Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Municipalities – annexation — standing
Neither a town nor a sanitary district has standing to bring a claim challenging a city’s purportedly unanimous annexation of land previously within the town and serviced by the sanitary district.
“Here, the Town argues that the WIS. STAT. § 66.0217(2) direct annexation was improper because the City did not comply with § 66.0217(14)(b)1., which it alleges is subsumed in § 66.0217(2). In other words, the Town is claiming that the annexation here was invalid. However, the statutory language of § 66.0217(11)(c) clearly and unambiguously prohibits the Town from challenging the annexation. Contrary to the Town’s argument that construing the statute as we do would render § 66.0217(14)(b)1. meaningless, we have already concluded in Merrimac that a town may challenge other types of annexation under § 66.0217(14)(b)1., just not a direct annexation by unanimous consent under § 66.0217(2). See Merrimac, 312 Wis. 2d 754, ¶15.”
Recommended for publication in the official reports.
2012AP2639 Darboy Joint Sanitary District No. 1 v. City of Kaukauna
Dist. II, Calumet County, English, J., Brennan, J.
Attorneys: For Appellant: Rossmeissl, Andrew J., Appleton; For Respondent: Sinderbrand, Carl A., Madison