Opinion ID: 1104071
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Past Performance and Time Element.

Text: ś 118. After hearing clear evidence that the city has failed to provide municipal services to many of its current residents, the chancellor opined: Though the evidence reveals that Winona has not extended all municipal services to all areas of the existing City, the ordinances under which the prior annexations took place made no such promises. This annexation is substantially smaller than prior annexations. In addition the evidence reveals that most of the services proposed are wither in place or can be accomplished with a relatively modest expenditure. The Court cannot say that the proposed annexation is unreasonable based on the past performance of the City. Given the scope of this matter, this factor is, at best neutral. ś 119. Therefore, the chancellor found that this factor does not weigh one way or the other for reasonableness of annexation. I find this to be remarkable. ś 120. In her testimony, Johnstone stated: Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether the city's past performance and time element involved in the city's provision of services to it present residents justifies annexation in the present case? A. Yes, I do. Q. And what is that opinion? A. My opinion is that the performance that I've seen does not indicate that there would be much certainty that there would be services provided to residents or businesses in the PAA based on what I've seen in terms of what the city has done with areas that it has annexed already. As I mentioned before, some of the services that are offered to communities, to the areas that are annexed into the area, include zoning and planning, and as has been admitted on the stand, there is a possibility that there actually is no zoning out in areas that were annexed in 1970. So that service has not been provided to those residents, and, of course, the subsequent other activities of the planning commission in terms of approving things or building permits issued were obviously not checked against the zoning ordinance when those things were issued. So that service was not really provided to them either in terms of the zoning ordinance. I mentioned that in areas of the city that there are still unpaved streets, streets that are in poor condition, other incidences of past performance that's not very positive by the city in taking care of what they already have in the city limits, and that tells me that this annexation, based on terms of past performance of the city, would notâ they would not meet that requirement for good past performance. . . . Q. Yeah. What standard of past performance from a planning perspective in your opinion should a city be held to in a proceeding such as this? A. Well, a city should be providing services equally to its residents across. I mean, that's what they say when they annex is that the people in that area will receive the services that the current citizens receive and that it should be fair and equal across the board, and that if there are going to be ordinances and programs and projects of the community, that they be enforced by the community and certainly in terms of the zoning map and ordinance and not knowing whether or not it's actually in place for the city for those residents. They've gone 32 years without this service, but yet it's being said the service needs to be somewhere in another area. I would say the standard would be certainly the expectation of municipal residents for the kinds of services that are urban services for a community. City water is not being provided toâ Q. Okay. A. â to lots of residents. Q. Let me ask you this. If you had to characterize the city's past performance inâ the City of Winona's past performance as we sit here today in providing municipal services, would you characterize it as excellent, goo[good], average, poor, nonexistent? A. Poor to fair, and if I can footnote that, I guess, a little bit. There's been some testimony about these areas are out there and it's too expensive to provide sewer to that area and too expensive to do this and can't do that, but cities know what they're doing when they annex. They know what they're getting.... ś 121. The chancellor held that the evidence reveals that Winona has not extended all municipal services to all areas of the existing City, the ordinances under which the prior annexations took place made no such promises. ś 122. The 1990 annexation specifically stated what improvements or services the City would provide, based on requests by residents and on a share basis ( e.g. 50/50 for sewer lines and pumping stations and 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 for paving streets), to the annexed area and there was testimony stating that the city has not been faced with any requests for improvements by any residents. ś 123. The 1970 annexation ordinance specifically stated: No improvements will be made by the City of Winona in the territory proposed to be annexed at the present time.  The hearing on the case sub judice was held in February, 2002 (32 years later). There was evidence that improvements still have not been made. At what point in time is its past at the present time? There are areas that have not been provided various services to for over 32 years but the city has adopted a 5 year plan to provide services to the Winona Elevator property, a parcel that is already provided with adequate services. ś 124. I find that this factor is not at best neutral but is a factor that disfavors annexation.