Title: City of Mayville v. State of Wisconsin Department of Administration
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2019AP000882
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: June 11, 2021

2021 WI 57 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2019AP882 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
City of Mayville, 
          Petitioner-Respondent, 
     v. 
State of Wisconsin Department of Administration, 
          Respondent-Appellant-Petitioner, 
Village of Kekoskee, 
          Respondent-Co-Appellant-Petitioner. 
 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
Reported at 394 Wis. 2d 296,950 N.W.2d 925 
PDC No:2020 WI App 63 - Published 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 11, 2021   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
April 8, 2021   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit   
 
COUNTY: 
Dodge   
 
JUDGE: 
Lynn M. Hron   
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
ROGGENSACK, J., delivered the majority opinion for a unanimous 
Court. 
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the respondent-appellant-petitioner, there were briefs 
filed by Clayton P. Kawski, assistant attorney general; with 
whom on the brief was Joshua L. Kaul, attorney general. There 
was an oral argument by Clayton P. Kawski. 
 
For 
the 
respondent-co-appellant-petitioner, 
there 
were 
briefs filed by Matthew Parmentier and Dempsey Law Firm, LLP. 
There was an oral argument by Matthew Parmentier. 
 
 
For the petitioner-respondent, there was a brief filed by 
James W. Hammes and Cramer, Multhauf & Hammes, LLP, Waukesha. 
There was an oral argument by James W. Hammes. 
 
 
 
2021 WI 57 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2019AP882 
(L.C. No. 
2018CV527) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
City of Mayville, 
 
          Petitioner-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
State of Wisconsin Department of 
Administration, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant-Petitioner, 
 
Village of Kekoskee, 
 
          Respondent-Co-Appellant-Petitioner. 
FILED 
 
JUN 11, 2021 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ROGGENSACK, J., delivered the majority opinion for a unanimous 
Court. 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Affirmed.   
 
¶1 
PATIENCE DRAKE ROGGENSACK, J.   We review a published 
decision of the court of appeals1 affirming the order of the 
Circuit Court for Dodge County2 that reversed the Department of 
                     
1 City of Mayville v. DOA, 2020 WI App 63, 394 Wis. 2d 296, 
950 N.W.2d 925. 
2 The Honorable Joseph G. Sciascia presided.  
No. 
2019AP882   
 
2 
 
Administration's (the "Department") approval of a cooperative 
plan 
(the 
"Plan") 
between 
the 
Village 
of 
Kekoskee 
(the 
"Village") and the Town of Williamstown (the "Town") and 
remanded the matter back to the Department.  The circuit court 
determined that the cooperative plan statute, Wis. Stat. 
§ 66.0307 (2017-18),3 did not permit municipalities to use 
cooperative plans to "absorb an entire Town[] into a Village."  
The court of appeals affirmed on modified grounds concluding 
that the Plan "changed" the City of Mayville's ("Mayville") 
boundary line such that Mayville was required to be a party to 
the Plan. 
¶2 
We conclude first that Mayville has standing to seek 
judicial review of the Plan.  Next, we conclude that the 
"Village of Williamstown Detachment Area" set forth in the Plan 
changes Mayville's boundary line.  Because the Plan changed 
Mayville's boundary line, Wis. Stat. § 66.0307(2) required that 
Mayville be a party to the Plan.  Mayville was not a party to 
the Plan, therefore, we conclude that the Department erroneously 
interpreted § 66.0307(2) in approving the Plan.  Accordingly, we 
affirm the decision of the court of appeals, which remanded the 
Plan to the circuit court to remand to the Department. 
                     
3 All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to 
the 2017-18 version unless otherwise indicated. 
No. 
2019AP882   
 
3 
 
I.  BACKGROUND 
¶3 
The Town, the Village and Mayville are located in 
Dodge County.  The Village, which was incorporated from a 
portion of the Town in 1958, is completely surrounded by the 
Town's territory.  Likewise, Mayville also is surrounded 
completely by the territory of the Town; however, Mayville does 
not 
share 
a 
border 
with 
the 
Village. 
 
