Within hours, Town Board votes to pursue legal action
By Heather Ruenz
Editor
In a matter of hours this week, the Palmyra Village Board voted to accept the annexation of 740 acres requested by Standard Process and the Palmyra Town Board responded by voting to take legal action in an attempt to stop the annexation.
Despite a near-capacity crowd at Monday night’s Village Board meeting, the only two people who spoke about the Standard Process annexation – in a heated discussion at times – were two board members.
Following that discussion the board voted 5-1 with one abstention to accept the annexation petition of 740 acres of land, nearly doubling the size of the village.
On Tuesday morning, at 10:45 a.m., the Town Board held a special meeting regarding the annexation.
Town Board Chairman Larry Kau said following a closed session to confer with legal counsel the board reconvened into open session.
“A motion was made to direct Stafford Rosenbaum to commence legal action challenging the Standard Process annexation,” Kau said.
When asked if he could explain the merits of the town’s decision, Kau said that conversation had occurred in closed session.
“The minutes from that meeting won’t be available until after the lawsuit is settled,” Kau said.
Now it looks as if the two entities will see the matter play out in the courts as taxpayers foot the legal bills.
Village decision
Village President Dave Turner told board members at the Feb. 2 meeting, held at the Village Hall, they needed to decide whether to accept or deny the Standard Process’ annexation application.
Frank Kostopoulos, a village trustee who has repeatedly opposed the annexation – particularly as it relates to landowners included in the petition – said he had a few questions.
Kostopoulos began by asking why a portion of Bob Oleson’s land was being included in the annexation.
“Because it needs to be homogenous, Frank. We’ve talked about this,” Turner replied.
Kostopoulos said he disagreed and thought the portion of land he was referring to could be excluded and still meet homogeneity requirements and then asked who would be paying for the “feeder road” between Highways 59 and 106.
Turner clarified that Kostopoulos meant “future road” and said that was not part of the decision the board needed to make.
Kostopoulos said he was a pilot and had concerns about the road, including “an aircraft hitting a car crossing the road. We can’t get into this tonight.”
“Then let’s not get into it,” Turner said.
But Kostopoulos wasn’t done. He asked if a committee of six people – three each from the town and village – had met and discussed the annexation petition.
“No and that wasn’t a requirement. Where is all of this coming from?” Turner asked.
“One might vote for or against this based on whether or not village taxpayers are going to have to foot the bill,” Kostopoulos replied.
Turner then brought a new item to the discussion – a letter he said was dated Dec. 1 “as part of 70-plus pages of documents I obtained from the Department of Administration.”
The letter, Turner said, was signed by three village trustees: Kostopoulos, Chris Mueller and Martina Wegner. Wegner resigned last month and the board appointed David Cox to the open seat at the Jan. 19 meeting.
In the letter, which was read by Turner in its entirety, the three trustees requested the department approve the annexation but only of Standard Process property.
After reading the letter Turner said there were a couple of items in it that were not true, including a comment about eminent domain.
“And I don’t like that you want to control the airport,” Kostopoulos said, referring to a story he had read in a newspaper late Monday afternoon.
Turner said he didn’t want the village to control the airport and said it would remain as is other than being required to abide by village codes.
“You said you would condemn the land if you need to. You told me that not 10 feet from this building,” Kostopoulos said.
“I did not say that,” Turner replied.
Turner made a motion to accept the annexation and Village Trustee Cindy Bontempo seconded the motion.
By a roll-call vote, the motion passed with the required super majority – five votes – with Kostopoulos voting against it and Mueller abstaining. Mueller was recently appointed as co-manager of the airport, presumably the reason for his abstention.
On Tuesday morning, Standard Process President Charlie DuBois said the company was thankful for the support.
“We appreciate the support from the village leaders in accepting the application from Standard Process for annexation,” DuBois said. “We look forward to growing in Palmyra, offering more jobs, and helping the community to flourish.”
Annexation history
Standard Process, Inc. wants to bring the company’s manufacturing facility – located in the village – and certified organic farm – located in the town – into a single jurisdiction, the village.
The board previously voted to accept an earlier annexation request in February 2013 but in December of that year, the annexation was vacated following a judge’s ruling that the petition was null and void.
