City of Waukesha v. City of Waukesha Board of Review

2021 WI 89

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2019AP1479

COMPLETE TITLE: State of Wisconsin ex rel. City of Waukesha,
Petitioner-Respondent-Petitioner,
v.
City of Waukesha Board of Review,
Respondent-Appellant,
Salem United Methodist Church,
Interested Party-Respondent.

REVIEW OF DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
Reported at 395 Wis. 2d 239,952 N.W.2d 806
PDC No:2020 WI App 77 - Published)

OPINION FILED: December 21, 2021
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT: October 27, 2021

SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT: Circuit
COUNTY: Waukesha
JUDGE: Michael O. Bohren

JUSTICES:
ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J., delivered the majority opinion for a
unanimous Court.
NOT PARTICIPATING:

ATTORNEYS:

For the petitioner-respondent-petitioner, there were briefs
filed by Brian E. Running, city attorney. There was an oral
argument by Brian E. Running.

For the respondent-appellant, there was a brief filed by
Eric J. Larson and Municipal Law & Litigation Group, S.C.,
Waukesha. There was an oral argument by Eric J. Larson.
 An amicus curiae brief was filed on behalf of League of
Wisconsin Municipalities by Claire Silverman, Madison.

2
 2021 WI 89
NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2019AP1479
(L.C. No. 2018CV1432)

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

State of Wisconsin ex rel. City of Waukesha,

Petitioner-Respondent-Petitioner,

v.
FILED
City of Waukesha Board of Review,
DEC 21, 2021
Respondent-Appellant,
Sheila T. Reiff
Salem United Methodist Church, Clerk of Supreme Court

Interested Party-Respondent.

ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J., delivered the majority opinion for a
unanimous Court.

REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals. Affirmed.

¶1 ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J. The petitioner, City of

Waukesha (the City), seeks review of a published opinion of the

court of appeals that reversed the circuit court's order that

allowed the City to seek certiorari review of a tax assessment
determination of the City of Waukesha Board of Review (the
 No. 2019AP1479

Board).1 The court of appeals concluded instead that the City

could not seek such review, reversed the circuit court's

determination, and remanded to the circuit court with directions

to quash the writ of certiorari and dismiss the action.

¶2 This case raises the novel question of whether the

municipality itself can seek certiorari review of a

determination of the municipality's board of review. The City

contends that the statutory language of Wis. Stat. § 70.47

(2017-18)2 allows it to appeal a Board determination by bringing

a certiorari action pursuant to § 70.47(13). The Board, in

contrast, argues that the City has no such right and that the

City's participation in a tax assessment proceeding ends after

the Board has made its decision.

¶3 We conclude that Wis. Stat. § 70.47 does not allow the

City to seek certiorari review of a decision of the Board.

Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals.

I

¶4 The Salem United Methodist Church (the Church) owns a
piece of property located within the City. In 2017, the

property was assessed at a value of $51,900, but the following

year the assessment was raised to $642,200. The reassessment

was triggered by the Church putting the property up for sale.

State ex rel. City of Waukesha v. City of Waukesha Bd. of
1

Rev., 2020 WI App 77, 395 Wis. 2d 239, 952 N.W.2d 806 (reversing
and remanding the order of the circuit court for Waukesha
County, Michael O. Bohren, Judge).

All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to
2

the 2017-18 version unless otherwise indicated.

2
 No. 2019AP1479

Ultimately, the Church received an offer of $1,000,000 for a

portion of the property.3

¶5 Taking exception to the increase in the assessed value

of its property, the Church filed an objection. It submitted

that the value of the property should be properly assessed at

$108,655. The Church argued that the City's valuation was based

on speculative future use and that it did not properly account

for the undeveloped nature of the land.

¶6 At a hearing held before the Board, both the taxpayer

and the City appeared as parties. The City argued in favor of

the City assessor's valuation. After taking testimony from the

assessor and a representative of the Church, the Board accepted

the Church's valuation, but rounded up slightly to arrive at a

value of $108,700.

¶7 The City appealed the Board's determination by seeking

certiorari review in the circuit court pursuant to Wis. Stat.