The 
Town 
is 
unincorporated.   
¶4 
The 
Village, 
having 
difficulty 
recruiting 
enough 
residents to comprise a full village board, notified the Town in 
2015 that it was considering dissolution.  Representatives from 
the Village and the Town met to consider alternatives.  After 
discussions, they decided to consolidate the territories of the 
two municipalities.  The municipalities concluded that they 
could consolidate by entering into a cooperative plan pursuant 
to Wis. Stat. § 66.0307.   
¶5 
The 
two 
municipalities 
each 
adopted 
resolutions 
declaring their intent to adopt a cooperative plan, submitted 
the resolutions and copies of the 
drafted plan to the 
Department, and notified Mayville and the other surrounding 
municipalities.  The mayor of Mayville wrote back to the Town 
stating that "Mayville would be glad to work with you on a 
cooperative plan."  Mayville, however, who was not a party to 
the plan, was not involved until the Department conducted a 
public hearing regarding the proposed cooperative plan.  At the 
public hearing, the Town and the Village provided documentation 
No. 
2019AP882   
 
4 
 
in support of their proposed cooperative plan, and Mayville 
provided information in opposition.   
¶6 
The Town and the Village submitted a second plan to 
the Department for its approval.  In May of 2018, the Department 
wrote to the municipalities, informing them that the second plan 
failed to "meet any of the statutory criteria."   
¶7 
Of particular concern for the Department was the 
second plan's insufficient provision of services such as 
Emergency Medical Services and sewer, especially in the area 
that is directly adjacent to Mayville, and the second plan's 
insufficient consideration of compactness.4  The Department 
"recommend[ed] 
that 
the 
[Town 
and 
Village] 
revise 
the 
[c]ooperative [p]lan to provide territory adjacent and proximate 
to [Mayville] the opportunity to receive higher level services 
should landowners desire that."  The Department suggested, among 
other things, that the Village consolidate into the Town, which 
would leave the area surrounding Mayville unincorporated or the 
plan establish "designate[d] areas for urban growth and higher 
service levels." 
¶8 
The Department permitted the Village and the Town to 
revise the second plan and resubmit it.  The parties submitted a 
third plan, which Mayville once again opposed.  The Department 
found that the third plan again failed to meet several of the 
                     
4 Both provision of services and compactness are statutorily 
mandated components of a cooperative plan adopted under Wis. 
Stat. § 66.0307.  See §§ 66.0307(5)(c)3., 5. 
No. 
2019AP882   
 
5 
 
statutory criteria.  This pattern repeated once more:  the 
Village and the Town resubmitted a cooperative plan, Mayville 
opposed, but this time, the Department found that the final 
submission for a cooperative plan met the statutory criteria and 
approved it. 
¶9 
Under the Plan, "the Boundary Change will involve the 
attachment by the Village of all territory located in the Town 
as of the effective date of the Plan."  "As soon as practicable 
upon completion of the Boundary Change, the Village will take 
those actions necessary to change its name from 'Village of 
Kekoskee' to 'Village of Williamstown.'"  To address the 
Department's concern regarding the draft plans' insufficient 
provision of services, the approved Plan, via Section 24, 
creates a "Village of Williamstown Detachment Area."5  Section 24 
created an area that purported to be detachable from the Village 
of Williamstown and attachable to Mayville.   
¶10 After the Department approved the Plan, Mayville filed 
a petition for judicial review in Dodge County circuit court 
pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 227.52.  The Department and the Village 
filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Mayville did not have 
standing to challenge the Department's decision approving the 
Plan.  The circuit court denied the motion and concluded that 
Mayville had standing.  
                     
