Joint Oregon Town Board and Plan Commission Meeting Minutes
April 13, 2017
Town of Oregon Board Chairman Wayne Ace called the Joint Oregon Town Board and Plan Commission Meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. on April 13, 2017.
Deputy Clerk Jennifer Hanson took roll call with the following present. Town Board: Chairman Wayne Ace, Supervisors Arlen Christensen, Phil Van Kampen, and Fred Clark. Absent: Tom Wiedenbeck. Plan Commission: Chairman Brian Duffin. Members Sharon Christensen and David Hagemann. Absent: Arlan Kay, Paul Morrison, and Andy Blomstrom. Also present: Steve Root, Park Committee Chairman.
3. Presentation on Boundary Agreement by:
a. MSA, Town Engineer
b. Larry Bechler, Town Attorney
Andrew Bremer, Town Engineer from MSA: Provided information from the Department of Administration on three types of boundary agreements.
1. Stipulation and Orders - Occurs when involved in a dispute with another community and the judge orders a boundary agreement.
2. General Agreements - Used for boundary agreements and other types of service agreements, last up to 10 years and can be renewable, referendum is binding and triggered by 20% of electors in that territory.
3. Cooperative Boundary Agreements – Reviewed by Department of Administration (DOA), minimum of ten years, referendum is non-binding and triggered by 10% of electors that voted in last governor election.
a. Mediated Cooperative Boundary Agreement is used if one community is refusing to an agreement.
The town would be looking at either a general agreement or cooperative agreement. Differences are the length of time, involvement of DOA and referendum result. MSA has worked with other communities on boundary agreements.
Duffin: Questioned who votes on a boundary agreement referendum in a general or cooperative agreement. Cooperative Agreement referendum is a town wide vote and General Agreement referendum would be only the property owners in that territory. MSA has handled general agreements and no referendums were triggered.
Larry Bechler, Town Attorney: Provided an outline on the pros and cons of different boundary agreements and has experience represented municipalities in boundary agreements. The boundary agreement law adopted in the mid-2000 was a huge benefit. The law allows agreements that lock the boundaries now and transition into a cooperative agreement later. The proposed village agreement doesn’t address boundaries after ten years. There are boundary agreements that can be up to fifty years. The proposed village agreement creates town islands through annexation which is now permissible under the law. The village proposes using the minimal general revenue sharing of 5 years, but there is another statue which permit revenue sharing to go on longer if the parties agree. This would allow the damage of losing revenue to be phased in over time.
Ace: Questioned the creation of town islands. Mr. Bechler clarified that town islands are allowed in village growth areas under two exceptions: Cooperative Agreements and Ten Year Boundary Agreements.
Duffin: Asked if landowners request for annexation would change under a boundary agreement. Mr. Bechler said the proposed village agreement is based on property owner’s consent. Duffin is concerned that landowners may lose the ability to determine what happens to their land. A boundary agreement is more restrictive toward annexation than the law. Mr. Bechler explained landowner’s consent required for annexation. Van Kampen said this is an early draft and will be discuss more in closed session.
Ace moved, seconded by Van Kampen to adjourn into closed session at 7:09 p.m. pursuant to Wis. Stat. sec.19.85 (1)(e) to discuss a boundary agreement with the Village of Oregon.
Ace moved, seconded by Van Kampen to adjourn the Joint Town Board and Plan Commission Meeting at 9:29 p.m. Motion carried.