66.0217 HistoryHistory: 1973 c. 37, 90, 143, 333; 1977 c. 29 ss. 698, 1654 (8) (c); 1977 c. 187 s. 134; 1977 c. 315, 447; 1979 c. 323; 1979 c. 361 s. 112; 1983 a. 29, 189, 219; 1985 a. 225; 1987 a. 391; 1989 a. 192; 1991 a. 5, 39, 269, 316; 1993 a. 16, 247, 301, 329, 491; 1995 a. 27 ss. 3308 to 3312, 9116 (5), 9145 (1); 1995 a. 201, 225; 1997 a. 27; 1999 a. 96; 1999 a. 150 ss. 44 to 47, 49 to 60, 63 to 65; Stats. 1999 s. 66.0217; 1999 a. 182 s. 197; 2001 a. 16, 30; 2003 a. 171, 317, 327; 2007 a. 43; 2009 a. 366; 2011 a. 75, 128; 2013 a. 80; 2015 a. 55; 2017 a. 360; 2017 a. 365 s. 112; 2021 a. 198. 66.0217 Cross-referenceCross-reference: See s. 62.071 for special provisions for annexations to cities of the first class. 66.0217 AnnotationIn ascertaining whether a petition for annexation under sub. (2) (a) [now sub. (3) (a)] has been signed by the “owners of one-half of the land” in the proposed area of attachment, acreage within the territory constituting public streets and alleys is not to be taken into account in determining the sufficiency of the petition, no matter how owned or by whom. International Paper Co. v. City of Fond du Lac, 50 Wis. 2d 529, 184 N.W.2d 834 (1971). 66.0217 AnnotationAn annexation ordinance is not void simply because it divides the town into two parts. Town of Waukechon v. City of Shawano, 53 Wis. 2d 593, 193 N.W.2d 661 (1972). 66.0217 AnnotationAlthough city limits did not extend the full width of a city-owned road, property on the other side was contiguous. When the boundaries of the parcel to be annexed were drawn by the petitioning landowners, the city could not be charged with arbitrary action. Town of Lyons v. City of Lake Geneva, 56 Wis. 2d 331, 202 N.W.2d 228 (1972). 66.0217 AnnotationWhen property owners, in petitioning for annexation, divide a tract so as to control one parcel by property owners and the other by population, the two resulting annexations are valid. Town of Waukesha v. City of Waukesha, 58 Wis. 2d 525, 206 N.W.2d 585 (1973). 66.0217 AnnotationThe state is specifically authorized to petition for annexation by s. 24.40 (2), which would be rendered meaningless if the petition had to be rejected or an annexation ordinance declared invalid on the grounds that the city could establish no commercial, residential, or mercantile need for the land. Some demonstrable need must be shown or the annexation is of necessity arbitrary and capricious. In cases of direct annexation a showing of benefits to the annexed land can be considered in the overall question of need under the rule of reason. The benefits to the state were abundant in this case in which city recreational facilities and better quality fire, emergency police, and rescue service would be provided to the annexed land. Town of Lafayette v. City of Chippewa Falls, 70 Wis. 2d 610, 235 N.W.2d 435 (1975). 66.0217 AnnotationAn eligible elector and a qualified elector are identical. Ch. 6 applies to annexation referendum elector qualifications under s. 66.021 (6) [now sub. (10)]. Town of Washington v. City of Altoona, 73 Wis. 2d 250, 243 N.W.2d 404 (1976). 66.0217 AnnotationDirect annexation, not otherwise in conflict with the “rule of reason,” was not invalidated because the petitioners were motivated by the desire to obtain a change in zoning of their land. Town of Pleasant Prairie v. City of Kenosha, 75 Wis. 2d 322, 249 N.W.2d 581 (1977). 66.0217 AnnotationWhen an action challenging annexation was filed before the sub. (10) (a) [now sub. (11) (a)] limitation ran and the plaintiff town board had given no explicit authorization for commencement of an action, the subsequent attempt to ratify the commencement of the action was a nullity. Town of Nasewaupee v. City of Sturgeon Bay, 77 Wis. 2d 110, 251 N.W.2d 845 (1977). 66.0217 AnnotationThe sub. (5) (d) [now sub. (7) (d)] ballot language requirement is directory; substantial compliance is adequate. Town of Nasewaupee v. City of Sturgeon Bay, 146 Wis. 2d 492, 431 N.W.2d 699 (Ct. App. 1988). 66.0217 AnnotationUnder sub. (5) (g) [now sub. (7) (g)], annexation fails in cases of a tie vote. Town of Nasewaupee v. City of Sturgeon Bay, 146 Wis. 2d 492, 431 N.W.2d 699 (Ct. App. 1988). 66.0217 AnnotationUnder s. 893.73 (2), “adoption” refers to the legislative body’s action of voting to approve an annexation ordinance, and the statute of limitations begins to run as of that date. Town of Sheboygan v. City of Sheboygan, 150 Wis. 2d 210, 441 N.W.2d 752 (Ct. App. 1989). 66.0217 AnnotationAn annexation ordinance must meet “rule of reason” requirements. Discussing the application of the rule. Town of Menasha v. City of Menasha, 170 Wis. 2d 181, 488 N.W.2d 104 (Ct. App. 1992). 66.0217 AnnotationA city could not reach across a lake to annex noncontiguous property. Town of Delavan v. City of Delavan, 176 Wis. 2d 516, 500 N.W.2d 268 (1993). 