|
|
OAH 7-0330-20861-BA and 7-0330-21063-BA |
STATE OF
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
FOR THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS UNIT
|
In the Matter of the Consolidated Petitions of the City of Ranier and the City of International Falls for Annexation of Certain Unincorporated Lands in Koochiching County, Minnesota |
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER |
The above-entitled matter
came on for a public hearing before Administrative Law Judge
Jay T. Squires, Esq.,
appeared on behalf of
Various
witnesses testified on behalf of the parties during the course of the
proceedings. Various members of the
public testified at the public comment portion of the hearing on July 6, and
some members of the public submitted written materials, through July 16, 2010. The parties, through counsel, submitted
post-trial memoranda. A public tour was
conducted pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 414.031, subd. 3a. A joint informational meeting of Koochiching
County and the City of International Falls was held on June 3, 2009, pursuant
to Minn. Stat. § 414.0333, and a transcript of that meeting was made a part of
the record.
By agreement of all parties, the deadline for the Judge’s Order in this case is October 11, 2011.
STATEMENT OF
ISSUES
1. Whether the Joint Petition for Orderly Annexation by Ranier and the County should be granted, or
2.
Whether the Petition for Annexation by
3. Whether any of the area sought to be annexed under either Petition should remain unincorporated.
The ALJ will order that the Petition of Ranier and the County be granted in part, and that the Petition of International Falls be denied. It will be ordered that the Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ) and the French/Jameson/Other Residential Area, as defined in the body of this Order, be annexed to Ranier and that the Remaining Rural Land/Road Corridor Area, as defined in the body of this Order, will remain unorganized.
Based on the evidence in the hearing record, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following:
FINDINGS OF
FACT
1.
2.
There
are no organized townships in
3.
The
City of
4.
Virtually
all of the City of
5.
The
City of
6.
The
City of
7.
The
City of
8.
The Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has primary jurisdiction over wildland
fires. This jurisdiction would not
change if the Orderly Annexation Agreement is approved.
9.
The
City of
10.
The
City of
11.
Within
the Orderly Annexation Area are residential properties that have been generally
referred to in the hearings as the “French” and “Jameson” Additions. The “Jameson Addition” consists of the
residential properties lying north of State Trunk Highway 11. The “French Addition” consists of residential
properties lying south of State Trunk Highway 11.[3] The residential area within the Orderly
Annexation Area includes areas referred to in hearings as Brennan’s Beach and
Three Points North. Taken together, the
residential areas sought for annexation by Ranier has a population of around
450. Annexation of those areas would
nearly quadruple the present population of Ranier.
12.
The
Orderly Annexation Area also includes approximately 40-80 acres of undeveloped land
that has been referred to loosely in the hearings as the “Foreign Trade Zone”
land (“FTZ”). The FTZ designation was
sought in 2002, and granted around that time.
Some of the land referred to at the hearing as within the “Foreign Trade
Zone” parcel may not currently be within the federally-designated area.[4] The FTZ is jointly owned by the County and
13.
The
Orderly Annexation Area also consists of land located to the south and southwest
of the French/Jameson/Other Residential Area, and FTZ area. This land is largely separated from the above
areas by significant natural wetlands.
The area is mostly undeveloped rural land comprised of wetlands; a
hazardous waste landfill, called the “Moonlight Rock Landfill” (which is not
within the Orderly Annexation Area, but is within the International
Falls Petition); and a number of rural residential properties in the southeast
corner of the Orderly Annexation Area.[5] This rural zone is populated by only a few
households, whose residents live isolated existences and receive no municipal
water or other services, except for the fire/police/ambulance coverage received
in other unincorporated parts of
14.
The
City of International Falls is located along the
15.
A small
percentage of
16.
The
City of International Falls presently provides water and sewer service to its
residents. Extension of water service
from
17.
The
City of International Falls also provides for fire and police protection for
its existing residents. The City of
International Falls did not offer evidence that would indicate needs in the
annexation area for law enforcement or fire protection services are not being
met.
18.
The
City of International Falls also provides for street maintenance and
improvements. There was no specific
testimony in the record indicating an increased level of street maintenance is
needed in the annexation area.
19.
In the
fall of 2007, residents of the French and Jameson Additions and Three Points
North area petitioned the City of
20.
In
December 2007 and January 2008, the City of
21.
At its
meeting on February 11, 2008, the Ranier City Council resolved to consider the
annexation request(s) in the larger context of promulgation and adoption of a
comprehensive City plan. The Council requested
that Andy Hubley of the Arrowhead Regional Development Commission (ARDC)
prepare a cost estimate for such planning, and asked him to identify possible
grant funding.[10]
22.
The
City of
23.
A
second community planning session was held on September 8, 2008. The comments from the August visioning
session were organized into themes: recreation; community/city organization;
infrastructure; and economics. The
minutes of the meeting demonstrate that the Council discussed the material.[12]
24.
A third
visioning session was held on October 14, 2008.
At this session, the Ranier Council reviewed written draft
recommendations. The ARDC memo
summarizing this session contains a number of bullet points reflecting concepts
to be ingrained into the Community Plan.
Included in the memo was the following recommendation:
Develop a draft annexation statement that
identifies when Ranier should consider annexation.
25.
The
general election for Ranier City Council was held in early November 2008. Ed Woods, Jr., an individual who commented at
the OAH public hearing, was on the ballot for City Mayor. He was beaten by a write-in candidate: current
Mayor Ed Oerichbauer. The record reflects that expansion of the City of
26.
Many of the Ranier residents who spoke at the
public hearing in this matter had the surname or maiden name of Woods. Most of these residents expressed
disappointment in the current Ranier Council’s decision to pursue annexation. The “anti-annexation” faction in Ranier
politics consists of Woodses and their political allies, who were not supported
by the majority of Ranier voters in the 2008 election.
27.
ARDC
facilitated a fourth public visioning session on November 6, 2008. The meeting was opened up “for input from
attendees.” Included in the minutes of this visioning session were comments
relating to the exploration of an independent Ranier water system (Ranier
currently buys its water from I-Falls).
Also included, from a land use perspective, were concerns about being
able to regulate, through land use, possible negative effects from development.[14]
28.
On
January 27, 2009, a public hearing was held at the
29.
The
Ranier Community Plan was officially adopted by the Ranier City Council in
February, 2009.[15] The record suggests that, up until the Hearing,
the “Visioning Plan” and the “Community Plan” were considered to be synonymous.
30.
The
Ranier Community Plan has a section dealing with infrastructure. With respect to water service, the Plan
recognizes that Ranier provides significant water service outside its corporate
limits, that water pipes are in poor condition, that replacement would be
expensive, and that minimal funds were set aside for repairs. Consequently, the Plan recommends that Ranier
work with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development Agency to
identify funding sources for water system repairs and upgrades. The Plan
states:
Providing water to surrounding communities
has raised issues including the deterioration of the water infrastructure. Replacing or upgrading the pipes in these
areas would be expensive, especially considering that the City’s water service
area is much larger than the tax base.
The water pipes that are outside of the City limits are in poor
condition and it would likely be expensive to repair water main breaks.[16]
31.
The
City of
32.
The
Community Plan, under the Infrastructure heading, also discusses
annexation. The Plan states:
Asset:
Description:
Rainer is situated on
The Plan also states:
Recommendation A8: Ranier should develop an
annexation statement that identifies when and if annexation should be pursued.
City of
The City of Ranier will consider annexation of surrounding properties
when: those areas are already served by Ranier water service, those areas are
being considered to receive Ranier water service, or the areas have petitioned
for annexation and it is economically viable for the City to annex the
area. Ranier should make annexation
decisions that reflect the Comprehensive Plan.[19]
33.
The
Community Plan also contains a discussion of the Foreign Trade Zone area. The Plan notes:
If the FTZ remains out of Ranier City
limits, Ranier will have no authority to regulate adverse effects from the FTZ,
including traffic, noise, and emissions.
The Plan, with respect to the FTZ area, contains the following
recommendation:
Recommendation E1: Rainer should support the
effort of connecting the Foreign Trade Zone with access into Ranier and
investigate further the possibility of incorporating the Foreign Trade Zone
into city boundaries. In the event that there is economic development (jobs
or business opportunities) that results in or near the FTZ, Ranier will
directly benefit. Ranier should perform
a cost-benefit analysis and pursue incorporating the FTZ if it is in the City’s
best interest.[20]
34.
The
Community Plan provides, with respect to recommendations within the Plan, that
Ranier “should work to make the goals outlined in this Plan a priority by
working through the action steps needed to follow through with each
recommendation.”[21]
35.
While
Ranier acknowledged in response to International Falls’ prehearing discovery
requests that it did not prepare a “formal” cost and benefit analysis
concerning the annexation of the FTZ, City Clerk Kim Nuthak and Mayor Ed Oerichbauer
noted that the City of Ranier did study and consider both costs and benefits in
reaching the conclusion that annexation of the FTZ should be pursued.[22]
36.
