Title: Wis. Property Taxpayers, Inc. v. Town of Buchanan
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2022AP001233
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: June 29, 2023

2023 WI 58 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2022AP1233 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
Wisconsin Property Taxpayers, Inc., 
          Plaintiff-Respondent, 
     v. 
Town of Buchanan, 
          Defendant-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
 
ON BYPASS FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS  
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 29, 2023   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
March 13, 2023   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit    
 
COUNTY: 
Outagamie   
 
JUDGE: 
Mark J. McGinnis   
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, J., delivered the majority opinion for a 
unanimous Court.  REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, J., filed a concurring 
opinion in which ROGGENSACK, J. joined.  
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
For the defendant-appellant, there were briefs (in the 
court of appeals) filed by Richard J. Carlson and Town Counsel 
Law & Litigation, LLC, Kaukauna. There was an oral argument by 
Richard J. Carlson.  
 
For the plaintiff-respondent, there was a brief (in the 
court of appeals) filed by Richard M. Esenberg, Luke N. Berg, 
Lucas T. Vebber and Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, Inc., 
Milwaukee. There was an oral argument by Lucas T. Vebber.  
 
 
 
 
2023 WI 58 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2022AP1233 
(L.C. No. 
2021CV712) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
Wisconsin Property Taxpayers, Inc., 
 
          Plaintiff-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Town of Buchanan, 
 
          Defendant-Appellant. 
FILED 
 
JUN 29, 2023 
 
Samuel A. Christensen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, J., delivered the majority opinion for a 
unanimous Court.  REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, J., filed a concurring 
opinion in which ROGGENSACK, J. joined.  
 
 
APPEAL from a judgment and an order of the Circuit Court 
for Outagamie County, Mark J. McGinnis, Judge.  Affirmed.   
 
¶1 
REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, J.   The Town of Buchanan 
appeals the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor 
of Wisconsin Property Taxpayers, Inc. (WPT).  The circuit court 
declared the Town's Transportation Utility Fee (TUF) to be a 
property tax subject to the Town's levy limit.1  Wisconsin Stat. 
                                                 
1 The Honorable Mark J. McGinnis, Outagamie County Circuit 
Court, presided. 
No. 
2022AP1233   
 
2 
 
§ 66.0827 (2021-22)2 authorizes municipalities to establish 
utility districts to fund highways, sewers, and other "public 
improvement[s] provided in the district."  The funding for a 
utility district must be provided through "taxation of the 
property in the district[.]"  § 66.0827(2).  The levy limit 
statute, Wis. Stat. § 66.0602, limits how much, and under what 
circumstances, a political subdivision may increase its property 
tax levy.   The circuit court reasoned a "taxation of property" 
and a property tax are effectively the same and therefore 
concluded the money raised for the district fund is subject to 
the Town's property tax levy limit.  After the Town appealed, 
the parties filed a joint petition for bypass of the court of 
appeals, which this court granted. 
¶2 
WPT contends the TUF is unlawful on three grounds.  
First, Wisconsin Statutes do not authorize municipalities to 
impose a TUF on property owners based on estimated use of the 
municipality's roads.  Second, the Town did not reduce its 
property tax levy to account for the TUF and accordingly has 
exceeded its levy limit.  Third, the fee structure implemented 
by the TUF violates the Uniformity Clause under Article VIII, 
Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution.  We reach only the 
first two arguments, with which we agree and hold that funds 
raised for utility districts under Wis. Stat. § 66.0827 are 
                                                 
2 All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to 
the 2021-22 version unless otherwise indicated. 
No. 
2022AP1233   
 
3 
 
property taxes subject to municipal levy limits.  Accordingly, 
we affirm the decision of the circuit court. 
I.  BACKGROUND 
 
¶3 
The rising costs of maintaining public roads within 
the Town have become a long-term concern for the Town's board.  
The board anticipated needing to reconstruct as much as 44% of 
the Town's roads over the next ten years.  Consequently, the 
board decided it needed to raise money beyond its current levy 
limit.  The board submitted a referendum to Town residents, 
giving them a choice of raising the property tax levy, imposing 
a special assessment on all property, or imposing a TUF.  After 
voters chose a TUF, the board adopted Town ordinance § 482 in 
December 2019 to fund future road construction projects through 
a transportation utility fee.  In relevant part, the ordinance 
states: 
A. The Town of Buchanan is hereby establishing a 
Transportation Utility District.  The operation of 
the Transportation Utility District shall be under 
the day-to-day management of the Town Administrator 
and under the supervision of the Town Board.  
He/she, or a designated representative, shall 
provide an annual estimate to the Town Chairperson 
by October 1 of each year. 
B. The Town, acting through the Transportation Utility 
District, 
may, 
without 
limitation 
due 
to 
enumeration, 
acquire, 
construct, 
lease, 
own, 
operate, maintain, extend, expand, replace, repair, 
manage and finance such transportation facilities 
and related facilities, operations and activities, 
as are deemed by the Town to be proper and 
reasonably necessary to provide safe and efficient 
transportation facilities within the Town.  The 
following 
activities 
to 
be 
funded 
by 
the 
transportation utility fee are the cost of utility 
No. 
2022AP1233   
 
4 
 
district 
highways, 
stormwater 
management, 
sidewalks, street lighting, traffic control and the 
cost of any other convenience or public improvement 
provided in the District and not paid in full by 
special assessment. 
Town of Buchanan Ordinances § 482-3 (2021).  To raise funds for 
the utility district, the Town implemented the TUF: 
A. Every 
developed 
property 
within 
the 
Town 
of 
Buchanan shall pay a transportation utility fee. 
B. The Town Board shall by resolution determine the 
annual amount to be funded by a transportation 
utility fee, formulas for the calculation of the 
fee and specific use category classifications.  
Changes in formulas and classifications may be made 
by further resolution of the Town Board.  All fees 
established pursuant to this section shall be fair 
and reasonable.  A schedule of current fees shall 
be maintained and on file in the office of the Town 
Clerk. 
§ 482-4. 
 
