Court Opinion

ID: 9405769
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-29 13:10:49.618652+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:24.445363
License: Public Domain

2023 WI 58

                  SUPREME COURT            OF   WISCONSIN
CASE NO.:               2022AP1233

COMPLETE TITLE:         Wisconsin Property Taxpayers, Inc.,
                                  Plaintiff-Respondent,
                             v.
                        Town of Buchanan,
                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                               ON BYPASS FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS

OPINION FILED:          June 29, 2023
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:          March 13, 2023

SOURCE OF APPEAL:
   COURT:               Circuit
   COUNTY:              Outagamie
   JUDGE:               Mark J. McGinnis

JUSTICES:
REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, J., delivered the majority opinion for a
unanimous Court. REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, J., filed a concurring
opinion in which ROGGENSACK, J. joined.

NOT PARTICIPATING:

ATTORNEYS:

       For    the      defendant-appellant,   there   were   briefs   (in   the
court of appeals) filed by Richard J. Carlson and Town Counsel
Law & Litigation, LLC, Kaukauna. There was an oral argument by
Richard J. Carlson.

       For the plaintiff-respondent, there was a brief (in the
court of appeals) filed by Richard M. Esenberg, Luke N. Berg,
Lucas T. Vebber and Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, Inc.,
Milwaukee. There was an oral argument by Lucas T. Vebber.
                                                                           2023 WI 58
                                                                 NOTICE
                                                   This opinion is subject to further
                                                   editing and modification.   The final
                                                   version will appear in the bound
                                                   volume of the official reports.
No.       2022AP1233
(L.C. No.    2021CV712)

STATE OF WISCONSIN                             :            IN SUPREME COURT

Wisconsin Property Taxpayers, Inc.,

             Plaintiff-Respondent,
                                                                      FILED
      v.                                                         JUN 29, 2023

Town of Buchanan,                                                 Samuel A. Christensen
                                                                 Clerk of Supreme Court

             Defendant-Appellant.

REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, J., delivered the majority opinion for a
unanimous Court. REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, J., filed a concurring
opinion in which ROGGENSACK, J. joined.

      APPEAL from a judgment and an order of the Circuit Court

for Outagamie County, Mark J. McGinnis, Judge.                Affirmed.

      ¶1     REBECCA      GRASSL   BRADLEY,   J.     The     Town     of    Buchanan
appeals the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor

of Wisconsin Property Taxpayers, Inc. (WPT).                  The circuit court

declared the Town's Transportation Utility Fee (TUF) to be a

property tax subject to the Town's levy limit.1                  Wisconsin Stat.

      1The Honorable Mark J. McGinnis, Outagamie County Circuit
Court, presided.
                                                                     No.     2022AP1233

§ 66.0827        (2021-22)2    authorizes        municipalities      to     establish

utility districts to fund highways, sewers, and other "public

improvement[s] provided in the district."                      The funding for a

utility     district    must     be    provided      through   "taxation      of    the

property in the district[.]"                   § 66.0827(2).        The levy limit

statute, Wis. Stat. § 66.0602, limits how much, and under what

circumstances, a political subdivision may increase its property

tax levy.         The circuit court reasoned a "taxation of property"

and   a    property    tax     are    effectively     the   same     and    therefore

concluded the money raised for the district fund is subject to

the Town's property tax levy limit.                   After the Town appealed,

the parties filed a joint petition for bypass of the court of

appeals, which this court granted.

      ¶2     WPT contends the TUF is unlawful on three grounds.

First,     Wisconsin    Statutes      do   not    authorize    municipalities        to

impose a TUF on property owners based on estimated use of the

municipality's        roads.      Second,      the   Town   did    not     reduce   its

property tax levy to account for the TUF and accordingly has
exceeded its levy limit.              Third, the fee structure implemented

by the TUF violates the Uniformity Clause under Article VIII,

Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution.                       We reach only the

first two arguments, with which we agree and hold that funds

raised     for    utility     districts    under     Wis.   Stat.    § 66.0827      are

      2All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to
the 2021-22 version unless otherwise indicated.

                                           2
                                                      No.   2022AP1233

property taxes subject to municipal levy limits.       Accordingly,

we affirm the decision of the circuit court.

                           I.   BACKGROUND

    ¶3     The rising costs of maintaining public roads within

the Town have become a long-term concern for the Town's board.

The board anticipated needing to reconstruct as much as 44% of

the Town's roads over the next ten years.         Consequently, the

board decided it needed to raise money beyond its current levy

limit.    The board submitted a referendum to Town residents,

giving them a choice of raising the property tax levy, imposing

a special assessment on all property, or imposing a TUF.       After

voters chose a TUF, the board adopted Town ordinance § 482 in

December 2019 to fund future road construction projects through

a transportation utility fee.      In relevant part, the ordinance

states:

    A.    The Town of Buchanan is hereby establishing a
          Transportation Utility District. The operation of
          the Transportation Utility District shall be under
          the day-to-day management of the Town Administrator
          and under the supervision of the Town Board.
          He/she, or a designated representative, shall
          provide an annual estimate to the Town Chairperson
          by October 1 of each year.