§ 70.47(13).4 It argued that the Board acted contrary to law

3 The property at issue consists of 23.16 acres. Of this
amount, the Church listed for sale two parcels consisting of
8.77 acres for a total asking price of $1,400,000. The
referenced offer was for a 5.27 acre parcel.
4 Governing certiorari review of board of review
proceedings, Wis. Stat. § 70.47(13) provides:

Except as provided in s. 70.85, appeal from the
determination of the board of review shall be by an
action for certiorari commenced within 90 days after
the taxpayer receives the notice under sub. (12). The
action shall be given preference. If the court on the
appeal finds any error in the proceedings of the board
which renders the assessment or the proceedings void,
it shall remand the assessment to the board for
3
 No. 2019AP1479

because it failed to uphold the presumption of correctness that

attaches to an assessor's valuation,5 that the Board's

determination was not supported by sufficient credible evidence,

and that the Board's decision was arbitrary and unreasonable.6

¶8 Contending that the City's petition failed to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted, the Board moved to quash

the writ. As relevant here, it asserted that the City lacks the

authority under Wis. Stat. § 70.47 to appeal a decision of its

own Board of Review by certiorari. In other words, it argued

that § 70.47 affords only taxpayers, and not municipalities, the

ability to seek certiorari review of a board decision.

¶9 The circuit court denied the motion to quash,

concluding that Wis. Stat. § 70.47 "does give the City the

further proceedings in accordance with the court's
determination and retain jurisdiction of the matter
until the board has determined an assessment in
accordance with the court's order. For this purpose,
if final adjournment of the board occurs prior to the
court's decision on the appeal, the court may order
the governing body of the assessing authority to
reconvene the board.
5 See Wis. Stat. § 70.47(8)(i) ("The board shall presume
that the assessor's valuation is correct. That presumption may
be rebutted by a sufficient showing by the objector that the
valuation is incorrect."); Sausen v. Town of Black Creek Bd. of
Rev., 2014 WI 9, ¶26, 352 Wis. 2d 576, 843 N.W.2d 39.
6 On certiorari review, a court's inquiry is limited to
whether the board's actions were: (1) within its jurisdiction;
(2) according to law; (3) arbitrary, oppressive, or unreasonable
and represented its will and not its judgment; and (4) supported
by evidence such that the board might reasonably make the order
or determination in question. State ex rel. Collison v. City of
Milwaukee Bd. of Rev., 2021 WI 48, ¶20, 397 Wis. 2d 246, 960
N.W.2d 1.

4
 No. 2019AP1479

ability to intervene and have a role in the writ of certiorari

proceedings." Turning to the merits of the City's claims, the

circuit court agreed with the City that the Church did not

present sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of

correctness. It thus granted the writ of certiorari and

remanded to the Board for further proceedings.

¶10 The Board appealed, and the court of appeals reversed

the circuit court's order, concluding "that § 70.47(13) does not

authorize the City to commence a certiorari action." State ex

rel. City of Waukesha v. City of Waukesha Bd. of Rev., 2020 WI

App 77, ¶2, 395 Wis. 2d 239, 952 N.W.2d 806. Accordingly, it

determined that the circuit court erred in denying the Board's

motion to quash and as a result did not address the merits of

the City's arguments that the Board acted unlawfully,

unreasonably, and contrary to the credible evidence. Id., ¶2

n.2. The City petitioned for this court's review.

II

¶11 We are called upon to review the court of appeals'
determination that the circuit court erroneously denied the

Board's motion to quash. "A motion to quash a writ of

certiorari is in the nature of a motion to dismiss." Fee v. Bd.

of Rev. for Town of Florence, 2003 WI App 17, ¶7, 259

Wis. 2d 868, 657 N.W.2d 112. Whether a motion to dismiss was

properly granted or denied is a question of law this court

reviews independently of the determinations rendered by the

circuit court and court of appeals. Town of Lincoln v. City of
Whitehall, 2019 WI 37, ¶21, 386 Wis. 2d 354, 925 N.W.2d 520.
5
 No. 2019AP1479

¶12 In our review, we are required to interpret Wis. Stat.