¶4 
After enacting the ordinance, the Town administrator 
set the TUF target funding amount at $875,000 annually.  The 
board then announced a formula and fee based on estimated use of 
the 
Town's 
roads 
by 
each 
developed 
property 
within 
the 
municipality.  Under the Town's funding scheme, all residential 
properties must pay the same fee, while commercial properties 
must pay a variable fee based on the size and type of business 
and the number of estimated "trips" on municipal roads the 
business is expected to generate.  These fees range from roughly 
$300 for residential properties to more than $8,000 annually for 
some commercial properties.  In total, the TUF collected more 
than $855,000 in 2020. 
No. 
2022AP1233   
 
5 
 
 
¶5 
Before adopting ordinance § 482, the Town paid for 
road construction on a "pay as you go" basis from its general 
property tax levy.  The Town's total property tax levy for 2020 
was $2,374,348.  In 2021, after enacting the ordinance, the 
Town's property tax levy was $2,490,680, reflecting the maximum 
increase allowed under Wis. Stat. § 66.0602.  That year, the 
Town Board again set the "annual amount to be funded" by the TUF 
at approximately $855,000.  The Town handled funds collected 
under the TUF separately and in addition to the general tax levy 
in 2021, resulting in a net increase in municipal tax revenue of 
approximately 34% beyond the levy limit. 
 
¶6 
In September 2021, WPT brought this action against the 
Town, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.  The parties 
stipulated to the facts, and both parties moved for summary 
judgment.  WPT alleged the TUF is a property tax subject to 
municipal levy limits under Wis. Stat. § 66.0602; therefore, any 
revenue raised through the TUF must be offset by a reduction in 
the Town's general property tax levy.  WPT also sought a 
declaration that the adopted method of taxation, based on 
estimated use of municipal roads, violates the Uniformity Clause 
of the Wisconsin Constitution because the Town ordinance does 
not allocate the TUF based on property value.  In response, the 
Town argued Wis. Stat. § 66.0827 authorizes a special tax not 
subject to levy limits or the requirement of uniformity.   
 
¶7 
The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of 
WPT, declaring the TUF to be a property tax subject to the 
Town's levy limit.  It also permanently enjoined the Town from 
No. 
2022AP1233   
 
6 
 
levying, enforcing, or collecting the TUF in any amount above 
its levy limit.  This appeal followed. 
II.  STANDARD OF REVIEW 
 
¶8 
In this case, we "independently review a grant of 
summary judgment using the same methodology of the circuit 
court[.]"  Kemper Indep. Ins. Co. v. Islami, 2021 WI 53, ¶13, 
397 Wis. 2d 394, 959 N.W.2d 912 (quoting Talley v. Mustafa, 2018 
WI 47, ¶12, 381 Wis. 2d 393, 911 N.W.2d 55).  "Summary judgment 
is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute of material fact 
and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of 
law."  Id. (quoting Talley, 381 Wis. 2d 393, ¶12). 
 
¶9 
This case also requires us to interpret and apply 
several Wisconsin statutes.  "The interpretation and application 
of 
statutes 
present 
questions 
of 
law 
that 
we 
review 
independently, benefitting from the analyses of the circuit 
court[.]"  Eau Claire Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs. v. S.E., 2021 
WI 56, ¶13, 397 Wis. 2d 462, 960 N.W.2d 391 (citing State v. 
Stephenson, 2020 WI 92, ¶18, 394 Wis. 2d 703, 951 N.W.2d 819). 
III.  DISCUSSION 
 
¶10 Despite being labeled a "fee," the parties do not 
dispute the TUF is in fact a tax on Town residents.  "The 
purpose, and not the name it is given, determines whether a 
government charge constitutes a tax."  Bentivenga v. City of 
Delavan, 2014 WI App 118, ¶6, 358 Wis. 2d 610, 856 N.W.2d 546 
(citing City of Milwaukee v. Milwaukee & Suburban Transp. Corp., 
6 Wis. 2d 299, 305–06, 94 N.W.2d 584 (1959)).  A "fee" imposed 
for the purpose of generating revenue for the municipality is a 
No. 
2022AP1233   
 
7 
 
tax, and without legislative permission it is unlawful.  Id., 
¶11 (citing Milwaukee & Suburban Transp. Corp., 6 Wis. 2d at 
306).  The parties are correct; the TUF is a tax because the 
Town imposed it on a class of residents for the purpose of 
generating revenue.  The parties do, however, dispute its 
lawfulness.  Specifically, the parties disagree on (1) whether 
Wis. Stat. § 66.0827, which governs the formation and funding of 
utility districts, authorizes the Town's taxation scheme and (2) 
whether the taxation of property to fund a utility district is 
nonetheless subject to property tax levy limits under Wis. Stat. 
§ 66.0602.  WPT argues the "taxation of the property in the 
district" under § 66.0827 is a property tax subject to other 
requirements of the Wisconsin Statutes.  In contrast, the Town 
contends the utility district statute authorizes a form of 
special tax, bound only by the procedural requirements of that 
section.  For the reasons that follow, we agree with WPT. 
A.  Authorization of Taxation 
 
¶11 As Chief Justice John Marshall famously wrote, "the 
power to tax involves the power to destroy[.]"  McCulloch v. 
Maryland, 
17 
U.S. 
316, 
431 
(1819). 
 
