Mayor Gottlieb's Letter to the Aldermen
Regarding the Proposed Border Agreement
with the Town of Port Washington

July 28, 2001

Common Council City of Port Washington

Dear Aldermen:

Attached you will find a document prepared by the Port Washington Town Board. This is the Board's response to the proposed agreement reached between Chairman Schlenvogt and me in April. The purpose of this letter is to briefly summarize the differences between the two documents, and to give you my recommendation on the City's response.

GROWTH AREA
The previous agreement limited the City to annexations within the area shown on the 2020 land use plan. This agreement states that the City will not annex any land north of Walters Street extended. This provision would essentially end all growth of the City to the north or northwest for 20 years.

REVENUE SHARING
Under the previous agreement, the City agreed to share property tax revenues received from annexed parcels within a limited area, consisting of the Weiss and Ansay properties north of the City, for twenty years. Under the Town proposal, the City is required to share property tax revenues for all newly annexed properties for a period of 20 years. In other words, the City provides all services to the new developments (police, fire, DPW, recreation, etc.), and still makes significant payments to the Town for 20 years. I believe that revenue sharing makes some sense for high value properties north of the City as an inducement for the Town to cooperate with us in seeing to it that those lands develop to their highest value, in the City with municipal services. There is no reason, however, for the City to agree to share revenues on typical run-of-the-mill residential annexations. That would be nothing more than a windfall to the Town, which would receive more money than they receive now in property taxes on the undeveloped lands, while the City would be required to provide all public services. Keep in mind that there is no requirement for revenue sharing on annexed lands, and there are currently no other communities in Ozaukee County that provide any form of revenue sharing for annexations.

UTILITIES
The previous agreement had no provision for the City selling sewer or water to Town properties. The Town proposal requires the City to sell water to the lands shown in Exhibit B. I strongly oppose selling utility service to the Town. This would contribute to sprawl, undermine the City's economic development program, and encourage the creation of an "urban township." With an urban township, the Town is allowed to have densities and land uses that approach urban standards, while still not having to provide the basic municipal services which are standard in a city or village.

INCORPORATION
Under the previous agreement, the Town agreed to drop all incorporation efforts. Under the Town proposal, they do not, and the City agrees not to contest any effort to incorporate by the Town. As you know, we have researched the incorporation issue thoroughly and are convinced that the Town of Port Washington does not meet the statutory requirements for incorporation. Therefore, I really don't think it makes much difference whether the City involves itself in this issue, since the ultimate resolution will be the same in any case. The Town currently has an incorporation petition pending before the Circuit Court.

CONCLUSION
Needless to say, the two draft agreements are as different as night and day. Under the Town's proposed agreement, the City shares taxes, sells water, seriously limits its growth, and agrees not to contest an incorporation which we know does not meet statutory requirements. The Town, on the other hand, gives nothing except a promise not to file more frivolous lawsuits against the lawful rights of property owners to choose annexation.

It is also worthy of note that within two days of delivering this draft to the City, the Town filed another lawsuit contesting two of the four annexations the City approved in April. In so doing, the Town Board has cast serious doubt on its desire to deal fairly and openly with the City. Which ones did they contest? The ones where the City itself is the property owner. In other words, they filed a lawsuit to try to prevent the City from bringing lands it owns into the City! Also, the lands where they contested the annexations are within the area where their own proposed agreement says they will not contest annexations. Chairman Schlenvogt's comment in the media that the lawsuit could "go away" is almost an open admission that the suit is another in a long line of abuses of the legal process, wherein the Town uses the court system to frivolously delay and inconvenience the City, regardless of the legal merits of their position.

Any agreement between two parties must be perceived by both parties to be of benefit to each of them. Unfortunately, there is literally nothing of value to the City of Port Washington in this document, and much which the City would unnecessarily give up to its detriment. The fact that we have been at this for several years, and the position of the Town and City are still so far apart, leads me to believe that the likelihood that the investment of additional time and expense in negotiation would lead to any sort of agreement is very small.

In conclusion, at this time I believe there is no basis upon which the City and Town can reach a satisfactory agreement. This is not an easy statement for me to make, since I have probably invested more time and effort than any other elected official to draft a fair compromise. My recommendation is that the Common Council inform the Town Board that we reject their proposal, and that we believe there is no value in further discussion at this time.

Sincerely,

Mark Gottlieb
Mayor

Back to the Fifth Aldermanic District homepage