City of Mayville v. DOA

2021 WI 57

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2019AP882

COMPLETE TITLE: City of Mayville,
Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
State of Wisconsin Department of Administration,
Respondent-Appellant-Petitioner,
Village of Kekoskee,
Respondent-Co-Appellant-Petitioner.

REVIEW OF DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
Reported at 394 Wis. 2d 296,950 N.W.2d 925
PDC No:2020 WI App 63 - Published

OPINION FILED: June 11, 2021
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT: April 8, 2021

SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT: Circuit
COUNTY: Dodge
JUDGE: Lynn M. Hron

JUSTICES:
ROGGENSACK, J., delivered the majority opinion for a unanimous
Court.
NOT PARTICIPATING:

ATTORNEYS:
For the respondent-appellant-petitioner, there were briefs
filed by Clayton P. Kawski, assistant attorney general; with
whom on the brief was Joshua L. Kaul, attorney general. There
was an oral argument by Clayton P. Kawski.

For the respondent-co-appellant-petitioner, there were
briefs filed by Matthew Parmentier and Dempsey Law Firm, LLP.
There was an oral argument by Matthew Parmentier.
 For the petitioner-respondent, there was a brief filed by
James W. Hammes and Cramer, Multhauf & Hammes, LLP, Waukesha.
There was an oral argument by James W. Hammes.
 2021 WI 57

NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2019AP882
(L.C. No. 2018CV527)

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

City of Mayville,

Petitioner-Respondent,

v. FILED
State of Wisconsin Department of JUN 11, 2021
Administration,
Sheila T. Reiff
Respondent-Appellant-Petitioner, Clerk of Supreme Court

Village of Kekoskee,

Respondent-Co-Appellant-Petitioner.

ROGGENSACK, J., delivered the majority opinion for a unanimous
Court.

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

¶1 PATIENCE DRAKE ROGGENSACK, J. We review a published

decision of the court of appeals1 affirming the order of the

Circuit Court for Dodge County2 that reversed the Department of

1City of Mayville v. DOA, 2020 WI App 63, 394 Wis. 2d 296,
950 N.W.2d 925.
2 The Honorable Joseph G. Sciascia presided.
 No. 2019AP882

Administration's (the "Department") approval of a cooperative

plan (the "Plan") between the Village of Kekoskee (the

"Village") and the Town of Williamstown (the "Town") and

remanded the matter back to the Department. The circuit court

determined that the cooperative plan statute, Wis. Stat.

§ 66.0307 (2017-18),3 did not permit municipalities to use

cooperative plans to "absorb an entire Town[] into a Village."

The court of appeals affirmed on modified grounds concluding

that the Plan "changed" the City of Mayville's ("Mayville")

boundary line such that Mayville was required to be a party to

the Plan.

¶2 We conclude first that Mayville has standing to seek

judicial review of the Plan. Next, we conclude that the

"Village of Williamstown Detachment Area" set forth in the Plan

changes Mayville's boundary line. Because the Plan changed

Mayville's boundary line, Wis. Stat. § 66.0307(2) required that

Mayville be a party to the Plan. Mayville was not a party to

the Plan, therefore, we conclude that the Department erroneously
interpreted § 66.0307(2) in approving the Plan. Accordingly, we

affirm the decision of the court of appeals, which remanded the

Plan to the circuit court to remand to the Department.

All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to
3

the 2017-18 version unless otherwise indicated.

2
 No. 2019AP882

I. BACKGROUND

¶3 The Town, the Village and Mayville are located in

Dodge County. The Village, which was incorporated from a

portion of the Town in 1958, is completely surrounded by the

Town's territory. Likewise, Mayville also is surrounded

completely by the territory of the Town; however, Mayville does

not share a border with the Village. The Town is

unincorporated.

¶4 The Village, having difficulty recruiting enough

residents to comprise a full village board, notified the Town in

2015 that it was considering dissolution. Representatives from

the Village and the Town met to consider alternatives. After

discussions, they decided to consolidate the territories of the

two municipalities. The municipalities concluded that they

could consolidate by entering into a cooperative plan pursuant

to Wis. Stat. § 66.0307.

