01-0201 State ex rel. Olson v. City of Baraboo Joint Review Board

Listen to this article

Although the Joint Review Board was erroneously listed as one of the Boards that would not be taking formal action at the meeting, Wis. Stat. sec. 19.84(2) is not violated in each instance that a public notice contains any type of incorrect information, when the notice is not otherwise misleading to the public.

Therefore, the public notice did not violate the Open Meetings Law. And, even though Wal-Mart already owned land in the proposed TIF district and would likely develop the property anyway, we reject plaintiff’s contention that this would invalidate the Joint Review Board’s decision to approve the TIF District.

“Although Olson is correct that Wis. Stat. § 66.46(4m)(c)1.a. directs the Joint Review Board to consider ‘[w]hether the development expected in the tax incremental district would occur without the use of tax incremental financing,’ it does not follow that the Joint Review Board is barred from approving a TIF District if there is any land within the district that would have already been developed. …

“The Joint Review Board was also required to consider the economic benefits the TIF District would provide, in terms of increasing employment, business and personal income, and property values. The central purpose of the TIF District was to develop a business park and attract new business to Baraboo. It would not be unreasonable to conclude that having an anchor tenant such as Wal-Mart included in the TIF District would be conducive to this goal, or that the economic benefits of the TIF District overall outweighed the unnecessary inclusion of some property within the District. In short, we conclude that the Joint Review Board acted according to law and that its decision was reasonable.”

Judgment affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

DISSENTING OPINION: Roggensack, J. “While I agree with the majority opinion’s decision on the open meetings law, its identification of Wis. Stat. § 66.46(4m)(c)1 (1997-98) as the statutory criteria that the Joint Review Board (JRB) must apply in its review of tax incremental district (TIF District) No. 6 and its conclusion that those criteria were reasonably applied by the JRB, I write in dissent because I conclude that Bartlett Olson did not waive his right to certiorari review of the common council’s decision to include the costs of improvements lying outside of the geographic boundaries of TIF District No. 6 in the TIF District’s project costs.”

Dist IV, Sauk County, Miller, J., Dykman, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: John A. Kassner III, Madison

For Respondent: Allen A. Arnsten, Madison