Case Title: Daniel Steinbach v. Green Lake Sanitary District

Citation: 2006 WI 63

Docket Number: 2003AP002245

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2006-06-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
2006 WI 63 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2003AP2245 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
Daniel Steinbach, Cynthia Steinbach,  
Chuck Rhein, Mary Rhein, Hugh Zwieg,  
Pamela Zwieg, Steve Kennedy, Karen  
Kennedy, Linus Schoepp, Donna Schoepp,  
Bob Van Metre, Barbara Van Metre, Jack  
Johnson, Beth Johnson, Leonard M.  
Teifeld, Anna Styka-Teifeld, Steve  
Swokowski, Julie Olson, Stout Krug Krug &  
Ryan, Gary Flatland, Peggy Flatland, John  
Waggoner, Karen Waggoner, William Bohnen,  
Linda Bohnen, Robert Connolly, Lynn  
Connolly, Bob Drisner, Ellen Drisner,  
John Tennyck, Art Krug, Dewi Krug, Carol  
Tennyck, Alan Ruud, and Susan Ruud,  
          Petitioners-Respondents-Petitioners, 
     v. 
Green Lake Sanitary District,  
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
2004 WI App 192 
Reported at:  276 Wis. 2d 639, 688 N.W.2d 740 
(Ct. App. 2004-Published) 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 6, 2006   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
October 6, 2005   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit   
 
COUNTY: 
Green Lake   
 
JUDGE: 
William M. McMonigal   
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
ABRAHAMSON, C.J., concurs (opinion filed). 
BRADLEY, J., joins the concurrence.   
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For 
the 
petitioners-respondents-petitioners 
there 
were 
briefs by Steven R. Sorenson and Sorenson Koenig Law Office, 
Ripon; and Kent A. Tess-Mattner and Schmidt Rupke Tess-Mattner & 
 
 
2
Fox, S.C., Brookfield, and oral argument by Steven R. Sorenson  
and Kent A. Tess-Mattner. 
 
For the respondent-appellant there were briefs by William 
P. O’Connor, Mary Beth Peranteau and Wheeler, Van Sickle & 
Anderson, S.C., Madison, and oral argument by William P. 
O'Connor. 
 
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Debra P. Conrad and 
Thomas D. Larson, Madison, on behalf of the Wisconsin Realtors 
Association. 
 
 
 
 
2006 WI 63
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2003AP2245  
(L.C. No. 
2002CV28) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
Daniel Steinbach, Cynthia Steinbach, Chuck 
Rhein, Mary Rhein, Hugh Zwieg, Pamela Zwieg, 
Steve Kennedy, Karen Kennedy, Linus Schoepp, 
Donna Schoepp, Bob Van Metre, Barbara Van 
Metre, Jack Johnson, Beth Johnson, Leonard M. 
Teifeld, Anna Styka-Teifeld, Steve Swokowski, 
Julie Olson, Stout Krug Krug & Ryan, Gary 
Flatland, Peggy Flatland, John Waggoner, Karen 
Waggoner, William Bohnen, Linda Bohnen, Robert 
Connolly, Lynn Connolly, Bob Drisner, Ellen 
Drisner, John Tennyck, Art Krug, Dewi Krug, 
Carol Tennyck, Alan Ruud and Susan Ruud, 
 
          Petitioners-Respondents-Petitioners, 
 
     v. 
 
Green Lake Sanitary District, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
FILED 
 
JUN 6, 2006 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Reversed and 
remanded.   
 
¶1 
PATIENCE DRAKE ROGGENSACK, J.   This case requires us 
to decide whether a special assessment levied against 18 
condominium owners (Petitioners) by the Green Lake Sanitary 
District (the District) to finance a sanitary sewer system was 
No. 
2003AP2245   
 
2 
 
reasonable.  We conclude that the sewer system benefited the 
Petitioners' property.  However, we also conclude that one 
portion of the assessment, the availability charge, lacked a 
reasonable basis because:  (1) there is no nexus between the 
availability charge assessed against the Petitioners and the 
District's recovery of "the capital cost to [it] to provide 
sanitary sewer service to individual lots, including the 
installation of a lateral stub from the sewer main to each lot";1 
(2) other lots that have multiple habitable units and were 
provided the same sewer service through one four-inch stub, as 
were the Petitioners, were assessed only one availability 
charge; and (3) there is no showing that the Petitioners 
received a greater benefit than was provided to other lots that 
were 
affected 
by 
the 
sewer 
extension. 
 
Therefore, 
the 
availability charge was not levied uniformly and imposed an 
inequitable cost burden on the Petitioners as compared with the 
benefit accruing to them and to all benefited properties.  
Accordingly, we reverse the court of appeals decision and remand 
to the circuit court.   
I.  BACKGROUND 
¶2 
The 
Petitioners 
are 
the 
owners 
of 
residential 
condominium units in the Sunrise Point Resort & Yacht Club 
Condominium (the condominiums), an 18-unit condominium on Big 
Green Lake.  The District is a town sanitary district organized 
                                                 
1 Green Lake Sanitary District Amended Resolution No. 97-02, 
at III, A. 
No. 
2003AP2245   
 
3 
 
under Subchapter IX of Wis. Stat. ch. 60.  The District operates 
a wastewater treatment plant and a sanitary sewer collection 
system serving a portion of the lands within its boundaries.  
The treatment plant and initial sewer collection lines were 
constructed in the early 1990s and extended several times 
thereafter.  They were financed by special assessments levied 
against owners of property served by the system. 
¶3 
The District is governed by an elected, three-member 
board of commissioners (Commissioners) that, pursuant to Wis. 
Stat. § 60.77(4) (2003-04),2 has the authority to project, plan, 
construct, and maintain a water, solid waste, and sewage system.  
In June, 2000, the Commissioners adopted a resolution to extend 
sanitary sewer service to additional lands within the District 
through the exercise of its special assessment powers under 
§ 60.77(5)(f).3  The expansion plan included the condominiums. 
                                                 
2 Wisconsin Stat. § 60.77(4) provides in relevant part:  
General powers and duties.  The commission may 
project, plan, construct and maintain a water, solid 
waste 
collection 
and 
sewerage 
system, 
including 
drainage improvements, sanitary sewers, surface sewers 
or storm water sewers, or all of the improvements or 
activities or any combination of them necessary for 
the 
promotion 
of 
the 
public 
health, 
comfort, 
convenience or welfare of the district. 
All subsequent references to the Wisconsin statutes are to 
the 2003-04 version unless otherwise indicated. 
3 Wisconsin Stat. § 60.77(5) provides:   
Specific powers.  The commission may:  
 
. . . 
No. 
2003AP2245   
 
4 
 
¶4 
The District issued a Special Assessment Report that 
included the expansion plan and specifications for the proposed 
sewer extension, an estimation of the project costs and a 
schedule of assessments against the properties to be served by 
the 
planned 
sewer 
improvements. 
 
