We know there are local groups working towards the goal of regional planning. Balancing the needs of the collective with the property rights of the individuals is a balancing act that requires that our elected officials see themselves as both representative of the voters but also as teachers and decision makers. We do not hire them (through the ballot box) to simply reflect our demands — that way lies the madness of mob rule — nor do we hire them to be our masters. We hire them expecting them to become more informed than we are, to use that information to guide their decisions and to clearly explain their motives, their decision criteria and their ultimate decisions to us. We are the clients — not always right — but certainly expecting our public servants to serve.

This LGN conversation has covered a lot of very useful background information, and it certainly informs my expectations for my future work (as a township supervisor for Bridgewater Township) negotiating with Northfield and Dundas. As a mediator for the Rice County Dispute Resolution Program I have learned many things about how guided discussions can bring two conflicting parties together to a mutually satisfactory condition.

The key is good communication, and communication is not what I say, but rather what you hear. Without understanding, we have only posturing and rhetoric. The most critical component of this conversation is the signed agreement from 1980. That is the governing document. But the question has to be “what is the City trying to do?”

At a Northfield City Council meeting I spoke out on the proper relationship between elected officials and their staffs. I said that if the elected city councilors and the elected township supervisors wanted to paint their roads red in the city and white in the township and candy stripped for the shared roads, then the role of staff and the legal counsel they employ is simple.

• Inform us if we can afford it (money, such a nasty topic).
• Inform us if it is legal.
• And help us to make it happen.

I suggested that we are much more partners serving the people than businesses competing for income, and as partners, we should be using our staffs and counselors not to find the loopholes and obfuscations that would let us “win” but rather to find the loopholes and obfuscations so that we can eliminate them. The first step is to have a shared vision, the next step is to use our staffs to help us reach that vision.

So what do I take away so far from this conversation?

• Northfield is only paying about $3,000 a year, so I presume money is not their primary issue (it’s a red herring).
• Northfield appears to have no immediate need to expand northward, and there are no Waterford residents pounding on the city’s doors to be let in.
• The northern bypass problem is a big one, and a regionally oriented solution would give people 10-20 years to get used to the idea of a highway coming through their back yard. The question is whether Northfield should continue to plan to NOT use North Avenue (extended) and continue to look further north.

Regional planning would certainly help. Dundas could not come to terms with the idea of straightening out CSAH 1 to go through downtown, and tried to push it south. After working with the regional partners, there is now a compromise route that attempts to satisfy all the major players, or at least dissatisfy them equally (Northfield needs a southern bypass, Dundas needs its downtown, Rice County needs an east-west route and the township residents need to know where the roads might go if they want to join Dundas from the north side). Unfortunately, this compromise route has few champions as it is not optimal for any one jurisdiction. But the regional nature of the plan suggests that in any open meeting there will be representation to ensure that politics as usual does not result in another NIMBY solution (the active parties taking advantage of the relatively inactive parties).

So, what about this conversation? I think it is time for the elected officials to meet with each other to start to figure out what they want their staffs to make happen. And those meetings should be cross-jurisdictions and guidance generating.

Why should Waterford want to discuss anything? Northfield should give them an offer to change the agreement from what it is to whatever they want it to be, and provide Waterford some incentive to change the agreement.

This is from the packet of the April 13, 2010 council work session at which they met with the Waterford Town Board.

Thanks, Ross, for the planning history. I mentioned the Thye Parkway “plan” because it seemed to me at the June 21, 2010 joint meeting it was a concern to Waterford. My greatest worry as a Northfield resident, is as you sugges, Carol in 111.1.3, that we haven’t been very “good neighbors” in the way we’ve handled discussing the Joint Resolution with our neighbors or informing them of our planning goals. Why can’t there be more regular communication with Waterford about our mutual planning policies and goals? I think this could lay the foundation for avoiding potential conflicts and could encourage focused discussion on resolving those which arise (or are codified in contracts.)