¶5 The two municipalities each adopted resolutions

declaring their intent to adopt a cooperative plan, submitted
the resolutions and copies of the drafted plan to the

Department, and notified Mayville and the other surrounding

municipalities. The mayor of Mayville wrote back to the Town

stating that "Mayville would be glad to work with you on a

cooperative plan." Mayville, however, who was not a party to

the plan, was not involved until the Department conducted a

public hearing regarding the proposed cooperative plan. At the

public hearing, the Town and the Village provided documentation

3
 No. 2019AP882

in support of their proposed cooperative plan, and Mayville

provided information in opposition.

¶6 The Town and the Village submitted a second plan to

the Department for its approval. In May of 2018, the Department

wrote to the municipalities, informing them that the second plan

failed to "meet any of the statutory criteria."

¶7 Of particular concern for the Department was the

second plan's insufficient provision of services such as

Emergency Medical Services and sewer, especially in the area

that is directly adjacent to Mayville, and the second plan's

insufficient consideration of compactness.4 The Department

"recommend[ed] that the [Town and Village] revise the

[c]ooperative [p]lan to provide territory adjacent and proximate

to [Mayville] the opportunity to receive higher level services

should landowners desire that." The Department suggested, among

other things, that the Village consolidate into the Town, which

would leave the area surrounding Mayville unincorporated or the

plan establish "designate[d] areas for urban growth and higher
service levels."

¶8 The Department permitted the Village and the Town to

revise the second plan and resubmit it. The parties submitted a

third plan, which Mayville once again opposed. The Department

found that the third plan again failed to meet several of the

4Both provision of services and compactness are statutorily
mandated components of a cooperative plan adopted under Wis.
Stat. § 66.0307. See §§ 66.0307(5)(c)3., 5.

4
 No. 2019AP882

statutory criteria. This pattern repeated once more: the

Village and the Town resubmitted a cooperative plan, Mayville

opposed, but this time, the Department found that the final

submission for a cooperative plan met the statutory criteria and

approved it.

¶9 Under the Plan, "the Boundary Change will involve the

attachment by the Village of all territory located in the Town

as of the effective date of the Plan." "As soon as practicable

upon completion of the Boundary Change, the Village will take

those actions necessary to change its name from 'Village of

Kekoskee' to 'Village of Williamstown.'" To address the

Department's concern regarding the draft plans' insufficient

provision of services, the approved Plan, via Section 24,

creates a "Village of Williamstown Detachment Area."5 Section 24

created an area that purported to be detachable from the Village

of Williamstown and attachable to Mayville.

¶10 After the Department approved the Plan, Mayville filed

a petition for judicial review in Dodge County circuit court
pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 227.52. The Department and the Village

filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Mayville did not have

standing to challenge the Department's decision approving the

Plan. The circuit court denied the motion and concluded that

Mayville had standing.

5 Section 25 of the Plan, which addresses compactness, is
also relevant to our analysis. Sections 24 and 25 are discussed
in greater detail below. See infra ¶¶32-35.

5
 No. 2019AP882

¶11 On the merits, the question for the circuit court was

"whether . . . [Wis. Stat. §] 66.0307 can be used to dissolve a

Town and attach its territory to a Village." The circuit court

concluded that, in part because there are other statutes that

could achieve the municipalities' desired results, § 66.0307 did

not permit "a Village to attach an entire [t]own[] under the

guise of a boundary agreement." The circuit court also reasoned

that "[t]he very concept of boundary requires the existence of

two units of government; otherwise[,] there can be no boundary."

The circuit court concluded that finding for the Department and

the Village would require it to read into the statute the

ability to completely consolidate two municipalities via a

cooperative plan, which the court would not do. Accordingly,

the court reversed the Department's decision that approved the

Plan and remanded the matter to the Department. The circuit

court stayed its order pending appeal.

