By Anne Thom

Will the annexation dispute between the city of Wyoming and Wyoming Township vs. the city of Stacy and the city of Chisago City become case law for the entire state? While the parties disagree on a few key points, they all agree this battle may establish a legal precedent. Wyoming Town Board Chair Roger Elmore's first remark when interviewed was "We think this has legislative value."

The city of Wyoming and Wyoming Township are pursuing a friendly annexation between the two entities, pushed in part from Chisago City's attempt to annex approximately 11,000 acres of Wyoming Township.

A petition for review of the decision by the state Court of Appeals case was filed with the state Supreme Court on August 23. The Supreme Court has not notified the parties yet whether they will hear the case. The Supreme Court hears approximately 5 percent of appeals cases and only those thought to have public policy or legislative implications.

The Post Review met with the parties separately, Wyoming Mayor Sheldon Anderson, City Administrator Craig Mattson and Elmore sat down to discuss the case in late August. Stacy Mayor John Daher met with this reporter in early September. Anderson, Mattson and Elmore maintain their annexation plan is between the city of Wyoming and the Township, not between the two of them and the city of Stacy.

Daher felt that the Wyoming Town Board had been "cordial", cordial enough that Stacy had made their proposal and then agreed that each side should bring it back to their respective entities, hopeful that a future plan could be worked out. In Daher's opinion, the matter ended up in court this way: Wyoming and Wyoming Township sat down to discuss the issue and declined to allow Stacy a seat at the table. Stacy was told these were "preliminary discussions." Stacy subsequently found out a petition for annexation had been filed and at that time Stacy decided to pursue legal action. Daher said the Wyoming Town Board had agreed with annexation of the properties south of County 36, but has balked at the stipulation Stacy wants: Property owners contiguous to that area can choose to be annexed in to the city on their own at any time later.

Former Lent Town Board Chair, Monica Abress, in a previous annexation contest with Stacy, maintained that the difference between city government and township government is that townships govern democratically and give their residents a voice. Elmore has a similar point of view. The township residents should be able to democratically define their future. Elmore explained that in Stacy, the council decides budget matters while Wyoming Township has a Budget Committee and "decides spending in a much more democratic style. It's in the government's hands to make decisions people had approved at public hearings." The township has held public meetings to find out residents thoughts. There are residents within each township, the officials agreed, who would decide they want to opt in or out. "Where does it end?" Anderson asked.

Elmore mentioned Lent Township saying "Stacy has Lent Township to pursue if they want to pursue annexation." Stacy had previously held meetings with Lent Township and residents of the township overwhelming rejected annexation. Daher said because of that response, Stacy had decided not to pursue annexation. Mayor Anderson agreed and said of Stacy's interest "They're trying to come after some low hanging fruit." Anderson, Elmore and Mattson said they had tried to work with Stacy but felt they were not willing to negotiate anything.

In the legal language of the petition, State Statute 414.032 is cited which requires the state's Office of Administrative Hearings "to approve an annexation agreement between a city and a township within 30 days, without altering the terms or boundaries of the annexation." The petition states further that as the agreement was pending approval by the OAH, Stacy and Chisago City "petitioned to annex parts of the same territory and the OAH decided to postpone any action on the Wyoming agreement and proceed instead with trial on the annexation petitions." The petition further states the MN Court of Appeals deferred to the Administrative Law Judge's discretion "in how to proceed with competing annexation requests" pursuant to interpretation of statute 414, thus the confusion. All parties agree 414.032 is confusing and does require legal action.

"Township territory should not be viewed merely as a government benefit, to be doled out to cities primarily through protracted and costly litigation." The petition maintains annexation as a matter of "planning for future growth and community needs are best left to local decision makers." Attorney Tim Sime writes, "The OAH does not have the authority to override those local government decisions." Administrator Mattson maintains the OAH has no clear basis for declaring one city over another.

Wyoming Mayor Anderson said he does not feel that the city of Stacy has been operating "out front with their residents" on the length and cost of this fight. Very little of the annexation battle has been discussed at Stacy City Council meetings. Most information has flown under the radar with the council citing attorney client privilege.

