Town of Baraboo v. Village of West Baraboo
283 Wis. 2d 479, 2005 WI App 96, 699 NW.2d 610 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipality may enact a single annexation ordinance for multiple, separate, owner-initiated petitions without violating statutory requirements. An owner-initiated annexation with irregular boundaries does not violate the 'rule of reason' unless the municipality was the 'real controlling influence' in drawing the boundaries.
Facts:
- Owners of twelve individual parcels of land in the Town of Baraboo filed separate petitions to have their land annexed by the Village of West Baraboo.
- The Village had previously been contacted by several property owners requesting information about annexation.
- In response, the Village hosted an informational meeting and provided technical assistance, such as forms and maps, to the landowners interested in petitioning.
- The Village submitted the proposed annexation of all twelve parcels to the Wisconsin Department of Administration for an advisory opinion.
- The Department of Administration reviewed the proposal for twelve parcels and advised that it was not against the public interest, recommending they be acted upon as a group.
- After the petitions were filed, the owner of one of the twelve parcels requested that their property not be annexed.
- The Village enacted a single ordinance that annexed the remaining eleven parcels.
- After the annexation, the Village amended an existing Tax Incremental Financing (TIF) district to include some of the newly annexed land.
Procedural Posture:
- The Town of Baraboo filed a lawsuit against the Village of West Baraboo in the circuit court (trial court), seeking to have the annexation and a subsequent TIF district amendment declared invalid.
- The circuit court granted the Village's motion to dismiss the Town's challenge to the TIF amendment, ruling that the Town lacked standing.
- Both parties then filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the validity of the annexation.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the Village and denied the Town's motion, upholding the annexation as valid.
- The Town of Baraboo, as appellant, appealed the circuit court's judgment to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, with the Village of West Baraboo as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a village's annexation of multiple land parcels, initiated by separate owner petitions but enacted through a single ordinance, violate Wisconsin annexation statutes or the common law 'rule of reason' when the village provides technical assistance to petitioners and ultimately annexes fewer parcels than originally proposed?
Opinions:
Majority - Deininger, P.J.
No. The Village's annexation of eleven parcels via a single ordinance complies with state statutes and the rule of reason. The court reasoned that under Wisconsin statutory interpretation rules, the singular term 'a petition' can include the plural, meaning one ordinance may validly annex territory from multiple petitions. Furthermore, the Village was not required to resubmit the modified, eleven-parcel proposal to the Department of Administration, as the statute governing this type of 'unanimous approval' annexation makes the department's review permissive, not mandatory. The court also held the annexation satisfied the 'rule of reason' because, in an owner-initiated annexation, the municipality is not charged with arbitrariness in the boundaries unless it was the 'real controlling influence.' The Village's actions in providing information and technical assistance did not rise to this level, as the landowners acted voluntarily to obtain municipal services. Finally, the court affirmed that the Town lacked standing to challenge the Village's TIF district amendment because the TIF statute does not grant such a right to adjacent towns, and any financial harm to the Town resulted from the loss of tax base due to the annexation itself, not the TIF designation.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high degree of deference courts afford to owner-initiated annexations and clarifies the limits of the 'controlling influence' exception to the rule of reason. By holding that providing significant technical assistance to petitioners does not constitute improper influence, the court provides a safe harbor for municipalities facilitating such annexations. The ruling also promotes administrative efficiency by explicitly permitting a single ordinance for multiple, related petitions. Finally, the case strictly construes standing for challenging Tax Incremental Financing (TIF) districts, limiting it to those entities whose financial interests are directly implicated by the governing statute, thereby shielding municipal economic development decisions from challenges by adjacent communities.
