870 N.W.2d 680
Wis. Ct. App.2015Background
- In 2013 the Town of Harrison incorporated 4.6 sq. miles as the Village of Harrison; the Town and Village then negotiated an intergovernmental cooperation agreement under Wis. Stat. § 66.0301(6).
- Notices (newspaper class 1 and certified mail to 1,910 property owners) announced a joint public hearing to discuss the agreement, expressly referencing "boundary line adjustments."
- At the joint hearing boards unanimously approved the agreement; the Village later adopted an ordinance effectuating the boundary change, transferring 1,736 Town parcels to the Village.
- Challengers (nearby municipalities, a village, and property owners) sued to void the transfer, arguing the agreement exceeded § 66.0301(6)’s scope and failed to satisfy the statute’s notice requirements.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment to Harrison; the Challengers appealed. The appellate court reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of authority under § 66.0301(6): whether the statute limits intergovernmental agreements to only modest/incidental boundary changes | § 66.0301 must be read to permit only limited boundary changes incidental to service-sharing; otherwise it yields absurd or unconstitutional results and undermines other statutory procedures | The statute’s plain text permits agreements affecting "all or a portion" of a common boundary; nothing in the statute limits the size of the change or requires agency/referendum approval | Court: statute’s plain language allows large (major) boundary changes; no reading-in of a modest-change limitation was required or warranted |
| Notice content required by § 66.0301(6)(c)1: whether the published and mailed notices had to specify which parcels/owners would be relocated | Notices needed to describe the effects of the agreement on boundary lines and identify which property owners would be moved to satisfy meaningful notice requirements | The statute prescribes only a class 1 newspaper notice and certified-mail notice to owners in or immediately adjacent to the territory whose jurisdiction will change; it does not mandate detailed contents | Court: Harrison’s notices stating there would be "boundary line adjustments" complied with the minimal statutory notice requirements |
| Constitutional / As-applied notice equal protection challenge and standing | Allowing major boundary changes with limited mailed notice treats non-adjacent owners differently and could violate equal protection as applied | Challengers are not members of the class they claim is disadvantaged; no actual constitutional injury shown | Court: declined to reach hypothetical as-applied constitutional claim; challengers lacked the requisite position to press it |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane Cnty., 271 Wis. 2d 633 (2004) (principles of statutory interpretation; start with plain language)
- Brauneis v. State, 236 Wis. 2d 27 (2000) (courts should not read language into a statute that the legislature omitted)
- Teschendorf v. State Farm Ins. Cos., 293 Wis. 2d 123 (2006) (definition and test for "absurd" statutory results)
- State ex rel. Buswell v. Tomah Area Sch. Dist., 301 Wis. 2d 178 (2007) (open meetings notice content standard cited and distinguished)