Court Opinion

ID: 9672379
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:53:46.650092+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:15.720829
License: Public Domain

Wilkie, C. J.
(dissenting in part). The majority chooses form over substance in voiding the seven unanimously adopted city ordinances annexing town islands in the town of Blooming Grove.
*775The controlling statute, sec. 66.021 (15), is ambiguous as pertinent here. The rule on the existence of the statutory ambiguity has been stated most recently in Madison Metropolitan Sewerage Dist. v. DNR: 1
. . The test of ambiguity has been consistently stated: ““A statute or portion thereof is ambiguous when it is capable of being understood by reasonably well-informed persons in either of two or more senses.’ ” ’ (citing cases) . . . .”
The statute here does not specifically set forth a requirement for a single ordinance. It must be considered ambiguous.
“This court has held that where a statute is ambiguous, this court must ascertain the legislative intention as disclosed by the language of the statute in relation to its scope, history, context, subject matter and the object intended to be remedied or accomplished. Wisconsin Southern Gas Co. v. Public Service Comm. (1973), 57 Wis. 2d 643, 205 N. W. 2d 403. The object to be accomplished by a statute must be given great weight in determining legislative intent. Town of Menominee v. Skubitz (1972), 53 Wis. 2d 430, 192 N. W. 2d 887. . . .” Ortman v. Jensen & Johnson, Inc. (1975), 66 Wis. 2d 508, 520, 225 N. W. 2d 635.
In reading the terms of the statute and in considering the issues presented in Town of Germantown v. Village of Germantown, ante, p. 704, 235 N. W. 2d 486, it would appear that the purpose of the legislation clearly is to provide for a unilateral and summary procedure by which the annexing entity takes in all surrounded areas that meet the area and population requirements.
That a single ordinance was not contemplated by the Legislature when it enacted sec. 66.021 (15) is shown by the provisions of the sentence of the statute which reads:
*776“The ordinance shall include all surrounded town areas except those exempt by mutual agreement of all of the governing bodies involved.”
This statutory directive clearly negates any purpose in setting forth a specific requirement for either a single ordinance, or multiple ordinances, since whichever procedure is used, no surrounded “town island” can be exempted unless both parties agree to such exemption. This provision leaves no room for discretion on the part of the annexing authority to unilaterally refuse to annex areas meeting the criteria set forth; absent mutual agreement, all areas must be annexed. Therefore, the legislative intent as to elimination of all eligible “town islands” is met if all such areas are indeed annexed, regardless of the number of ordinances adopted.
I see no prejudice to the residents to the town island areas if several ordinances are used as here. The thrust of the majority decision is that the same end result of the annexation of the seven town island areas will be accomplished, but the city will be obliged to back up and put the seven annexations into a single ordinance. Under the circumstances of this case, I would allow the seven ordinances to stand as already adopted.
I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice Bruce F. Beilfuss and Mr. Justice Leo B. Hanley join in this dissent.

 (1974), 63 Wis. 2d 175, 179, 216 N. W. 2d 533.