Annexation Commission — Green Bay, WI
Date: 2003-05-05
Time: 17:00

MINUTES
 GREEN BAY ANNEXATION COMMISSION
 Monday, May 5, 2003
 City Council Chambers
 Room 203, City Hall
 11:00 a.m.


MEMBERS PRESENT: Gary Sikich, Jim Schmitt, Carl Weber, Ron Antonneau, and Bill
Lockery.
MEMBERS EXCUSED: Susan Schober-Murray
OTHERS PRESENT: Tim Kelley, Rob Strong, Allison Swanson, Peter Thillman, Marv
Rentmeester, Grant Staszak, Dale Knafel, and others.

The meeting was called to order at 11:05 a.m.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

Minutes from the July 30, 2002, meeting of the Green Bay Annexation Commission were
reviewed.

A motion was made by C. Weber, seconded by R. Antonneau, to approve the minutes from the
July 30, 2002, Annexation Commission meeting. Motion carried unanimously.

NEW BUSINESS:

1. Public Hearing on the petition of a property owner for direct annexation of certain territory
 from the Town of Scott, generally located north of Church Road, west of Nooyen Lane,
 and east of Highway 57, to the City of Green Bay, dated March 12, 2003, pursuant to
 Wisconsin Statutes, 66.0217.

 G. Sikich opened the public hearing and requested that rules be suspended to hear
 testimony.

 A motion was made by R. Antonneau, seconded by C. Weber, to suspend the rules to
 allow interested parties to speak. Motion carried unanimously.

 G. Sikich asked if anyone would like to provide testimony.

 D. Knafel, petitioner, stated that she understood that her petition was incomplete and that
 it did not comply with Wisconsin State Statues. She has been trying to work with the Town
 of Scott to get services extended to her property, but they are not interested in doing that.
 She currently is running a manufactured housing business out of the home on her
 property. She has had other proposals made to her to develop the property, such as an
 apartment complex or elderly housing complex.

 R. Antonneau asked if the Town has denied access to services. D. Knafel responded that
 the Town has been difficult to work with.




 1
R. Antonneau asked the petitioner how quickly she would want services. D. Knafel
responded that she would want services this summer.

R. Antonneau stated that this petition was received by the City on March 12, 2003, prior to
the March 18, 2003, City Council approval of the boundary agreement between the City
and the Town. He asked why he was not made aware of the petition. He may have asked
to hold up the final Council vote to address the petitioner’s request.

T. Kelley informed the Commission that the petition was done incorrectly and did not
comply in several areas with the state statutes and, therefore, is not a valid petition for
annexation.

A. Swanson stated that D. Knafel was approached by the Madigan family about including
her property in the initial annexation requests. She declined to be part of those requests.

R. Antonneau asked D. Knafel if she had agreements with the Town of Scott. D. Knafel
responded that she had only promises at that time from the Town.

A. Swanson asked a question regarding sewer and water service to the subject area. D.
Knafel stated that she has had discussions with the Town’s Sanitary District regarding
services, and they informed her that it may be able to be done through a lift station.

C. Weber explained that the subject property was not part of the initial annexation
requests so serving the area was not fully analyzed.

R. Antonneau stated that the Mayor and City Council should be more involved in these
types of decisions. Staff should not be deciding these things on their own.

G. Sikich asked T. Kelley what the status was of the boundary agreement. T. Kelley
stated that the boundary agreement is presently waiting final judgment from the Circuit
Court.

D. Knafel asked if her petition could be amended to legally comply with the statutes. T.
Kelley encouraged D. Knafel to retain legal counsel to prepare a new petition.

R. Antonneau stated that there were property owners who did not want to be part of the
boundary agreement, and D. Knafel seems to want to be included in the new boundaries.
The Council should have had this information.

T. Kelley explained that the petition as submitted was defective and not a valid petition. D.
Knafel can redo her petition to comply with the statutes, and the Annexation Commission
would review the new petition.

G. Sikich asked T. Kelley if the boundary agreement allows for amendments. T. Kelley
responded yes if both parties agree to it.

D. Knafel stated that one of her problems with the Town was that they were requiring her
to complete a stormwater management plan along with the construction of it prior to her
getting the zoning she wants.




 2
 G. Sikich asked three times if anyone else would like to provide input. No one stepped
 forward.

 A motion was made by R. Antonneau, seconded by B. Lockery, to return to regular
 business and close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.

2. Discussion and action on the petition of a property owner for direct annexation of certain
 territory from the Town of Scott, generally located north of Church Road, west of Nooyen
 Lane, and east of Highway 57, to the City of Green Bay, dated March 12, 2003, pursuant
 to Wisconsin Statutes, 66.0217.

 R. Antonneau asked T. Kelley if it would be proper to hold up the petition to allow D.
 Knafel time to complete a new petition. T. Kelley said the Commission could receive and
 place on file the subject petition. A. Swanson stated the Commission should either accept
 or reject the petition as per state statute.

 T. Kelley suggested denying the subject petition to eliminate confusion if D. Knafel decides
 to resubmit. G. Sikich asked if the Commission should reject the petition and encourage
 the property owner to resubmit.

 J. Schmitt asked if what was submitted should have been considered a communication
 and not a petition. T. Kelley stated that it is up to the Annexation Commission to accept
 the petition as submitted as a legal document, which it clearly is not.

 A motion was made by J. Schmitt, seconded by R. Antonneau, to reject the petition as
 submitted because it did not comply with state statutes. Motion carried unanimously.

 The Commission encouraged D. Knafel to retain legal counsel and submit a new petition
 complying with state statutes.

3. Discussion and action on the annual election of officers: President, Vice-President, and
 Secretary, per Chapter 1.53(2)(b), City Code.

 A motion was made by R. Antonneau, seconded by C. Weber, to table the appointments
 until the Mayor’s appointments were finalized. Motion carried unanimously.

A motion was made by G. Sikich, seconded by R. Antonneau, to adjourn. Motion carried
unanimously.




 3