It is never too late to start!

For the years 1999 thru 2009 a total of $ 247,573.51 was generated and collected by Northfield for local tax. Of this a total of $ 37,933.36 was returned to Waterford Township based on the formula in the Annexation Agreement. This leaves a total net tax of $ 209,640.36 for Northfield. The property tax information is direct from the Dakota County Auditors Office who had faxed me the last 11 years of property tax statements for the Sheldahl Property in April of this year. This information was given to the City Councilors in April, and reviewed again at the meeting on June 21st.

Liz Messner
Waterford Township

Gosh, we’re talking about a pretty dusty corner of my brain with this topic. By the way, you owe big-time for dragging me into this discussion with your e-mail.

As I recall, our work included reviewing the 1998 City of Northfield Transportation Study, the 1998 Trail Master Plan, the 2000 Northfield Industrial Corporation Plan, and the 2001 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Task Force. There may have been a few other studies or reports that I’m not recalling at the moment.

There seemed to be ten or twelve themes or projects that were common to all these studies, issues that were raised, discussed, and rarely resolved, over the years. One of these projects was often referred to as the “Northern By-pass”.

To summarize to the best of my ability, there are big trucks that pass through Northfield, many, if not most, traveling along Highway 19, going from west to east or east to west. These trucks, or their drivers, have no intention of stopping in Northfield, even to eat at one of our many fine restaurants.

This “through traffic” apparently puts some stress on our system. In particular, the approximately one-quarter mile segment where our great north-south road, Highway 3, and our great west-east road, Highway 19, run together, from 5th Street to 2nd Street, experiences some undesirable side-effects from this traffic.

So, for about, I’m guessing, twenty years, folks have talked about a “Northern By-pass” taking some of the traffic out of this already very busy segment. I’m pretty sure that every study or plan had some kind of Northern By-pass at least mentioned, if not drawn.

Apparently, due to the substantial development of housing, it keeps shifting further north. Originally, North Avenue was discussed. But we “lost” North Ave. to development, so then it was Thye Parkway.

Some have suggested that Thye Parkway can no longer be an option. They talk about 320th Street. Others say that if it’s too far north of Highway 19, no one will take it and they’ll continue to come through the intersection of Highways 19 and 3.

I can understand that the Waterford Township people don’t want it in their backyards. I’ve heard that it was the North Avenue people who kept it out of their backyards. I’ll bet that the folks along 320th Street don’t want it in their backyards either.

As I recall, the “traffic scientist” that presented to us modeled what would happen if we never created a Northern By-pass. According to him, at some point the traffic on Highways 19 and 3 would get so bad that people would start taking side streets. I believe that he mentioned St. Olaf Avenue and Greenvale Avenue as being likely candidates for an improvised by-pass.

Now, we’re living in a new reality. Maybe Northfield, and the surrounding areas, won’t continue to experience the same growth, or change, that we did in the recent past. Perhaps we don’t have to worry about a Northern By-pass for another ten years…or, who knows, maybe another twenty.

Hey, we could hire another consultant and get another study or report written. Maybe we can draw the map differently for this one.

(FYI, I don’t think Northfield is “paying” Waterford anything; Northfield is giving Waterford the agreed share of the tax receipts. Isn’t that right, Liz?)

As a bit of irony, Northfield is collecting $10,000′s ($100,000′s?) of tax dollars every year of County and School money and putting it into the “Streetscape Fund”. Look for the County and School to start their own whining if Northfield keeps it up.

Another thing to consider -- someone is going to have to break the contract before the court is going to interject itself into the action.

Think about it this way: if Northfield does break the contract, and Waterford sues and wins, do you think Waterford is ever, ever, ever going to negotiate with Northfield? It will have Northfield by the short hairs.

A win for Northfield might be worse. Think about all the bad blood it would create. How is Northfield going to be able to negotiate with Greenvale, Bridgewater, Waterford, Dundas, etc. if it (we) have a reputation for breaking our contracts?