Cognizant 
of 
the 
consequential power the State wields when it imposes taxes on 
the 
people, 
"Wisconsin 
recognizes 
the 
general 
rule 
of 
construction that a tax cannot be imposed without clear and 
express language for that purpose, and where ambiguity and doubt 
exist, it must be resolved in favor of the person upon whom it 
is sought to impose the tax."  City of Plymouth v. Elsner, 28 
Wis. 2d 102, 106, 135 N.W.2d 799 (1965) (citing Wadhams Oil Co. 
No. 
2022AP1233   
 
8 
 
v. State, 210 Wis. 448, 459, 245 N.W. 646 (1933)).  Like cities, 
towns "have no inherent power to tax.  [Towns] may only enact 
the types of taxes authorized by the legislature."  Blue Top 
Motel, Inc. v. City of Stevens Point, 107 Wis. 2d 392, 395, 320 
N.W.2d 172 
(1982) 
(citing 
Jordan 
v. 
Menomonee 
Falls, 
28 
Wis. 2d 608, 621, 137 N.W.2d 442 (1965)).    
¶12 We 
first 
examine 
whether 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 
66.0827 
authorizes the Town's implementation of the TUF with "clear and 
express language for that purpose."  Elsner, 28 Wis. 2d at 106.  
Our interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 66.0827 "'begins with the 
language of the statute.'  If the meaning of the language is 
plain, our inquiry ordinarily ends."  Milwaukee Dist. Council 48 
v. Milwaukee County, 2019 WI 24, ¶11, 385 Wis. 2d 748, 924 
N.W.2d 153 (quoting State ex rel. Kalal v. Cir. Ct. for Dane 
Cnty., 2004 WI 58, ¶45, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110) 
(citation omitted).  Consideration of a "statute's context and 
structure are critical to a proper plain-meaning analysis."  
Brey v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 2022 WI 7, ¶11, 400 
Wis. 2d 417, 970 N.W.2d 1 (citing Milwaukee Dist. Council 48, 
385 Wis. 2d 748, ¶11).   
¶13 Wisconsin Stat. § 66.0827 provides, in relevant part: 
(1) 
Towns . . . may establish utility districts. 
(b) 
In towns, the town board may direct that the 
cost of any convenience or public improvement 
provided in the district and not paid for by 
special assessment be paid from the district 
fund under sub. (2). 
No. 
2022AP1233   
 
9 
 
(2) 
The fund of each utility district shall be provided 
by taxation of the property in the district, upon 
an annual estimate by the . . . town chairperson[.] 
(Emphasis added).  In enacting the TUF, the Town implemented a 
taxation scheme based on property owners' estimated usage of 
roads within the municipality.  Town ordinance § 482-4(B) states 
the Town board "shall by resolution determine . . . formulas for 
the 
calculation 
of 
the 
fee 
and 
specific 
use 
category 
classifications."  Acting under this ordinance, the board 
developed a formula for funding the utility district derived 
from a statistical analysis of road usage by various property 
types within the municipality, divided into various "use 
category classifications."  The Town uses that formula to 
allocate 
taxes 
across 
all 
developed 
property 
in 
the 
municipality. 
 
¶14 Wisconsin 
Stat. 
§ 
66.0827, 
however, 
authorizes 
"taxation of the property in the district," not taxation based 
on estimated usage of roads in the district.  Applying the clear 
and express language of the statute, a "taxation of the 
property" is merely another way of saying a "property tax."  A 
"taxation of the property" and a "property tax" are materially 
the same.  As explained more fully below, property taxation may 
not exceed municipal levy limits, with exceptions that do not 
apply in this case.  See supra Section III.B.  Accordingly, 
§ 66.0827 provides a mechanism for allocating taxation within a 
utility district, but does not authorize taxation above and 
beyond a municipality's levy limit.   
No. 
2022AP1233   
 
10 
 
¶15 The Town contends "taxation of the property" under 
Wis. Stat. § 66.0827 is a "special tax" but not a general 
property tax.  In its statutory analysis, the Town primarily 
argues § 66.0827 would lack any purpose if district funding were 
subject to the levy limit because a municipality would not 
undertake the effort to establish a utility district if it were 
not a separate source for funding public improvements.  In the 
Town's view, the legislature "intended" the utility district as 
an 
alternative 
to 
general 
property 
taxes 
and 
special 
assessments.  For several reasons, we are unpersuaded by the 
Town's reading of the statute. 
 
 
¶16 First, "the legislature knows how to write a statute 
accomplishing the work [the Town] would have Wis. Stat. 
[§ 66.0827] perform."  Teigen v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n, 
2022 WI 64, ¶49, 403 Wis. 2d 607, 976 N.W.2d 519 (lead op.) 
(citing State v. Yakich, 2022 WI 8, ¶24, 400 Wis. 2d 549, 970 
N.W.2d 12).  Wisconsin Stat. § 74.01(5) defines "special tax" to 
mean "any amount entered in the tax roll which is not a general 
property tax, special assessment or special charge."  The 
legislature could have specifically authorized municipalities to 
fund utility districts through a "special tax" as defined in 
§ 74.01(5), but it did not.  Instead, utility districts must be 
funded via "taxation of the property" and as a property tax, 
such taxation must comport with the statutes governing property 
taxes, including the levy limit mandated under Wis. Stat. 
§ 66.0602.  The Town offers no authority to support its 
characterization of the TUF as a "special tax" under Chapter 74 
No. 
2022AP1233   
 
11 
 
that would be exempt from a municipal levy limit, rather than a 
general property tax.   
 