§ 70.47. Statutory interpretation likewise presents a question

of law we review independently of the determinations of the

circuit court and court of appeals. Yacht Club at Sister Bay

Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Village of Sister Bay, 2019 WI 4, ¶17, 385

Wis. 2d 158, 922 N.W.2d 95.

III

¶13 For context, we begin by providing background on board

of review proceedings. Subsequently, we address the question of

whether the City may seek certiorari review of a Board decision

under the terms of Wis. Stat. § 70.47.

A

¶14 Assessment of real property in every municipality in

Wisconsin is accomplished according to the terms of ch. 70 of

the Wisconsin Statutes. Wis. Stat. § 70.05(1). All property is

valued by the municipality's assessor and reported in an

assessment roll for the taxation district. Nankin v. Village of

Shorewood, 2001 WI 92, ¶17, 245 Wis. 2d 86, 630 N.W.2d 141.
¶15 Chapter 70 also "establishes a comprehensive procedure

by which property owners may challenge the valuation or the

amount of property assessed for taxation." Hermann v. Town of

Delavan, 215 Wis. 2d 370, 379, 572 N.W.2d 855 (1998). "If a

property owner disagrees with an assessment, the owner may file

a formal objection with the municipality's board of review."

Nankin, 245 Wis. 2d 86, ¶17 (citing Wis. Stat. § 70.47(7)(a)

(1997-98)).

6
 No. 2019AP1479

¶16 The board of review is a quasi-judicial body that

hears evidence and decides whether the assessor's valuation is

correct. Id., ¶18 (citation omitted). It is not an assessing

body. Id. The board presumes that the assessor's valuation is

correct, but this presumption may be rebutted "by a sufficient

showing by the objector that the valuation is incorrect." Wis.

Stat. § 70.47(8)(i); Sausen v. Town of Black Creek Bd. of Rev.,

2014 WI 9, ¶26, 352 Wis. 2d 576, 843 N.W.2d 39. If the

assessment is determined to be incorrect, "the board shall raise

or lower the assessment accordingly and shall state on the

record the correct assessment and that that assessment is

reasonable in light of all of the relevant evidence that the

board received." § 70.47(9)(a).

¶17 A detailed method for appealing a decision of the

board of review is provided within the statutory scheme of chs.

70 and 74. Hermann, 215 Wis. 2d at 379. Three options exist

for property owners who wish to appeal a board decision: (1)

certiorari review pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 70.47(13); (2) a
written complaint with the Department of Revenue to revalue the

property under Wis. Stat. § 70.85;7 and (3) an excessive

Wisconsin Stat. § 70.85 provides an alternative procedure
7

by which a taxpayer may seek the Department of Revenue's review
of a board determination in specific circumstances. Namely,
pursuant to § 70.85(1),

A taxpayer may file a written complaint with the
department of revenue alleging that the assessment of
one or more items or parcels of property in the
taxation district the value of which, as determined
under s. 70.47, does not exceed $1,000,000 is
7
 No. 2019AP1479

assessment action pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 74.37.8 U.S. Oil Co.,

Inc. v. City of Milwaukee, 2011 WI App 4, ¶15, 331 Wis. 2d 407,

794 N.W.2d 904; Thomas J. McAdams, Over Assessed? Appealing

Home Tax Assessments, Wis. Law., July 2011, at 18-19.

"Compliance with the board of review procedures is a

prerequisite to all three forms of appeal and the three sections

are the exclusive method for challenging an excessive

assessment." Reese v. City of Pewaukee, 2002 WI App 67, ¶6, 252

Wis. 2d 361, 642 N.W.2d 596.

¶18 This case involves the first of these three options, a

certiorari action. Certiorari is a mechanism by which a court

may test the validity of a decision rendered by a municipality,

administrative agency, or other quasi-judicial tribunal. State

ex rel. Anderson v. Town of Newbold, 2021 WI 6, ¶11, 395

Wis. 2d 351, 954 N.W.2d 323 (citing Ottman v. Town of Primrose,

2011 WI 18, ¶34, 332 Wis. 2d 3, 796 N.W.2d 411).

¶19 On certiorari review, the reviewing court's inquiry is

narrow. It is limited to the record before the board and
addresses only whether the board's actions were: (1) within its

jurisdiction; (2) according to law; (3) arbitrary, oppressive,

radically out of proportion to the general level of
assessment of all other property in the district.