5 Section 25 of the Plan, which addresses compactness, is 
also relevant to our analysis.  Sections 24 and 25 are discussed 
in greater detail below.  See infra ¶¶32-35.  
No. 
2019AP882   
 
6 
 
¶11 On the merits, the question for the circuit court was 
"whether . . . [Wis. Stat. §] 66.0307 can be used to dissolve a 
Town and attach its territory to a Village."  The circuit court 
concluded that, in part because there are other statutes that 
could achieve the municipalities' desired results, § 66.0307 did 
not permit "a Village to attach an entire [t]own[] under the 
guise of a boundary agreement."  The circuit court also reasoned 
that "[t]he very concept of boundary requires the existence of 
two units of government; otherwise[,] there can be no boundary."  
The circuit court concluded that finding for the Department and 
the Village would require it to read into the statute the 
ability to completely consolidate two municipalities via a 
cooperative plan, which the court would not do.  Accordingly, 
the court reversed the Department's decision that approved the 
Plan and remanded the matter to the Department.  The circuit 
court stayed its order pending appeal. 
¶12 The Department and the Village appealed on both 
issues.  The court of appeals affirmed the circuit court's 
decision on modified grounds.  First, the court of appeals held 
that Mayville had standing to challenge the Department's 
decision approving the Plan.  City of Mayville v. DOA, 2020 WI 
App 63, ¶12, 394 Wis. 2d 296, 950 N.W.2d 925.  The court of 
appeals based its standing decision on its interpretation of 
Mayville's statutory rights.  Id. 
¶13 In addressing Mayville's statutory rights, the court 
of appeals concluded that Mayville should have been a party to 
the Plan.  Id., ¶¶40-41.  The court of appeals reasoned "[t]here 
No. 
2019AP882   
 
7 
 
can be no dispute that the expansion of Mayville's area 
envisioned by the Village Detachment Area provision will 
physically 
alter 
Mayville's 
geographic 
city 
limits 
and, 
therefore, change Mayville's boundary line."  Id., ¶41.  Because 
Mayville was not a party to the Plan, the court of appeals 
affirmed the circuit court and held that the Department 
erroneously approved the Plan.  The court of appeals did not 
address the circuit court's conclusion that the cooperative 
planning 
statute 
cannot 
be 
utilized 
for 
the 
purpose 
of 
consolidating municipalities. 
¶14 On review, we agree with the court of appeals that 
Mayville has standing and that Mayville should have been a party 
to the Plan.  Accordingly, for the reasons discussed below, we 
affirm the decision of the court of appeals.  
II.  DISCUSSION 
A.  Standard of Review 
¶15 Whether a party has standing is a question of law that 
we review independently.  Marx v. Morris, 2019 WI 34, ¶21, 386 
Wis. 2d 122, 925 N.W.2d 112. 
¶16 "When an appeal is taken from a circuit court order 
reviewing an agency decision, we review the decision of the 
agency, not the circuit court."  Hilton ex rel. Pages 
Homeowners' Ass'n v. DNR, 2006 WI 84, ¶15, 293 Wis. 2d 1, 717 
N.W.2d 166.  As shown in Mayville's petition, it is not 
challenging the factual bases for the Department's decision, 
rather, it alleges that "the Department erred in applying the 
cooperative plan statute to the undisputed facts of record."  
No. 
2019AP882   
 
