Municipal Boundary Review - Home (contact info)

Annexation is authorized by Wisconsin statutes and is also affected by caselaw.  Because annexation is frequently contentious,  numerous Supreme Court and Court of Appeals decisions exist to interpret the annexation statutes.

Annexation statutes

Legislative events

• New! 2011 Wisconsin Act 128 - repeals the prohibition against towns contesting unanimous consent annexations, and also permits towns to use the mediation process in s. 66.0307(4m) wis. Stats. to trigger Department review of annexations, including annexations in rural counties.
  
  
• 2009 Wisconsin Act 366 - clarifies that unanimous consent petitions must be contiguous to the annexing jurisdiction.
  
  

• Joint Legislative Council's Special Committee on Municipal Annexation (2004) - resulted in 2007 Wisconsin Act 43, which made changes to boundary agreement and annexation law.

• 2003 Wisconsin Act 317 - limits annexations into new counties, prohibits towns from contesting unanimous consent annexations, and requires cities and villages to share property tax revenue with towns. 
  

Annexation Caselaw

• Town of Merrimac v. Village of Merrimac (2008) - the Court of Appeals upheld the prohibition of towns from contesting unanimous consent annexations under section 66.0217(11)(c) Wis. Stat.  In so ruling, the court refused to address the merits of the Town's case -- whether the annexation was void due to non-contiguity of the parcel with the Village and failure of the Village to comply with the property tax payment in s. 66.0217(14) Wis. Stats.
  
  
• Ostrander v. Village of Genoa City (2006) - the Town of Randall and area residents challenged an annexation to the Village of Genoa City, the Town claiming the annexation would frustrate its land use planning efforts and the residents alleging that the annexation would raise their taxes.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court, which had dismissed the challenge for lack of standing.  The court found that the residents did not allege an injury peculiar to themselves, and that the Town did not have standing because of the prohibition against town challenges in s. 66.0207(11)(c) Wis. Stats.  UNPUBLISHED
  
  

• Town of Baraboo v. Village of West Baraboo (2005) - the Court of Appeals upheld the Village's annexation over the Town's objections that 1) the Village improperly adopted 11 separate petitions as a single ordinance, 2) failed to re-submit the petition to the Department when it was modified slightly, and 3) violated the "rule of reason".  The Court disagreed.
  
  

• Town of Brockway v. City of Black River Falls (2005) - the Town of Brockway challenged an annexation to the City of Black River Falls, claiming that the City violated the third prong of the rule of reason test - abuse of discretion - by drafting a pre-annexation agreement with the petitioner to amend the zoning, create a TIF district, develop infrastructure to the property, enact special assessments, support issuance of permits from other governmental units for the project, and finally, to annex the property.  The Town argued that this agreement was an abuse of discretion because it contracted away the city's governmental powers and injected economic considerations into the annexation process.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court, saying that the pre-annexation agreement was only a draft and therefore not binding on the city until after the city adopted it, which occurred after the city had adopted the annexation ordinance.  The court also found that the incentive of TIF is not an illegal incentive for annexation but rather an incentive that is one of the benefits of annexing to an incorporated municipality.
  
  

• Town of Windsor et al v. Village of DeForest (2003) - the Village of DeForest passed and ordinance annexing 2100 acres in the Town, but then two months later passed a second 'correction' ordinance which repealed the first ordinance and re-annexed the original 2100 acres plus an additional 100 acres.  The Court of Appeals voided the second ordinance because strict conformance with the annexation statute is required and there is no provision in the statute permitting correction ordinances.

   

• In Re Annexation of Smith Property (2001) - the Town challenged the City's annexation of parcels that were separated from the City by the Black River, arguing that the river broke contiguity.  The Circuit Court agreed and invalided the annexations.  The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the parcels actually touched territory in the City underneath the riverbed.  The court reasoned that because owners of riparian property hold title out to the geographical center of a river, the parcels were actually contiguous to the City.  The court distinguished Town of Delavan v. City of Delavan, 176 Wis.2d 516, 500 N.W.2d 268 (1993), where the Supreme Court had found that a lake broke contiguity, because Delevan involved a lake and not a river.  Unlike a river, lake beds are owned by the State, so owners of land abutting lakes own only up to the ordinary high-water mark.  Therefore, a lake bed breaks contiguity.
  