It 
allocated 
special 
assessments to all properties included in the plan.  The special 
assessments 
included 
two 
components: 
 
an 
"availability 
assessment," to cover the costs of making the sewer available to 
each lot in the plan,4 and a "connection assessment" to cover the 
                                                                                                                                                             
(f) Except as provided in s. 66.0721, levy 
special assessments to finance the activities of the 
district, using the procedures under s. 66.0703.  
4 Section III of the Resolution covers this charge.  It 
states in pertinent part: 
III. SEWER SERVICE AVAILABILITY ASSESSMENT.  The 
District shall impose a sewer service availability 
assessment on property within the sewer service area 
for costs of the work to make sanitary sewer service 
available to the property.  Each lot assessed under 
this section shall be provided with a 4-inch lateral 
pipe stubbed from the sewer main to the property line 
or easement line, where applicable, except as provided 
in Section VI.   
A. 
ASSESSMENT 
RATE. 
 
The 
sewer 
service 
availability assessment shall be levied upon each lot 
to which access to sanitary sewer service as provided 
in accordance with the policies adopted herein.  This 
assessment is intended to recover the capital cost to 
the District to provide sanitary sewer service to 
individual lots, including the installation of a 
lateral stub from the sewer main to each lot, 
terminating 
at 
the 
property 
or 
sewer 
easement 
boundary.  . . . 
B. 
APPLICATION OF ASSESSMENT.  A single sewer 
availability shall be levied upon each lot, regardless 
of size, accessibility by public or private road or 
No. 
2003AP2245   
 
5 
 
costs of the infrastructure necessary for transportation of 
sewage to the treatment plant.5   
                                                                                                                                                             
easement, corner location or other characteristics.  
. . . [I]f it is possible to connect a lateral or 
private main from an adjacent and contiguous lot or 
lots to such a terminal point, it shall be assessed a 
full sewer service availability charge. 
5 Section IV of the Resolution addresses this charge.  It 
provides: 
IV. SEWER CONNECTION ASSESSMENT.  The District 
shall impose sewer connection assessments within the 
sewer service area for costs of the infrastructure 
necessary for the transportation of sewage to the 
District's wastewater treatment plant.  One sewer 
connection 
assessment 
shall 
be 
levied 
on 
each 
habitable building on a lot and on any structure which 
is connected to the sanitary sewer system on any lot 
which does not include a habitable building.  No sewer 
connection 
assessment 
shall 
be 
levied 
on 
[an] 
accessory connection. 
A. 
ASSESSMENT 
RATE. 
 
The 
Sewer 
Connection 
Assessment reflects the costs incurred by the District 
to 
provide 
sanitary 
sewer 
interceptors, 
pumping 
stations, connecting force mains and capacity in that 
infrastructure for each connected user of the sewer 
system.  The assessment for a single family residence 
shall be based on 275 gallons of estimated daily 
wastewater flow.  The sewer connection assessment for 
a single family residence connected to the sanitary 
sewer system after February 3, 1994 shall be not less 
than $2300.00 (Two Thousand Three Hundred Dollars) 
increased by 2.5 percent on February 3 of each year 
after 1994.  All other connections shall be assessed a 
sewer connection assessment based on the estimated 
daily flow of wastewater from such habitable building 
or other connection as determined from Table 12 of 
Wis. Admin. Code ILHR 83.15(3)(c)2. divided by 275 
gallons. 
B. 
APPLICATION 
OF 
ASSESSMENT. 
 
The 
Sewer 
Connection Assessment shall be levied on each lot 
which includes any habitable building or accessory 
No. 
2003AP2245   
 
6 
 
¶5 
The availability charge, $4,730,6 was levied against 
each lot or parcel of record receiving sewer service to recover 
the capital cost of the installation, including the installation 
of one four-inch pipe stub connecting the sewer main to the 
property edge of each lot.  The connection charge, $5,930,7 was 
individually levied against every habitable unit on a lot and 
every structure connected to the sewer system on any lot that 
did not include a habitable building.  Each Petitioner was 
assessed fully for both charges, even though the single lot on 
which all of the condominiums stand was provided with only one 
four-inch stub.   
¶6 
Pursuant 
to 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 66.0703(12)(a), 
the 
Petitioners requested circuit court review of the District's 
levy of the special assessments and the District's inclusion of 
the condominiums in the extension of the sewage district.  
However, before briefing and oral arguments, the Petitioners 
informed the circuit court and the District that they were 
abandoning 
the 
claim 
relating 
to 
the 
inclusion 
of 
the 
condominiums in the expansion plan.  The amount of the 
assessment remained in dispute.  
                                                                                                                                                             
connection 
to 
the 
sanitary 
sewer 
system. 
 
The 
assessment to be charged shall be determined in 
accordance with the requirements of this policy. 
6 Special Assessment Report, Schedule Assessments (Dec. 8, 
2001). 
7 Id. 
No. 
2003AP2245   
 
7 
 
¶7 
The Petitioners alleged that the District's method for 
levying the assessments against them was unfair, arbitrary, and 
capricious, and in violation of Wis. Stat. § 66.0703 and the 
District's own assessment policy as set forth in the Resolution.  
The circuit court determined that the availability portion of 
the special assessment levied against the condominiums was not 
in accord with that levied on other properties similarly 
situated, and was therefore "incorrect."   
¶8 
In reaching this conclusion, the court noted that the 
Petitioners' aggregate property is listed by the Register of 
Deeds as one lot, although the individual condominium units are 
separate tax parcels, and that the District's Resolution levied 
one availability charge against each lot connected to the sewer 
main.  The court also pointed out that the District installed 
only one stub to the Petitioners' property for connection to the 
sewer main.  It ordered the District to reduce the availability 
charge of the assessment against each condominium unit to one-
eighteenth (1/18) of the original $4,730 charge, or $263.  This 
distributed one availability charge among the 18 Petitioners, 
whose single lot had been provided one four-inch stub.  The 
court left the connection charge intact.8  
¶9 
The District appealed, and the court of appeals 
reversed, holding that the District's exercise of police power 
had been according to an accepted method of assessment, was not 
clearly unreasonable, and did not warrant interference by the 
                                                 
8 The Petitioners did not appeal this determination. 
No. 
2003AP2245   
 
8 
 
courts.  It ordered the availability charge reinstated as 
originally assessed by the District.  It is that decision that 
we review. 
II.  DISCUSSION 
A. 
Standard of Review 
¶10 The 
circuit 
court's 
determination 
that 
specially 
assessed property was benefited is a question of fact.  Village 
of Egg Harbor v. Sarkis, 166 Wis. 2d 5, 14, 479 N.W.2d 536 (Ct. 
App. 1991).  We affirm factual determinations unless they are 
clearly erroneous.  Lac La Belle Golf Club v. Village of Lac La 
Belle, 187 Wis. 2d 274, 281-82, 522 N.W.2d 277 (Ct. App. 1994).   
¶11 Whether the facts relating to a special assessment 
made pursuant to the police power fulfill the "reasonableness" 
standard is a question of law that we review de novo.  Id. at 
281.  For purposes of judicial review of the exercise of a 
police power special assessment, the law presumes that the 
municipality proceeded reasonably in making the assessment, and 
the challenger bears the burden of going forward to establish 
prima facie evidence that the assessment was not reasonable.  
Id. at 281 (citing Peterson v. City of New Berlin, 154 Wis. 2d 
365, 371, 453 N.W.2d 177 (Ct. App. 1990)); see also Soo Line 
R.R. Co. v. City of Neenah, 64 Wis. 2d 665, 671, 221 N.W.2d 907 
(1974).  However, once a challenger does so, the burden shifts 
to the entity levying the assessment "to show that the chosen 
assessment method comported with the statutory requirement that 
it" produce a reasonable assessment. Lac La Belle, 187 Wis. 2d 
at 281 (citing Peterson, 154 Wis. 2d at 371).   
No. 
2003AP2245   
 