The study
and consideration of costs and benefits described above, which was incorporated
into Ranier’s budget, is consistent with the indication in the Ranier Community Plan
that a “cost/benefit analysis” “should” be performed.
37.
Section
6 of the Ranier Community Plan contains an Implementation provision. This section states:
After completion and adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan the City should begin implementation of the Plan
recommendations.
38.
Ranier
representatives met with the Koochiching County Management Committee on
February 25, 2009. The Management
Committee consists of two
39.
The
County Management Committee met with Ranier representatives again on March 16,
2009, to further flesh out possible annexation issues.[25]
40.
At the
regular Koochiching County Board meeting on March 17, 2009, the Orderly Annexation
topic was presented to the full
In response to the Board Chair, the Mayor
stated several items have been identified in the meetings with County
staff - levy, election, census, sheriff
services, roads, zoning, including the FTZ, addressing, fire protection…[26]
41.
The
March 17, 2009, Minutes of the
42.
A
County Management Committee meeting was held on March 23, 2009. County and Ranier representatives continued
to discuss annexation-related issues including tax levies, Local Government Aid
(LGA), addressing, zoning, and budget.[28]
43.
The
possible Petition for Orderly Annexation was discussed at a Regular County
Board meeting on April 14, 2009. The
full
44.
A
Ranier public informational meeting on orderly annexation was held on May 4,
2009.[30]
45.
A
public notice of the meeting was published in the International Falls Daily
Journal. The notice identifies all land
within the Orderly Annexation Area, including the FTZ.[31] Many Ranier residents attended and spoke at
the informational meeting.
46.
On June
22, 2009, the Ranier City Council considered adoption of the Joint Resolution
for Orderly Annexation. A notice of the
meeting, again describing all lands in the Orderly Annexation Area
(including the FTZ), was published in the International Falls Daily Journal on
June 12, 2009.[32] Many residents of Ranier attended the Council
meeting. The minutes of the meeting make
it clear that the Joint Resolution was available to the public.[33] For example, resident Wayne Kasich
“questioned item # 12 in the Resolution.”
The minutes indicate that Ranier resident Dianna Hoppingarner referenced
page 5 of the Resolution in her comments.
The Ranier Council voted to adopt the Resolution.
47.
The
Joint Resolution, available at the June 22, 2009 Ranier Council meeting,
includes a pictorial map of the entire Orderly Annexation Area, including the
FTZ.[34]
48.
The
49.
The
50.
International
Falls Councilmember Tim “Chopper” McBride does not recall a map at the July 14
meeting, but he was sitting in the back of the room “behind a lot of
threatening people.”[38]
51.
The
52.
Christine
Scotillo, Executive Director of the Boundary Adjustments Unit, presided over the
initial OAH hearing on the Joint Resolution and Orderly Annexation Agreement,
held on September 11, 2009. The City of
International Falls appeared through its City
53.
On
September 24, 2009, the City of
54.
The
…The City is forced to take this action
because the proposed annexation includes a part of the
55.
The
City of International Falls’ Annexation Petition itself also indicates the
purposes of the annexation:
The remaining land [aside from the FTZ]…is
needed to extend the truck route of T.H. 332 to the Foreign Trade Zone and to
Highway 11.[46]
56.
The
Informational Statement Form of the City of International Falls also sheds
light on the purpose(s) of the
b. What
type of development is proposed for the subject area?
Road
to Foreign Trade Zone …[47]
57.
At the
June 3, 2010 informational meeting on the International Falls Annexation
Petition (which the City had failed to previously conduct), City
58.
The
issue of the propriety, desirability, and feasibility of a “road to the FTZ” within the road corridor in
the City of International Falls Annexation Petition was thoroughly vetted and
resolved in a prior administrative proceeding conducted by the Minnesota
Department of Transportation under Minn. Stat. § 162.02, as described below.
59.
On
April 11, 2008, a Dispute Resolution Board (“DRB”) met to consider
60.
International
Falls City
61.
International
Falls Public Works Director Gary Skallman acknowledged that the City of International
Falls in fact did argue to the DRB that the best route for a road to the FTZ
was a road from the elbow of 332 to the northeast to the FTZ:
Q: And
in the DRB the Council – the City made the argument that their southwest to the
northeast alternate route to the FTZ was the better route, didn’t it?
A.
Yes, I
believe it did.[52]
62.
The DRB
process resulted in a written Recommendation to the MnDOT Commissioner. The written Recommendation summarizes the Findings
of the DRB. The written Recommendation
provides, in pertinent part:
·
The
City’s position was that location of roads has critical economic and social
impacts on communities. It is important
to serve the FTZ with the new alignment, hence their proposed route.
·
The
County’s proposed route to TH 11 serves the FTZ very efficiently.
·
The
City’s proposed route is roughly 3 times longer than the County’s proposed
route. In addition it introduces several
wetland issues, and would require the purchase of property, including the
possibility of buying out a homeowner.
This leads to a much more expensive option.
·
All
things considered, the Board believed that the public is best served by the
County’s proposed route.[53]
63.
The
Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Transportation considered the DRB’s
recommendation, and issued a 13 page written decision on February 12,
2009. In the decision, the Commissioner
discusses the history of the Highway 332 re-routing efforts and the relative
merits of the County’s proposed route and the City’s desire for an alternate southwest
to northeast truck route to the FTZ. In
considering the proposals, the Commissioner noted in his decision:
…the proposed County route is superior and
merits approval.[54]
64.
The
City of International Falls appealed the Commissioner’s decision to the Minnesota
Court of Appeals. By decision dated
January 26, 2010, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Commissioner’s order. The Court of Appeals held that “the record
shows that there is more than substantial evidence to support the
Commissioner’s decision…”[55] The Court of Appeals also rejected the City’s
arguments that MnDOT and the County conspired in an effort to achieve the
result.[56]
65.
The
record in this matter demonstrates, as the DRB, MnDOT Commissioner, and Court
of Appeals concluded, that the construction of the City of International Falls’s
desired route to the FTZ would be questionable from a cost and development
standpoint.
66.
The testimony
of City of International Falls’s Public Works Director, Gary Skallman,
demonstrates that
a. He
had no expertise in wetlands;
b. He
was not a professional engineer and had no engineer license and no engineering
degree;
c. He
could not prepare road project designs;
d. No
wetland delineation of the alternate route(s) had been done;
e. No
analysis had been done concerning ability to comply with state aid standards;
f. No
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) had been done;
g. No
consideration had been given to the existence of the hazardous landfill, or the
landfill leachate lines; and
h. No
consideration had been given to the limited distance from the centerline of a
rail line to the landfill (50’ or less).[57]
67.
Mr.
Skallman admitted that the three possible City alternate routes to the FTZ
discussed in his testimony were only “lines on paper.”[58]
68.
Doug
Grindall, Koochiching County Engineer, established the history of efforts to re-route Highway 332,
and the numerous development and cost issues associated with the City’s
preferred southwest to northeast route to the FTZ. Grindall has looked at the City’s routing
alternatives and found them to be unfeasible.
He estimated that the total cost of the City preferred route
approximated $2.6 million.
69.
The
City of International Falls failed to produce admissible evidence during the
hearing that
70.
The
north/south link from the 332 elbow to TH 11 to be built by the County will
adequately serve the FTZ, and any truck traffic that may be generated from
development of the FTZ.[61] County Engineer Grindall notes that TH 11
itself is adequate to carry the traffic and that the County intends to
construct an ingress into the FTZ from Highway 11.[62] This evidence was unrebutted.
71.
Chief
Deputy Sheriff Brian Jesperson noted that the Sheriff’s Office provides law
enforcement services currently to the Orderly Annexation Area.[63] He believes services are adequate to meet the
needs of the Area. The same services
would be provided if the Orderly Annexation Agreement was approved, and those
services, in Jesperson’s opinion, would continue to be adequate. This testimony was unrebutted.
72.
Quay
Whitbeck of the Koochiching Rural Fire Protection Association (Rural Fire) noted
that Rural Fire currently provides fire protection services to properties with
structures in the Orderly Annexation Area.
He believes these services are adequate to meet the fire protection
needs of the properties, and that the services would remain adequate if the
Orderly Annexation Agreement was approved.[64] This testimony was unrebutted, and
International Falls Fire Chief Jerry Jensen agreed with Whitbeck.[65] It is noted that the services performed by Rural
Fire amount to provision of equipment (pumper trucks), and that any actual
firefighting on its behalf is done by I-Falls firefighters, pursuant to
contract.
73.
Wally
Shold of the East Koochiching County Sanitary Sewer District noted that sanitary
sewer service in the Orderly Annexation Area is provided through the East
Koochiching County Sanitary Sewer District, and would continue to be provided
by the East Koochiching County Sanitary Sewer District after annexation.[66]
74.
