoretically would not be included within the 20%limitation mentioned above. (429.01 et seq.) 8. POLICE AND FIRE PROTECTION TOWNSHIP AND VILLAGE: Townships may now appoint policemen for law enforcement purposes similar to the power for- merly held only by villages and cities. (412.111) A township similarly has the authority to provide for fire protection for its residents. (412.221) 9. CONTRACT RIGHTS TOWNSHIP: Although a township can make contracts necessary for the exercise of its corporate powers, neither elec- tors at the town meeting nor the Town Board, for example, has the power to contract to provide electrical service to its inhabi- tants. (412.221(2) VILLAGE: The village council has authority to make such contracts as may be deemed necessary or desirable to make effective all powers possessed by the council which are some- what broader than those of the township. 10. INCORPORATION TOWNSHIP: The Minnesota Legislature has enacted a provision whereby a township that is largely rural but with cer- tain residential concentrations may proceed to incorporate the entire township and set up a system of wards which will help to create an equilization of voting power as well as to assure more equitable expenditures for all the residents of the township. (414.02 Subd. 3) 4 11. ANNEXATION TOWNSHIP: Under the new annexation provisions, a petition may be filed with the Minnesota Municipal Commission for annexation of a township or of a part thereof to an incor- porated municipality by either the annexing municipality or by the residents of the township without an election, whereas a majority of the voters of an incorporated area must consent to annexation of that area to another municipality. If the land to be annexed does not exceed 200 acres, no petition need be filed with the Commission. Consent of a majority of the land- owners within the 200 acre area is sufficient for annexation. (414.03 et seq.) 12. TAX STRUCTURE TOWNSHIP: The mill rate applicable to townships is limited to a 17 mill maximum for all general and special pur- poses including payment of indebtedness and bonds. A town- ship may however,levy a tax in excess of 17 mills if total town taxes do not exceed the sum of $1,000 multiplied by the number of sections of land in the township. (275.10) (275.32) VILLAGE: Eagan Township, with a current assessed valuation of approximately 32,000,000, could, if it were to in- corporate, impose a maximum mill rate of 30 mills for general village purposes. However, a village may levy additional taxes within certain prescribed limits for such expenditures as prin- cipal and interest on outstanding obligations, payment of judg- ments, support and relief of the poor, musical entertainment, a municipal forest, advertising purposes, forest fire protec- tion, a fund designed to pay for utilities supplied to the vil- lage, support for a public library and a fireman's relief asso- ciation. (412.251) The services offered by the village may, therefore, offset the lower tax rate of the township. XI. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF INCORPORATION Whether incorporation of Eagan Township is advantageous or not depends to a large extent on the impact of future growth of the town, and how the electorate and its governing officers react to both existing and potential problems confronting them. It should be appreciated that what one person considers an advantage, another will consider a disadvantage. This should be kept in mind when weighing the lists below. Based upon the comparisons set forth in part I., the ad- vantages and disadvantages theoretically appear as follows: 5 ADVANTAGES 1. A village council, per se, has broader powers than a town board to act with respect to making contracts, in- curring indebtedness and providing better protection and ser- vices. 2. A village council can act upon some matters that a town board cannot act upon without approval from the voters. This can be an advantage because the council usually is better informed about matters to be acted upon and can make decisions quickly and efficiently. 3. By incorporating, annexation of up to 200 acres of a town to an adjacent city or village, as in the manner of Burnsville, could not occur. 4. /, village can license the sale of intoxicating liquors and/or operate a municipal liquor store if it feels this is an advantage, whereas a town cannot. 5. A village has greater taxing power through greater mill rate limitation. 6. Village real estate values are likely to be higher because of the increased services available. This is evidenced by the attitude of F.H.A. and V.A. in financing by increased mort- gage committments. DISADVANTAGES 1. Voters have lees control in village than in town in controlling expenditures. 2. Taxes may become higher in villages than in towns because of the extension of public services. 3. Unless a ward system for voting were established, one or more highly populated areas could control the election of public officers. 4. The direct personal contact between voters and town board is lost in village form of government. III. PROCEDURE FOR INCORPORATION 1. The steps necessary for the incorporation of Eagan Township include the following:" a. Three free holders may initiate the proceedings by providing for a census of residents and residential buildings in the township. b. A map of the township must be prepared Betting forth the boundaries and designating residential struc- tures of the territory proposed to be incorporated. c. A petition is then prepared and signed by at least 100 freeholders and submitted to the Municipal Commission requesting that a hearing be held. d. The Commission shall then set a time and place for a hearing to be held between 30 to 45 days from the date the petition was received. e. If the Commission approves the incorporation, it then fixes a date for an election to be held within 40 days from the date that it enters its approval order. f. If a majority of the voters favor incorporation, the Commission then enters an order of incorporation. ••It may be possible for the Municipal Commission to begin pro- ceedings on its own to determine whether the area should be in- corporated. COMMITTEE ON INCORPORATION 7 a MEMORANDUM TO: EAGAN TOWNSHIP BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ADVISORY PLANNING COMMITTEE, TOWN OFFICERS AND OFFICIALS, CONSULTANTS, ADVISORS AND INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS. FROM: TOWN ATTORNEY As you are no doubt aware, the 1969 Legislature passed special legislation (Minnesota Session Laws, Chapter 444) permitting the Board of Supervisors to request the MMC (Minnesota Municipal Commission) to determine whether or not an election should be held to allow the electors to vote on the proposition of whether Eagan should become a home rule charter city. Pursuant to that law the Town Board on September Z9, 1969 adopted a resolution requesting the MMC to proceed in that determination. Prior to that date I met with MMC Chairman Robert Johnson to discuss and determine legal procedures to be followed --since the law is unprecedented-- and the schedule for these procedures. Briefly, the first step is the filing of the Board's September 29th resolution which has been done. The' MMC will then schedule a pre- trial hearing, before which time I must determine and prepare all the evidence which will be produced ultimately at the MMC's public hearing. The purpose of the pre-trial is to acquaint the MMC with the issues involved, to resolve any preliminary motions which may be in order, and to stipulate to those facts and evidence on which there is no dispute so as to expedite the later public hearings. After the pre-trial hearing and the disposition of any motions, the MMC will notice the public hearings after which it will no doubt take the matter under advisement and make its determination in due course whether or not to permissively order an election. Thereafter the Board Aid can order an election. This must be legally noticed, the ballots pre- pared, judges appointed and other necessary election procedures in the manner of a special town election accomplished. As you are also no doubt aware, there is considerable diver- gence of opinion among you and the townspeople at large as to whether Eagan should remain a town, become a village, or become a charter city. This presents a rather unique situation for me as town attorney in that I must present to the MMC evidence on all sides of the question so that it will be fully informed on the primary issue before it, i.e. whether it is appropriate for Eagan in the MMC's judgment to become a charter city. This I discussed with Chairman Johnson who is of the opinion that this is the proper and desirable way to present the matter to the MMC. Thus in preparation for the hearing I will need to know who our witnesses will be, and to a degree, what they will testify to and what their opinions will be so that we can obtain as impartial and as balanced a presentation as possible in fairness to everyone. To this end I have prepared the attached questionnaire to be completed and returned to me by all of you who receive this. Naturally, much of the evidence will be of a non -controversial nature as, for example, maps, population statistics etc. with which I alone need be concerned. However, if any of you have any suggestions for witnesses or evidence you would like to see produced at the hearing, kindly convey this to me and, if relevant, it will be used. 10-8-69 LUTHER M. STALLAND QUESTIONNAIRE (full name) (address) (Home and office telephone) (official or unofficial position in relation to Eagan Township) (occupation and where employed other than as an official of Eagan) I favor town--village--city charter (circle one) form of government for Eagan. I will --will not (circle one) be available to testify at the public hearing. I do --do not (circle one) wish to testify at the public hearing. If called to testify, my testimony will relate specifically --generally (circle one) to: I consider myself an expert (yes -no) in the field of Describe any particular evidence or give other witnesses you would like to see used at the hearing: Suggestions or Comments: Date: Signature MEMORANDUM TO: ALL WITNESSES, MMC HEARING, MARCH 12, 1970 FROM: TOWN ATTORNEY The following is a list of all witnesses intended to be called at the above hearing in order in which they will be called. It is contemplated that the hearing will be com- pleted in one day. As best I could I have indicated roughly when you will be called. I imagine that the hearin hours will be from 10:00 to 12:00 A.M. and from 1:30 to 4:00 P.M. 1. John J. Klein A.M. 2. Robert Rosene A.M. 3. Paul Uselmann A.M. 4. Herbert Polzin P.M. 5. Donald Knight P.M. 6. Alyce Bolke P.M. 7. Martin Des Lauriers P.M. 8. William Schultz P.M. 9. William Rydrych P.M. 10. Joe Harrison P.M. 11. Jack Dielenthies P.M. 12. Donald Chapdelaine P.M. 13. Arthur F. Rahn F.M. 14. Bob Ferguson 15. Jerome Adam 16. Roger Sperling P.M. P.M. P.M. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO STUDY THE MERITS OF REMAINING A TOWNSHIP OR INCORPORATING AS A MUNICIPALITY Submitted to the Electors of Eagan Township, Dakota County, Minnesota on March 12, 1968 CON IITTEE MEMBERS: Donald Knight, Chairman Jerome 0. Adam Donald Chapdelaine Wallace I. Potter Mrs. Marjorie Simecek Roger L. Sperling Roger F. Weierke In March, 1967, the electors of Eagan Township at their annual meeting requested the Board of Supervisors to appoint a committee to study the advisability of incorporation of the township. A committee of seven residents was appointed by the Board and this report is the result of the committee's study. Resource people who presented materials for review by the committee and who appeared at committee meetings included Raymond Boeszi, staff member of the Metropolitan Council; Orville C. Peterson, Executive Secretary of the League of Minnesota Municipalities; Representative Howard Knutson, representing the Eagan area in the State House of Representatives; members of the Eagan Town Board and other Eagan officials including Paul H. Hauge, one of the town attorneys. The chart on pages 3 and 4 of this report is intended to serve as a guide to certain powers which, in the judgment of the committee, are available to three forms of local government in Minnesota, namely urban town, village, and home rule charter city. CHART INDICATING RELATIVE POWERS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURES IN MINNESOTA (See Appendix for explanation of lettered footnotes) AVAILABLE POWERS (Affirmative powers available marked with an X) 1. Number of voting members on governing body 2. Offers optional plans of government (d) 3. Permits a manager and independent departments(e) 4. Can hold annual meeting (f) 5. Salaries of elected officials may be varied without state statutory limits 6. Maintdin present boundary lines and annex other areas 7. Establish municipal liquor store and issue private liquor licenses (g) 8. Establish and operate fire and police depts. 9. Initiative, referendum & recall available (h) 10. Permits standing committee for governmental reform (charter commission) 11. State legislation required for governmental changes 12. Local consent required to effect special legislation for single municipality (i) 13. Can sue and be sued and provide liability insurance protection 14. Representation by wards 15. May establish voting precincts and voter registration 16. Can contract for equipment and services 17. Permits urban trucks to deliver, pick up and travel through without special license (j) 18. Establish parking facilities & tourist camps 19. Build and maintain hospitals 20. Establish board of health 21. Purchase and manage cemetaries FORM OF GOVERNMENT Urban Village Home Rule(c) Town (a) (b) Charter City 3 x x x x x x x x x x x 5 x x x x x x x x x x x x x t:.oni 1 x x x x x x x E x x x x x x x x x x x 3 Urban Village Home Rule (c) AVAILABLE POWERS Town (a) (b) Charter city 22. Power to approve state & federal highway design 23. Carry on municipal planning including regulating zoning and platting 24. Regulate building construction 25. Create and maintain parks and playgrounds 26. Construct, maintain and vacate streets 27. Exercise the right of condemnation 28. Employees and officials are subject to Public Employees Retirement Act (PERA) (k) 29. Civil service and merit system available 30. Establish municipal court 31. Operate a Justice Court system 32. Adopt &::enforce ordinances (Includes right to adopt by reference to state statute) 33. Fines for ordinance violations paid to local municipality 34. Control nuisances and vice 35. Control the keeping of animals 36. License transient merchants 37. License taxicabs, drayage equipment, etc. 38. License amusements 39. Construct and operate water, sewage disposal and storm sewer systems 40. Own and operate gas and electric utilities 41. May franchise private sewer & water utilities 42. Make local improvements and assess against benefited property (1) 43. Receive highway gas tax revenue from state directly (m) 44. May tax real estate for municipal purposes (n) 45. May issue bonds for financing (limited see o ) 46. Share in distribution of state sales, cigarette and liquor taxes x - 4 - / P P E N D I X (a) The Urban Town which includes Eagan Township. Eagan's location within the twin cities metropolitan area together with numerous special legislative bills offers Eagan many of the powers of a village. The annual meeting is ::etcined at which the public is given an opportunity to express itself and determine major policy including fixing the budget. The Town Board of three members implements these policies. The Town has been said to be the only remaining place where the mass of the people can get direct experience in local self-government. (b) Village. The Village Council is elected by the people - it is usually comprised of 5 or 7 members. The Council alone sets the budget and approves it. The present method for a town to become a village is to petition the Minnesota Municipal Commission (M11C) which after hearing, issues an order approving or denying the petition. If approved, an election is held in the area to be incorporated. In 1970 the MMC must determine whether all metropolitan area townships including Eagan, if it remains a township, are eligible for incorporation. If so, hearings and an election will be held within each township as ordered by the MMC. (C) Home Rule Charter City. This form offers the broadest discretion in governmental structure. The senior district judge in the county appoints 15 qualified voters in the municipality as members of the charter commission. The members serve on 4-year over -lapping terms. The charter is submitted by the commission and must be passed by 557 of the voting residents. Wide lattitude is given by the commission in formation of the governmental structure and many of the advantages of township or village government may be retained. Home Rule Charter City status may be obtained by becoming a village and petitioning the County Board or possibly through submitting a special bill to the Minnesota Legislature for adoption. - 5 - (d) Cities which adopt home rule charters are given wide latitude in the type of governmental structure including authority delegated to departments. Following 1970 village government will no longer have optional forms with the clerk and treasurer becoming non -voting appointed village officials. (e) All forms currently permit the appointment of an administrative manager and department heads but the village council and urban town board are directly responsible for hiring and firing of employees. (f) A city charter can include a provision for open meetings similar to those of a town annual meeting. (g) The council in any village with not more than 10,000 residents may establish and operate municipal liquor stores. The two year waiting period after incorporation for issuance of private liquor licenses or creation of a municipal liquor store does not apply to Eagan. As a township, Eagan currently is entitled/to one private liquor license for each 7,000 population, Theste licenses are issued at the discretion of the County Board. (h) This power permits initiation of government action for a vote by the people, a referendum to the electors by an election and a recall of officials through vote under certain circumstances. (i) Special legislation affecting a single governmental unit or several units must be approved by the local governing body to become effective. The governing body may determine that the electors shall vote on the issue. (j) A special bill was enacted by the 1967 Legislature permitting trucks to travel through Eagan and enter Eagan for repairs without the need for the special truck license. (k) Employees of all forms of government are subject to the PERA retire- ment provisions with contributions being made by the employer and employee to the fund. A tax levy or other revenue may be used to pay the employer's portion. Elected officials may choose to be subject to PERA, - 6 - (1) The town board, village or city council can order improvements for public projects such as streets, water or sewer facilities and parks and determine whether to assess part or all of the project to benefittcd property. (m) Nine percent of the highway user fund including vehicle licenses and gas tax is paid to cities and villages in the state according to population to be used for the municipal state aid road fund. Twenty-nine percent of the highway user fund is paid to counties for the county state aid fund. In addition Dakota County currently levies 14 mills on all county real estate for road pruposes with a small portion going back directly to townships and further requires villages and cities to pay for 55% of the construction cost of county roads within cities and villages. (n) A town may tax up to 17 mills for general revenue, 25 mills for road and bridge, separate levies to retire bonds for local improvements and additional levies for certain special purposes such as PERA. Villages may levy up to 30 mills for general purposes together with other levies similar to towns. City charter may limit taxation power. (o) Bonding purposes for a township include storm sewer facilities town hall, fire equipment and road construction and maintenance. Bonds may not be issued by townships for other public buildings. REPORT 0 N MERITS OF INCORPORATION 0F EAGAN TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE ON INCORPORATION Arthur F. Rahn, Chairman Eagan Town Board James Klingel, Chairman Advisory Planning Committee Bonestroo, Rosene & Associates, Town Engineer Luther M. Stalland Town Attorney REPORT ON MERITS OF INCORPORATION OF EAGAN TOWNSHIP INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared for the purpose of advising the Board of Supervisors, the Advisory Planning Committee and the residents of Eagan Township of the relative merits of the present township form of government and the village form of gov- ernment. The Board and Planning Committee have been considering the problem of whether to initiate proceedings ever since the legislative enactment in 1959 of special laws relating to incor- poration of townships. Until recently when the Village of Bloom- ington annexed a portion of Burnsville Township, public opinion in Eagan Township appeared to generally be negative on the pro- position of incorporation. Now, however, it is apparent that the residents are more favorably inclined toward considering it. Because of the complexity of the laws relating to these two forms of government and the lack of generally circularized information regarding the advantages and disadvantages of each, the Board of Supervisors appointed a committee to study the en- tire matter and prepare a factual and impartial report so that in the event an election were held on incorporation the residents of Eagan Township could vote on the issue intelligently. For the sake of brevity and clarity, the Committee has divided this report into three main sections: 1. Relative Powers of Townships and Villages, 2. Advantages and Disadvantages of Incorporation, and 3. Procedural Aspects of Incorporation. It should be appreciated that no attempt has been made to cover the fine, technical points of law involved in arriving at any result for the reason that to do so would compel a much more ex- haustive report. Rather, the approach has been to cover the points of greatest interest to the residents of Eagan Township and to give them full opportunity to weigh the matter carefully before voting on the basic issue. Your attention is called to the fact that because of Eagan Township's proximity to cities of the first class, i.e. Minneapolis and St. Paul, it has many of the same powers as 1 villages by virtue of special laws applying only to towns such as Eagan situated within the metropolitan area. This report will be made available to all Eagan residents. The Board of Supervisors at a later date intends to call a pub- lic meeting to discuss the report and related matters in which the people are interested. Thereafter the Board will initiate such action as it deems warranted under the circumstances. I. RELATIVE POWERS OF TOWNSHIPS AND VILLAGES 1. GOVERNING BODY TOWNSHIP: Three supervisors compose the Board who, in turn, elect their own chairman. Each supervisor is elected for a three year term on a staggered basis so that one super- visor is elected each year at the annual town meeting. In addi- tion, townships elect a Clerk, Treasurer, Assessor, two Justices of the Peace and two Constables, each for two year terms. A11 town officials are elected at large. (367.03) VILLAGE: The village council is composed of five members - mayor, clerk and three trustees. The three trustees are elected for 3 year terms and all other officers for two . year terms. If a municipal court is organized, the judge is elected for a four year term. Village officers are likewise elected at large, or under ward system if appropriate action is taken (414.02 (Subd. 3) 2. GENERAL POWERS TOWNSHIP AND VILLAGE: Each system of government has the right to provide for and regulate the use of streets, sewers, sidewalks, public grounds, trees, cemeteries, waterworks, tourist camps, parking facilities, hospitals and street naming and number- ing; to establish a fire department; to regulate transient deal- ers, taxis, the keeping of animals, health, nuisances, construc- tion of buildings, amusements, vice, zoning and the general wel- fare. (412.221) 3. SPECIFIC POWERS TOWNSHIP AND VILLAGE: Other comparable powers in- clude the authority to create special boards as park boards and to appoint special officers as temporary policeman; (412.111) to enact ordinances (412.191(4) and provide for penalties for vio- lation of these ordinances; (412.231) to establish parks and recreational facilities (412.491) and to provide for vacation of streets. (412.851) - 2 - 4. JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS TOWNSHIP AND VILLAGE: Two or more governmental units as two townships or a village and a township may exercise jointly any power common to both such as establishing a fire department. (471.59) �`. REVENUE POWERS TOWNSHIP AND VILLAGE: a. Fines collected for violations of township ordinances previously paid to the county may now be paid directly into the township treasury comparable to the procedure in use by villages. (412.871) b. Certain license, permit and inspection fees imposed on such things as transient dealers, taxis and amusements are now equally available to both forms of government. (412.221) ble for only to c. Metropolitan area townships are also eligi- part of the state cigarette tax otherwise accorded cities and villages. (297.13) d. Further, the limitations formerly placed upon townships in raising revenue through special assess- ments have largely been eliminated by legislation enacted in 1961. (429.011) TOWNSHIP: This unit of government has no authority to establish a municipal liquor store or to issue hard liquor licenses to individuals and participate in the apportionment of the state liquor tax only indirectly through the county. (340.60(2)) VILLAGE: A municipal or hard liquor licenses issued to tion an incorporated municipality the liquor tax apportioned by the 6. BONDED INDEBTEDNESS liquor store may be provided for private individuals and in addi- acquires a direct proportion of state. TOWNSHIP: Areas in which a township has authority to incur bonded indebtedness include acquisition and betterment of the town hall, town roads and bridges, nursing homes and homes for the aged, and for acquisition of equipment for snow removal, road construction or maintenance and fire fighting. (475.52 Subd. 4) VILLAGE: In addition to powers comparable to these of the township listed above, a village may issue bonds for gar- -3- bags disposal, schools, libraries, parks, playgrounds, sewers, sewage disposal, streets, sidewalks and other utilities and public conveniences. (475.52 Subd. 1) 7. DEBT LIMITATIONS TOWNSHIP AND VILLAGE: The amount of net debt which either a town or village may incur (except those receiving spe- cial state aid) cannot exceed 20% of the assessed value of its real property. (475.53) However, there are some areas where additional indebtedness can be incurred in excess of this lim- itation as, for example, road drainage, waterworks and street lights. Both towns and villages have what appear to be unlimited powers to fund through the issuance of bonds those improvements for which benefited property can be assessed. Such indebtedness theoretically would not be included within the 20% limitation mentioned above. (429.01 et seq.) 8. POLICE AND FIRE PROTECTION TOWNSHIP AND VILLAGE: Townships may now appoint policemen for law enforcement purposes similar to the power for- merly held only by villages and cities. (412.111) A township similarly has the authority to provide for fire protection for its residents. (412.221) 9. CONTRACT RIGHTS TOWNSHIP: Although a township can make contracts necessary for the exercise of its corporate powers, neither elec- tors at the town meeting nor the Town Board, for example, has the power to contract to provide electrical service to its inhabi- tants. (412.221(2) VILLAGE: The village council has authority to make such contracts as may be deemed necessary or desirable to make effective all powers possessed by the council which are some- what broader than those of the township. 10. INCORPORATION TOWNSHIP: The Minnesota Legislature has enacted a provision whereby a township that is largely rural but with cer- tai,n residential concentrations may proceed to incorporate the entire township and set up a system of wards which will help to create an equilization of voting power as well as to assure more equitable expenditures for all the residents of the township. (414.02 Subd. 3) 4 11.. ANNEXATION TOWNSHIP: Under the new annexation provisions, a petition may be filed with the Minnesota Municipal Commission for annexation of a township or of a part thereof to an incor- porated municipality by either the annexing municipality or by the residents of the township without an election, whereas a majority of the voters of an incorporated area must consent to annexation of that area to another municipality. If the land to be annexed does not exceed 200 acres, no petition need be filed with the Commission. Consent of a majority of the land- owners within the 200 acre area is sufficient for annexation. (414.03 et seq.) 12. TAX STRUCTURE TOWNSHIP: The mill rate applicable to townships is limited to a 17 mill maximum for all general and special pur- poses including payment of indebtedness and bonds. A town- ship may however,levy a tax in excess of 17 mills if total town taxes do not exceed the sum of $1,000 multiplied by the number of sections of land in the township. (275.10) (275.32) VILLAGE: Eagan Township, with a current assessed valuation of approximately 32,000,000, could, if it were to in- corporate, impose a maximum mill rate of 30 mills for general village purposes. However, a village may levy additional taxes within certain prescribed limits for such expenditures as prin- cipal and interest on outstanding obligations, payment of judg- ments, support and relief of the poor, musical entertainment, a municipal forest, advertising purposes, forest fire protec- tion, a fund designed to pay for utilities supplied to the vil- lage, support for a public library and a fireman's relief asso- ciation. (412.251) The services offered by the village may, therefore, offset the lower tax rate of the township. XI. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF INCORPORATION Whether incorporation of Eagan Township is advantageous or not depends to a large extent on the impact of future growth of the town, and how the electorate and its governing officers react to both existing and potential problems confronting them. It should be appreciated that what one person considers an advantage, another will consider a disadvantage. This should be kept in mind when weighing the lists below. Based upon the comparisons set forth in part I., the ad- vantages and disadvantages theoretically appear as follows: 5 ADVANTAGES 1. A village council, per se, has broader powers than a town board to act with respect to making contracts, in- curring indebtedness and providing better protection and ser- vices. 2. A village council can act upon some matters that a town board cannot act upon without approval from the voters. This can be an advantage because the council usually is better informed about matters to be acted upon and can make decisions quickly and efficiently. 3. By incorporating, annexation of up to 200 acres of a town to an adjacent city or village, as in the manner of Burnsville, could not occur. 4. A village caa license the sale of intoxicating liquors and/or operate a municipal liquor store if it feels this is an advantage, whereas a town cannot. 5. A village has greater taxing power through greater mill rate limitation. 6. Village real estate values are likely to be higher because of the increased services available. This is evidenced by the attitude of F.H.A. and V.A. in financing by increased mort- gage committments. DISADVANTAGES 1. Voters have less control in village than in town in controlling expenditures. 2. Taxes may become higher in villages than in towns because of the extension of public services. 3. Unless a ward system for voting were established, one or more highly populated areas could control the election of public officers. 4. The direct personal contact between voters and town board is lost in village form of government. III. PROCEDURE FOR INCORPORATION 1. The steps necessary for the incorporation of Eagan Township include the following:** a. Three free holders may initiate the proceedings by providing for a census of residents and residential buildings in the township. b. A map of the township must be prepared setting forth the boundaries and designating residential struc- tures of the territory proposed to be incorporated. c. A petition is then prepared and signed by at least 100 freeholders and submitted to the Municipal Commission requesting that a hearing be held. d. The Commission shall then set a time and place for a hearing to be held between 30 to 45 days from the date the petition was received. e. If the Commission approves the incorporation, it then fixes a date for an election to be held within 40 days from the date that it enters its approval order. f. If a majority of the voters favor incorporation, the Commission then enters an order of incorporation. ••It may be possible for the Municipal Commission to begin pro- ceedings on its own to determine whether the area should be in- corporated. COMMITTEE ON INCORPORATION 7 Delay Proposed for Eagan Incorporation A request has been forwarded to the Minnesota Municipal Commission by Eagan town board members that no action be taken on incorporation of Eagad until September. Town board members voted to ratify the action of the legislature to permit incorporation but asked that de- termination of "appropriateness of incorporation" be de- layed until after summer vacations end so that all interest- ed persons are available to attend the required meetings. MMC approval of incorporation would be followed by a voter referendum which. if favorable, would lead to the drafting of a city charter. Proponents of incorporation have suggested that the town board's request for a delay is a "stall" and could lead to loss of interest in the proposal. IIere5 iire d; dw'r Idler Y e i ve rec A CINcEeNEO corm IT TEE uNPNIWUSoi ENDORSES C1TY CHARTER_ QuE2NMENT EAkAN 15 2FA04 ID CAvEPN ITSELF win-, A TQ.vN 2EPRES6NT- ATivE RPM OF &ouEQN WENT ... • /T /5 A PPROPR/ATE " Now I rrlor 1O 7re UCLLI "irtorntetiontl" peeiiIQ Jou received a COMMMTMEE RenorF on INCeRfloRATION. You also received a 2-oeoe le -Her Oont Jahn Kleih crPosina iwcereor- C+ieN RUT why yow receive +he letter Crow +he IMCOQOo2ATiON CbMAhiTTtE eadors IHQ and suvoor+iWQ I NCO2 Do¢ATioN HEaE 1i 71slr LETTER. 5-rum1 1r AloNfs warm71.E "FACTS" In THE COMMITTEE Recter AND You -Teo "IL 6E A 5vPPoRTE2 OF HOME 2vice CHAva COY CHARTER aneemmemT AP -me a In of trua EAbAN IS WAIN ID (Albert ITsEcc wirH A 1IIAV 12EPIZeSubr- flue MR/4 oF C.OuEl2Nmemr "Home. Rue arr. • IT /5 A PPRoPP/A7E " CAU A ms-Avtst OF TAle aMn# r.2re if %Vivi Fa MoNE oat mor00.4 ON NOV 3 t51/T y ow receive i-k e Istgr cvoi« i-ke INCOEPOUTION Co ttl TitE ewdor- ia and suvoorilwa L102 POVAlioN ? Pees is THAT Lerma . 5-N01 sr Alow, wrai THE Firsin THE COmurracE ReAgar AAP Tbo wilt 85 A 5uPPoRTeg or Ha ME PAICE. alma CITY VoTE FOR. THE FORM or GOVERNMENT Vol) 17E5.....salE fa0 (dry cm,ers,e Prior to +he Dct.21 "inl'ornictionzl" i5K'eiiHQ You received a COMMITTEE Reoor} oa I N CeR 12oRATI O IJ • loin also received a 2-oecie let'er 41rowi Jam kleiM cnvosina iwcerPor- a+lou BUT wh'l clidn'i You receive +ke 121.11r Cram +ke IMCO21702ATION CDItl TTEE endor5- IRQ and SUDDoriina l NCOR P02ATroN ? HERE 15 MAT LETTER. 57001 IT AION(s 4HTH THE 'PACTS in THE eHHITTaE 2eabeT AND You Tb° wltL BE A svPDORTE2 or °HOME eAta ch%wa Ctn. VOTE F02 THE FORM of GOvERNMENT YDU DE5E UE77) " FAY c1fA,e CONCERNED Mn ITTEE. AN INIDSoi -DOR5e6 Pi CHARTER. VEQNNENT Mt 2 in F STur! 1 4 c,AN 15 MIN ID OWERN '5ECF wirH A INN 2E7RE56NT- (11VE FDRN oF . o uE DN MENT IONE eVLE COI • IT /3 APOROPR'A7E P7010 .' rtr Carnal 1115% p 10W0! M.RG INFtt144✓•w Prior io -hie Dell "'dorrnctiontl" n+ee4ir,o you received a COMMITTEE Report on I NCDRVORATIOIJ• Yotn also received a 2-wae le-Ner (love John Klei'i conoo5ina 1wcnreor- C'1•i0N ... RUT why clidn'i Jotw receive +k e 1 .tf er ;Tim ¥he IMCO2202ATION CbnL,ITTE endors NO and suPoor'I'INa I NCmR DORATcoN ? HERE 15 7Fmt CETTER. Siva/ IT AI ON(s w1TH 7HrFACTS In ME CQMNIT>EE ¢Ewer ANP You Tao wlcc 8E A 5VPDDRTeE of "HOME fleca cwA2Ta Gill' ON NOU. 3 ... VOTE F02. THE FORM oF GoveRNINEHT '/ou PESE vE 077 u QV" 598 SIXTY-SIXTH SESSION State of Minnesota H®LSE OF REPRESENTATIVE . , . CHit.PTER 1+44 o �i o T®e 2150 Introduced by \1r. I:nutsu n. Read first Time 'Mar. 29, CiGP, and referred to the Committee on Volropalit:in and Urban Affairs. • '. Committee Itccomntend:ttions. to Pass Apr. 22, 1969. ' Committee Report Adopted Apr. 22, 1969. Read Second Time Apr. __, 190 When existing law is changed, matter in italics is new; matter in capitals when in ( ) is old law to he omitted. ?. BILL for an Act ltclating to the Town of Egan; 1'tatyiding ;tn I{Iection by the Electors of the Eagan to l)eterntine Whether to Change the. Porn t;overt:mem of the Town of Eagan to a Rule Charter City; and Granting the Town of Eagan rower to l;ecome a City. Be it enacted by the Lcgisicttire of the .State of ilfinn crola Section 1. The baud of supervisors of the town of Eagan of Dakota county. is hereby 2 authorized to request the Minnesota Municipal Commission to determine the appropriateness of :.. , corporating the to'. n of Eagan as it hone rule chanter city or remaining a town. Such deterr tango: II shall he made by the Minnesota \lurucip:d Commission so far as is practical in accordance with tt:c. 5 provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section •1l4.112. 'inventing incorporation of Sc-c. 2. If the Minnesota Municipal Commission determines that it is appropriate that the tc.vn 2 of Eagan incorporate' -a .;t home rule charter city. then the board of supervisors of said to•;::: .. :3 hereby authorized to conduct an election by ih:: y"lers of snit) town to determine tvhether the ei.'ctnrr: 1 desire to change their form of povernraee.l to a home rule charter city. See.:',. Such election shall be h,J,l in aceordaiii.•e, with the manner provided for the conduct of 2 special town meetings. The ballot sh::!I lie marked as follows: Shall. the town of Eagan become incorporated as a home rule charter city? e.- No Sec. -1. hi the event that a :nai•,riEy of ihi. elec:cirs vote in favor of such question t}:en charter commission shall be appointed and the town of Eagan is authorized to become a home rule charter city under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter .110. Sec. 5. This act takes effect when approv,'d by the board of supervisors of the town of Eagan _ and upon compliance with Minnesota Statute;. Section Gi15.02I. _,roved !lay 15, 1969 EY}iIBIT ":\" I - 36 r j w�(a"po BEFORE THE liUNI.CIPAI. cuNM1SSloN OF THE STATE OF iIi.NESOTA Robert W. Johnson Arthur R. Robert J. Fo d Ernest. 1'ho!:,as 1'iei Tint Chairman Virg Chairman Member Ex -Of f is io Mc:•iber Ex-Officio Member IN INF. NATTER OF THE PET TIO!: OF T::E T7:.',' OF E.\C.V' POR 1NC'J: ?'0R.v1'ION OF THE TM:: OF E/'.GAN AS A IIOME. RULE CHARTER CITY FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER WhEREP.S the above entitled matter duly came on for hearing pursuant to the request.of the Board of Supervisors of the Town of Fagan before thr: Minnesota Municipal Commission at the Ens;an Town Hall, Eagan Town - .ship, Ninnasota on March 12, 1970 at 10:00 o'clock A.M., and petitioner appcarzd by and with and place petitioner and no one appearing its counsel, Luther M. presented its evidence in opposition thereto; Stall.and, Esq., at which time in support of its petition, and, W!ERr..\5 the Commission, having read the petition, having heard the evidence adduced at said hearing and subsequent argument of counsel and being fully advised in the premises, now makes the following: FINDINGS OF F:.r_T 1. That the Town of Eagan is now partially urban or suburban in character and contains undeveloped areas which are about to become urban or suburban in character. 2. That the present population of Tom of Eagan is approximately 12,000; that in 1940 the population was (+proximately 1,000; in 1950 approximately 1,200, in 1960 approximately 3,300 and in 1965 approximately 5,000; that it is projected that in 1985 the population will approximate 30,000 and in year 2000 will be close to 100,000. 3. That Town of Eagan contains approximately 21,600 acres, or 32.75 sections, of lend which at the present time 3,100 acres are platted EXHIBIT "B" and remaining 18,500 acres arc unplalted lands. 4. That the present pattern of physical development is basically as follows: Residential development, and the greater part of the population, is.conccntrated largely in "sections 2, 3, 4, 9, 17, 19, 20 and 30 which generally are situated in the northerly and westerly portions of the town; that the commercial and industrial areas that have been developed are likewise in these general areas and principally along Highways 55 and 49 in the North and East. and Westerly of Highway 13 on the Lest side of the Town. 5. That Town of Eagan has not developed any comprehensive plan for the town in the formal sense, but through its Advisory Planning Committee, Park Committee and Board of Supervisors, it has over the years evolved a flexible pattern for the orderly and logical growth and development of the town's area. G. That Town of Eagan presently maintains control over the development of the tout through its various ordinances which included ordinances, among others, regulating building permits, zoning and subdivisions. '7. The general terrain of the town is rolling with numerous wooded and pondcd areas throughout all but the Northwestern portion between the railroad tracks and the Minnesota River which is flat marshland; that approximately two -fifths of the Northerly And Westerly portions of the town naturally drains 'to the Minnesota River and the balance of the town, or three -fifths including the Easterly and Southern parts, is pocketed and without substantial drainage to either the Minnesota or Vermillion River watersheds; that there are no other large bodies of water in the town but several small lakes susceptible of recreational use or of scenic value if taken in conjunction with public park areas. 8. That Town of Eagan provides presently through its central system and through a private system water service to twelve sections in the North and West portions of the town and similar sanitary sewer service to approximately nice' sections in the same areas; that it provides police protection through its own department for the entire town; that it provides fire protection for -the entire town through its own adequately equipped volunteer fire department and through contractual arrangements with Villa_,c of Mendota Heights on the North and 2 u..<emoamt on the cn•,rh; that :t h^s its ovn buitrlinf, in-pcctnr. c.^? road c,uiprtnt. and staff adequate to construct, repair and maintain all township roads within the area; that it has at the present time rather limited public recreational facilities but has adopted a park'pinn for future development in the town sufficient to provide such facilities. 9. That there are no existing or potential problems of environmental • pollution in the area at the present time and none should exist in the future if the plans for expansion of sewer, water and storm drainage systems currently in effect and practices arc continued. 10. That the bonded indebtcdness,of petitioner as of December 31, 1969 was $6,273,000.00; that the mill rates for petitioner for the years indicated are as follows: . YEAR OF COLLECTION 1966 ' 1967 1968 1969 1970 STATE HOMESTEAD COUNTY TOY:N SCHOOL ISD C191 Non-ag ISD 0196 Non-ag ISD 0197 Pion-ng 18.42 Mills 17.14 Mills (1). 45.54 Mills 50.71 Mills 57.25 Mills 55.68 11i11s 55.31 Mills 15.06 Mills 15.82 Mills 19.05 Mills 16.90 Mills 22.89 Mills 136.77 dills 146.00 Mills 171.18 Mills 259.00 Mills 237.15 Mills 154.47 Mills 179.88 Mills 204.27 Mills 228.27 Mills 311.19 Mills 160.86 Mills 145.76 Mills 161.28 Mills 166.77 Mills 201.99 Mills (1) Eliminated by State Sales Tax 11. That the area proposed for incorporation contains no physical features which would render provisions of municipal services to all parts of the area by the proposed.city impractical. 12. That the assessed valuation of the Town of Eagan was $8,717,238 in 1969, $8,351,134 in 1968, $4,985,207 in 1967, $4,709,061 in 1966, and $3,844,656 in 1965. Approxitately 40% of the. assessed valuation for 1969 was industrial, commercial and public utility. There will be continued growth in assessed valuation. 13. That the township form of government is not adequate to cope with the problems of urban or suburban growth. 14. That annexation of all or a part of the area herein to an 3 adjoining municipality would not better serve the interests of the area. CONCL!ISI0::5 OF 1.AI' 1. That the Town of Eagan is now partially urban or suburban in character and contains undeveloped areas which arc about to become urban or suburban in character. 2. That the area proposed for incorporation is fit to be governed by a single municipal. government. 3. That the area proposed for incorporation presently has and will continue to have a sufficient assessed valuation to provide.the tax revenue needed to pay for required municipal services. 4. That the area proposed for incorporation presently contains a sufficient number of people to allow efficient and economical provision of municipal services. 5. That pursuant to Laws of Minnesota 1969, Chapter 444, the Minnesota Municipal Commission determines as a matter of law that it is appropriate for the Town of Eagan to incorporate as a home rule charter city provided a majority of the electors residing therein vote affirmatively that the Town of Eagan should become so incorporated. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: That the Minnesota Municipal Commission determines that it is appropriate that the Town of Eagan, County of Dakota, State of Minnesota incorporate as a hone rule charter city; and, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: That the Board of Supervisors of Town of Eagan are hereby authorized in accordance with laws of Minnesota 1969, Chapter 444, to conduct an ,election by the voters of said town to .y determine whether they desire to change their form of government to a home rule charter city. Dated this70th day of June, 1970 MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL COMMISSION 610 Cnpitol Square Building St, Paul, Minnesota 55101 Bruce Rasmussen Secretary 5 I=41 Enran BEFORE TIIE MUNICIPAL COU.IISSION Rohert Arthur Robert Ernest Gerald OF THE STATE P. J. W. E. Johnson Swan .Ford Ahlherg follenkamp OF MINNESOTA Chairman Vice Chairman Member Ex-Officio Member Ex-Officio Member IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ) THE I:'CORPORATIO:' OF THE TO::"' OF ) E.AGAN AS TEE VILLAGE OF EAGY.t NOTICE OF FEARING 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 25th day of August, 1971, in the Eagan Town Hall, 3795 Pilot Knob Road, St. Paul, 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 Incorporation is the entire Town of Eagan. et h. �<�%'JJL 14 1571 'r-1 Dated this 13th day of July, 1971 F INNESOTA IliNICIPAL COMIMIS SIGN 304 Capitol Square Buildinr, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Bruce Rasmussen Executive Secretary E:{iiI3I'i' "C" • MOTION "It is my firm belief and conviction that the people should have the right to determine their form of government through an election. I believe this to be one of our basic rights in this Democracy, and provided by the Con- stitution. I make a motion that we direct the town attorney to enjoin the PAIL Hearings on incorporation until such time as the Courts have determined the constitutionality of the law relating to incorporation from town to village, because the law now does not provide for an election by the people of Eagan township; and, further, to authorize him to take any and all legal steps which he deems necessary and appropriate to insure that the people of this town have the opportunity to vote on this question before any further proceedings are had before the MC:" Motion made by Chairman Klein and seconded by Supervisor Rahn. Klein and Rahn voted aye. Supervisor Uselmahn voted nay. Motion passed. EXHIBIT "D" • STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT TOWN OF EAGAN, Plaintiff, vs. IMINNESOTA MUNICIPAL COHHISSION, Defendant. STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) AFFIDAVIT LUTHER M. STALLAND, being first duly scorn, deposes and states that he is the attorney for plaintiff and makes this affidavit in support of the attached motion to enjoin defendant from proceedins with its hearing on the pending petition for incorporation of Town of Eagan as a village until such time as the attached declaratory judgment action is finally determined; that prior to the 1969 Minnesota State legislative session, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 414, and in particular Section 414.02, provided for an election of the resident voters in any unincorporated area in which a petition for incorpora- tion had been filed; that by amendment to said Section 414.02 in the 1959 session of the Minnesota Legislature the vote provision was eliminated; that upon information and belief the deletion of said vote provision was inadvertent on the part of the legislative sub -committee and legislature whose real intent and purpose was to include said vote provision in the amendment to said Section 414.02; that also inadvertently this sub -committee omitted a time provision within which subsequent petitions for incorporation could be filed, the original Chapter 414 having provided that no petition could be filed within two (2) years of the denial of a previously filed petition for incorporation and therefore the present Minnesota Statutes Chapter 414 is vague and indefin- ite as to when and how subsequent petitions for incorporation may be entertained by the defendant; and that taken in conjunction with the incorporation election in November, 1970 pursuant to special legislation entitled "Eagan, Town of- Election- Incorporation as City, Chapter 444, H. F. No. 2150, Approved May 15, 1969" which resulted in a vote of the freeholders of Town of Eagan approximately 2 to 1 opposed to incorporate as a charter city raises the question as to whether the pending hearing cefore defendant Minnesota Municipal Commission is a.) res judicata; or 2.) premature for lack of a reasonable time limit on sub- sequent incorporation petitions being considered by the defendant; and c.) pre- judicial by the fact that the majority of the Hinnesota Municipal Commission membership sat on the hearing and administrative adjudication of the last mentioned incorporation hearings carried on in 1970 and therefore, because of defendant's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order for an incorporatio-. election, are now precluded from adjudging the present petition for incorporatiu',,. That, in any event, plaintiff is entitled to an adjudication by this Court of its rights and the rights of its citizens under and pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 414 and to a construction of said statute in the light of constitutional issues raised by plaintiff in that said section fails for lack of a vote provision and is, or may be, unconstitutional for lack of a definite time limit on the filing and consideration of subsequent petitions for incorporation; and that the present body of the Commission is, or should be, precluded from adjudging the pending petition for incorporation. Further affiant saith not. ::/Luther M. Stalland Luther M. Stalland Subscribed and sworn to before me this 23rd day of August, 1971. s/ George H. Hoey George H. Hoey Notary Public, Hennepin County, Minn. My Commission Expires Feb. 4, 1977 STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT TOIWN OF EAGAN, JOHN J. KLEIN and ARTHUR F. RAHN, as a majority of the Town Board and Individually, Plaintiffs, vs. MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL C0MMISSION, Defendant. THE STATE OF MINNESOTA TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT: SUMMONS You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon the attorneys for plaintiffs an Answer to the Complaint, which is herewith served upon you, within twenty (20) days after service of this Summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the Complaint. Dated: August 23, 1971. STALLAND & HAUGE By s/ Luther M. Stalland Luther M. Stalland Attorneys for Plaintiffs 2340 pain Tower Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 336-8361 STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT TO11N OF EAGAN, JOHN J. ILEIU and ARTHUR F. RAHN, as a majority of the Torn Board and Individually, Plaintiffs, vs. iINNESOTA MUNICIPAL COIMMISSION, Defendant. COMPLAINT Plaintiffs state and allege: 1. That Town of Eagan is a duly constituted unincorporated township situated in Dakota County, Minnesota empowered with certain village powers by virtue of Minnesota Statutes Section 368.01. 2. That the 1969 Minnesota Legislature passed special legislation entitled "Eagan, Town of- Election- Incorporation as City, Chapter 444, H. F. No. 2150", copy of which is hereto attached as Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof, which was approved May 15, 1969 and which, in substance provided that the defendant Minnesota Municipal Commission, upon the request of plaintiff's town board, determine the appropriateness of incorporating plaintiff as a home rule charter city or remaining a town, and that if defendant determined that plaintiff was appropriate for incorporation as a home rule charter city, then said town board was authorized to conduct an election by the voters of Town of Eagan to determine whether they desired to change their form of government from a town to a home rule charter city. 3. That in accordance therewith plaintiff's Board of Supervisors on September 29, 1969 did adopt an appropriate resolution requesting a hearing before defendant commission which was granted; that on January 6, 1970 a pre-trial hearing before defendant commission was held and thereafter a hear- ing was held on the merits on March 12, 1970 which was followed by Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order of the defendant dated June 30, 1970, copy of which is hereto attached as Exhibit "D" and made a part hereof, which did determine that plaintiff was appropriate for incorporation as a charter city and authorizing plaintiff's board to conduct such an election. 4. That on November 3, 1970, pursuant to resolution of the plain- tiff's town board, said election was duly held in conjunction with the general election which resulted in a vote of 1,231 in favor of incorporation as a home rule charter city and 2,050 opposed to said incorporation and in favor of remaining a town. 5. That on April 27, 1971 a petition for incorporation of Town of Eagan as a village was filed with defendant pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 414.02 by 100 or more property owners residing in Town of Eagan, and thereafter defendant served a notice of hearing dated July 13, 1971 on plain- tiff, copy of which is hereto attached as Exhibit "C" and made a part hereof, setting the first hearing on said petition for August 25, 1971; that on May 4, 1971 a petition signed by approximately 400 resident property owners residing in Town of Eagan filed with defendant a petition in opposition to the aforesaid petition for incorporation; that on May 14, 1971 an amendment to the said peti- tion for incorporation was filed by the petitioners. 6. That at a regular meeting of the town board held on August 3, 1971 a majority of the board passed a motion which, in substance, directed and authorized the town attorney to take appropriate action to enjoin defendant's scheduled hearing until a determination could be made of the constitutionality and legality of said laws under which defendant is enabled to consider said petition and conduct the hearings for incorporation, copy of said motion being hereto attached as Exhibit "D" and made a part hereof. 7. That Minnesota Statutes Section 414.02 is unconstitutional and invalid for its failure to contain and lack of provision for a vote of the residents of the unincorporated areas to be considered for incorporation by defendant in contravention and violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and Article I, Sections 1 and 2 of the Con- stitution of the State of Minnesota, and similarily, said statute is vague and indefinite as to the time element for the filing of subsequent petitions for incorporation which is further in violation and contravention of said federal and state constitutional provisions. 8. That the majority of the present composition of defendant commis- sion sat in judgment on the question of the appropriateness of incorporation of plaintiff as a charter city and concluded by its said order dated June 30, 1970 and its findings and conclusions that plaintiff was appropriate for incorporation as a charter city rather than to remain a town, and that thereby defendant commission, or a majority of its members, have prejudiced and dis- qualified themselves from sitting on this commission to hear said petition for incorporation of plaintiff as a village now pending before it. -2- 9. That the final determination of defendant commission by its said order of June 30, 1970 and by the subsequent election results pursuant to said order and by authority of said special legislation (Exhibit "A") is res judicata on the question of any incorporation of Town of Eagan at this point in time as being an unreasonable burden upon plaintiff and its voting resi- dents to have to consider incorporation again within less than a year from the said election of November 3, 1970. 10. That, upon information and belief, the 1969 Minnesota Legislature inadvertently left out the vote provision when it amended said Minnesota Statutes Section 414.02 and thereby said statute is void, unlawful and unconstitutional. 11. That this action is one for a declaratory judgment to determine the rights of the plaintiffs with respect to said Minnesota Statutes Section 414.02 and its lack of provision for a vote of the people of the Town of Eagan and specifying a reasonable time limit within which subsequent incorpora- tion petitions may be filed and acted upon by defendant and whether or not, in fact, the legislature actually intended to amend said statute so as to leave out said vote provision, and, finally, to determine whether the matter of incorporation is res judicata and whether or not the majority, if not all, of the members of the present defendant commission are prejudiced and disquali- fied from hearing the pending petition for incorporation. WHEREFORE plaintiffs pray judgment of the above -named Court as follows: A. Declaring Minnesota Statutes Section 414.02 unconstitutional for lack of a provision enabling the residents of any unincorporated area subject to incorporation proceedings to vote on any change in their form of government, and further declaring said statute unconstitutional for lack of a definite time within which subsequent petitions for incorporation may be filed and acted upon. B. Declaring said statute unconstitutional on the ground that said vote provision was inadvertently omitted by the 1969 Minnesota Legislature when said Section 414.02 was amended. C. Declaring that in any future incorporation proceedings before the Minnesota Municipal Commission with respect to the pending petition for incorporation of the Town of Eagan as a village, said commission be ordered to hold an election in the same manner and to the same extent as required by said Section 414.02 as it provided for prior to the amendment by the 1969 Minnesota Legislature. D. Declaring that the pending incorporation proceedings be suspended for a reasonable period but not less than two (2) years from and after the date of the said incorporation election of November 3, 1970. E. Declaring the defendant commission members, or a majority of them who heard the 1970 incorporation petition as aforesaid, to be prejudiced and disqualified by virtue of their findings, conclusions and order of June 30, 1970 from now hearing the said pending petition for incorporation. Dated: August 23, 1971 STALLAND & HAUGE By s/ Luther M. Stalland Luther M. Stalland Attorneys for Plaintiffs 2340 Dain Tower Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 336-0361 STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT TOWN OF EAGAN, Plaintiff, vs. MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL COIIIISSION, Defendant. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHEREAS defendant has heretofore set a date for hearing on the petition of 100 freeholders for the incorporation of Town of Eagan, Dakota County, State of Minnesota on August 25, 1971 at 10:00 o'clock A.M. at the Eagan Town Hall pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 414.02; NO7 THEREFORE upon the attached motion, notice of motion, supporting affidavit, and upon application of counsel, and upon all the records, files and proceedings herein; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Minnesota Municipal Commifision show cause before the above -named Court on the day of September, 1971 at c? .10° o'clock A.M. in the forenoon at the Courthouse in the City of Hastings, Minnesota why defendant should not be restrained and temporarily enjoined from proceeding with said proceedings for the consideration of the incorporation of Town of Eagan as a village pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 414.02 pending determination of the attached action for declaratory judgment; and IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Minnesota Municipal Com- mission is hereby restrained from proceedin3 with the incorporation hearings scheduled for August 'c5, 1971 until further order of this Court; and IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that copies of this order and said motic,- and summons and complaint in said declaratory judgment action shall be papers served forthwith upon all appropriate parties to this litigation. Dated: August 3, 1971 s/ Robert J. Breunig JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT TOWi1 OF EAGAN, Plaintiff, vs. MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL COt-iMISSION, Defendant. MOTION AND NOTICE OF MOTION Plaintiff moves the above -named Court as follows: 1. For the issuance of a temporary injunction restraining defendant from proceeding with the proposed hearing in re the petition for incorporation of the Town of Eagan as a village until such time as the attached action for declaratory judgment has been tried and a final determination thereof made. 2. For an order of the above -named Court advancing said action for declaratory judgment on the Court Calendar and setting an early date for trial commensurate with requisite time for discovery procedures prior thereto. 3. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem appro- priate in the circumstances. STALLAND & HAUGE By s/ Luther M. Stalland Luther M. Stalland Attorneys for Plaintiff 2340 Dain Tower Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 336-0361 NOTICE OF MOTION T0: MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL CO"i&iISSION AND BRUCE RASMUSSEN, ITS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, AND WARREN SPANNAUS, ATTORNEY GENERAL, APED JACK WALLACE, ESQ., ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONERS PLEASE TARE NOTICE that the foregoing motion will be brought on for hearing on the ? day of September, 1971 at �i : U U o' clock A.14. in the forenoon at the Courthouse in the City of Hastings, State of Minnesota before the Honorable Robert J. Dreunig, Judge of the District Court, or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard. STALLAND & HAUGE By s/Luther 11. Stalland Luther M. Stalland Attorneys for Plaintiff 2340 Dain Tower Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 335-g3G1 Subject: The Secretary of State to_the chief clerical officer of: in reference to Laws, 1969, Chapter �Y Li '1(, applying to said local unit, i-�- 1- ve 4.- te- L —t—( When law has been approved locally, submit enclosed certificate along with A COPY OF the RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL, to the SECRETARY OF STATE. Approval must have been taken after final enactment of the bill, and must be filed prior to the opening day of the 1970 Legislature, otherwise under provision of Minnesota Statutes 645.021, Subdivision 1, it will be deemed to be disapproved. Correspondence should be directed: Secretary of State, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101, attention Forrest Talbott, Assistant Secretary of State (Phone St. Paul 221-2309) Stale of Mhines©ta Q. SIXTY-SIXTH SESSION 0 1L 0 593 i No. 2150 Introduced by Mr. Knutso n. Read First Time Mar. 29, 1969, and referred to the Committee on Metropolitan and Urban Affairs. Committee Recommendations, to Pass Apr. 22, 1969. Committee Report Adopted Apr. 22, 1969. Read Second Time Apr. 22, 1969. When existing law is changed, matter in italics is new; matter in capitals when in ( ) is old law to be omitted. A BILL for an Act Relating to the Town of Egan; Providing an Election by the Electors of the Town of Eagan to Determine Whether to Change the Form of Government of the Town of Eagan to a Horne Rule Charter City; and Granting the Town of Eagan Power to Become a City. Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Minnesota: Section 1. The board of supervisors of the town of Eagan of Dakota county, is hereby 2 authorized to request the Minnesota Municipal Commission to determine the appropriateness of in- 3 corporating the town of Eagan as a home rule charter city or remaining a town. Such determination 4 shall be made by the Minnesota Municipal Commission so far as is practical in accordance with the 5 provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 414.02, governing incorporation of a village. Sec. 2. If the Minnesota Municipal Commission determines that it is appropriate that the town 2 of Eagan incorporate as a home rule charter city, then the board of supervisors of said town is 3 hereby authorized to conduct an election by the voters of said town to determine whether the electors 4 desire to change their form of government to a home rule charter city. Sec. 3. Such election shall be held in accordance with the manner provided for the conduct of 2 special town meetings. The ballot shall be marked as follows: 3 "Shall the town of Eagan become incorporated as a home rule charter city? 4 Yes 5 No PI Sec. 4. In the event that a majority of the electors vote in favor of such question then a 4 ,1 7 2 charter commission shall be appointed and' the town of Egan is authorized to become• a home -rule 3 charter city under the 'provisions of '.Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 410. Sec..55. This '.act takes , effedt when approved by the board of supervisors of the town of Eagan 2 and upon 'compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 645.021. I-36 MEMORANDUM The proceeding herein was conducted pursuant to Lows of Minnesota 1969, Chapter 444, a special act allowing the Town of Eagan to become a home -rule charter city providing certain con- ditions are met. Chapter 444 refers to Minnesota Statutes 414.02 to control our determination of whether it would be appropriate for the Town of Eagan to become a home -rule charter city. Since Chapter 444 was approved prior to the amendments to the Municipal Commission law, we proceeded under Minnesota Statutes 1967, Section 414.02. Our findings would support the incorporation of a village, and hence we conclude that it would also be appropriate for the Town to become a home -rule charter city. Our conclusion is supported by the findings of the 1969 Legislature which are set forth in Chapter 1146, Section 1: "The legislature finds that: (1) sound urban develop- ment is essential to the continued economic growth of this state; (2).municipal government is necessary to provide the governmental services essential to sound urban development and for the protection of health, safety, and welfare in areas being used intensively for residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, and governmental purposes or in areas undergoing such development; (3) The public interest requires that municipalities be formed when there exists or will likely exist the necessary resources to provide for their economical and efficient operation; (4) annexation to or consolidation with existing municipalities or unin- corporated areas unable to supply municipal services should be facilitated; and, (5) the consolidation of municipalities should be encouraged. It is the purpose . of this chapter to empower the Minnesota Municipal Commission to promote and regulate development of municipalities so that the public interest in efficient local government will be properly recognized and served." However, our conclusion does not mean that the Town will automatically become a city. The board of supervisors is merely authorized to conduct an election on the question. If the question is approved by a majority of the electors, a charter commission is appointed. Before becoming a city, the charter commission must propose a charter and it must be approved at another election. The responsibility for prompt action in accordance with our order lies with the community. We wish to make clear that the Order herein in no way suspends the legal processes available to the residents of the Town of Eagan. If a petition of any kind is brought before the commission, we have no alternative but 'to proceed forthwith in the normal manner. i - 36 BEFORE TIIE MUNICIPAL COMMISSION OF TIIE STATE OF Hn:NE50TA Robert W. Johnson Arthur R. Swan Robert J. Ford Ernest. Ahlberg Thomas Freiiing Chairman Vir.e Chairman Member Ex-0fficio Member Ex-Offi.cio Member IN THS NATTER OF TIIE PETITION OF ) THE TOW G OF E ACAN FOR INCO:U'ORATION ) OF THE TOWN OF. EAGAN AS A HOME RULE ) CHARTER CITY ) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER WHEREAS the above entitled matter duly came on for hearing pursuant to the request of the Board of -Supervisors of the Town of Fagan before the Minnesota Municipal Commission at the Eagan Town Hall, Eagan Town - .ship, Minnesota on March 12, 1970 at 10:00 o'clock A.M., and petitioner Appeared by and with its eounsel,.Luther W. Stalland, Esq., at which time and place petitioner presented its evidence in support of its petition, and no one appearing in opposition thereto; and, WHEREAS the Commission, having read the petition, having heard the evidence adduced at said hearing and subsequent argument of counsel and being fully advised in the premises, now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That the Town of Eagan is now partially urban or suburban in character and contains undeveloped areas which are about to become urban or suburban in character. 2. That the present population of Town of Eagan is approximately 12,000; that in 1940 the population was approximately 1,000; in 1950 approximately 1,200, in 1960 approximately 3,300 and in 1965 approximately 5,000; that it is projected that in 1985 the population will approximate 30,000 and in year 2000 will be close•to 100,000. 3. That Town of Eagan contains approximately 21,600 acres, or 32.75 sections, of land which at the present time 3,100 acres are platted and remaining 18,500 acres are unplattcd lands. 4. That the present pattern of physical development is basically as follows: Residential development, and the greater part of the population, is.concentrated largely in 'sections 2, 3, 4, 9, 17, 19, 20 and 30 which generally are situated in the northerly and westerly portions of the town;. that the commercial and industrial areas that have been developed are likewise in these general areas and principally along Highways 55 and 49 in the North and East and Westerly of Highw•ray 13 on the West side of the Town. 5. That Town of Eagan has not developed any comprehensive plan for the town in the formal sense, but through its Advisory Planning Committer, Park Committee and Board of Supervisors, it has over the years evolved a flexible pattern for the orderly and logical growth and development of the town's area. 6. That Town of Fagan presently maintains control over the development of the town through its various ordinances which included ordinances, among others, regulating building permits, zoning and subdivisions. '7. The general terrain of the town is rolling with numerous wooded and ponded areas throughout all but the Northwestern portion between the railroad tracks and the Minnesota River.which is flat marshland; that approximately two -fifths of the Northerly And Westerly portions of the town naturally drains • 'to the Minnesota River and the balance of the town, or three -fifths including the Easterly and Southern parts, is pocketed and without substantial drainage to either the Minnesota or Vermillion River watersheds; that there are no other ' large bodies of water in the town but several small lakes susceptible of recreational use or of scenic value if taken in conjunction with public park . areas. 8. That Town of Eagan provides presently through its central system and through a private system water service to twelve sections in the North and West portions of the town and similar sanitary sewer service to approximately nine sections in the same areas; that it provides police protection through its own department for the entire town; that it provides fire protection for the entire town through its own adequately equipped volunteer fire department and through contractual arrangements with Village of Mendota Heights on the North and 2 Rosemount en the South; that it has its own building in;pcctor and road c ::iipmcnt_. and staff adequate to construct, repair and maintain all township roads within the area; that it has at the present time rather limited public recreational facilities but has adopted a park plan for future development in the town sufficient to provide such facilities. 9. That there are no existing or potential problems of environmental pollution in the area at the present time and none should exist in the future if the plans for expansion of sewer, water and storm drainage systems currentlyin effect and practices are continued. 10. That the bonded indebtedness of petitioner as of December 31, 1969 was $6,273,000.00; that the mill rates for petitioner for the years indicated are as follows: YEAR OF COLLECTION 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 STATE 18.42 Mills 17.14 Mills (1) (1) (1) HOMESTEAD COUNTY 45.54 Mills 50.71 Mills 57.25 Mills 55.68 Mills 55.31 Mills TOWN • 15.06 Mills 15.82 Mills 19.05 Mills 16.90 Mills 22.89 Mills SCHOOL ISD 0191 Non-ag ISD 0196 Non-ag ISD 0197 Non-ag 136.77 Mills 146.00 Mills 171.18 Mills 259.00 Mills 237.15 Mills 154.47 Mills 179.88 Mills 204.27 Mills 228.27 Mills 311.19 Mills 160.86 Mills 145.76 Mills 161.28 Mills 166.72 Mills 201.99 Mills (1) Eliminated by State Sales Tax 11. That the area proposed for incorporation contains no physical features which would render provisions of municipal services to all parts of the area by the proposed city impractical. 12. That the assessed valuation of the Town of Eagan was $8,717,238 in 1969, $8,351,134 in 1968, $4,985,207 in 1967, $4,709,061 in 1966, and $3,844,656 in 1965. Approximately 407. of the assessed valuation for 1969 was industrial, commercial and public utility. There will be continued growth in assessed valuation. 13. That the township form of government is not adequate to cope with the problems of urban or suburban growth. 14. That annexation of all or a part of the area herein to an 3 adjoining municipality would not better serve the interests of the area. CONCLUSIONS OF LA6' 1. That the Town of Eagan is now partially urban or suburban ' in character and contains undeveloped areas which arc about to become urban or suburban in character. 2. That the area proposed for incorporation is fit to be governed by a single municipal government. 3. • That the area proposed for incorporation presently has and will continue to have a sufficient assessed valuation to provide.the tax revenue needed to pay for required municipal services. 4. That the area proposed for incorporation presently contains a sufficient number of people to allow efficient and economical 'provision of municipal services. 5. That pursuant to Laws of Minnesota 1969, Chapter 444, the Minnesota Municipal Commission determines as a matter of law that it is appropriate for the Town of Eagan to incorporate as a home rule charter city provided a majority of the electors residing therein vote affirmatively that the Town of Eagan' should become so incorporated. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: That the Minnesota Municipal Commission determines that it is appropriate that the Town of Eagan, County of Dakota, State of Minnesota incorporate as a home rule charter city; and, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: That the Board of Supervisors of Town of 4 Cagan are hereby authorized in accordance with Laws of Minnesota 1969, Chapter 444, to conduct an election by the voters of said town to determine whether they desire to change their form of government to a horse rule charter city. Dated this30" clay of June, 1970 MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL COMMISSION 610 Capitol Square Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 /") Bruce Rasmussen Secretary • 1. - 36 Robert Arthur Roi.<:i. t. E::nest'. " 1:...: r. r. 13!1CRE THE MUNICIPAL CONNiSSION OF THE W. Johacoa R. S\:au J. Ford Ahlberg F:.riling STATE IN THR MATTER uF TEE FF.TETIO ) Ti;i:: TOWN O1 EAG'•.N FOR 1N(2O'.:I'URATION ) OF THE TOWN OF EAGAN AS A NOOME RULE ) CHARTER C;:T ) OF NESOI.A. Chairman Vice Chairman Ex-Offi.cio Member Ex•Offi.r.io tdeMher FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS 01 LAW AND ORDER WHEREAS the above entitled matter duly dune on for hearing to the request of the Board of Supervisors of the Town of Eagan pursuant: before the Minnesota Municipal Con:i:ission at the Eagan Town Hall., Eagan Town- ship, Minne o'ca en March 12, 1970 at 10:00 o'clock A.M., and petitioner appeared by and with its counsel, Luther M. Stal.i.and, Esq., at which time and place petitioner presented its evidence in support and no one appearing in opposition thereto; and, W, . ..., Co:::::tissi ;c:, baying r:.:;d the petition, of its petition, having heard the evidence adduced at said hearing and subsaauent argument of counsel and being fully advised in the premises, now makes the following: FTNDIE;GS OF FACT 1. That the Town of Eagan is now partially urban or suburban in character and contains undeveloped areas which are about to become urban or suburban in character. 2. That the present population of Town of Eagan is approximately 12,000; that in 1940 the population was approximately 1,000; in 1950 approximately 1,200, in 1960 approximately 3,300 and in 1965 approximately 5,000; that it is projected that in 1985 the population will approximate 30,000 and in year 2000 will be close to 100,000. 3. That Town of Eagan contains approximately 21,600 acres, or 32.75 sections; of land which at the present time 3,100 acres are platted and remaining 18,500 acres arc unplatted l.nn:1s. 4. 'That the present pattern of physical development is basically as follows: Residential development, and the greater part of the population, is.concentr.ated largely in sections 2, 3, h, 9, 17, 19, 20 and 30 which generally are situated in the northerly and westerly portions of the town; that the commercial and industrial areas that have been developed are likewise in these general areas and principally along Highways 55 and 49 in the North and East and Westerly of Highway 13 on the West side of the Town. 5. That Town of Eagan has not developed any comprehensive plan for the town in the formal sense, but through its Advisory Planning Committee, Park.Commi.ttee and Board of Supervisors, it has over the years evolved a flexible pattern for the orderly and logical growth and development of the town's area, 6. That Town of: Eagan presently maintains control over the development of the town through its various ordinances which included ordinances, among others, regulating building permits, zoning and subdivisions. '7. The general terrain of the town is rolling with numerous wooded and ponded areas throughout all but the Northwestern portion between the railroad tracks and the Minnesota River which is flat marshland; that approxi.matcly two -fifths of the Northerly and Westerly portions of the tot:n naturally drains 'to the Minnesota River and the balance of the town, or three -fifths including the Easterly and Southern parts, is pocketed and without substantial drainage to either the Minnesota or Vermillion River watersheds; that there are no other large bodies of water in the town but several small lakes susceptible of recreational use or of scenic value if taken in conjunction with public park • areas. 8. That Town of Eagan provides presently through its central system and through a private system water service to twelve sections in the North and West portions of the town and similar sanitary sewer service to approximately nine sections in the same areas; that it provides police protection through its own department for the entire town; that it provides fire protection for the entire town through its own adequately equipped volunteer fire department and through contractual arrangements with Village of Mendota Heights on the North and 2 Res -mount nn the South. t1.,. :. l..,s its own b.iil.rlini, road and staff adequate to construct, repair and maintain all township roads within the area; that: it has at the present time rather limited public recreational facilities but has adopted a park plan for future development in the town sufficient to provide such facilities. 9. That there are no existing or potential problems of environmental pollution in the are: at: the present time and none should exist in the future if the plans for expansion of sewer, water and storm drainage systems currently in effect and practices are continued. 10. That the bonded indebtedness of petitioner as of December 31, 1969. was $6,273,000.00; that the mill rates for petitioner for the years indicated are as follows: YEAR OP COLLECTION 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 STATE 18.42 Mills 17.14 Mills (1) (1) (1) HOMESTEAD COUNTY 45.54 Mills 50.71 Mills 57.25 Mills 55.68 Mills 55.31 Mills TOWN 15.06 Mills 15.82 Mills 19.05 Mills 16.90 Mills 22.89 Milts SCIiOOL ISD 1)191 Non-ag ISD 0196 Non-ag IS1) #197 Non-ag 136.77 Mills 146.00 Mills 171.18 Mills 259.00 Mills 237.15 Mills 154.47 Mills 179.88 Mills 204.27 Mills 228.27 Mills 311.19 Mills 160.86 dills 145.76 Mills 161.28 Mills 165.72 Mills 201.99 Mills (1) Eliminated by State Sales Tax 11. That the area proposed for incorporation contains no physical features which would render provisions of municipal services to all parts of the area by the proposed city impractical. 12. That the assessed valuation of the Town of Eagan was $8,717,238 in 1969, $5,351,134 in 1968, $4,985,207 in 1967, $4,709,061 in 1966, and $3,844,656 in 1965. Approximately 407, of the assessed valuation for 1969 was industrial, commercial and public utility. There will be continued growth in assessed valuation. 13. That the township fore of government is not adequate to cope with the problems of urban or suburban growth. 14. That annexation of all or a part of the area herein to an 3 adjoining municipality would not better serve the interests of the area. CONCLUSIONS OF LAU 1. That the 'Town of Eagan is now partially urban or suburban in character and contains undeveloped areas which are about to become urban or suburban in character. 2. That the area proposed for incorporation is fit. to be governed by a single municipal government. 3. That the arca proposed for incorporation presently has and will continue to have a sufficient assessed valuation to provide.the tax revenue needed to pay for required municipal services. 4. That the area proposed for incorporation presently contains a sufficient: number of people to allow efficient and economical 'provision of municipal services. 5. That pursuant to Laws of Minnesota 1969, Chapter 444, the Minnesota Municipal Commission determines as a matter, of law that it is appropriate for the Town of Eagan to incorporate as a home rule charter city provided a majority of the electors residing therein vote affirmatively that the Town of Fagan should become so incorporated. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: That the Minnesota Municipal Commission determines that it is appropriate that the Town of Eagan, County of Dakota, State of Minnesota incorporate as a home rule charter city; and, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: That the Board of Supervisors of Town of 4 Eagan are hereby authorized in accordance with laws of Minnesota 1969, Chapter 444, to conduct an election by the voters of said town to deternu.ne whether they desire to change their form of government to a home rule charter city. Dated this30°^ day of June, 1970 MINNESOTA MUNICLI'AI. COMMISSION 610 Capitol Square Building• St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 �j.j•�.-G C..c ,/C., Bruce Rasmussen Secretary 5 appointed. Before becoming a city, the charter coup ssion must propose a charter and it must: be approved :t another election. The respousi'bili. ty for prompt action in accordance with our order lies with the coani.inity. We wish to make clear that the Order herein in no way suspends the legal processes available to the residents of the Town of Eagan. if a petition of any kind is brought before the commission, we have no alternative but to proceed forthwith in the normal manner. I-36 MEMORANDUM The proceeding herein was conducted pursuant: to Laws of Minnesota 1969, Chapter 444, a special act allowing the Town of Eagan to become a home -rule charter city providing certain con- ditions arc met. Chapter 444 refers to Minnesota Statutes 414.02 to control our determination of whether it would be appropriate for the Town of Eagan to become a home -rule charter city. Since Chapter 444 was approved prior to the amendments to the Municipal Commission law, we proceeded under Minnesota Statutes 1967, Section 414.02. Our findings would support. the.incorporation of a village, and hence we conclude that it would also be appropriate for the Town to become a home -rule charter city. Our conclusion is supported by the findings of the 1969 Legislature which are set forth in Chapter 1146, Section 1: "The legislature finds that: (1) sound urban develop- ment is essential to the continued economic growth of this state; (2). municipal government is necessary to provide the governmental services essential to sound urban development and for the protection of health, safety, and welfare in areas being used intensively for residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, and governmental purposes or in areas undergoing such development; (3) The public interest requires that municipalities be formed when there exists or will likely exist the necessary resources to provide for their economical and efficient operation; (4) annexation to or consolidation with existing municipalities or unin- corporated areas unable to supply municipal services should be facilitated; and, (5) the consolidation of municipalities should be encouraged. It is the purpose of this chapter to empower the Minnesota Municipal Commission to promote and regulate development of municipalities so that the public interest in efficient local government will be properly recognized and served." However, our conclusion does not mean that the Town will automatically become a city. The hoard of supervisors is merely authorized to conduct an election on the question. If the question is approved by a majority of the electors, a charter commission is /17 Clarls'a Notice Pursuant to Roles of Civil Procedure — 77.0d 1.111.1.1111.0AVIO CO.. MOINCAPOLIO STATE OF MINNESOTA, IN DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 72681 xo. Town of Eagan Plaintiff Minnesota Municipal Commission De fenda 7/ t To Mr. Luther M. Stalland, Attorney at Law, 2340 Dain Tower, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Mr. Philip E. Getts, Bipedal Assistant Attorney General, 160 State Office Bldg., St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 Findings of Fact, Conclusions Of Law & Order for Judgment (Order, Deelolon, or Judgment) 23rd day of February 72 filed (Plied or Entered) YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, That a in. the above entitled cause was, on the in the office of the Clerk of said District Court. Dated. February 23rd 4. 72 D. 19 Nick Vujovich By .11:.--1VC , Clerk Deputy SPATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OP DAICOTA Town of Eagan, Plaintiff, DIST3ICT COURT FIh.,P JUDICIAL DISTiiICT Pile No. 72681 FIM I:.GS OF FACT, vs. CO;JCLUSIO;S OF L:+li, ana ninnesota iuni;.ipal Commission, Ji1Jiai rJT JUDGNEiiT. Defendant. The above entitled action cattle on for hearing before the Court at the Courthouse. City of Hastings, Dakota Count;, :annesota, Lut:ier _;talland appeared a:i Attorney for Plain— tiffs, Philip •.ettn, Special Assistant attorney General,ap^ geared as attorney for Defendant, The Court .-vt::c, fill? con:-idered the irgwnent3 of Coannel for the respective parties, the memoranda submitted, all records of ;prior pr•oc-?edinr:; had herolt: and being fully advised. make:; the follo.rinx: U_r PACT 1. Article :I. St2etion 1 of the :tlnne>sota State Constitution confers upon Ito State Lcp;ialaturn t;,e power to provide for the creation, organization, administration.conao11Jation, division and dissolution of local ;.overnmelt units. 