    B.    The Town, acting through the Transportation Utility
          District,    may,    without   limitation    due   to
          enumeration,    acquire,   construct,   lease,   own,
          operate, maintain, extend, expand, replace, repair,
          manage and finance such transportation facilities
          and related facilities, operations and activities,
          as are deemed by the Town to be proper and
          reasonably necessary to provide safe and efficient
          transportation facilities within the Town.        The
          following   activities    to   be   funded   by   the
          transportation utility fee are the cost of utility

                                  3
                                                                 No.    2022AP1233

            district    highways,     stormwater    management,
            sidewalks, street lighting, traffic control and the
            cost of any other convenience or public improvement
            provided in the District and not paid in full by
            special assessment.
Town of Buchanan Ordinances § 482-3 (2021).              To raise funds for

the utility district, the Town implemented the TUF:

      A.    Every developed property within the Town of
            Buchanan shall pay a transportation utility fee.

      B.    The Town Board shall by resolution determine the
            annual amount to be funded by a transportation
            utility fee, formulas for the calculation of the
            fee and specific use category classifications.
            Changes in formulas and classifications may be made
            by further resolution of the Town Board. All fees
            established pursuant to this section shall be fair
            and reasonable.   A schedule of current fees shall
            be maintained and on file in the office of the Town
            Clerk.
§ 482-4.

      ¶4     After enacting the ordinance, the Town administrator

set the TUF target funding amount at $875,000 annually.                        The

board then announced a formula and fee based on estimated use of

the   Town's    roads     by   each   developed       property     within      the

municipality.     Under the Town's funding scheme, all residential

properties must pay the same fee, while commercial properties

must pay a variable fee based on the size and type of business

and   the   number   of   estimated    "trips"   on    municipal       roads   the

business is expected to generate.          These fees range from roughly

$300 for residential properties to more than $8,000 annually for

some commercial properties.           In total, the TUF collected more

than $855,000 in 2020.

                                       4
                                                               No.   2022AP1233

      ¶5    Before    adopting   ordinance    § 482,   the    Town   paid    for

road construction on a "pay as you go" basis from its general

property tax levy.       The Town's total property tax levy for 2020

was $2,374,348.        In 2021, after enacting the ordinance, the

Town's property tax levy was $2,490,680, reflecting the maximum

increase allowed under Wis. Stat. § 66.0602.                  That year, the

Town Board again set the "annual amount to be funded" by the TUF

at approximately $855,000.          The Town handled funds collected

under the TUF separately and in addition to the general tax levy

in 2021, resulting in a net increase in municipal tax revenue of

approximately 34% beyond the levy limit.

      ¶6    In September 2021, WPT brought this action against the

Town, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.                 The parties

stipulated to the facts, and both parties moved for summary

judgment.      WPT alleged the TUF is a property tax subject to

municipal levy limits under Wis. Stat. § 66.0602; therefore, any

revenue raised through the TUF must be offset by a reduction in

the   Town's   general   property      tax   levy.     WPT    also   sought   a
declaration    that    the   adopted    method   of    taxation,     based    on

estimated use of municipal roads, violates the Uniformity Clause

of the Wisconsin Constitution because the Town ordinance does

not allocate the TUF based on property value.                In response, the

Town argued Wis. Stat. § 66.0827 authorizes a special tax not

subject to levy limits or the requirement of uniformity.

      ¶7    The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of

WPT, declaring the TUF to be a property tax subject to the
Town's levy limit.       It also permanently enjoined the Town from
                                       5
                                                                           No.        2022AP1233

levying, enforcing, or collecting the TUF in any amount above

its levy limit.       This appeal followed.

                          II.    STANDARD OF REVIEW

     ¶8     In   this   case,    we     "independently         review        a    grant      of

summary    judgment     using    the    same      methodology         of    the        circuit

court[.]"    Kemper Indep. Ins. Co. v. Islami, 2021 WI 53, ¶13,

397 Wis. 2d 394, 959 N.W.2d 912 (quoting Talley v. Mustafa, 2018

WI 47, ¶12, 381 Wis. 2d 393, 911 N.W.2d 55).                         "Summary judgment

is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute of material fact

and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of

law."   Id. (quoting Talley, 381 Wis. 2d 393, ¶12).

     ¶9     This   case   also    requires        us    to   interpret           and     apply

several Wisconsin statutes.            "The interpretation and application

of   statutes      present      questions         of     law      that           we     review

independently,     benefitting         from    the     analyses       of    the        circuit

court[.]"    Eau Claire Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs. v. S.E., 2021

WI 56, ¶13, 397 Wis. 2d 462, 960 N.W.2d 391 (citing State v.

Stephenson, 2020 WI 92, ¶18, 394 Wis. 2d 703, 951 N.W.2d 819).
                                III.    DISCUSSION

     ¶10    Despite     being    labeled      a   "fee,"       the    parties          do    not

dispute the TUF is in fact a tax on Town residents.                                         "The

purpose, and not the name it is given, determines whether a

government charge constitutes a tax."                    Bentivenga v. City of

Delavan, 2014 WI App 118, ¶6, 358 Wis. 2d 610, 856 N.W.2d 546

(citing City of Milwaukee v. Milwaukee & Suburban Transp. Corp.,

6 Wis. 2d 299, 305–06, 94 N.W.2d 584 (1959)).                         A "fee" imposed
for the purpose of generating revenue for the municipality is a
                                          6
                                                                     No.       2022AP1233

tax, and without legislative permission it is unlawful.                               Id.,

¶11 (citing Milwaukee & Suburban Transp. Corp., 6 Wis. 2d at

306).     The parties are correct; the TUF is a tax because the

Town imposed it on a class of residents for the purpose of

generating    revenue.        The   parties       do,     however,    dispute         its

lawfulness.        Specifically, the parties disagree on (1) whether

Wis. Stat. § 66.0827, which governs the formation and funding of

utility districts, authorizes the Town's taxation scheme and (2)

whether the taxation of property to fund a utility district is

nonetheless subject to property tax levy limits under Wis. Stat.

§ 66.0602.        WPT argues the "taxation of the property in the

district" under § 66.0827 is a property tax subject to other

requirements of the Wisconsin Statutes.                   In contrast, the Town

contends    the    utility    district        statute    authorizes        a   form    of

special tax, bound only by the procedural requirements of that

section.     For the reasons that follow, we agree with WPT.

