Opinion ID: 1841181
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Tension Between Lake District Formation and Detachment Procedures

Text: ถ 55. We are concerned in this case with the Lake District Board's determination not to detach property, not the Rock County Board's decision to form the District. Both parties admit to a certain tension in the statutes because each board, at different points in time, decides whether property is benefited from inclusion in the lake district. Our task is to resolve the tension between language in Wis. Stat. ง 33.26(3), governing the formation of lake districts, and language in ง 33.33(3), authorizing the detachment of territory from lake districts. [11] ถ 56. We agree with the Lake District Board that the decision to detach territory from a lake district is, like the decision to form a lake district, an exercise in legislative power. [15] Consequently, judicial review is circumscribed. Nonetheless, there are important differences between judicial review of the creation decision by a county board and judicial review of the detachment determination by the lake district board. ถ 57. First, the 1974 lake district legislation created a detachment mechanism that was not present in the town sanitary district law. [16] There was a reason for doing so. As we observed in ถ 39 above, the detachment procedure appeared in the draft legislation at the same time the language limiting the property that could be included in the district was taken out. The term frontage may have been viewed as too limiting, but its removal effectively erased all limits. Thus, we believe it is a fair inference that the detachment procedure was designed as a necessary safeguard for property ownersโ to discourage overreaching by the proponents of a lake district and to assure that an aggrieved property owner would be able to secure an individual determination of whether a specific parcel is benefited. ถ 58. Second, the benefited language in ง 33.26(3) is not the same as the benefited language in ง 33.33(3). A county board determines that the property to be included in the district will be benefited by the establishment of the district. Wis. Stat. ง 33.26(3) (emphasis added). This finding is both general and predictive. In the absence of an individualized determination, a county board is making a rough approximation of benefit to all properties in the district as the county board looks to the future. By contrast, a lake district board must decide whether  such territory is not benefited by continued inclusion in the district. Wis. Stat. ง 33.33(3) (emphasis added). [17] This determination requires an individualized evaluation of property under present circumstances. [18] A lake district board may utilize hindsight and foresight as it makes its fact-based detachment determination on an individual parcel. The commissioners are aware of both past and present activities of the lake district, and, as such, can intelligently ascertain whether a property initially included in the district is currently benefited and will continue to benefit from the district. The district board is uniquely situated to assess whether activities slated for future implementation will benefit a particular piece of property. ถ 59. By closely examining the two statutes, we conclude that it is not always necessary for the petitioner in a detachment proceeding to prove that there has been a change in circumstances. When there has been no individualized determination of benefit to property by the county board, there is a presumption that the board made a reasonable decision, but this presumption is not conclusive in a future detachment proceeding. In other words, the county board's decision normally does not settle the issue of benefit to individual property. As noted above in ถ 40, the Legislative Council described the distinction between the test for annexation to a lake district and the test for detachment from a lake district: Annexation proposals are measured against the same standards used for establishing the district, and are similarly appealable. Detachment proposals are decided upon the basis of whether the territory proposed for detachment is benefited by continued inclusion in the district. LRB 170/7:29-30 (emphasis added). The framers of the legislation explicitly recognized a distinction between one determination and the other. Consequently, a lake district board's duty to render an individualized determination as to present benefit to a specific parcel cannot be satisfied by relying solely on the decision previously made by the county board, unless the county board made an individualized determination and nothing has changed. ถ 60. At oral argument, counsel for the Lake District asserted that the legislature has imposed no standards at all to guide a lake district as it exercises legislative power on the issue of detachment. This is not correct. The legislature's findings and declaration of intent are not irrelevant. They include statements (1) that the protection and rehabilitation of the public inland lakes of this state are in the best interest of the citizens of this state; [and] the public health and welfare will be benefited thereby, and (2) lake districts should be formed by persons directly affected by the deteriorated condition of inland waters. Wis. Stat. ง 33.001(1) and (2)(b) (emphasis added). A lake district board ought to be able to articulate why property included in the lake district and subject to its added layer of taxation is more directly benefited by inclusion in the district than thousands of parcels in the vicinity that are not included in the district. [19] ถ 61. In short, there are factors besides whether there has been a change in circumstances that a conscientious lake district board must take into account. ถ 62. In this case, the Rock-Koshkonong Lake District went beyond the statute, adopting procedures and criteria for the consideration of detachment petitions. One of the reasons for adopting these criteria was to promote consistency. Resolution 99-03 (A-123). The Lake District's procedure anticipates that a petitioner will provide a statement explaining why the property should be removed from the District. The petitioner may present testimony and evidence relevant to whether specific property is not benefited by continued inclusion in the District. Id. at II(A). The commissioners may question any witness, including the property owner, id. at II(B), and the Board may consider: A. The physical characteristics of the property. B. Its use (recreational, commercial, residential, etc.). C. Its relationship to the lake in terms of whether: 1. It is riparian; 2. It has private access rights to the lake; 3. Its proximity to public access to the lake; 4. It is within view of the lake; and 5. It is within the watershed or ground water table of the lake. D. Whether the value of the property would be enhanced if the lake were to be in reasonably clean, attractive and usable condition; or whether the value of the property would be diminished if the lake were to be in a degraded condition. E. Whether detachment of the property will result in any hole or island in the boundaries of the District. F. Whether circumstances surrounding the property's inclusion in the District have changed. G. Any other factors relevant to whether the property is benefited by continued inclusion in the District. Id. at A-124, III Criteria. Surely, the relevant factors the Board ought to address include the factors set out by the petitioner in making the case for detachment. [13] ถ 63. Having established criteria to consider, a lake district board should not look solely to those criteria that support its position and disregard criteria that do not, because a lake district must avoid arbitrary and capricious action. Arbitrary action is the result of an unconsidered, wilful and irrational choice of conduct and not the result of the `winnowing and sifting' process. Olson v. Rothwell, 28 Wis. 2d 233, 239, 137 N.W.2d 86 (1965). Arbitrary action represents a board's will and not its judgment. The fair and consistent application of reasonable rules will blunt a detachment petitioner's claims that a lake district board has been arbitrary. ถ 64. It should be noted that if property is detached, the detachment is not irrevocable. If a lake district undertakes a project that will benefit property that has been detached, or if the property itself changes, the lake district board may initiate proceedings to re-attach the property to the district. [14, 15] ถ 65. Review of a detachment determination does not permit a court to substitute its judgment for the considered judgment of a legislative body. However, the statute empowers the court to assure that the lake district board actually makes an individualized determination of whether a parcel is or is not benefited by continued inclusion in the district, see ง 33.33(3), and permits a court to address a plainly erroneous exercise of discretion. ถ 66. In this opinion we do not attempt to set forth standards for determining whether property is or is not benefited by continued inclusion in a lake district. This is legislative work. Our objective is to encourage the development of reasonable standards by lake district boards and the legislature, and to assure adherence to standards when they exist, so as to promote fairness, consistency, and sound public policy.