¶17 Second, the Town effectively asks this court to 
conclude 
the 
legislature 
"hid[] 
[an] 
elephant 
in 
[a] 
mousehole[.]"  Id., ¶63 (majority op.) (quoting Whitman v. 
American 
Trucking 
Ass'n, 
531 
U.S. 457, 
468 
(2001)) 
(modifications in the original).  The negligible difference in 
language——"taxation of the property" as opposed to "property 
tax"——cannot bear the weight of the work the Town would assign 
it.  More plausibly, "taxation of the property in the district" 
carries no meaningful difference from "property taxes" beyond 
differentiating between property taxes imposed within a discrete 
taxation district and the "general property tax" imposed on all 
non-exempt property owners in the municipality as a whole.  
Because the public improvement funded by a utility district may 
benefit only select properties within the municipality, the 
legislature limited apportionment of such property taxes to the 
"property in the district" alone.  Carving out particular 
properties within the municipality for imposition of a TUF does 
not change its nature as a property tax. 
 
¶18 Because a TUF is a property tax, its funding through 
the establishment of a utility district must follow the 
procedures outlined in Chapter 70 of the Wisconsin Statutes.  
"The assessment of general property for taxation in all the 
towns, cities and villages of this state shall be made according 
to this chapter unless otherwise specifically provided."  Wis. 
Stat. § 70.05(1) (emphasis added).  Chapter 70 outlines a 
No. 
2022AP1233   
 
12 
 
procedure for calculating an ad valorem property tax, meaning 
one based on the market value of the property.  In calculating 
estimated use of roads, the Town bases the TUF on the class of 
the property and its commercial characteristics, not the value 
of the property.  Because Wis. Stat. § 66.0827 does not 
authorize "taxation of property" to be based on anything other 
than property value, the TUF's assessment methodology is 
unlawful. 
 
¶19 Chapter 70 also exempts certain properties from 
property taxation altogether.  Wis. Stat. § 70.01 ("Taxes shall 
be levied, under this chapter, upon all general property in this 
state except property that is exempt from taxation.") (emphasis 
added).  The Town imposes the TUF upon all developed properties 
in the district, regardless of their tax-exempt status.  The law 
does not give the Town any authority to impose a property tax on 
tax-exempt properties within the municipality. 
 
¶20 The Town reads Wis. Stat. § 66.0827 as a standalone 
statutory taxation scheme not subject to Chapter 70 or any other 
provision 
of 
the 
Wisconsin 
Statutes. 
 
Under 
the 
Town's 
reasoning, the only procedure binding the Town appears in 
subsection (2), which requires "an annual estimate by . . . the 
town chairperson."  Once the estimate is made, the Town argues 
it should be permitted to impose the tax by any reasonable 
means.  In the absence of an express directive by the 
legislature exempting utility districts from Chapter 70, which 
applies to all property taxes imposed in the state, we have no 
authority to read one into the statute.  "[W]hat a text chooses 
No. 
2022AP1233   
 
13 
 
not to do" is as significant "as its affirmative dispositions."  
Antonin 
Scalia 
& 
Bryan 
A. 
Garner, 
Reading 
Law: 
 
The 
Interpretations of Legal Texts 57 (2012).  For this reason, 
"[w]e do not read words into a statute . . . rather, we 
interpret the words the legislature actually enacted into law."  
State v. Hinkle, 2019 WI 96, ¶24, 389 Wis. 2d 1, 935 N.W.2d 271 
(quoting State v. Fitzgerald, 2019 WI 69, ¶30, 387 Wis. 2d 384, 
929 N.W.2d 165).   
¶21 Nothing in Wis. Stat. §66.0827 conflicts with Chapter 
70.  A statutory process to determine a budgetary estimate 
differs from a statutory process to levy a tax.  Subsection (2) 
merely specifies how the Town may set the desired taxation 
amount, pending approval by the Town's board.  Nothing in the 
text authorizes the imposition of that amount free from the 
restrictions imposed under other statutes broadly applicable to 
property taxation.  The imposition of property taxes to fund a 
public improvement under § 66.0827 must follow the procedures 
that apply to all property taxes in this state.  Because the 
Town failed to follow those procedures, the TUF is unlawful. 
B.  Levy Limits 
 
¶22 The law limits the amount by which municipalities may 
increase property taxes.  "[Wisconsin Stat. §] 66.0602, among 
other provisions, includes a limit on the amount a governmental 
subdivision may increase its property tax levy in a given year."  
Brown County v. Brown Cnty. Taxpayers Ass'n., 2022 WI 13, ¶23, 
400 Wis. 2d 781, 971 N.W.2d 491.  The statute provides: 
No. 
2022AP1233   
 
14 
 
(2) Levy Limit. 
(a) 
Except 
as 
provided . . . no 
political 
subdivision may increase its levy in any year 
by a percentage that exceeds the political 
subdivision's valuation factor. . . .  [T]he 
base amount in any year, to which the limit 
under this section applies, shall be the 
actual levy for the immediately preceding 
year. 
§ 66.0602(2).  The statute lists tax increases to which the levy 
limit does not apply, including assuming responsibility for 
municipal services, servicing municipal debt, bridge and culvert 
repair, and payments to public libraries.  § 66.0602(3).  In 
addition, if a municipality wants to exceed its levy limit under 
subsection (2), the statute allows it to do so only with the 
approval of the electorate: 
(4) Referendum exception. 
(a) 
A political subdivision may exceed the levy 
increase limit under sub. (2) if its governing 
body adopts a resolution to that effect and if 
the 
resolution 
is 
approved 
in 
a 
referendum. . . .  
The 
resolution 
shall 
specify the proposed amount of increase in the 
levy, the purpose for which the increase will 
be used, and whether the proposed amount of 
increase is for the next fiscal year only or 
if it will apply on an ongoing basis. 
§ 66.0602(4).  
 