                       A.    Authorization of Taxation

      ¶11   As Chief Justice John Marshall famously wrote, "the
power to tax involves the power to destroy[.]"                        McCulloch v.

Maryland,     17     U.S.    316,   431       (1819).         Cognizant         of    the

consequential power the State wields when it imposes taxes on

the     people,     "Wisconsin      recognizes          the   general          rule    of

construction that a tax cannot be imposed without clear and

express language for that purpose, and where ambiguity and doubt

exist, it must be resolved in favor of the person upon whom it

is sought to impose the tax."                 City of Plymouth v. Elsner, 28
Wis. 2d 102, 106, 135 N.W.2d 799 (1965) (citing Wadhams Oil Co.
                                          7
                                                                          No.       2022AP1233

v. State, 210 Wis. 448, 459, 245 N.W. 646 (1933)).                            Like cities,

towns "have no inherent power to tax.                         [Towns] may only enact

the types of taxes authorized by the legislature."                                  Blue Top

Motel, Inc. v. City of Stevens Point, 107 Wis. 2d 392, 395, 320

N.W.2d 172        (1982)    (citing       Jordan        v.     Menomonee        Falls,      28

Wis. 2d 608, 621, 137 N.W.2d 442 (1965)).

       ¶12   We     first      examine       whether         Wis.     Stat.     §     66.0827

authorizes the Town's implementation of the TUF with "clear and

express language for that purpose."                     Elsner, 28 Wis. 2d at 106.

Our interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 66.0827 "'begins with the

language of the statute.'                If the meaning of the language is

plain, our inquiry ordinarily ends."                    Milwaukee Dist. Council 48

v.   Milwaukee     County,      2019   WI      24,    ¶11,     385    Wis. 2d       748,   924

N.W.2d 153 (quoting State ex rel. Kalal v. Cir. Ct. for Dane

Cnty.,    2004     WI   58,     ¶45,     271       Wis. 2d     633,    681     N.W.2d 110)

(citation omitted).            Consideration of a "statute's context and

structure    are     critical     to     a     proper    plain-meaning          analysis."

Brey    v.   State      Farm    Mut.     Auto.       Ins.,     2022    WI 7,        ¶11,   400
Wis. 2d 417, 970 N.W.2d 1 (citing Milwaukee Dist. Council 48,

385 Wis. 2d 748, ¶11).

       ¶13   Wisconsin Stat. § 66.0827 provides, in relevant part:

       (1) Towns . . . may establish utility districts.

             (b) In towns, the town board may direct that the
                 cost of any convenience or public improvement
                 provided in the district and not paid for by
                 special assessment be paid from the district
                 fund under sub. (2).

                                               8
                                                                          No.    2022AP1233

      (2) The fund of each utility district shall be provided
          by taxation of the property in the district, upon
          an annual estimate by the . . . town chairperson[.]
(Emphasis added).         In enacting the TUF, the Town implemented a

taxation scheme based on property owners' estimated usage of

roads within the municipality.                 Town ordinance § 482-4(B) states

the Town board "shall by resolution determine . . . formulas for

the     calculation       of     the     fee        and      specific     use     category

classifications."              Acting    under        this    ordinance,        the        board

developed a formula for funding the utility district derived
from a statistical analysis of road usage by various property

types     within    the    municipality,             divided       into   various           "use

category     classifications."                The    Town     uses    that    formula         to

allocate      taxes       across        all        developed       property       in         the

municipality.

      ¶14    Wisconsin         Stat.     §         66.0827,     however,        authorizes

"taxation of the property in the district," not taxation based

on estimated usage of roads in the district.                         Applying the clear

and     express    language       of    the        statute,    a     "taxation        of     the

property" is merely another way of saying a "property tax."                                   A
"taxation of the property" and a "property tax" are materially

the same.     As explained more fully below, property taxation may

not exceed municipal levy limits, with exceptions that do not

apply in this case.              See supra Section III.B.                    Accordingly,

§ 66.0827 provides a mechanism for allocating taxation within a

utility     district,     but    does    not        authorize      taxation     above        and

beyond a municipality's levy limit.

                                               9
                                                                                    No.       2022AP1233

       ¶15    The    Town     contends       "taxation            of    the     property"         under

Wis.   Stat.      § 66.0827        is    a   "special            tax"    but     not      a    general

property tax.           In its statutory analysis, the Town primarily

argues § 66.0827 would lack any purpose if district funding were

subject      to   the      levy   limit      because         a    municipality            would     not

undertake the effort to establish a utility district if it were

not a separate source for funding public improvements.                                          In the

Town's view, the legislature "intended" the utility district as

an     alternative          to     general        property              taxes       and        special

assessments.         For several reasons, we are unpersuaded by the

Town's reading of the statute.

       ¶16    First, "the legislature knows how to write a statute

accomplishing         the     work       [the     Town]          would     have        Wis.       Stat.

[§ 66.0827]       perform."          Teigen       v.       Wisconsin       Elections           Comm'n,

2022   WI 64,       ¶49,    403    Wis. 2d 607,             976    N.W.2d 519             (lead    op.)

(citing State v. Yakich, 2022 WI 8, ¶24, 400 Wis. 2d 549, 970

N.W.2d 12).         Wisconsin Stat. § 74.01(5) defines "special tax" to

mean "any amount entered in the tax roll which is not a general
property      tax,      special      assessment            or     special       charge."            The

legislature could have specifically authorized municipalities to

fund utility districts through a "special tax" as defined in

§ 74.01(5), but it did not.                  Instead, utility districts must be

funded via "taxation of the property" and as a property tax,

such taxation must comport with the statutes governing property

taxes,    including         the    levy      limit         mandated       under        Wis.       Stat.