66.0217 AnnotationThe prohibition in sub. (4) [now sub. (5)] of the withdrawal of names from a petition prevents the withdrawal of the entire petition. Town of De Pere v. City of De Pere, 184 Wis. 2d 278, 516 N.W.2d 1 (Ct. App. 1994). 66.0217 AnnotationA town contesting an annexation under sub. (10) [now sub. (11)] is not required to file a notice of claim under s. 893.80 against the annexing municipality. Town of Burke v. City of Madison, 225 Wis. 2d 615, 593 N.W.2d 822 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-0108. 66.0217 AnnotationA petition under sub. (5) (a) must be circulated by a qualified elector residing within the territory to be annexed. City of Chippewa Falls v. Town of Hallie, 231 Wis. 2d 85, 604 N.W.2d 300 (Ct. App. 1999), 99-0832. 66.0217 AnnotationThere are three prongs to the rule of reason: 1) that no arbitrary exclusions or irregularities appear in boundary lines; 2) that a need exists for the property; and 3) that the municipality commits no other misuse of discretion in the process. When direct annexation is initiated by property owners, generally, the annexing municipality is not charged with arbitrary action in drawing boundaries and the courts must be responsive to the property owners desires. The need requirement serves the purpose of furthering the policy favoring orderly growth of urban areas by preventing irrational gobbling up of territory. Town of Sugar Creek v. City of Elkhorn, 231 Wis. 2d 473, 605 N.W.2d 274 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-2514. 66.0217 AnnotationUnder the rule of prior precedence, in case of conflict between competing annexations, or between an annexation and a proceeding for the incorporation of a city or village, the proceeding first instituted has precedence, and the later one must yield. Annexation proceedings did not lose priority status when the ordinances were deemed invalid and dismissed by the circuit court but subsequently vindicated on appeal. Town of Campbell v. City of La Crosse, 2003 WI App 139, 266 Wis. 2d 107, 667 N.W.2d 356, 02-1150. 66.0217 AnnotationSection 66.021 (10) [now sub. (11)] does not prohibit an amendment to the complaint after the 90 days for filing the original complaint has run. Town of Campbell v. City of La Crosse, 2003 WI App 247, 268 Wis. 2d 253, 673 N.W.2d 696, 02-2541. 66.0217 AnnotationIf the petitioners for annexation are in need of services that the town cannot provide but the city can, the need factor under the rule of reason is met. When no need is shown by the property owners, the annexing municipality must have a reasonable present or demonstrable future need for a substantial portion of the annexed territory. Whether an annexation is in the interest of the public is not one of the factors in the rule of reason and is not for the courts to decide. Even if the state issues a letter under s. 66.021 (11) [now sub. (6)] that the annexation is not in the public interest, the statute requires only that the city consider it. Town of Campbell v. City of La Crosse, 2003 WI App 247, 268 Wis. 2d 253, 673 N.W.2d 696, 02-2541. 66.0217 AnnotationA municipality is not required to enact a separate annexation ordinance for each of several parcels that are the subject of separate annexation petitions under sub. (2). Town of Baraboo v. Village of West Baraboo, 2005 WI App 96, 283 Wis. 2d 479, 699 N.W.2d 610, 04-0980. 66.0217 AnnotationSub. (2), when read together and compared with subs. (6) and (8), does not require a village to inform the Department of Administration of its intention to annex less than all of the parcels originally proposed for annexation that were submitted for the department’s review. Town of Baraboo v. Village of West Baraboo, 2005 WI App 96, 283 Wis. 2d 479, 699 N.W.2d 610, 04-0980. 66.0217 AnnotationAlthough an annexation petition may not be withdrawn by a petitioner once it is filed, neither sub. (2) nor De Pere, 184 Wis. 2d 278 (1994), prohibits a municipality from declining to annex a given parcel for any reason, including a petitioner’s desire not to be annexed. Town of Baraboo v. Village of West Baraboo, 2005 WI App 96, 283 Wis. 2d 479, 699 N.W.2d 610, 04-0980. 66.0217 AnnotationIn rule of reason cases, there is an exception to the general rule that a municipality may not be charged with any arbitrariness in the boundaries of an owner-petitioned annexation if the municipality can be shown to have been the real controlling influence in selecting the boundaries. Providing forms to prospective annexation petitioners, preparing maps and legal descriptions for the petitions, and providing other advice and technical assistance to petitioners does not render the municipality the controlling influence behind the annexation petitions nor does arranging an informational meeting of adjacent property owners only after several property owners in the area had contacted the municipality requesting information regarding a possible annexation. Town of Baraboo v. Village of West Baraboo, 2005 WI App 96, 283 Wis. 2d 479, 699 N.W.2d 610, 04-0980.