950 N.W.2d 925
Wis. Ct. App.2020Background:
- Village of Kekoskee (a village entirely surrounded by the Town of Williamstown) and Town of Williamstown submitted a cooperative plan under Wis. Stat. § 66.0307 to eliminate the boundary between them, absorb the Town into the Village, and rename the merged entity “Village of Williamstown.”
- The Plan created a long-term “Village of Williamstown Detachment Area” adjacent to the City of Mayville (also surrounded by the Town) that would allow, subject to conditions, detachment of territory from the Village to Mayville.
- Mayville was not a party to the Plan, opposed the Plan at Department hearings, and sought judicial review after the Department of Administration approved the second revised Plan.
- The circuit court held Mayville had standing and reversed the Department’s approval, concluding § 66.0307 did not authorize a village to absorb an entire town as accomplished by the Plan.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed (for different reasons): Mayville had standing because its statutory right to be a party was directly affected, and the Department erred because the Plan provided for optional physical changes to Mayville’s municipal boundary without making Mayville a party as § 66.0307(2) requires.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to seek judicial review | Mayville: The Department approval directly injures Mayville (loss of statutory rights, and Plan extinguishes extraterritorial powers); therefore it is "aggrieved." | Dept./Village: Mayville lacks standing because its interests are not directly affected. | Court: Mayville has standing under Wis. Stat. §§ 227.52 and 227.53 because the Plan directly affected Mayville’s statutory right to be made a party. |
| Compliance with Wis. Stat. § 66.0307(2) (party requirement / meaning of "change") | Mayville: "Change" to a "boundary line" includes physical enlargement of the city by detachment; the Plan contemplates optional physical boundary changes to Mayville, so Mayville must be a party. | Dept./Village: "Change" refers only to physical alteration of a geographic line and only Village and Town boundaries change here; Mayville’s boundaries do not change under the Plan, so it need not be a party. | Court: "Change" means physical alteration or difference in the geographic boundary line. The Plan’s detachment provision contemplates optional physical boundary changes to Mayville under § 66.0307(2)(b)-(c), so Mayville was required to be a party; Department erred in approving the Plan. |
Key Cases Cited
- Town of Delavan v. City of Delavan, LLL, 160 Wis. 2d 403 (Ct. App. 1991) (two-part test for whether a petitioner is "aggrieved" and has standing for judicial review)
- Wisconsin's Envtl. Decade, Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 69 Wis. 2d 1 (1975) (agency decision must have direct effect on legally protected interest to constitute an "aggrievement")
- State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County, 271 Wis. 2d 633 (2004) (rules for statutory interpretation; give words their common, ordinary, accepted meaning and read in context)
- Town of Holland v. Public Serv. Comm'n of Wis., 382 Wis. 2d 799 (Ct. App. 2018) (court reviews agency legal conclusions de novo; appellate standard for reviewing agency decisions)
- Madison Metropolitan School District v. Circuit Court, 336 Wis. 2d 95 (2011) (avoid statutory interpretations that render provisions meaningless)