Annexation
of the French/Jameson/Residential Area to the City of
75.
The
City of
76.
If the
FTZ were ever developed, utility services would necessarily come from and
through the City of
77.
The
City of International Falls is a part owner of the FTZ, along with
78.
The
City of International Falls has economic development authority pursuant to
Minn. Stat. Ch. 469. The City of
79.
Contrary
to
80.
Rod
Otterness noted also that the International Falls City Council may find it
politically questionable to spend economic development funds on a project
within another city. Otterness
acknowledged such a decision is a political one for the International Falls
City Council to make, taking into consideration the regional benefits of economic
development.[72]
81.
The
City of
82.
If the FTZ
is developed, the utilization of the property, especially as it may impact
train activities, may further negatively impact the City of
83.
Activities
in the FTZ might also have traffic, noise, odor, or other impacts on Ranier given
the FTZ’s immediate contiguity to the City of
84.
Including
the FTZ area within Ranier will allow Ranier to have some regulatory control
over land uses within the site, yet still allow the City of International Falls
to utilize economic development authority and power (along with the fact it is
a co-landowner) to aid in actual development of the FTZ. It would also allow Ranier to provide utility
services to the area.
85.
Boise
White Paper and
Based on the Findings of Fact, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS
1.
The
Municipal Boundary Adjustments Unit of the State Office of Administrative
Hearings has properly acquired jurisdiction over proceedings OAH
7-0330-20861-BA and 7-0330-21063-BA.
2.
Minn.
Stat. § 414.0325, subd. 1(h) provides that an Orderly Annexation
Resolution/Agreement may provide that:
…no consideration by the chief
administrative law judge [of the Office of Administrative Hearings – Municipal
Adjustments] is necessary.
This Section indicates that OAH shall approve the annexation in
accordance with the terms of the Orderly Annexation Resolution when the
resolution contains the above language.
3.
In this
case, the City of
4.
Assistant
Chief Administrative Law Judge
5.
Assistant
Chief Administrative Law Judge
…defer issuing an order addressing the
Amended Joint Resolution until after the consolidated hearing is complete.
6.
It is
not appropriate to grant the Amended Joint Resolution of Ranier and the County
because the Joint Petitioners have proven it is appropriate to order annexation
of a part of the area Ranier seeks to annex, but not all of it.
7.
The
annexation petition of
8.
The
Orderly Annexation request of Ranier and the County should be granted in part
for the reasons discussed below.
9.
Analytically,
it is appropriate to consider the consolidated annexation requests as comprising
three distinct areas.
Residential Areas
10.
The
Orderly Annexation request seeks to add to the City of
11.
These
residential areas are identified pictorially as follows:
12.
These
residential areas are now or are about to become urban or suburban in
character.
13.
The
City of
14.
Annexation
of these residential areas to the City of
15.
The
factors in Minn. Stat. § 414.031, subd. 4, in light of record evidence, support
the above conclusions as follows:
a. The
residential areas largely surround Ranier, and are contiguous to Ranier on
Ranier’s east, west, and south boundaries (
b. The
residential areas are a logical extension of the more dense residential
development of the City of
c. The
residential areas currently ingress and egress, largely, onto TH 11. Annexation would not change transportation
patterns. Roads in the residential areas
would be maintained to the same standard as they currently are via contract
with
d. Existing
levels of government services are adequate to meet the needs of the residential
areas. Core government services, i.e.
police, fire, utilities, and roads, would remain unaffected; service levels
would not diminish through annexation to Ranier (Factor 8); and
e. Ranier
prepared a post-annexation budget which provides for the continued level of
needed and desired government services described above. Ranier is positioned to continue to provide
services through contracts and collaborative agreements. No evidence indicated a need or desire for
enhanced government services in the residential areas (Factor 11).
Rural Area
16.
Both
the Orderly Annexation request and the
17.
This
area is not now, and is not about to become, urban or suburban in
character. In fact, all record
evidence offered suggests it is and will likely always be rural in character.
18.
Municipal
government, and the increased level of services and taxes it brings, is not
required to protect the public health, safety and welfare of residents in this
area.
19.
Annexation
of this area to either city would not be in the best interests of the subject
area. In fact, each and every property
owner in the area who offered an opinion on the merits of annexation of the
area expressed opposition.
20.
The
increase in revenues to the annexing municipalities that would result from
annexation of this land would bear no reasonable relationship to the monetary
value of benefits conferred upon this area.
21.
City of
International Falls’s idea to construct an “alternate road to the FTZ”, serving
as the re-routed truck route formerly designated as Highway 332, has not been
proven to be feasible. That issue was
addressed in the prior proceedings referenced herein in Findings of Fact
paragraphs (54 through 64).
22.
The
factors in Minn. Stat. § 414.031, subd. 4, in light of record evidence, support
the above conclusions as follows:
a. Natural
wetlands separate the developed residential areas along TH 11 from this area
(Factor 3);
b. Present
and likely future land uses will be rural in character, thereby demanding a
lower level of municipal services (Factor 5);
c. Neither
the Ranier Community Plan nor International Falls Strategic Plan contemplate
development of this area (Factor 7);
d. Existing
levels of service provided to this unorganized territory meet its needs
(Factors 8, 14 and 15);
e. A
closed hazardous waste landfill is best left in unorganized territory, away
from any possible population growth (Factor 10);
f. Neither
Ranier nor
g. The
issue of the propriety of the construction of a “road to the FTZ” has been
thoroughly vetted and addressed outside these proceedings (Factor 6)
Foreign Trade Zone Area
23.
Both
the Orderly Annexation request and the
24.
The FTZ
is likely to become urban or suburban in character; it is directly contiguous
to the large majority of the south boundary of the City of
25.
Municipal
government in the area proposed for annexation is required to protect the
public health, safety and welfare; it will allow the property to utilize
utilities in the City of Ranier in order to develop economically, and it will allow
Ranier to exercise jurisdictional authority over the property to protect
existing Ranier residents from any negative effects from FTZ usage and
development.
26.
Annexation
of the FTZ to the City of
27.
The
Joint Powers Law, Minn. Stat. § 417.59, authorizes the City of International
Falls to continue to participate in economic development activity, if it
wishes, in the FTZ area, even though it would be outside of International
Falls’s territory.
28.
The
factors in Minn. Stat. § 414.031, subd. 4, in light of record evidence, support
the above conclusions as follows:
a. The
area will be able to physically and economically develop if it is in Ranier;
utilities will be available on an economic basis, and KEDA, Ranier,
International Falls and the County have the authority, through Minn. Stat. §
471.59, to collaborate to make development happen (Factor 5);
b. Annexation
of the FTZ area to Ranier is contemplated by the Ranier Community Plan. Even if the
c. Annexation
of the FTZ area to Ranier will allow Ranier some control, in a regulatory
sense, over activities in the FTZ area.
This will allow Ranier to minimize potential adverse environmental
effects that may follow if the FTZ is developed (Factor 10);
d. Ranier
can provide needed government services to the FTZ area on the most
cost-effective basis; its tax rate is less than half of that of International
Falls (Factor 11); and
e. If the FTZ area is not
annexed to Ranier or is annexed to
Based on the Conclusions, and for the reasons explained in the accompanying Memorandum, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following:
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The Joint Petition of Ranier and the County is GRANTED, IN PART, in that the Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ) and the French/Jameson Residential Area, are ANNEXED to the City of Ranier; and
2. The Petition of International Falls for Annexation of certain unincorporated lands in the County is DENIED; and
3. The
Remaining Rural Land/Road Corridor Area included in the Joint Petition of
Ranier and the
4. The
area annexed to the City of
5. Pursuant
to
6. This Order becomes effective upon issuance.
Dated: October 7, 2010
s/Richard C. Luis
|
RICHARD C. LUIS Administrative Law Judge |
Reported: Digitally Recorded
NOTICE
Under Minn. Stat. § 414.07, this Order is the final decision in this case. Any aggrieved party may appeal to Koochiching County District Court within 30 days of the issuance of this Order, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 414.07, subd. 2.
Any party may submit a written request for an amendment of these Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order within 7 days from the date of the mailing of the Order.[78] A request for amendment shall not extend the time of appeal from these Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order.