9 
 
B. 
Special Assessment Statute 
¶12 The District levied the special assessment under the 
authority 
granted 
in 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 66.0703. 
 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 60.77(5)(f).  The meaning of § 66.0703 is not in dispute; 
however, we must determine whether the District's assessments 
met the statutory standard, as interpreted in prior court 
decisions.  Section 66.0703 states, in pertinent part: 
(1)(a) Except as provided in s. 66.0721, as a 
complete alternative to all other methods provided by 
law, any city, town or village may, by resolution of 
its 
governing 
body, 
levy 
and 
collect 
special 
assessments 
upon 
property 
in 
a 
limited 
and 
determinable area for special benefits conferred upon 
the property by any municipal work or improvement; and 
may provide for the payment of all or any part of the 
cost of the work or improvement out of the proceeds of 
the special assessments. 
(b) The amount assessed against any property for 
any work or improvement which does not represent an 
exercise of the police power may not exceed the value 
of the benefits accruing to the property.  If an 
assessment represents an exercise of the police power, 
the assessment shall be upon a reasonable basis as 
determined by the governing body of the city, town or 
village.  
The Petitioners contend that the assessment does not meet the 
requirement of § 66.0703(1)(b) because the District failed to 
assess them on a reasonable basis.  Their arguments are based on 
common law interpretations of § 66.0703 that we review to guide 
our analysis of the parties' arguments. 
C. 
Common Law Requirements   
¶13 We have held that the power of a municipality to levy 
special assessments against private owners is statutory, and 
No. 
2003AP2245   
 
10 
 
therefore the statutory provisions must be followed if the 
assessment is to be upheld.  See Green Tree Estates, Inc. v. 
Furstenberg, 21 Wis. 2d 193, 124 N.W.2d 90 (1963).  Special 
assessments may be based on the taxing power or on the police 
power.  Berkvam v. City of Glendale, 79 Wis. 2d 279, 282-83, 255 
N.W.2d 521 (1977).  If an assessment is made under the taxing 
power, the municipality must show that the amount charged to the 
property does not exceed the value of the benefits received.  
Id. at 282.  However, when an assessment is made under the 
police power, it is not limited to the value of the benefits 
received by the property owner.  Id. at 283 (citation omitted).  
Rather, when the police power is used, the assessment must be 
made on a reasonable basis.  Id. at 287.  It is the police power 
that the District employed here. 
¶14 In Berkvam, we addressed the statutory requirements 
under Wis. Stat. § 66.60, the predecessor to Wis. Stat. 
§ 66.0703.9  Berkvam involved a challenge of an assessment for 
improvements, including storm sewers, concrete curbs, gutters, 
pavement, and sidewalks, made by the city.  Berkvam claimed that 
the increased traffic volume in the area that would result from 
the city's planned improvement would decrease the value of the 
residential property in the area and therefore the assessment 
was an inequitable and invalid exercise of police power.  Id. at 
282.   
                                                 
9 For the purposes of this discussion, the language of the 
provisions moved from Wis. Stat. § 66.60 to Wis. Stat. § 66.0703 
are the same. 
No. 
2003AP2245   
 
11 
 
¶15 We held that while the legislature did not prescribe a 
particular method for assessing properties under the police 
power, it required two things:  (1) that the property assessed 
be benefited and (2) that the assessment be reasonable.  Id. at 
287.  We utilized another state's precedent to elaborate: 
As one state supreme court has stated, referring to an 
assessment 
statute: 
 
"[T]he 
statute 
does 
[not] 
prescribe a specific method for apportioning costs.  
Where such is the case, the municipality may adopt any 
plan that is fair and equitable and such that will 
bring about an assessment in proportion to the 
benefits accruing." 
Id. at 287 (citing Mullins v. City of El Dorado, 200 Kan. 336, 
436 P.2d 837, 844 (1968)).   
1. 
Benefit 
¶16 The 
Petitioners 
first assert that 
the 
"benefit" 
requirement for special assessments was not met.  They argue 
that the extension of sewer services to their property provided 
no benefit to them because the property had no need.  At the 
time 
that 
the 
District 
made 
its 
expansion 
plans, 
the 
condominiums were adequately serviced by a holding tank that was 
in good 
working order and 
was expected 
to 
service the 
condominiums for years to come.  They dispute that a sewer 
connection is a per se benefit.  They also contend that while it 
may be a benefit to some properties covered by the expansion 
plan, their own specific parcels did not benefit and may have 
been harmed because of the potential negative effect the added 
expense of the assessment might have on property values.   
No. 
2003AP2245   
 
12 
 
¶17 The District points out that private holding tanks do 
not provide the benefits afforded by public sewers, and it cites 
the circuit court's observation that the 14-year-old holding 
tank on the Petitioners' property could function now but fail in 
the near future.  The circuit court recognized that future 
benefits may be considered in sustaining the validity of a 
special assessment.  Wm. H. Heinemann Creameries, Inc. v. 
Village of Kewaskum, 275 Wis. 636, 641, 82 N.W.2d 902 (1957); 
CIT Group/Equip. Fin., Inc. v. Village of Germantown, 163 
Wis. 2d 426, 436, 471 N.W.2d 610 (Ct. App. 1991).   
¶18 To support its position, the District notes the 
dangers of disease and pollution when a holding tank fails, the 
impracticality of excluding select properties from an extended 
sewer system area, and the way that sewer systems have been 
shown to increase property values.  It also points out that 
Wisconsin courts have consistently recognized the benefits of 
sanitary sewers, even when the property is already served by a 
functioning system.  See Fort Howard Paper Co. v. Fox River 
Heights Sanitary Dist., 250 Wis. 145, 153, 156, 26 N.W.2d 661 
(1947); Town of Sugar Creek v. City of Elkhorn, 231 Wis. 2d 473, 
484, 605 N.W.2d 274 (Ct. App. 1999). 
¶19 Whether a benefit exists is a question of fact.  
Preloznik v. City of Madison, 113 Wis. 2d 112, 118, 334 N.W.2d 
580 (Ct. App. 1983).  In this regard, the circuit court agreed 
with the District's position and found that the sewer system 
benefited the Petitioners' property.  That finding is not 
clearly erroneous.   
No. 
2003AP2245   
 
