Pat Tepoorten
Wyoming Township ReporterTestimony in the trial regarding Chisago Cityís petition to annex over 5000 acres of Wyoming Township came to an end early this week.
Over the course of last week the township has attempted to rebut testimony from Chisago City experts, who tried to show that the annexed portion of the township will be better served by city services such as water and sewer, and that growth requires that the city add to its land mass.
On Thursday, Town Clerk Norma Olson testified to the organization of township government, attendance at township ìannual meetings,î where yearly levies are set, and her impressions of township services.
She noted that, as a 30-year resident, she thought services provided by the township were ìvery good,î and at the impression she had as town clerk for 27 years was that residents felt the same.
Parker testifies
Following Olson, Town Board Chairman Larry Parker took the stand. He testified that the cityís second attempt at a business park was the cause of major concern for the township because of its seemingly industrial nature.
ìNo one wanted that in the middle of the township,î Parker said.
Attorneys for the city objected to Parkerís reference to the business park as ìindustrial,î but it was determined the proposal did include the possibility of light industrial development. In fact, Parker would continually ìcorrectî city attorneys who, on cross examination, referred to the park as a ìbusinessî park by noting ìbusiness slash industrial.î
Parker also testified as to the impact of industrial development on the traffic capacity of US-8. Parker has served on the Highway 8 Task Force for 10 years and testified development in the area of the cityís proposed business park would ìadd a lot more cars,î and traffic would be ìvery heavy.î
He said companies looking to expand would prefer property along US-61 due to its proximity to Interstate 35.
Counter claims
City Attorney Chris Hood attempted to weaken Parkerís testimony regarding future traffic on US-8 by pointing to the townshipís comprehensive plan. He noted the plan calls for the area to be zoned RR1 rather than RR2 or Agricultural.
That designation calls for lots of roughly one acre, much smaller than RR2 or an agricultural designation. In other words, the township proposed that the area be more densely developed than others, he said.
Hood also questioned whether Polaris contributes to the urbanization of the township. Parker saod, ìActually the exact opposite is true. The reason Polaris chose Wyoming Township was to maintain that rural atmosphere. They didn't want anybody around.î
Essential services
Parker was also subject to the back and forth of attorneys regarding the ability of the township to provide essential services. He noted the township provides ìadequateî snow removal services, is served by the Chisago County Sheriff's Department, has 14 parks and contributes to a regional library fund.
ìAre you aware of any requests by township residents to increase services,î asked township attorney Mike Couri.
ìNot to my knowledge,î Parker said.
Parker also testified the township has worked effectively with other jurisdictions regarding annexation. He cited the Polaris annexation, as well as others, and said in those instances, ìthere was a benefit to the whole community.î
In the case of Chisago City's petition, however, Parker felt the benefit was to Chisago City exclusively, and not to the residents in the contested area.
Final witnesses
The trial began to wind down on Monday as the township called its final two witnesses.
Bret Weiss of WSB, the townís consulting engineering firm, testified as to the difficulty of installing water and sewer pipe through wetland areas. He said costs can rise significantly due to the need to replace soil and prevent line ìsinkage.î
He also testified that easement costs have risen over the years to the point that they are comparable to the actual project cost. Weiss was asked by Couri if the city had adequately taken these contingencies into account when fashioning ìtrunk area feesî for the city.
According to Weiss, the city had ìno analysis for trunk expenditures in the annexation area.î In conclusion, Weiss testified that there was ìno public health or safety threats that require annexation.î
On cross-examination, Hood established with Weiss that, in many instances, developers pay a high percentage of infrastructure improvements and easement charges. If that were the case in this instance, it could nullify the argument that the city is underestimating the cost of those improvements, by establishing that developers could pick up the rest of the tab.
The townshipís final witness was Dean Johnson of Resource Strategies Corp. He testified as to the projected growth.
Johnson said growth figures by the city were drastically higher than estimates given from both the University of Minnesota and the State Demographic Center (SDC.) For instance, in 1997 the city projected growth of 6128 residents by 2020, and only slightly less than that in more recent 2002 projections, he said.
In contrast, the SDC has growth in the area around 3851 residents over the same time frame. ìWhat does this lead you to conclude?î asked Couri.
ìThere may be a risk that the cityís established growth might be twice what it is actually going to be,î Johnson said.
Johnson also took issue with city testimony that it had only a 20-percent area of vacancy within its boundary, and therefore needed to create more space where land can be developed.
Johnson testified the figure of vacant or agricultural is actually around 37 percent, much higher than city estimates. He even went so far as to note the city, at 1254 acres, is significantly smaller than the area it proposes to annex, at 5700 acres. ìIt's a little like the tail wagging the dog,î he said.
According to Fitzpatrick, closing statements from the city and the township will be contained primarily in written briefs submitted for Administrative Law Judge Kathleen Sheehyís review.
The township and cities have until Dec. 10 to file briefs with the court describing how they thought the trial went and to summarize the testimony and the exhibits that were presented.
The attorneys will have until December 20th to respond to the other parties brief. The judge then must make a decision by Jan. 23, unless both parties agree to an extension to the deadline.
Top of Page