¶12 The Department and the Village appealed on both

issues. The court of appeals affirmed the circuit court's
decision on modified grounds. First, the court of appeals held

that Mayville had standing to challenge the Department's

decision approving the Plan. City of Mayville v. DOA, 2020 WI

App 63, ¶12, 394 Wis. 2d 296, 950 N.W.2d 925. The court of

appeals based its standing decision on its interpretation of

Mayville's statutory rights. Id.

¶13 In addressing Mayville's statutory rights, the court

of appeals concluded that Mayville should have been a party to
the Plan. Id., ¶¶40-41. The court of appeals reasoned "[t]here
6
 No. 2019AP882

can be no dispute that the expansion of Mayville's area

envisioned by the Village Detachment Area provision will

physically alter Mayville's geographic city limits and,

therefore, change Mayville's boundary line." Id., ¶41. Because

Mayville was not a party to the Plan, the court of appeals

affirmed the circuit court and held that the Department

erroneously approved the Plan. The court of appeals did not

address the circuit court's conclusion that the cooperative

planning statute cannot be utilized for the purpose of

consolidating municipalities.

¶14 On review, we agree with the court of appeals that

Mayville has standing and that Mayville should have been a party

to the Plan. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed below, we

affirm the decision of the court of appeals.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

¶15 Whether a party has standing is a question of law that

we review independently. Marx v. Morris, 2019 WI 34, ¶21, 386
Wis. 2d 122, 925 N.W.2d 112.

¶16 "When an appeal is taken from a circuit court order

reviewing an agency decision, we review the decision of the

agency, not the circuit court." Hilton ex rel. Pages

Homeowners' Ass'n v. DNR, 2006 WI 84, ¶15, 293 Wis. 2d 1, 717

N.W.2d 166. As shown in Mayville's petition, it is not

challenging the factual bases for the Department's decision,

rather, it alleges that "the Department erred in applying the
cooperative plan statute to the undisputed facts of record."
7
 No. 2019AP882

City of Mayville, 394 Wis. 2d 296, ¶16. The application of law

to undisputed facts is a question of law that we review

independently. Cnty. of Dane v. LIRC, 2009 WI 9, ¶14, 315

Wis. 2d 293, 759 N.W.2d 571. Finally, whether Mayville was

required to be a party to the Plan is a question of statutory

interpretation that we review independently. Jefferson v. Dane

Cnty., 2020 WI 90, ¶13, 394 Wis. 2d 602, 951 N.W.2d 556.

B. Mayville's Standing

¶17 In all phases of this litigation, the Department and

the Village have maintained that Mayville lacked standing. The

circuit court denied their motion to dismiss, and the court of

appeals similarly held that Mayville had standing. As we

explain, we agree with the circuit court and the court of

appeals.

¶18 If the Department's decision "adversely affect[s] the

substantial interests of" Mayville, Mayville is an aggrieved

party and entitled to judicial review of that decision. See

Wis. Stat. § 227.52; see also Wis. Stat. § 227.53(1). Whether
Mayville is an aggrieved party is a two-part inquiry. First,

Mayville "must show that [it has] suffered or [was] threatened

with an injury to an interest." Krier v. Vilione, 2009 WI 45,

¶20, 317 Wis. 2d 288, 766 N.W.2d 517. However, standing should

be liberally construed. City of Madison v. Town of Fitchburg,

112 Wis. 2d 224, 230, 332 N.W.2d 782 (1983). Accordingly, we

have held that "even a trifling interest may be sufficient to

confer standing." Id. Second, that interest must be one that
is legally protectable. Krier, 317 Wis. 2d 288, ¶20.
8
 No. 2019AP882

¶19 The adversely affected interests that Mayville asserts

are markedly similar to those of Madison in City of Madison v.

Town of Fitchburg. There, the then-Town of Fitchburg began the

process of incorporating. Town of Fitchburg, 112 Wis. 2d at

226. After Fitchburg adopted its incorporating resolution,

Madison sued to "invalidate the resolution and enjoin the

referendum." Id. at 227.