13 
 
2. 
Reasonableness 
¶20 The analysis for whether a special assessment is 
"reasonable" has been articulated in a number of ways, depending 
on the facts of the particular case.  For example, while it is 
true that a property must be benefited by the project for whose 
costs a special assessment was made, Berkvam, 79 Wis. 2d at 287, 
an assessment need not be limited to the actual benefit to an 
individual property.  Gelhaus & Brost, Inc. v. City of Medford, 
144 Wis. 2d 48, 50, 423 N.W.2d 180 (Ct. App. 1988).  Rather, the 
assessment of an individual property must be in proportion to 
the benefits accruing to it when compared with the benefits 
accruing to all benefited properties.  Id. at 52; see also 
Peterson, 154 Wis. 2d at 372-73.   
¶21 In Gelhaus, the court of appeals rejected property 
owners' challenge to a city's special assessments, which 
contended that the assessments exceeded the benefits to their 
properties from the public improvement.  Gelhaus, 144 Wis. 2d at 
52.  The court held that assessments made under the police power 
are not limited to the value of the benefits conferred on each 
individual property; but rather, the reasonableness of a special 
assessment will be upheld when properties are benefited and 
assessments are based on an equitable distribution of costs for 
the benefits gained.  Id.  The court explained:  
[I]nherent in the requirement that the assessment be 
made on a reasonable basis is that it must be 
reasonable and apportioned fairly and equitably among 
the property owners.  For example, in making an 
assessment, the municipality may not assess one group 
of property owners by a method that is completely 
No. 
2003AP2245   
 
14 
 
different from the method used to assess another group 
of 
property 
owners, 
resulting 
in 
an 
entirely 
disproportionate distribution of costs among various 
taxpayers. 
Id. (citing Schulenberg v. City of Reading, 410 P.2d 324, 329 
(Kan. 1966)).  Because the municipality had presented unrebutted 
affidavits that outlined logical and formulaic cost assessments, 
and demonstrated that the burden had been fairly and equitably 
distributed among the individual property owners who benefited, 
the court concluded that the assessments were reasonable.  
Gelhaus, 144 Wis. 2d. at 53. 
¶22 Furthermore, although a uniform method of assessment 
will usually produce a reasonable assessment, that is not 
necessarily so.  In Lac La Belle, a golf course protested its 
special assessment for the construction of a sanitary sewer 
collection system.  Lac La Belle, 187 Wis. 2d at 279.  There, 
the Village selected an assessment method where each Residential 
Equivalent Unit (REU), a term defined in the resolution, would 
be assessed $6,900.  Id. at 278.  Two portions of the golf club 
were affected by the sewer project, one of which was the 14th 
hole that under the Village's definition was comprised of ten 
REU's.  Id. at 280.  The golf club contended that in order to 
realize on the benefit conferred, it would have to subdivide the 
14th hole and expend an amount of money that was not 
economically feasible.  Id. at 279.  In concluding that the 
uniform method chosen by the Village did not produce a 
reasonable assessment, the court explained that in levying an 
assessment 
the 
municipality 
must 
take 
into 
account 
the 
No. 
2003AP2245   
 
15 
 
uniqueness, not only the similarity, of the subject property, as 
its characteristics are compared to other assessed properties.  
Id. at 286.   
¶23 This uniformity/uniqueness assessment also figured 
prominently in the court of appeals' decision in Genrich v. City 
of Rice Lake, 2003 WI App 255, 268 Wis. 2d 233, 673 N.W.2d 361.  
There, the court used a uniformity/uniqueness analysis to 
examine whether the special assessments were reasonable.  Id., 
¶¶20-21 (citing Lac La Belle, 187 Wis. 2d at 285-86 and 
Peterson, 154 Wis. 2d at 373).  As currently articulated, this 
analysis has two steps.  First, uniformity is examined to 
determine whether the assessment is fairly and equitably 
apportioned among property owners in comparable positions.  
Genrich, 268 Wis. 2d 233, ¶¶20-21.  To pass the uniformity 
requirement, a municipality must use a method of assessment that 
yields a "uniform and equal value for all affected properties."  
Genrich, 268 Wis. 2d 233, ¶21 (citing Lac La Belle, 187 Wis. 2d 
at 
285). 
 
Second, 
in 
addition 
to 
providing 
uniformity, 
assessments 
must 
not 
affect 
unique 
properties 
in 
a 
disproportionate way.  Genrich, 268 Wis. 2d 233, ¶20.  To 
determine whether a unique property is assessed in proportion to 
the benefit conferred, courts have considered the "degree, 
effect, and consequences of the special benefits."  Id., ¶22; 
see also Lac La Belle, 187 Wis. 2d at 284-88. 
3. 
Application to Petitioners 
¶24 The District's Resolution at issue here required that 
the availability charge of the special assessment be levied 
No. 
2003AP2245   
 
16 
 
"upon each lot, regardless of size, accessibility by public or 
private 
road 
or 
easement, 
corner 
location 
or 
other 
characteristics" to which service is made available.10  A "lot" 
is defined as either "a lot of record or a parcel of record."11  
Accordingly, because each condominium is a "parcel of record," 
even though all stand upon one "lot of record," the condominiums 
were assessed 18 times an individual availability charge, even 
though their lot received only one four-inch stub. 
¶25 The Petitioners contend that the District did not 
appropriately exercise its police power because it did not levy 
the assessments fairly and equitably among the property owners.  
The District responds that the assessment was levied uniformly 
against all single-family residential property owners of record.  
The 
Petitioners 
counter 
that 
the 
District 
applied 
the 
availability charge to each individual condominium owner, yet 
with 
other 
single-lot 
properties 
that 
contain 
multiple 
residences, the District levied the availability charge only 
once.  For example, the District applied the availability charge 
only once to the Southshore Terrace Association,12 a mobile home 
park, rather than levying an availability charge against each of 
                                                 
10 Green Lake Sanitary District Amended Resolution No. 97-
02, at III, B. 
11 Id. at I, A. 
12 The 
Petitioners 
represent 
that 
SouthShore 
Terrace 
Association is "divided into 55 separate cooperative ownership 
units."  Pet. Br., at 26.  This may be so, but we could not 
confirm from the record whether Southshore Terrace Association 
is a cooperative. 
No. 
2003AP2245   
 
17 
 
its home sites.  And, the Pilgrim Center Camp was levied only 
one availability charge, even though there are many structures 
on its lot.  The District counters that because each condominium 
unit created by the condominium declaration and plat is a 
separate parcel of record, the assessment was reasonably 
applied.  
¶26 We do not agree with the District for at least three 
reasons.  First, there is no nexus between the charge to an 
owner of a parcel of record who shares access to the sewer main 
through one four-inch stub and the District's cost to provide 
that access.  Second, other lots that have multiple habitable 
units and were provided access to the sewer main through one 
four-inch stub to the lot were charged only one availability 
charge.  Yet the Petitioners' lot was assessed an availability 
charge 18 times higher for the same, single four-inch stub. 
Third, there is no showing that each condominium owner received 
a greater benefit than was provided to other properties that 
were affected by the sewer extension.  Accordingly, we conclude 
that the Petitioners have provided prima facie evidence that the 
availability assessment was not levied uniformly.13  Therefore, 
we also conclude that because the costs of extending the sewer 
were placed disproportionately on the Petitioners, the burden of 
                                                 