MEMORANDUM
STATUTORY FACTORS AND STANDARDS
Minn. Stat. § 414.031, subd. 4 specifies 17 factors to be considered when determining whether an annexation request should be granted or denied. The factors are:
Subd. 4. Relevant factors, order. (a) In arriving at a decision, the presiding administrative law judge shall consider the following sources and factors:
(1) recordings and public documents from joint informational meetings under section 414.0333 relevant to other factors listed in this subdivision;
(2) present population and number of households, past population and projected population growth of the annexing municipality and subject area and adjacent units of local government;
(3) quantity of land within the subject area and adjacent units of local government; and natural terrain including recognizable physical features, general topography, major watersheds, soil conditions and such natural features as rivers, lakes and major bluffs;
(4) degree of contiguity of the boundaries between the annexing municipality and the subject area;
(5) present pattern of physical development, planning, and intended land uses in the subject area and the annexing municipality including residential, industrial, commercial, agricultural and institutional land uses and the impact of the proposed action on those land uses;
(6) the present transportation network and potential transportation issues, including proposed highway development;
(7) land use controls and planning presently being utilized in the annexing municipality and the subject area, including comprehensive plans for development in the area and plans and policies of the metropolitan Council, and whether there are inconsistencies between proposed development and existing land use controls and the reasons therefore;
(8) existing levels of governmental services being provided in the annexing municipality and the subject area, including water and sewer service, fire rating and protection, law enforcement, street improvements and maintenance, administrative services, and recreational facilities and the impact of the proposed action on the delivery of said services;
(9) the implementation of previous annexation agreements and orders;
(10) existing or potential environmental problems and whether the proposed action is likely to improve or resolve these problems;
(11) plans and programs by the annexing municipality for providing needed and enhanced governmental services to the subject area in a cost-effective and feasible manner within a reasonable time from the date of the annexation;
(12) an analysis of the fiscal impact on the annexing municipality, the subject area, and adjacent units of local government, including net tax capacity and the present bonded indebtedness, and the local tax rates of the county, school district, and township;
(13) relationship and effect of the proposed action on affected and adjacent school districts and communities;
(14) adequacy of town government to deliver services to the subject area;
(15) analysis of whether necessary governmental services can best be provided through the proposed action or another type of boundary adjustment;
(16) if only a part of a township is annexed, the ability of the remainder of the township to continue or the feasibility of it being incorporated separately or being annexed to another municipality; and
(17) information received by the presiding administrative law judge form the tour required under subdivision 3a.
Minn. Stat. § 414.031, subd. 4 not only contains the factors to be employed in the decision-making process involving an annexation request, but it also establishes the standard or standards to be employed by the decision-maker. Specifically, this provision indicates that annexation is appropriate:
1. If the land is now or is about to become urban or suburban;
2. If city government is necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare;
3. If annexation is in the best interest of the land.
As discussed herein, application of the above statutory factors and standards dictates a conclusion that the Orderly Annexation request should be granted in part.[79]
NEIther THE DESIRE OF THE
PROPERTY OWNERS FOR DUE PROCESS THAT IS GREATER THAN THat REQUIRED BY
STATUTE, Nor the alleged opposition of existing ranier residents, IS A BASIS TO
REJECT THE ORDERLY ANNEXATION AGREEMENT
The Administrative Law Judge requested that the parties brief a particular issue – whether the sentiment of Ranier residents that they didn’t understand the scope of the annexation and/or their June 2009 petition opposing the annexation, would or could serve as a basis for denial of the Orderly Annexation request. The short answer is that they should not. The longer answer is that record evidence itself does not support the property owners’ claim that they were intentionally misled or duped.
Minn. Stat. § 414.0325 sets forth the required process for initiation of orderly annexation. Subdivision one of this section simply requires that the Joint Resolution contain “a description” of the Orderly Annexation Area.[80] The Resolution contains legal descriptions.
Subdivision 1b of Section 414.0325 requires published notice of intent to include property within an orderly annexation area. It does not require the publication of a map. This section was complied with in that the published notices contain accurate and comprehensive legal descriptions of the Orderly Annexation Area.
The above statute dictates the process that was due and notices that were required to be given under Chapter 414. Several citizens commented during the public comment period that they felt they should have received individual mailed notices. But Chapter 414 does not require individual mailed notice.
There certainly are statutes that do require individual mailed notices. For example, Minn. Stat. § 394.26 requires counties to provide special mailed notices to property owners within 500 feet of a property seeking a variance. Minn. Stat. § 462.357 requires cities to give special mailed notice to property owners within 350 feet of a zoning amendment request.
In the context of annexation, no particular special mailed notice of a proposed Orderly Annexation is required. If the legislature wishes to require such a notice, it could certainly be added to the language of Minn. Stat. § 414.0325, subd. 1 and/or 1b. But that determination is for the legislature, not an Annexation Judge.
Moreover, the statute does not prescribe or require the publication of a pictorial map. Again, if the legislature wishes to impose such a requirement, the language to add to these statutes would not be difficult to draft.
In short, some residents expressed an expectation for greater notice of the proposed Orderly Annexation. They wanted a published pictorial map; they wanted individual notices. Notwithstanding their desires, the Orderly Annexation request complied with the procedural requirements of Chapter 414, and the desires for greater notice cannot serve as a basis for rejection of the Orderly Annexation request.
The record does not support a conclusion that the public witnesses were intentionally misled and duped into believing the scope of the proposed orderly annexation was different than it really was.
Much
of the testimony in this case is from a relatively small number of
politically-disgruntled Ranier residents who asserted they were misled in the
public Orderly Annexation process. A
number of witnesses for
Conspiracy allegations and allegations of “intentional duping” in this case are unsupportable. The Administrative Law Judge cannot conclude that intentional deception occurred. To conclude so is contrary to record evidence, as follows:
1. The Joint Orderly Annexation Resolution
itself contains a pictorial map that visually illustrates the entire Orderly
Annexation Area. The Resolution was
available to and in the hands of the public at a June 22, 2009 Ranier City Council
meeting. If the City of
2. Both the City of
3. The County and Ranier collectively held 17 meetings (10 of which were meetings of the full bodies). If those parties sought to be silent about their true intentions, why would so many meetings have been conducted?
4. The County Surveyor prepared a large colored map of the Orderly Annexation Area, and it was present at the July 14, 2009 County public informational session.
5. Ed Woods, Jr. (a Ranier resident) presented to the court information he obtained in the public meeting processes leading up to the Orderly Annexation. Included in the information is a copy of a map of the Orderly Annexation Area stamped “Draft”.[81] Why would the County and/or City apparently provide such a document if the specific intent was to deceive the public on the scope of the annexation?
Just as the notion of conspiracy has been rejected, the Judge declines to disapprove the Orderly Annexation due to the opposition within ranks of existing Ranier residents.
At the public comment period, an existing Ranier resident offered as an exhibit a purported petition of Ranier residents opposing annexation. Ex. 414. On closer review, the petition does not express ultimate opposition to the orderly annexation, but only transitory opposition based on the asserted lack of information available when the petition was executed.
It is noted that, the import of the petition was overemphasized and misstated. Originally, Ranier residents asserted 80 existing Ranier resident voters signed the petition. Later, that number was reduced to either 55 or 56. Even then, a review of the petition indicates it is duplicative.
In a representative democracy, as exists in our country, voters elect their fellow citizens to make important decisions on their behalf. We are not a pure democracy. If residents dislike or disapprove of the decision of the elected officials, their remedy is to vote them out of office. Here the Ranier City Council was duly elected by Ranier residents. Those residents that testified at the public comment portion of the OAH hearing almost uniformly testified they should be able to personally vote on the annexation.[82] But it is the Ranier City Council that is the body with the power to pursue annexation. The Ranier City Council determined it had enough information to judge that orderly annexation was an appropriate path for the City. Ultimately, time will tell if their decision continues to receive support of the citizens of Ranier. But, the decision was made with the proper cloak of authority, and the purported petition of “the vast majority of Ranier residents” is not a basis to disapprove the orderly annexation.
THE “Remaining rural
Analytically,
it is easiest to consider the Orderly Annexation request, as stated previously,
as three separate areas: 1) The French/Jameson/Residential Area; 2) the FTZ
area; and 3) the Remaining Rural Land/Road Corridor Area.[83] Having considered the record evidence and
testimony as it came in through the OAH hearing, it is
REMAINING RURAL
Geographically, the Remaining Rural Land/Road Corridor Area is separated from the French Addition, (South of TH 11) by natural wetlands. It is isolated and largely uninhabited. The few residents that live in this area live in the far southeast corner of the area. International Falls Councilmember Tim “Chopper” McBride testified the area is largely undevelopable.[84]
Minn. Stat. § 414.031, subd. 4 (3), indicates that natural terrain, physical features, general topography, soil conditions and natural features are proper considerations in the annexation decision. In this case, the natural wetlands and hydric soils that run between the Remaining Rural Land/Road Corridor Area and the French Addition are those types of features that are contemplated by factor (4). They separate developed and developable areas along TH 11 from land that is not and likely will not ever be developed.
The plans, or lack of plans by the involved cities also reflect the rural character of this area. Ranier sought to include the area because it felt it was the most likely supplier of water for the area (based on a 1995 study), and because of a desire for a geographically simple annexation area. The City of International Falls introduced no evidence in the OAH hearing that the Remaining Rural Land/Road Corridor Area would or could be developed (the “Road to the FTZ” issue is discussed below). In fact, Mayor Mason testified at the June 3, 2010 public informational meeting that the City of International Falls had no development plans for the area (save its desire for the “Road to the FTZ”).