8 
 
City of Mayville, 394 Wis. 2d 296, ¶16.  The application of law 
to undisputed facts is a question of law that we review 
independently.  Cnty. of Dane v. LIRC, 2009 WI 9, ¶14, 315 
Wis. 2d 293, 759 N.W.2d 571.  Finally, whether Mayville was 
required to be a party to the Plan is a question of statutory 
interpretation that we review independently.  Jefferson v. Dane 
Cnty., 2020 WI 90, ¶13, 394 Wis. 2d 602, 951 N.W.2d 556.   
B.  Mayville's Standing 
¶17 In all phases of this litigation, the Department and 
the Village have maintained that Mayville lacked standing.  The 
circuit court denied their motion to dismiss, and the court of 
appeals similarly held that Mayville had standing.  As we 
explain, we agree with the circuit court and the court of 
appeals.   
¶18 If the Department's decision "adversely affect[s] the 
substantial interests of" Mayville, Mayville is an aggrieved 
party and entitled to judicial review of that decision.  See 
Wis. Stat. § 227.52; see also Wis. Stat. § 227.53(1).  Whether 
Mayville is an aggrieved party is a two-part inquiry.  First, 
Mayville "must show that [it has] suffered or [was] threatened 
with an injury to an interest."  Krier v. Vilione, 2009 WI 45, 
¶20, 317 Wis. 2d 288, 766 N.W.2d 517.  However, standing should 
be liberally construed.  City of Madison v. Town of Fitchburg, 
112 Wis. 2d 224, 230, 332 N.W.2d 782 (1983).  Accordingly, we 
have held that "even a trifling interest may be sufficient to 
confer standing."  Id.  Second, that interest must be one that 
is legally protectable.  Krier, 317 Wis. 2d 288, ¶20.   
No. 
2019AP882   
 
9 
 
¶19 The adversely affected interests that Mayville asserts 
are markedly similar to those of Madison in City of Madison v. 
Town of Fitchburg.  There, the then-Town of Fitchburg began the 
process of incorporating.  Town of Fitchburg, 112 Wis. 2d at 
226.  After Fitchburg adopted its incorporating resolution, 
Madison sued to "invalidate the resolution and enjoin the 
referendum."  Id. at 227. 
¶20 Fitchburg alleged that Madison lacked standing because 
"it d[id] not have a legal interest in the . . . incorporation 
proceeding."  Id. at 228.  We disagreed, concluding that 
Madison's interests included owning property in Fitchburg, 
annexing portions of Fitchburg and providing services to 
Fitchburg residents.  Id. at 230-31.  We also noted that if 
Fitchburg incorporated, Madison would lose its ability to 
exercise its extraterritorial zoning and extraterritorial plat 
approval 
rights 
because 
those 
rights 
are 
limited 
to 
unincorporated areas contiguous to a city or village.  Id. at 
231.  Based on those rights taken together, we held that 
"Madison 
has 
a 
personal 
stake 
in 
the 
outcome 
of 
this 
controversy."  Id. at 231-32.  Accordingly, Madison had 
standing.  Id. 
¶21 Here 
too, 
Mayville 
asserts 
that 
the 
Plan:  (1) "deprives 
Mayville 
of 
the 
right 
to 
exercise 
extraterritorial 
zoning 
and 
plat 
approval"; 
(2) "deprives 
Mayville of the opportunity and right to expand its boundaries 
by annexing, at the request of contiguous property owners, 
properties 
located 
in 
the 
unincorporated 
Town"; 
and 
No. 
2019AP882   
 
10 
 
(3) "deprives Mayville the ability to recover millions of 
dollars in expenses incurred for constructing, operating and 
maintaining a sanitary sewer disposal facility and municipal 
water facility that were designed and constructed to provide 
sanitary sewer and water services to portions of the territories 
of the Village and the Town described in the Plan." 
¶22 Pursuant 
to 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 62.23(7a), 
cities 
are 
entitled to "exercise extraterritorial zoning power."  However, 
that 
power 
extends 
to 
only 
the 
"extraterritorial 
zoning 
jurisdiction," which is defined as "the unincorporated area 
within 3 miles of the corporate limits of a first, second or 
third class city, or 1 1/2 miles of a fourth class city or a 
village."  § 66.23(7a)(a).  Further, cities are permitted to 
exercise extraterritorial plat approval in unincorporated areas 
within the same three or one and one-half mile zones.  See Wis. 
Stat. § 236.02(5) and Wis. Stat. § 236.10(1)(b).  Finally, 
cities and villages are permitted to annex "unincorporated 
territory which contains electors and is contiguous to a city or 
village."  Wis. Stat. § 66.0219.   
¶23 As we set forth in our recitation of the facts, upon 
approval of the Plan, the land surrounding Mayville will become 
an incorporated village.6  Prior to the Plan, Mayville had 
extraterritorial 
zoning 
rights 
and 
extraterritorial 
plat 
approval rights within the unincorporated Town.  Mayville was 
                     