An action under Wis. Stat. § 74.37 is a new trial, not a
8

certiorari action. Metro. Assocs. v. City of Milwaukee, 2018 WI
4, ¶23, 379 Wis. 2d 141, 905 N.W.2d 784. Such an action is not
confined to the record before the board and new evidence may be
presented. Trailwood Ventures, LLC v. Village of Kronenwetter,
2009 WI App 18, ¶7, 315 Wis. 2d 791, 762 N.W.2d 841.

8
 No. 2019AP1479

or unreasonable and represented its will and not its judgment;

and (4) supported by evidence such that the board might

reasonably make the order or determination in question. Thoma

v. Village of Slinger, 2018 WI 45, ¶10, 381 Wis. 2d 311, 912

N.W.2d 56.

B

¶20 With this background in hand, we turn next to address

the specific issue in this case. The parties raise a novel

question regarding whether a municipality may appeal its board

of review's determination by certiorari review.

¶21 Answering this question requires us to examine the

language of Wis. Stat. § 70.47, which governs board of review

proceedings. When interpreting statutes, we begin with the

language of the statute. State ex rel. Kalal v. Cir. Ct. for

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

If the meaning of the statute is plain, we need not inquire

further. Id.

¶22 "Statutory language is given its common, ordinary, and
accepted meaning, except that technical or specially-defined

words or phrases are given their technical or special

definitional meaning." Id. We also interpret statutory

language "in the context in which it is used; not in isolation

but as part of a whole; in relation to the language of

surrounding or closely-related statutes; and reasonably, to

avoid absurd or unreasonable results." Id., ¶46.

¶23 Wisconsin Stat. § 70.47(13) addresses certiorari
review of board decisions. This subsection provides in relevant
9
 No. 2019AP1479

part: "Except as provided in s. 70.85, appeal from the

determination of the board of review shall be by an action for

certiorari commenced within 90 days after the taxpayer receives

the notice under sub. (12)." § 70.47(13).

¶24 The language of subsec. (13) thus guides the reader to

subsec. (12), which sets forth:

Prior to final adjournment, the board of review shall
provide the objector, or the appropriate party under
sub. (10),[9] notice by personal delivery or by mail,
return receipt required, of the amount of the
assessment as finalized by the board and an
explanation of appeal rights and procedures under sub.
(13) and ss. 70.85, 74.35 and 74.37. Upon delivering
or mailing the notice under this subsection, the clerk
of the board of review shall prepare an affidavit
specifying the date when that notice was delivered or
mailed.

9 Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 70.47(10), "If the board has
reason to believe that property for which no objection has been
raised is incorrectly assessed, the board must also review the
assessment for such property and correct any error it
discovers." Hermann v. Town of Delavan, 215 Wis. 2d 370, 379,
572 N.W.2d 855 (1998). Section 70.47(10) provides in relevant
part:

If the board has reason to believe, upon examination
of the roll and other pertinent information, that
other property, the assessment of which is not
complained of, is assessed above or below the general
average of the assessment of the taxation district, or
is omitted, the board shall:

(a) Notify the owner, agent or possessor of such
property of its intention to review such assessment or
place it on the assessment roll and of the time and
place fixed for such hearing in time to be heard
before the board in relation thereto, provided the
residence of such owner, agent or possessor be known
to any member of the board or the assessor.

10
 No. 2019AP1479

¶25 The Board argues, and the court of appeals agreed,

that the above language gives the taxpayer exclusively, and not

the City, the authority to seek certiorari review of a Board

decision. Specifically, the Board asserts that the trigger for

filing a certiorari action contained in Wis. Stat. § 70.47(13)

is the receipt of notice by the taxpayer. In contrast,

§ 70.47(13) does not, according to the Board, include any

trigger for the City to file a certiorari action or even any

requirement that the City receive notice of a Board decision.