13 Because, as we explain below, the District failed to show 
that the assessment for the availability charge was uniform in 
method and effect, we do not continue to analyze whether the 
uniqueness of the condominiums caused the assessment to be 
unreasonable as well.  See Genrich v. City of Rice Lake, 2003 WI 
App 255, ¶¶20-22, 268 Wis. 2d 233, 673 N.W.2d 361. 
No. 
2003AP2245   
 
18 
 
proving that the assessment was reasonable shifted to the 
District.  See Lac La Belle, 187 Wis. 2d at 281.  
¶27 However, 
the 
District's 
explanation 
that 
the 
condominium units are separate tax parcels does not explain why 
the purpose of the availability charge under Section III of the 
Resolution, which specifically refers to the cost for one stub 
to connect each lot to the sewer main, should not have been 
uniformly applied to all lots that received one access-stub.  
The Petitioners' lot received only one stub for all of the 
condominium units.  Further, as we noted above, other single 
lots that have multiple habitable dwellings that were provided 
with a single stub, were assessed only a single availability 
charge.  The District has not presented any argument as to why 
this disparate treatment is a fair or equitable distribution of 
the costs of making the sewer available, except to assert it 
applied the same method of assessment to everyone.  However, as 
part of the District's method of assessment, it created a 
definition for the term, "lot," that caused the method of 
assessment to have dissimilar effects on the properties within 
the District. 
¶28 The District also contends that its method was 
reasonable because it employed the "lump sum" method, which was 
upheld in Village of Egg Harbor v. Mariner Group, Inc., 156 
Wis. 2d 568, 457 N.W.2d 519 (Ct. App. 1990).  In Village of Egg 
Harbor, the court of appeals determined that the Village's use 
of the "lump sum" method to levy assessments, which divided the 
cost of a waste water treatment plant and collection system 
No. 
2003AP2245   
 
19 
 
among property owners without regard to use, was reasonable 
because:  (1) all property owners were assessed in the same way 
and (2) while use is relevant in other types of assessments, it 
is not in determining the base rate of implementing the system.  
Id. at 573.  However, the assessment at issue here has a use 
component, the connection charge, that has not been contested.  
Also in Village of Egg Harbor, shopping mall owners were "no 
more burdened" than any other owner.  In contrast, the 
condominium owners who were provided with one four-inch stub to 
make the sewer available to their lot are burdened much more 
than are the inhabitants of Southshore Terrace, that also were 
provided with one four-inch stub to make the sewer available to 
their lot.    
¶29 Wisconsin 
courts 
have 
established 
that 
the 
reasonableness of a particular assessment method depends on the 
application of its factual consequences to those properties 
assessed.  The court in Peterson concluded that no method is 
per se reasonable, and that neither procedural fairness nor 
prolonged use can alone assure reasonableness.  Peterson, 154 
Wis. 2d at 372-73.  A particular method of assessment is neither 
reasonable nor unreasonable as a matter of law, but rather, the 
facts of the particular situation govern its reasonableness.  
Id. at 373; see also Dittberner v. Windsor Sanitary Dist. No. 1, 
209 Wis. 2d 478, 496, 564 N.W.2d 341 (Ct. App. 1997). 
¶30 While it is true that methods of assessment may 
involve many different alternatives, the requirement that the 
method fairly apportions the costs of the improvement and does 
No. 
2003AP2245   
 
20 
 
not "arbitrarily or capriciously burden any group of property 
owners" remains a constant for any method chosen.  See CIT 
Group, 163 Wis. 2d at 436-37; see also Lac La Belle, 187 Wis. 2d 
282.  An assessment is unreasonable if it has an "entirely 
disproportionate distribution" on a group of property owners 
that can be avoided by the municipality's use of another 
assessment methodology.  Peterson, 154 Wis. 2d at 373.  We 
conclude that is what occurred here.  This assessment was 
unreasonable 
because 
the 
assessment 
charge 
required 
the 
Petitioners to bear a disproportionate amount of the costs of 
the 
sewer 
as 
compared 
with 
the 
benefit 
they 
received.  
Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals, 
and remand to the circuit court for the reinstatement of the 
circuit court order that was reversed by the court of appeals' 
decision.14 
III.  CONCLUSION 
¶31 In sum, we conclude that the sewer system benefited 
the Petitioners' property; however, we also conclude that one 
portion of the assessment, the availability charge, lacked a 
reasonable basis because:  (1) there is no nexus between the 
availability charge assessed against the Petitioners and the 
District's recovery of "the capital cost to [it] to provide 
sanitary sewer service to individual lots, including the 
installation of a lateral stub from the sewer main to each 
                                                 
14 Our decision does not disturb the amounts levied for 
connection charges.  
No. 
2003AP2245   
 
21 
 
lot";15 (2) other lots that have multiple habitable units and 
were provided the same sewer service through one four-inch stub, 
as were the Petitioners, were assessed only one availability 
charge; and (3) there is no showing that the Petitioners 
received a greater benefit than was provided to other lots that 
were 
affected 
by 
the 
sewer 
extension. 
 
Therefore, 
the 
availability charge was not levied uniformly and imposed an 
inequitable cost burden on the Petitioners as compared with the 
benefit accruing to them and to all benefited properties.  
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 remanded. 
 
                                                 
15 Green Lake Sanitary District Amended Resolution No. 97-
02, at III, A. 
No.  2003AP2245.ssa 
 
1 
 
¶32 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J.   (concurring).  I agree 
with the majority opinion that the matter must be remanded to 
the circuit court.  I write separately for two reasons: (1) the 
majority opinion lost its way in its analysis of the validity of 
the assessment charge, and (2) I disagree with the instructions 
on remand to the circuit court. 
I 
¶33 The Green Lake Sanitary District's power to levy 
special assessments is governed by Wis. Stat. § 66.0703.1  Our 
                                                 
1 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2003-
04 version unless otherwise indicated. 
Wisconsin Stat. § 66.0703 states in relevant parts: 
66.0703 Special assessments, generally. 
(1) (a) Except as provided in s. 66.0721, as a 
complete alternative to all other methods provided by 
law, any city, town or village may, by resolution of 
its 
governing 
body, 
levy 
and 
collect 
special 
assessments 
upon 
property 
in 
a 
limited 
and 
determinable area for special benefits conferred upon 
the property by any municipal work or improvement; and 
may provide for the payment of all or any part of the 
cost of the work or improvement out of the proceeds of 
the special assessments. 
(b) The amount assessed against any property for any 
work or improvement which does not represent an 
exercise of the police power may not exceed the value 
of the benefits accruing to the property. If an 
assessment represents an exercise of the police power, 
the assessment shall be upon a reasonable basis as 
determined by the governing body of the city, town or 
village. 
(c) If any property that is benefited is by law exempt 
from assessment, the assessment shall be computed and 
shall be paid by the city, town or village. 
No.  2003AP2245.ssa 
 
