Case Title: Town of Lincoln v. City of Whitehall

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2017AP000684-AC

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2019-04-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
2019 WI 37 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2017AP000684-AC 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
Town of Lincoln, 
          Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner, 
     v. 
City of Whitehall, 
          Defendant-Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
Reported at 382 Wis. 2d 112,912 N.W.2d 403 
PDC No:2018 WI App 33 - Published 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
April 17, 2019 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
      
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
January 16, 2019 
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit 
 
COUNTY: 
Trempealeau 
 
JUDGE: 
Charles V. Feltes 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
For the plaintiff-appellant-petitioner, there were briefs 
filed by Peter M. Reinhardt and Bakke Norman, S.C., Menomonie. 
There was an oral argument by Peter M. Reinhardt. 
 
For the defendant-respondent, there was a brief filed by 
Ryan J. Steffes and Weld Riley, S.C., Eau Claire. There was an 
oral argument by Ryan J. Steffes.  
 
An amicus curiae brief was filed on behalf of Wisconsin 
Towns Association by Richard Manthe, Shawano. 
 
An amicus curia brief was filed on behalf of Wisconsin 
Realtors 
Association, 
League 
of 
Wisconsin 
Municipalities, 
 
 
2
Wisconsin Builders Association and NAIOP-WI by Thomas D. Larson, 
Madison.  
 
 
 
2019 WI 37
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2017AP684-AC 
(L.C. No. 
2015CV112) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
Town of Lincoln, 
 
          Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner, 
 
     v. 
 
City of Whitehall, 
 
          Defendant-Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
APR 17, 2019 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Reversed and 
cause remanded. 
 
¶1 
ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J.   The petitioner, Town of 
Lincoln, seeks review of a published court of appeals decision 
affirming the circuit court's orders granting the City of 
Whitehall's motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment.1  
The Town aims to challenge the City's annexation of a portion of 
the Town. 
                                                 
1 Town of Lincoln v. City of Whitehall, 2018 WI App 33, 382 
Wis. 2d 112, 912 N.W.2d 403 (affirming order of circuit court 
for Trempealeau County, Charles V. Feltes, J.). 
No. 
2017AP684-AC 
 
2 
 
¶2 
Specifically, the Town contends that the court of 
appeals' decision was based on the erroneous classification of 
the petition as one for direct annexation by unanimous approval 
even though the annexation petition lacked the signatures of all 
the required landowners.  It asserts that the court of appeals 
erred in limiting the grounds on which the Town may challenge 
the annexation. 
¶3 
We conclude that the annexation petition in this case 
is not a petition for direct annexation by unanimous approval.  
Because the limitations on annexation challenges set forth in 
Wis. Stat. § 66.0217(11)(c) (2015-16)2 pertain to petitions for 
direct annexation by unanimous approval only, such limitations 
do not apply here. 
¶4 
Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the court of 
appeals and remand to the circuit court. 
I 
¶5 
This case arises from a direct annexation effort by a 
group of landowners to annex a portion of the Town of Lincoln to 
the City of Whitehall.  The genesis of the annexation attempt 
came from Whitehall Sand and Rail, LLC (Whitehall Sand), a 
company that sought to site a sand mine on land located in the 
Town.  However, Whitehall Sand wanted the mine to be within the 
limits of the City. 
                                                 
2 All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to 
the 2015-16 version unless otherwise indicated. 
No. 
2017AP684-AC 
 
3 
 
¶6 
Between 2013 and 2015, Whitehall Sand identified the 
property it desired to include in its proposed sand mine and 
approached the property owners with offers to purchase their 
land.  Some of the offers to purchase were contingent on the 
land being annexed by the City. 
¶7 
In 
total, 
Whitehall 
Sand 
offered 
to 
purchase 
approximately 1,248 acres.  At its narrowest point, the proposed 
annexed territory is about 1,100 feet wide, and the territory 
shares an estimated 4,000-foot border with the City. 
¶8 
The City and Whitehall Sand began negotiations on a 
development agreement related to the property to be annexed.  
After reviewing Whitehall Sand's proposed annexation maps, the 
City informed Whitehall Sand that its annexation petition could 
not exclude certain properties that would result in "islands" 
that were part of the City, yet surrounded entirely by the Town.  
Consistent with this directive, Whitehall Sand revised the 
annexation petitions and hired a land surveyor to prepare maps 
and legal descriptions.  However, Whitehall Sand and the City 
were not able to finalize an agreement prior to the filing of 
the annexation petition that is the subject of this case. 
¶9 
On February 9, 2015, the direct annexation petition 
was filed with the City.  The petition requested annexation of 
the identified Town land by the City in four phases,3 with the 
                                                 