¶26 On the other hand, the City contends that subsec. (13)

addresses only when certiorari review may be sought, not who may

seek it. In other words, the City asserts that nothing in Wis.

Stat. § 70.47(13) grants any right to appeal whatsoever, and

that instead it only ensures that the taxpayer is aware of a

right to appeal and fixes the timing of the notice that must be

sent. The fact that § 70.47(13) mentions the taxpayer only and

not the City is of no moment, according to the City, because the

City will be aware of the clerk's affidavit referenced in
subsec. (12) and will use the affidavit to determine the date

the notice was delivered and calculate the appeal deadline.

¶27 For additional support, the City points to Wis. Stat.

§ 70.47(11), which provides: "In all proceedings before the

board the taxation district shall be a party in interest to

secure or sustain an equitable assessment of all the property in

the taxation district." See Wis. Stat. § 70.045 (defining a

"taxation district" as "a town, village or city in which general
property taxes are levied and collected"). In the City's view,
11
 No. 2019AP1479

it would not be a reasonable reading of the statute to conclude

that the City has a protectable interest before the Board, but

it does not maintain that interest after the Board makes its

decision. The City advances that such a reading of § 70.47(11)

would render its interest illusory.

¶28 Synthesizing the text of subsecs. (11), (12), and

(13), we agree with the Board's argument.10 Beginning with Wis.

Stat. § 70.47(13), that subsection provides that "appeal from

the determination of the board of review shall be by an action

for certiorari commenced within 90 days after the taxpayer

receives the notice under sub. (12)." What is notable about

subsec. (13) for our analysis is that it conditions the appeal

deadline on when notice is received by the taxpayer. There is

nothing in the statute that triggers the 90-day period for the

City. We also highlight that it is the taxpayer's receipt of

the notice described in subsec. (12), and not when the notice is

sent, that begins the statutory appeal period.

¶29 Moving to subsec. (12), specific directions are given
as to the delivery of the notice referenced in subsec. (13).

The first sentence of Wis. Stat. § 70.47(12) provides:

Prior to final adjournment, the board of review shall
provide the objector, or the appropriate party under
sub. (10), notice by personal delivery or by mail,
return receipt required, of the amount of the

Because we determine that the City does not have appeal
10

rights under the applicable statutes, we need not address the
City's contention that the taxpayer here failed to meet its
burden to overcome the presumption that the assessor's valuation
is correct.

12
 No. 2019AP1479

assessment as finalized by the board and an
explanation of appeal rights and procedures under sub.
(13) and ss. 70.85, 74.35 and 74.37.
¶30 Like subsec. (13), subsec. (12) refers to the

taxpayer, or "objector," only. It does not refer to the City

and does not provide for any notice to be given to the City.

This means that the City is not required to receive the

"explanation of appeal rights and procedures" that the taxpayer

receives.

¶31 Further parsing the statutory language, subsec. (12)
offers two options for providing the requisite notice to the

taxpayer: personal delivery or mail. The second sentence of

this subsection contains additional information regarding these

two options. It sets forth: "Upon delivering or mailing the

notice under this subsection, the clerk of the board of review

shall prepare an affidavit specifying the date when that notice

was delivered or mailed." Wis. Stat. § 70.47(12). In other

words, the clerk of the board of review must prepare an

affidavit stating when the notice was delivered, if personally

delivered, or when it was mailed, if mailed.
¶32 Notably, there is no requirement for the clerk of the

board of review to submit an affidavit with any delivery or

receipt information if the notice is mailed. Only the "date

when that notice was . . . mailed" is required, not the date

when the notice was received. See Wis. Stat. § 70.47(12). This

is an important point because the City asserts that it would

calculate its filing deadline using the affidavit referred to in

13
 No. 2019AP1479

subsec. (12), despite the fact that subsec. (13) does not refer

to the City.

¶33 However, a close reading of subsecs. (12) and (13)

reveals that the City's argument does not hold water. Again,

subsec. (13) sets forth that the deadline for filing a

certiorari action is triggered by the taxpayer's receipt of the

notice described in sub. (12). But subsec. (12) does not

provide an avenue for the City to be informed of when a taxpayer

receives the notice.

