Opinion ID: 1841181
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Delegation of Legislative Authority

Text: ถ 42. The Lake District Board contends that the creation of a lake district is an exercise of legislative power by a county board, and a decision on detachment is an exercise of legislative power by a lake district board. The Board emphasizes that an exercise of legislative power is subject to very limited judicial review. At a minimum, the Board argues, a property owner seeking a review of a decision on detachment must show a change in circumstances since the lake district was formed. ถ 43. Because the statutes on town sanitary districts were used as a model for the lake district legislation, we believe that cases interpreting the sanitary district statutes are helpful in interpreting Chapter 33. ถ 44. In Fort Howard Paper Co. v. Fox River Heights Sanitary District , this court reviewed a challenge to the creation of a town sanitary district. 250 Wis. 145, 26 N.W.2d 661 (1947). The standards then in place for a town to create a sanitary district resemble the conditions necessary for a county board to create a lake district. [10] Both require, among other things, that the appropriate body find that the property to be included in the district will be benefited by the establishment thereof. Wis. Stat. งง 60.303(3) (1945), 33.26(3). [11] The focus in Fort Howard was on the scope of a circuit court's power to review the town board's determination that Fort Howard's property benefited from the establishment of the town sanitary district. The legislature had included a provision for an aggrieved party to bring an action in circuit court. Wis. Stat. ง 60.304 (1945). [12] When Fort Howard brought such an action, the circuit court tried the issue as if there had been no prior decision by the town board, and determined that Fort Howard's property did not benefit from being in the town sanitary district and excluded it from the district. Fort Howard, 250 Wis. at 149. ถ 45. On appeal, this court concluded that the power to establish a town sanitary district had been delegated to the town board by the legislature. Id. at 149-50. Thus, the circuit court erred by reviewing de novo and under its own standards whether the property would benefit. Id. at 151. We said that a court's powers of review were quite limited. Id. at 150. ถ 46. The Fort Howard decision requires close analysis. The statute in place at the time stated that if it shall appear to the town board after consideration of all objections, that . . . the public health, comfort, convenience, necessity or public welfare will be promoted by the establishment of such district, and the property to be included in the district will be benefited by the establishment thereof, the board shall declare its findings, establish the boundaries, and declare the district organized. Wis. Stat. ง 60.303(3) (1945). ถ 47. The right of a property owner thereafter to appeal the board's decision to circuit court was limited. Wis. Stat. ง 60.304 (1945). The statute authorized an action  to set aside the action of the board (emphasis added). The statute went on: Unless action is so taken [within the required time period], the determination by the town board shall be conclusive. Id. ถ 48. As a general proposition, we noted that the court may not exercise legislative power. Fort Howard, 250 Wis. at 150. The question here is to what extent has the court power to review the action of a body exercising legislative power. By sec. 60.301, Stats., the legislature delegated to the town board the power to establish a town sanitary district. The power thus delegated to the town board being legislative in its character, cannot be exercised by a court. Id. ถ 49. The court then appeared to step back somewhat, saying that  unless otherwise provided by statute,  the power of the court is limited in the review of legislative orders to inquire as to: (1) the validity of the statute under which the legislative body acts; (2) whether the legislative body proceeded in accordance with the provisions of law and within its jurisdiction; (3) whether the legislative body acted arbitrarily, capriciously or oppressively. If the town board acted without evidence sufficient to support its findings it acted arbitrarily. Id. at 150 (emphasis added). ถ 50. Did the statute's reference to the town board's determination that the property to be included in the district will be benefited by the establishment thereof, imply additional review powers for a court? Not in that case, the court said. The statute did not require the town board to keep a record of its proceedings. Id. In the absence of such a record, it must be presumed that the town board acted upon sufficient evidence to sustain its findings as there is nothing in the record to indicate the contrary. Id. at 150-51. The court further explained that the town was not expected to focus on the benefit to individual properties: The statute does not provide that if any piece or parcel of land included within the boundaries of the proposed district shall not be benefited, the district shall not be organized. If the town board finds that the property within the boundaries of the proposed district as a whole will be benefited then the district is to be organized. . . . If all the property within the boundaries of the proposed district is in the watershed and the proposed improvement may serve it, then the property of the district as a whole is benefited and the town board if it makes the other necessary finding may organize the district. The organization of a sanitary sewer district is in the interest of the public health. Such a district cannot be organized unless the town board finds from the evidence that the public health, comfort, convenience, necessity, and public welfare will be promoted thereby. That is the benefit that is meant by the statute. Id. at 152. ถ 51. The Fort Howard case stands in part for the proposition that courts are prohibited from substituting judicial judgment as to good public policy for legislative judgment. Id. at 150. In the Fort Howard circumstances, Fixing the limits of the proposed district is within the discretion of the town board, which discretion the court has no power to review. The order must be set aside or affirmed in toto. Id. at 151. ถ 52. As a general principle, whether a particular unit of government should be created involves the best interest of the community and is therefore a matter of public policy and statecraft. See, e.g., In re Incorporation of Village of North Milwaukee, 93 Wis. 616, 624, 67 N.W. 1033 (1896); see also Town of Pleasant Prairie, Kenosha County v. Department of Local Affairs and Development, 113 Wis. 2d 327, 343, 334 N.W.2d 893 (1982); Town of Beloit v. City of Beloit, 37 Wis. 2d 637, 646-47, 155 N.W.2d 633 (1968); Scharping v. Johnson, 32 Wis. 2d 383, 388, 145 N.W.2d 691 (1966) (The creation of municipal corporations is peculiarly within the province of the legislature.). As we have stated in the parallel context of municipal annexation: What is desirable, or advisable or ought to be is a question of policy, not a question of fact. What is necessary, or what is in the best interest is not a fact and its determination by the judiciary is an exercise of legislative power when each involves political considerations and reasons why there should or should not be an annexation. This is the general and universal rule which sharply draws the differentiating line between legislative power and judicial power and by which the validity of the delegation of functions to the judiciary by the legislature is determined. City of Fond du Lac v. Miller, 42 Wis. 2d 323, 329, 166 N.W.2d 225 (1969), (citing Town of Beloit, 37 Wis. 2d at 644). [10] ถ 53. We are constrained to believe that the same principles apply when a court reviews the action of a county board in creating a lake district. The dynamics of lake district creation are such that a county board is likely to look at the big picture, that is, whether the proposed lake district will serve the public interest as a whole and whether the properties to be included in the district will be benefited as a whole. [13] In these circumstances, judicial review is almost necessarily limited to whether the county board followed proper procedures in establishing the district and whether the board's action with respect to an individual property or group of properties was so arbitrary, oppressive, or unreasonable that it jumps out to the observer without additional evidence. [14] ถ 54. Of course, a property owner who does not wish a certain parcel to be included in a proposed lake district may be able to persuade the county board to consider that parcel individually and remove it from the district, or to consider the parcel individually and provide an explanation of why that parcel is benefited. If the latter determination is made, it will be very hard to challenge on appeal, and hard to challenge in a subsequent detachment petition, absent a change in circumstances.