§ 66.0602.           The    Town        offers        no    authority          to    support        its
characterization of the TUF as a "special tax" under Chapter 74
                                                 10
                                                                            No.    2022AP1233

that would be exempt from a municipal levy limit, rather than a

general property tax.

      ¶17    Second,     the      Town     effectively          asks   this       court       to

conclude     the     legislature           "hid[]        [an]       elephant           in   [a]

mousehole[.]"        Id.,      ¶63      (majority       op.)    (quoting      Whitman         v.

American      Trucking           Ass'n,        531      U.S. 457,           468        (2001))

(modifications in the original).                     The negligible difference in

language——"taxation         of    the     property"      as     opposed     to     "property

tax"——cannot bear the weight of the work the Town would assign

it.     More plausibly, "taxation of the property in the district"

carries no meaningful difference from "property taxes" beyond

differentiating between property taxes imposed within a discrete

taxation district and the "general property tax" imposed on all

non-exempt     property      owners       in     the    municipality        as     a    whole.

Because the public improvement funded by a utility district may

benefit     only   select      properties        within       the   municipality,           the

legislature limited apportionment of such property taxes to the

"property     in   the    district"        alone.         Carving      out        particular
properties within the municipality for imposition of a TUF does

not change its nature as a property tax.

      ¶18    Because a TUF is a property tax, its funding through

the     establishment     of      a     utility        district      must     follow        the

procedures outlined in Chapter 70 of the Wisconsin Statutes.

"The assessment of general property for taxation in all the

towns, cities and villages of this state shall be made according

to this chapter unless otherwise specifically provided."                                    Wis.
Stat.    § 70.05(1)      (emphasis        added).         Chapter      70     outlines        a
                                            11
                                                                           No.       2022AP1233

procedure for calculating an ad valorem property tax, meaning

one based on the market value of the property.                            In calculating

estimated use of roads, the Town bases the TUF on the class of

the property and its commercial characteristics, not the value

of     the   property.          Because      Wis.    Stat.     § 66.0827         does       not

authorize "taxation of property" to be based on anything other

than     property     value,      the     TUF's      assessment          methodology        is

unlawful.

       ¶19    Chapter      70    also     exempts      certain          properties         from

property taxation altogether.                Wis. Stat. § 70.01 ("Taxes shall

be levied, under this chapter, upon all general property in this

state except property that is exempt from taxation.") (emphasis

added).      The Town imposes the TUF upon all developed properties

in the district, regardless of their tax-exempt status.                               The law

does not give the Town any authority to impose a property tax on

tax-exempt properties within the municipality.

       ¶20    The Town reads Wis. Stat. § 66.0827 as a standalone

statutory taxation scheme not subject to Chapter 70 or any other
provision      of    the     Wisconsin       Statutes.             Under       the     Town's

reasoning,     the    only      procedure         binding    the    Town       appears      in

subsection (2), which requires "an annual estimate by . . . the

town chairperson."          Once the estimate is made, the Town argues

it   should    be    permitted     to     impose     the    tax    by    any     reasonable

means.        In    the    absence      of    an     express       directive          by   the

legislature exempting utility districts from Chapter 70, which

applies to all property taxes imposed in the state, we have no
authority to read one into the statute.                     "[W]hat a text chooses
                                             12
                                                                           No.   2022AP1233

not to do" is as significant "as its affirmative dispositions."

Antonin        Scalia    &       Bryan     A.        Garner,     Reading     Law:       The

Interpretations of Legal Texts                       57 (2012).        For this reason,

"[w]e     do     not    read      words     into       a    statute . . . rather,         we

interpret the words the legislature actually enacted into law."

State v. Hinkle, 2019 WI 96, ¶24, 389 Wis. 2d 1, 935 N.W.2d 271

(quoting State v. Fitzgerald, 2019 WI 69, ¶30, 387 Wis. 2d 384,

929 N.W.2d 165).

      ¶21      Nothing in Wis. Stat. §66.0827 conflicts with Chapter

70.      A     statutory     process      to     determine       a   budgetary      estimate

differs from a statutory process to levy a tax.                            Subsection (2)

merely       specifies     how    the     Town       may   set   the   desired      taxation

amount, pending approval by the Town's board.                            Nothing in the

text authorizes the imposition of that amount free from the

restrictions imposed under other statutes broadly applicable to

property taxation.             The imposition of property taxes to fund a

public improvement under § 66.0827 must follow the procedures

that apply to all property taxes in this state.                              Because the
Town failed to follow those procedures, the TUF is unlawful.

                                    B.    Levy Limits

      ¶22      The law limits the amount by which municipalities may

increase property taxes.                  "[Wisconsin Stat. §] 66.0602, among

other provisions, includes a limit on the amount a governmental

subdivision may increase its property tax levy in a given year."

Brown County v. Brown Cnty. Taxpayers Ass'n., 2022 WI 13, ¶23,

400 Wis. 2d 781, 971 N.W.2d 491.                     The statute provides:

                                                13
                                                               No.    2022AP1233

    (2)    Levy Limit.

           (a) Except    as    provided . . . no   political
               subdivision may increase its levy in any year
               by a percentage that exceeds the political
               subdivision's valuation factor. . . .   [T]he
               base amount in any year, to which the limit
               under this section applies, shall be the
               actual levy for the immediately preceding
               year.
§ 66.0602(2).        The statute lists tax increases to which the levy

limit   does    not    apply,   including     assuming    responsibility    for

municipal services, servicing municipal debt, bridge and culvert
repair, and payments to public libraries.                 § 66.0602(3).      In

addition, if a municipality wants to exceed its levy limit under

subsection (2), the statute allows it to do so only with the

approval of the electorate:

    (4)    Referendum exception.