¶23 The statute expressly limits year-over-year increases 
in municipal property tax levies to the amount of the valuation 
factor, 
the 
"percentage 
change 
in 
the 
political 
subdivision's . . . value 
due 
to 
new 
construction[,]" 
effectively freezing property taxes on existing property within 
the municipality.  Wis. Stat. § 66.0602(1)(d).  Although the 
No. 
2022AP1233   
 
15 
 
legislature affords town boards a measure of flexibility by 
exempting certain types of spending from the levy limits, the 
legislature allows town boards to raise their levy limits only 
with the voters' consent through referendum. 
 
¶24 An exception for spending on public improvements or 
utility districts is not listed in Wis. Stat. § 66.0602(3).  Nor 
does Wis. Stat. § 66.0827 exempt funds raised to support a 
utility district from municipal levy limits.  We may not add 
exceptions to the levy limit statute.  See Wisconsin Legislature 
v. Palm, 2020 WI 42, ¶30, 391 Wis. 2d 497, 942 N.W.2d 900 
("[D]espite 
the 
detailed 
nature 
of 
the 
list, 
and 
the 
Legislature's consideration of acts of DHS and its consideration 
of 'orders,' no act or order of DHS pursuant to Wis. Stat. 
§ 252.02 is exempted from the definition of 'Rule.'").  It is 
the legislature's prerogative to choose which types of spending 
are exempt from levy limits——and which are not.  In the absence 
of an applicable exception, the Town may not increase its 
property tax levy beyond the limit allowed by law. 
 
¶25 The Town did put a referendum before its residents, 
but the voters rejected an increase in the levy limit under Wis. 
Stat. § 66.0602(4).  The option Town residents chose——imposing 
the TUF——was offered as an alternative to raising the levy 
limit.  The Town does not argue the voters consented to an 
increase in the levy limit. 
 
¶26 The Town argues the taxation funding the utility 
district supports a separate "governmental unit" to which it has 
transferred responsibility to provide a public improvement; 
No. 
2022AP1233   
 
16 
 
therefore, the taxation of the district should not be considered 
part of the Town's property tax levy.  The Town points to Wis. 
Stat. § 66.0602(3)(a) as evidence the legislature contemplated 
transferring responsibility to other governmental units, with 
only a transfer of "services" requiring a reduction in the levy 
limit.  Because the utility district has assumed responsibility 
for a public improvement, and not a "service" as that term is 
used, the Town claims it may transfer responsibility for road 
reconstruction without reducing its levy limit. 
 
¶27 This strained interpretation of the levy limit statute 
disregards the fact that levy limits apply to "political 
subdivisions," which means a "city, village, town, or county."  
Wis. Stat. § 66.0602(1)(c).  Similarly, property taxes are 
imposed by "taxation districts," which means a "town, village or 
city in which general property taxes are levied and collected."  
Wis. Stat. § 70.045.  A utility district is not a taxation 
district under the statutory definition, which means it may not 
impose property taxes at all; only the municipality may do so.  
Although a town may establish a utility district, the town 
itself levies the taxes to fund the district; the town later 
allocates the funds raised to the utility district.  See Wis. 
Stat. § 66.0827(1)(b) ("In towns, the town board may direct that 
the cost of any convenience or public improvement provided in 
the district and not paid for by special assessment be paid from 
the district fund under sub. (2).").  Because the municipality 
levies the taxes, state law subjects them to the municipality's 
levy limit. 
No. 
2022AP1233   
 
17 
 
 
¶28 The Town also argues that if funds raised for a 
utility district count against the municipality's levy limit, 
the utility district statute fails to serve any purpose.  Under 
the Town's interpretation, a municipality would undertake the 
administrative effort to establish a utility district apart from 
the municipality only if district taxation is similarly separate 
from municipal taxation.  Otherwise, the Town argues, any public 
improvement the utility district could fund may also be funded 
by the municipality's general property tax levy directly. 
 
¶29 The Town's argument fails to consider a utility 
district comprising only a portion of a municipality.  In this 
case, the Town established the utility district to cover the 
entire municipality, but a utility district could encompass some 
subset of the municipality, with an increased property tax 
imposed only on property within the district.  The statutory 
text supports this interpretation by referencing "taxation of 
the property in the district."  Wis. Stat. § 66.0827(2) 
(emphasis added).  If the municipality provides a public 
improvement to only a portion of the properties in the 
municipality, the utility district statute allows the town board 
to 
apportion 
taxes 
among 
those 
properties 
to 
fund 
the 
improvement rather than requiring the entire municipality to 
share the cost.  Localized apportionment changes the scope of 
the taxation but does not transform the taxation into something 
other than a property tax, nor does it exempt the taxation from 
municipal levy limits. 
No. 
2022AP1233   
 
18 
 
 
¶30 Taxation 
through 
utility 
districts 
parallels 
the 
statewide taxation schemes for stadium districts.  Wisconsin 
Stat. § 77.705 establishes a "baseball park district" spanning 
several counties in the Milwaukee area, and Wis. Stat. § 77.706 
establishes a "football stadium district" spanning several 
counties near Green Bay.  Under both statutes, the legislature 
enacted 
special 
taxation 
of 
activity 
within 
the 
local 
communities benefitting substantially from stadium projects, 
rather than spreading the cost of those projects across the 
entire state.  In a similar fashion, municipalities may 
apportion particular costs among properties within established 
utility districts in which the municipality provides the public 
improvement, rather than imposing costs on all properties within 
the municipality. 
 