Factor (5) of Section 414.031, subd. 4, also supports leaving this third area unorganized. Factor (5) requires the court to consider existing and intended land uses in the subject area. Here, the existing land uses are rural and undeveloped uses (inclusive of the few residents who have and seek to maintain elbow room to live quietly, maintain horses, and hunt). Here, the annexation would have no impact in the nature of land uses. This is not a case where a city seeks to annex an area to provide services and develop it. Rather, all hearing evidence indicated the Remaining Rural Land/Road Corridor Area will, due to its characteristics and features, remain undeveloped.
Factor (7) in Section 414.031, subd. 4, also requires consideration of comprehensive plans for development of the area. Here, the City of International Falls has no Comprehensive Plan. Rainer has the adopted Community Plan which discusses annexation, but not of the Remaining Rural Land/Road Corridor Area in particular.
Factor
(8) of Section 414.031, subd. 4, discusses existing levels of government
services, and the impact annexation would have on them. In this case, the record clearly supports a
conclusion that the Remaining Rural Land/Road Corridor Area receives each and
every government service it needs in the absence of annexation. Law enforcement services are provided by
Fire
protection, like police protection, would not improve by annexation of the
Remaining Rural Land/Road Corridor Area to either city. Quay Whitbeck of Rural Fire testified that
Rural Fire serves residential properties in the Remaining Rural Land/Road
Corridor Area now, and would continue to do so if the Remaining Rural Land/Road
Corridor Area was annexed to Ranier. He
testified the
With respect to water and sewer service, none of the properties in the Remaining Rural Land/Road Corridor Area are served by sewer and water, and the record does not indicate a likelihood that the area would need or demand such services, given its character. These facts suggest a conclusion this area should remain unorganized, when Factor (8) is considered.
Factor (10) in Section 414.031, subd. 4, also weighs in favor of leaving this area unorganized. Factor 10 requires the consideration of “existing environmental problems”. The middle of this Area contains a hazardous waste landfill that is monitored by the MPCA. Public testimony discussed the hazardous contents of the landfill. Other comments discussed the leachate lines running in the area. Still other comments discussed affected wildlife. Given an option, it would seem public policy would support a conclusion that such hazardous areas are best left in undeveloped areas outside city limits and away from as many human activities as possible.
Factor (12) of Section 414.031, subd. 4, requires the consideration of fiscal impacts on the annexing municipality and the subject area. In this case, record evidence indicates that there would exist no reasonable relationship between the services provided to the area and increased revenue to the annexing municipality. County Auditor Bob Peterson testified that the total yearly increased tax revenue that would inure to Ranier would be less than $1,000[85], and the total revenue to International Falls would be less than $2,000.
Factors (14) and (15) of Section 414.031, subd. 4 also require consideration of the adequacy of existing municipal services, and, if inadequate, whether annexation might bring to the area needed but unprovided service(s). In this case, the evidence is clear and unrebutted. There is no evidence that suggests that current municipal government in the Remaining Rural Land/Road Corridor Area is inadequate. To the contrary, given its rural character, all police, fire, water, sewer, administrative, recreational, educational, and road needs of the area are presently being met.
The City of International Falls might suggest that it has many departments, a large budget, and half the County’s population. While these facts may be true, if the land does not need an “enhanced” level of government services that might be provided by, admittedly, the largest city in the County, then Factors (14) and (15) would support a conclusion that annexation should not be approved: the land should be left unorganized.
Finally,
and perhaps most importantly as it relates to the International Falls petition,
Factor (6) in Section 414.031, subd. 4, requires consideration of “potential
transportation issues.” This factor
supports denial of both requests, and in particular, denial of the
In
this particular case, a professed underlying purpose for
The
Joint Petitioners argue that, as a threshold matter,
The
doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes the relitigation of issues that have
previously been determined in later separate actions. Friends
of the Riverfront v. City of
It is asserted by Ranier and the County that the elements of collateral estoppel exist in this case. The City was a party to the MnDOT litigation, and the City admitted, through Rod Otterness’ testimony, that it had a full and fair opportunity to present its position. And, there was a final decision. The City therefore is unable to argue that its desired routing is better than the present route to serve the FTZ that is being constructed by the County.
It has been noted that the administrative agency that has true expertise in transportation matters, and its Commissioner, have already determined the FTZ road routing issue, and that the Annexation Judge must defer to those determinations.
It
is unnecessary to decide this issue. Even
if collateral estoppel does not apply to the City of International Falls’s
argument that it needs to annex this area for a road corridor, the record
supports a conclusion that one of the purposes of
In
its case-in-chief,
Engineer Grindall noted that compliance with state aid standards was also an impediment to construction of a southwest to northeast road to the FTZ. To meet state standards, a road of 10-ton capacity would require 100-120 feet of right-of-way.[86]
Engineer
Grindall noted that cost was also a factor that made consideration of a
southwest to northeast route unfeasible.
Grindall projected the cost of such a road at $2.6 million-plus; the
City’s own estimate suggested it was greater.[87]
The City of
No evidence was
introduced by
THE “FOREIGN TRADE
Both
the Orderly Annexation Area and the
FTZ AREA
Factor (4) of
Section 414.031, subd. 4 requires consideration of the degree of contiguity of
the boundaries between the annexing municipality and the subject area. In this case, the FTZ area is immediately
contiguous to the City of
Factor (5) of
Section 414.031, subd. 4 considers physical development in the annexation area,
and how annexation would affect physical development. This factor implicates a major argument of
the City of International Falls: that
the site would be deprived of
When
the City of International Falls and
The
ALJ notes a vehicle for economic development administration for the FTZ area
already exists, regardless of whether the FTZ area is inside or outside
Pursuant to Minnesota Laws 1987, Chapter 182, the Koochiching Economic Development Authority has primary jurisdiction for planning for economic development and has designated this area as the location for a foreign trade zone.[99]
Efforts
to designate at least some of the land in this area as a foreign trade zone
occurred in 2002, over eight years ago.
Those efforts did not require inclusion of the FTZ in
In short, annexation of the FTZ area to International Falls to expose it to International Falls’s asserted economic development expertise and authority is not and has not been necessary as acquisition, FTZ designation, and marketing of the property have occurred historically. The fact that the City of International Falls is part owner, and that KEDA is the statutory collaborative economic development entity administering the FTZ anyway, satisfies these concerns.
Also, the ALJ is not persuaded by the City of International Falls’s argument it cannot exercise its economic development powers extraterritorially.
Minn.
Stat. § 471.59, the Municipal Joint Powers Law, allows municipalities
(counties, cities, economic development entities) to cooperate, extraterritorially,
in the exercise of common powers. In the
context of economic development,
An
example of the above is the Joint Powers Agreement between the cities of
Eveleth and
Economic
Development projects often have regional benefits, and by necessity, often
require local governments to collaborate.
Rod Otterness, in his testimony, described a current example of
collaboration: the Grand Mound redevelopment. Otterness testified that the Grand Mound is
outside city limits, yet
Factor
(7) of Section 414.031, subd. 4, as stated previously, considers the existence
of comprehensive plan(s) that relate to the annexation area. In this case, the City of International Falls
has no Comprehensive Plan. While it has
a strategic plan with general goals in certain areas, City
In
contrast, the City of
Factor
(11) of Section 414.031, subd 4, contemplates an analysis of the need for
government services, and the ability of the annexing municipalities to provide
cost-effective services. In this case,
if the FTZ area were annexed to Ranier, the area would receive all needed
services in the most cost-effective fashion.[104] There is also unrebutted testimony indicating
police protection would be adequate, fire protection would be adequate, and
street maintenance would be adequate. Also,
provision of water service to the area of the “cost-effective and feasible”
nature contemplated by Factor (11) is available from Ranier to the adjacent FTZ. The City of International Falls did not
dispute this argument by Ranier, but noted Ranier had a history of allowing and
would likely still allow
Factor
(13) of Section 414.031, subd. 4, requires consideration of how an annexation
would affect “adjacent…communities”.
This factor comes into play when one considers the effect an
The
Ranier Community Plan recognizes Ranier’s interests in being able to exert some
control over development of adjacent lands.
This concern is specifically discussed as it relates to the FTZ area,
and serves as a basis for the Plan’s recommendation that the FTZ be considered
for annexation. Mayor Ed Oerichbauer
testified of the City of
What
has been termed in this proceeding as the “second busiest railroad port of
entry into the
Testimony
at the OAH hearing discussed the stoppage of trains across the main road into
and out of Ranier. Testimony indicated
some stoppages approximate 45 minutes.[107] Consequently, if the FTZ were to develop
further, any railroad-oriented uses could exacerbate this problem. Also, due to the proximity of existing Ranier’s
limits, odor, traffic, and noise within the FTZ might also present
concerns. For these reasons, it is
appropriate to give Ranier the ability to regulate the FTZ activities. A way to do that is to grant to Ranier the
exercise of municipal authority via annexation.