¶20 Fitchburg alleged that Madison lacked standing because

"it d[id] not have a legal interest in the . . . incorporation

proceeding." Id. at 228. We disagreed, concluding that

Madison's interests included owning property in Fitchburg,

annexing portions of Fitchburg and providing services to

Fitchburg residents. Id. at 230-31. We also noted that if

Fitchburg incorporated, Madison would lose its ability to

exercise its extraterritorial zoning and extraterritorial plat

approval rights because those rights are limited to

unincorporated areas contiguous to a city or village. Id. at

231. Based on those rights taken together, we held that
"Madison has a personal stake in the outcome of this

controversy." Id. at 231-32. Accordingly, Madison had

standing. Id.

¶21 Here too, Mayville asserts that the

Plan: (1) "deprives Mayville of the right to exercise

extraterritorial zoning and plat approval"; (2) "deprives

Mayville of the opportunity and right to expand its boundaries

by annexing, at the request of contiguous property owners,
properties located in the unincorporated Town"; and
9
 No. 2019AP882

(3) "deprives Mayville the ability to recover millions of

dollars in expenses incurred for constructing, operating and

maintaining a sanitary sewer disposal facility and municipal

water facility that were designed and constructed to provide

sanitary sewer and water services to portions of the territories

of the Village and the Town described in the Plan."

¶22 Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 62.23(7a), cities are

entitled to "exercise extraterritorial zoning power." However,

that power extends to only the "extraterritorial zoning

jurisdiction," which is defined as "the unincorporated area

within 3 miles of the corporate limits of a first, second or

third class city, or 1 1/2 miles of a fourth class city or a

village." § 66.23(7a)(a). Further, cities are permitted to

exercise extraterritorial plat approval in unincorporated areas

within the same three or one and one-half mile zones. See Wis.

Stat. § 236.02(5) and Wis. Stat. § 236.10(1)(b). Finally,

cities and villages are permitted to annex "unincorporated

territory which contains electors and is contiguous to a city or
village." Wis. Stat. § 66.0219.

¶23 As we set forth in our recitation of the facts, upon

approval of the Plan, the land surrounding Mayville will become

an incorporated village.6 Prior to the Plan, Mayville had

extraterritorial zoning rights and extraterritorial plat

approval rights within the unincorporated Town. Mayville was

See generally
6 Wis. Stat. § 66.0201 (Incorporation of
villages and cities).

10
 No. 2019AP882

also statutorily permitted to annex areas of the Town contiguous

to it, which the Plan restricts. It is of little import that

the Plan provides for area that can detach from the Village of

Williamstown and attach to Mayville. By way of the Plan,

detachment is the only process by which Mayville can now expand.

Moreover, retaining some ability to expand says nothing of

Mayville's extraterritorial zoning or plat approval rights. The

Plan extinguishes those statutorily granted rights.

Accordingly, Mayville has legally protectable interests that are

adversely affected by the Department's approval of the Plan, and

it therefore has standing.7

C. The Cooperative Planning Statute

¶24 Wisconsin Stat. § 66.0307(2) permits municipalities to

"determine the boundary lines between themselves under a

cooperative plan." As we explain in more detail below, boundary

line changes are permitted only if the municipalities, whose

boundaries are affected by the cooperative plan, are parties to

that plan. Id.
¶25 A cooperative plan must have certain content as set

forth in Wis. Stat. § 66.0307(3)(c)-(g). "Each municipality

that intends to participate in the preparation of a cooperative

plan . . . shall adopt a resolution authorizing participation in

the preparation of the plan." § 66.0307(4)(a). The

As we explain in the following sections, Mayville also had
7

an interest in being a party to the Plan; this interest, as set
forth by the court of appeals, also conferred standing upon
Mayville. City of Mayville, 394 Wis. 2d 296, ¶11.

11
 No. 2019AP882

municipalities must "hold a joint [public] hearing" on the

resolution prior to submitting a cooperative plan to the

Department. § 66.0307(4)(b). After the public hearing, the

municipalities may adopt a final plan, "may adopt a resolution

calling for an advisory referendum," and must submit the adopted

final plan to the Department. § 66.0307(4)(d)-(f).