3 Whitehall 
Electric 
Utility 
requested 
a 
four-phase 
annexation to ensure that it would be able to provide 
electricity to Whitehall Sand. 
No. 
2017AP684-AC 
 
4 
 
territory in each phase the subject of a separate city 
ordinance.  Attached to the petition were four documents 
containing the legal descriptions of the land proposed to be 
annexed and corresponding maps. 
¶10 The annexation petition was labelled as a petition for 
"direct annexation by unanimous approval" pursuant to Wis. Stat. 
§ 66.0217(2).4  However, the petition did not include the 
                                                 
4 Wis. Stat. § 66.0217(2) provides: 
Direct annexation by unanimous approval.  Except as 
provided in this subsection and sub. (14), and subject 
to ss. 66.0301(6)(d) and 66.0307(7), if a petition for 
direct annexation signed by all of the electors 
residing in the territory and the owners of all of the 
real property in the territory is filed with the city 
or village clerk, and with the town clerk of the town 
or towns in which the territory is located, together 
with a scale map and a legal description of the 
property to be annexed, an annexation ordinance for 
the annexation of the territory may be enacted by a 
two-thirds 
vote 
of 
the 
elected 
members 
of 
the 
governing 
body 
of 
the 
city 
or 
village 
without 
compliance with the notice requirements of sub. (4).  
In an annexation under this subsection, subject to 
sub. (6), the person filing the petition with the city 
or village clerk and the town clerk shall, within 5 
days of the filing, mail a copy of the scale map and a 
legal description of the territory to be annexed to 
the department and the governing body shall review the 
advice of the department, if any, before enacting the 
annexation ordinance.  No territory may be annexed by 
a city or village under this subsection unless the 
territory to be annexed is contiguous to the annexing 
city or village. 
No. 
2017AP684-AC 
 
5 
 
signature of Fox Valley and Western, LTD, which owned a narrow 
strip of railroad land in the proposed annexation area.5 
¶11 On April 29, 2015, the City's common council met and 
passed four annexation ordinances detaching the land described 
in the petition from the Town.  The four ordinances corresponded 
to the four phases of the requested annexation.6 
¶12 One 
month 
following 
the 
City's 
passage 
of 
the 
annexation ordinances, the Town timely sought review of the 
annexation from the Department of Administration (DOA) pursuant 
to Wis. Stat. § 66.0217(6)(d).7  In its review of the annexation, 
                                                 
5 The record reflects that on May 1, 2015, after the 
annexation petition had been filed, Trempealeau County's Real 
Property Lister Department sent a letter to the land surveyor 
hired by Whitehall Sand that asked:  "Has the railroad company 
signed the petition to annex into the City of Whitehall?"  In 
his deposition, the surveyor indicated that he did not think he 
responded to the letter, but that he did provide the letter to 
Whitehall Sand. 
6 The parties agree that the four annexation ordinances 
should be analyzed as if they constitute a single annexation. 
7 Wis. Stat. § 66.0217(6)(d)1. sets forth the scope of the 
Department of Administration's review of a direct annexation by 
unanimous approval: 
(d) Direct annexation by unanimous approval. 1. Upon 
the request of the town affected by the annexation, 
the department shall review an annexation under sub. 
(2) to determine whether the annexation violates any 
of the following, provided that the town submits its 
request to the department within 30 days of the 
enactment of the annexation ordinance: 
a. The requirement under sub. (2) regarding the 
contiguity of the territory to be annexed with 
the annexing city or village. 
(continued) 
No. 
2017AP684-AC 
 
6 
 
the DOA considered two requirements imposed by § 66.0217(6)(d)1.  
First, it considered the requirement that the annexation 
territory must be contiguous to the annexing city or village 
(the contiguity requirement).  § 66.0217(6)(d)1.a.  Second, it 
considered the requirement that if no part of the annexing city 
or village is located within the same county as the annexation 
territory, then the town board whose territory is being annexed 
must first adopt a resolution approving the proposed annexation 
(the same-county requirement, sometimes referred to as the 
"county 
parallelism" 
requirement). 
 