"Wyoming Township has brought cost and decision information to the public." Elmore said.

When the Post Review met with Mayor Daher, he showed a map of the contested area, approximately 700 acres to the south and west of Stacy. Daher said Elmore had contacted Stacy first and insisted "The city is not trying to hide anything."

Daher said Stacy solicited the interest of Wyoming Township residents. Letters were sent out to property owners in that area explaining the benefits the city has to offer. The city requested feedback and when some of those residents responded, lines were drawn around properties based on the property owners who expressed an interest in joining Stacy. Daher said Stacy is trying to put the wishes of the residents first. Daher's perspective is the annexation would benefit the residents of Stacy and the city. More properties obviously translate into more tax revenue and more land that can be developed to suit the city's needs.

Wyoming Township has spent approximately $140,000 on the issue to date. "If it's denied in appeal, it will go to contested case, and what will that cost." Elmore said. He also said he has asked Stacy Mayor Daher if the city is willing to go to court for in his estimate $250,000 for 780 acres of land and "wouldn't time, effort and money be better spent on Lent?" he asked.

Mattson maintains Stacy has trouble serving its own residents, let alone taking on more area. He cited as examples Public Safety including police and fire. Anderson agreed saying Wyoming police respond to calls in Stacy many times each week. "If they're interested in the residents, why don't they put their money toward the city?" Anderson wanted to know. "I think it's a last ditch land grab" he said. "Maybe we'll start sending them a bill every time our police car crosses the border." Anderson asked "Why don't they focus on something positive for their residents?"

Mattson, Elmore and Anderson then questioned if Stacy has a Comprehensive Plan in place and the financial reserves to pursue contested annexation. "It's at least $50,000 to update a Comprehensive Plan." Anderson said. "Where's their money going to come from?" he asked.

When asked how Stacy planned to pay for this, Daher said the city has spent approximately $50,000 and is currently in the budget process. "I don't want to see either entity spend the money they're spending.", said Daher. "There are better ways the money can be spent." At the Sept. 11 Stacy City Council meeting, the council approved moving $30,000 to "annexation issue." The Stacy mayor acknowledged it could take up to $100,000 to contest the case.

As for the comp plan, Stacy is currently working on updating, Daher commented "You really want to incorporate land that might come into the city." The Comprehensive Plan Committee is working with that.

"The city of Stacy is not trying to land grab." said Daher. He acknowledged that this is the perception of Wyoming and Wyoming Township. Daher said again that both Stacy and Chisago City reject the land grab allegation.

There hasn't been much of a response for city hall to gauge the feelings of the community but Daher said those citizens who have asked about the matter understand there are tax benefits that will result. He also said he thought residents in Stacy might have enough confidence in the council resulting in the issue being met with indifference.

"I believe it's in the city's best interest to pursue this and based on responses from those area residents it's best for them." Daher said.

If the case is denied in the appeal to the Supreme Court, Wyoming and Wyoming Township plan to move right into contested case status.

Comment from Roger Elmore, 9/20/07

Wyoming Township has spent approximately $140,000 on the issue to date. --This statement is incorrect. Wyoming City and Wyoming Township have spent approximately $70,000 to put the agreement together and in court proceedings to date. The $140,000 is what our last contested case with Chisago cost the township.

Comment from Barb, 9/24/07

Ann,

I THINK I understand this, but I'm not completely sure because it's never clear in the article: Wyoming and Wyoming Twp. were working out some kind of annexation agreement then Stacy heard about it and started soliciting Twp. residents to come into the City of Stacy?

What is the timeline here? What is the "proposal" Stacy brought? What are the "issues" and what are we "negotiating?" If Wyoming and the Twp. were working on an agreement, they why in the world would they "negotiate" with Stacy? It makes no sense.

I've read this story three times and I don't understand this. You have to write as if people don't know what's going on and you say in your article here that there's been little public knowledge or discussion and that it's "under the radar." So if you're going to bring it onto the radar screen, make it clear.