By Anne Thom

The city of Stacy and Lent Township have been working through a series of proposed agreements designed to ease the tense feelings fostered by recent reports of hostile annexation.

At a joint meeting Dec. 12, in the latest version of a proposed agreement, the city asked to take all of Chisago County Section 32, the section in which the city is located, as well as half of Sections 30 and 31. The Lent Township took this proposal under advisement and held a special meeting to discuss its merits. The agreement has been considered and subsequently rejected.

Last week a handful of township residents met with Lent Township supervisors Monica Abress, Lyle Johnson and Gene Olson. Also present were Chisago County Housing Redevelopment Authority/Economic Development Authority (HRA/EDA) director Chris Eng and county commissioners Lynn Schultz and Mike Robinson.

Abress opened the meeting reviewing the history of negotiations between the township and the city. Residents were informed of what Stacy is seeking in the current agreement. Abress said the town board had concerns about the proposal. She said, ìThe biggest fear is the city will just come along and take the land.î

The board wanted to hear what township residents had to say. Abress said, ìOur residents have been very vocal that they donít want their land taken by the city of Stacy.î

Abress believes Stacy is targeting two 40-acre parcels that are located in those sections. Gene Olson mentioned a ìcart before the horseî scenario saying the landowner of one of those parcels hasnít decided what to do with the land. The township feels the city is trying to force a sale. Eng said it is possible for the county to enter an agreement with a landowner where a price is settled on and inflation is factored in. The property is then sold to the county when the landowner is ready to sell. Lent may decide to secure an agreement for first right of sale when the landowner is ready.

There were no legal representatives present to offer advice on annexation and what the law allows.

Clarifications were offered to residents on some facts: annexation does not have to be requested, hostile takeovers of township land occur frequently and administrative law judges frequently side with the city. This usually follows development that the township has completed.

The town board referred to Lentís Comprehensive Plan. They have been planning for potential industrial development in those sections of the proposed agreement. The discussion the board members had among themselves initiated several ideas for joint partnerships.

A partnership of three?

The countyís HRA/EDA is a potential partner in developing land within the disputed areas. Commercial or industrial development is what is desired. The township is interested in preventing more residential development. Chisago County has a notoriously low tax base of commercial and industrial properties: 5 percent as opposed to a statewide average of 15 percent.

Eng suggested that the township, the city and the county might work out a three way partnership agreement deciding who would have zoning and development jurisdiction in exchange for parcels, infrastructure and water and sewer services.

He added that the township could maintain control of zoning under any agreement. Olson said financially, cooperating with Stacy has merits and favored introducing the county into a potential partnership. Olson also said his major sticking point was how to handle water and sewer services.

Eng said that in a partnership of this type the township could maintain jurisdiction over the land and the city over the utilities. Lent would not have to get involved with city water and sewer. The matter of a one-third partnership agreement will now be brought by Eng to the HRA/EDA board on Jan. 29. Eng did not mention if that board would have to unanimously approve the partnership.

Olson suggested the town board talk to Stacy officials about working out a cooperative agreement with the county. A joint meeting of the Lent Township Board and the city of Stacy is scheduled for Jan. 30 at 7 p.m.

Commissioner Schultz suggested the township lay out all scenarios available and parties to be involved and then make a list of pros and cons with each avenue of action in order to present the township viewpoint clearly to Stacy.

Abress said her major sticking point is that the township land stay in the township. ìWe want to keep a rural flavor,î said Abress. The township wants to maintain zoning control. Abress feels the township is in a position to manage growth.

Commissioner Robinson added, ìThe only real way the township could keep the land is to become a city.î

Lyle Johnsonís issue reflected his experience as a business owner. He was concerned with the great difference of opinion the city and township may have on how the land is eventually used for commercial. He said, ìYou canít build good paying jobs with retail.î

Information from the Minnesota Dept. of Employment and Economic Development shows that for Region 7E, where Chisago County is located, the primary employers are health care, social services and retail. The data also shows that retail constitutes 18 percent of jobs in the region, but only 12.7 percent of wages, while health care and social services represent 25 percent of the regions jobs and 29 percent of wages.

Abress was not only concerned about the kind of jobs but also increased traffic and the need for significant planning. ìIf we were to reach agreement on a one-third partnership and the land stays under township control, who would determine what businesses would come in?î

Johnson worried that once an agreement reached its end, if the land is developed, the city would take it at that time.
Abress and Olson both felt that Stacyís ìour way or no wayî response was disrespectful to the negotiation process and the township.
Olson said ìWe are trying to plan for the welfare of the township.î

Top of Page

©ECM Post Review

6448 Main Street
North Branch, MN 55056
Telephone: 651-674-7025
Fax: 651-674-7026
E-mail: editor.postreview@ecm-inc.com