  

• Town of Windsor v. Village of DeForest and ABS Global (2001) - the Town appeals the circuit court's dismissal of its challenge to the Village's annexation of 234 acres of ABS' total 723 acres.  Windsor and DeForest developed a 'points of agreement' memorandum in which DeForest would annex 489 ABS acres with the other 234 acres to remain in Windsor.  DeForest subsequently annexed this 234 acres and Windsor brought suit, alleging both breach of contract and violation of the 'need' requirement of the rule of reason.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court, finding that the memorandum was not a binding boundary agreement and that no rule of reason violations occurred.  UNPUBLISHED.
  
  

• City of Chippewa Falls v. Town of Hallie (1999) - the Court of Appeals held that the electors and circulators of a petition to hold an annexation referendum must reside in the annexation territory.  Residing elsewhere in the Town is insufficient. 
  
  

• Town of Sugar Creek v. City of Elkhorn  (1998) - The Walworth County Circuit Court upheld the City's annexation over a variety of Town objections. UNPUBLISHED CIRCUIT COURT CASE
  
  

• Town of Wautoma v. City of Wautoma (1997) - The Court of Appeals invalidated the City's annexation of territory because of a procedural error.  Specifically, the annexation petition was not mailed to the Town clerk as required by statute.  Instead, it was mailed to the Town board chair.  The Court held that strict compliance with the annexation process is required. UNPUBLISHED 

• Hoepker v. City of Madison (1996) - owners of territory within the City of Madison's extraterritorial area desired to develop a residential subdivision.  However, the City conditioned its approval on, among other things, annexation of the territory to the city.  The Hoepkers challenged this condition and were denied relief by the circuit court, however the court of appeals reversed.  The supreme court affirmed, holding that a city cannot condition approval of a plat on annexation because municipalities cannot coerce or unfairly induce a property owner into agreeing to annexation.  Instead, the annexation process in Chapter 66 if the statutes is intended to be driven by electors and owners.
  
  

• City of Onalaska v. City of La Crosse (1996) - Both cities passed competing ordinances to annex overlapping territory in the Town of Medary.  Each argued that the others' was invalid.  The La Crosse County Circuit Court applied the 'Rule of Reason' test and determined that the annexation to Onalaska met the test.  However, the court invalidated the annexation to La Crosse because it's balloon-on-a-string configuration was irregular and arbitrary, contrary to the test's first prong.  UNPUBLISHED CIRCUIT COURT CASE

• Wagner Mobile v. City of Madison (1995) - the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals which had invalidated the City's annexation because it created a functional town island that was separated from the rest of the Town by the City and several other jurisdictions.  However, the Supreme Court rejected the notion of a 'functional' town island, instead holding that a town island is created only when town territory is completely surrounded by the annexing jurisdiction.  This decision overrules Town of Sheboygan v. City of Sheboygan (1992) and Town of Hallie v. City of Eau Claire (1993).

• Incorporation of the Town of Pewaukee  (1994) - Supreme Court upheld the Department of Development's (DOD) determination that the Town of Pewaukee failed to meet three of the incorporation criteria.  The Court rejected the Town's claim that DOD was arbitrary and capricious in considering previous annexations which made the boundaries irregular because DOD had caused those annexations to occur.  The Court disagreed, holding that because DOD's annexation review is advisory, it did not approve or cause those annexations and was therefore appropriate in considering the petition's fragmented and irregular boundaries.
  
  

• Town of Delevan v. City of Delevan (1993) - the Supreme Court found that a 400 foot stretch of Lake Delevan broke contiguity between the City and the annexation territory, which was located at the tip of a peninsula.  The Court also found that the 'Rule of Prior Precedence' did not prevent the annexation action from proceeding because the incorporation proceeding had been almost entirely completed.  Finally, the Court found that the second prong of the 'Rule of Reason' test - need for the territory - was met by the City.
  
  

• City of La Crosse v. City of Onalaska et al (1993) - Onalaska annexed approximately 295 acres which the Court of Appeals found to be an illegal balloon-on-a-string type configuration because it was contiguous to the City only via a strip of road right-of-way 250 feet wide and three-quarters of a mile long.  The Court rejected Onalaska's contention that the fact that it could serve the territory mitigated the configuration.  UNPUBLISHED.