¶34 As stated, if the mail option is utilized, then the

board clerk's affidavit indicates only when the notice was

mailed, not when it was delivered or received by the taxpayer.

See Wis. Stat. § 70.47(12). However, the date a notice is

mailed is most likely not the same as the date the notice is

received. The City could guess as to what its ultimate filing

deadline would be, estimating the length of time the mail would

take to arrive and surmising when someone would be available to

sign for the "return receipt required" mail. There is no
statutory mechanism for calculating an exact date.

¶35 Additionally, subsec. (12) contains no requirement

that the board clerk provide a copy of the affidavit to the

City. Although in practice the City may receive it from the

board clerk, there is no statutory language to support the

proposition that it is required to be provided with the

affidavit.

¶36 The fact that there is no certain statutory deadline
provided for the City to file a certiorari action indicates that
14
 No. 2019AP1479

the City does not have such a right. Elsewhere in the statutes,

where a party has a right to file an appeal to the circuit court

or court of appeals, the legislature has provided a clear

deadline for doing so.11

¶37 Further, in other areas of the statutes the

legislature has clearly given a municipality the ability to

appeal the decision of a quasi-judicial board. For example, a

See, e.g., Wis. Stat. §§ 102.25(1) ("Any party aggrieved
11

by a judgment entered upon the review of any order or award [in
a worker's compensation matter] may appeal the judgment within
the period specified in s. 808.04(1)."); 227.53(1)(a)2. ("Unless
a rehearing is requested under s. 227.49, petitions for review
of contested cases shall be served and filed within 30 days
after the service of the decision of the agency upon all parties
under s. 227.48."); 227.58 ("Any party, including the agency,
may secure a review of the final judgment of the circuit court
by appeal to the court of appeals within the time period
specified in s. 808.04(1)."); 800.14(1) ("Appeals from
judgments, decisions on motions brought under s. 800.115, or
determinations regarding whether the defendant is unable to pay
the judgment because of poverty, as that term is used in s.
814.29(1)(d), may be taken by either party to the circuit court
of the county where the offense occurred. The appellant shall
appeal by giving the municipal court and other party written
notice of appeal and paying any required fees within 20 days
after the judgment or decision."); 808.04(1) ("An appeal to the
court of appeals must be initiated within 45 days of entry of a
final judgment or order appealed from if written notice of the
entry of a final judgment or order is given within 21 days of
the final judgment or order as provided in s. 806.06(5), or
within 90 days of entry if notice is not given, except as
provided in this section or otherwise expressly provided by
law."); 809.30(2)(j) ("The person shall file in circuit court
and serve on the prosecutor and any other party a notice of
appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence or final
adjudication and, if necessary, from the order of the circuit
court on the motion for postconviction or postdisposition relief
within 20 days of the entry of the order on the postconviction
or postdisposition motion.").

15
 No. 2019AP1479

determination on "an initial permit, license, right, privilege,

or authority, except an alcohol beverage license" is reviewable

under ch. 68 of the Wisconsin Statutes. Wis. Stat. § 68.02(1).

In Wis. Stat. § 68.13(1) the legislature provides that "[a]ny

party to a proceeding resulting in a final determination may

seek review thereof by certiorari within 30 days of receipt of

the final determination" (emphasis added).

¶38 Similarly, Wis. Stat. § 62.23(7)(e)10. specifies that

certiorari review of a decision of a city zoning board of

appeals is open to "[a]ny person or persons, jointly or

severally aggrieved by any decision of the board of appeals, or

any taxpayer, or any officer, department, board or bureau of the

municipality." See also Wis. Stat. § 59.694(10) (specifying

that certiorari review of a decision of a county zoning board of

adjustment may be undertaken by "[a] person aggrieved by any

decision of the board of adjustment, or a taxpayer, or any

officer, department, board or bureau of the municipality"). No

such language is present in Wis. Stat. § 70.47(13). The
legislature thus knows how to provide municipalities with the

right to bring a certiorari action, but it did not do so in

§ 70.47(13).

