Judge rejects Hortonville’s objection
By Scott Bellile
The town of Greenville plans to hold a referendum next summer or fall to ask residents whether the municipality should incorporate as a village.
Greenville Town Administrator Joel Gregozeski said the town is “pleased to be allowed to continue through the incorporation process” following an October decision by the Outagamie County Circuit Court in Greenville’s favor.
Gregozeski said Greenville is finalizing an application that will be submitted to the Wisconsin Department of Administration’s Incorporation Review Board next February.
The DOA Incorporation Review Board will have up to six months to review Greenville’s application and submit its findings to Outagamie County Circuit Court.
Based on those findings, the court will either authorize the town to schedule the referendum, or if the board finds Greenville fails to meet the standards for incorporation, dismiss the petition.
A third possibility is if the board finds the town does not meet the standards, but it could under different village boundaries, the board could require the petitioners to submit redrawn proposed boundaries.
State statute 66.0205 requires that a town becoming a metropolitan village be at least 2 square miles in size, have a total population of at least 2,500 people and have a density of at least 500 residents in any 1 square mile.
Outagamie County Circuit Court in October determined the town satisfies those requirements for incorporation.
Now the Incorporation Review Board will determine if the town meets additional requirements under state statute 66.0207.
Those include whether the entire territory of the proposed village is “reasonably homogeneous and compact,” if the territory beyond the core of the proposed village is densely populated enough, and if the tax revenue could support the proposed village’s governmental services.
Hortonville argues against incorporation
Greenville, a rapidly growing town of more than 11,500 residents, began its incorporation process in April.
Resident Kevin Sturn filed the petition, signed by 112 residents, with the circuit court to request a referendum on incorporation as a metropolitan village.
During the summer, the neighboring village of Hortonville became a party in the court proceedings.
Attorney Robert Duimstra, representing the village of Hortonville, filed a brief on Sept. 14 requesting the court dismiss Greenville’s petition for incorporation.
Duimstra argued the town of Greenville’s rural areas are not densely populated enough to fulfill the requirements in the state statute.
Of the town’s total 36 square miles, 31 square miles – or 86 percent of the community’s geographic area – are “sparsely populated rural or agricultural lands not meeting the density requirements for a metropolitan village,” Duimstra wrote.
Only the remaining 5 square miles meet the density requirement of at least 500 people living in any 1 square mile, Duimstra wrote.
Duimstra cited two state Supreme Court cases from 1948 and 1953 in which the court dismissed municipalities’ petitions to incorporate because the territories were considered too rural or agricultural to fulfill the characteristics of a village.
“The petition before the Court ignores the urban versus rural characteristics of the Greenville territory and simply seeks to bulldoze those distinct needs by including the entirety of the Town of Greenville in the proposed village incorporation,” Duimstra wrote. “If the Town of Greenville is able to include 31 square miles of lands which do not meet the ‘at least 500 persons in any square mile’ density requirement, it would completely undermine the underlying purpose of the incorporation process and likely spell the end of Wisconsin towns.”
Greenville prevails in court
In October, Greenville’s attorneys, Richard Carlson and Ashley Lehocky, responded to Hortonville’s brief.
They stated they were “baffled” by Hortonville assertion that Greenville should not incorporate because its rural areas are not densely populated enough.
“The Village of Hortonville is mistaken as to the statutory incorporation process, generally, as well as facts and law applicable to this incorporation proceeding and the specific task now before this Court,” Carlson and Lehocky wrote.
They argued Greenville meets the density standard within five separate 1-square-mile sections, and a town does not need to meet the 500-people-per-square mile standard for every single square mile.
“The Village [of Hortonville’s] interpretation would mean that extensive area of the Town [of Greenville] devoted to the Appleton International Airport; business office development near the airport and industrial areas (clearly urban elements) could never be part of an incorporated municipality,” Carlson and Lehocky wrote. “The fact that residential areas are segregated from commercial and industrial areas is an indication of good land use planning, not a sparsely inhabited rural area.”
Hortonville’s argument that Greenville is ignoring its own urban versus rural characteristics is a matter for the Incorporation Review Board to consider, not the court, Carlson and Lehocky wrote. Characteristics fall under state statute 66.0207.
The pair also stated the 20th-century Supreme Court cases that Hortonville cited were “old irrelevant law” because they predate the creation of the Incorporation Review Board in 2003.
Outagamie County Judge John Des Jardins denied Hortonville’s motion to dismiss the petition on Oct. 18.
On Oct. 22, Des Jardins referred Greenville’s petition to the Incorporation Review Board, stating the petition met the statute’s requirements.
Hortonville village administrator seeks to collaborate
Hortonville Village Administrator David DeTroye declined to comment on the outcome of the court proceedings, saying the bulk of activity happened before he started working for the village in late September.
However, he told the Press Star last week he has met with Gregozeski to initiate boundary agreements with Greenville and neighboring municipalities.
“These agreements, orchestrated through ECWRPC (East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission) are the next steps needed to ease tensions and plan for a collaborative approach for all municipalities in the [Fox West Area],” DeTroy stated in an email. “The attitude I take moving forward is that we need less arguing and more collaborating to keep the region progressing. Good things are happening here. Neighbors are attributes not enemies!”
The town of Greenville states on its website it desires to achieve boundary agreements that would also protect the borders of surrounding communities including the towns of Hortonia, Ellington and Grand Chute. Greenville states it would not desire any additional territory in the foreseeable future.
Pros, cons to incorporation
According to the town of Greenville, villages have the abilities to:
• Better protect their borders. Surrounding villages or cities can annex property from towns but not other villages. Losing land, residences or businesses to annexation reduces a town’s tax base.
• Better maintain a higher bond rating. When annexation erodes a town’s tax base, the town loses equalized value. That in turn impacts a town’s favorable bond rating. A high bond rating allows a municipality to borrow money for infrastructure and facilities projects at lower interest rates.
• Make their own zoning decisions. Greenville’s zoning matters are currently reviewed by Outagamie County’s zoning committee.
• More easily create tax increment districts. A village has fewer state requirements to fulfill than towns when creating a TID to finance development projects.
• Access more state and federal financial resources. Unincorporated towns have fewer aids, grants and shared revenue opportunities available to them.
Incorporation could negatively impact residents in two ways, according to Greenville:
• There would no longer be an annual town meeting. There the electorate has the right to vote on items such as the tax levy, municipal building projects and land purchases and sales.
• A village could also fund private enterprise without voter approval.
Of note, Greenville as a village would not be required to offer any new public services beyond what it already provides or form its own school district. It would also keep the name Greenville.