City of Mayville v. DOA
2021 WI 57
Wis.2021Background
- The Village of Kekoskee (incorporated from part of the Town of Williamstown) struggled to staff government and, with the Town, proposed a cooperative plan under Wis. Stat. § 66.0307 to consolidate/attach the Town territory to the Village and rename it Village of Williamstown.
- The Department of Administration twice returned earlier drafts for failing statutory criteria (service provision and compactness); the municipalities revised the plan and the Department ultimately approved a plan that created a "Village of Williamstown Detachment Area."
- Section 24 of the approved plan allowed future detachment of specified territory from the Village and attachment to the City of Mayville if statutorily permitted; Section 25 described how such detachments could substantially expand Mayville.
- Mayville was not a party to the cooperative plan, objected at the Department hearing, and then sought judicial review after the Department approved the plan.
- The circuit court reversed the Department, concluding § 66.0307 could not be used to absorb a town into a village; the court of appeals affirmed on modified grounds that Mayville should have been a party because the plan could change Mayville’s boundary; the Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mayville) | Defendant's Argument (DOA / Village/Town) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to seek judicial review of the Department's approval | Mayville's extraterritorial zoning/plat-approval rights, annexation opportunities, and investments in utilities would be adversely affected | Mayville lacked a legal interest and thus no aggrieved party status | Mayville has standing; its statutory/extraterritorial and annexation interests are legally protectable |
| Whether the cooperative plan "changes" Mayville's boundary such that Mayville must be a party under § 66.0307(2) | Section 24(Detachment Area) conditions detachment/attachment that could expand Mayville and limit its statutory rights; therefore Mayville's boundaries may change | The plan does not itself change Mayville's boundary; any future detachment would be governed solely by general detachment statutes | The Plan contemplates boundary changes (sets conditions for future detachment); thus Mayville's boundary may change and it was required to be a party |
| Whether Department erred in approving the Plan without Mayville as a party | Approval was unlawful because § 66.0307(2) forbids changing a municipality's boundary unless that municipality is a party | Department reasonably interpreted statute and approved plan after iterative review | Department erred as a matter of law by approving the Plan without Mayville being a party; remand required |
| Whether § 66.0307 may be used to consolidate/absorb an entire town into a village | (Mayville) Statute should not be used to effect consolidation that eliminates a municipality without its participation | (DOA/Village/Town) Cooperative plan process validly used to rearrange boundaries including large-scale attachments | Court did not decide whether § 66.0307 permits wholesale consolidation; disposition rests on § 66.0307(2) party requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane Cnty., 271 Wis. 2d 633 (Wis. 2004) (principles for statutory interpretation; give statutory text its common and ordinary meaning)
- City of Madison v. Town of Fitchburg, 112 Wis. 2d 224 (Wis. 1983) (cities can have standing based on extraterritorial zoning/plat and annexation interests)
- Marx v. Morris, 386 Wis. 2d 122 (Wis. 2019) (standing is a question of law reviewed independently)
- Jefferson v. Dane Cnty., 394 Wis. 2d 602 (Wis. 2020) (statutory interpretation and whether a party was required to be included reviewed independently)
- Cnty. of Dane v. LIRC, 315 Wis. 2d 293 (Wis. 2009) (application of law to undisputed facts is a question of law reviewed independently)