¶31 Contrary to the Town's argument, applying the levy 
limits to utility districts does not render the utility district 
statute surplusage.  The procedures established under Wis. Stat. 
§ 66.0827 create a mechanism for funding public improvements 
through taxation of property in the district rather than 
taxation of all property in the municipality as a whole, and 
nothing in the statute authorizes property taxation over and 
above the levy limit.  We hold the taxation of property funding 
a utility district under Wis. Stat. § 66.0827 is subject to 
municipal levy limits.  Because the Town's referendum did not 
ask the voters to authorize an increase of the levy limit to 
fund the utility district, the Town unlawfully exceeded its levy 
limit. 
 
No. 
2022AP1233   
 
19 
 
IV.  CONCLUSION 
 
¶32 Wisconsin 
law 
prescribes 
certain 
procedures 
a 
municipality must follow for funding public improvements.  In 
this case, the Town did not follow them.  The imposition of 
property taxes over and above the Town's levy limits requires 
the consent of the voters within the municipality.  Nothing in 
the statutes permits the Town to bypass levy limits for the 
purpose 
of 
imposing 
a 
TUF 
on 
property 
owners 
in 
the 
municipality.   
 
By the Court.——The judgment and order of the Circuit Court 
are affirmed. 
 
 
 
No.  2022AP1233.rgb 
 
1 
 
¶33 REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, J.   (concurring).  The court 
resolves this dispute solely on statutory grounds but Wisconsin 
Property Taxpayers, Inc. (WPT) also argues the Transportation 
Utility Fee (TUF) violates the Uniformity Clause of the 
Wisconsin Constitution, which guarantees "[t]he rule of taxation 
shall be uniform[.]"  Wis. Const. art. VIII, § 1.  "This court 
does not normally decide constitutional questions if the case 
can be resolved on other grounds;" however, such "constitutional 
avoidance" is prudential, not jurisdictional.  Gabler v. Crime 
Victims Rts. Bd., 2017 WI 67, ¶¶51–52, 376 Wis. 2d 147, 897 
N.W.2d 384 (quoting Adams Outdoor Advert., Ltd. v. City of 
Madison, 2006 WI 104, ¶91, 294 Wis. 2d 441, 717 N.W.2d 803; 
Kollasch v. Adamany, 104 Wis. 2d 552, 561, 313 N.W.2d 47 
(1981)).  Sometimes the public's interest in a definitive answer 
to an important constitutional question compels the court to 
"recognize[] that the principle of constitutional avoidance 
gives way[.]"  See id., ¶52 (citing Buckingham v. State ex rel. 
Killoran, 35 A.2d 903, 904–05 (1944); State ex rel. Bland v. St. 
John, 13 So. 2d 161, 170 (1943)).  For this reason, "the 
greatest 
of 
our 
judges 
have 
not 
always 
followed 
[the 
constitutional avoidance doctrine] as a rigid rule.  Perhaps had 
they done so the great opinion of Chief Justice [John] Marshall 
in Marbury v. Madison would never have been written."  Id. 
(quoting Clay v. Sun Ins. Off. Ltd., 363 U.S. 207, 223 (1960) 
(Black, J., dissenting)). 
¶34 On the one hand, the public benefits from a definitive 
interpretation of a constitutional provision, provided the 
No.  2022AP1233.rgb 
 
2 
 
analysis is rooted in the original meaning of the text, as 
informed by history.  See New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, 
Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. __, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2127 (2022).  
Indeed, to a significant degree, the people of Wisconsin adopted 
a two-tiered system of appellate review to enable this court to 
focus on addressing important questions of law.  Citizens Study 
Comm. on Jud. Org., Report to Governor Patrick J. Lucey 78 
(1973).  Undoubtedly, this court has been "designated by the 
constitution . . . as a law declaring court."  See Cook v. Cook, 
208 Wis. 2d 166, 189, 560 N.W.2d 246 (1997) (quoting State ex 
rel. La Crosse Trib. v. Cir. Ct. for La Crosse Cnty., 115 
Wis. 2d 220, 
229–30, 
340 
N.W.2d 460 
(1983)). 
 
A 
rigid 
constitutional avoidance doctrine would effectively override the 
people's sovereign will and leave their liberties subject to 
arbitrary and capricious government action. 
¶35 On the other hand, an incorrect interpretation of 
constitutional text is not easily undone.  See Brown v. Allen, 
344 U.S. 443, 540 (1953) (Jackson, J., concurring in the result) 
("We are not final because we are infallible, but we are 
infallible only because we are final.").  For this reason, a 
narrow decision is often preferred.   
   
¶36 On balance, the court should have exercised its 
discretion in this case to address WPT's uniformity claim.  The 
public's interest in a definitive answer to this constitutional 
question, coupled with the interest of municipal governments in 
understanding the parameters governing the creation of utility 
districts, 
outweigh 
the 
justifications 
for 
constitutional 
No.  2022AP1233.rgb 
 
3 
 
avoidance.  Whether TUFs survive constitutional scrutiny is of 
great public importance, and it is likely to arise again as 
municipalities throughout the state consider implementing them.  
Addressing the merits in this case to resolve uncertainty going 
forward would have been the best course.  See Gabler, 376 
Wis. 2d 147, ¶¶52–53 (choosing to address a constitutional 
question because the question was of "great public importance"); 
James v. Heinrich, 2021 WI 58, n.18, 397 Wis. 2d 350, 960 
N.W.2d 350 (lead op.) (same).  Under well-established precedent, 
the TUF violates the Uniformity Clause. 
 