           (a) A political subdivision may exceed the levy
               increase limit under sub. (2) if its governing
               body adopts a resolution to that effect and if
               the    resolution    is    approved    in     a
               referendum. . . .    The    resolution    shall
               specify the proposed amount of increase in the
               levy, the purpose for which the increase will
               be used, and whether the proposed amount of
               increase is for the next fiscal year only or
               if it will apply on an ongoing basis.
§ 66.0602(4).

    ¶23    The statute expressly limits year-over-year increases

in municipal property tax levies to the amount of the valuation

factor,        the     "percentage         change   in      the      political

subdivision's . . . value            due      to    new     construction[,]"

effectively freezing property taxes on existing property within
the municipality.         Wis. Stat. § 66.0602(1)(d).             Although the

                                       14
                                                                                  No.     2022AP1233

legislature      affords       town     boards       a    measure          of    flexibility       by

exempting certain types of spending from the levy limits, the

legislature allows town boards to raise their levy limits only

with the voters' consent through referendum.

       ¶24    An exception for spending on public improvements or

utility districts is not listed in Wis. Stat. § 66.0602(3).                                       Nor

does   Wis.     Stat.      § 66.0827         exempt      funds       raised       to    support     a

utility district from municipal levy limits.                                    We may not add

exceptions to the levy limit statute.                       See Wisconsin Legislature

v.    Palm,    2020       WI 42,    ¶30,      391        Wis. 2d 497,            942    N.W.2d 900

("[D]espite         the      detailed        nature        of        the        list,     and     the

Legislature's consideration of acts of DHS and its consideration

of 'orders,' no act or order of DHS pursuant to Wis. Stat.

§ 252.02 is exempted from the definition of 'Rule.'").                                          It is

the legislature's prerogative to choose which types of spending

are exempt from levy limits——and which are not.                                  In the absence

of    an   applicable        exception,        the       Town    may       not     increase       its

property tax levy beyond the limit allowed by law.
       ¶25    The Town did put a referendum before its residents,

but the voters rejected an increase in the levy limit under Wis.

Stat. § 66.0602(4).             The option Town residents chose——imposing

the    TUF——was     offered        as   an    alternative            to    raising        the    levy

limit.        The Town does not argue the voters consented to an

increase in the levy limit.

       ¶26    The     Town    argues     the        taxation         funding        the    utility

district supports a separate "governmental unit" to which it has
transferred       responsibility         to     provide          a    public        improvement;
                                               15
                                                                         No.       2022AP1233

therefore, the taxation of the district should not be considered

part of the Town's property tax levy.                    The Town points to Wis.

Stat. § 66.0602(3)(a) as evidence the legislature contemplated

transferring responsibility to other governmental units, with

only a transfer of "services" requiring a reduction in the levy

limit.       Because the utility district has assumed responsibility

for a public improvement, and not a "service" as that term is

used, the Town claims it may transfer responsibility for road

reconstruction without reducing its levy limit.

       ¶27    This strained interpretation of the levy limit statute

disregards        the    fact   that    levy        limits     apply    to     "political

subdivisions," which means a "city, village, town, or county."

Wis.   Stat.      § 66.0602(1)(c).          Similarly,          property       taxes      are

imposed by "taxation districts," which means a "town, village or

city in which general property taxes are levied and collected."

Wis.   Stat.      § 70.045.      A     utility      district     is    not     a   taxation

district under the statutory definition, which means it may not

impose property taxes at all; only the municipality may do so.
Although      a   town    may   establish       a    utility    district,          the   town

itself levies the taxes to fund the district; the town later

allocates the funds raised to the utility district.                                See Wis.

Stat. § 66.0827(1)(b) ("In towns, the town board may direct that

the cost of any convenience or public improvement provided in

the district and not paid for by special assessment be paid from

the district fund under sub. (2).").                    Because the municipality

levies the taxes, state law subjects them to the municipality's
levy limit.
                                           16
                                                                             No.       2022AP1233

      ¶28     The    Town      also      argues     that     if     funds    raised         for     a

utility district count against the municipality's levy limit,

the utility district statute fails to serve any purpose.                                        Under

the Town's interpretation, a municipality would undertake the

administrative effort to establish a utility district apart from

the municipality only if district taxation is similarly separate

from municipal taxation.                 Otherwise, the Town argues, any public

improvement the utility district could fund may also be funded

by the municipality's general property tax levy directly.

      ¶29     The    Town's         argument      fails       to    consider       a       utility

district comprising only a portion of a municipality.                                      In this

case, the Town established the utility district to cover the

entire municipality, but a utility district could encompass some

subset   of    the        municipality,        with     an    increased       property           tax

imposed only on property within the district.                                The statutory

text supports this interpretation by referencing "taxation of

the   property           in   the       district."           Wis.    Stat.        § 66.0827(2)

(emphasis      added).           If      the   municipality          provides          a    public
improvement         to    only      a    portion       of    the     properties            in    the

municipality, the utility district statute allows the town board

to    apportion          taxes      among      those        properties       to     fund          the

improvement     rather         than      requiring     the     entire    municipality              to

share the cost.               Localized apportionment changes the scope of

the taxation but does not transform the taxation into something

other than a property tax, nor does it exempt the taxation from

municipal levy limits.