6 See generally Wis. Stat. § 66.0201 (Incorporation of 
villages and cities). 
No. 
2019AP882   
 
11 
 
also statutorily permitted to annex areas of the Town contiguous 
to it, which the Plan restricts.  It is of little import that 
the Plan provides for area that can detach from the Village of 
Williamstown and attach to Mayville.  By way of the Plan, 
detachment is the only process by which Mayville can now expand.  
Moreover, retaining some ability to expand says nothing of 
Mayville's extraterritorial zoning or plat approval rights.  The 
Plan 
extinguishes 
those 
statutorily 
granted 
rights.  
Accordingly, Mayville has legally protectable interests that are 
adversely affected by the Department's approval of the Plan, and 
it therefore has standing.7  
C.  The Cooperative Planning Statute 
¶24 Wisconsin Stat. § 66.0307(2) permits municipalities to 
"determine the boundary lines between themselves under a 
cooperative plan."  As we explain in more detail below, boundary 
line changes are permitted only if the municipalities, whose 
boundaries are affected by the cooperative plan, are parties to 
that plan.  Id.   
¶25 A cooperative plan must have certain content as set 
forth in Wis. Stat. § 66.0307(3)(c)-(g).  "Each municipality 
that intends to participate in the preparation of a cooperative 
plan . . . shall adopt a resolution authorizing participation in 
the 
preparation 
of 
the 
plan." 
 
§ 66.0307(4)(a). 
 
The 
                     
7 As we explain in the following sections, Mayville also had 
an interest in being a party to the Plan; this interest, as set 
forth by the court of appeals, also conferred standing upon 
Mayville.  City of Mayville, 394 Wis. 2d 296, ¶11. 
No. 
2019AP882   
 
12 
 
municipalities must "hold a joint [public] hearing" on the 
resolution prior to submitting a cooperative plan to the 
Department.  § 66.0307(4)(b).  After the public hearing, the 
municipalities may adopt a final plan, "may adopt a resolution 
calling for an advisory referendum," and must submit the adopted 
final plan to the Department.  § 66.0307(4)(d)-(f). 
¶26 After receiving a proposed plan, the Department 
generally has 90 days to determine whether "[t]he content of the 
plan under sub. (3)(c) to (e) is sufficient to enable the 
department to make the determinations under subds. 2. to 5."  
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 66.0307(5)(c)1. 
 
Prior 
to 
making 
a 
final 
determination, the Department may, on its own motion, or must, 
if requested by "[a]ny person," hold a public hearing on the 
proposed plan.  § 66.0307(5)(b).  
¶27 Subdivisions (5)(c) 2. to 5. require the following: 
2.  The cooperative plan is consistent with each 
participating municipality's comprehensive plan and 
with current state laws, municipal regulations, and 
administrative rules that apply to the territory 
affected by the plan.  
3.  Adequate provision is made in the cooperative 
plan for the delivery of necessary municipal services 
to the territory covered by the plan. 
5.  The shape of any boundary maintained or any 
boundary change under the cooperative plan is not the 
result of arbitrariness and reflects due consideration 
for compactness of area.  Considerations relevant to 
the criteria under this subdivision include quantity 
of land affected by the boundary maintenance or 
boundary change and compatibility of the proposed 
boundary maintenance or boundary change with natural 
terrain 
including 
general 
topography, 
major 
No. 
2019AP882   
 