¶37 At its root, the clause serves "to protect the citizen 
against unequal, and consequently unjust taxation."  Gottlieb v. 
City of Milwaukee, 33 Wis. 2d 408, 426, 147 N.W.2d 633 (1967) 
(quoting Weeks v. City of Milwaukee, 10 Wis. 186, 201 (1860)).  
The seminal case on the Uniformity Clause, Gottlieb, identified 
several principles of uniformity: 
 
1. For direct taxation of property, under the 
uniformity rule there can be but one constitutional 
class.  2. All within that class must be taxed on a 
basis of equality so far as practicable and all 
property taxed must bear its burden equally on an ad 
valorem basis.  3. All property not included in that 
class 
must 
be 
absolutely 
exempt 
from 
property 
taxation.  4. Privilege taxes are not direct taxes on 
property and are not subject to the uniformity rule.  
5. While there can be no classification of property 
for different rules or rates of property taxation, the 
legislature can classify as between property that is 
to be taxed and that which is to be wholly exempt, and 
the test of such classification is reasonableness.  
6. There can be variations in the mechanics of 
property assessment or tax imposition so long as the 
resulting taxation shall be borne with as nearly as 
practicable equality on an ad valorem basis with other 
taxable property. 
No.  2022AP1233.rgb 
 
4 
 
Id. at 423–24. 
 
¶38 As indicated in 
Gottlieb, the Uniformity Clause 
applies to property taxes——recurring direct taxes on real 
estate——as opposed to transactional taxes such as those imposed 
on income or sales.  Columbia County v. Wis. Ret. Fund, 17 
Wis. 2d 310, 325, 116 N.W.2d 142 (1962); Telemark Dev., Inc. v. 
Dep't of Revenue, 218 Wis. 2d 809, 825–26, 581 N.W.2d 585 (Ct. 
App. 1998) (citing State ex rel. Atwood v. Johnson, 170 
Wis. 218, 242, 175 N.W. 589 (1919)).  "[W]hen property is the 
object of taxation, it should all alike, in proportion to its 
value, contribute towards paying the expense of such benefits 
and protection.  These are plain and obvious propositions of 
equity and justice, sustained as we believe by the very letter 
and spirit of the constitution."  Gottlieb, 33 Wis. 2d at 419 
(quoting Knowlton v. Bd. of Supervisors of Rock Cnty., 9 
Wis. 378 (*410), 388 (*420) (1859)).  "Generally, this requires 
that real property is taxed according to its fair market value."  
Applegate-Bader Farm, LLC v. Wis. Dep't of Revenue, 2021 WI 26, 
¶5, 396 Wis. 2d 69, 955 N.W.2d 793; Wis. Stat. § 70.32(1). 
 
¶39 A core principle of uniformity requires all properties 
subject to taxation to be taxed the same, in proportion to their 
value.  "Where a property tax is levied, there can be no 
classification which interferes with substantial uniformity of 
rate based on value."  Elsner, 28 Wis. 2d at 107.  "For the 
direct method of taxing property, taxation on property so-
called, as to the rule of uniformity, there can be but one 
constitutional class.  All not included therein must be 
No.  2022AP1233.rgb 
 
5 
 
absolutely exempt from such taxation.  All within such class 
must be taxed based on a basis of equality so far as 
practicable."  Id. at 108 (quoting Chi. & N.W. Ry. v. State, 128 
Wis. 553, 603–04, 108 N.W. 557 (1906)); see also Gottlieb, 33 
Wis. 2d at 418–19; U.S. Oil Co. v. City of Milwaukee, 2011 WI 
App 4, ¶23, 331 Wis. 2d 407, 794 N.W.2d 904 (citing State ex 
rel. Hensel v. Town of Wilson, 55 Wis. 2d 101, 106, 197 
N.W.2d 794 (1972)) ("[T]he method or mode of taxing real 
property must be applied uniformly to all classes of property 
within the tax district.").   
 
¶40 The rule of uniformity has been held inapplicable to 
special assessments, which are based on a determination of 
specific tangible benefits conveyed to the property subject to 
the assessment.  Elsner, 28 Wis. 2d at 108.  The assessment must 
be "fair, equitable, and in proportion to the benefits accruing 
to the property."  CED Props., LLC v. City of Oshkosh, 2018 WI 
24, ¶21, 380 Wis. 2d 399, 909 N.W.2d 136.  The benefit attached 
to special assessments may be narrow or broad in scope and, in 
some circumstances, may be applied to all property in the 
municipality.  Duncan Dev. Corp v. Crestview Sanitary Dist., 22 
Wis. 2d 258, 
264–65, 
125 
N.W.2d 617 
(1964) 
(concluding 
a 
sanitary district that benefits the entire town may be financed 
by special assessment because the degree of benefit varies 
between different properties). 
 
¶41 Applying these longstanding rules to the ordinance 
before us, the TUF does not survive constitutional scrutiny.  As 
previously discussed, municipalities fund utility districts 
No.  2022AP1233.rgb 
 
6 
 
through taxation of property.  As a property tax, this taxation 
is subject to the rule of uniformity, and the funding must be 
raised through ad valorem taxes on property in the district.  
Within the district, there can be but one class of taxable 
property, and all property within the class must be taxed at the 
same rate. 
 