                                               17
                                                                          No.     2022AP1233

    ¶30     Taxation       through      utility       districts       parallels           the

statewide    taxation       schemes    for      stadium    districts.            Wisconsin

Stat. § 77.705 establishes a "baseball park district" spanning

several counties in the Milwaukee area, and Wis. Stat. § 77.706

establishes     a   "football         stadium      district"       spanning           several

counties near Green Bay.              Under both statutes, the legislature

enacted     special        taxation      of      activity        within         the     local

communities    benefitting          substantially         from    stadium        projects,

rather than spreading the cost of those projects across the

entire    state.        In      a   similar      fashion,        municipalities          may

apportion particular costs among properties within established

utility districts in which the municipality provides the public

improvement, rather than imposing costs on all properties within

the municipality.

    ¶31     Contrary       to   the   Town's       argument,      applying       the     levy

limits to utility districts does not render the utility district

statute surplusage.          The procedures established under Wis. Stat.

§ 66.0827    create    a     mechanism     for     funding       public    improvements
through     taxation    of      property      in    the    district        rather       than

taxation of all property in the municipality as a whole, and

nothing in the statute authorizes property taxation over and

above the levy limit.           We hold the taxation of property funding

a utility district under Wis. Stat. § 66.0827 is subject to

municipal levy limits.              Because the Town's referendum did not

ask the voters to authorize an increase of the levy limit to

fund the utility district, the Town unlawfully exceeded its levy
limit.
                                           18
                                                                  No.    2022AP1233

                             IV.    CONCLUSION

    ¶32   Wisconsin    law     prescribes            certain     procedures      a

municipality must follow for funding public improvements.                       In

this case, the Town did not follow them.                      The imposition of

property taxes over and above the Town's levy limits requires

the consent of the voters within the municipality.                      Nothing in

the statutes permits the Town to bypass levy limits for the

purpose   of    imposing   a       TUF        on   property    owners     in   the

municipality.

    By the Court.——The judgment and order of the Circuit Court

are affirmed.

                                         19
                                                                            No.    2022AP1233.rgb

      ¶33    REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, J.                       (concurring).             The court

resolves this dispute solely on statutory grounds but Wisconsin

Property Taxpayers, Inc. (WPT) also argues the Transportation

Utility      Fee        (TUF)       violates     the     Uniformity         Clause       of     the

Wisconsin Constitution, which guarantees "[t]he rule of taxation

shall be uniform[.]"                  Wis. Const. art. VIII, § 1.                  "This court

does not normally decide constitutional questions if the case

can be resolved on other grounds;" however, such "constitutional

avoidance" is prudential, not jurisdictional.                               Gabler v. Crime

Victims     Rts.        Bd.,    2017    WI 67,       ¶¶51–52,       376    Wis. 2d 147,         897

N.W.2d 384     (quoting             Adams     Outdoor    Advert.,         Ltd.     v.    City   of

Madison,     2006        WI 104,       ¶91,    294     Wis. 2d 441,         717     N.W.2d 803;

Kollasch      v.        Adamany,       104     Wis. 2d 552,          561,    313        N.W.2d 47

(1981)).     Sometimes the public's interest in a definitive answer

to an important constitutional question compels the court to

"recognize[]        that        the    principle        of    constitutional            avoidance

gives way[.]"            See id., ¶52 (citing Buckingham v. State ex rel.

Killoran, 35 A.2d 903, 904–05 (1944); State ex rel. Bland v. St.
John,   13     So. 2d 161,            170     (1943)).         For    this        reason,     "the

greatest      of        our     judges        have      not     always       followed         [the

constitutional avoidance doctrine] as a rigid rule.                                 Perhaps had

they done so the great opinion of Chief Justice [John] Marshall

in   Marbury       v.    Madison       would    never        have   been    written."           Id.

(quoting Clay v. Sun Ins. Off. Ltd., 363 U.S. 207, 223 (1960)

(Black, J., dissenting)).

      ¶34    On the one hand, the public benefits from a definitive
interpretation           of     a     constitutional          provision,          provided      the

                                                 1
                                                                                  No.    2022AP1233.rgb

analysis      is   rooted        in    the    original          meaning       of    the        text,     as

informed by history.               See New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n,

Inc.    v.    Bruen,       597     U.S.      __,        142    S. Ct. 2111,             2127       (2022).

Indeed, to a significant degree, the people of Wisconsin adopted

a two-tiered system of appellate review to enable this court to

focus on addressing important questions of law.                                    Citizens Study

Comm.   on    Jud.     Org.,       Report      to       Governor        Patrick         J.     Lucey     78

(1973).       Undoubtedly, this court has been "designated by the

constitution . . . as a law declaring court."                                 See Cook v. Cook,

208 Wis. 2d 166, 189, 560 N.W.2d 246 (1997) (quoting State ex

rel.    La    Crosse       Trib.      v.     Cir.       Ct.    for     La    Crosse       Cnty.,        115

Wis. 2d 220,         229–30,           340     N.W.2d 460              (1983)).                A     rigid

constitutional avoidance doctrine would effectively override the

people's sovereign will and leave their liberties subject to

arbitrary and capricious government action.

       ¶35    On     the    other       hand,       an    incorrect          interpretation              of

constitutional text is not easily undone.                                   See Brown v. Allen,

344 U.S. 443, 540 (1953) (Jackson, J., concurring in the result)
("We    are    not     final       because         we     are    infallible,             but       we   are

infallible only because we are final.").                                    For this reason, a

narrow decision is often preferred.

       ¶36    On     balance,          the    court           should    have        exercised           its

discretion in this case to address WPT's uniformity claim.                                              The

public's interest in a definitive answer to this constitutional

question, coupled with the interest of municipal governments in

understanding the parameters governing the creation of utility
districts,         outweigh           the     justifications                for     constitutional

                                                    2
                                                                  No.   2022AP1233.rgb

avoidance.     Whether TUFs survive constitutional scrutiny is of

great public importance, and it is likely to arise again as

municipalities throughout the state consider implementing them.