2. In 1959, pursuant to this constitutional power the legit:. lature enacted Kinnesotu Statute Chapter 414 which created an • administrative Agency known us the ;Unnecota Municipal Commiaaion with State:;idle authority to administer 3tatutory,substnntive and procedural standards for incorporation, annexation, consolidation Jeil incorporating a Town. 4. L)uringits 1)69 3esslon t!io i.egl:;lature amended Section-? and detachment of land. 3. Section 2 of Chapter 414 provides the exclusive method of is of Chapter 414 and deleted therefrom the provision requirin a major- y " itv vote of the residents of the area to be incorporated prior to ef- fecting an order• of the Commission approving incorporation. 5. the Statute a:: amended ia fully constitutional and In no mangler violates Clue process or equal protection clause:; Of tne Federal or Stara Constitutions. ii. ?r•eserhtly filed with the i;'inneuota idunlcin.l •Corn:niasion iv valid Petition for igicortroratlo:i of tile Town of Eagan, Dakota County, :`,innosota. 7. The :,xecutive Sec retary of tne Commission has scheduled a public ht'arin;j on tne;:Ctit�.pil. 3. The OrO;iO3cd public I :curanj. t :Croon i:; aitilln. tno bounds • of the statutory power and duty or the Commission. 9. No evidence that the Commission or any :aelaber thereof !laa an interest in the outcome of the penfln: proceeding 'rc;, Odin;^ nor that the Comanission will not faithfully, fa:: 1 .. and judiciously exorcise ice& :duties and discretion nu delineated n�gat ed under Chapter _ ;�t:r =111i. COiiCLUSIv; "E:_..Laite/ Plaintiff shall have no relief by their Cause of faction and De- fondant Shall have taxable Coat:; and disbursements bcr?1r1. LET boost+,::?;T 9E EN Dated this 23rd day of February, 1972. /a/ ;;overt J. Ureunig ji p1 A66, •:i. ';r'.�0 ATTACHED = .,_,RC.I_.l. District Judge . r; F.i; ) In the absence of constitutional limitation there is no infringement upon Vie rights of any person not consulted prior to an effective legislative order incorporating a Toun.Abe Minnescta.Constitution planes no limitation upon legislative. power to create and establish uoundarics of Viunicipal Corpora- tions. Cnder.the circumstances due ,process does not require that interested parties be given an opportunity to vote on incorporation of a :municipality. The ;•rcpoced proceeding before the Commission to incorpor- ate £.apan ic::n ::s fully within delegated legislative statutory authority. Judicial po.ieer cannot ue used to restrain suspected arbitrary or unreasonable action by a legislative agency. Areunti, J •!I STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT Town of Eagan, Dakota County, vs. Minnesota Municipal Commission, Petitioner & Respondent PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT'S BRIEF Respondent & Relator. FACTS On August 29, 1961, Wallace Day, Robert Pomije, Peggy McElwain and John Metcalf, as incorporators, filed a petition with the Minnesota Municipal Commission for the incorporation of the Town of Burnsville along its territorial boundaries pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Annotated Section 414.02. Thereafter the Commission held numerous hearings on the petition, some of which hearings were consolidated with hearings on a then pending petition for the incorporation of the Town of Eagan and in which other prospectively interested or affected governmental unite were in attendance. On May 7, 1964 the Commission rendered its Order Approving Incorporation_ (Exhibit'-L")after which an incorporation election was held on June 16, The majority of electors in the entire area affected voted in favor of incorporation whereupon the Commission on June 18, 1964 entered its Order or Incorporation (Exhibit 'R-1') which included all of Burnsville Township and parts of Lebanon and Eagan Townships. Petitioner Town of Eagan thereupon appealed to the District Court of Dakota County pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Annotated Sections 414.07, 15.0424 and 15.0425. Hearing on the appeal was held June 26, 1964, and on .Tune 30, 1964 that Court ordered Judgment (Exhibit 'It") vacating, setting aside and modifying in part said Commission Order of Incorporation dated June 18, 1364 and remanding the matter to the Commission for its further order in accordance with said Judgment pursuant to said Section 414.07. From this Judgment the Commission filed its Notice of Appeal on July 13, 1964, which appeal Petitioner & Respondent herein now moves to dismiss. • • LEGAL ISSUE INVOLVED Whether the Minnesota Municipal Commission has the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court rendered pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Annotated Section 414.07 where the Commission has ruled on a petition for incorporation filed pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Annotated Section 414.02. LAW AND ARGUMENT Petitioner and Respondent, Town of Eagan, contends that the Minnesota Municipal Commission does not have the right to appeal from the Judgment of t:.e District Court, Dakota County, entered June 30, 1964 for the following reasons: 1. The Commission's function in hearing and deciding Burnsville Township's petition for incorporation under M.S.A. Section 414.02 was essentially judicial or quasi-judicial. This section provided the exclusive method by its own definition by which Burnsville Township could become incorporated on its own motion. This same section details procedures for -totice and hearing. The petitioners duly appeared and presented evidence in support thereof, and ultimately the Commission, acting in such judicial cr quasi-judicial capacity, Tendered its Order Approving Incorporation. fo-- the area requested and in addition thereto parts of Eagan and Lebanon Townships. By so functioning, the Commission acted, or should have, as an impa,_t al, judicial tribunal and was incapable of being legally aggrieved by the outcome of the proceedings. The leading case in Minnesota on this p::eci.se point is Kirchoff v. Board of Commissioners of McLeod County (1933) 189 Minn. 226, 248 N.W. 817. There an individual petitioned the County Commissioners to have his land set off from one school district and attached to another. Thn petition was denied and the landowner appealed to the District Court which reversed the Board. The Board then appealed and the landowner moved to r".j srniss it on the ground that the 'Board had no right to appeal. The Sup-reme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board had no interest in the litigation and was not an aggrieved party. The Court said (p.817): :"The board is the tribunal designated by statute to hear the petit..ou. cnf pass upon it in the' first instance:,. The litigants are the petitioner and the school districts affected. A court or tribunal before whom a controvers.' is litigd has, as such, no appealable interest in the matter. * zC PhLltc boards and office -Le cannot appeal or sue out writs of e::nor if they have no interest or are not aggrieved either in their official or individual capacity. The Kirchoff case was relied upon by the Court as the controlling authority in several subsequent decisions including Murphy Motor Fre,ight Lines. Inc. v. qsiaias R. Weiss et al. (1934) 191 Minn. 4:, 253 N.W. 1, Erice1yn School District No. 132 et al v. Board of County Commissioners of Fa{ibault County (1952) 238 Minn. 62, N.W. 2d 602, and Fairmont :°eal Esvit.g and Investment Company et al cpqntv of Martin et. al (1958) 253 Minn. 452, 92 N.W. 2d 800. The Bricelyn case arose on the basis of an appeal fromn:i order of a board of county commissioners granting a petition for the fo_-matie. of a new common school district from territory included in the existing school district. The existing district and others appealed to the district court. After reversal and remand by the Supreme Court and following reargument, the Supreme Court then granted the county board's petition for a rehearing. In dealing with the question whether the county board was entitled to question the constitutionality of a statute, the Court stated (p. 604): 'In this connection it should be noted that infcases involving county board orders affecting school disticts this court has held that the board does not have sufficient interest to ap2cal from its order. Although the propriety of the county board's having answered the appeals is not in issue in the instant cases, these decisions, holding that the board does not even have an interest sufficient to be heard on appeal, support our conclusion that it does not have an interest sufficient to raise a constitutional question." The Court again cites as authority the Kirchoff case and specifically questions the ruling in Moede v. County of Stearns (1890) 43 Minn. 312, 45 N.W. 435. In the instant case the Minnesota Municipal Commission is designat..:d by statute (M.S.A. Section 414.02) to hear the petition which the inccrp .._.ator in Burnsville filed. The litigants were simply these incorporators and those other parties who might be opposed to the incorporation and, later in the proceedings, the Towns of Eagan and Lebanon when the Commission conLer.plr tcd and ordered parts of them included in the area to be incorporated. The District Court's subsequent modification of the Commission's Ord:r for incorporation did not then magically create an interest nor make the Commission an aggrieved party sufficient to give it the right of appeal, Crr:rted that the Commission had a public interest in the proceedings, but then doesn't every public administrative agency? Even if we assume the Commission's appeal was taken truly with the "public interest" at heart, we • • are compelled• to relate that officially and unofficially (by Burnsville's straw vote on incorporation within its territorial boundaries) the Town of Burnsville has repeatedly made it known that it desired only to incorporate within its town boundaries, and in the incorporation election the electors of the affected are of the Town of Eagan made it abundantly clear by a vote of better than 5 to 1 that they did not wish to be included in Burnsville's incorporation. 2. Applicable statutes do not give the Commission the right of appeal. Neither the Minnesota Administrative Procedures Act (M.S.L. Section 15.0411 et seq) nor the Municipal Commission Act (M.S.L-. Section 414.01 et seq) gives to the Commission the right of appeal. It is clear from both acts that the right of appeal is granted only to persons or parties aggrieved. Taken in context, such persons and parties refer to individuals residing in the areas affected by orders of the Commission and by parties such as the Town of Eagan in the instant proceeding. Section 414.01 creates and defines the Commission. Thereafter the Commission is always referred to by name except in Section 414.07 as one entitled to appeal. Section 414.07 begins: Any Jerson aggrieved by any * * order of the commission may appeal * (Emphasis supplied) * * * To render a review effectual, the aggrieved person shall file .r * * an application for review * * * ." (Emphasis supplied) Clearly this does not include the Commission with respect to appeals to the district court. The last paragraph in Section 414.07 then provid_s: "An appeal lies from the district court to the supreme court in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 605. * *o-e If the Commission doesn't have the right of appeal from its own decisi-n to the district court, we submit it cannot have the right, nor was it the intention of the legislature in that last paragraph to give the right_ �. the Commission, to appeal from a judgment of the district court. Cprpus Jurks Secundum Vol. 73 at page 613 states: "'Where the right to appeal is statutory and conferred on particular persons, one attempting to appeal must show his right thereto under the statute. Under some statutes, which do not by their terms confer a right of appeal on the rdministrative agency, it cannot appeal from decisions of the court reversing or overruling its orders or,decisions which it has no ltsal interest in maintaining. * * *.91 (Emphasis supplied) To the same effect is the Minnesota Administrative Procedures Act. Section 15.0424 entitled Judicial review of agency decisions- begins by stating: 4 • • 'Any person aggrieved by a final decision in a contested case of any agency * is entitled to judicial review therof, * * *." (Emphasis supplied) Section 15.0426 provides: "An aggrieved party may secure a review of any final order or judgment of the district court under Section 15.0424 or Section 15.0425 by appeal to the supreme court. * * *." (Emphasis supplied) Elsewhere in this act the agency is always referred to by name. Had it been the intention of the legislature that the agency would have the right to appeal, we submit that it would have specifically given the right to the agency in the appeal Section 15.0426. In Fairmont Real Estate & Investment Company v. County of Martin (1958) 253 Minn. 452, 92 N.W. 2nd 800, the county appealed from a district court order setting aside the county's drainage ditch assessment. The Supreme Court stated that the appeal was purely statutory, founded on M.S.G. Section 106.631(5) which provides in part: "Any party aggrieved by a final order or judgment rendered on appeal to the district court * * * may appeal to the supreme court in the manner provided in civil actions. * * *." (Emphasis supplied) The Court then went on to say: s'In no sense can it be said that Martin County is an aggrieved party in this case. Nor can it become an aggrieved party within the meaning of our statute by loaning its name to those who are aggrieved parties. The County was not an appellant to the district court, pr was it a party to that proceeding, and has no interest in the litigation. Its sole role in the zroceedinp has been that of the tribunal before which the initfa4'deteriiination was made." (Emphasis supplied) In the instant case, the Minnesota Municipal Commission simply sat as a tribunal before which the petitioners for incorporation of Burnsville appea::ed and produced evidence in support thereof. Thereafter the Commission made its determination. Following this, Eagan Township, affected by that determination under Section 414.02, appealed to the District Court. The so1,2 reason the Commission was named as a ::espondent in that appeal w s by virtue of M.S.A. Section 15.0424 (2) which provides in part: '* * * The petition shall be entitled in the name of the persons serving the same as petitioner and the name of the agency whose decision is sought to be reviewed as respondent. * Wt: cannot deny that in some cases administrative agencies have the rigt:t of appeal. The right, however, exists only by virtue of statute. In 2 di 3:7 .. • • An appeal is a privilege which must be conferred by authority upon the person who would enjoy it. * * The legislature may prescribe in what cases, under what circumstances, and from what Court appeals may be taken; unless the statute expressly -or by plain implication makes provision therfor, there is no right of appeal. * * *.' We submit that there is nothing even vaguely suggestive in either the administrative Procedures and Municipal Commission Acts, supra, of living the right of appeal to this Court in the instant situation. 3. The Minnesota Municipal Commission has no right appearing pro se to appeal from said judgment of the District Court. The Notice of Appeal dated July 10, 1964 and filed with the Clerk of District Court, Dakota County July 13, 1964 is signed by the three regular members of the Commission and states that the Commission is appearing pro se. Minnesota Statutes Annotated Section 3.06 provides in part: "The attorney general shall act as'the attorney for all state officers and all boards or commissions created by law in all matters pertaining to their official duties * * *. Except as herein provided, no board, commission, or officer shall hereafter employ any attorney at the expense of the state. * * Except as herein stated, no additional counsel shall be employed and the legal business of the state shall be performed exclusively by the attorney general and his assistants. (Emphasis supplied) As stated in the affidavit of the undersigned in support of Town of Eagan°s motion, the Attorney General has refused to conduct the appeal on behalf of the Commission. We submit that under the last sentence oti:. said Section 3.06 quoted above, the Commission is precluded from taking its own appeal. The Attorney General is a constitutional officer of the state charged with the duty to handle the legal affairs of the state and, in particular, its agencies. Chaos would result if every time a board or commission disagreed with the Attorney General it could proceed on its own to take whatever legal steps on its own behalf that it deemed appropriate. Certainly every board, agency and commission is subordinate in this respect to the Attorney General, and where he has declined to act for valid reasons no governmental agency should have the right, nor does it, to override his decision in strictly legal matters. We are not unaware of State ex rel Harry Peterson v. District Court etc (1^.35) i95-1Kina. 44, 264 NW 227, which is clearly distinguishable from the instant oituati or-. There the basic conflict arose between two state o:flcials. The State Auditor was sued for failure to pay for lands • • bought by the State Highway Department. The Auditor had hired private counsel and the Attorney General, in effect, supported the Highway Department and claim of relator for payment. The Court there said (at p. 49): -:There is nothing in our statutes which forbids a state officer from answering when sued as such, or from employing attorneys to appear for him in such suit. * * In the instant case, we have an entirely different situation. Here the Municipal Commission was represented by the Attorney General in the district court appeal from its order. Thereafter the Attorney General declined to take an appeal on behalf of the Commission to the Supreme Court, The Commission had not been sued, nor any of its members. Where, as here, the Commission is not truly an aggrieved party and has not been sued, it cannot under Section 8.06, we submit, have the right to proceed on its own to take an appeal. 4. The Commission's action in taking its appeal from said judgment of the District Court, Dakota County is invalid in that the Commission as a whole has not authorized such appeal. Attached hereto is Exhibit ccB:; and made a part hereof is a letter signed by the two ex- officio members of the Commission and submitted to the District Court which clearly indicates that they did not take part in the decision of tha Commission to appeal nor have notice of any meetings of the Commission at which the matter was discussed and decided upon. Minnesota Statutes Annotated Section 414.01 states in part: °7Subd. 2. * •• * In proceedings before the Commission for the incorporation of a village, * * * the chairman t'...a board of county commissioners and the county auditor in which all or a majority of the property to be annexed or incorporated is located, shall serve as additional and ex-officio members of the commission for the purpose of such proceedings." An appeal is certainly part of the proceedings for the incorporation of Burnsville. Therefore Dakota County Board Chairman Akin and County ra.di cor 0n.i chuk were entitled to notice of any and all meetings of the Commission called for the purpose of determining whether or not to appeal from said judgment of the District Court. Because the regular members exciu.tld these two, we contend the action of the Commission to take the appeal and appear pro se was invalid. • • 73 Corpus Juris Secundum p. 314 states: 'Generally an administrative agency, board, or commission should act as a body, and can act officially only in or at a lawfully convened session, if the act is one requiring deliberation or the exercise of discretion or judgment, in the absence of a statutory exception. The acts of individual members of the body, although constituting_ in numbers a maiority of the body. are not in themselves equivalent to formal action by the body as such. * * Generally, no power or function intrusted to an administrative body consisting of a number of persons may be legally exercised without notice to, or knowledge of, all of the members composing such body. * (Emphasis supplied) In a recent North Dakota case, State v. Bakke (1962) 117 NW 2nd 689, the Court, citing the Minresota case of State v. Guiney, 26 Minn. 313, 3 N.W. 977, states at p. 696: "In the absence of express statutory provisions to the contrary, the action of the majority cannot be regarded as valid unless all are present or have been notified. * * * In that case a state board of arbitration composed of three members purportedly took official action by two of its members without notice to the third who did not take part in deciding to take an appeal from a decision of the lower court adverse to the majority of the board. The Court said that such a board had to act collectively on all discretionary matters. Such is the situation in the instant case which is identical. Whether or not to take the appeal was a discretionary matter with the Commission which required a meeting, pursuant to notice, of the full Commission of five members required by Section 414.01, or at least the attendance of all five if not pursuant to notice. For the foregoing reasons, Petitoner and Respondent, Town of Eagan respectfully requests this Court to dismiss the appeal of the Minnesota Municipal Commission. Dated: July 18, 1964. LUT 1ER M. STALLAND Attorney for Town of Eagan 2340 Rand Tower Minneapolis 2, Minnesota 1-3 BEFORE Tii2 OF THE Joseph Robbie Robei.'. W. Johnson Terrance S. O'Toole Jerome Akin Carl Onischu:c MJNICIPAL COMIISSION tJ.Ll :. J OF MINVESO1A Chairman V ce-'"?airman T%xr Dakota Ge,.I.ri'.; Board Chairman Dakota Coui.ty Au.:Utor IN THE Ii T.ER OP THE PETITION FOR `.'''till I FCOiAPORA ION OF THE TOWN OF B'JRi'SVILLE AND 7ERTP_7.T .: LLD PROPERTY IN THE TOWN- SHIPS OF LEBANON AND E C•Ai ORDER OF INCORPORATION The Minnesota Municipal Comm: iss:ioi; ::e .. or. Jane 18, 1)64, in the State Office Building, St. Paul, Minnesota, to canvass the results of the Burnsville Incorporation election held on June 16, 1964, as a result of an Order for Election of Aae Ccmission dated the art._ day of May, 1964. The canvass shcved that, ail statutory requirements had been met and that incorporat.-_on had been favorably passed upon by the electors by a vote of 909 to «.2 . IT 13 IEREBY ORDERED: That the area describe in ‹r;;tached Order of the Commission dated the 2; h day of Nay, 196' , be, and the same is hereby, incorporated as a village effective June 13, 1964, and that the name of such village is BI nsville . IT IS iURTEER ORDERED: That the new village proceed according to law to hold an election for first office-2s of the village on July 21, 1964, at Burnsville Town Hall. IT IS FURTBER ORDERED: That a coin;; of this Order. tocee ther with the original petition, election order., j'.id€es certificate of election, proofs of posting and publishing of the election notice and incorporation order shall be transmitted to and filed with the Secretary of State and the Dakota County Auditor. All proper expenses incurred in the incorporation shall be a charge upon the Village of Burnsville. Dated. this 18th day of June, 1964 MINT SOTA MUNICIPAL COMMISSION /s/ Irving R. Keldsen Irving R. Ke lds en Secretary • • STATE CF MINNESOTA IN THE DISTRICT COURT COUNTY CF DAKCTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT Town of Eagan, Dakota County, Petitioner vs. Minnesota Municipal Commission, Respondent JUDGMENT WHEREAS a motion having been made by Petitioner to advance the above matter on the calendar for immediate hearing on the merits, because of the exigency of the matter and no objection having been made by respondent, the above entitled matter came on for hearing at the Court House in the City of Hastings, Minnesota on the 26th day of June, 1964, 9:00 o'clock A. M., Luther M. Stalland, Attorney at Law, 2340 Rand Tower, Minneapolis, Minnesota, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Phillip Byrne, Special Assistant Attorney General, State of Minnesota, appearing on behalf of respondent and David L. Grannis and Vance B. Grannis, Jr., Grannis and Grannis, Attorneys at Law, F. J. Schult Building, South St. Paul, Minnesota, appearing on behalf of the intervenors, namely, the Town of Burnsville, the Village of Burnsville, Roger Richardson, Edward Doebel and Charles Wahlberg, Supervisors of the Town of Burnsville, and Michael O'Connor, its Clerk, Wallace Day, Pat Connelly and Shirley Ryberg, election judges, and upon all the records, files and proceedings in the above entitled matter and iN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE INCORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF BURNSVILLE AND CERTAIN ADDED PROPERTY IN THE TOWNSHIPS OF LEBANON AND EAGAN upon which the within appeal is based, and the record of these proceedings as a whole, the above named Court being fully advised in the premises, did on the 30th day of June, 1964 duly make and file Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order for Judgment. THEREFORE pursuant to said Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order for Judgment, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT: 1. That portion of the Order of Incorporation dated June 18th, 1964 rendered by the Minnesota Municipal Commission which pertains to and includes a part of the Town of Eagan, more particularly described as: Exhibit "A" 1 • • That part of Eagan Township in Sections 19, 30 and the portion of Section 31 lying north and west from the north right-of-way of Minnesota Trunk Highway 35E as finally established", be, and the same hereby is, set aside and vacated in all things. 2. That within 3 days following receipt by the Minnesota Municipal Commission of a copy of this Order said Commission shall issue a new amended Order of Incorporation which shall include only the following described area, to -wit: 2'A11 of Burnsville Township, and that part of Lebanon Township in Section 16, 17 and 30 lying north of the north right-of-way of Minnesota Trunk Highway 35E as finally established." Said incorporation to relate back and be effective as of June 18th, 1964. 3. That the Burnsville election judges heretofore appointed by the Minnesota Municipal Commission by its Order dated May 27th, 1964, namely, Pat J. Connelly, Wallace Day and Shirley Ryberg, may proceed forthwith to conduct the election of officers for the Village of Burnsville and that the name of any person, if any, filing for office in said village election set for July 14, 1964 who is a resident of the above described portion of the Town of Eagan shall be deleted from the ballots by the Clerk of the Town of Burnsville prior to election day. 4. That the Minnesota Municipal Commission shall take no further action, except in accordance with the foregoing. Dated: June 30, 1S64. BY THE COURT: /s/ Eugene Casserly (COURT 6EhL) Clerk of District Court Dakota County, Minnesota EXHIBIT • 6,• WATT 0r MINUU /OTA coUI'rY Or DAPXrrk of Town/Pagan, Dakota County, Petitioner, vs. Minnesota Maaicipal Commission. Re sponden t , IN TIM DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL IDSTRICT 1SIRiAS aviation havia►bean made by Petitioner to advance the above entitled setter os the calendar for immediate hearing on the merits, because of the exigency of the natter and no objection having been wade by respondent, the above entitled matter case on for hearing at the Court Rouse in the City of Beatings, Minnesota on the 26th Buy of Jun., 1964, 9100 o'clock A. M., Lather M. Stallard, At1oeraey at Law, 2340 Rand 'tower, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Appearing on behalf of the pet_iLianer, Phillip Byrne, Special Assistant Attorney General, State of Minnesota, appearing on behalf of respondent and David L. Grannie and Vance S. Grannie, Jr . , Grannie and Grannie, Attorneys at Law, F. J. 9chult Building, South St. Paul, Minnesota, appearing on behalf of the intervenors, namely, the Town of Burnsville, the Village of Burnsville, Roger Richardson, Bdwatird Dowbe 1 a►nd Ch ar le s sahl.berg, Supervisors of the Town of Burnsville, and nichael O'Connor, its Clark. Wallow Bey, Pat Connelly and Shirley Ryberq, election judges, and upon all Cho records, files and proceedings in the above entitled matter and "IN TSB MATT! OF TSt PITITICM FOR TRW INCORPORATION Or TNN TORN OW iURNiV ILL Z AND C IRTA IW ADDED P'ROPN IITY IN Tie TONOMELPS OF LSNANON AND 'ma's" ,:1 wh i c h the within appeal is based, and the record of these prose arLv a as a whole, the above named Court being fully advised in tr: precise*, did one the 30th Day of JUJaa, 1964 du/1 stake and file Findings of Pact Conclusions of Law and Order for Judgment. TRIBMFOIMpurscant to said Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law and Order for Judgment, T? 11 HURBBY, ORDERED, ADJUDGED ABD MICAS= TNATu I. That portion o f the Order of Incaorpor a t ion dated June lath, 1964 rendered by the mienesote Municipal Commission which pertains to and includes a part of the Town of E ag an , more particularly described ass 'That part of Bagaa Township in Sections 19, 30 and the portiioa of Section 31 lying north and west from the north right -of -wags of Minnesota trunk Yighwy 3111 as finally established', 9 be, and the same hereby is. set aside and vacated in all things. 2. That within 1 days following receipt by the Minnesota Municipal Commission of a copy of this Order said Commission shall issue a new amended Order of Imoorporation Which shall include only the following desa.ribsd area. to -wits "A11 of Burnsville Towaii , and that part of Lebanon Township in motion 16, 17 and 20 lying north of the north right -of -wady of Minnesota Trunk Iighway 3SB as finally establish.' Said incorporation to relate back and be affective as of June lath, 1964. 