Opinion ID: 1873729
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Lead Opinion's Secondary Rationale

Text: ¶ 66 As a secondary rational, the lead opinion concludes that, in addition to the bridge not being connected physically to an existing highway from the moment of its construction, the Town's petition was properly denied because the Town did not request funding to extend the highway to the bridge. [13] The lead opinion's rationale for this conclusion escapes me. ¶ 67 Is the lead opinion really saying that if the Town had asked for more money than it did, its request for bridge funding would have been granted? That appears to be the case because the lead opinion faults the Town for not applying for funding to extend the highway to the constructed bridge. [14] However, the Town's counsel acted prudently by not seeking such funding. I note that the gap between where the bridge was to be constructed and the then existing highway was 200 feet. [15] The statute provides for cost-sharing for only a 100-foot highway extension. Wis. Stat. § 81.38(2). Accordingly, the Town recognized that it was statutorily ineligible to receive funding to extend the highway all the way to the bridge. [16] ¶ 68 It is telling that the lead opinion characterizes the funding for the highway extension as funding to help connect the bridge to a highway maintainable by the Town. [17] With a 200-foot gap between the bridge and the highway, County funding would not have caused the highway to reach all the way to where the bridge was to be built. The lead opinion's suggestion would leave the Town with a 100-foot gap between the yet-to-be-constructed bridge and the highway. [18] The lead opinion's reasoning in this regard underscores that, despite its protestations to the contrary, it considers the word on within Wis. Stat. § 81.38 to be dispositive of this case. That is, under the lead opinion's interpretation of § 81.38, the bridge must be constructed after the highway is complete so the bridge can physically touch the highway immediately upon the bridge's construction. The lead opinion's statutory interpretation defeats the cost-sharing mandate of Wis. Stat. § 81.38(1) and therefore it cannot be the correct interpretation of the statute.