I know most of you have heard of Annexation. This is where a city brings property from a township into a city and expands the boundaries. If you’re from Breezy Point you have probably heard about Detachment. This is somewhat the opposite. A property owner petitions the state to remove their property from a city.
The statute that addresses this is a very brief one. This statute is a poorly written and accomplishes its goals but fails to address numerous concerns. I think the issue that generates the most concern is that of the lack of local control in the process. Here a property owner petitions the state and only the city and property owner are involved. There is no notice to the receiving township or the county. They have no formal say in the matter. After the “required” 3 meetings with property owners an administrative law judge makes a decision. This person only looks at the detachment law, doesn’t take into consideration the character of the community nor do they consider any other statute that may conflict with this action. This judge is only accountable to the governor.
This judge, in the absence of an agreement, allocates costs for the proceedings if a hearing is held. The last hearings held in Breezy Point resulted in the city paying 75% of the costs. The city didn’t petition to have land removed, the petitioner did. Does the judge think because we’re a city or have deep pockets we should have the majority responsibility for loosing tax base and part of the city? It just doesn’t make sense.
The law provides that only abutting property owners are eligible for detachment. The state office allows non-abutting property owners to petition for detachment. They do this by considering that combinations of property create the abutting situation. This abutting property clause seems to address limited situations where one jurisdiction may be better able to be served by a neighboring unit of government. The legislative intent was not to allow wholesale detachment of vast acreages in a municipality without good cause. A very different interpretation is being used.
There criteria for determining whether or not the property could detach is both vague and broad. Rural in character, doesn’t affect the symmetry, not commercial or industrial or have utilities. This could be said of many communities in Minnesota that have a rural flair.
Given legal expenses, hearing expenses, the actions of the past hearings and the lack of common sense with the state’s administrative law judge the city council considered our options at the last meeting. They reluctantly voted to end the proceedings and the expense by allowing for the detachment. They also acknowledged indirectly that the resolve for this matter isn’t found at this juncture but rather lies in the need for change in law. We will be diligently working in this arena.
