Alice Pickering
Wyoming Area Reporter

The city of Wyoming and Wyoming Township have made good on a pledge to file legal action in order to protect an orderly annexation agreement OKíd by the city and town last year.

On Feb. 22, the city and township filed a lawsuit asking the Ramsey County District Court to order the Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings approve the full annexation of Wyoming Township to the city.

The city and township filed papers for joint annexation on Dec. 7, 2005, with both agreeing to the action after several months of discussion, addressing many administrative, infrastructure, governance and economic concerns involved in a merger.

The suit asks for a writ of mandamus, requiring the state agency to follow the law, and approve the joint plan to annex the entire township into the city of Wyoming.

A court hearing date of Wednesday, April 12 has been set.

Work on the orderly annexation agreement began last spring, after the township lost a contentious and expensive legal battle with Chisago City in which the Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings, Municipal Boundary Adjustments stripped 5000 acres from Wyoming Township and annexed it into Chisago City.

Shortly after, the township and the city of Wyoming approached each other to begin planning for the future of what remained of the township.

A good agreement

ìOur agreement with Wyoming is the best thing for the township,î said Town Board Chair Roger Elmore. ìItís a good agreement, and the law should protect these mutual agreements between cities and townships.î

And it does, according to attorney Tim Sime, who helped the city and township put together the annexation agreement and filed the lawsuit to protect it.

ìThe law is very clear and was designed to encourage local governments to work together for their own future,î Sime said. ìThe state does not have the authority to set aside these contracts between cities and townships.î

But the state agency did just that. Shortly before the agency was scheduled to approve the Wyoming agreement, the cities of Chisago and Stacy both filed petitions with the state to force the annexation of over 4000 acres of the township into their cities.

The agency claims that it should consider the Chisago and Stacy petitions before considering the Wyoming agreement, Sime said.

But that is contrary to the law, Sime adds.

ìThe law does not give the agency the authority to simply ignore the cooperative agreement,î he said.

ìIf the orderly annexation agreement is properly completed, the agency must approve it within 30 days. They canít even make adjustments to it.î

ìWe (the township and city) have agreed on the best way to manage the area,î Wyoming Mayor Sheldon Anderson said.

ìItís unfortunate that the state is forcing us into a costly legal battle to defend our right to determine our own future.î

More background

About 150 residents attended a public hearing Dec. 28. All but about 20 were from Wyoming Township.

The majority of those were basically supportive of the concept of merger for the two entities and the documents which described the processes to accomplish the merger.

Some residents were particularly angry at the way Chisago City had handled its 2005 annexation of a portion of Wyoming Township.

Under Minnesota Statutes the OAH is permitted to review and comment, but was required to order the annexation in accordance with the terms of the joint resolution, Anderson said.

Anderson also said OAH was set up to intervene when conflicts regarding boundary disputes arise; there are no disputes between the city of Wyoming and Wyoming Township, and this is the case before them.

The Wyoming city and township annexation committee met regularly and worked for months putting together a plan to benefit each community, Anderson said.

Anderson said he does not know why Stacy and Chisago City waited so long to file their respective petitions.

Both Chisago City and Stacy approached the annexation committee to become involved in the process.

When the possibility of these two cities participation in the negotiations was presented to the Wyoming Township residents, the response to work only with the city of Wyoming was ìoverwhelming,î Anderson said.

When Anderson was asked why he believed the two cities filed their petitions in the first place he stated that it was that perhaps the two cities thought that there would be a breakdown in negotiation and talks would stall.

ìIím told there is no other situation like the process we have been involved in,î Anderson said, ìand that this is a very unique situation but, this is how the state would like matters solved on a local level with cities and townships working together in the best interests of their communities, coming to common ground for the good of the people.î

Both cities are seeking signatures of township residents to petition against the annexation, in the name of protecting their rights.

Anderson noted the irony that ìit was clear two years ago through the very same petition process that the people wanted to stay out of Chisago and their cries and petitions were ignored then.î

He believes that ìeach city is trying to take property for public use, public use in the sense that it will broaden each cityís [Chisago and Stacyís] tax base, but with no regard to the residents of either Wyoming or Wyoming Township.î

As for the reason behind the decision of OAH to schedule hearings on the petitions of Chisago City and Stacy first, before addressing the city/township petition, Anderson said, ìThatís the million dollar question,î which he anticipates may be Simeís first one for the judge.

Top of Page

Forest Lake Times
P.O. Box 218
880 SW 15 St.
Forest Lake, MN 55025
651-464-4601
Fax 651-464-4605