   

• Town of Sheboygan v. City of Sheboygan (1992) - the Supreme Court invalidated the City's annexation, determining that it would create a town island, contrary to state statute.  The annexation parcel was surrounded on three sides by the City and by Lake Michigan on the fourth side.  The City argued that this constituted a functional town island but not a legal town island because the City did not completely surround it.  The Court disagreed.
  
  

• City of Beloit v. Kallas et al (1977) - The Department of Natural Resources ordered the City of Beloit to connect the Town of Beloit to its sewage transport and treatment system under s. 144 Wis. Stats. in order to improve local water quality.  The City then petitioned the circuit court for an order authorizing holding of an annexation referendum seeking to annex the town to the City.  The referendum failed, the judge denied the City's annexation petition, and the Town was not connected to the City's public sewerage system.  Several Town residents and the State of Wisconsin brought suit alleging that s. 144 Wis. Stats. is unconstitutional because it allows local concerns to supersede state concerns.  The Supreme Court disagreed.

   

• International Paper v. City of Fond du Lac (1971) - the Supreme Court reversed the Circuit Court which had invalidated the annexation because the City, as sole signer of a one-half approval annexation, did not own one one-half or more of the territory, at least not when public streets and alleys were taken into account.  The Supreme Court held that territory constituting public streets and alleys is not be taken into account in determining the sufficiency of the petition, no matter how owned or by whom, whether in fee simple, or easement.  The Supreme Court withdrew language in Town of Menasha v. City of Menasha, 42 Wis.2d 719 which had held that highway land was to be taken into account.
  
  

• In re Petition for Fond du Lac Metropolitan Sewerage District (1969) - City refused to extend sanitary sewer service to town areas because the Department of Natural Resources had not ordered it and because the town areas had not requested annexation.  The trial court ordered connection to the City's sanitary sewer system.  The Court of Appeals reversed.
  
  

• Village of Elmwood Park v. City of Racine (1966) - the trial court dismissed the Village's annexation of the entire Town of Mount Pleasant because it violated the Rule of Reason and because it was actually a consolidation thinly disguised as an annexation.  The Supreme Court disagreed about the consolidation holding but did affirm the trial court, finding that the annexation was arbitrary since the Village had no present need for 35 square miles of territory.

   

• Town of Mount Pleasant v. City of Racine (1964) - the Town appealed the City's annexation of 145 acres of territory which was only contiguous to the City via a strip of land 1,704 yards in length, varying in width from 152 to 305 yards.  The Department of Development found the annexation 'not against the public interest', and the trial court upheld the City's annexation ordinance.  However, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that the connecting strip of land violates the arbitrary and capricious prong of the Rule of Reason test because it created a 'shoestring' and 'crazy-quilt' city/town boundary that is difficult to administer.
  
  

• Village of Brown Deer et al v. City of Milwaukee et al (1957) - the Village and City appeal the Supreme Court's holding of a year earlier.  The Court affirmed and expanded upon its decision, continuing to uphold partial consolidation and the Village's annexations.
  
  

• Village of Brown Deer et al v. City of Milwaukee et al (1956) - issue of which takes priority: annexations by the Village of Brown Deer in the Town of Granville, an annexation by the City of Milwaukee for the same territory, or subsequent consolidation of the City of Milwaukee and Town of Granville.  The Supreme Court held that the Village's annexations took priority over the consolidations because of the rule of prior precedence.  However, the consolidation beyond the annexation territory was found to be valid.  The Court remanded the case to the circuit court to resolve the competing City and Village annexations.
   

• In re Village of Brown Deer (1954) - in determining whether an annexation petition filed first by the City of Milwaukee for territory in the Town of Granville took precedence over an incorporation filed second for the same territory, the Supreme Court reversed the Circuit Court and found that although the annexation had been filed first, the City was not reasonable in expediting the annexation.  Therefore, the incorporation action should take precedence.  This issue was codified by 2003 Wisconsin Act 171.
  
  

• Zweifel v. Milwaukee (1925) - the Town argued that in cases where the annexation territory includes multiple jurisdictions, a majority of electors from each jurisdiction must sign the petition.  The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the statute does not define elector so narrowly and that a majority of electors from the total annexation territory is sufficient.  The Town also argued that the City may not repeal a prior defective ordinance and adopt a corrective ordinance.  The Supreme Court held that repeal was unnecessary because the prior ordinance was clearly invalid.