13 
 
watersheds, soil conditions and such features as 
rivers, lakes and major bluffs. 
Wis. Stat. § 66.0307(5)(c)2.-5.8  If a cooperative plan meets the 
above 
criteria, 
the 
Department 
shall 
approve 
it.  
§ 66.0307(5)(c).  However, the Department may disapprove or 
return a proposed plan to the municipalities to revise it if it 
does not meet the statutory criteria.  See § 66.0307(5)(d).  If 
the Department returns a cooperative plan for revision, the 
municipalities then have 90 days to revise and resubmit the 
plan.  Id.  Upon the final approval of a cooperative plan, 
parties have 60 days to seek review of the Department's 
approval.  § 66.0307(11).    
D.  The Department's Plan Review 
¶28 Having set forth the general process that occurs when 
municipalities adopt a cooperative plan, we move to whether the 
Department validly approved the Plan without Mayville being a 
party to the Plan.   
¶29 Whether Mayville was required to be a party to the 
Plan requires us to interpret the cooperative planning statute 
and its requirements.  "Statutory interpretation begins with the 
language of the statute."  State v. Mercado, 2021 WI 2, ¶43, 395 
Wis. 2d 296, 953 N.W.2d 337 (citing State ex rel. Kalal v. 
Circuit Court for Dane Cnty., 2004 WI 58, ¶45, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 
681 N.W.2d 110).  That language is "given its common, ordinary, 
and accepted meaning, except that technical or specially-defined 
                     
8 Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 66.0307(5)(c) 
contains 
no 
subdivision 
(5)(c)4. 
No. 
2019AP882   
 
14 
 
words 
or 
phrases 
are 
given 
their 
technical 
or 
special 
definitional meaning."  Kalal, 271 Wis. 2d 633, ¶45.  If the 
language of the statute is clear, we stop the inquiry.  Id. 
¶30 Wisconsin Stat. § 66.0307(2) describes the authority 
of municipalities to decide the boundary lines between them and 
sets forth which municipalities must be parties to a cooperative 
plan.  Section 66.0307(2) provides: 
(2)  Boundary Change Authority.  Any combination 
of municipalities may determine the boundary lines 
between themselves under a cooperative plan that is 
approved by the department under this section.  A 
single city or village and a single town may use the 
mediated agreement procedure under sub. (4m) to 
determine a common boundary line under a cooperative 
plan that is approved by the department under this 
section.  No boundary of a municipality may be changed 
or 
maintained 
under 
this 
section 
unless 
the 
municipality is a party to the cooperative agreement.  
The cooperative plan shall provide one or more of the 
following: 
(a)  That specified boundary line changes shall 
occur during the planning period and the approximate 
dates by which the changes shall occur. 
(b)  That specified boundary line changes may 
occur during the planning period and the approximate 
dates by which the changes may occur. 
(c)  That a required boundary change under par. 
(a) or an optional boundary line change under par. (b) 
shall be subject to the occurrence of conditions set 
forth in the plan. 
(d)  That specified boundary lines may not be 
changed during the planning period. 
No. 
2019AP882   
 
15 
 
If Mayville's boundary line is changed under the Plan, the Plan 
is not effective unless Mayville is a party to the Plan.9  See 
generally § 66.0307(2).   
¶31 "Change" as it is used in Wis. Stat. § 66.0307(2) is 
not 
specially-defined 
in 
the 
statute 
or 
closely 
related 
statutes; accordingly, we look to its common and ordinary 
meaning.  Dictionaries can be utilized for this purpose.  See 
Kalal, 271 Wis. 2d 633, ¶54.  To change is "[t]o make different 
in some particular; [to] alter."  Change, Merriam-Webster's 
Third Int'l Dictionary 374 (1986).10  Therefore, used in this 
context, change means a "physical alteration of, or difference 
in" a boundary line. 
¶32 Accordingly, we look to the Plan to determine whether 
it physically alters, or makes a difference in Mayville's 
boundary line.  The sections in the Plan that could be read as 
changing Mayville's boundary lines are Sections 24 and 25.  
Section 24 creates the "Village of Williamstown Detachment 
Area."  It reads: 
                     