¶26 After receiving a proposed plan, the Department

generally has 90 days to determine whether "[t]he content of the

plan under sub. (3)(c) to (e) is sufficient to enable the

department to make the determinations under subds. 2. to 5."

Wis. Stat. § 66.0307(5)(c)1. Prior to making a final

determination, the Department may, on its own motion, or must,

if requested by "[a]ny person," hold a public hearing on the

proposed plan. § 66.0307(5)(b).

¶27 Subdivisions (5)(c) 2. to 5. require the following:

2. The cooperative plan is consistent with each
participating municipality's comprehensive plan and
with current state laws, municipal regulations, and
administrative rules that apply to the territory
affected by the plan.

3. Adequate provision is made in the cooperative
plan for the delivery of necessary municipal services
to the territory covered by the plan.

5. The shape of any boundary maintained or any
boundary change under the cooperative plan is not the
result of arbitrariness and reflects due consideration
for compactness of area. Considerations relevant to
the criteria under this subdivision include quantity
of land affected by the boundary maintenance or
boundary change and compatibility of the proposed
boundary maintenance or boundary change with natural
terrain including general topography, major

12
 No. 2019AP882

watersheds, soil conditions and such features as
rivers, lakes and major bluffs.
Wis. Stat. § 66.0307(5)(c)2.-5.8 If a cooperative plan meets the

above criteria, the Department shall approve it.

§ 66.0307(5)(c). However, the Department may disapprove or

return a proposed plan to the municipalities to revise it if it

does not meet the statutory criteria. See § 66.0307(5)(d). If

the Department returns a cooperative plan for revision, the

municipalities then have 90 days to revise and resubmit the

plan. Id. Upon the final approval of a cooperative plan,

parties have 60 days to seek review of the Department's

approval. § 66.0307(11).

D. The Department's Plan Review

¶28 Having set forth the general process that occurs when

municipalities adopt a cooperative plan, we move to whether the

Department validly approved the Plan without Mayville being a

party to the Plan.

¶29 Whether Mayville was required to be a party to the

Plan requires us to interpret the cooperative planning statute
and its requirements. "Statutory interpretation begins with the

language of the statute." State v. Mercado, 2021 WI 2, ¶43, 395

Wis. 2d 296, 953 N.W.2d 337 (citing State ex rel. Kalal v.

Circuit Court for Dane Cnty., 2004 WI 58, ¶45, 271 Wis. 2d 633,

681 N.W.2d 110). That language is "given its common, ordinary,

and accepted meaning, except that technical or specially-defined

8Wis. Stat. § 66.0307(5)(c) contains no subdivision
(5)(c)4.

13
 No. 2019AP882

words or phrases are given their technical or special

definitional meaning." Kalal, 271 Wis. 2d 633, ¶45. If the

language of the statute is clear, we stop the inquiry. Id.

¶30 Wisconsin Stat. § 66.0307(2) describes the authority

of municipalities to decide the boundary lines between them and

sets forth which municipalities must be parties to a cooperative

plan. Section 66.0307(2) provides:

(2) Boundary Change Authority. Any combination
of municipalities may determine the boundary lines
between themselves under a cooperative plan that is
approved by the department under this section. A
single city or village and a single town may use the
mediated agreement procedure under sub. (4m) to
determine a common boundary line under a cooperative
plan that is approved by the department under this
section. No boundary of a municipality may be changed
or maintained under this section unless the
municipality is a party to the cooperative agreement.
The cooperative plan shall provide one or more of the
following:

(a) That specified boundary line changes shall
occur during the planning period and the approximate
dates by which the changes shall occur.

(b) That specified boundary line changes may
occur during the planning period and the approximate
dates by which the changes may occur.

(c) That a required boundary change under par.
(a) or an optional boundary line change under par. (b)
shall be subject to the occurrence of conditions set
forth in the plan.

(d) That specified boundary lines may not be
changed during the planning period.

14
 No. 2019AP882

If Mayville's boundary line is changed under the Plan, the Plan

is not effective unless Mayville is a party to the Plan.9 See

generally § 66.0307(2).