3. That the Burnsville election judges heretofore appointed by the Minnesota Municipal Commission by its Order dated May 27th, 1964, namely, Pat J. Connelly, Wallace Day and Shirley Syberg , may proceed for thaw th to vonduct the election of officers for the Village of Burnsville and that the name of any person, if any, filing for office in said village election set for July 14, 1964 who is a resident of the above described portion of the Town of Sagas shall be deleted treat the ballots by the Clerk of they ?own of Burnsville prior to election day. -a- 4. That the Minnesota Municipal Commission shall take no further aotioa, sxoept in icoordance with the forsgoing. D.tsd June 30, 1 ,64 WW1 COURT' r:U IENE :r:• ::t;.Y Ctatk of District Court Dakota County, $inn . STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT Town of Eagan, Dakota County, Petitioner & Respondent vs. Minnesota Municipal Commission, :espondent & hppeallant PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT'S REPLY BRIEF Clerk's File No. 39584 This reply brief is respectfully submitted in response to Respondent and Appellant's answering brief filed• July 29, 1964 in answer to Petitioner and Respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal of the Minnesota Municipal Commission. Since the Commission has seen fit conveniently to categorically answer the grounds of Eagan's motion, this reply will follow the same sequence and reply to the answer to the four grounds originally propounded, in that order. 1. Eagan claims the Commission has no right of appeal. This is on the basis that a petition for incorporation was filed under M. S. A - Section 414.02 and that pursuant thereto the Commission was acting in a quasi-judicial capacity in passing upon that petition which was for the incorporation of the Town of Burnsville as a village within its territorial boundaries. The Commission attempts to counter this by citing "In Re Review of Status of Town of White Bear, Pursuant to M.S..:. 414,05, (Clerk's File No. 39388; Minn. �), Minnesota Municipal Commission vs. Town of White Bear" (emphasis supplied) and contending that the Supreme Court inferentially denied the contention that Eagan now makes. This Commission fails to appreciate the distinction between Section 414.02 and 414.05 proceedings. Llthough White Bear may have rnVaed-Z the issue of whether the Commission had the right to appeal, the question was apparently not considered nor passed upon by the Court, at least there is no reference to it in the printed opinion. But whether the Commission has a right of appeal under proceedings initiated by the Commission under M.S.i.. 414.05 or not (which we not not agree it has), the Commission certainly does not have that right in proceedings initiated under M.S.A. 414.02 by petition. In the White Bear case, the Commission initiated the proceedings under Section 414.05, The sole question there on appeal was whether the annexation ordered by the Commission required an election pursuant to Section 414.0,3 pertaining to annexations. 1 • In the instant case, a petition for incorporation was filed pursuant to Section 414.02 by electors of the Town of Burnsville as "the exclusive method of incorporating a village * * * in any county within any metropolitan area as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.02, Subdivision 5 * * *.' (This includes Dakota County). In an apparent attempt to establish that the Commission was acting legislatively rather than judicially, the Commission claims that the Order of the Dakota County District Court dated June 30, 1964` * * * compels the Municipal Commission to exercise its discretion in a particular manner. The Order does no such thing. What it clearly did was to vacate the action of the Commission in part and remand the matter to the Commission * * * for further action in conformity with the decision of the court" pursuant to the plain language of M.S.A. Section 414.07. There was no more discretion involved here than there is in a reversal by the Supreme Court of a lower court where a remand with definite instructions is made. The Commission also claims that the effect of the District Courts Order was an unlawful invasion by the judiciary of a purely legislative function. It is difficult at best to resolve this contention with Section 414.07 which specifically and unequivocally gives the District Court the power to do precisely what it did. If this argument has any validity, it is hard to imagine any situation in which the District Court on an appeal would not be invading the Commission if it decided against it. The Commission further propounds that the Order of the District Cour� is fatally defective" because it amends the boundaries of "an incorporation already legally established without providing for an election within the area to ratify the amended incorporation order." What that has to do with the Commission's right to appeal we are uncertain. The Municipal Commission Act does not specify that an election is required following such an Order by the District Court on appeal nor can it logically be inferred. What difference would it make as to the Commission's right of appeal if such an election were held? If, on such amended Order, a further election was held and incorporation was voted - down, the commission would certainly have no right of appeal from that. If it were approved, the commission would certainly have no right of appeal from that either. • • Eagan submits that if, as is so strongly contended by the Commission, the Commission is purely legislative in the instant proceedings it would have no more right to appeal from its legislative act in setting the boundaries of a purported village than would the county commissioners or the state legislature before it under the old laws relating to incorporations. (In this connection, rather than repeat ourselves, we respectfully direct the Court's attention to Eagan's original brief and the citations on this point involving county boards.) The fact is that the Commission is now controlled not by these old laws and cases involving this point but by the very law which created the Commission. hnd this law pointedly defines the respective areas of responsibility and duty of the Commission in the first instance and thereafter of the District Courts on appeal. The District Court of Dakota County by its said Order has done no more nor less than the legislature gave it power to do, and the argument of the Commission that that Court invaded the Commission's "legislative prerogative" is patently untenable. The whole tenor of Section 414.02 is to the effect that the Commission sits judicially to hear evidence in support of the petition filed thereunder. Criteria for making findings based on the evidence is set out in Subdivision 3. The Commission's order is based on such findings. If the Commission's function were truly legislative under Section 414.02 there would be no need for all the procedural safe -guards, nor for a petition, nor for evidence submitted by petitioners, nor for the filing of briefs by tat reef d hearties. It is noteworthy that none of these provisions are found in Section 414.05. 2. Eagan further claims the Commission lacks the right of appeal under the applicable statutes, the Municipal Commission L.ct, M.S.L.. 414.01 et sea, and the .hdministrative Procedures i.ct, M.S.L. 15.0411 et seq. The Commission has tried to distinguish Fairmont Real Estate Company vs. County of Martin (1958) 235 Minn. 452, 92 NW2d 800 by saying that it is a "far cry from the present case where the Town of Eagan obtained jurisdiction of the Municipal Commission by suing it in District Court." Eagan submits the cases are nearly identical. In the Fairmont case, a petition was filed before the county board which made a decision not only affecting the petitioners but also other parties. The latter appealed to the Dintict. Court which reversed the county board's decision. Then the • • petitioners, in the name of the county, appealed to the Supreme Court. In the instance case, Burnsville residents filed a petition before the Commission which ant as a tribunal to the same extent as the Martin County Board in the Fairmont case. The Commission then made a decision which affected other parties, i.e. Town of Eagan, and Eagan appealed to the District Court which, in part, reversed the decision of the Commission. As in the Fairmont case, the Commission in the instant case was not either an aggrieved party nor the appellant to the District Court. The fact that on appeal to the Supreme Court the County Board was simply appellant in name (the real parties in interest being others) does not alter the fact that it would have had no right of appeal under any circumstances because it was not an aggrieved party and had no interest in the litigation even thouzh on the appeal to the District Court it was named as the party respondent, lust as the Commission was in the instant case. In the Fairmont case, the Supreme Court pointedly said the right of appeal was statutory. In the instant case, it is statutory too. M.S.A. 414.07, if read as a whole, obviously refers to an aggrieved person to proceedings before the Commission and not to the Commission. It begins Any person aggrieved. . and then proceeds to detail the grounds for appeal, the procedure, the power of 'the District Court, and then says in the second to last paragraph To render a review effectual, the aggrieved person shall. . which is then followed simply in the last paragraph with "An appeal lies from the District Court to the Supreme Court in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 605." That last paragraph, it is submitted, must refer to an aggrieved party. Had the legislature intended the Commission to have the right of appeal, it seems only reasonable the legislature would have so specified since elsewhere throughout the Municipal Commission Act the Commission is repeatedly referred to as "the Commission". To the same effect is the Administrative Procedures Act which not only constantly refers to the "agency," as distinguished from aggrieved persons or parties, but defines "agency,` and then provides in M.S.A. 15.0426 that "An aggrieved party . . .(may) appeal to the Supreme Court." The Commission also makes point of the fact that it was sued and made a party to the proceedings before the District Court which granted a temporary restraining order against it and that therefore it is such a party as has a right of appeal. What Eagan meant by saying in its original • • brief that the Commission had not been sued was in the sense that it was not an aggrieved party as to the appeal but was merely a party by virtue of the requirement of the Administrative Procedures Act. The fact that Eagan applied for an injunction against the Commission from proceeding with the election, etc. does not, in our view of it, give the Commission any right of appeal from the judgment granted by the District Court. 3. Eagan claims the Commission has no right to appear pro se in an appeal to the Supreme Court in the instant proceedings. The Commission, in its brief, fails to see the distinction between State ex rel Hari Peterson vs. District Court et al (1935) 196 Minn. 44, 264 NW 227, and the case at hand. In that case, the state auditor, who appeared other than by the attorney general, was a real party in interest, a truly aggrieved party involving an official act in his official capacity. This is a good deal different than the instant situation where the appearance of the Commission arises solely out of its function as a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal. Furthermore, the Commission originally in the District Court did appear by the attorney general. The Commission states that Eagan argues "that its (the Commission's) decisions are subject to review by the Attorney General and a determination_ by him as to their validity.' Eagan advanced no such argument which is clear from its brief. The Commission also infers that Eagan attempted to mislead the Court by failing to quote certain language from the Peterson case. This was certainly not our intention as is indicated by the way it was cited and introduced into the discusssion, and further by the fact it is distinguishable. 4. Eagan claims that the Commission's action in taking such appeal is invalid because the Commission as a whole did not authorize it, the two ex-officio members not being present at the meeting of the Commission at which the decision to appeal was made. The Commission admits that its decision to take an appeal was made by the three regular members of the Commission and, by inference, without notice to or the presence of the two ex-officio members. The Commission apparently now contends that it is appealing in M.S.A. 414.05 proceedings. If this is so, it is not specified in the Commission's notice of appeal. Moreover the ex-officio members were not only present at each and every hearing before the Commission in these proceedings but the notices thereof were all entitled "IN THE M6',TTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE INCORPORATION OF - 5 - • THE TOWN OF BURNSVILLE AND CERTAIN ADDED PROPERTY IN THE TOWNSHIPS OF LEBANON AND EVG(NE. The plain fact is that all the proceedings before the District Court, from which the Commission now appeals, arose out of the Commission's decision on the petition of Burnsville to incorporate under M.S.A. 414.02. Whether or not the Commission now contends it is proceeding under Section 414.05 is immaterial. The letter from the ex-officio members to the District Court (Ex1:_bit "B") attached to Eagan's original brief) was included simply toh7w that they had not been present nor voted on the taking of this appeal. The letter was obtained from the Clerk of the District Court. The fact that the Commission saw fit to attempt to call another meeting after: Eagan raised this issue in its original brief indicates the Commission's acknowledgment of Eagan's contention. Despite the Commission's attempt by this latest meeting to ratify its action for appeal, the action is still invalid fo_ the reason improper and unreasonable notice was given to the two ex-officio members, as ev1 by th. affidavit of Dakota County Auditor, Onisahuk, hereto attached as ryiibit "C" and made a part hereof. Telephone notice was given after wo.king hours the night before the meeting was held. Fcr these reasons, Town of Eagan respectfully requests this Cos-:t to dismiss the appeal of the Minnesota Municipal Commission. Doted: /,uuat 1, 1554. /s/ Luthe: M. Stalland LUTHER M. ST/ILUIND Attorney for Town of Eagan 2340 Rand Tower Minneapolis 2, Minnesota STATE F MINNESCTA IN SUPREME CCURT Town of Eagan, Dakota County, AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT Petitioner & Respondent OF PETITIONER AND RESPCNDENT°S MOTION vs. TO DISMISS RESPONDENT AND RELATOR'S APPEAL Minnesota Municipal Commission, Respondent & Relator STATE CF MINNESOTA ) ) SS CCUNTY CF DAKCTA ) CARL CNISCHUK, being first duly sworn, deposes and states that he is the duly elected auditor of the County of Dakota, Minnesota and is a resident of said county; that he makes this affidavit at the request of petitioner and respondent Town of Eagan, Dakota County in support of its motion to dismiss the appeal of respondent and relator Minnesota Municipal Commission now pending before the above named Court because of certain statements made by the commission in its answering brief in said proceedings. That on July 22nd, 1964 at or about 6:30 P.M. your affiant leceive3 a telephone call f;:om one young lady purportedly calling on behalf of the Minnesota Municipal Commission or its chairman who stated that a meeting of the commission had been called for the following day, July 23rd, 1964 at 11:00 o'clock A.M. at Mr. Joseph Robbie's office in Minneapolis; that your affiant was in the process of leaving with his family for out of town on a vacation previously planned; that he could not, and did not, attend such meeting of the commission; that he did not receive any other notice than aforesaid of said commission meeting. FURTHER affiant saith not. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 3rd day of August, 1964. _ / A L. Mallcr.y A. L. MALLERY Notary Public, Dakota Co., Minn. My Commission expires August 28, 1966. (SEAL) /s/ Carl Cnischuk Carl Cnischuk EXHIBIT l:C:; ISIELIMAIMMELK rat ran JSIMLAtiliLMILMUMB/LAMIAt. '' t2.0iiian tZaW The Town Ward of bursar/110 sad the Incorporators of the Proposed Village of Burnsville having net jointly with the Vona offices of the Vora •f Sagan and having earetul1r studied and caan atdscsd the order et the *inner ota lanisipt1 Comminsian dated Map 7r 1064, sorrowing the 1a w b sties of the lawn et Surneville, slake the fo l lovta g etaMwemt i we believe it is boar the beet interests of euraswille mad its oitisens that the election is approve or dianopreve the orepesed ineerperation be held as its appointed data. Jane 1ith, 1044, sad that tar the rrsswas stated herein Tries people eligible to vete at the oleatiem be urged te vents far i . iaiaos aisdful of the interests of Anima Twsetsip. iassav'iUL *Wald aoaejssrats with the wawiws Town sword in securing to the was 'Owe residents, a separate voting preciaot for the el.0atioa and all that can be done, be damo to solve the p oblemA if aaKy there aro, arising out of the isc uatmm of a part of tts4 Tenn •1 Megan in the proposed area of iaeorpora OWM4 i* the event the wets is favorable to tbs foanrat es of a Tillage. The Tvnc, award of. its Taws offiowra and ito citiaenst are reepoctfully requested to take no action tIra ,osti+one the ire *tea eleotion and to consider the -1- • feasibility et adjusting tha boundary lines betwwev kf.JW7Z xiagau and the Town of BurnsvIlle after the election, ,used the results of the elactiol, as showm by tho Nt*LtL ';:jhe .4,searatat polling place for aagan voters. It is the f.irm opinion of Burnsville that anything is done to delay the election or set aside th* order for the election, it will jeopardises the good relations betaireer4 Burnsville and Sagan which have existed in the peat and which it is our sincere hops will continue to exist in the future. Vbe reasons for the position taken by the incorporators of the proposed 'Village of Burnsville and t;:le Town Board of Burnsville are: It is our sincere belief that this poeition ia consistent with the will of the people of Burnsville. Any further expense in fighting annexation otnd inQorv4.7ation matter:: would not be justified and ahould b avoided it at aIl Fon:able,. It iz oul Jasiy:e that ti lifiett.e.17 of tlw. ot Durnsvilie bu (N.--.114,6ted at th4i,Xist pc,;,selLi,, time so that btirs,d'irili awl 4I-eay.; pc-ulta intalligovtly 4.7y iichwii xesourues; to that Wina117e,, 1,ft: wx6i-f. iy t.124,1 Toter Wurnoviiie, tthe linorpol'atwrik ark:, tar att, know, the ,-!itlaama of I$urnavLiia, haleG &me noth to the Miss Viktnicipel comaissiou to Lastwa az Q;c4rea angan Townsbi# zest thc ew e,,zstaiwox„ • • of 41114s# if pa7t *2 Eltnan wevvoc paxt *f PUY-NYIk4 lOtt will voolcamba the citizen:, ?,:vostaing therelx e.74 piqe Services repaired got tb4Ar ao0ds to tbe best J.q: our Abi Uty. L 4L "0 (.du1/'% I ••••••• NM. aluispec.tfully. Niarro.,...•••-•-•- • IA • Setad this day of iA$4. ••-•-••••••• • ...MT, • • • May 9, 1964 TO: MEMBERS OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS & ADVISORY PLANNING COMMITTEE, EAGAN TOWNSHIP, DAiKOTA COU TY RE: MMC ORDER OF INCORPORATION OF BURNSVILLE AND L,RT OF EAGAN et al. DATED MAY 7, 1964. Gentlemen: The purpose of this letter is to acquaint you as quickly as possible with the basic legal ramifications and related aspects of the MNC's Order of May 7, 1964 as it affects Eagan Township to the end that you decide whether or not to oppose the Order. I. PROCEDURAL ASPECTS 1. Under the Municipal Commission Law (hereinafter called the Act), Minnesota Statutes Annotated Sections 414.01 - 414.07, Eagan has the right to appeal from the Order of May 7, 1964 (hereinafter called the Order). 2. The appeal is taken to the District Court of Dakota County. The Court hears the appeal on the basis of the record transcribed from the MMC under rules prescribed by the Administrative Procedures Act (hereinafter called the APA). Ordinarily no new testimony is taken on the appeal. The transcript of the MMC hearings are reviewed by the Court along with argument a:,: briefs of counsel for the parties involved. A further appeal lies from the District Court to the Supreme Court. 3. The appeal to the District Court is in the form of an application for review which must be filed within 30 days of the MMC's Order-- in this case on or before June 6, 1964. 4. The grounds for such an appeal are as follows: a. That the Commission had no jurisdiction to act. b. That the Commission exceeded its jurisdiction. c. That the Order of the Commission is arbitrary, fraudulent, capricious, or oppresive or in unreasonable disregard of the best interests of the territory affected. d. That the Order is based upon an erroneous theory of law. No other grounds for appeal exist under the _'.ct. Therefore a showing must be made from the record and of all the proceedings that one or more of such grounds exists in order to prevail on the appeal. 5. The appeal, by the terms of the Act, does not stay the effect of the Order. In other words, the mere filing of the appeal does not prevent the election from proceeding, as ordered, on June 16, 1964. ..side from the Act, the APA provides that "The filing of the (application for review) shall not stay the enforcement of the agency (i.e. MMC) decision; but the agency may do so, or the reviewing court may order a stay upon such terms as it deems proper." Whether a court would determine that thQ provision in the Act governs or that the APA gives the court the right to stay the election is an open question. The request for a stay on the election could be made directly on appeal or by injunction proceedings. - 1.- •• • II. TAX ASPECTS Perhaps the single factor uppermost in the minds of the residents of Eagan is what the tax consequei':es will be in the event the part of Eagan ordered goes to Burnsville. This can best be answered by the following illustration, but before that a little background information is called for. The current total assessed valuation of Eagan Township is $2,749,104.00. This is at May 1, 1963 as actually computed in about November of 1963. The May 1, 1964 total assessed valuation will not be finally determined until this coming November. This means that the tax monies received by Cagan., in 1964 are actually based on the valuation of the previous year. At the March, 1963 meeting, the Eagan electors voted a budget of $36,600.00. Based on this and the above assessed valuation for all of Eagan Township as presently constituted the mill rate this year is 13.33 for town purposes. Now let us assume that the area described in the Order (hereinafter called Cedar Grove area) should be incorporated with Burnsville (All of Sections 19 and 30, and all of 31 westerly of proposed 35E, which totals about 2-7/8 sections). The total assessed valuation for that area is $873,798.00. Thus the picture appears as follows: Total Assessed Valuation Eagan Township as $ 2,749,104 presently constituted (approximately 33 sections) Total Assessed Valuation for Cedar Crove Area 873.798 (2-7/8 acres) Total Assessed Valuation of Eagan Township less $ 1,875,306 Cedar Grove Area As mentioned above, the present mill rate is 13.33. If the Cedar Grove area goes to Burnsville, we have the following picture based on the current budget: Area All of Eagan Cedar Grove Area (2-7/8 Sections) Balance of Eagan (30 Sections) Valuation Mill rate $ 2,749,104 13.33 873,798 12.70 1,875,306 15.53 From this it can be seen that if Cedar Grove area goes to Burnsville, based on Eagan's current budget, the Cedar Grove residents will initially have a tax reduction of .63 mills and the balance of the residents in Eagan which remains as a township will have an increase of 6.2 mills. This, however, does not provide the complete picture for the reason that, theoretically at least, the budget of Eagan which currently is $36,600 would not need to be as great if the Cedar Grove area were no 1on.er n part of the township. I.s we know, Eagan currently has a surplus and no long or short term debt other than current expenses. Since roughly half the population of the Township is located in the Cedar Grove area, it is reasonable to assume that a substantial portion, if not half, of Ewan°s revenues go to service that area. Consequently, let us further assume that Eagan's budget for next year, after Cedar Grove area became part of Burnsville, only needed to be $20,000. We also know that there are three different school districts in Eagan Township, Nos. 191 (Burnsville), 196 (Rosemount), and 197 (West St. Paul). The area in Eagan covered by District 191, however, not only covers all of the Cedar Grove area but some additional area which would be left in Eagan Township after the Cedar Grove area went to Burnsville. If we now imagine a homestead valued at $14,400 located in each of these four areas — that is in 1.) Cedar Grove area, 2.) District 191 other than in Cedar Grove area, 3.) District 196 (Rosemount), and 4.) District 197 (West St. Paul) -- we can determine the following dollar amount of taxes before and after the incorporation of the Cedar Grove area into Burnsville on the basis of the current budget of $36,600 and on the basis of an anticipated budget of $20,000 after such removal .o Ce•iar Grove area. AREA. AND SCHOOL DISTRICT Cedar Grove District 191 Other Eagan area in District 191 Eagan area in District 196 (Rosemount) Eagan area in District 197 (West St. Paul) VALUE OF HOUSE _ $ 14,400.00 (Tax based on homestead rates) CURRENT TAX BASED ON $36.600 BUDGET - BEFORE INCORPORATION OF CEDAR GROVE AREA INTO BURNSVILLE $ 204.08 204.08 326.09 TAX BASED. ON.. $36,600 BUDGET '"' AFTER REMOVAL. OF CEDAR GROVE AREA TO BURNSVILLE, $ 203.22 211.39 TAX BASED ON $20,000 BUDGET AFTER REMOVAL OF CEDAR GROVE F.RFI. TO BURNSVILLE Not applicable (hrea gone to Burnsville) 200.57 334.30 322.56 315.17 323.38 311.65 From these representative figures, we can summarize as follows: 1. Based on the current budget of $36,600 and assessed valuations. the average home owner in the Cedar Grove area would slightly decrease his taxes by becoming part of Burnsville. 2. Based on the current budget of $36,600 and assessed valuations, the average home owner in the balance of Eagan Township left after the removal of the Cedar Grove area would experience a slight increase in taxes. 3. Based on a projected reduced budget of $20,000, the average home owner in the balance of Eagan Township left after the removal of of the Cedar Grove area would experience a slight decrease in taxes. • • It should also be mentioned the bulk of the Cedar Grove area is zoned agricultural or residential. Most all commercial and industrial property in this area is located in Section 19. According to the Auditor's records for 1963 there was approximately 160 acres of platted property with a valuation of $293,234 and 435 acres of unplatted property with a valuation of $87,884. The bulk, if not all, the commercial and industrial property in Section 19 is unplatted, though this latter figure does not include the Globemaster Tool plant nor the Valley National Bank, both of which were completed for tax purposes after the 1963 computations. III. REVENUE AND APPORTIONMENT ASPECTS In favor of the balance of the area of Eagan Township remaining after ren;e.val of the Cedar Grove area is that all taxes levied in 1963 which are payable in the current year 1964, by the Order, go to Eagan Township. Following the election, the MMC would be required to make an additional Order apportioning the property and obligations of Eagan as between the Cedar Grove area and the balance of Eagan ". . . in such a manner as shall be just and equitable . . ." based on certain criteria set forth in the Act. IV. THE LAW AND THE EVIP_ CE No thorough examination of the evidence and of the law has as yet been made since the issuance of the MMC Order of May 7. However, certain general comments can be made at this time in helping the Board and Committee come to a conclusion on what to do. Referring back to Paragraph I of this report, it is my opinion at this time that Eagan has no basis for questioning the jurisdiction of the Commission or that it exceeded its jurisdiction. There is no question in my mind that the MMC had the right under the present law to proceed as it did. That the Order is based on an erroneous theory of law requires more than what I can find in the record so far. The only real basis for reversing the decision of the MMC that I find so far is that the MMC has acted arbitrarily and capriciously. That the Commission has, however, is by no means established. Generally, reviewing Courts will not reverse a decision of an administrative body on this ground unless there is a clear showing that it has acted arbitrarily and capriciously; in other words, without using reason and basing their decision on the facts. This is true despite the fact that the Courts might disagree violently with what the agency has done. The one area, on the other hand, where the Order is weak is that the Commission has put out previous proposals in various forms for incorporating an area of Eagan other than that contained in the final order. Nevertheless, there is some basis in fact for the action finally taken by the Commission. As we comb the record of the proceedings, we might find any number of technical objections. We might question the constitutionality of the law itself, or parts of it. There may be other procedures, not as yet thought of, by which we could defeat the Order, modify it or simply stall for time. At this writing, I can only say that in my opinion the chances of defeating the entire proposition so that Eagan remains intact are less than good. May 9, 1964. Luther M. Stalland Eagan Township Attorney • • BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA IN RE PETITION FOR THE INCORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF BURNSVILLE AND CERTAIN ADDED PROPERTY IN THE TOWNSHIPS OF LEBANON AND EAGAN MOTION FOR AMENDED FINDS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER FOR INCORPORATION. TO: MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL COMMISSION ROOM 51, STATE OFFICE BUILDING STATE CAPITOL ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 Eagan Township, Dakota County, Minnesota, a municipal corporation, herewith respectfully moves the Minnesota Municipal Commission pursuant to MMC Rules of Practice, Rule XIV (2) to amend its Order relating to the above entitled matter d:tc d May 7, 1564 as follows: 1. Emending FINDINGS OF FACT in the following respects: a. Deleting in its entirety paragraph I: B. thereof. b: Deleting the following from paragraph II. thereof- ": . . The property proposed for incorporation located in Eagan Township is approximately 1,785 acres having a population of approximately 1,847 persons." c. Deleting the following from paragraph III thereof - . Of the adjacent portion of Eagan Township to be included in the Incorporation election approximately 335 acres are platted and approximately 1,450 acres are unplatted." d. Deleting all that portion of paragraph VI. thereof which refers to Eagan Township relative to valuation, platted and unplatted lands. e. Deleting that portion of paragraph VII. thereof reading as follows - ". . . . Portions of the adjacent lands in Eagan Township to be incor- porated is serviced by private water and private sewer franchise." f. Deleting all that portion of paragraph X. which relates the assessed valuation of Eagan Township. g. Deleting the word "Eagan" from paragraph XI. thereof. h. Deleting the word "Eagan- from paragraph XIV. thereof. i. Deleting all of paragraph XV. thereof. 