Town of Lincoln v. City of Whitehall
912 N.W.2d 403
Wis. Ct. App.2018Background
- In 2015 Whitehall Sand and Rail (private developer) sought annexation of ~1,250 acres from the Town of Lincoln into the City of Whitehall via four ordinances adopting a direct annexation by unanimous approval.
- Phase 1 bordered the City for ~3/4 mile; other phases extended northwest and west, with phase two a narrower corridor connecting to larger tracts in phases three and four.
- The Town requested Department of Administration review; the Department found a contiguity problem (a "balloon-on-a-string" configuration) and the Town then filed a declaratory-judgment action challenging the annexations.
- The Town alleged multiple defects: lack of required petition signatures, arbitrariness under the judicial "rule of reason," and that the City was the real controlling influence; it also pressed contiguity.
- The circuit court dismissed all challenges except contiguity under WIS. STAT. § 66.0217(11)(c) and then granted summary judgment to the City on contiguity; the Town appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Town) | Defendant's Argument (City) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of court review after Dept. finding | Dept. finding of contiguity defect should allow Town to litigate any ground challenging validity | Statute limits court review to only the matters Dept. may review (contiguity and county parallelism) | Court: Town limited to contiguity and county-parallelism challenges under WIS. STAT. § 66.0217(6)(d) and (11)(c) |
| Challenge to petition sufficiency (signatures) | Petition defects are a threshold matter and thus not barred by (11)(c) | (11)(c) bars Town from contesting petition sufficiency; such issues are for annexing authority or other parties | Court: (11)(c) bars Town from challenging petition sufficiency; other parties may do so |
| Viability of "rule of reason" challenge by Town | Rule of reason permits court invalidation for arbitrariness despite statutory bar | (11)(c) precludes Town rule-of-reason challenges to unanimous-owner annexations | Court: Rule of reason claims by Town generally barred; overlap retained only to the extent arbitrariness bears on contiguity |
| Whether annexation satisfied contiguity (and arbitrariness exception) | Physical contact by phase 1 insufficient; configuration is "balloon-on-a-string" and arbitrary; City was controlling influence | Physical contiguity exists (3/4 mile border); annexation not of exceptional shape; City did not control petitioners | Court: Physical contiguity satisfied; no exceptional/egregious shape; no evidence City was the real controlling influence; summary judgment for City affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Town of Lyons v. City of Lake Geneva, 56 Wis. 2d 331 (Wis. 1973) (direct-owner annexations are "take it or leave it" and municipalities ordinarily not charged with arbitrary line-drawing)
- Town of Delavan v. City of Delavan, 176 Wis. 2d 516 (Wis. 1993) ("contiguous" requires at least a significant degree of physical contact; avoid hypertechnical application)
- Town of Mt. Pleasant v. City of Racine, 24 Wis. 2d 41 (Wis. 1964) (shoestring/gerrymander annexations may be invalid under rule of reason)
- Town of Merrimac v. Village of Merrimac, 312 Wis. 2d 754 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008) (interpreting pre-amendment (11)(c) as broadly barring town challenges)
- Darboy Joint Sanitary Dist. No. 1 v. City of Kaukauna, 350 Wis. 2d 435 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013) (town lacked standing to challenge county-parallelism under earlier statute)
- Town of Pleasant Prairie v. City of Kenosha, 75 Wis. 2d 322 (Wis. 1977) (annexation ordinances carry a presumption of validity; challenger bears burden)
- Town of Medary v. City of La Crosse, 88 Wis. 2d 101 (Wis. 1979) (owner-initiated annexations ordinarily insulated from arbitrariness challenges; exception for gerrymandering/island results)
- Town of Menasha v. City of Menasha, 170 Wis. 2d 181 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992) (municipality is "real controlling influence" only when it so dominates petitioners that it effectively selected boundaries)
- Town of Campbell v. City of La Crosse, 247 Wis. 2d 946 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001) (discussion of "contiguous" and use of dictionary definitions)
- Town of Baraboo v. Village of West Baraboo, 283 Wis. 2d 479 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005) (skepticism about applicability of rule-of-reason shape analysis to owner-initiated annexations)