2 
 
case law requires a reviewing court to consider three factors in 
determining whether an assessment in the exercise of the police 
power has a "reasonable basis:" (A) Is the method of assessment 
reasonable?  (B) Is the assessed property benefited by the 
assessment?  (C) Is the effect of the assessment reasonable in 
that the assessment is in proportion to the benefit accruing to 
the assessed property? 2   
¶34 All three factors go to a determination of reasonable 
basis.3  Unfortunately the majority opinion merges these factors.  
This merger is not surprising, given that some overlap among the 
three factors exists and that prior cases do not always 
carefully distinguish among the factors; some cases fuse the 
reasonableness of the method (that is, the reasonableness of the 
exercise of the power of assessment) and the reasonableness of 
the effect (or result) of an assessment.  
¶35 The law presumes the municipality proceeded reasonably 
in making the assessment.  Courts may intercede only when the 
                                                                                                                                                             
Wisconsin Stat. § 66.60 was renumbered Wis. Stat. § 66.0703 
by 1999 Wis. Act 150.  No changes have been made to § 66.60 
since its original passage during the 1945 legislative session 
that affect the issues addressed in the present case.  In this 
opinion, § 66.0703 and its predecessor will be referred to as 
Wis. Stat. § 66.0703. 
2 See Berkvam v. City of Glendale, 79 Wis. 2d 279, 287, 255 
N.W.2d 521 (1977) (quoting Mullins v. City of El Dorado, 436 
P.2d 837, 844 (Kan. 1968)); Lac La Belle Golf Club v. Village of 
Lac La Belle, 187 Wis. 2d 274, 285-87, 522 N.W.2d 277 (Ct. App. 
1994); Peterson v. City of New Berlin, 154 Wis. 2d 365, 371, 453 
N.W.2d 177 (Ct. App. 1990); Gelhaus & Brost, Inc. v. City of 
Medford, 144 Wis. 2d 48, 52-53, 423 N.W.2d 180 (Ct. App. 1988). 
3 Lac La Belle, 187 Wis. 2d at 283; Peterson, 154 Wis. 2d at 
371; Gelhaus & Brost, 144 Wis. 2d at 52-53.  
No.  2003AP2245.ssa 
 
3 
 
exercise 
of 
the 
police 
power 
is 
clearly 
unreasonable.4 
Reasonableness is a question of law; this court determines 
reasonableness independent of the circuit court or court of 
appeals but benefiting from their analyses.5  The challenger 
bears the burden of going forward with the evidence and must 
overcome 
the 
presumption 
that 
the 
municipality 
proceeded 
reasonably.  If the challenger meets its burden, the burden of 
persuasion that the chosen assessment method comported with the 
statutory requirement that it be reasonable rests with the 
municipality.  The circuit court's factual determinations are 
reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.6 
A 
¶36 The first factor a court addresses in reviewing an 
assessment under this standard of review is whether the method 
of assessment is reasonable.  The method of assessment is 
reasonable if all the property owners are assessed uniformly, 
that is, by the same method.7  An assessment based upon lineal 
footage, for example, is uniformly based.8  Assessing each unit 
                                                 
4 CIT Group/Equip. Fin. Inc. v. Village of Germantown, 163 
Wis. 2d 426, 433, 471 N.W.2d 610 (Ct. App. 1991), cert. den., 
502 U.S. 1099 (1992). 
5 CIT Group, 163 Wis. 2d at 433; Peterson, 154 Wis. 2d at 
370. 
6 CIT Group, 163 Wis. 2d at 433; Peterson, 154 Wis. 2d at 
371. 
7 Genrich v. City of Rice Lake, 2003 Wis. App 255, ¶¶20-22, 
268 Wis. 2d 233, 673 N.W.2d 361. 
8 Gelhaus & Brost, 144 Wis. 2d at 53. 
No.  2003AP2245.ssa 
 
4 
 
or lot the same base amount regardless of use of the waste water 
treatment plant and collection system is a uniform assessment.9 
¶37 I conclude that the method of assessment in the 
present case is uniform.  Each tax parcel is assessed an equal 
share of the direct and indirect costs of installing the single 
lateral access pipes necessary to connect to the new sewer 
system.   
¶38 According to the statutes governing condominiums, each 
condominium unit shall be deemed a parcel and shall be subject 
to separate assessment and taxation by each assessing unit and 
special district for all types of taxes authorized by law.10  The 
Sanitary District uniformly assessed properties on this basis. 
¶39 The majority attempts to characterize the tax parcel 
method of assessment as not meeting the uniformity requirement 
by pointing out that a tax parcel with multiple living units is 
assessed for a single stub, while each of the condominium units 
is a separate tax parcel and is assessed for one stub even 
though all 18 condominiums benefit from access to only one 
stub.11   
                                                 
9 Village of Egg Harbor v. Mariner Group, Inc., 156 
Wis. 2d 568, 571, 573, 457 N.W.2d 519 (Ct. App. 1990). 
10 Wis. Stat. § 703.21(1). 
Property owners whose adjacent properties had more than one 
tax parcel number were given the opportunity to combine the tax 
parcels into one tax parcel for taxation and assessment purposes 
to reduce assessments.  According to the Green Lake Sanitary 
District's brief, combination of parcels may risk loss of 
development rights under zoning or other regulatory laws. 
11 Majority op., ¶27. 
No.  2003AP2245.ssa 
 
5 
 
¶40 The 
majority 
opinion 
ignores 
the 
uniformity 
of 
assessment method and looks to the nature of habitable units on 
various tax parcels.  Few if any properties are exactly alike, 
and the majority's approach of looking at differences means a 
court may characterize any method of assessment as not uniform.  
By examining differences or the effect of the assessment rather 
than the method of assessment, any uniform method can be made to 
appear non-uniform.   
¶41 My point is this:  The Sanitary District clearly used 
a uniform method for all property owners in determining the 
assessment, namely, each tax parcel was assessed the same 
amount. 
¶42 Nevertheless, "mere uniformity does not answer a 
reasonableness challenge."12  Whether a uniform method of 
assessment 
fairly 
apportions 
the 
cost 
or 
arbitrarily 
or 
capriciously burdens any group of property owners presents a 
different question than whether the method of the assessment is 
uniform.  Analytically, a court should separate these questions 
for the benefit of municipalities trying to conform to the 
statutory standards and for the benefit of litigants and courts.   
¶43 I conclude the first factor has been satisfied. 
B 
¶44 The next question a reviewing court must answer is 
whether the assessed property is benefited by the assessment. 
Although the condominiums had an operating septic system, the 
circuit court recognized that a septic system can fail and that 
                                                 
12 Lac La Belle, 187 Wis. 2d at 285. 
No.  2003AP2245.ssa 
 
6 
 
a sewer extension project is of benefit.  This finding of fact 
must be affirmed unless clearly erroneous.13  
¶45 I conclude that the second factor has been satisfied. 
C 
¶46 The final question a reviewing court must answer is 
whether the effect of the assessment is reasonable, that is, 
whether the assessment is apportioned fairly and equitably among 
the property owners and is in proportion to the benefit accruing 
to the assessed property.  
¶47 The 
cases 
set 
forth 
the 
following 
rules 
for 
determining whether an assessment made under the police power is 
reasonable in effect: 
• "[A]n assessment is unfair when property owners in 
comparable positions face a marked disparity in cost for 
the receipt of equal benefits when an alternate, more 
equitable, method of assessment is feasible."14   
• Using the same method to assess a group of property 
owners is unreasonable "when it results in an entirely 
disproportionate distribution of costs which easily could 
be avoided by using another basis for assessment."15   
                                                 