The ability to control and manage development in this area is
important.
The
pertinent factors in 414.031, subd. 4, weigh in favor of annexation of the FTZ
area to Ranier. Such an annexation would
provide adequate (but not unneeded) levels of service in the areas of law
enforcement, fire and utilities.
Ranier’s Community Plan contemplates the annexation;
THE FRENCH/JAMESON/OTHER RESIDENTIAL AREA SHOULD BE ANNEXED TO RANIER
the
Judge adopts Ranier’s
arguments in support of annexation of the French/Jameson/Residential Area into
Ranier.
On July 16, 2010, a Petition containing 26 signatures of residents of the Brennan’s Beach neighborhood, which area lies east of existing Ranier, was filed with the ALJ.[109] None of the signatories spoke at the public hearing, and the evidentiary hearing record contains virtually no mention of this land. The petition includes a cover letter detailing reasons to leave Brennan’s Beach unincorporated, but no connection is made between the unsigned letter and the pages of signatures. The signatures are undated, so their import is discounted. See generally, Minn. Rules Chapter 8205. There is no demonstration that the cover letter was authored by the signatories, or that it was seen by them, or that it existed at the time the listing was signed.
FRENCH/JAMESON/OTHER RESIDENTIAL AREA
Annexation by the City of
After
applying the statutory factors at Minn. Stat. § 414.031, subd. 4, to the record of this matter, the ALJ
concludes that the French/Jameson/Other Residential Area should be annexed to
the City of
Factor (1) is
satisfied because the City of
Factor (2) is satisfied because, in connection with the present provision of water service to most of the developed portions of the Area, Ranier plans a water service improvement project which has obtained USDA funding, to be applied on behalf of the citizens in the Orderly Annexation Area.
Factor
(3) is met because the record shows the natural terrain and general topography
favor Orderly Annexation by the City of
Factor
(4) is satisfied because the boundaries of the City of
Factor (5) is satisfied because Ranier’s Community Plan identifies annexation as a solution for funding concerns related to the waterlines that currently fall outside of Ranier’s city limits, where Ranier currently has the duty to provide water.
Factor (6) is satisfied because Ranier’s projected post-annexation budget includes post-annexation transportation related issues.
Factor (7) is satisfied. Ranier engaged in a multi-year community visioning session that culminated in a Community Plan, which it intends to use to guide its actions. The annexation of the Area in question was recommended under the Plan.
Regarding zoning, the Plan calls for the future development of a Ranier planning and zoning ordinance. Until Ranier adopts a zoning ordinance, the Area being annexed will be governed by the County’s zoning ordinance.
Factor (8) has been satisfied by Ranier. It is in the best position to provide adequate, cost effective and needed municipal services to the French/Jameson/Other Residential Area. Regarding water, annexation results in an expanded tax base for Ranier, which will serve to ensure continued water service to the Area. The record shows that the management of the sanitary sewer system will continue as it is at present, with sewage being treated by the North Koochiching Waste Water Treatment Board, and no change will be seen in the way sanitary sewage is collected and managed. Currently, there are no concerns with the way the sanitary sewer system is managed in the Area proposed for annexation.
The record establishes that the current systems of fire protection and law enforcement will continue after annexation.
Factor (9) does not apply.
Factor
(10), dealing with existing or potential environmental problems, has been
satisfied by the City of
Factor (11) is satisfied with respect to the French/Jameson/Residential Area. Ranier currently serves residents of the French and Jameson Additions with water service, and plans to repair waterlines in those areas. Any other areas outside of the French and Jameson Additions where Ranier does not currently provide water service are proximate to Ranier, so that City is positioned to provide cost-effective and fully adequate municipal services.
Statutory Factor (12) has been satisfied. The fiscal impact of the proposed Orderly Annexation will be an expanded tax base which will help ensure Ranier’s financial independence and to assist with needed water service repairs and future maintenance. The record establishes that Ranier has contacted County officials for assistance in preparing a post-annexation budget.
Statutory Factor (13) is not applicable.
Statutory Factor (14), adequacy of town government to deliver services to the subject area, has been satisfied. The record shows that Ranier’s government is adequate to provide all capable and needed governmental services to the proposed Orderly Annexation Area, including the French/Jameson/Other Residential Area.
The record establishes that Ranier is in a satisfactory position to provide necessary governmental services to the proposed Orderly Annexation Area. Therefore, Statutory Factor (15) has been met by Ranier.
Statutory Factor (16) is not applicable. Any areas of unorganized townships not annexed to Ranier will continue with their present governmental services.
Regarding Factor (17), the information received by the Administrative Law Judge from touring the subject area is consistent with a conclusion that Ranier is in the best position to service the Orderly Annexation Area, including the French/Jameson/Other Residential Area.
R.C.L.
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public oral testimony was taken by the
Administrative Law Judge in this matter at the Koochiching County Court House
in
ORAL PUBLIC COMMENTS- JULY 6,
2010
1.
None of
the commentators opposed to Ranier’s annexation of “French and Jameson”
established, or alleged, that the City of
2.
Bernard
(Bernie) Woods was the first of a number of public commentators who spoke in
opposition to the City of
3.
Bernie
Woods is the son of Ed Woods, Sr., who helped design and oversee the water
system for Ranier over a span of several decades, starting in the 1960s. Ed Woods, Sr., was nicknamed the “Water
Wizard”.
4.
The
office of Mayor in Ranier carries a two-year term. The only candidate who filed for Mayor in
2008 was Bernie Woods’s brother, Ed Woods, Jr.
Ed Woods, Jr. was defeated in the general election by a write-in
candidate, current Mayor Ed Oerichbauer.
5.
Mr.
Oerichbauer was a City Council member prior to the 2008 election, and is in the
group on the Council that Bernie Woods accused of being “dissemblers” at the
Public Hearing on July 6, because these members of the Council supposedly kept
the City’s annexation plans secret from the rest of the citizens of
Ranier.
6.
Bernie
Woods noted that, just prior to the 2008 election, one of the prominent
citizens of Ranier, who had a long history of service on the City Council and
once was Mayor, mailed a letter to most of the City’s voters, which letter was
not mailed to Mr. Woods or selected others who share his views on municipal affairs. Mr. Woods argues that the letter (Exhibit
404), which promotes annexation of the French and Jameson Additions and
endorses the write-in candidacies of Ed Oerichbauer for Mayor and Dan Klocek
for Trustee (member of the Council), was the major factor in electing
Oerichbauer and Klocek over the candidates who had actually filed for election.
7.
Bernie
Woods criticized the Ranier City Council for convening “visioning sessions”,
facilitated by officials from the Arrowhead Regional Development Commission (ARDC),
without revealing their true agenda, which was to annex the residential
neighborhoods known as the French and Jameson Additions. The annexation of such territories would more
than triple the present population of “existing” Ranier, and the anti-annexation
group believes that residents from the newly-acquired territories would soon be
running the City. Woods invited
residents of the French and Jameson Additions area to form their own city. In the alternative, Mr. Woods suggested that
the City of
8.
Arden
Barnes, a person involved for many years in Ranier’s municipal affairs, was
concerned about how the various issues involved in these Consolidated Petitions
have divided the local communities along various lines, depending on the issue
involved. She noted in particular that
“everybody in Ranier is not huggy/kissy”.
9.
Ms.
Barnes, while noting that she did not agree totally with the views presented by
Bernie Woods, stressed that she questioned the motives of the City of
International Falls in its desire to acquire the Foreign Trade Zone. She believes
10.
While
noting that “Ranier should concentrate on its own water system”, Ms. Barnes
added that the potential for economic development in the Foreign Trade Zone was
enormous, given that
“So I think the picture for the volume of
imports, I think the sky is the limit and I think that, all things considered,
I think I don’t know why
11.
John
McCarthy is a local property owner who has been employed as the City
12.
Mr.
McCarthy supports the Petition of International Falls to annex the Foreign Trade
Zone (FTZ) area because of the capability of that city to provide the necessary
services to an urbanized area, which it is hoped the FTZ will become.
13.
Mr.
McCarthy stressed that
14.
Terry
Lahmayer is not opposed generally to the idea of annexation, but is extremely
upset about the “hidden process” undertaken by the officials of the City of
15.
Ms.
Lahmayer is upset further because, by the time “most of us realized what was
going on”, … “the Ranier Mayor and Council had already petitioned the County
Board to jointly adopt the annexation proposal”[111] Ms. Lahmayer noted that the letter of the law
had been fulfilled, because meetings were indeed held, but that she believes
the spirit of the law was not fulfilled because Ranier’s citizens never had the
chance to stop the process once it had begun.