¶39 The City's reliance on Wis. Stat. § 70.47(13) would

reduce its appeal deadline to mere guesswork. As the court of

appeals put it, "because the taxpayer is the only person

statutorily required to receive the notice and the date of that

receipt sets the appeal clock ticking, it strongly suggests that
the certiorari appeal provision was intended only for the
16
 No. 2019AP1479

benefit of an aggrieved taxpayer." City of Waukesha, 395

Wis. 2d 239, ¶27. We therefore conclude that Wis. Stat. § 70.47

does not allow the City to seek certiorari review of a decision

of the Board.

¶40 This conclusion is supported by this court's

precedent. In Hermann, 215 Wis. 2d at 379, we described chs. 70

and 74 as establishing "a detailed method for taxpayers to

appeal a decision of the board of review" (emphasis added).12

Likewise, the court in Nankin, 245 Wis. 2d 86, ¶3, construed

Wis. Stat. § 70.47(13) as providing a means by which "an owner

can appeal from the board's determination by an action for

certiorari to the circuit court" (emphasis added). The City has

cited no published case, and we have found none, that

contradicts this understanding.

¶41 Such an understanding is further supported by

legislative history. See State v. Wilson, 2017 WI 63, ¶23, 376

Wis. 2d 92, 896 N.W.2d 682 (explaining that "legislative history

and other authoritative sources may be consulted to confirm a
plain meaning interpretation"). The current language in Wis.

Stat. § 70.47(13) that begins the appeal period 90 days after

"the taxpayer receives the notice under sub. (12)" was added to

the statute in 1994. See 1993 Wis. Act 307, § 3. In the fiscal

estimate prepared by the Department of Revenue regarding the

Although the court in Hermann, 215 Wis. 2d at 379,
12

referred to both chapter 70 and chapter 74, our decision in this
case is limited to certiorari actions under Wis. Stat.
§ 70.47(13).

17
 No. 2019AP1479

bill that became 1993 Wis. Act 307, the Department described the

thrust of the change as to "clarify the intended meaning of the

90-day period during which a property owner may appeal a board

of review decision to the circuit court." Drafting File for

1993 Wis. Act 307, Fiscal Estimate of 1993 A.B. 1095,

Legislative Reference Bureau, Madison, Wis.

¶42 Subsection (11) does not change this result and cannot

carry the weight the City places on it. Its plain language

grants the City the right to appear as a party in interest

"before the board," but such a grant goes no further. Neither

subsec. (12) nor subsec. (13) refers to the City as a "party in

interest" beyond proceedings before the board.

¶43 Wisconsin Stat. § 70.47(11) does not clearly state or

imply that the City may file a certiorari action to appeal a

Board decision. Instead, it limits a municipality's role to

participation in proceedings "before the board" for the express

purpose of "secur[ing] or sustain[ing] an equitable assessment

of all the property in the taxation district."
¶44 Additionally, were the City to prevail in this appeal

and accordingly raise the assessed value of the Church property

above the value as determined by the Board, there is no

statutory remedy to which the City can readily point. When the

court inquired about the apparent lack of a remedy at oral

argument, the City acknowledged that it did not know what the

remedy should be if it were to win.13

The following exchange between the court and counsel for
13

the City took place:

18
 No. 2019AP1479

¶45 In sum, we conclude that Wis. Stat. § 70.47 does not

allow the City to seek certiorari review of a decision of the

Board. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the court of

appeals.

By the Court.—The decision of the court of appeals is

affirmed.

THE COURT: The tax levy is what it is. So if the
Church is under-assessed it means the other taxpayers
in the district are going to have a higher tax
bill. . . . Where does the money go if the City
ultimately prevails and the Church's assessment is
increased? Will the taxpayers receive a refund
because they paid too high of a tax rate? Is there a
law that addresses where the money goes?

. . .

COUNSEL: I do not know. I presume that the taxpayers
would not receive a refund. It would be ridiculous to
think that a tiny check of less than a dollar is going
to be mailed out in the City. Certainly there are
statutory procedures that the assessor and the
treasurer follow when they handle income. And
certainly there are instances where money is received,
tax revenue, after that tax year closes. There are
procedures for that. I cannot direct you to the
specific statutes that control that.

19
 No. 2019AP1479

1