A Less than Neighborly Neighbor   
          by Elainne Willman

How would your local government handle an adjacent private (tribal) government intent on acquiring your land base, and overpowering the government you elect? How comfortable would you be if a co-located tribal government whose enrolled residents are few, were ramping up its law enforcement, public safety and new judicial systems to co-mingle or overwhelm the same systems of the government you elect?



And how about this same neighboring tribal government sending paid staff for years to attend every single public meeting, and next day sending staff into the local government demanding every available public record, to then assign additional tribal staff to strategize tactics to obstruct the projects and services your local government tries to provide its residents?



The Village of Hobart, Wisconsin (pop. 5,800) is located next to the City of Green Bay and the Green Bay Airport. The Village is a high quality “bedroom community” with very little commercial activity. This local general-purpose government employs 15 full-time employees governed by a 5-member Board of Trustees that administers a meager 3.7 million dollar annual budget, and has the duty to protect the general welfare and public safety of a 33-square mile municipality.



The Village is co-located within the historical boundaries of the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin (OTI). The tribe’s annual operating budget is 527 million dollars, including its casinos and other profit centers such as the 7-Generations Corporation. The OTI is one of the largest employers in Brown County, and perhaps the State of Wisconsin.



Over the recent years, the OTI has accomplished an aggressive land acquisition program, acquiring 32% of the Village’s taxable property. Currently 11% of land in Hobart has been placed into federal trust and removed from the tax rolls. The remaining tribally owned fee land is also packaged for placement into federal trust.



The issue for the Village of Hobart that relies upon its property tax revenue is to find alternative sources of revenue to sustain the Village’s municipal services. The first strategy determined was the formation of a 490-acre business-industrial park in 2001. The Village expended over 3 million dollars for roads and infrastructure. The tribe’s response to this Village effort was to quietly purchase more than 75% of the land within the Village’s industrial park. The tribe informed the Village that it would not develop the land it acquired within the new Industrial park. This was a blow to a substantial effort expended by the Village. In January 2003 the Village filed an action for declaratory relief in state court to resolve the jurisdictional dispute.



As a next alternative, the Village invested 6 million dollars to acquire 300 acres of developable farmland to create a commercial area along a State Highway that is its northern boundary. The Village has fewer than 30 businesses and no downtown core, so a Village commercial center would greatly assist consumer and professional needs of its residents as well as offset continuous erosion of property tax from tribal acquisitions.



About the time the ink dried on the acquired Village property, the tribe purchased for over 3.1 million dollars, a 17-acre, L-shaped unbuildable “strip parcel” that blocked the Village’s ability to bring infrastructure to the 300 acres the Village had just acquired. The tribe paid 15 to 18 times the actual market value of an acre of farmland for this narrow, L-shaped strip of land. Since the “spite strip” was fee land the Village determined to pursue easements and condemnation to get its sewer line across the 60-foot strip to its 300-acre investment.



In response to the Village’s action, in December 2006 the tribe filed suit against the Village in Federal District Court, even as the State Court action was unresolved and subsequently stayed, pending the federal court decision.



In a March 12, 2008 meeting with Carl Artman at BIA headquarters in Washington, D.C. Carl Artman, then Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Indian Affairs informed the Hobart Village Administrator and Public Policy Director of Focus On The Family that “IGRA (the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988) is not just about gambling; it’s not just about commercial; it’s about governmental jurisdiction.” There is no better illustration of Mr. Artman’s statement than the aggressive and incessant actions of his own tribe in which he is a member, the Oneida Tribe of Indians’ against the Village of Hobart.



On March 28, 2008 Judge William Griesbach ruled in Oneida Tribe of Indians v. Village of Hobart (Case. No. 06-C-1302) in the Eastern District of Federal Court, the following:



“…I conclude that fee land within the original boundaries of the Tribe’s reservation which was allotted pursuant to federal law, transferred to third parties, and subsequently acquired by the Tribe in fee simple on the open market, is subject to the Village’s power of eminent domain. In addition I conclude that the land is subject to special assessments levied against the property for improvements that specially benefit it. . . . The clerk is directed to enter final judgment in the favor of the Village setting froth the court’s determination that the Village of Hobart has condemnation, special assessment and taxation authority over lands purchased in fee by the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin, in accordance with Wisconsin law, unless and until the Tribe’s application to place such land in trust pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 465 is granted.”



Judge Griesbach’s ruling was not appealed by the Oneida Tribe of Indians. The Village and the tribe now have clarification that the tribal government controls its trust land, and fee land within the municipal boundary is under the regulatory authority of the Village, including fee land owned by the tribal government or individual tribal members. This does not stop the tribe’s land acquisition campaign to overtake and economically undermine the local general-purpose government. It does, however, provide some temporary relief that allows the Village to find alternative sources of revenue to sustain itself in the future, and to defend itself against ongoing opposition and obstruction from its neighbor.



To its credit, and in spite of substantial litigation expenses, the Village of Hobart has managed its municipal budget over the years in a manner that qualifies the Village for the unusual status of a Standard and Poors A+ rating. The elected Board of Trustees and small but dedicated and enduring staff at the Village deserve high accolades for using limited resources strategically to defend against the OTI’s enormous funds and political clout that places public services and quality of life in a wonderful community, always in its crosshairs.



Elaine Willman,

Village Administrator,

Village of Hobart

Member, CERA Board of Directors