66.0207 Standards to be applied by the board.
(1) The board may approve for referendum only those proposed incorporations which meet the following requirements:
(a) Characteristics of territory. The entire territory of the proposed village or city shall be reasonably homogeneous and compact, taking into consideration natural boundaries, natural drainage basin, soil conditions, present and potential transportation facilities, previous political boundaries, boundaries of school districts, shopping and social customs. An isolated municipality shall have a reasonably developed community center, including some or all features such as retail stores, churches, post office, telecommunications exchange and similar centers of community activity.
(b) Territory beyond the core. The territory beyond the most densely populated one-half square mile specified in s. 66.0205 (1) or the most densely populated square mile specified in s. 66.0205 (2) shall have an average of more than 30 housing units per quarter section or an assessed value, as defined in s. 66.0217 (1) (a) for real estate tax purposes, more than 25 percent of which is attributable to existing or potential mercantile, manufacturing or public utility uses. The territory beyond the most densely populated square mile as specified in s. 66.0205 (3) or (4) shall have the potential for residential or other urban land use development on a substantial scale within the next 3 years. The board may waive these requirements to the extent that water, terrain or geography prevents the development.
(2) In addition to complying with each of the applicable standards set forth in sub. (1) and s. 66.0205 in order to be approved for referendum, a proposed incorporation must be in the public interest as determined by the board upon consideration of the following:
(a) Tax revenue. The present and potential sources of tax revenue appear sufficient to defray the anticipated cost of governmental services at a local tax rate which compares favorably with the tax rate in a similar area for the same level of services.
(b) Level of services. The level of governmental services desired or needed by the residents of the territory compared to the level of services offered by the proposed village or city and the level available from a contiguous municipality which files a certified copy of a resolution as provided in s. 66.0203 (6).
(c) Impact on the remainder of the town. The impact, financial and otherwise, upon the remainder of the town from which the territory is to be incorporated.
(d) Impact on the metropolitan community. The effect upon the future rendering of governmental services both inside the territory proposed for incorporation and elsewhere within the metropolitan community. There shall be an express finding that the proposed incorporation will not substantially hinder the solution of governmental problems affecting the metropolitan community.
History: 1977 c. 29; 1983 a. 189 s. 329 (14); 1985 a. 297 s. 76; 1999 a. 150 s. 38; Stats. 1999 s. 66.0207; 2003 a. 171.
The delegation of legislative power under sub. (2) (d) is constitutional. The legislature stated the general purpose with sufficient clarity that it can be determined that it is the legislature's will and not that of the administrator [now board] that is served by following consideration guidelines enumerated in subs. (1) and (2). Westring v. James, 71 Wis. 2d 462, 238 N.W.2d 695 (1976).
The requirement of homogeneity seeks to assure that an incorporated area is urban rather than rural, that development in such an area is not scattered, fragmented, or haphazard, and that similar land uses are grouped together in appropriate municipal boundaries. Pleasant Prairie v. Department of Local Affairs and Development, 113 Wis. 2d 327, 334 N.W.2d 893 (1983).
That the department approved annexations that helped create fragmented town borders did not render arbitrary and capricious the department's determination that the town's proposed incorporation did not meet the requirement of homogeneity and compactness. Incorporation of the Town of Pewaukee, 186 Wis. 2d 515, 521 N.W.2d 453 (Ct. App. 1994).
Whether incorporation would benefit the proposed village area is not the standard for allowing incorporation. An area must meet all the requirements of subs. (1) and (2). Walag v. DOA, 2001 WI App 217, 247 Wis. 2d 850, 634 N.W.2d 906, 00-3513.