§§ 66.0217(6)(d)1.b., 
66.0217(14)(b). 
¶13 The DOA determined that although the City's annexation 
ordinance met the same-county requirement, it failed the 
contiguity requirement.  Specifically, it observed that "Phase 2 
constitutes a long and narrow corridor of territory which 
primarily serves to connect the much larger territory in Phases 
3 and 4."  Accordingly, the DOA concluded that the annexed land 
formed an impermissible "balloon-on-a-string" configuration that 
is "contrary to annexation law because it fails to constitute 
appropriate contiguity."8  The DOA indicated that its "finding is 
advisory in nature, and is not binding upon any party."  
However, it also advised that its "finding does entitle the Town 
of Lincoln to challenge the annexation in circuit court, 
                                                                                                                                                             
b. The requirement under sub. (14)(b). 
8 See Town of Mt. Pleasant v. City of Racine, 24 Wis. 2d 41, 
45-47, 127 N.W.2d 757 (1964). 
No. 
2017AP684-AC 
 
7 
 
pursuant to Wis. Stats. s. 66.0217(6)(d)2., should the Town 
choose to do so."9 
¶14 Invoking its right to challenge the annexation in 
circuit court, the Town filed this declaratory judgment action.  
It sought a declaration that the City's annexation ordinances 
are invalid and unenforceable. 
¶15 The Town raised several objections to the annexation.  
First, it contended that this petition for direct annexation by 
unanimous approval was procedurally defective in that it was not 
signed by all of the owners of real property in the territory.  
Because the Town advanced that the petition was not unanimous 
pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 66.0217(2), it argued that the petition 
was mislabeled as a "direct annexation by unanimous approval."  
Second, the Town asserted that the annexed territory was not 
contiguous to the annexing City.  Third, the Town challenged the 
                                                 
9 Wis. Stat. § 66.0217(6)(d)2. provides: 
Following its review, and within 20 days of receiving 
the town's request, the department shall send a copy 
of its findings to any affected landowner, the town 
affected by the annexation, and the annexing city or 
village.  If the department does not complete its 
review and send a copy of its findings within 20 days 
of receiving the town's request, the effect on the 
town and the annexing city or village shall be the 
same as if the department found no violation of the 
requirements specified in subd. 1.  If the department 
finds that an annexation violates any requirement 
specified in subd. 1., the town from which territory 
is annexed may, within 45 days of its receipt of the 
department's findings, challenge the annexation in 
circuit court. 
No. 
2017AP684-AC 
 
8 
 
annexation as arbitrary and in violation of the "rule of 
reason."10  Relatedly, the Town argued that the City, rather than 
the petitioning landowners, was the "real controlling influence" 
behind the annexation petitions.11 
¶16 Moving to dismiss each of the Town's claims with the 
exception of the contiguity challenge, the City argued that the 
Town was statutorily barred from challenging matters other than 
                                                 
10 The "rule of reason" is a judicially-created doctrine 
courts have applied to assess the validity of annexations.  See 
Town of Pleasant Prairie v. City of Kenosha, 75 Wis. 2d 322, 
326-27, 249 N.W.2d 581 (1977).  Pursuant to this rule, "which 
has as its essential purpose the ascertainment whether the power 
delegated to the cities and villages has been abused in a given 
case":  (1) exclusions and irregularities in boundary lines must 
not be the result of arbitrariness; (2) some reasonable present 
or demonstrable future need for the annexed property must be 
shown; and (3) no other factors must exist which would 
constitute an abuse of discretion.  Id. at 327; Town of 
Lafayette v. City of Chippewa Falls, 70 Wis. 2d 610, 624-25, 235 
N.W.2d 435 (1975). 
11 When the municipality is the "real controlling influence" 
in 
selecting 
the 
boundaries 
of 
annexed 
territory, 
the 
municipality may be charged with any arbitrariness in the 
boundaries even though the property owners are the petitioners.  
In re Smith, Becker and McCormick Props., 2003 WI App 247, ¶22, 
268 
Wis. 2d 253, 
673 
N.W.2d 696. 
 
"'Influencing' 
the 
proceedings, in this context, means more than providing mere 
technical assistance or recommendations to the petition signers; 
rather, it means conduct by which the annexing authority 
dominates the petitioners so as to have effectively selected the 
boundaries."  Town of Menasha v. City of Menasha, 170 
Wis. 2d 181, 192, 488 N.W.2d 104 (Ct. App. 1992) (internal 
citation 
omitted). 
 
