PRINT ADS

After almost a year of trying to get a 90-day agreement that would provide time to draw up a more permanent boundary agreement, the village of West Salem and the town of Hamilton have withdrawn their interest in having any agreement between the two municipalities and the city of Onalaska.

The municipalities have been trying to hammer out an agreement that would have protected land along Highway 16 that bordered all three municipalities by classifying it as exclusive agriculture for the next 20 years.

A 90-day agreement would signal the intent of the parties to meet and devise a permanent boundary agreement. The boundary agreement — one outgrowth of the comprehensive plans adopted by Onalaska and West Salem to practice intergovernmental cooperation — was to specify that no development along the boundaries could occur without all three parties agreeing to the development.

By speaking with one voice about plans for the properties, the three communities were attempting to stave off developers who were playing one municipality against another with development plans.

At a meeting last Friday, West Salem’s President Dennis Manthei said the village’s attorney has advised the board not to sign a 90-day agreement or a boundary agreement. According to Manthei, attorney Alan Peterson said a boundary agreement with Onalaska “is not in the best interest of West Salem.”

Manthei also said Peterson discussed legislation being proposed in Madison that would jeopardize any agreement.

Hamilton Town Chairman Richard Schomburg said the town’s attorney advised the same thing. In a letter to Schomburg, town attorney Darrel Talcott had this to say: “As you are probably aware, towns have very little control over annexations short of procedural arguments which may delay the effective date of the annexation, but not the ultimate result should the petitioner be persistent and the municipal body want to annex the property. As such, the (90-day agreement) is probably a helpful tool for the city (Onalaska) and village (West Salem), but of little value to the town.”

Both Manthei and Schomburg also expressed concern that the city of La Crosse could lay claim to a small sliver of property within its extraterritorial jurisdiction.

After a few moments of stunned silence, Onalaska Mayor Mike Giese said he was confused. “(The 90-day agreement) is a policy matter. I’m disappointed we get to this point and legal opinions supersede policy discussions,” Giese said.

Giese went on to argue that it sounded like the attorney was saying to not sign the 90-day agreement, but that to continue working on a boundary agreement wasn’t an issue.

Manthei responded that the village was advised to not sign either agreement. He said that the more the village thought about it, the more they decided the attorney’s advice should be sought. “We’re accepting his advice at this time. This is where we’re at right now,” Manthei said. “I’ll take the blame.”

Manthei agreed to get further clarification from the attorney as to why he believes it is not in the best interest of the village. “We’ll have further discussions,” Manthei said.

Nevertheless, Manthei went on to say that the last time the issue came before the board, a motion was made for Manthei to sign the agreement, but it failed for lack of a second.

Brian Fukuda, community development specialist with La Crosse County, said as far as he knew, the city of La Crosse could not leapfrog over the city of Onalaska to exercise any extraterritorial rights. He also let the group know that if they were concerned about the role of the county in the discussions, the county would back out.

“If the county’s presence at the table is making anyone uncomfortable, we’re here as facilitators, not as party to the agreement,” Fukuda said. “If that’s the reason (for not signing any agreements), we can back away from the table.” But he reminded the group of the benefits of the boundary agreement.

James Michelson from Hamilton said, “We should be able to do it if Madison and others can do it. The developers were working us against each other — that’s what we’re going to go back to.”

Tom Rauk, a member of the La Crosse County Board, agreed. “It has been like kids playing parents off one another and having the parents scrapping against each other. (A boundary agreement) is to allow you to look at revisions, to permit change and discussion,” he said.

After the meeting, Fukuda said he was certainly disappointed, but conceded that any agreement was to be voluntary. “If the parties don’t want to do it, we don’t want to force anyone in their decisions.”

Fukuda said the boundary agreement was initiated by the comprehensive plans both Onalaska and West Salem had adopted. “Both of those plans indicate the desire of the communities to cooperate with each other. The county offered its services to help that process move forward.”

Fukuda was concerned the withdrawing of West Salem calls into question how the village will attempt to abide by the language in its comprehensive plan for intergovernmental cooperation. The comprehensive plan states the village will develop an intergovernmental agreement with Onalaska and the town of Hamilton by developing a mechanism or forum to discuss and plan for the orderly development of territory located between and adjacent to the village and Onalaska along Highway 16.

“I think we were close to a decision that was wise planning and wise land-use planning,” Giese said after the meeting. “The goal of the boundary agreement was to express the clear wishes of the three entities for development. ... An agreement says we’ve spoken with one common voice.”