13 Citing Peterson v. City of New Berlin, 154 Wis. 2d 365, 
370, 453 N.W.2d 177 (Ct. App. 1990), the majority opinion at  
¶10 treats this finding as one of fact that must be affirmed 
unless clearly erroneous.  The Peterson case says no such thing.  
Several cases do so hold, however.  See, e.g., Village of Egg 
Harbor v. Sarkis, 166 Wis. 2d 5, 14, 479 N.W.2d 536 (Ct. App. 
1991); Preloznik v. City of Madison, 113 Wis. 2d 112, 118, 334 
N.W.2d 580 (Ct. App. 1983).  
14 Peterson, 154 Wis. 2d at 373. 
15 Peterson, 154 Wis. 2d at 373. 
No.  2003AP2245.ssa 
 
7 
 
• It is unreasonable for a municipality to assess one group 
of property owners by a method that is completely 
different from the method used to assess another group of 
property 
owners, 
resulting 
in 
disproportionate 
distribution of costs among various taxpayers.16   
• When the statute does not prescribe a specific method for 
apportioning costs, "'the municipality may adopt any plan 
that is fair and equitable and such that will bring about 
an assessment in proportion to the benefits accruing.'"17   
• An assessment must be in proportion, but not necessarily 
identical, to the benefits accrued by the assessed 
property.  The assessment may exceed the value of the 
benefit as long as the property is benefited and the 
assessment is made on a reasonable basis.18  
• A municipality need not "show that the property is 
benefited to the full extent of the dollar amount 
collected."19 
• The determination of reasonableness must be made on a 
case-by-case basis.20  
                                                 
16 Gelhaus & Brost, 144 Wis. 2d at 52 (citing Schulenberg v. 
City of Reading, 410 P.2d 324, 329 (Kan. 1966)). 
17 Berkvam, 79 Wis. 2d at 287 (quoting Mullins, 436 P.2d at 
844); Gelhaus & Brost, 144 Wis. 2d at 52 (citing Schulenberg, 
410 P.2d at 329).   
18 Gelhaus & Brost, 144 Wis. 2d at 51-53. 
19 Gelhaus & Brost, 144 Wis. 2d at 51. 
20 Peterson, 154 Wis. 2d at 374. 
No.  2003AP2245.ssa 
 
8 
 
¶48 Three court of appeals cases are instructive in making 
the determination of reasonableness-in-effect in the present 
case.  
¶49 In Peterson v. City of New Berlin, 154 Wis. 2d 365, 
453 N.W.2d 177 (Ct. App. 1990), the property owner challenged a 
special assessment to pay for water and sewer improvements.  The 
assessment was based on a uniform method, the front footage of 
the assessed properties.  All of the assessed properties were of 
approximately the same size.  The uniform method of assessment 
did not, however, make the assessment per se reasonable.21    
¶50 In Peterson the "pie shape" of the properties meant 
that approximately half of the properties had substantially more 
front footage than the other properties.  Thus, the properties 
with 
more 
front 
footage 
incurred 
a 
substantially 
disproportionate share of the assessment for sewer and water 
compared to the properties with less front footage. 
¶51 The present case is similar to Peterson.  As in 
Peterson, the assessment in the present case was made in a 
uniform manner, but the effect of the uniform assessment was 
that some property owners paid substantially more than others 
for the same benefit.   
¶52 The court of appeals explained in Peterson that "not 
only must the exercise of police power be reasonable; its result 
must be reasonable as well."22  The court of appeals concluded 
that the assessment was unfair because "property owners in 
                                                 
21 Id. at 373-74. 
22 Peterson, 154 Wis. 2d at 371. 
No.  2003AP2245.ssa 
 
9 
 
comparable positions face[d] a marked disparity in cost for the 
receipt of equal benefits when an alternative, more equitable, 
method of assessment [was] feasible."23    
¶53 The second case is Village of Egg Harbor v. Mariner 
Group, Inc., 156 Wis. 2d 568, 457 N.W.2d 519 (Ct. App. 1990).  
In that case, the Village of Egg Harbor constructed a wastewater 
treatment plant and collection system, and under the police 
power, levied a lump sum assessment (one base unit amounting to 
$3,067) against each property, without regard to the property's 
use of the system.24  The Village elected a lump sum assessment 
considering both the availability of the benefit and a minimum 
level of sewer use.25    
¶54 The properties benefited were very different.  Some 
village properties were part-time summer residences; others were 
year-round 
residences; 
some 
included 
seasonal 
commercial 
businesses; others were year-round commercial businesses; some 
were vacant lots.     
¶55 In 
both 
Egg 
Harbor 
and 
the 
present 
case, 
the 
municipality assessed properties in a uniform, lump sum manner 
based on legal ownership. 
¶56 In Egg Harbor, each of 14 shops in a shopping mall was 
separately owned, and each shop was assessed $3,067.  The owners 
                                                 
23 Id. at 373. 
24 Another assessment was made against properties that were 
projected to use the system in excess of 300 gallons per day.   
25 Village of Egg Harbor v. Mariner Group, Inc., 156 
Wis. 2d 568, 571, 457 N.W.2d 519 (Ct. App. 1990). 
No.  2003AP2245.ssa 
 
10 
 
of the mall properties challenged the lump sum assessment for 
each of the 14 units because the units had a limited number of 
restroom facilities.  Only the two largest units had internal 
restrooms, and the development contained two larger public 
restrooms.  According to the owners, they had a cumulative 2.3 
unit-use equivalent, not a 14 unit-use equivalent.   
¶57 The 
court 
of 
appeals 
upheld 
the 
assessment, 
explaining, in a somewhat conclusory manner, that in this resort 
community reasonableness requires only that the cost be fairly 
apportioned; 
that 
a 
base 
level 
assessment 
under 
the 
circumstances of that case was not an arbitrary or capricious 
burden upon any group of property owners; and that the 
assessment was reasonable because all property owners were 
assessed by the same method and the mall owners were no more 
burdened than any other property owner.26  
¶58 A third case, Lac La Belle Golf Club v. Village of Lac 
La Belle, 187 Wis. 2d 274, 522 N.W.2d 277 (Ct. App. 1994), is 
also helpful.  The assessment apportioned the cost of a new 
sanitary sewer system based on the number of single-family homes 
that could be accommodated on a property.  The method of 
assessment was uniform, and an equal amount was assessed against 
each affected unit.27  The golf club conceded it benefited from 
the sanitary sewer system.   
                                                 
26 Village of Egg Harbor v. Mariner Group, Inc., 156 
Wis. 2d 568, 573, 457 N.W.2d 519 (Ct. App. 1990).  See also CIT 
Group, 163 Wis. 2d at 436-37. 
27 Lac La Belle, 187 Wis. 2d at 285. 
No.  2003AP2245.ssa 
 