Stated 
differently, 
the 
annexing 
municipality is a "puppeteer and the petitioners puppets dancing 
on a municipal string."  Town of Waukesha v. City of Waukesha, 
58 Wis. 2d 525, 530, 206 N.W.2d 585 (1973). 
No. 
2017AP684-AC 
 
9 
 
contiguity pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 66.0217(11)(c).12  The 
circuit court agreed with the City and dismissed all claims 
except the contiguity challenge. 
¶17 The City subsequently filed a motion for summary 
judgment asserting that the contiguity requirement was met as a 
matter of law.  Again, the circuit court agreed with the City.  
It determined that "there is no genuine issue of material fact 
that the annexed territory is, in fact, contiguous to the 
boundary of city of Whitehall in Wisconsin as it existed at the 
time of the annexation." 
¶18 After the Town appealed, the court of appeals affirmed 
the circuit court's determination of both the motion to dismiss 
and the motion for summary judgment.  It concluded first that 
the circuit court properly dismissed all of the Town's claims 
other than the statutory contiguity claim.  Relying on Wis. 
Stat. §§ 66.0217(6)(d)1., (6)(d)2., and (11)(c), it determined 
that "a town is limited in a court action to challenging 
contiguity and county parallelism, the latter of which is not at 
issue here."  Town of Lincoln v. City of Whitehall, 2018 WI App 
33, ¶2, 382 Wis. 2d 112, 912 N.W.2d 403. 
¶19 The court of appeals concluded next that the circuit 
court properly granted the City's summary judgment motion on the 
Town's contiguity claim.  It arrived at this determination 
                                                 
12 Wis. Stat. § 66.0217(11)(c) states:  "Except as provided 
in sub. (6)(d)2., no action on any grounds, whether procedural 
or jurisdictional, to contest the validity of an annexation 
under sub. (2), may be brought by any town." 
No. 
2017AP684-AC 
 
10 
 
because there is a "significant degree of physical contact" 
between the annexed territory and the annexing municipality.  
Id., ¶3. 
¶20 Third, the court of appeals determined that the 
annexation is not subject to an arbitrariness challenge.  Id., 
¶4.  It concluded that the annexed territory here is of an 
"unexceptional shape that does not warrant further scrutiny of 
the territory's boundaries."  Id.  Finally, the court of appeals 
concluded that "no factfinder could reasonably conclude the City 
was either a petitioner or the 'real controlling influence' 
directing the annexation proceedings."  Id. 
II 
¶21 We 
are 
asked 
to 
review 
the 
court 
of 
appeals' 
determination that the circuit court properly granted the City's 
motion to dismiss on the ground that Wis. Stat. § 66.0217(11)(c) 
limits the Town's challenges to those of contiguity only.  
Whether a motion to dismiss was properly granted is a question 
of law this court reviews independently of the determinations 
rendered by the circuit court and court of appeals.  Brew City 
Redevelopment Grp., LLC v. Ferchill Grp., 2006 WI 128, ¶15, 297 
Wis. 2d 606, 724 N.W.2d 879. 
¶22 We are also asked to review the court of appeals' 
decision affirming the circuit court's grant of summary judgment 
concluding that the annexed land is contiguous to the City as a 
matter of law.  Likewise, we review a grant of summary judgment 
independently, applying the same methodology as did the circuit 
court.  Novell v. Migliaccio, 2008 WI 44, ¶23, 309 Wis. 2d 132, 
No. 
2017AP684-AC 
 
11 
 
749 N.W.2d 544.  Summary judgment is appropriate where there is 
no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is 
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  Id. 
¶23 In our review, we are required to interpret Wis. Stat. 
§ 66.0217.  Statutory interpretation is a question of law we 
review without deference to the determinations of the circuit 
court and court of appeals.  Horizon Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. 
Marshalls Point Retreat LLC, 2018 WI 19, ¶28, 380 Wis. 2d 60, 
908 N.W.2d 797. 
III 
¶24 We begin our analysis with the threshold question of 
whether the petition for annexation that was filed in this case 
is a petition for "direct annexation by unanimous approval" 
within the meaning of Wis. Stat. § 66.0217(2).  It is a 
threshold question because if we determine that the petition was 
erroneously denominated as one by unanimous approval, then the 
grounds on which the Town can challenge the annexation include 
unanimity and are not limited to contiguity only.  Thus we would 
not need to address the substance of the contiguity issue. 
¶25 "Direct annexation by unanimous approval" refers to a 
simplified procedure for direct annexation when all the electors 
and owners in the proposed territory to be annexed are unanimous 
in their approval of the annexation.  Town of Lyons v. City of 
Lake Geneva, 56 Wis. 2d 331, 338, 202 N.W.2d 228 (1972).  Such a 
procedure is a creature of Wis. Stat. § 66.0217(2).  In relevant 
part, § 66.0217(2) provides: 
No. 
2017AP684-AC 
 