9 The court of appeals decision focused on "change" under 
Wis. Stat. § 66.0307(2); that is primarily our focus too.  
However, the statute includes boundaries that are "maintained" 
under a cooperative plan as another criterion that affects who 
must be parties to a cooperative plan.  
10 See also Change, American Heritage Dictionary 309 (5th 
ed. 2011) ("To cause to be different; [to] alter."); Change, 
Oxford English Dictionary 381 (6th ed. 2007) ("To substitute one 
thing for (another)."); Change, Random House Dictionary of the 
English Language 344 (2d ed. 1983) ("[T]o make the form, nature, 
content, future course, etc. of (something) different from what 
it is or from what it would be if left alone.").   
No. 
2019AP882   
 
16 
 
In order to ensure that owners of territory adjacent 
and proximate to the City of Mayville will have the 
opportunity to receive higher level services through 
the City of Mayville, the parties hereby recognize a 
"Village of Williamstown Detachment Area." 
The 
Village 
of 
Williamstown 
Detachment 
Area 
is 
depicted in the attached Exhibit D.  It consists of 
all Town of Williamstown territory identified within 
the City of Mayville's 2030 Future Land Use Map——a 
total of 1,921.445 acres.   
Upon completion of the Boundary Change described in 
Section 6 above, all territory located in the Village 
of Williamstown Detachment Area will become Village of 
Williamstown 
territory. 
 
However, 
the 
Town 
of 
Williamstown 
and 
the 
Village 
of 
Kekoskee, 
for 
themselves and for their successors in interest, 
including the Village of Williamstown, hereby agree 
that they will not object to, and will take all action 
necessary to effectuate, the detachment of territory 
from within the Village of Williamstown Detachment 
Area provided that the territory is contiguous to the 
City of Mayville and provided that the petition for 
detachment meets the requirements of Wis. Stat. 
§ 66.0227 as they exist on the effective date of this 
Plan. 
Section 25 provides: 
The boundary changes under this Plan reflect due 
considerations for compactness of area.  It does this 
in several ways. 
The boundary change described in Section 6 will have 
the effect of eliminating the Town-Village boundary 
entirely, resulting in more orderly and less confusing 
boundaries as well as fewer boundaries than currently 
exist.  Additionally, the outer boundaries of the 
combined municipality will initially be the same as 
the 
outer 
boundaries 
of 
the 
current 
Town 
of 
Williamstown.  The current boundaries with the City of 
Mayville, the City of Horicon, the Town of Burnett, 
the Town of Theresa, the Town of Hubbard, and the Town 
of Chester will be unaffected.  
Further, while the area to be attached under Section 6 
is 
approximately 
31 
square 
miles, 
much 
of 
the 
No. 
2019AP882   
 
17 
 
attachment area is territory within the Horicon Marsh.  
The practical area to be attached after adjusting for 
this acreage is approximately 18 square miles.  
Finally, under the Village of Williamstown Detachment 
Area provisions of Section 24, the size of the Village 
of Williamstown will be reduced over time.  Provided 
that detachments meet the criteria set forth in that 
Section, residents in the Village of Williamstown 
Detachment Area could detach the entire 2030 Future 
Land Use Map area, which consists of approximately 
three square miles and is nearly the size of the 
existing City of Mayville.  As a result of these 
attachments, 
the 
Village 
of 
Williamstown 
will 
continually become smaller and more compact, and the 
City of Mayville will grow in an orderly and compact 
manner.[11] 
¶33 Section 24 represents the type of boundary change that 
Wis. Stat. § 66.0307(2)(b) contemplates.  Under Section 24, if 
the conditions of the Plan are met, Mayville's boundary line may 
expand.  It may grow to encompass the territory that detaches 
from the Village of Williamstown and attaches to Mayville.  To 
be sure, the Plan does not, in and of itself, effect a change in 
Mayville's boundary line, and Mayville's boundary lines may 
never change.12  However, the Plan sets conditions that must be 
met if Mayville's boundary lines are to change. 
                     
11 Neither Section 24 nor Section 25 were included in the 
initial plan.  Each was added in response to the Department's 
suggestions regarding providing for heightened services (Section 
24) 
and 
compactness 
(Section 
25). 
 