Addressing the merits in this case to resolve uncertainty going

forward   would    have     been   the   best     course.     See       Gabler,   376

Wis. 2d 147,      ¶¶52–53    (choosing       to   address     a     constitutional

question because the question was of "great public importance");

James   v.   Heinrich,      2021   WI 58,       n.18,   397   Wis. 2d 350,        960

N.W.2d 350 (lead op.) (same).            Under well-established precedent,

the TUF violates the Uniformity Clause.

    ¶37      At its root, the clause serves "to protect the citizen

against unequal, and consequently unjust taxation."                     Gottlieb v.

City of Milwaukee, 33 Wis. 2d 408, 426, 147 N.W.2d 633 (1967)

(quoting Weeks v. City of Milwaukee, 10 Wis. 186, 201 (1860)).

The seminal case on the Uniformity Clause, Gottlieb, identified

several principles of uniformity:

          1. For direct taxation of property, under the
    uniformity rule there can be but one constitutional
    class.   2. All within that class must be taxed on a
    basis of equality so far as practicable and all
    property taxed must bear its burden equally on an ad
    valorem basis.   3. All property not included in that
    class   must  be   absolutely  exempt   from  property
    taxation. 4. Privilege taxes are not direct taxes on
    property and are not subject to the uniformity rule.
    5. While there can be no classification of property
    for different rules or rates of property taxation, the
    legislature can classify as between property that is
    to be taxed and that which is to be wholly exempt, and
    the test of such classification is reasonableness.
    6. There can be variations in the mechanics of
    property assessment or tax imposition so long as the
    resulting taxation shall be borne with as nearly as
    practicable equality on an ad valorem basis with other
    taxable property.

                                         3
                                                                         No.    2022AP1233.rgb

Id. at 423–24.

       ¶38   As    indicated        in     Gottlieb,         the     Uniformity          Clause

applies      to   property        taxes——recurring           direct       taxes     on     real

estate——as opposed to transactional taxes such as those imposed

on income or sales.               Columbia County v. Wis. Ret. Fund, 17

Wis. 2d 310, 325, 116 N.W.2d 142 (1962); Telemark Dev., Inc. v.

Dep't of Revenue, 218 Wis. 2d 809, 825–26, 581 N.W.2d 585 (Ct.

App.     1998)    (citing        State    ex       rel.    Atwood     v.       Johnson,       170

Wis. 218, 242, 175 N.W. 589 (1919)).                        "[W]hen property is the

object of taxation, it should all alike, in proportion to its

value, contribute towards paying the expense of such benefits

and protection.            These are plain and obvious propositions of

equity and justice, sustained as we believe by the very letter

and spirit of the constitution."                      Gottlieb, 33 Wis. 2d at 419

(quoting     Knowlton       v.    Bd.     of   Supervisors          of     Rock    Cnty.,       9

Wis. 378 (*410), 388 (*420) (1859)).                       "Generally, this requires

that real property is taxed according to its fair market value."

Applegate-Bader Farm, LLC v. Wis. Dep't of Revenue, 2021 WI 26,
¶5, 396 Wis. 2d 69, 955 N.W.2d 793; Wis. Stat. § 70.32(1).

       ¶39   A core principle of uniformity requires all properties

subject to taxation to be taxed the same, in proportion to their

value.       "Where    a    property       tax      is    levied,    there        can    be   no

classification which interferes with substantial uniformity of

rate based on value."               Elsner, 28 Wis. 2d at 107.                      "For the

direct    method      of   taxing        property,        taxation       on    property       so-

called, as to the rule of uniformity, there can be but one
constitutional        class.         All       not       included    therein        must       be

                                               4
                                                                               No.    2022AP1233.rgb

absolutely exempt from such taxation.                           All within such class

must    be    taxed     based    on        a    basis      of        equality         so    far     as

practicable."      Id. at 108 (quoting Chi. & N.W. Ry. v. State, 128

Wis. 553, 603–04, 108 N.W. 557 (1906)); see also Gottlieb, 33

Wis. 2d at 418–19; U.S. Oil Co. v. City of Milwaukee, 2011 WI

App 4, ¶23, 331 Wis. 2d 407, 794 N.W.2d 904 (citing State ex

rel.    Hensel     v.    Town    of     Wilson,           55    Wis. 2d 101,               106,    197

N.W.2d 794      (1972))     ("[T]he            method     or     mode          of    taxing       real

property must be applied uniformly to all classes of property

within the tax district.").

       ¶40    The rule of uniformity has been held inapplicable to

special      assessments,       which      are      based       on    a    determination            of

specific tangible benefits conveyed to the property subject to

the assessment.         Elsner, 28 Wis. 2d at 108.                     The assessment must

be "fair, equitable, and in proportion to the benefits accruing

to the property."         CED Props., LLC v. City of Oshkosh, 2018 WI

24, ¶21, 380 Wis. 2d 399, 909 N.W.2d 136.                             The benefit attached

to special assessments may be narrow or broad in scope and, in
some   circumstances,        may      be       applied     to    all       property          in    the

municipality.         Duncan Dev. Corp v. Crestview Sanitary Dist., 22

Wis. 2d 258,       264–65,       125       N.W.2d 617           (1964)          (concluding          a

sanitary district that benefits the entire town may be financed

by   special     assessment      because            the   degree          of    benefit       varies

between different properties).

       ¶41    Applying    these       longstanding             rules       to       the    ordinance

before us, the TUF does not survive constitutional scrutiny.                                        As
previously       discussed,      municipalities                fund       utility          districts

                                                5
                                                                     No.    2022AP1233.rgb

through taxation of property.               As a property tax, this taxation

is subject to the rule of uniformity, and the funding must be

raised through ad valorem taxes on property in the district.

