The district court found that a declaratory judgment would not only resolve uncertainty between the parties but also allow the public to have certainty regarding which entity has planning and zoning authority. Dundas argues that the judgment amounts to an advisory opinion, claiming that the district court improperly interpreted LaCrescent Twp. v. City of LaCrescent, 515 N.W.2d 608 (Minn. App. 1994). In LaCrescent, a township and city entered into an orderly annexation agreement, but the manner in which cities could annex land was subsequently modified by statute.

In LaCrescent Twp. v. City of LaCrescent , the Township of LaCrescent and the City of LaCrescent entered into an orderly annexation agreement with respect to certain township property. 515 N.W.2d 608, 609 (Minn. App. 1994). Later, the owners of land located within an area governed by the agreement and the city petitioned for annexation of land by ordinance.

Finally, appellants argue that the OAH's interpretation of the statutes frustrates one of the purposes of chapter of 414, which is to encourage long-range planning powers or other cooperative efforts among governmental bodies. See LaCrescent Twp. v. City of LaCrescent, 515 N.W.2d 608, 610 (Minn.App. 1994) ("section 414.0325 allows cities and townships to plan for the future"). We disagree.

The legislature has provided for the consolidation of local government units by adopting the annexation provisions in Minn. Stat. ch. 414 (2000). LaCrescent Township v. City of LaCrescent, 515 N.W.2d 608, 609-10 (Minn.App. 1994). Local action in the field of annexation is thus preempted.