¶31 "Change" as it is used in Wis. Stat. § 66.0307(2) is

not specially-defined in the statute or closely related

statutes; accordingly, we look to its common and ordinary

meaning. Dictionaries can be utilized for this purpose. See

Kalal, 271 Wis. 2d 633, ¶54. To change is "[t]o make different

in some particular; [to] alter." Change, Merriam-Webster's

Third Int'l Dictionary 374 (1986).10 Therefore, used in this

context, change means a "physical alteration of, or difference

in" a boundary line.

¶32 Accordingly, we look to the Plan to determine whether

it physically alters, or makes a difference in Mayville's

boundary line. The sections in the Plan that could be read as

changing Mayville's boundary lines are Sections 24 and 25.

Section 24 creates the "Village of Williamstown Detachment

Area." It reads:

The court of appeals decision focused on "change" under
9

Wis. Stat. § 66.0307(2); that is primarily our focus too.
However, the statute includes boundaries that are "maintained"
under a cooperative plan as another criterion that affects who
must be parties to a cooperative plan.

See also Change, American Heritage Dictionary 309 (5th
10

ed. 2011) ("To cause to be different; [to] alter."); Change,
Oxford English Dictionary 381 (6th ed. 2007) ("To substitute one
thing for (another)."); Change, Random House Dictionary of the
English Language 344 (2d ed. 1983) ("[T]o make the form, nature,
content, future course, etc. of (something) different from what
it is or from what it would be if left alone.").

15
 No. 2019AP882

In order to ensure that owners of territory adjacent
and proximate to the City of Mayville will have the
opportunity to receive higher level services through
the City of Mayville, the parties hereby recognize a
"Village of Williamstown Detachment Area."

The Village of Williamstown Detachment Area is
depicted in the attached Exhibit D. It consists of
all Town of Williamstown territory identified within
the City of Mayville's 2030 Future Land Use Map——a
total of 1,921.445 acres.

Upon completion of the Boundary Change described in
Section 6 above, all territory located in the Village
of Williamstown Detachment Area will become Village of
Williamstown territory. However, the Town of
Williamstown and the Village of Kekoskee, for
themselves and for their successors in interest,
including the Village of Williamstown, hereby agree
that they will not object to, and will take all action
necessary to effectuate, the detachment of territory
from within the Village of Williamstown Detachment
Area provided that the territory is contiguous to the
City of Mayville and provided that the petition for
detachment meets the requirements of Wis. Stat.
§ 66.0227 as they exist on the effective date of this
Plan.
Section 25 provides:

The boundary changes under this Plan reflect due
considerations for compactness of area. It does this
in several ways.

The boundary change described in Section 6 will have
the effect of eliminating the Town-Village boundary
entirely, resulting in more orderly and less confusing
boundaries as well as fewer boundaries than currently
exist. Additionally, the outer boundaries of the
combined municipality will initially be the same as
the outer boundaries of the current Town of
Williamstown. The current boundaries with the City of
Mayville, the City of Horicon, the Town of Burnett,
the Town of Theresa, the Town of Hubbard, and the Town
of Chester will be unaffected.

Further, while the area to be attached under Section 6
is approximately 31 square miles, much of the

16
 No. 2019AP882

attachment area is territory within the Horicon Marsh.
The practical area to be attached after adjusting for
this acreage is approximately 18 square miles.

Finally, under the Village of Williamstown Detachment
Area provisions of Section 24, the size of the Village
of Williamstown will be reduced over time. Provided
that detachments meet the criteria set forth in that
Section, residents in the Village of Williamstown
Detachment Area could detach the entire 2030 Future
Land Use Map area, which consists of approximately
three square miles and is nearly the size of the
existing City of Mayville. As a result of these
attachments, the Village of Williamstown will
continually become smaller and more compact, and the
City of Mayville will grow in an orderly and compact
manner.[11]
¶33 Section 24 represents the type of boundary change that

Wis. Stat. § 66.0307(2)(b) contemplates. Under Section 24, if

the conditions of the Plan are met, Mayville's boundary line may

expand. It may grow to encompass the territory that detaches

from the Village of Williamstown and attaches to Mayville. To

be sure, the Plan does not, in and of itself, effect a change in

Mayville's boundary line, and Mayville's boundary lines may

never change.12 However, the Plan sets conditions that must be
met if Mayville's boundary lines are to change.

