Local Video
|
| Fighting words arise over 30-year-old annexation agreement |
By: DAVID HENKE, Staff Writer
|
Posted: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 1:37 am
|
 Email  Print
|
CORRECTION: This article has changed to correct inaccurate information given to the Northfield News. According to a revised legal opinion issued by Northfield City Attorneys Flaherty & Hood on Jan. 12, the city has spent $73,906 on tax reimbursements for Waterford Township.
NORTHFIELD — The joint annexation agreement between Waterford Township and Northfield was good in 1980, township supervisor John Dudley said, and it is still good now.
At a meeting Monday night between the township board and city officials, Dudley and the board “respectfully disagreed” with an opinion issued late last month by Northfield’s city attorney that the 30-year-old agreement between Northfield and the township is invalid under state law.
The agreement allowed the city to annex 20 acres of land from the township but required Northfield to pay yearly tax reimbursements to Waterford for an indefinite period of time. The decision kept a large employer from leaving Northfield and was a landmark compromise, Dudley said.
But Northfield’s city attorneys have a different take on the annexation agreement.
Because a 1981 state law dictated that the city must complete reimbursements within six years of the agreement, the terms of the agreement were met long ago and the agreement is no longer enforceable, Northfield city attorneys Flaherty & Hood said in a legal opinion obtained by the Northfield News.
Next Tuesday, the Northfield City Council will review the joint annexation agreement and could decide whether to discontinue the annual tax reimbursements to Waterford, City Administrator Joel Walinski said. Since 1980, the tax reimbursements have cost Northfield $73,906, according to Flaherty & Hood's legal opinion.
The city’s decision to review the agreement at next Tuesday’s city council meeting is “unethical,” since it doesn’t provide enough time for Waterford to weigh its legal options, Dudley said after discussing the issue with city officials at the township’s regular meeting on Monday night.
Furthermore, Dudley and other township officials say, Waterford is entitled to its cut of the tax revenue generated from the site, especially since the city still receives the lion’s share of tax revenue from the property, Dudley said.
The city council and city staff decided to review the agreement last month, after the city council rejected an annexation request made by Eugene Sitzmann, the owner of a vacant commercial building located just north of the city limits in Waterford Township.
The request, Walinski said, prompted the council and city staff to revisit the 1980 joint resolution between the city and the township, which allowed the city to annex 20 acres of property — now the site of Multek Flexible Circuits, Inc.
In return, the city was required to pay a yearly, variable amount to the township based on the tax rate for the property. The joint resolution also stated that the city could not annex any property in the township in the future without the permission of the township board.
Dudley believes the agreement is exempt from the state law limiting the length of reimbursement payments, because the agreement between the city and the township was signed before the law was passed.
At this point, the township hasn’t ruled out suing the city, Dudley said, but he believes the board needs more time to consider alternate paths.
“Before this is over, there’s going to be a fight, there’s no doubt about it,” Dudley said.
WHAT’S NEXT?
At the Northfield City Council meeting next Tuesday, the council will review the joint annexation agreement the city made with Waterford Township in 1980 and could vote to discontinue tax reimbursements to the township. The review will focus on those reimbursement payments, not any annexation issues, Community Development Director Brian O’Connell said at a Monday meeting with the township board.
— David Henke covers city, business and youth issues. He can be reached at dhenke@northfieldnews.com or 645-1100. |
|
|
|
Story Comment Guidelines:
Registered members who identify themselves by name are authorized to automatically post comments to stories. Readers who wish to remain anonymous submit comments to a pending queue, where they will be reviewed for approval within 24 hours of their submission. To determine the author of a comment, click on the user name.
Those who identify themselves will be given broader boundaries to express their opinion. Only those anonymous comments that contribute to the conversation in a thoughtful, respectful, civil manner will be approved. The decision to approve or reject a comment is a subjective one and is ours alone. Authors of rejected comments will receive an email response.
If you would like to report abuse click here to notify us.
|
|
| Show Comments | Hide Comments
|
|
| Login and voice your opinion!
|
|
|
|
|
Top Jobs | Top Homes | Top Cars
09 Jetta
09 white Jetta asking $16,000
less than 48,000 miles
|
|
Digg
Del.icio.us
Facebook
MySpace
StumbleUpon
Google
Yahoo!
Ever since Thomas Jefferson established the township/city form of government in the 18th Century the country grew to the west coast. The Jefferson model provided for government services - fire, water, police, sewer, education - which became more efficient when delivered to people congregated in towns and cities. The townships would have limited services until the towns grew and acquired the township land. The process has worked quite well over 200+ years as the townships became towns and the towns became cities. There is still a place for rural spaces but there is no place for township boards who buck the trend that population growth continues with demands for more efficient government. Waterford Township is hampering logical, well planned,efficient growth.