The 
Department's 
administrative record reflects that the revised plan also failed 
to meet the provision of services and compactness requirements. 
12 The 
type 
of 
change 
in 
Section 
24 
is 
clearly 
distinguishable from Section 6 of the Plan, which by its terms 
eliminates the boundary between the Town and the Village. 
Section 25 confirms that the Plan effects this change.  See 
supra ¶32. 
No. 
2019AP882   
 
18 
 
¶34 The Department asserts that the Plan does not set any 
conditions on detachment, but rather, any future detachment is 
conditioned on the statutes that apply to all detachments.  We 
are not convinced.  Section 24 puts a very clear condition on 
any future detachment; it must "meet[] the requirements of Wis. 
Stat. § 66.0227 as they exist on the effective date of this 
Plan."  That means, for the next 97 years13 that Section 24 is in 
effect, 
any 
future 
detachments 
within 
the 
Village 
of 
Williamstown Detachment Area must meet the statutory criteria 
for detachment that existed in 2018.  Section 25 also belies the 
Department's argument.  It plainly limits future detachments to 
those that "meet the criteria set forth in [Section 24]." 
¶35 Section 25 further confirms that Mayville's boundary 
lines may change via the Plan's contemplated detachments.  It 
reiterates that Mayville could nearly double in size if the 
detachments occur and that "Mayville will grow in an orderly and 
compact manner" "[a]s a result of [Section 24] attachments."  
Further, as we discussed above, the territory surrounding 
Mayville will become incorporated territory, and due to that 
change, Mayville no longer will possess the right to annex that 
territory.  Wis. Stat. § 66.0219.  Upon approval of the plan, 
                     
13 Section 29 of the Plan provides for a 10 year planning 
period "except that Section 24 regarding the Village of 
Williamstown Detachment Area will remain in effect until 
December 31, 2118 unless the Village of Williamstown and the 
City of Mayville, or their successors in interest, agree 
otherwise by written instrument consistent with applicable law 
at the time of its execution."   
No. 
2019AP882   
 
19 
 
Mayville's ability to grow, or change its boundary lines, is 
limited to the specific lands and processes outlined in the 
Plan.  Said differently, the Plan not only contemplates a change 
to Mayville's boundary lines, it also has the effect of 
precluding Mayville's expansion if the Plan's conditions for 
changing its boundary line are not met.  Mayville should have 
been a party to, and had a voice in, proposed alterations to its 
municipal authority. 
¶36 We conclude that the Plan includes a type of boundary 
change that is described in Wis. Stat. § 66.0307(2)(b) and that 
the Plan sets conditions to effect that change as contemplated 
by § 66.0307(2)(c).  Accordingly, before such a change could be 
effective, Mayville was required to be a party to the Plan.  
Because it was not, the Department erred as a matter of law in 
approving the Plan.14 
III.  CONCLUSION 
¶37 We conclude first that Mayville has standing to seek 
judicial review of the Plan.  Next, we conclude that the 
"Village of Williamstown Detachment Area" set forth in the Plan 
changes Mayville's boundary line.  Because the Plan changed 
Mayville's boundary lines, Wis. Stat. § 66.0307(2) required that 
Mayville be a party to the Plan.  Because Mayville was not a 
                     
14 Because we hold that Mayville was required to be a party 
to the Plan, we do not address whether the cooperative planning 
statute permits municipalities to consolidate.  See Maryland 
Arms Ltd. P'ship v. Connell, 2010 WI 64, ¶48, 326 Wis. 2d 300, 
786 N.W.2d 15.   
No. 
2019AP882   
 
20 
 
party to the Plan, we conclude that the Department erroneously 
interpreted § 66.0307(2) in approving the Plan.  Accordingly, we 
affirm the decision of the court of appeals, which remanded the 
Plan to the circuit court to remand to the Department. 
By the Court.—The decision of the court of appeals is 
affirmed. 
 
No. 
2019AP882   
 
 
 
1