12 
 
[I]f a petition for direct annexation signed by all of 
the electors residing in the territory and the owners 
of all of the real property in the territory is filed 
with the city or village clerk, and with the town 
clerk of the town or towns in which the territory is 
located, together with a scale map and a legal 
description 
of 
the 
property 
to 
be 
annexed, 
an 
annexation 
ordinance 
for 
the 
annexation 
of 
the 
territory may be enacted by a two-thirds vote of the 
elected members of the governing body of the city or 
village 
without 
compliance 
with 
the 
notice 
requirements of sub. (4). . . .  
¶26 The Town contends that the annexation petition in this 
case is not a petition for direct annexation by unanimous 
approval.  Despite being styled as such, the Town asserts that 
it is missing the signature of Fox Valley and Western, LTD, 
which owns land included in the annexation area.  Responding to 
this argument, the City invokes Wis. Stat. § 66.0217(11)(c) to 
argue that the Town is limited to challenging the contiguity of 
the territory to be annexed.  See § 66.0217(6)(d).  In the 
City's view, § 66.0217(11)(c) precludes the Town from raising 
its challenge to the unanimity of the petition. 
¶27 To resolve this dispute, we must interpret Wis. Stat. 
§ 66.0217.  Statutory interpretation begins with the language of 
the statute.  State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane 
Cty., 2004 WI 58, ¶45, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110.  If the 
meaning of the statute is plain, we need not further the 
inquiry.  Id.  Statutory language is given its common, ordinary, 
and accepted meaning, except that technical or specially-defined 
words 
or 
phrases 
are 
given 
their 
technical 
or 
special 
definitional meaning.  Id. 
No. 
2017AP684-AC 
 
13 
 
¶28 We 
begin 
with 
the 
language 
of 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 66.0217(11)(c):  "Except as provided in sub. (6)(d)2., no 
action on any grounds, whether procedural or jurisdictional, to 
contest the validity of an annexation under sub. (2), may be 
brought by any town."13  On its face, the restriction on 
"actions" supplied by this statute applies to a challenge to "an 
annexation under sub. (2)" only.14 
¶29 Subsection (2) is entitled "Direct annexation by 
unanimous approval."  Wis. Stat. § 66.0217(2).  A petition under 
sub. (2) must be "signed by all of the electors residing in the 
territory and the owners of all of the real property in the 
territory . . . ."  Id. (emphasis added).  This is consistent 
with the common, ordinary, and accepted meaning of "unanimous":  
"having the agreement and consent of all."  Merriam-Webster's 
Collegiate Dictionary 1360 (11th ed. 2014) (emphasis added); see 
                                                 
13 See supra, ¶13 n.8. 
14 In addition to the limitation on challenges contained in 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 66.0217(11)(c), 
there 
are 
two 
additional 
characteristics 
that 
distinguish 
a 
petition 
for 
direct 
annexation by unanimous approval from its counterpart annexation 
method, direct annexation by one-half approval. 
First, with regard to signature requirements, a petition 
for direct annexation by unanimous approval must be "signed by 
all of the electors residing in the territory and the owners of 
all of the real property" in the proposed annexation territory.  
Wis. Stat. § 66.0217(2).  In contrast, a direct annexation by 
one-half approval is less stringent.  § 66.0217(3)(a)1-2.  
Second, petitions for direct annexation by one-half approval 
have certain notice requirements that do not apply to petitions 
for direct annexation by unanimous approval.  See § 66.0217(4). 
No. 
2017AP684-AC 
 
14 
 
also Black's Law Dictionary 1756 (10th ed. 2014) (defining 
"unanimous" as "[a]rrived at by the consent of all") (emphasis 
added). 
¶30 At oral argument before this court, the City conceded 
that if a petition for annexation does not have unanimous 
approval, then the petition does not fall under sub. (2), which 
applies to unanimous petitions only.  Giving effect to the plain 
language of Wis. Stat. § 66.0217(2), we accept this concession. 
¶31 Further, the City conceded at oral argument that the 
petition was not unanimous.15  An examination of the annexation 
petition filed here confirms the propriety of the City's 
concession:  the petition is missing the signature of Fox Valley 
and Western, LTD.  A petition that lacks the signature of an 
owner of real property in the territory proposed for annexation 
is not "unanimous" for purposes of Wis. Stat. § 66.0217(2).16 
                                                 
