Annexation meeting today in Sleepy Eye

Properties on Cedar Street

N.E. are at issue

By FRITZ BUSCH

Journal Staff Writer

SLEEPY EYE -- The future of the Cedar Street annexation project hangs in the balance at a meeting this morning in the office of Sleepy Eye City Attorney Errol E. "Nip" Hauser.

At issue is the city's plan to annex properties on Cedar Street N.E.

Attending the meeting will be Hauser, Sleepy Eye City Manager Mark Kober and City Council Chairman Wayne Novotny as well as New Ulm attorney Hugh Nierengarten and affected property owners he represents.

On Feb. 20, the Sleepy Eye City Council held a special meeting to discuss the annexation issue.

Despite opposition from affected property owners, City Engineer David Palm was directed to proceed with the annexation project.

During last week's meeting, several affected property owners told the council that the City of Sleepy Eye and Home Township signed an agreement dated May 14, 1985, regarding the annexation of the Erickson (now Jubilee) property.

According to the agreement, the City of Sleepy Eye agreed not to annex any property lying between the annexed property and the city limits, unless the property owners affected petition the city for the annexation.

The agreement was signed by Sleepy Eye Mayor Harry Hornbrook, City Clerk Ed Treml, Home Township Chairman Kenneth Losleben and Township Clerk Donald R. Moll.

Annexation opponents claim the agreement makes them exempt from city annexation.

City of Sleepy Eye officials said it does not.

The Cedar Street project would include drive-over curb and gutter, water and sewer improvements. Estimated cost was $162,185.

The Minnesota Department of Transportation would get the largest bill -- $ 82,136.

Sleepy Eye Auction Inc. would get an $18,272 bill. Neil Case Jr. would get a $14,054 bill. Arneson Dist. Inc. and Havemeier Trucking would be billed $12,064 each.

Smaller bills would go to CAMA Minndak Inc., Jubilee Foods, Seven Gables Hotel, Marilyn and Darwin Burda and Lewis Abel.

Annexation into Sleepy Eye would also mean average tax increases of 30 cents on every dollar, according to Kober.

Dean Ibberson, representing the auction market, told the council that he would rather see Seventh Avenue improved and offered to pay for some of that work himself.

Rae Ann Arneson of Arneson Distributing said it's "crazy to be assessed a lot of money for something we don't want or need. The only reason for it is to get somebody else sewer and water service."

Home Township Board Chairman Ray Tauer said the Sleepy Eye City Council had a different attitude toward annexation 15 years ago.

"I don't blame them for wanting to stay out of the city limits," Tauer said. "They should be able to stay out. Years ago, nobody was annexed unless they wanted to."

Former Sleepy Eye Mayor Harry Hornbrook said Cedar Street should be made to handle nine-ton loads due to the truck traffic on it. He said the street would a desirable route east if the barricade at its east end were removed and the street continued east to Highway 14.

Sleepy Eye City Manager Mark Kober said he hoped an agreement between the property owners and city would be worked out for the street project.

Kober said the city now plans to remove the barricade on Cedar Street.

Earlier, project opponents complained that the street should not be improved because it was barricaded and did not go anywhere.

"We will look at some options," Kober said. "We'd like to connect it all by removing the barricade and running Cedar Street east."

Kober said property owners on Seventh Street who are not in the city contributed to the road wear with their trucks and should help pay for the project.

Kober thinks the 1985 agreement does not affect some property owners fighting the annexation project.

"I asked Dean Ibberson if he ever got this 1985 annexation agreement. He said he never did, that it was just an understanding."

The 1985 agreement may be valid, but it wasn't written for all of the property owners affected by the project, according to Kober.

Mayor Jim Broich said it may take some proof to determine who was included in the 1985 agreement.

"It may not be as clear as it looks. I don't deny that the agreement is valid. I just think it was intended for people other those bringing the issue up," Broich said. "We'll let the attorneys hash this out."