¶42 As implemented, the TUF fails on several fronts.  
First, by applying a fixed fee to all residential property in 
the district, despite their varying fair market values, the TUF 
imposes an impermissible variable rate of taxation on different 
homes. 
 
Second, 
by 
applying 
a 
different 
methodology 
to 
commercial properties based on estimated road use rather than 
the value of those properties, the TUF creates multiple classes 
of property. 
 
¶43 The Town argues the TUF should be exempt from the rule 
of uniformity because the calculation of tax takes into account 
the benefit each property receives from access to the Town's 
roads.  In the Town's view, the TUF is sufficiently similar to a 
special 
assessment, 
allowing 
taxation 
of 
properties 
corresponding to the degree of benefit conveyed by the road 
construction.  This reasoning cannot be reconciled with the law. 
 
¶44 As a preliminary matter, the utility district statute 
draws 
a 
distinction 
between 
property 
taxes 
and 
special 
assessments.  Wisconsin Stat. § 66.0827(1)(b) permits public 
improvements "not paid for by special assessment" to be "paid 
from the district fund under sub. (2)."  Under § 66.0827(2), 
"[t]he fund of each utility district shall be provided by 
No.  2022AP1233.rgb 
 
7 
 
taxation of the property in the district[.]"  The Town 
identifies nothing in the law that would exempt this sort of 
"taxation of the property" from the uniformity requirement 
provided 
it 
comes 
close 
enough 
to 
resembling 
a 
special 
assessment.  
 
¶45 Even 
if 
the 
TUF 
were 
comparable 
to 
a 
special 
assessment, it does not satisfy the legal characteristics of 
one.  "Public improvements usually fall into one of two 
categories:  general or local.  A general improvement is one 
that confers a general benefit, that is, a 'substantially equal 
benefit 
and 
advantage' 
to 
the 
property 
of 
the 
whole 
community[.]"  Genrich v. City of Rice Lake, 2003 WI App 255, 
¶8, 
268 
Wis. 2d 233, 
673 
N.W.2d 361 
(citing 
Duncan, 
22 
Wis. 2d at 264).  "In contrast, a local improvement, although 
incidentally beneficial to the public at large, is primarily 
made for the accommodation and convenience of inhabitants in a 
particular locality and confers 'special benefits' to their 
properties."  Id. 
 
¶46 A special benefit must have "the effect of furnishing 
an uncommon advantage to a property differing in kind, rather 
than in degree, from the benefits enjoyed by the general 
public." CED Props., 380 Wis. 2d 399, ¶37.  To claim specific 
benefits are conveyed to a property by a public improvement, the 
details and scope of the public improvement must be known, and 
the 
specific 
benefits 
conveyed 
to 
particular 
properties 
identified.  In the absence of these details, it is not possible 
to determine whether the tax is "fair, equitable, and in 
No.  2022AP1233.rgb 
 
8 
 
proportion" to the benefits conveyed to a given property as 
uniformity requires.  The Town established the TUF to raise 
general funds for improving roads throughout the municipality on 
an ongoing basis.  While individual properties will benefit from 
improvements to the streets on which they are located, the cost 
of any improvement is not isolated to the properties located on 
a particular street.  As a result, the tax is not proportional 
to the benefits received, which are enjoyed by the general 
public. 
 
¶47 Additionally, properties do not benefit equally from 
each investment under the Town's road construction plan.  In 
Duncan, a new water tower was constructed that increased water 
pressure and capacity across the entire district simultaneously.  
22 
Wis. 2d at 
264. 
 
In 
contrast, 
Town 
roads 
will 
be 
reconstructed piece by piece over many years.  Each piece of 
road will substantially benefit certain properties but bring 
little to no benefit to others in the district.  The road 
improvements the Town would fund with the TUF do not share the 
same characteristics as improvements funded through a special 
assessment. 
 
¶48 Finally, a special assessment is calculated based on 
the benefit conveyed to the property by the public improvement 
itself.  For example, when a sidewalk is added to a specific 
street, the special assessment to fund it reflects the resulting 
benefit to properties on that street.  In the case of the TUF, 
the tax is based not on the individualized benefits of the 
particular 
improvement, 
but 
on 
estimated 
use 
of 
the 
No.  2022AP1233.rgb 
 
9 
 
municipality's roads.  The TUF does not depend upon whether the 
roads a property actually uses are improved or not.  A special 
assessment may not be imposed for access to existing public 
infrastructure. 
¶49 Unlike a special assessment imposed one time to fund a 
particular improvement, The Town would impose the TUF on a 
recurring basis to maintain the Town's roads indefinitely.  When 
a municipality undertakes ongoing road maintenance, it must be 
funded through its general property tax levy.  Because all 
properties 
in 
the 
Town 
benefit 
from 
having 
adequate 
transportation 
infrastructure, 
all 
property 
owners 
must 
uniformly bear the costs of maintaining it, in proportion to the 
value of their properties in the district.  The Wisconsin 
Constitution does not permit property taxation based on factors 
other than property value, unless the prerequisites for a 
special assessment are met.  As the Town concedes, the TUF is 
not a special assessment.  The TUF is a tax on property, which 
must be based on market value in order to comply with the 
Uniformity Clause.  Because the TUF is based on the estimated 
number of vehicle trips generated by each property rather than 
the property's value, the TUF violates the Uniformity Clause.  
For the benefit of the public, the court should have said so. 
¶50 I am authorized to state that Justice PATIENCE DRAKE 
ROGGENSACK joins this concurrence.  
No.  2022AP1233.rgb 
 
 
 
1