5-15-64 Exhibit "Y" • • 2. Amending CONCLUSIONS G.^ LAW in the following respects: a. Deleting from pera;;rapn 5. thercof the word "Eagan". 3. Amending that portion of the ORDER in the following manner: "IT IS ORDERED: That the following described area of Burnsville and Lebanon Townships be approved for incorporation in the best interests .of the affected area and in the public interest: A. A11 of Burnsville Township. B. That part of Lebanon Township in Section 16, 17, and 20 lying North of the North right-of-way of Minnesota Trunk Highway 35E as finally established." GROUNDS The foregoing motion to amend the findings of fact, conclusions of law and order are based upon the following grounds: 1. The findings of fact, co'•::lusions of law and order for approval of incorporation as respects Eagan Township are not based upon the evidence pertaining to the petition of Burnsville Township for incor- proration, nor upon the record as a whole, nor upon any or all of the proceedings adopted by reference in said Burnsville proceedings. 2. The findings of fact, conclusions of law and order approving incorporation as respects Eagan Township are arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable in the light of the evidence adduced and the record as a whole. 3. The findings of fact, conclusions of law and order approving incorporation as respects Eagan Township are not based upon the criteria set forth in Minnesota Statutes Annotated Section 414.02, Subd. 3 and Section 414.05, Subd. 3. 4. The findings of fact, conclusions of law and order approving incorporation as respects Eagan Township were not made "within a reasonable time after the termination of the hearing" on the petition f'o- incorporation by Burnsville Township. LUTHER M. STALLAND Attorney for Eagan Township 2340 hand Tower :ii::neapalis, Minnesota 55402 6 STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA Town of Eagan, Dakota County, Plaintiff vs. EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING OP.DEP. Town of Burnsville, Dakota County; Wallace Day, Robert Pomije, Peggy McElwain and John Metcalf, individually, as Incorporators; and Pat J. Connelly, Wallace Day and Betty Schlueter, individually, as Election Judges, Defendants* Upon the attached motion, notice of motion and vew444ed complaint, due showing having been made that an exigency exists by reason of which injury will result and the relief sought will be rendered, or is likely to be rendered, ineffectual unless the time for hearing the attached motion be shortened and unless defendants be meanwhile restrained as hereinafter provided; NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above -named defendants, and each of you, show cause before the above -named Court in the Court House in the City of Hastings, Dakota County on the = day of May, 1964 at o'clock AM. why a temporary or permanent injunction should not issue commanding said defendants from proceeding with the incorporation election ordered by the Minnesota Municipal Commission dated May 7th, 1964, or at least insofar as said election pertains to or includes a certain portion of the Town of Eagan as more particularly described in the attached motion, until final judgment or until further order of this Court. LZ UERFD-that -the-above--r{affied dcf-endar is -are--he eby restrained from posting nd-.publishing notice_.o.f said incorporation election and from conduct -tag -said election un'tT -t e_determination of _he _der of this Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this Order and the attached summons and complaint, motion and notice of motion be served forthwith upon the above -named defendants, exhii iting to them the original of this Order and the signature cf the Judge of the above -named Court thereon. Dated: May =::)`:;L, 1964. JUrGk OF THE -DISTRICT COURT/I STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Town of Eagan, Dakota County, Plaintiff vs. MOTION AND NOTICE OF MOTION Town of Burnsville, Dakota County; Wallace Day, Robert Pomije, Peggy McElwain and John Metcalf, individually, as Incorporators; and Pat J. Connelly, Wallace Day and Betty Schlueter, individually, as Election Judges, Defendants Plaintiff Town of Eagan respectfully moves the above -named Court as follows: 1. For a permanent injunction enjoining the above -named Election Judges from posting and publishing notice of the election and conducting the incorporation election ordered by the Minnesota Municipal Commission by its Order dated May 7th, 1964; or in the alternative, enjoining permanently the said posting and publication of notice of election and conducting same with respect to that portion of the Town of Eagan more particularly described in said Order as follows: "That part of Eagan Township in Sections 19, 30 and the portion of Section 31 lying north and west from the north right-of-way of Minnesota Trunk Highway 35E as finally established." On the grounds that -- a. Said Order dated May 7th, 1964 fails to provide a separate polling place and appropriate election judges for qualified voters resident in the above described area of Eagan Township contrary to the Resolution of the Eagan Board of Supervisors dated July 3rd, 1962, copy of which is hereto attached as Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof and contrary to Minnesota Statutes Annotated Sections 203.06, 203.08 and 203.061. b. Said Order dated May 7th, 1964, based upon Minnesota Statutes Annotated Sections 414.02 and 414.05, is invalid and void in that its effect is to disenfranchise qualified voters who reside in Eagan Township other than in the above described area thereof contrary to Minnesota Constitution Article 1, Section 2 and Article 7, Section 7 and the United States Constitution Amendment XIV, Section 1; and for lack of right to vote in said incorporation election said voters will be irreparably harmed. 2. In the alternative, for a temporary injunction enjoining the above -named Election Judges from posting and publishing notice of said incorporation election and conducting same as it pertains to or includes the said above described portion of the Town of Eagan, on the ground that there is currently pending before the above -named Court an action for declaratory relief, more particularly set forth in the attached complaint, and that to permit said election to proceed as ordered would irreparably harm those qualified voters in the Town of Eagan not included in the said above described area designated for incorporation by depriving them of their constitutional right to vote in said election. 3. For an Order advancing the attached action for declaratory relief on the Court calendar and setting same down for immediate trial. LUTHER M. STALLAND Attorney for Plaintiff 2340 Rand Tower Minneapolis 2, Minnesota NOTICE OF MOTION TO: THE ABOVE -NAMED DEFENDANTS YOU WILL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned, attorney for plaintiff, will bring the foregoing motion on for hearing before the above -named Court at the Court House in the City of Hastings, Dakota n� c County, on the day of May, 1964 at ) o'clock LLM., or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard. Dated: May 22nd, 1964. LUTHER M. STALLAND Attorney for Plaintiff 2340 Rand Tower Minneapolis 2, Minnesota EXHIBIT "Y' EXCERPT "MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, E1GAN TOWNSHIP, July 3. 1962" * The findings of the Board of Supervisors concerning the establishment of voting precincts within Eagan Township and the determination of sites for polling places within the voting precincts was next presented. Upon motion duly made by Supervisor Schwartz and seconded by Supervisor Trapp, it was RESOLVED that the following precincts with designated polling places be, and they hereby are, estabr,l.“d and that the publication of the change of voting limits be made in the official township newspaper: * * * Precinct No. 3 - All that area west of Blackhawk Road and extending directly south of Blackhawk Road from the intersection of Blackhawk Road and Cliff Road to the southern border of Eagan Township with the polling place at Christ Lutheran Church on County Road No. 7. * * * STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Town of Eagan, Dakota County, Plaintiff VS. SUMMONS Town of Burnsville, Dakota County; Wallace Day, Robert Pomije, Peggy McElwain and John Metcalf, individually, as Incorporators; and Pat J. Connelly Wallace Day and Betty Schlueter, individually, as Election Judges, Defendants THE STATE OF MINNESOTA TO THE ABOVE -NAMED DEFENDANTS: You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon plaintiff's attorney an answer to the complaint which is herewith served upon you, within 20 days after the service of this summons upon you, exclusive of the day of such service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. Dated: May 22nd, 1964. LUTHER M. STALLAND Attorney for Plaintiff 2340 Rand Tower Minneapolis 2, Minnesota STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Town of Eagan, Dakota County, Plaintiff vs. COMPLAINT Town of Burnsville, Dakota County; Wallace Day, Robert Pomije, Peggy McElwain and John Metcalf, individually, as Incorporators; and Pat J. Connelly, Wallace Day and Betty Schlueter, individually, as Election Judges, Defendants Plaintiff for its cause of action against defendants states and alleges: 1. That plaintiff anc[•'.et-ndant Town of Burnsville are, and at all times material herein were, duly constituted towns situated in Dakota County, Minnesota. 2. That on or about August 29th, 1961 defendants Wallace Day, Robert Pomije, Peggy McElwain and John Metcalf filed a petition for the incorporation of defendant Town of Burnsville with the Minnesota Municipal Commission pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Annotated Section 414.02; that commencing on or about October 9th, 1961 and continuing until February 7th, 1964 said Commission held hearings on said petition; that by Order of said Commission dated May 7th, 1964 defendant Town of Burnsville was approved for incorporation along with certain other areas including the following described area of plaintiff Town of Eagan, to -wit: "That part of Eagan Township in Sections 19, 30 and the portion of Section 31 lying north and west from the north right-of-way of Minnesota Trunk Highway 35E as finally established." 3. That said Order dated May 7th, 1964 further set June 16, 1964 as the date for an incorporation election pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Annotated Sections 414.02 and 414.05 and appointed defendants Pat J. Connelly, Wallace Day and Betty Schlueter election judges to conduct said election, and further designating a single polling place, being the Burnsville Town Hall, for said election, copy of said Order being hereto attached as Exhibit "X" an-1 made a part hereof. 4. That said Order fails to designate a separate polling place for voters resident in the said area in the Town of Eagan proposed for incorporation by the Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the Town of Eagan, as set forth in Exhibit "AE attached to plaintiff's motion, and Minnesota Statutes Annotated Sections 203.06, 203.08 and 203.061. 5. That said Order dated May 7th, 1964 as it pertains to and includes said above described area in the Town of Eagan approved for incorporation is not based upon the evidence, and the action of the Minnesota Municipal Commission in so including said portion of the Town of Eagan for approval for incorporation with defendant Town of Burnsville is arbitrary, capricious, oppressive and unreasonable. 6. That Minnesota Statutes Annotated Sections 414.02 and 414.05 are unconstitutional and void in the following respects: a. Said provisions disenfranchise qualified voters who reside in Eagan Township other than in the said above described area approved for incorporation contrary to Minnesota Constitution Article 1, Section 2 and Article 7, Section 7 and the United States Constitution Amendment XIV, Section 1. b. Said Section 414.02 provides an unreasonable classification as to method of incorporation thereunder in distinguishing between metropolitan townships and townships located in other areas of the state. 7. That the Minnesota Municipal Commission's Order dated May 7th, 1964 is untimely and was not issued within a reasonable time after the filing of the Town of Burnsville's petition for incorporation contrary to the intent and purpose of Minnesota Statutes Annotated Sections 414.02 and 414.05 and is not based upon any current sound or reasonable factual evidence and consequently is arbitrary, capricious, oppressive and unreasonable. WHEREFORE plaintiff prays that the Court declare and adjudge: 1. That Minnesota Statutes Annotated Sections 414.02 and 414.05 are unconstitutional and void under Minnesota Constitution Article 1, Section 2 and Article 7, Section 7 and the United States Constitution Amendment XIV, Section 1. 2. That the Minnesota Municipal Commission Order dated May 7th, 1964 is invalid and void insofar as it pertains to and includes said above described portion of the Town of Eagan, or in the alternative directing said Commission to amend its said Order in accordance with Exhibit "Y", hereto attached and made a part hereof. EXHIBIT al:" ORDER IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE INCORPORATION 07 THE TOWN OF BURNSVILLE AND CERTAIN ADDED PROPERTY IN THE TOWNSHIPS OF LEBANON AND EAGAN The Minnesota Municipal Commission has before it the petition for the incorporation of Burnsville Township pursuant to Minn.Stat. 1961, Section 414.02 and the review of the urban status of Burnsville, Eagan, Lakeville, and Lebanon Townships to determine whether all or parts of such townships should be incorporated, annexed to adjacent villages, or remain as townships under Minn. Stat. Section 414.05 as is set out in detail in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law attached to this Order. Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and upon all of the testimony taken and exhibits recorded, and upon all of the findings and records, the Commission being fully advised in the premises, pursuant to Minn. Stat. 414.02 and Section 414.05: IT IS ORDERED: That the following described area of Burnsville, Eagan and Lebanon Townships be approved for incorporation in the best interests of the affected area and in the public interest: A. All of Burnsville Township B. That part of Eagan Township in Sections 19, 30 and that portion of Section 31 lying north and west from the north right-of-way of Minnesota Trunk Highway 35E as finally established. C. That part of Lebanon Township in Section 16, 17, and 20 lying north of the north right-of-way of Minnesota Trunk Highway 35# as finally established. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: That an election be held on the 16th day of June, 1964, on the issue of whether such incorporation should be approved and that such election shall be held at the Burnsville Town Hall which shall be open from seven o'clock h. M. to eight o'clock P. M. Judges: Pat J. Connelly, Wallace Day, and Betty Schlueter IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: That such election be conducted insofar as practicable in accordance with the election of town officers. Only qualified voters residing in the territory herein described shall be entitled to vote. The ballot shall bear the words "For Incorporation" and "Against Incorporation" with a square before each of the phrases, in one of which the voters shall make a cross to express his opinion. The ballots and necessary supplies shall be provided by Burnsville Township. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: That Burnsville Township shall cause a copy of this Order to be posted not'less than 20 days before June 16, 1964, in three public places in the area proposed for incorporation and to be published in a medium of official and legal publication of g^n,nral circulation in the area proposed for incorporation, two successive weeks before June 16, 1964. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: That in the event the incorporation election is successful, a village election shall be held within oi. days at a time fixed by the Minnesota Municipal Commission. The effective date of this Order is May 7, 1964 MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL COMMISSION 51 State Office Building St. Paul 1, Minnesota /s/ Irving R. Keldsen Irving R. Keldsen Secretary t O I-$ BEFORE T.INNESOTA MUNICIPAL COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Joseph Robbie Robert W. Johnson Terrance S. O'Toole Henry Gackstetter Carl W. Onischuk Chairman Vice-Chaii'm-an Member Ex-officio Ex-officio IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE INCORPORATION OF THE VILLAGE TO BE KNOWN AS THE VILLAGE OF EAGAN, MINNESOTA, PUR- SUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES 414.02, AS AMENDED. The petition of the members of the town board of Eagan Township for the incorporation of the unincorporated property in Eagan Township as the Village of Eagan was duly heard before the Minnesota Municipal Commission separately and in consolida- tion with other petitions relating to Burnsville, Lakeville, Lebanon, and Inver Grove Township. During the course of the proceedings, the Municipal Commission invoked its jurisdiction pursuant to Section 5 of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 414 to de- termine whether any part or all of Eagan Township incorporated, annexed to adjacent municipalities, township status. The evidence in relation to the should be or left in petition of the town board of Eagan Township was also the record in the Section 5 proceedings. A quorum of the Minnesota Municipal Commission was present at all times, including the ex-officio, Mr. Henry Gackstetter, Chairman of the Board of Dakota County Commissioners, and Carl W. Onischuk, Dakota County Auditor. The petitioners were represented by Mr. Luther M. Stalland, 2340 Rand Tower, Minneapolis 2, Minnesota. The Commission having carefully considered all of the evidence, and upon all of the files and records, now makes and files the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Order, and Memorandum Opinion. FINDINGS OF FACT I. The area proposed for incorporation contains approximately 34 square miles. to II. The population of the proposed area was 1,185 in 1950 and 3,382 in 1960. III. There are three school districts which serve the proposed area: Burnsville, Rosemount, and Mendota. IV. Threre is no evidence in the record as to building permits issued in 1958 and 1959. In 1960 building permits were issued for 240 homes, 11 commercial buildings, 1 industrial building, 61 home additions, and 1 industrial addition. Building permits were issued for two churches, two schools and two pools. V. The per capita assessed valuation in 1950 was $1,007 and tie total assessed valuation was $1,194,361. In 1960, the per capita assessed valuation was $568.12 and the total assessed valuation was $1,921,379. VI. The full and true valuation of real property in the pro- posed area in 1960 was: Residential $3,261,618 Commercial 314,039 Industrial 216,603 Public Utility 132,720 Farm 1,604,848 Timber 2,691 Farm land thus provided more than 80% of the total assessed valuation of real property in Eagan Township in 1960. VII. At the time the petition was filed, there were no shopping centers in the proposed area. VIII. The filing of this petition was defensive against possible annexation. The brief submitted by the petitioners indicates that d'Were it not for the present law which permits piece -meal annexation, like Black Dog, no incorporation petition would have perhaps been filed by Eagan at this particular time." The entire 2. a record indicates that the petition was not filed so much to accomplish incorporation as to defend against possible annexa- tion to adjacent municipalities. IX. The petitioners maintain that it is impossible to forecast the prospective future expansion of Eagan Township and do not contend that such expansion justifies separate municipal incor- poration. X. The petitioners contend that basically Eagan now has all of the powers that it would have if incorporated to provide adequate sewage disposal, water system, zoning, street planning, police and fire protection and only contend that incorporation is necessary to authorize bonded indebtedness. XI. The record in these proceedings is not adequate to furnish the legal basis for approving the separate incorporation of Eagan Township. There is no adequate showing that such incor- poration is in the interest of the residents of the area or of the public. There is no adequate showing that the area as a unit is or is about to become urban or suburban in character or that it will be better served by separate incorporation than by annexation to adjacent municipalities or by consolidation with adjacent areas seeking incorporation. The record made by the petitioners facts to meet the burden of proof necessary to legally support an order granting the petition for separate incorporation of Eagan Township. XII. There are 1,001 residences and 132 fax residences in the area proposed for incorporation. 3. a sr CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I. There is no adequate showing, as a matter cf law, to support an order for the separate incorporation )1' Eagan Town- ship pursuant to the petition filed by the town )c'ard of Eagan Township on November 30, 1961. The petition mus; be denied. 4. a se ORDER Upon the petition of the town board of Eagan Township for the incorporation of the unincorporated area therein as the Village of Eagan, the Municipal Commission having heard evidence and received exhibits in support thereof at public hearings duly called pursuant to statute, and having examined the brief submitted by the petitioners, and upon all the files and records, being fully advised in the premises, IT IS ORDERED: That the petition for incorporation of Eagan Township filed herein by the town board of Eagan Township be, and the same hereby is, in all things denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: That jurisdiction is hereby re- served in the Minnesota Municipal Commission under the proceed- ings with reference to Eagan Township invoked pursuant to Minn- esota Statutes 414.05. Dated this ist day of October; 1963 BY T E FULL COMM$$SION — 1 yam Joseph Robbie Chairman 5. • MEMORANDUM OPINION The town board of Eagan Township petitioned the Municipal Commission on November 30, 1961, for the separate incorporation of Eagan Township as a village. Petitions were also filed for the incorporation of the adjacent townships of Burnsville and Inver Grove. After hear- ings on the separate petitions, the Municipal Commission issued a Memorandum Opinion on May 1, 1962, ruling that none of these townships in the northern tier of Dakota County had "presented convincing testimony or argument" for incorporation within their present territorial boundaries. The Commission suggested that the townships council jointly for the purpose of proposing additional alternatives of a more comprehensive nature. We referred to the close community of interest of the townships in Northern Dakota County and the necessity for the common compre- hensive planning for their future growth. Subsequent hearings were called for the purpose of accepting further proposals. When the petitioners failed to present any alternative, the Commission consolidated the hearings with reference to Eagan, Burnsville, and Inver Grove; added Lakeville Township which adjoins them to the south, and invoked Commission jurisdiction under Section 5 of the Municipal Commission Act to determine whether part or all of Eagan and the neighboring townships should be incorporated, annexed to adjacent municipalities, or left remaining as townships. After conducting nine hearings relating to Eagan Township, we reaffirm our interim ruling of May 1, 1962, that the petition- ers for the separate incorporation of Eagan Township have not presented convincing testimony or arguments for the separate incorporation of Eagan within its township boundaries. The petitioners have not successfully shouldered the bur- den imposed upon them by statute to show that the area is, or is about to become, urban or suburban in character and that 6. 0 separate incorporation will be to the best interest of the residents and the public. In fact, the petitioners have con- ceded at the hearings and in their brief in support of this proposal that they would not have petitioned for incorporation were it not for the possibility existing under the statute that portions of their territory would be annexed by ordinance by adjacent municipalities upon consent of the requisite property owners. It is clear from the record and the attitude consis- tently expressed by the petitioners that this petition is de- fensive in nature and not basically for the purpose of accomplish- ing incorporation. This Commission said in the May 1, 1962, interim memorandum in these proceedings that it will not approve incorporation which is solely defensive in character or to pro- tect existing land uses. There is a greater local and public interest to be served. Nor will the Commission automatically adopt township bound- aries originally fixed by land survey as the boundaries of new municipalities. In a metropolitan region which has 130 existing cities and villages within a 50 mile radius of the metropolitan center, encompassing seven counties, with $2 remaining townships, and the total of some 300 units of local government including school districts, to incorporate each remaining township separat- ely solely to observe boundaries which are the accident of math- ematics and survey and have never been subjected to the vote of the people would be folly. The legislature by a single act could obtain this purpose if it were the legislative intent. Instead, the legislature has imposed upon the Municipal Commis- sion the responsibility of detemrining the public interest in incorporation proceedings. The legislature has addressed itself to the question of townships within the densely populated met- ropolitan area which continue to exist under the township form of government which is basically designed to govern unincorpor- ated areas while seeking special powers from the legislature to cope with impending urban problems. A report was filed by the 7. a • Legislative Research ?Oouncil. in 1953 indicating the scope of urban towns. Again in 1957 the legislature, in forming the CommissionMn Mun ipal annexation and consolidation, charged it with the obligation of studying the problem of such urban towns And to recommend legislation for solving it. An exten- sive review of this problem and the proposed solution is con- tained in the report of the Commission on municipal annexation and consolidation to the 1959 Minnesota Legislature. Section 5 of the Municipal Commission Act is the result. It contains the legislative mandate for dealing with the problem of townships which are passing from rural to urban status and are commonly designated as urban towns. In short, the legislature did not determine, as had been suggested as one alternative by the Leg- islative Research Count in 1953, that urban towns should be given separate municipal status or be each separately incor- porated. The whole intent and scope of the Municipal Commission Act calls for more comprehensive and affective solutions than the mere transfer of hitherto rural townships to municipal status within the survey boundaries. We therefore deny the petition for the separate incorpora- tion of Eagan Township. In any case, the petitioners themselves have indicated a lack of will to become incorporated and have failed to establish by adequate proof that the petition should the be granted under the provisions of/Municipal Commission Act. 8. • • t. in, the above entitled cause was, on the in, the office of the Clerk of said District Court. Dated...... February 23rd Clork'o Notice Perm:tont to Rohm of Civil Procedure — 77.0t tansen•or.vie CO.. LIMUCAP01-161 STATE OF MINNESOTA, IN DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 72681 Town of Eagan Plaintiff Minnesota Municipal Coninission Defendant To Mr. Luther M. Stalland, Attorney at Law, 2340 Dain Tower, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Mr. Philip E. Getts, Gpecial Assistant Attorney General, 160 State Office Bldg., St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 YOU.4RELLEREBY)09TIFIED, That a Findings of Fact, Conclusions Of Law & Order for Judgment (Order. Deelolon. or Judgment) 23rd filed February ,/, 72, day of (FES or Entered) 72 By Nick Vujovich , Clerk Deputy In the absence of constitutional limitation there is no infringement upon the rights of any- person not consulted prior to an effective legislative order incorporating a Totin.3ahe Minnesota Constitution places no limitation upon legislative poi:er to create and establish aoundaries of :1unicipal Corpora-- tiora. Under tho circumstances due process doe:: not require that interested parties we given en opportunity to vote on incorporation of a municipality. The or cro:-eci proceeding ,>efore the Commission to lncorpor- a.tm Eagan Town l: full, :ritnin delegated legislative statutory authority. Judicial power cannot oo used to restrain suspected arbitrary or unreftsonaole action ey a le,tiislative agency. 