15 Counsel for the City responded, "Correct," when asked by 
the court, "So, the petition is not unanimous?" 
16 We observe also, as the City acknowledged at oral 
argument before this court, that if this petition had been filed 
as a petition for direct annexation by one-half approval 
pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 66.0217(3)(a) instead of by unanimous 
approval, it would similarly be invalid.  A direct annexation by 
one-half 
approval 
must 
meet 
the 
notice 
requirements 
of 
§ 66.0217(4).  The City conceded at oral argument that "the 
petitioners did not comply with the notice requirements." 
No. 
2017AP684-AC 
 
15 
 
¶32 Such a defect in the petition is not de minimis, a 
possibility that the City raises in its brief.17  The language of 
Wis. Stat. § 66.0217(2) leaves no room for such a conclusion.  
"Unanimous" means "unanimous." 
¶33 Additionally, allowing a petition for annexation to 
proceed as a petition for direct annexation by unanimous 
approval despite a facial deficiency in the unanimity of the 
petition 
would 
potentially 
encourage 
the 
mislabeling 
of 
annexation petitions.  This would prevent towns from raising 
challenges that would otherwise be available under the law if 
the petition had been labeled accurately.  We are not bound by 
the labels placed on documents and instead must look to their 
substance.  See In re Incorporation of Town of Fitchburg, 98 
Wis. 2d 635, 647-48, 299 Wis. 2d 199 (1980). 
¶34 The City also contends that even though Wis. Stat. 
§ 66.0217(11)(c) bars towns from making certain annexation 
challenges, 
other 
parties 
remain 
able 
to 
challenge 
the 
annexation.  We find this argument unpersuasive because the 
notice requirements for petitions for direct annexation by 
unanimous approval are different from those pertaining to 
                                                 
17 The City contends that the "procedural deficiency" in the 
petition was de minimis.  It asserts that "[n]early all state 
and local regulation of railroads is preempted by the Interstate 
Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995, 49 U.S.C. § 10101 
et seq.  The railroad company, which owns some of the land on 
which its tracks lie and has a right-of-way over the remaining 
land, thus has no reason to care whether the section of track at 
issue is in the Town of Lincoln or the City of Whitehall." 
No. 
2017AP684-AC 
 
16 
 
petitions for annexation by one half-approval or by referendum.  
Compare § 66.0217(2) with § 66.0217(4). 
¶35 Wisconsin Stat. § 66.0217(2) explicitly states that 
"an annexation ordinance for the annexation of the territory may 
be enacted by a two-thirds vote of the elected members of the 
governing body of the city or village without compliance with 
the notice requirements of sub. (4)."  In contrast, the specific 
notice requirement presented in sub. (4) applies to other types 
of annexation petitions.  Namely, § 66.0217(4) requires the 
publication of a notice of intention to circulate a petition for 
direct annexation by one-half approval in the territory proposed 
for annexation.  Additionally, the notice must be served upon 
the clerk of each municipality affected, the clerk of each 
school district affected and each landowner affected. 
¶36 Because the petitioners in this case denominated the 
petition as one by unanimous approval, they did not follow the 
notice provisions of Wis. Stat. § 66.0217(4).  Practically 
speaking, if electors or property owners in the annexation area 
receive no personal notice of a proposed annexation, how are 
they to file a timely challenge? 
¶37 We therefore conclude that the annexation petition in 
this case is not a petition for direct annexation by unanimous 
approval.  As the limitations on annexation challenges set forth 
in Wis. Stat. § 66.0217(11)(c) pertain to petitions for direct 
annexation by unanimous approval only, such limitations do not 
apply here. 
No. 
2017AP684-AC 
 
17 
 
¶38 Because 
we 
determine 
that 
the 
petition 
was 
misclassified as a petition for direct annexation by unanimous 
approval and reverse the decision of the court of appeals on 
that basis, we need not address the substance of the Town's 
contiguity challenge. 
¶39 Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the court of 
appeals and remand to the circuit court. 
By the Court.—The decision of the court of appeals is 
reversed and the cause remanded to the circuit court. 
 
 
No. 
2017AP684-AC 
 
 
 
1