WILLIAM J. MIELKE
COMMENTS
FOR
AUGUST 8-9, 2002 MEETING
ISSUE 2 - REVENUE SHARING
Revenue sharing in the State of Wisconsin has evolved over time in an effort to "level the playing field" among municipalities. With the current political pressure to eliminate or reduce revenue sharing, the distribution formula needs to be seriously revised.
IDEA
Revenue sharing should reflect a percentage of the revenues collected by the State of Wisconsin, or an inflationary index. The formula should be revised to be weighted solely on fiscal capacity expressed in dollars of equalized value per capita which is the measure of a community's ability to afford municipal services.
A secondary level of revenue sharing should also be instituted on a regional basis such as Countywide or using a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). This will take away some of the turf battles which currently have neighboring community industrial parks competing for the same industry. A formula such as was utilized in the Racine area would provide a sharing of any economic growth between all communities located within the designated area.
At the very minimum, for those areas or communities which voluntarily agree to revenue sharing, I would recommend that there be an amendment to the municipal revenue sharing provisions to streamline the procedures. Section 66.0305 allows revenue sharing between municipalities. A revenue sharing agreement may also include other elements such as municipal boundary adjustments and cooperative planning. This can be a very effective cooperation tool, but a revenue sharing agreement requires a Class 3 notice, requires delays before actually entering into the agreement, and the agreement is then subject to an advisory referendum. Advisory referenda tend to have the effect of a binding referendum since elected officials almost universally defer to the will of the electorate - whether advisory or not.
It is recommended that Section 66.0305 be amended to provide for a Class 1 notice for the public hearing. The municipalities should then be free to enter into the agreement as soon as possible after the public hearing. The opportunity for an advisory referendum is unduly cumbersome and should be eliminated.
ISSUE 6 - ECONOMIC GROWTH
To encourage consolidation of services and provide incentives for communities to adjust their boundaries, the statutes regulating such procedures need to be revised.
IDEA 1: Section 66.0229, consolidation of municipalities should be simplified. Consolidation is currently accomplished in accordance with the standards of the incorporation statute and delegates to the Department of Administration the decision as to whether consolidation is appropriate. It is a process rarely used and promotes the duplication of services. The standards for consolidation ought to evidence the political will of the municipalities involved, rather than the judgment of the State, especially since the consolidation is subject to a referendum vote. The Department of Administration need not be part of this process and the review and approval by the Department should be eliminated.
IDEA 2: Amend Section 66.0301 to allow boundary adjustments. Section 66.0301 of the Statutes allows municipalities to enter into contracts for the purpose of furnishing services or for the joint exercise of any power or duty required by authorizing law. The vast majority of boundary agreements in the State of Wisconsin appear to be entered into under this very simple procedure. However, recent judicial decisions have shown that such contracts establishing boundaries or limiting annexations are likely invalid if entered into under this section since towns cannot annex.
A specific amendment to § 66.0301 could allow such agreements to remain in place. In order to include public input, there should be a requirement that such boundary agreements be recorded against title of affected properties and that there be a public hearing. However, it is not recommended that the State Department of Administration have oversight which would only exacerbate the review log jam at DOA.
IDEA 3: Boundary changes authorized by preparation of cooperative plans needs to be simplied.
Section 66.0307 is the preferred statutory means for setting boundaries and engaging in cooperative planning. However, the procedure is extremely cumbersome. It is suggested that the following provisions be modified to increase the usability of this statute:
Subsection (3) should have the word "shall" changed to "may" regarding the inclusion of "environmental consequences", "housing needs" and "compatibility with existing laws" as portions of the plan.
The planning period under subsection (3)(f) should allow for creation of a permanent boundary between the municipalities.
Subsection (4)(a) should allow service of the resolution of participation within 30 days after adoption instead of 5 days.
Subsection (4)(b) should provide that the minimum period for conducting the public hearing is within 60 days after adoption of the resolution (instead of 180 days). The notice of the hearing should be given by a Class 1 notice (instead of a Class 3 notice). The submission of the plan to the department should be no less than 30 days after the public hearing (instead of 60 days).
The supermajority approval provisions of subsection (4)(d)2. should be deleted as unnecessarily bureaucratic.
The advisory referendum under subsection (4)(e) should be deleted as being nonsubstantive and it is nonbinding.
Subsection (4)(f) provides a 180-day maximum limit for submission of the cooperative plan to the Department after the public hearing. This should be deleted in order to allow the parties the necessary amount of time to negotiate any additional changes which need to be made to the cooperative plan.
Subsection (5) should provide that unless the cooperative plan is reviewed by the Department within 90 days, it is, automatically approved.
These provisions will allow for the streamlining of the process but yet protect aggrieved parties with the right to challenge a cooperative plan under Chapter 227. Currently, the procedures are unbelievably restrictive and daunting. The change to allow "discretionary" instead of "mandatory" elements of the plan will allow for a less expensive and streamlined procedure.
IDEA 4: Eliminate the Department of Administration review of annexations. The annexation provisions of Section 66.0217(6) provides for Department of Administration review over annexations in populous counties, i.e. 50,000 population or more. The role of the Department in this process is entirely advisory. No court case states that the Department's determination is to be given dispositive weight. The Department has from time to time attempted to provide more analysis of annexations in order to provide a basis for (usually) objecting to an annexation; but the end result is that this is an advisory opinion only. Elimination of this advisory review would allow the Department to focus on reviews of cooperative plans and incorporations and might provide a welcome freeing up of Department staff time.