3reunip, ,7 i 4, 1 '3 14 h' al .333 4; STATE OP NIU:i 3O.A DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OP DAKOTA i lid.1i' JUDICIAL, JISTRICT - Pile No. 72631 Town of Eagan Plaintiff, £ 1i' )I: GS Or "FACT, va . CONCLUSIONS O k d, and Minnesota ..uaicipsrl Commission, •J!{UiSs fJli J iJUuriENT. Defendant. The a`5ovt`. entitled action came on for .hearing before the Court at the Courthouse, City of Hastings, Dakota County, .innesota; Luther ::talland appeared a:1 Attorney for Plain- tiffs; P-iillp W. Cettz, Special Asnistuat Attorney eneral,ap-- per ed a Attorney ror Defendant. :he Court ..?vtng fully considered the arguments of Cou r,cl for the respective parties., tnc memoranda GuUmitto. , all records of prior procaedin:-:: had herein and :;eiow. full;,' advisor. makes tie follo'.�lnr; :?:WDIAGS PACT 7., Article `I. Section 1 of t:1e .'zinneraota State Constitution confers upcn itu State Legislature the power to provide for the cretion, orp.ani ation; administratlou,consoli.aat.ion, division and dissolution of local rpvernn_nt units. 2. In 195), pursuant to thi3 constitutional power the legit:• lsture enacted Minnesota Statute C'napter '114 which created an administrative nitehey !cflc'ln es the :iin'nesota t�un1cipF1 Commission with Statewide authority to administer statutory,substantiva and procedural :standards for incorporation, annexation, ConsollriatiOn • fir 0 and detachment of land. 3. Section 2 of Chapter 414 provides the exclusive method of incorporating a Town. 4. During. its 176D session the Legislature amended Section 2 of Chapter 414 and deleted therefrom the provision requiring a Major- ity vote of the residents of the area to be incorporated prior. to ef- fecting an order of the Comminslon approving incorporation. 5. The Statute: a:; amended is fully constitutional and in no manner violatou due process or equal protection clauses of the Federal or tat Corst.itutioehn . �. Presently filed with tale ..innesota Aunicipal Commission u 1i a valid Petition for incorporation of the Town of Eagan, Dakota A .County. ?:irhncsota. 7. The 'Zixecutive Secretary of t ne bta:..iavio-^. has scheduled a ;public hearing on t: - • . ha petition. 3. '1':,e proposed i;ua11^_ 1 t:7,Irin t:Icrcon is within the bounds of the statutory dower and duty or the Commission. 9. No evidence that the Comn;1: �siar, or «:hy member thereof !13:: an interent in the outcome of the p;;r1-ijn proceeding nor that the Cormisnion ::111 not :raitilfully, fairly a ;ju.iielounl;/ exorcise its duties: and discretion Ili delineated under Chapter 414. ii.hi;LUSI-'J:v DP :nt.Y • Plaintiff shall have no roller by their cause of action and De-- fondant shall have taxable coats and disbursements Herein. LET JUi)Gt4 '.!!T BE `.?v'ra:r ACC3.11)fl ZY. Dated thin 23ra day of February, 1972. /s/ ;;oucrt J. Breun.g 54 T:r40 ATTACHED District Judge } 11 lti J. .yi nl I-36 BEFORE TIIE MUNICIPAL COMMISSION Robert W. Johnson Arthur R. Swan Robert J. Ford Ernest W. Ahlberg Thomas Freiling OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Chairman Vice Chairman Member Ex-Officio Member Ex-Officio Member IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF ) THE TOWN OF EAGAN FOR INCORPORATION ) OF THE TOWN OF EAGAN AS A HOME RULE ) CHARTER CITY ) INTERIM ORDER AND NOTICE OF CONTINUED HEARING The above -entitled petition came on for public hearing on January 6, 1970, at the Eagan Township Hall. The Secretary of the Corrgission, Bruce Rasmussen, presided, pursuant to the authority vested in hirn by the Commission on October 17, 1969. The following documents were made a part of the record: Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the Town of Eagan dated September 29, 1069, requesting the Commission to conduct a hearing to determine whether or not an election should be held to permit the Town of Eagan to become a home rule charter city; Notice of Hearing dated November 17, 1969, signed by the Secretary, stating the time, place, and purpose of the hearing, and describing the property proposed to be incorporated; Certificate of Mailing signed by the Secretary stating that the above Notice of Hearing was mailed to the proper parties; Affidavit that notice of the hearing was published in the Dakota County Tribune; Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of Dakota County Minnesota stating that Commissioners Ahlberg and Freiling be appointed to the Commission. Appearances of record were made by the Town of Eagan through its attorney, Mr. Luther Stalland, the Village of Apple Valley through its attorney, Mr. Edward B. ?icMenomy, and the Ad Hoc Committee through its chairman, Mr. Don Knight. The Secretary invited motions attacking the Commissions jurisdiction to proceed. No such motions were offered. The following stipulations were agreed upon by.the parties: 1. Testimony will be received on the town, village, and home rule charter city form of government' 2. The following list comprises the witnesses called by the Town of Eagan and the Ad Hoc These witnesses will be called by the Town also be allowed to present such additional as they please. to be Committee. but will evidence 1. John J. Klein, Chairman Board of Supervisors 2. Paul J. UseLmann, Supervisor Board of Supervisors 3. Alyce Bolkc, Town Clerk 4. Herbert Polzin, Town Treasurer and Chairman, Advisory Planning Committee 5. Robert Rosenc, Town Engineer 6. William J. Rydrych, Member Advisory Planning Committee 7. Martin Des Lauriers, Chief of Police 8. William Schultz, Chief Volunteer Fire Department 9. Donald Knight, Chairman Incorporation Committee 10. Joe Harrison, Chairman, Park Committee 11. Roger Weierke, Member, Incorporation Committee 12. Donald Chapdelaine, Member Incorporation Committee 13. Jack Dielenthies, Vice President, Cedar Grove Construction Company 14. Roger Sperling 15. Robert Ferguson, Principal Northview School 16. Arthur Rahn, Supervisor 17. Jerome Adam 3. Exhibits 1 through 14 were offered and received: 1. Platted and unplatted lands 2. Zoning 3. Sanitary sewer system 4. Water distribution system 5. Population growth 6. Adjusted market value 7. Land Acreage 8. Sanitary sewer trunk layout 9. Storm sewer layout 10. !dater system layout 11. Proposed park system 12. Eagan Township Ordinances 1 through 30 13. Incorporation Committee Report 14. Police Department Report The question of the authority of the Village of Apple Valley to present testimony at the proceeding was taken under advisement. The Village of Apple Valley requested the right to call additional witnesses. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED That the above -entitled proceeding will be conducted in accordance with the aforementioned stipulations of the parties. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED That the Village of Apple Valley be permitted to present evidence relating to the appropriateness of incorporation the Town of Eagan as a home rule charter city or remaining a town, and be allowed to call witnesses for that purpose. NOTICE OF CONTINUED HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN That a continued hearing will be held before the Minnesota Municipal Commission in the matter of the petition of the Town of Eagan for Incorporation of the Town of Eagan as a Hone Rule Charter City. The hearing will be held on the 12" day of March, 1970, at 10 o'clock a.m. in the Eagan Township Hall, 3795 Pilot Knob Road, St. Paul. Dated this 6" day of February, 1970 MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL COMMISSION 610 Capitol Square Building St. Paul, Minnesota CC U d— Bruce Rasmussen Secretary A BILL FOR AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE CREATION OF A NEW VILLAGE CONSISTING OF THE TOWN OF EAGAN, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: Section 1. 1.1 Within seven (7) days after receiving copies of the Certificate of Approval provided for in Minnesota Statutes Section 645.021 the Minnesota Municipal Commission shall issue its order approving the present Town of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota for incorporation as a village. 1.2 Said order shall further provide for an election, and the conduct thereof shall be as near as practical in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Section 414.02, subject only to contrary provisions contained herein. 1.3 In addition to the ballot on incorporation, a separate ballot shall be prepared and presented bearing the words, Shall Cptional Plan A, modifying the standard plan of village government by providing for the appointment by the council of the clerk, treasurer and assessor, be adopted for the government of the village?" The question shall be followed by the words "Yes and "No" with an appropriate sruare before each in which a voter can indicate his choice. 1.4 If a majority vote for incorporation, the new village shall become effective as of the date of filing the election results in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Section 414.02, Subd. 4. Section 2. 2.1 The election for new officers of the village shall be held on the 5th Tuesday following the effective date of incorporation. 2.2 The election judges for new officers of the village shall be the same as for said incorporation election. If any judge fails to qualify, the remaining judges shall appoint a substitute. 2.3 Filings for new village officers shall be made with the Town Clerk between the Tuesday next following the effective date of incorporation and the end of the 4th Tuesday thereafter. In all other respects, filings shall be made in accordance with applicable laws relating to village elections. 2.4 The following officers shall be elected for the terms shown: Officer Mayor Clerk (If Optional Plan A is not adopted.) Treasurer (If Optional Plan A is not adopted.) Three Trustees (If Optional Plan is not adopted.) Length cif First Term Until the first business January, 1968. day of Until the first business day of January, 1967. Until the first business day of January, 1968. A One term to expire first business day of January, 1967. Four Trustees (If Optional Plan A is adopted.) Two Constables Two Justices of the Peace No candidate for Trustee, One term to expire first business day of January, 1968. One term to expire first business day of January, 1969. One term to expire first business day of January, 1967. One term to expire first business day of January, 1968. Two terms to expire first business day of January, 1969. One term to expire first busiress One term to expire first business day of January, 1968. One term to expire first business day of January, 1967. One term to expire first business day of January, 1968. Constable or Justice of the Peace shall day of January, 1967. run for a particular term but the number of years in the term of each successful candidate shall be determined by his relative standing among the candidates for the office, the longest term going to the candidate receiving the highest number of votes. 2.5 The elected officials shall qualify within ten days after the election. The judges shall give to each official elected a certificate of his election, and each official, after qualifying according to law, shall forthwith assume his official duties. Section 3. 3.1 Notwithstanding incorporation of the new village, the Town Board and other officers of the Town shall continue to exercise their powers and duties according to applicable town laws until the election and qualification of all new village officers. 3.2 Upon qualifying, the new village council shall have the authority to continue or discontinue the employment of any person formerly employed by the Town, subject only to subsisting contracts and agreements. 3.3 Upon qualifying, the new village council shall have the authority to continue or discontinue any commissions or committees which may then exist in the town. Section 4. 4.1 The new village shall assume all contractural obligations and liabilities of the town existing immediately prior to the effective date of incorporation and thereafter all valid obligations and liabilities created by the Town Board and other town officers until qualification of the new village officers. 4.2 All ordinances, rules, regulations and resolutions of the town shall remain in full force and effect until repealed or superseded by new village ordinance, rule, regulation or resolution, as the case may be. Section 5. 5.1 The name of the new village shall be 'Village of Eagan". 5.2 The population of the new village for all purposes shall be the figures determined in the year 1965 by actual census taken or in the alternative as estimated by the Metropolitan Planning Commission in the event no actual census is conducted. January 25, 1965. BEFORE THE MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Joseph Robbie Chairman Robert W. Johnson Vice -Chairman Terrance S. O'Toole Member Henry Gackstetter Ex-Officio Carl W. Onischuk Ex-Officio IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE INCORPORATION OF THE VILLAGE TO BE KNOWN AS THE VILLAGE OF EAGAN, MINNESOTA, PURUSANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES 414.02, AS AMENDED. The petition of the members of the town board of Eagan Township for the incoporation of the unincorporated property in Eagan Township as the Village of Eagan was duly heard before the Minnesota Municipal Commission separately and in consolidation with other petitions relating to Burnsville, Lakeville, Lebanon, and Inver Grove Township. During the course of the proceedings, the Municipal Commission invoked its jurisdiction pursuant to Section 5 of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 414 to determine whether any part or all of Eagan Township should be incorporated, annexed to adjacent municipalities, or left in township status. The evidence in relation to the petition of the town board of Eagan Township was also the record in the Section 5 proceedings. A quorum of the Minnesota Municipal Commission was present at all times, including the ex-officio, Mr. Henry Gackstetter, Chairman of the Board of Dakota County Commissioners, and Carl W. Onischuk Dakota County Auditor. The petitioners were represented by Mr. Luther M. Stalland, 2340 Rand,Tower, Minneapolis 2, Minnesota. The Commission having caefully considered all of the evidence, and upon all of the files and records, now makes and files the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Order, and Memorandum Opinion. FINDINGS OF FACT I. The area proposed for incorporation contains approximately 34 square miles. II. ' The population of the proposed area was 1,185 in 1950.and 3,382 in 1960 III. There are three school districts which serve the proposed area: Burnsville, Rosemount, and Mendota. IV. There is no evidence in the record as to building permits issued in 1958 and 1959. In 1960 building permits were issued for 240 homes, 11 commercial buildings, 1 industrial building, 61 home: additions, and 1 industrial addition. Building permits were issued for two churches, two schools and two pools. V. The per capita assessed valuation in 1950 was•$1,007 and the total assessed valuation was $1,194,361. In 1960, the per capita assessed valuation was $569.12 and the total assessed valuation was $1,921,379. VI. The full and true valuation of real property in the proposed area in 1960 was : Residential $3,261,618 Commercial 314,039 Industrial 216,603 Public Utility 132,720 Farm 1,604,848 Timber 2,691 Far land thus provided more than 807, of the total assessed valuation of real property in Eagan Township in 1960. VII. At the time the petition was filed, there were no shopping centers in the proposed area. VIII. The filing of this petition was defensive against possible annexation. The brief submitted by the petitioners indicates that "Were it not for the present law which permits piece -meal annexation, like Black Dog, no incopporation petition would have perhaps been filed by Eagan at this particular time." The entire record indicates that the petition was not filed so much to accomplish incorporation as to defend against possible annexation to adjacent municipalities IX. The petitioners maintain that it is impossible to forecast the prospective future expansion of Eagan Township and do not contend that such expansion justifies separate municipal incorporation. X. The petitioners contend that basically Eagan now has all of the powers that it would have if incorporated to provide adequate sewage disposal, water system, zoning, street planning, police and fire protection and only contend that incorporation is necessary to authorize bonded indebtedness. XI. The record in these proceedings is not adequate to furnish the legal basis for approving the ge to incorporate of Eagan Township. There is no adequate showing that:such incorporation is in the interest of the residents of the area or of the public. There is no adequate showing that the area as a unit is or is about to become urban or suburban in character or that it will bebetter served by separate incorporation than by annexation to adjacemt municipalities or by consolidation with -adjacent areas seeking incorporation. The record made by the petitioners facts to meet the burden of proof. Necessary to leagally support an order granting the petition for separate incorporation of Eagan Township. XII. There are 1,001 residences and 132 farm residents in the area proposed for incorporation. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Theee is no adequate showing, as a matter of law, to support an order for the separate incorporation of Eagan Townshippursuant to the petition filed by the town board of Eagan Township on November 30, 1961. The petition must be denied. ORDER Upon the petition of the town board of Eagan Township for the incorporation of the unincorporated area therein as the Village of Eagan the Municipal Commission having heard evidence and received, exhibits in support thereof at public hearings duly called prusuant to statutue, and having examined the brief submitted by the petitioners, and upon all the files and records, being fully advised in the premises, IT IS ORDERED: That the petition for incorporation of Eagan Townshi() filed herein by the town board of Eagan Township be, and the same hereby is, in all things denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: That jurisdiction is hereby reserved in the Minnesota Municipal Commission under the proceedings with reference to Eagan Township invoked pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414.05. Dated this 1st day of October, 1963 BY THEFFULL COMMISSION Joseph Robbie Chairman MEMORANDUM OPINION The town board of Eagan Township petitioned the Municipal Commission on November 30, 1961, for the e incorporation of Eagan Township as a village. Petitions were also filed for the incorporation of the adjacent townships of Burnsville and Inver Grove. After hearings on the separate petitions, the Municipal Commission issued a Memorandum Opinion on May 1 1962, ruling that none of these townships in the northern tier of Dakota County had "presented convincing testimony or argument" for incorporation within their present territorial boundaries. The Commission suggested that the townships council jointly for the purpose of proposing additional alternatives of a more comprehensive nature. We referred to the close community of interest of the townships in Northern Dakota County and the necessity for the common comprehensive planning for their future growth. Subsequent hearings were called for the purpose of accepting further proposals. When the petitioners failed to present any alternatives, the Commission consolidated the hearings with reference to Eagan, Burnsville, and Inver Grove; added Lakeville Townships which adjoins them to the south, and invoked Commission jurisdiction under Section 5 of the Municipal Commission Act to determine whether part or all of Eagan and the neighboring townships should be incorporated, annexed to adjacent municipalities or left remaining as townships. After conducting nine hearings relating to Eagan Township, we reaffirm our interim ruling of May 1, 1962, that the petitioners for the separate incorporation of Eagan Township have not presented convincing testimony or arguments for the separate incorporation of Eagan within its township boundaries.' The peitioners have not successfully shouldered the burden imposed upon them by statute to show that the area is, or us about to become, urban or suburban in character and that separate incorporation will be to the best interest of the residents and the public. In fact, the petitioners have conceded at the hearings and in their brief itt support of this proposal that they would not have petitioned for incorporation were it not for the possibility existing under the statute that portions of their territory would be annexed by ordinance by adjacent municipalities upon consent of the requisite property owners. It is clear from the record and the attitude considently expressed by the petitioners that this petition is defensive in nature and not basically for the purpose of accomplishing incorporation. This Commission said in the May 1, 1962, interim memorandum in these proceedings that it will not approveincorporation which is solely defensive in character or to protect existing land uses. There is a greater local and public interest to be served. Nor will the Commission automatically adopt township boundaries originally fixed by land survey as the boundaries of new munb icpalies In a metropolitan region bhich has 130 existing cities and villages within a 50 mile radius of the metropolitan center, encompassing seven counties, with 82 remaining townships, and the total of some 300 units of local government including school districts to incorporate each remaining township separately solely to observe boundaries which are the accident of mathematics and survey and have never been subjected to the vote of the people would be folly. The legistlature by a single act could obtain this purpose if it were the legislative intent. Instead, the legislature has imposed upon the Municipal Commssion the responsibility of determining the public interest in incorporation proceedings. The legislature has addressed itself to the question of townships within the densely populated metropolitan area which continue to exist under the township form of government which is basically designed to govern unincorporated areas while seeking special powers from the legistlature to cope with impending urban probelms. A report was filed by the Legislative Research Council in 1953 indicating the scope of urban towns. Again in 1957 the legistlature, in forming the Commission on Municipal annexation and consol'dation, charged it with the obligation of studying the probelm of such urban towns and to recommend legislation for solving, An extensive review of this problem and the proposed solution is contained in the report of the Commission on municipal annexation and consolidation to the 1959 Minnesota Legislature. Section 5 of the Municipal Commission Act is the result. It contains the legislative mandate for dealing with the problem of townships which are passing from rural to urban status and are commonly designated as urban towns. In short, the legistlature did not determine, as had been suggested as one,: _-_ alternative by the Legislative Research Council in 1953, in urban towns should be given separate municipal status or be each separately incorporated. The whole intent and scope of the Municipal Commission Act calls for more comprehensive and effective solutions than the mere transfer of hitherto rural townships to municipal status within the survey boundaries. We therefore deny the petition for the separate incorporation of Eagan Township. In any case, the petitioners themselves have indicated a lack of will to become incorporated and have failed to establish by adequate proof that the petition should be granted under the provisions of the Municipal Commission.Act. BEFORE TIIE MUNICIPAL COMMISSION OF TIIE STATE. OF i•II!:NESOTA Robert W. Johnson Arthur R. Swan Robert J. Ford Ernest. /.hlberg Thomas Frciling Chairman Vice Chairman Member Ex-Officio Member Ex-Officio Member IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF THE TOWN OF EAGAI FOR' INCORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF EAGAN AS A• HOME RULE CHARTER CITY FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER WHEREAS the above entitled matter duly came on for hearing pursuant to the request of the Board of•Supervisors of the Town of Fagan before the Minnesota Municipal Commission at the Eagan Town Hall, Eagan Town - .ship, Minnesota on March 12, 1970 at 10:00 o'clock A.M., and petitioner Appeared by and with its counsel,. Luther W. Stall.and, Esq., at which time and place petitioner presented its evidence in support of its petition, and no one appearing in opposition thereto; and, W;IE1:hA> the Cnanal.ssion, having rend the petition, having heard the evidence Adduced at said hearing and subsequent Argument of counsel and being fully advised in the premises, now makes the following: • FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That the Town of Eagan is now partially urban or suburban in character and contains undeveloped areas which are about to become urban or suburban in character. 2. That the present population of Town of Eagan is approximately 12,000; that in 1940 the population was approximately 1,000; in 1950 . approximately 1,200, in 1960 approximately 3,300 and in 1965 approximately 5,000; that it is projected that in 1985 the population will approximate 30,000 and in year 2000 will be close to 100,000. 3. That Town of Eagan contains approximately 21,600 acres, or 32.75 sections, of land which at the present time 3,100 acres arc platted and remaining 18,500 acres are unplatted lands. 4. That the present pattern of physical development is basically as follows: Residential development, and the greater part of the population, is concentrated largely in 'sections 2, 3, 4, 9, 17, 19, 20 and 30 which generally are situated in the northerly and westerly portions of the town; that the commercial and industrial areas that have been developed are likewise in these general areas and principally along Highways 55 and 49. in the. North and East and Westerly of Highway 13 on the Nest side of the Town. 5. That Town of Eagan has not developed any comprehensive plan for the town in the formal sense, but through its Advisory Planning Committee, Park'Committee and Board of Supervisors, it has over the years evolved a flexible pattern for the orderly and logical growth and development of the town's area. 6. That Town of Eagan presently maintains control over the development of the town through its various ordinances which included ordinances, among others, regulating building permits, zoning and subdivisions. 7. The general terrain of the town is rolling with numerous wooded and ponded areas throughout all but the Northwestern portion between the railroad tracks and the Minnesota River.which is flat marshland; that approximately two -fifths of the Northerly And Westerly portions of the town naturally drains 'to the Minnesota River and the balance of the town, or three -fifths including the Easterly and Southern parts, is pocketed and without substantial drainage to either the Minnesota or Vermillion River watersheds; that there are no other large bodies of water in the town but several small lakes susceptible of recreational use or of scenic value if taken in conjunction with public park . • areas. 8. That Town of Eagan provides presently through its central system and through a private system water service to twelve sections in the North and West portions of the town and similar sanitary sewer service to approximately nine sections in the same areas; that it provides police protection through its own department for the entire town; that it provides fire protection for -the entire . town through its own adequately equipped volunteer fire department and through contractual arrangements with Village of Mendota Heights on the North and 2 Eo.semognt on the So•!th; that it has its own. building 5ncpcctor ..nd road cn,:ip._nt, and staff adequate to construct, repair and maintain all township roads within the arca; that it has at the present time rather limited public recreational facilities but has adopted a park plan for future development in the town sufficient to provide such facilities. 9. That there are no existing or potential problems of environmental pollution in the area at the present time and none should exist in the future if the plans for expansion of sewer, water and storm drainage systems currently in effect and practices are continued. 