Through a stipulated agreement to end a civil lawsuit filed by the Town of Palmyra and three town landowners, Jefferson County Circuit Court Judge Jennifer L. Weston ruled Standard Process failed to properly notify all impacted landowners.
“We failed to notify the land owners by formal service of process and the judge’s ruling was based solely on that,” Karren Jeske, communications manager for Standard Process said at the time in response to the judge’s ruling on the lawsuit.
Though it was vacated on a specific procedural error, Kau, who was also town chairman at that time, said the proposal was defective in other ways.
“The proposed annexation allowed 740 acres of land from the town to come under village control. This would allow the village to grow from 800 to 1540 acres. This 740 acres of land consists entirely of prime agricultural land, the town airport and the Town Hall,” Kau said.
The majority of the annexation – 382 acres – is agricultural land owned by Standard Process.
Another reason Kau cited referred to a Jan. 15, 2013, letter from the Wisconsin Department of Administration Municipal Boundary Review Division that deemed the proposed annexation was against the public interest.
Turner pointed out that Judge Weston didn’t rule against the annexation.
“The merits of the annexation were not weighed at all in the decision as this was a procedural issue. It was a mistake and mistakes happen,” Turner said.
And despite the ongoing notion by some that the village is at fault and land ownership would change as a result of the annexation, Turner said that was never the case.
“We didn’t take anything from anyone and Standard Process didn’t either. This is a growing company that plans to expand, wants their entire operation in one municipality and will need (municipal) services to grow,” Turner said.
Favorable ruling by DOA
The state Department of Administration’s review of the initial petition found the annexation to be against public interest, as Kau referenced at the time.
Standard Process filed the annexation proposal again in November 2014 and the DOA released its opinion about a month later.
In a letter dated Dec. 2, 2014, Erich Schmidtke, of the DOA’s municipal boundary review, said additional detailed information provided by Standard Process, Inc. and the Village of Palmyra regarding service needs led to the recent opinion in favor of the annexation.
Schmidtke said the department’s review examined the shape of the annexation and its homogeneity with the annexing village and whether services to the territory could be better supplied by the Town of Palmyra or some other contiguous municipality.
“Our farm is in the Town of Palmyra and our manufacturing facility is in the Village of Palmyra. We continue to expand our processes at our farm to improve our products, and we anticipate an increasing need for services at our farm that only the village can provide,” Jeske, said previously in explaining the company’s rationale.
Schmidtke’s letter also addresses the town’s contention of gerrymandering the boundaries of the annexation territory by “excluding potential electors who likely would not support the annexation, were a referendum vote to occur… these exclusions do not negatively impact the shape of the territory.”
According to the University of Wisconsin-Extension’s Local Government Center, while the DOA may advise that an annexation is in favor or, against public interest, the annexing municipality – in this case the Village of Palmyra – is required only to review the recommendation before a vote is taken and is not required to side with the DOA’s finding.
Options offered
At the Dec. 15 Village Board meeting in which the board voted to acknowledge receiving the petition request from Standard Process, the board revisited the detachment letter that had previously been sent to landowners affected by the annexation.
The Palmyra Town Board would have to accept a boundary agreement for the detachment option to be viable.
In response to Carol Calkins – the wife of the late, former town chairman, Stewart Calkins – asking why the village would want to take land only to give it back, Village Trustee Bill Lurvey explained the steps required.
“We’re willing to do it but unless the town says, ‘We’ll take them (the property owners) back,’ we can’t detach them because they have nowhere to go,” Lurvey said. “It can’t be a balloon on a string. You can take a square and then change it to a balloon on a string with a boundary agreement between the village and the town.”
The board agreed to offer the detachment option to the affected landowners. Now that the Village Board has accepted the annexation, whether or not the detachment option goes further falls on the shoulders of the Town Board.
Earlier in the Dec. 15 meeting during public forum, nearly 15 people spoke regarding the annexation. Most of them, including village and town residents as well as Standard Process employees, spoke in favor of it.
Dispute has a price
Prior to the first annexation request being vacated by the judge, legal fees cost the greater community thousands of dollars – approximately $24,000 to the town and $19,000 to the village.
Following the decision by the Town Board Tuesday to commence legal action with regards to the annexation, it seems the town and village are about to once again embark on a road they have traveled before.