11Neither Section 24 nor Section 25 were included in the
initial plan. Each was added in response to the Department's
suggestions regarding providing for heightened services (Section
24) and compactness (Section 25). The Department's
administrative record reflects that the revised plan also failed
to meet the provision of services and compactness requirements.
12The type of change in Section 24 is clearly
distinguishable from Section 6 of the Plan, which by its terms
eliminates the boundary between the Town and the Village.
Section 25 confirms that the Plan effects this change. See
supra ¶32.

17
 No. 2019AP882

¶34 The Department asserts that the Plan does not set any

conditions on detachment, but rather, any future detachment is

conditioned on the statutes that apply to all detachments. We

are not convinced. Section 24 puts a very clear condition on

any future detachment; it must "meet[] the requirements of Wis.

Stat. § 66.0227 as they exist on the effective date of this

Plan." That means, for the next 97 years13 that Section 24 is in

effect, any future detachments within the Village of

Williamstown Detachment Area must meet the statutory criteria

for detachment that existed in 2018. Section 25 also belies the

Department's argument. It plainly limits future detachments to

those that "meet the criteria set forth in [Section 24]."

¶35 Section 25 further confirms that Mayville's boundary

lines may change via the Plan's contemplated detachments. It

reiterates that Mayville could nearly double in size if the

detachments occur and that "Mayville will grow in an orderly and

compact manner" "[a]s a result of [Section 24] attachments."

Further, as we discussed above, the territory surrounding
Mayville will become incorporated territory, and due to that

change, Mayville no longer will possess the right to annex that

territory. Wis. Stat. § 66.0219. Upon approval of the plan,

13 Section 29 of the Plan provides for a 10 year planning
period "except that Section 24 regarding the Village of
Williamstown Detachment Area will remain in effect until
December 31, 2118 unless the Village of Williamstown and the
City of Mayville, or their successors in interest, agree
otherwise by written instrument consistent with applicable law
at the time of its execution."

18
 No. 2019AP882

Mayville's ability to grow, or change its boundary lines, is

limited to the specific lands and processes outlined in the

Plan. Said differently, the Plan not only contemplates a change

to Mayville's boundary lines, it also has the effect of

precluding Mayville's expansion if the Plan's conditions for

changing its boundary line are not met. Mayville should have

been a party to, and had a voice in, proposed alterations to its

municipal authority.

¶36 We conclude that the Plan includes a type of boundary

change that is described in Wis. Stat. § 66.0307(2)(b) and that

the Plan sets conditions to effect that change as contemplated

by § 66.0307(2)(c). Accordingly, before such a change could be

effective, Mayville was required to be a party to the Plan.

Because it was not, the Department erred as a matter of law in

approving the Plan.14

III. CONCLUSION

¶37 We conclude first that Mayville has standing to seek

judicial review of the Plan. Next, we conclude that the
"Village of Williamstown Detachment Area" set forth in the Plan

changes Mayville's boundary line. Because the Plan changed

Mayville's boundary lines, Wis. Stat. § 66.0307(2) required that

Mayville be a party to the Plan. Because Mayville was not a

14Because we hold that Mayville was required to be a party
to the Plan, we do not address whether the cooperative planning
statute permits municipalities to consolidate. See Maryland
Arms Ltd. P'ship v. Connell, 2010 WI 64, ¶48, 326 Wis. 2d 300,
786 N.W.2d 15.

19
 No. 2019AP882

party to the Plan, we conclude that the Department erroneously

interpreted § 66.0307(2) in approving the Plan. Accordingly, we

affirm the decision of the court of appeals, which remanded the

Plan to the circuit court to remand to the Department.

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

affirmed.

20
 No. 2019AP882

1