10. That the bonded indebtedness of petitioner as of December 31, 1969 was $6,273,000.00; that the mill rates for petitioner for the years indicated arc as follows: YEAR OF COLLECTION 1966 ' 1967 1968 ' 1969 1970 STATE 18.42 Mills 17.14 Mills (1) (1) (1) HOMESTEAD COUNTY 45.54 Mills 50.71 Mills 57.25 Mills 55.68 Mills 55.31 Mills TOWN 15.06 Mills 15.82 Mills 19.05 Mills 16.90 Mills 22.89 Mills SCHOOL IS❑ 0.191 Non-ng I.SD 0196 Non-ng ISD 0197 Non-ag 136.77 Mills 146.00 Mills 171.18 Mills 259.00 Mills 237.15 Mills 154.47 Mills 179.88 Mills 204.27 Mills 228.27 Mills 311.19 Mills 160.86 Mills 145.76 Mills 161.28 Mills.166.77 Mills 201.99 Mills (1) Eliminated by State Sales Tax 11. That the area proposed for incorporation contains no physical features which would render provisions of municipal services to all parts of the area by the proposed city impractical. 12. That the assessed valuation of the Town of Eagan was $8,717,238 in 1969, $3,351,134 in 1968, $4,985,207 in 1967, $4,709,061 in 1966, and $3,844,656 in 1965. Approximately 407. of the assessed valuation for 1969 was industrial, commercial and public utility. There will be continued growth in assessed valuation. 13. That the township form of government is not adequate to cope with the problems of urban or suburban growth. 14. That annexation of all or a part of the area herein to an 3 adjoining municipality would not better serve the interests of the area. CONCLUSIONS OF LAV 1. That the Town of Eagan is now partially urban or, suburban ' in character and contains undeveloped areas which arc about to become urban or suburban in character. 2. That the area proposed for incorporation is fit to be governed by a single municipal government. 3. That the area proposed for incorporation presently has and will continue to have a sufficient assessed valuation to provide.the tax revenue needed to pay for required municipal services. 4. That the area proposed for incorporation presently contains. a sufficient number of people to allow efficient and economical 'provision of municipal services. 5. That pursuant to Laws of Minnesota 1969, Chapter 444, the. Minnesota Municipal Commission determines as a matter of law that it is appropriate for the Town of Eagan to incorporate as a home rule charter city provided a majority of the electors residing therein vote affirmatively that the Town of Eagan' should become so incorporated. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: That the Minnesota Municipal Commission determines that it is appropriate that the Town of Eagan, County of Dakota, State of Minnesota incorporate as a home rule charter city; and, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: That the, Board of Supervisors of Town of 4 Eagan are hereby authorized in accordance with Laws of Minnesota 1969, Chapter 444, to conduct an election by the voters of said town to determine whether they desire to change their form of government to a horns rule charter city. Dated this30°h day of June, 1970 MINNESOTA MUNICII?AL COMMISSION 610 Capitol Square Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 /7. Bruce Rasmussen Secretary I-36 'MEMORANDUM The proceeding herein was conducted pursuant to Laws of Minnesota 1969, Chapter 444, a special act allowing the Town of Eagan to become a home -rule charter city providing certain con- ditions are met. Chapter 444 refers to Minnesota Statutes 414.02 to control our determination of whether it would be appropriate for the Town of Eagan to bocome a home -rule charter city. Since Chapter 444 was Commission law, Section 414.02. Our findings would hence we conclude that approved prior to the amendments to the Municipal we proceeded under Minnesota Statutes 1967, support the incorporation of a village, and it would also be appropriate for the Town to become a home -rule charter city. Our conclusion is supported by the findings of the 1969 Legislature which are set forth in Chapter 1146, Section 1: "The legislature finds that: (1) sound urban develop- ment is essential to the continued economic growth of this state; (2). municipal government is necessary to provide the governmental services essential to sound urban development and for the protection of health, safety, and welfare in areas being used intensively for residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, and governmental purposes or in areas undergoing such development; (3) The public interest requires that municipalities be formed when there exists or will likely exist the necessary resources to provide for their • economical and efficient operation; (4) annexation to or consolidation with existing municipalities or unin- corporated areas unable to supply municipal services should be facilitated; and, (5) the consolidation of municipalities should be encouraged. It is the purpose of this chapter to empower the Minnesota Municipal Commission to promote and regulate development of municipalities so that the public interest in efficient local government will be properly recognized and served." However, our conclusion does not mean that the Town will automatically become a city. The board of supervisors is merely authorized to conduct an election on the question. If the question is approved by a majority of the electors, a charter commission is appointed. Before becoming a city, the charter commission must propose a charter and it must be approved at another election. The responsibility for prompt action in accordance with our order lies with the community. He wish to make clear that the Order herein in no way suspends the legal processes available to the residents of the Town of Eagan.' If a petition of any kind is brought before the commission, we have no alternative but 'to proceed forthwith in the normal manner. • STATE OF MINNESOTA BEFORE MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL COMMISSIM COUNTY OF DAKOTA IN RE THE PETITION OF BURNSVILLE TOWNSHIP FOR INCORPORATION EXCEPTIONS TO FINDINGS OF FACT' AND CONCLUSIONS OF L/.W T0: MINNESOTF. MUNICIPAL COMMISSION Eagan Township hereby respectfully presents its exceptions to the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, heretofore set forth by the Minnesota Municipal Commission dated November 13th, 1963 as follows: 1. Exception is taken to that portion of the Notice which states - a. "All parties of record are notified that unless specific exception is taken to each proposed Finding or Conclusion, they will be deemed admitted and agreed upon. Each Finding and Conclusion must be separately excepted to with a statement of the basis of the exception." b. "Any procedural exceptions not taken pursuant tc this Notice will be deemed waived." Said exceptions being taken on the ground that the Minnesota Municipal Commission Rules of Practice do not provide for any such waiver and the Commission has exceeded its powers in so noticing said Proposed Findings and Conclusions. 2. Exception is taken to the Notice and Proposed Findings and Conclusions, in its entirety, on the ground that they fail to state whether they are proposed under Minnesota Statutes Section 414.02 or Section 414.05 proceedings before the Commission. 3. Exception is taken to paragraphs I-C and I-D of the Findings which should be stricken in their entirety on the following grounds: a. The proposed Findings I-C and I-D are inconsistent with and not supported by t!+_ evidence. There is no testimony of any competent witness to indi:ate that the area of Eagan Township specified in the proposed Findings sho:Ii•I be included in the incorporation of Burnsville; nor is the weight of the evidence sufficient to support this finding. b. The proposed Findings I-C and I-D are based solely en the opinion of the Commission and not on the evidence adduced at the hearings and therefore is arbitrary and capricious. c. The proposed Findings I-C and I-D include an area different than that proposed by the Commission per its resolution of October 15th, 1963 which specified that the area of Eagan Township to be included in the proposed incorporation of Burnsville be that portion of Eagan Township bounded on the east by Highway 1619; that subsequent thereto it was discovered by the Commission that the statutory notice to residents of that portion of Eagan Township residing east of the east line of Sections 17, 20, 29 and 32 and west of Highway #19 had not been given; that thereupon the Commission by resolution adopted on October 22nd, 1963 proposed Findings that include only that portion of Eagan being situated west cf the east line of said Sections for the sole reason that said notice had not been given to said residents; that this action by the Commission is therefore unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious. 4. Exception is taken to that portion of paragraph VI which sets forth the valuations for certain designated sections in Eagan Township on the ground that these figures are calculated on the 1560 assessments and are now different. 5. Exception is taken to paragraph VIII on the ground that there has been no sufficient showing that the Township form of government is inadequate to cope with the problems of the area of Eagan Township proposed for incorporation. 6. Exception is taken to paragraph 1X on the grcund that there has been no sufficient showing that the village form of government can best serve that portion of Eagan Township proposed for incorporation. On the contrary, there is before the Commission a preponderance of evident_ which shows that the powers of Engnn Oaaship are identical to those of a village except as co th3 litr t of banded indebtedness. .J 7. Exception is taken to paragraph XIII on the ground that no adequate proof of service has been made as to all affected parties and residents in that portion of Eagan Township proposed to be included in the area for incorporation. 8. Exception is taken to paragraph XIV on the ground that the weight of the evidence shows that the major portion of the area of Pagan Township proposed for incorporation is rural and not urban or suburban in character. 9. Exception is taken to paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the proposed Conclusions on the grounds set forth hereinabove. Dated: December 4, 1963 LUTHER M. STf.LLF.ND Attorney for Eagan Township 2340 Rand Tower Minneapolis, Minnesota - 55402 SIXTY-SIXTH SESSION • 593 %State o_ n r: esota ... HOUSE OF PLEPRESENT TI[VlE. n)7J z:L': 2 2. No.2150 Introduced by Mr. I{nutso n. Read First Time Mar. 29, 1969, and referred to the Committee on Metropolitan and Urban Affairs. Committee Recommendations, to Pass Apr. 22, 1969. Committee Report Adopted Apr. 22, 1969. Read Second Time Apr. 22, 1969. When existing law is changed, matter in italics is new; matter in capitals when in ( ) is old law to be omitted. A BILL for an Act Relating to the Town of Egan; Providing an Election by the Electors of the Town of Eagan to Determine Whether to Change the Form of Government of the Town of Eagan to a Home Rule Charter City; and Granting the Town of Eagan Power to Become a City. Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Minnesota: Section 1. The board of supervisors of the town of Eagan of Dakota county, is hereby 2 authorized to request the Minnesota Municipal Commission to determine the appropriateness of in- 3 corporating the town of Eagan as a home rule charter city or remaining a town, Such determination 4 shall be made by the Minnesota Municipal Commission so far as is practical in accordance with the 5 provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 414.02, governing incorporation of a village. Sec. 2. If the Minnesota Municipal Commission determines that it is appropriate that the town 2 of Eagan incorporate as a home rule charter city, then the board of supervisors of said town is 3 hereby authorized to conduct an election by the voters of said town to determine whether the electors 4 desire to change their form of government to a home rule charter city. Sec. 3. Such election shall be held in accordance with the manner provided for the conduct of 2 special town meetings. The ballot shall be marked as follows: 3 "Shall the town of Eagan become incorporated as a home rule charter city? 4 Yes 5 No Sec. 4. In the event that a majority of the electors vote in favor of such question then a 2 charter commission shall be appointed and the town of Eagan is authorized to become a home rule 3 charter city- under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 410. Sec. 5. This "ad takes effect when approved by the board of supervisors of the town of Eagan 2 and upon ' compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 645.021. .10 - , CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL OF SPEC.IAL,LAV BY GOVERNING BODY (Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, 645.02 and "645.021/ STATE OF'MINNESOTA County of Dakota TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF MINNESOTA: PLEASE TAKE' NOTICE, Thatthe undersigned chief clerical officer of the Town of Eagan. Dakota' County.. Minnesota (name of governmental uni:tl DOES HEREBY CERTIFY, that in rnmplianc. with the provisions of Laws, 1969, Chapter 444 requiring approval by a *'maj,ority "vote of the governing body. of said local governmentalwunit before it becomes effective, the Board of Supervisors (designate governing body) at a meeting duly held on the-�_ day of hay 19 69, by resolution (If other thhn resolution., specify) did approve said Laws, 1969., Chapter 444 by a X majority vote of all of the members thereof (Ayes Noes 0_; Absent or not voting. 0 4 and.the following. additional steps, if any, required' by statute or charter were taken: A copy of the resolution is hereto annexed' and made a part of this certificate by reference. Signed* SEAL I2a. Clerk - r^apan Township (Official designation of officer) (Theis form prescribed by the attorney General ?nd furnished by the Secretary of State as required in Minnesota Statutes 645.021)' 'If extraordinary.majority is required . -by the.speciad taw ipsert fraction or.fercent- age here. 598 HOUSE F. 1.EP E& .l l T'TIEk,Z_ SIXTY-SIXTH SESSION H. F. No.2150 Introduced by Mr. Knutso Read First Time Mar. '2'J, 1069, and referred to the Committee on Metropolitan and Urban Affairs. Committee Recommendations, to Pass Apr. 22, 1969. Committed Report Adopted Apr. 22, 1969. Read Second Time Apr. 22, 1969. When existing law is changed, matter in ilalies is new; mattar in capitals when in ( ) is old law to be omitted. A BILL for an Act Relating to the Town of Egan; Providing as Election by the Electors of the Town of Egan to Determine Whether to Change the Form of Government of the Towr. of Eagan to a Home Rule Charter City; and Granting the Town of Eagan Power to Become a City. Be it enacted by the Legislature of tl:,e State of Minnesota: Section 1. Thu board of supervisors of the tow:: of Eagan of Dakota county, i.3 hereby 2 authorized to request the Minnesota Municipal Commission to determine the appropriateness of in- 3 corporating the town of Eagan as a home rule: charter city or remaining a town. Such determination 4 sht.i1 be made by the Minnesota Municipal Comn:i;,'siof :;u ;;t: as is practical in accordance with the Z provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 414.02, governing incorporation of a village. Sec. 2. If the Minnesota Municipal Commission determines that it is appropriate that the town 2 of Eagan incorporate as a home rule charter city, then the board of supervisors of said town is 3 hereby authorized to conduct an election by the voters of said town to determine whether the electors 4 desire to change their form of government to a home rule charter city. Sec. 3. Such election shall be held in accordance wvitii the manner provided for the conduct of 2 special town meetings. Tiie ballot shnil be marked as follows: 3 "Sha:1 the town et Eagan become incorporated a: a home rule charter city? 4 Yes O No n :_cc. 4. In the event that a majority of the electors vote in favor of such question then a 2 '. 2 charter commission shall be appointed and the town of Eagan is authorized to become a home rule 3 charter city under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 4.10. Sec. 5. This .set takes effect when approved by the board of supervisors of the town of Eagan 2 and 'upon 'compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 645.021. BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF. THE TOWN OF EAGAN FOR INCORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF EAGAN AS A HOME RULE CHARTER .CITY PETITIONER'S BRIEF INTRODUCTION The above matter now pending before the Minnesota Municipal Commission (hereinafter designated MMC), was initiated by the passage of Laws of Minnesota 1969, Chapter 444 which, in substance, provides that upon request of the Eagan Town Board the MMC shall hold a hearing and decide whether to authorize the Town Board to call a special election of the Town electors to vote on the proposition of whether or not Eagan should be incorporated as a charter city. In accordance therewith the MMC held a pre-trial hearing on January 6, 1970 which resulted in a pre-trial order calling for a public hearing on the merits on March 12, 1970. At that time petitioner produced its evidence, both pro and con, relative to the merits of the Town of Eagan remaining a township or being incorporated as a home rule charter city. At the close of the hearing the matter was taken under advisement by the MMC. Subsequently at a hearing in April at Farmington the MMC considered the matter herein but made no final decision. Following this consideration, counsel for petitioner was informally requested to appear before the MMC at its meeting on April 29, 1970 to either present additional testimony concerning areas surrounding Town of Eagan, presumably to -observe the holding in Village of Farmington v. Minnesota Municipal Commission (1969), 170 NW 2d 197 as being applicable to the within petition or to present argument in lieu of such additional testimony. Petitioner has chosen the latter course, and the purpose of this brief is to support petitioner's contention that there is no need to introduce additional evidence concerning areas surrounding Eagan. In petitioner's view the Farmington case is inapplicable and the controlling law is Chapter 444 superimposed over Minnesota Statutes section 414.02 as amended in 1969: ARGUMENT The Board of Supervisors of Town of Eagan appointed an "Incorporation Committee" in 1968 following a request of electors at the annual meeting in that year for the purpose of making a study of the various forms of govern- ment under which petitioner could operate. The Committee considered, basically, the township, village -and charter forms of government, and after a year of study receoomended to the Board of Supervisors that special legislation be proposed to permit Eagan to vote on whether m become a home rule charter city. The Board of Supervisors thereupon directed the Town Attorney to prepare and submit to the 1969 session of the Legislature a bill to accomplish this purpose which was done and ultimately passed. Although, as the ?INC is aware from the testimony at its March 12th hearing, Eagan is divided as to whether it should remain a township or become a charter city (or village, for that matter), all participants and officials were and are in agreement that what- ever the form of government Eagan should retain its present boundaries. It was with this concept in mind that Chapter 444 was originally drafted and subsequently passed by the Legislature. The essence of this special law' is to permit Eagan (if the MMC sees fit) to decide by election whether it wants to become a home rule charter city or remain a town, but either way within its present boundaries. There is absolutely nothing in this law nor any inference that an election on this question could include either a larger or lesser area than now contained in Eagan. Further, the act contemplates an election at which only the electors of Eagan can participate. Chapter 444 explicitly provides "...If the Minnesota Municipal Commission determines that it is appropriate that the town of Eagan incorporate as a home rule charter city, then the Board of Supervisors of said town is hereby authorized to conduct an election by the voters of said town to determine whether the electors desire to change their form of government to a home rule charter city." (Emphasis supplied) While it is true that Chapter 444 provides that the MMC's determination shall be made in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 414.02, the act specifically qualifies this with the words "...so far as is practical..." It was recognized at the outset that the obvious matters for consideration by the MMC were clearly set forth in Section 414.02 and these qualifying words were purposefully inserted so that the sole question to be determined, first by the MMC and second by the Eagan electors if any election were called, was whether Eagan as presently constituted should become a home rule charter city. On this basis petitioner presented evidence exclusively related to Town of Eagan within its present territorial boundaries. As the MMC will recall, the request to intervene by abutting Village of Apple Valley was permitted by MMC in its pre-trial order. However, Apple Valley voluntarily withdrew and failed to appear at the hearing on March 12th. This was all consistent with Eagan's express desire to have the sole question decided as to whether , as the town now is, it should be incorporated or not, and without relation to any annexation or ansolidation considerations. Any concern the MMC may have over the Farmington case, supra, in regard to the present proceedings should be dispelled when considered in the light of Chapter 444 aid the amendments to Section 414.02 since the Farmington case was first submitted. Old Section 414.02 made it mandatory that the MMC make a finding that annexation is or is not preferable for the unincorporated area but under new Section 414.02 the word "may" has been substituted for the word "shall" in subdivision 3. New Section 414.02 became effective on June 10, 1969. The Farmington case, which arose long prior to that date, was decided under old 414.02 which is apparent from what the Court says (at page 204): "(8) As noted, $ 414.02, subd. 5, requires the Commission, in passing upon a consolidation petition, to make findings according to the provisions of § 414.02, subd. 3, which governs incorporation proceedings. That section requires that 'the commission shall approve the petition for incorporation if it finds that the property to be incorporated is now, or is about to become, urban or suburban in character.' (Emphasis supplied)" Town of Eagan, on the other hand, initiated the present proceedings well after the changes in 414.02 became effective and, of course, pursuant to Chapter =3= 444. New 414.03, subdivision 3 states that "...As a guide in arriving at a determination, the commission shall consider the following factors: (a) Present population, past population growth and projected population for the area; (b) Quality of land within the area proposed for incorporation; (c) Present pattern of physical development in the area including residential, industrial, commercial and institutional land uses; (d) Comprehensive plans for development of the area including development as projected by the metropolitan council or the state planning agency; (e) Type and degree of control presently being exercised over development in the area including zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations and housing and building codes; (f) Natural terrain of the area including general topography, major watersheds, soil conditions and such natural features as rivers, lakes and major bluffs; (g) Present governmental services being provided to':the area including water and sewer service, fire and police protection, street improvements and maintenance and recreational facilities; (h) Existing or potential problems of environmental pollution -,and the need for additional services to avoid or minimize these problems; (i) Fiscal data of the area including assessed valuation trends, mill rate trends (state, county, school district and town) and present bonded in- debtedness; (j) Relationship and effect of the proposed incorporation on communities adjacent to the area and school districts within and adjacent to the area; (k) Analysis of whether the needed governmental services can best be pro- vided through incorporation or annexation to an adjacent municipality; and, (1) Adequacy of town government to deal with problems of the area." Petitioner submits that in only one instance did it fail (purposely) to produce evidence sufficiant for the MMC to make such findings and that is contained in (j). Petitioner further submits that if the wording in Chapter 444 has any meaning at all ("...so far as is practical..."), it was justified in not producing such evidence involving adjoining communities and the MMC is also justified in not considering this factor in making its decision in accordance with Chapter 444. What the Supreme Court says in the Farmington case regarding the Legislature's preference for annexation of unincorporated lands became moot when the Legislature changed "shall" to "may" in Section 414.02, Subdivision 3. For these reasons petitioner respectfully submits that no additional evidence need be introduced relative to surrounding areas since a finding by the MMC on this issue is not germaine to the determination to be made pursuant to Chapter 444. Dated: April 27, 1970. Respectfully submitted, HAUGE / sy //11+.tr it ,+'�X l.'a�.(►_.Fl u'ier Y. Stalland Attorneys for Petitioner 2340 Dain Tower Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 A bill for an act granting to urban townships having certain village powers under Minnesota Statutes Section 368.01 and population in excess of 10,000 all the powers of a village but retaining its town form of government (NEW) BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: Minnesota Statutes Section 368.011 (New Section) 368.011 Certain towns to have all the powers of villages Any town in this state having certain village powers pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 368.01 and a population in excess of 10,000 according to the last federal census shall have all the powers of any village in this state including, but not exclusively, all taxing and bonding powers and the right to receive in the same manner and to the same extent all tax monies and aids to which villages are entitled by law. A bill for an act granting to certain urban towns the local option to issue licenses for the sale of intoxicating liquor; amending Minnesota Statutes 1967, Section 340.20. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: Minnesota Statutes 1967, Section 340.20 is amended to read: 340.20 Local option elections, petition The recorder or clerk of any town having village powers pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 368.01 and a population in excess of 10,000 according to the last official federal census and of any village or city of the fourth class shall, upon the petition of a number of legal voters of the village or city of the fourth class equal to 30 percent of the persons voting at the last election in such village or city of the fourth class or 200 legal voters of the village or city of the fourth class whichever is the lesser number, filed with him at least 15 days before the regular election thereof, give notice at the same time and in the same manner as the notice of such election that the ques- tion of granting license in such village or city of the fourth class for the sale of intoxicating liquor will be submitted for determination at such election. At such election, when so petitioned for, the question shall be voted upon by a separate ballot, the terms of which shall be either "for license" or "against license", which ballot shall be deposited in a separate ballot box to be provided in each voting precinct and the result of such voting shall be duly canvassed, certified and returned in the same manner and at the same time as the other facts and returns of the election. As amended Laws 1965, c. 218, §1, eff. April 23, 1965; Laws 1967, c. 145, ®1, eff. April 5, 1967. A bill for an act relating to bond issues; certain towns having village powers; amending Minnesota Statutes 1967, Section 475.52, Subdivision 1. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 1967, Section 475.52, Subdivision 1, is amended to -.read: 475.52 (BOND ISSUES; PURPOSES.) Subdivision 1. (NOT UNDER HOME RULE CHARTER.) Any city not governed by a home rule charter, any village, town having village powers pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 368.01, or any borough may issue bonds or other obligations for the acquisition or better- ment of public buildings, means of garbage disposal, hospitals, homes for the aged, schools, libraries, museums, art galleries, nursing homes, parks, play- grounds, stadia, sewers, sewage disposal plants, subways, streets, sidewalks; for any utility or other public convenience from which a revenue is or may be derived; for a permanent improvement revolving fund; for changing, controlling or bridging streams and other waterways; for the acquisition and betterment of bridges and roads within two miles of the corporate limits; and for acquisition of equipment for snow removal, street construction and maintenance, or fire fighting. Without limitation by the foregoing any such city, village, or borough may issue bonds to provide money for any authorized corporate purpose except current expenses. A bill for an act relating to chemical tests for intoxication under implied consent law; to include certain urban towns; amending Minnesota Statutes Section 169.123, Subdivision 1. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: Minnesota Statutes 1969, Section 169.123, Subdivision 1, is amended to read: 169.123 Chemical tests for intoxication Subdivision 1. Peace officer defined. For purposes of Laws 1961, Chapter 454, the term peace officer means a state highway patrol officer or full time police officer of any municipality, including towns having village powers under Minnesota Statutes Section 368.01, or county having satisfactorily completed a prescribed course of instruction in a school for instruction of persons in law enforcement conducted by the University of Minnesota or a similar course considered equivalent by the commissioner of public safety.