Rather, the maneuverings of the City Council left the citizens of Ranier
“disenfranchised.”
16.
Everett
Ramsey resides in the
17.
Mr.
Ramsey believes the annexation effort by the City of
18.
Mr.
Ramsey also supports the building of a road between the present area of
19.
Edward
Bernath supports the annexation by
20.
Marjorie
Brenning has been on the Ranier City Council for thirteen years. She was not on the Council when it approved
the present Petition for Annexation by her City, and she believes that the
process would have been much more fair if the citizens of Ranier had been given
the opportunity to vote on whether to proceed with annexation.
21.
Naomi
Woods is disillusioned by recent behavior by the members of the Ranier City
Council who are supporting that City’s Annexation Petition. She noted that what began as a “visioning
process” turned into an Annexation Petition “… without any discussion, no
input. We knew more about a chili feed
last winter than we did about this plan.”[114]
22.
Ms.
Woods expressed concern that a number of people that live in “Jameson” have
marginal incomes and are struggling economically.[115] Ms. Woods believes it is a dangerous
financial practice to annex people into the community of Ranier without
sufficient funding, and points to an example of people losing their homes
because of high sewer assessments, which occurred in
23.
Ms.
Woods is concerned that if Ranier acquires the “French and Jameson” area,
whether the City would be able to provide municipal services, and questions
whether it is necessary to fix the sewer system in the first place. She believes it is functioning decently at
this time.
24.
Ms.
Woods is “…sickened by the lack of information, the total disrespect to the
people in our community and also French and Jameson… It’s turned all our good friends against each
other and it’s brought out the worst in the community.”[116]
25.
Naomi
Woods complained “it just makes my head spin ‘cause it doesn’t make any sense
to me. And it looks – I don’t like being
lied to. I feel like I’ve been lied to
or information has been withheld.”[117] Ms. Woods is concerned also that the Annexation
Petition for Ranier seeks to acquire “Three Points North,” an affluent area,
because citizens of “existing” Ranier and the rest of the French and Jameson
Additions, who possess far fewer means, will be subsidizing the sewer costs of
such affluent people.
26.
Naomi
Woods did not allege that the procedures undertaken by the Ranier City Council
in connection with its Annexation Petition were illegal.
27.
Ron
Peterson owns an extensive amount of land in the vicinity of the Foreign Trade
Zone, and has involved himself in a land swap near that area with the City of
International Falls. Mr. Peterson favors
the granting of the petition for annexation by the City of International
Falls. Mr. Peterson was “disappointed in
… Mayor Ed”, whom he alleges delayed announcing to him the City of
28.
Ward
Merrill spoke in favor of the Petition by the City of International Falls to Annex
the FTZ, because he believes
29.
George
Konecny was upset by all the arguing and wondered aloud why we can’t all just
get along. He implied that he leans
toward consolidation of the entire area into one governmental unit because “In
unity we stand, divided we’re going to fall.”[120] Generally, Mr. Konecny supports the efforts
of the City of International Falls, and he compliments its “wonderful” Mayor,
Council, Police Department and Fire Department.
30.
David
Trompeter was the author of Exhibit 404, the letter distributed to many of the
residents of Ranier just before the November 2008 election that swept Ed
Oerichbauer into the Mayor’s seat. Mr.
Trompeter served thirty five years on the Ranier City Council, six of them as
Mayor. Mr. Trompeter supports annexation
of the French and Jameson area in order to build a larger population base for
the funding of improvements in the City of
31.
Mr.
Trompeter believes that development of its own water plant by Ranier will
result in a cheaper water supply than the present arrangement of purchasing that
supply from
32.
Mr.
Trompeter acknowledges the need for major repairs to the water lines owned by
the City of
33.
Gerald
Arason supports
34.
Maryann
Kasich, a sister of Bernie and Ed Woods, Jr., opposes the annexation plans of
the City of
35.
Ms.
Kasich acknowledged that the City Council, and the lawyers representing them
during the annexation process, have met all the legal requirements for
annexation.[122]
36.
Ms.
Kasich remains upset that the citizens of Ranier were never invited by the
Mayor and Council to ask them what they thought about the annexation
issue. She noted that one City official
may have commented about annexation during the “visioning” meetings conducted
by the City.
37.
Ms. Kasich
challenges the position taken by the Council for the City of
38.
Ms.
Kasich was upset also because many of the key meetings were conducted during
the summer, when many of Ranier’s permanent residents are away.
39.
Ms.
Kasich is concerned also that there is no solid budgetary proposal for
financing the extended services that will be required if the annexation of the
French and Jameson neighborhoods is approved.
She noted that the City had planned earlier to “depend” on Local
Government Assistance (LGA), which has not come to fruition.
40.
Ms.
Kasich noted that the final, “swing” vote among the County Commissioners, that
of Chairman Hanson, was swayed in favor of the Joint Annexation Resolution only
after a representation was made that a certain level of grant monies (from the
U.S. Department of Agriculture) would be available if Ranier’s Annexation
Petition was adopted. Ms. Kasich noted
that, in the end, the amount of the grant that Ranier can anticipate is less
than half of the amount represented initially and at the time of the vote by
the
41.
Ed
Woods, Jr. served on the Ranier City Council from 1988 to 1992, and had filed
for election to the Mayor’s post in 2008.
He was defeated by Ed Oerichbauer, who received all write-in votes.
42.
Mr.
Woods is concerned about, and opposes, any further annexation on the part of
the City of
43.
On
November 4, 2008, Ed Oerichbauer defeated Mr. Woods, 62 votes to 34. As of that time, there were 107 registered
voters in the City of
44.
Mr.
Woods also was upset about how the Ranier City Council did not come forward
adequately to announce its true intention, which was to proceed for annexation,
until just before the election in 2008, after which there was only one
“visioning session” at which the matter could possibly be discussed. That visioning session did not take place
until after the Joint Annexation Resolution of the City and the County.
45.
Morgan
Bergstedt owns property near Moonlight Rock, in an area which Ranier seeks to
annex, but has not been petitioned for annexation by
46.
Mary
LePage is a resident of the Jameson Addition who is not in favor of being
annexed by anyone. She is concerned that
if her area is annexed by Ranier the County will stop providing services, and
she asks how are we going to pay for those services? Ms. LePage wonders whether the City of
47.
Rick
Blanchard was a member of the Councils of International Falls and
48.
Cindy
Dumais-Black is a neighbor of Morgan Bergstedt in the Moonlight Rock area. She believes that she will never see water
and sewer where she lives, so wonders why she should pay into the City of
49.
Phil
Williams faults the mayor of Rainer for a total lack of communication while
noting that he believes the Foreign Trade Zone will never materialize into
anything and that
50.
Mr.
Williams is upset that, although a majority of the voters in the city of
51.
Mr.
Williams testified to the presence of deer with “no hair on their lower legs”
and hairless beavers, living in the area of the Moonlight Rock Landfill, which
he calls the area’s equivalent of “
52.
Michael
Jaksa, an attorney in
53.
Mr.
Jaksa cited several statistics designed to show that further economic
development is necessary for the City of International Falls and the
surrounding area to sustain itself economically. He believes if Rainier annexes the FTZ, there
will be real practical problems, including a reluctance by the citizens of
54.
Terry
Lahmeyer testified in the evening session that she was particularly upset
because Rainer’s Mayor had promised her that the people would definitely have a
say, and that the city would take whatever time was needed to engage in debate
and discussion over the annexation issue.
She stated that newly-elected mayor Oerichbauer failed to inform her
that the process had already been started to enter into a joint resolution with
the County for annexation and “there was no going back.”[127]
55.
Ms.
Lahmeyer and Maryann Kasich noted at the evening public hearing that the number
of people signing the Anti-Annexation Petition, 57, was indeed lower than what
had been represented earlier in the proceedings (80). Ms. Kasich explained that 57 people signed,
whereas the other people could not be contacted because they were not
present. Only 19 people refused to sign,
so the ratio of people who signed in support of resisting annexation, as
opposed to people who refuse to sign the Petition, was approximately 3 to 1.[128]
56.
Bernie
Woods returned in the evening to challenge the remarks made by David
Trompeter. He stated that Mr. Trompeter
has repudiated the letter he circulated just prior to the 2008 election. Whereas, in his remarks at the public hearing
in this proceeding, Mr. Woods believes Mr. Trompeter ignored his earlier
representations that he had “repudiated annexation.”[129]
57.
Mr.
Woods also challenged Mr. Trompeter’s statement to the effect that it was
“illegal” for Rainer to fix water lines outside of Rainer, because although you
can’t take tax money from property taxes in Rainer for such purpose, you can
certainly dedicate a Water Fund from your water rates that you charge people
outside of Rainer and then any fixing can be funded from that.
58.