I would also like to point out that our Comp Plan and Zoning Ordinance mesh with what Northfield is looking for along it’s borders -- green space. We have alot in common with the overall vision Northfield has, but we will retain the right to govern it for ourselves.

Liz Messener
Waterford

Tracy -- I also would strongly argue against taking the position that “If they had truly determined that, they would have tried to include some language that ensured the agreement was for 100 years, or in perpetuity, or whatever. They wouldn’t have just forgotten to include it.” That won’t fly in the court of legal intent. And yes, it’s obviously about contract law — it’s about a contract!

Patrick and Tracy -- Color me biased, I’m an attorney! For both of these arguments, it’s not a position I would want to take, I think it’s asking for Rule 11 sanctions, well, maybe that’s a bit extreme, but I wouldn’t stick my neck out because as arguments, I don’t see any legal merit.

Two attorneys have commented here that Waterford has a valid contract: David Ludescher and Carol Overland, and of course we have the opinion of the Waterford attorney.

What the heck is the big whoop with NF getting its act together and presenting the WF supervisors with a list of changes the NF council would like to make?

Wouldn’t that be a lot simpler than all the posturing back and forth?
Just do it…

It’s a specious argument to say that “Northfield and Waterford determined that no termination date should be included in the agreement.” That’s just silly. If they had truly determined that, they would have tried to include some language that ensured the agreement was for 100 years, or in perpetuity, or whatever. They wouldn’t have just forgotten to include it.

In a matter of this long-term importance is in dispute, I fully support renegotiation. Failing an acceptable renegotiation, I support taking our case to a court to determine the legal truth of the matter.

As you say,

Unfortunately, I believe in most cases, the decision would come down on the side of the property owner’s request and the City’s desire.

I agree, although I’d leave out the “Unfortunately.” I’d say that is as it should be, given the goals of MN annexation law.

I support a carrot-and-stick approach to this negotiation. I would be very happy to see a renegotiated annexation agreement, which removes the absolute veto and the lack of an end date. Failing that, I believe that it is in the city’s best interests to pursue other paths to a policy that will be consistent with the long-term well-being of our community.

Unfortunately, the present agreement is not sustainable over the long term.

Patrick, research Hostile Annexation. It’s messy but allowable … and potentially overrides the veto. The outcome, as I understand, is determined by a state agency reviewing all the circumstances and making the “greater good” decision.

Unfortunately, I believe in most cases, the decision would come down on the side of the property owner’s request and the City’s desire.

David Ludesher seems to have the stronger hand of logic and reasoning on this question. I’m sort of amazed some of the Councilors don’t follow suit.

What is it about a contract that you don’t see as binding? And more to the point, what of Northfield’s motivation … what’s its gain?

Regardless, As Ms Messner points out, over and over, Waterford, situated in the Metro Counties, has a unique position in the matters of its sovereignty and voice in these matters.

Again, what’s Northfield’s motivation, keeping the staff busy?

.

All those twisted, slowly-winding suburban roads up there make a new north-side thoroughfare an unfortunate, but eventual, necessity.

As I see it, Waterford did a good job of negotiating and Northfield doesn’t like it. Yeah, so what! Parties can and do agree to anything, and Northfield can whine and cry all it wants but they can either entice Waterford to alter their position, or they can try to get the agreement voided by a judge. Waterford is under no obligation to alter the agreement. Northfield were represented by counsel, the City Council stamped their approval on the agreement, and have far greater monetary, politlcal and other resources and power than Waterford — Northfield can’t argue it was an uneven playing field, some extreme disadvantage. In either case, abusive behavior will not help. If I represented them (again, more free advice, worth whatever), I’d push them to focus on what would entice a change, and to lay off the negative pressure — each push by Northfield makes a Northfield-favorable outcome less likely.