Within    the      district,    there   can      be   but   one     class    of   taxable

property, and all property within the class must be taxed at the

same rate.

    ¶42       As    implemented,     the      TUF     fails   on     several      fronts.

First, by applying a fixed fee to all residential property in

the district, despite their varying fair market values, the TUF

imposes an impermissible variable rate of taxation on different

homes.          Second,    by    applying        a    different       methodology      to

commercial properties based on estimated road use rather than

the value of those properties, the TUF creates multiple classes

of property.

    ¶43       The Town argues the TUF should be exempt from the rule

of uniformity because the calculation of tax takes into account

the benefit each property receives from access to the Town's

roads.    In the Town's view, the TUF is sufficiently similar to a
special         assessment,       allowing            taxation       of      properties

corresponding to the degree of benefit conveyed by the road

construction.        This reasoning cannot be reconciled with the law.

    ¶44       As a preliminary matter, the utility district statute

draws     a     distinction       between       property      taxes        and    special

assessments.          Wisconsin    Stat.        § 66.0827(1)(b)       permits      public

improvements "not paid for by special assessment" to be "paid

from the district fund under sub. (2)."                          Under § 66.0827(2),
"[t]he    fund      of   each   utility     district        shall    be     provided   by

                                            6
                                                                           No.   2022AP1233.rgb

taxation      of     the     property       in       the    district[.]"               The    Town

identifies nothing in the law that would exempt this sort of

"taxation      of    the     property"          from      the     uniformity      requirement

provided       it    comes     close        enough         to     resembling       a     special

assessment.

       ¶45    Even     if     the     TUF       were       comparable       to     a     special

assessment, it does not satisfy the legal characteristics of

one.         "Public       improvements         usually         fall    into     one     of     two

categories:         general or local.                A general improvement is one

that confers a general benefit, that is, a 'substantially equal

benefit       and      advantage'          to    the        property        of    the         whole

community[.]"          Genrich v. City of Rice Lake, 2003 WI App 255,

¶8,    268     Wis. 2d 233,          673        N.W.2d 361         (citing       Duncan,         22

Wis. 2d at 264).             "In contrast, a local improvement, although

incidentally beneficial to the public at large, is primarily

made for the accommodation and convenience of inhabitants in a

particular      locality       and    confers          'special        benefits'       to     their

properties."         Id.
       ¶46    A special benefit must have "the effect of furnishing

an uncommon advantage to a property differing in kind, rather

than    in    degree,       from     the    benefits            enjoyed    by    the     general

public." CED Props., 380 Wis. 2d 399, ¶37.                                To claim specific

benefits are conveyed to a property by a public improvement, the

details and scope of the public improvement must be known, and

the    specific        benefits        conveyed            to     particular       properties

identified.         In the absence of these details, it is not possible
to    determine      whether        the    tax       is    "fair,      equitable,        and    in

                                                 7
                                                                         No.   2022AP1233.rgb

proportion" to the benefits conveyed to a given property as

uniformity requires.               The Town established the TUF to raise

general funds for improving roads throughout the municipality on

an ongoing basis.            While individual properties will benefit from

improvements to the streets on which they are located, the cost

of any improvement is not isolated to the properties located on

a particular street.               As a result, the tax is not proportional

to    the    benefits       received,        which    are    enjoyed     by    the    general

public.

       ¶47        Additionally, properties do not benefit equally from

each investment under the Town's road construction plan.                                     In

Duncan, a new water tower was constructed that increased water

pressure and capacity across the entire district simultaneously.

22     Wis. 2d at        264.           In    contrast,           Town   roads       will    be

reconstructed piece by piece over many years.                              Each piece of

road    will       substantially        benefit      certain       properties    but       bring

little       to    no   benefit    to    others      in     the    district.         The    road

improvements the Town would fund with the TUF do not share the
same characteristics as improvements funded through a special

assessment.

       ¶48        Finally, a special assessment is calculated based on

the benefit conveyed to the property by the public improvement

itself.           For example, when a sidewalk is added to a specific

street, the special assessment to fund it reflects the resulting

benefit to properties on that street.                        In the case of the TUF,

the    tax    is    based    not    on    the   individualized           benefits      of   the
particular          improvement,         but        on      estimated      use       of     the

                                                8
                                                                         No.    2022AP1233.rgb

municipality's roads.           The TUF does not depend upon whether the

roads a property actually uses are improved or not.                               A special

assessment may not be imposed for access to existing public

infrastructure.

       ¶49     Unlike a special assessment imposed one time to fund a

particular       improvement,     The     Town      would       impose    the     TUF     on    a

recurring basis to maintain the Town's roads indefinitely.                                When

a municipality undertakes ongoing road maintenance, it must be

funded       through   its    general    property         tax    levy.          Because    all

properties        in    the      Town     benefit          from       having        adequate

transportation         infrastructure,             all     property            owners     must

uniformly bear the costs of maintaining it, in proportion to the

value    of    their    properties       in       the    district.         The     Wisconsin

Constitution does not permit property taxation based on factors

other    than     property      value,    unless         the     prerequisites          for    a

special assessment are met.               As the Town concedes, the TUF is

not a special assessment.               The TUF is a tax on property, which

must    be    based    on    market   value       in     order   to   comply       with       the
Uniformity Clause.            Because the TUF is based on the estimated

number of vehicle trips generated by each property rather than

the property's value, the TUF violates the Uniformity Clause.

For the benefit of the public, the court should have said so.

       ¶50     I am authorized to state that Justice PATIENCE DRAKE

ROGGENSACK joins this concurrence.

                                              9
    No.   2022AP1233.rgb

1