Mr.
Terry Randolph appeared and noted that he, Cindy Dumais-Black, and Mr.
Bergstedt constitute the “neighbors” in the “Moonlight Rock” neighborhood. He noted also that there were no discernible
benefits available to him from Rainer’s Proposed Annexation of the area in
which he and his neighbors live. He
stated also that a road to the Free Trade Zone through the Moonlight Rock area
was unnecessary, because all that is needed is to drop a road from Big Vic,
south one mile. It makes no sense to Mr.
Randolph to build a road through a swamp and a couple of other areas of
questionable utility when all you need is to drop a road one mile south from
the main highway (Trunk Highway 11).
59.
Douglas
Grindall, the
60.
Brian
Briggs, who spent eight years on the International Falls City Council, noted
that he is against the annexation plans of the City of International
Falls. Mr. Briggs lives just east of the
“
61.
In Mr.
Briggs’s particular residential location, he pays water and sewer to the City
of
62.
Mr.
Briggs believes it makes no sense for the City of International Falls to annex
hundreds of acres of swamp land to build a 2.2 million dollar road just to get
to the Free Trade Zone. He pointed out
that, so far, only one business has attempted to set up within the FTZ, and
that business failed. He believes the
logical way for routing traffic to the Free Trade Zone would be to build an
improved road south of the “Big Vic” statue.
63.
Mr.
Briggs advocates taking a 2.2 million dollar development fund and using it for
direct development expenses without going through annexation by the City of
International Falls and all the associated expenses. He has no problem if Ranier annexes the
FTZ.
64.
Mr.
Briggs is also not opposed to having the City of
65.
Cindy
Dumais-Black stated in the evening hearing that it would be impossible to build
a road that can carry heavy trucks on the swamp land that lies between the
point where Highway 332 makes its 90-degree turn and the Free Trade Zone,
because the land is “30 feet deep of muskeg.”[130]
SUMMARY OF WRITTEN PUBLIC
COMMENTS
1.
John
Bruggeman, who served on the Ranier City Council and was once its Mayor,
strongly supports the Annexation Petition of Ranier because the water system in
the Jameson and French Additions needs extensive repairs which could be
financed better by annexing that area and having the citizens there help pay
for the water services. Because the
City, which now has only 96 acres of area, has nowhere else to grow
geographically, a larger city would provide a bigger pool of candidates for
City Council. Because
2.
Sue
Swendsen, a resident of Ranier, believes the community will need the addition
of Jameson and French Additions to increase the tax base to maintain water and
sewer lines. She is persuaded by Mayor Oerichbauer
that a grant can be obtained for water maintenance only if annexation of the
area to benefit from the grant is accomplished.
3.
Edna
Doris is a property owner in the Jameson Addition who supports the City of
4.
Lorraine
(Laurie) Hedlund is opposed to Ranier’s Annexation Petition, because of the
process that was used, which she believes was flawed from the beginning because
little or no information was given to the residents concerning the pros and
cons of annexing any areas outside of existing Ranier. She notes that the citizens of Ranier were not
given facts, data, graphs, maps or anything that would support the desire of
the Council to go ahead with annexation.
Ms. Hedlund, along with her husband, take the credit for authoring the
Petition signed by residents of Ranier in opposition to the annexation plans of
the Council.
5.
Laurie
Hedlund indicated that while 107 registered voters were living in Ranier at the
time of the 2008 general election, 98 of whom voted in the mayoral race, their
total of 57 signatures represented well over half of the registered voters in
the community. She believes that the
process employed by the City Council failed to let citizens truly understand
what was at stake during the process of formulation of the Annexation Petition.
6.
Ms.
Hedlund also introduced a statement prepared by her husband, Andy Hedlund,
which he presented as a resolution for consideration by the Council advancing
the proposition that the Council authorize a non-binding vote by Ranier
residents and property owners, asking them whether or not they favor
annexation.
7.
Andy
Hedlund is a former Ranier City Council member, who notes that while there were
11 water breaks during a 27 day period in the Ranier system between October 24
and November 19, 2007, they were due to excessive pressure, which has now been
reduced, and two of the remaining three breaks were in an area where the water
line has been replaced. The City has now
gone 22 months without a water line break.
Therefore, Mr. Hedlund argues that it was inappropriate to rush into annexation
to solve a “phantom” imminent water line crisis. He is concerned also that the citizens of
existing Ranier will be “swallowed up” in the annexation, which will add 450
people to their small community of 173 residents.
8.
Wilbur
Tveit filed a letter in support of Ranier’s Annexation Petition noting that the
opposition to annexation has been articulated mostly by a “family group” living
in Ranier.
9.
George Konecny
filed a letter of support for the
10.
Sue
Swendsen filed another letter stating that when her husband Andy Swendsen, was
on the City Council both as a Council member and as Mayor, he was “frequently
harassed and personally attacked” by citizens who were led by a small but
influential group.
11.
Barbara
Plasky filed an e-mail to the effect that her husband, Robert Plasky, was a
person who originally filed the Petition that “started the ball rolling” for
consideration by Ranier to annex the French and Jameson Additions. The Plaskys live in the French Addition. They want to join with Ranier because of “too
many questionable decisions made by
12.
Tami
Walls filed a letter favoring Ranier’s Proposed Annexation.
13.
Ron
Herivel, Sharon Frank and Jim Black, residents of
14.
Cindy
Dumais-Black filed a letter stating that, so long as her area is not annexed
into Ranier, she favors the petition of Ranier over that of
15.
Kim
Sherwood, a business owner in
16.
International
Falls Councilmember Cynthia Jaksa noted it is important that the City of
International Falls annex the Foreign Trade Zone to ensure that they have the
governing authority to proceed with developments in that territory. She provided further details about the City’s
successful record in the economic development area.
17.
Kathryn
Volin, President of Grand Voyageur Group, LLC, filed a letter that challenges
the statement of Brian Briggs, who has questioned the spending of $1.3 million
for infrastructure expenses along
18.
Joann
Finstad, who owns a resort on Rainy Lake known as “The Lakeview”, supports the
annexation efforts of the City of
19.
Ms.
Finstad also notes that a small group of influential Ranier residents who
currently oppose the annexation have historically opposed changes in the City.
20.
Approximately
26 residents of the Brennan’s Beach neighborhood, whose area is proposed for
annexation by the City of
“We did not request to be annexed by the
City of
21.
Brennan’s
Beach Petitioners question how the City of
22.
Gayle
Rognerud, a 25-year veteran of the International Falls City Council, noted that
the members of the Koochiching Economic Development Authority, who run the
Foreign Trade Zone, were never informed of the pending annexation of the FTZ by
Ranier. Ms. Rognerud serves as the City
of
23.
Morgan
Bergstedt wrote to support the desire of
24.
Robert
Ewald noted that the City of International Falls, rather than proceed with an
Orderly Annexation, is just trying to take the Foreign Trade Zone (which is
wrong). It is logical for Ranier to
annex that territory because it supplies the water, the East Koochiching
Sanitary District supplies the sewer, and the
25.
Dave
Kunath of
26.
John
Bruggeman of Ranier filed an email to clarify that the Petition circulated by
Laurie Woods (Hedlund) asking the Ranier City Council to delay action on the Orderly
Annexation, about which Ms. Hedlund represented that the Petition’s signers
were opposed to annexation, is a misstatement.
Mr. Bruggeman remembers that Ms. Hedlund told him the signatures were
only to support slowing the process, rather than to record a “NO” vote.
27.
Toni
Gjavenis is a resident of the Moonlight Rock neighborhood who did not appear to
testify orally. In her letter, Ms.
Gjavenis states that she does not wish to be annexed by the City of
28.
Thomas
Hall wrote to support the City of
29.
June
and Walt Nelson, residents of Ranier, support the annexation proposed by the
City of
30.
Dan
Klocek is the Ranier City Council member who was elected by write-in vote
during the same 2008 election when Ed Oerichbauer was elected Mayor by
write-in. In his letter, Mr. Klocek
notes that the water lines through French and Jameson are “old and brittle”,
and are the source of 90% of the water breaks and repairs in the City’s water
system.
31.
Mr.
Klocek notes that the “vocal minority of residents in the City of
32.
The
Administrative Law Judge received a letter from Arden Barnes, who has lived in
Ranier all of her 81 years. She argues
that
33.
Terry
Randolph filed an email to confirm his testimony at the public hearing, to the
effect that he does not wish to be annexed by the City of
34.
Diane
Edens, Executive Director of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of
International Falls, and resident of Ranier, wrote to support Ranier’s Petition
for Annexation. She is saddened by the
fact that the elected officials in Ranier are under attack by a group that
“gathered in force in opposition to the annexation” at the Public Hearing.
35.
Joan
Evanoff, a 76-year-old widow, wrote in to praise the vision of Mayor
Oerichbauer and the present City Council.