11 
 
¶59 The golf club challenged the assessment, asserting 
that it was unreasonable to assess the 14th hole of the golf 
course as ten theoretical single family lots, thus charging ten 
assessments for the 14th hole.28  Specifically, the golf club 
argued that the economic costs of reaping the benefit of the 
sanitary sewer system were so out of proportion to the benefit 
conferred that the result of the assessment was unreasonable.29 
¶60 The 14th hole was not available for division into 
single family home lots without great cost and damage to the 
golf course.  The court of appeals in Lac La Belle therefore 
concluded that the golf course was forced to "bear an inordinate 
share of the assessment in comparison to other properties 
similarly situated" because "the cost of reaping the benefit is 
wholly out of proportion to the benefits accruing."30  Thus the 
uniform assessment based on theoretical single-family home lots 
was unreasonable in its effect on the 14th hole of the golf 
course. 
¶61 The present case is like Lac La Belle in that both 
cases address a uniform method of assessment.  In both cases, 
however, the method of assessment was not reasonable considering 
the nature of the property and the benefit.   
¶62 Lac La Belle stands for the proposition that the 
effect of an assessment accomplished by a reasonable (uniform) 
                                                 
28 Id. at 278-79. 
29 Id. at 280. 
30 Id. at 286. 
No.  2003AP2245.ssa 
 
12 
 
method may be unreasonable as applied because of the nature of 
the particular property.   
¶63 I now apply the teachings of these cases to the 
present case.  The assessment at issue pays only for the cost of 
the equipment and installation of the sewer stub.  The actual 
sewer system and use of that system are financed by the 
connection assessment that is not challenged in the present 
case. 
¶64 The benefit at issue in the present case is therefore 
the benefit of having access to the sewer system.     
¶65 Each condominium owner, like each owner of a tax 
parcel with multiple dwelling units or each owner of a tax 
parcel with a single family home, is charged one assessment.  
This single charge is proportional to the value and the cost of 
access to the sewer system.  The group of condominium owners, 
like the owner of a property with multiple dwelling units or a 
single unit, gets a single access to the sewer system.  Thus, 
the effect of the assessment is to charge each condominium owner 
a sum for access to the system greater than that charged to any 
other individual tax parcel. 
¶66 Applying 
the 
tests 
of 
fairness, 
equity, 
and 
proportionality to the instant case, I conclude that the 18 
condominium property owners receiving one access as a group are 
in a comparable position to each of the other property owners 
who received one access.  Together, the 18 condominium owners, 
like a single owner of a single-family home, receive access to 
one sewer stub.  Each of the 18 condominium property owners 
No.  2003AP2245.ssa 
 
13 
 
faces a marked disparity in cost for the receipt of this equal 
benefit.  In the present case the 18 condominium owners are more 
burdened than other property owners who received the same 
access.    
¶67 Although the benefit need not be equal to the 
assessment, charging each condominium owner 18 times more for 
access than is charged to other property owners is not a 
proportional charge.  Thus, there is a marked disparity in the 
amount charged to the condominium owners as compared to the 
amount charged to the other property owners who received access. 
¶68 I conclude that in the instant case, using the tax 
parcel method is not a reasonable basis upon which to assess the 
condominium owners.  The tax parcel method results in a 
disproportionate distribution of costs that might be avoided by 
using another basis for assessment.  An alternative, more 
equitable method of assessment is available that would not 
produce such a disparity.   
¶69 The majority opinion appears to conclude that the 
simple alternative is to divide the cost by the number of stubs.  
I do not determine the more appropriate method of assessment 
that the Sanitary District should use.  That is a task better 
left to the Sanitary District than performed by a court.    
II 
¶70 The majority opinion remands the cause to the circuit 
court to reinstate its judgment and order requiring the Green 
Lake Sanitary District to modify the existing availability 
charge against the condominium owners to the amount equal to 
No.  2003AP2245.ssa 
 
14 
 
one-eighteenth 
of 
the 
amount 
originally 
charged 
as 
an 
availability assessment.  I disagree with this instruction.  
There is not sufficient evidence in the record from which the 
court can determine the correct assessment.  The briefs make 
clear that the circuit court's solution was not necessarily a 
reasonable assessment. 
¶71 The District's brief points out that any unequal 
treatment may not necessarily be remedied by simply dividing the 
cost by the number of stubs.  The size of tax parcels ranges 
from less than a quarter acre to more than 40 acres; some 
parcels are used seasonally; the valuation of tax parcels ranges 
widely.  
¶72 The amicus brief of the Wisconsin Realtors Association 
argues that a more rational and fair approach for the District 
would have been to impose one charge for each actual buildable 
lot or for each sewer lateral actually installed to connect a 
property to the sewer system.   
¶73 Further, because the assessments were based on the 
total 
cost 
of 
the 
project, 
reducing 
the 
assessments 
on 
condominium owners to one-eighteenth of the original amount may 
not raise sufficient funds.  
¶74 The court should not determine the appropriate method 
of assessment.  That is a task assigned by the legislature to 
the Sanitary District, although a court may reduce an assessment 
No.  2003AP2245.ssa 
 
15 
 
and affirm an assessment as so modified.31  I would remand the 
cause to the circuit court to remand the cause to the Sanitary 
                                                 
31 See Wis. Stat. § 66.0703(12)(d), allowing a circuit court 
to modify an excessive special assessment if there is evidence 
in the record from which the court can determine the correct 
assessment.  Area Bd. of Vocational, Tech. & Adult Educ. v. Town 
of Burke, 151 Wis. 2d 392, 401, 444 N.W.2d 733 (Ct. App. 1989).   
When a special assessment is declared invalid, the statutes 
empower 
a 
municipality to 
start 
over.  
See 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 66.0703(10), providing as follows: 
(10) 
If 
the 
actual 
cost 
of 
any 
project, 
upon 
completion or after the receipt of bids, is found to 
vary materially from the estimates, if any assessment 
is void or invalid, or if the governing body decides 
to reconsider and reopen any assessment, it may, after 
giving notice as provided in sub. (7) (a) and after a 
public hearing, amend, cancel or confirm the prior 
No.  2003AP2245.ssa 
 
16 
 
District, the municipality upon which the legislature imposed 
the duty to levy and collect assessments, for a determination of 
an alternative, more equitable method of assessment that would 
not produce the disparity pointed out in the present case. 
¶75 For the reasons set forth I write separately. 
¶76 I am authorized to state that Justice ANN WALSH 
BRADLEY joins this opinion. 
 
                                                                                                                                                             
assessment. A notice of the resolution amending, 
canceling or confirming the prior assessment shall be 
given by the clerk as provided in sub. (8) (d).  If 
the assessments are amended to provide for the 
refunding of special assessment B bonds under s. 
66.0713 (6), all direct and indirect costs reasonably 
attributable to the refunding of the bonds may be 
included in the cost of the public improvements being 
financed (emphasis added). 
See Town of Burke, 151 Wis. 2d at 401-02. 
No.  2003AP2245.ssa 
 
1