Dane County v. Waste Facility Siting Bd., 91-1608
| Decision Date | 24 March 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-1608,91-1608 |
| Parties | NOTICE: UNPUBLISHED OPINION. RULE 809.23(3), RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PROVIDE THAT UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS ARE OF NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT IN LIMITED INSTANCES. COUNTY OF DANE, Petitioner-Appellant, Richard Phelps, Petitioner, v. The STATE OF WISCONSIN WASTE FACILITY SITING BOARD, and J & H Landfill Company, Inc., Browning Ferris Industries of Wisconsin, Inc., Respondents-Respondents |
| Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
Appeal from an order of the circuit court for Dane county, Robert De Chambeau, Judge.
Before CANE, P.J., and LaROCQUE and MYSE, JJ.
Dane County appeals a trial court order that upheld a ruling of the Wisconsin Waste Facility Siting Board. The county sought to overturn WFSB'S decision on certiorari review. WFSB refused to permit the county to participate in the negotiation and arbitration process allowed by ch. 144 for municipalities that wish to express their views on a proposed landfill. WFSB ruled that the county had not adopted a resolution requesting participation within sixty days after the landfill operator requested the county's approval for the landfill site, in violation of sec. 144.445(6)(a), Stats., thereby disqualifying itself from participation in the siting process. The county did enact and submit such a resolution to WFSB, but before the landfill operator had requested the county's approval. The trial court agreed with WFSB's statutory interpretation that the resolution must be submitted within sixty days after the request for approval was made. On appeal, the county raises several arguments why it substantially satisfied the statute's criteria by submitting its resolution to WFSB before receiving the landfill operator's formal request for approval. We reject these arguments and therefore affirm the trial court's order upholding WFSB's decision.
The county's appeal requires us to review WFSB's and the trial court's application of a statute establishing an administrative procedure to a set of undisputed facts. Statutory construction is a question of law. Pulsfus Farms, Inc. v. Town of Leeds, 149 Wis.2d 797, 803, 440 N.W.2d 329, 332 (1989). Courts interpret statutes with a view toward accomplishing the statute's goal. Maxey v. Redevelopment Authority, 120 Wis.2d 13, 27, 353 N.W.2d 812, 819 (Ct.App.1984). When courts apply statutes to a sets of facts, they also decide questions of law. DOR v. Gordon, 127 Wis.2d 71, 73, 377 N.W.2d 212, 213 (Ct.App.1985). Courts strive to reach an interpretation that fulfills the statute's objectives rather than one that defeats such goals. Belleville State Bank v. Steele, 117 Wis.2d 563, 570, 345 N.W.2d 405, 409 (1984). In the pursuit of this objective, courts accord words in the statute their common and ordinary meaning. Ervin v. City of Kenosha, 159 Wis.2d 464, 483-84, 464 N.W.2d 654, 662 (1991). The meaning of a statute derives from the act as a whole. State v. Wachsmuth, 73 Wis.2d 318, 323, 243 N.W.2d 410, 413 (1976).
Chapter 144 establishes a comprehensive procedure for selecting acceptable sites for new landfills. In order that all interested entities can participate in the process, the statute permits county, city, and town governments to enter negotiations with the applicant for the proposed landfill. Section 144.445(2), Stats. The legislature has determined that adequate disposal sites are necessary to protect the environment and preserve the economic strength of the state. Section 144.445(1)(c) and (d), Stats. The legislation recognizes that while the establishment of disposal sites is a matter of statewide concern, sec. 144.445(5)(a), Stats., affected municipalities often have legitimate concerns over new waste disposal sites resolvable by negotiation and arbitration. Section 144.445(2)(b), Stats. Notwithstanding these legitimate concerns, the statute sets procedural conditions for the municipality's participation, including filing and notice requirements. Section 144.445(6), Stats. One of these conditions requires interested municipalities to adopt a siting resolution and appoint members to a negotiation committee "within 60 days after" the landfill operator asks for the municipality's approval. Section 144.445(6)(a), Stats. Another condition requires municipalities to give WFSB a copy of the resolution with the names of the committee appointees "within 7 days after" the resolution's adoption. Section 144.445(6)(a), Stats.
On February 3, 1989, J & H Landfill Company, Inc., sent a letter to the county notifying the county of its prospective proposal to establish and operate a landfill site in the county. The letter asked the county whether it would like to "participate in a siting resolution," and requested that the county appoint two members to the negotiation process. In response to this letter, the county board adopted a siting resolution on March 16, 1989, which both indicated its intent to participate in the legislatively sanctioned negotiation and arbitration process and appointed two persons to the local committee to appear in the negotiation and arbitration process. On April 6, 1989, the county forwarded a copy of the county's resolution to WFSB. On June 30, 1989, J & H Landfill sent the county a formal request for all local approvals necessary for the construction of the landfill. On July 27, 1989, WFSB notified the county that its March 16, 1989 resolution was ineffective to initiate participation in the state siting process for the reason that the county passed the resolution before J & H Landfill had sought "local approvals" under sec. 144.445(6), Stats. In the view of WFSB, the letter J & H Landfill had sent the county on February 3, 1989 did not qualify as a request for "local approvals," making the county's resolution premature.
Although WFSB realized that a second siting resolution was redundant, it felt that strict compliance with the statute was imperative. In an attempt to apprise the county of its rights, WFSB informed the county that it needed to pass another resolution expressing its desire to participate in the siting process and appointing the county's representatives within sixty days after J & H Landfill had requested "local approvals" on June 30, 1989. In order that the county would fully understand its new obligation, WFSB's July 27, 1989 letter set August 28, 1989 as the filing deadline for the county's new resolution. This furnished the county a full month to take the necessary remedial action. For reasons that are not clear, the county ignored this warning and never passed a new resolution as instructed by WFSB. On November 8, 1989, after receiving a letter from J & H Landfill requesting such action, WFSB informed the county that the case was closed due to its failure to pass and file a new siting resolution as WFSB instructed on July 27, 1989. On February 2, 1990, almost three months after WFSB's decision, the county requested a hearing before WFSB on the issue. After a hearing on March 6, 1990, WFSB upheld its original decision to exclude the county and close the case.
We first conclude that the trial court correctly interpreted the statutory provisions concerning the procedure Dane County was required to follow. Section 144.445(6)(a), Stats., permits a municipality to participate in the negotiation and arbitration process (1) if it adopts a siting resolution and appoints committee members within sixty days "after" the municipality receives written notice from the applicant under sec. 144.44(lm)(b), Stats., and (2) if the municipality sends a copy of the siting resolution and the names of the committee members to WFSB within seven days "after" the adoption of the siting resolution and committee appointment. Statutory time limits for public officers are mandatory whenever they deny the exercise of power after such time, or the nature of the act, or the statutory language, shows that the time was intended to be a limitation. Karow v. Milwaukee County Civil Serv. Comm., 82 Wis.2d 565, 571, 263 N.W.2d 214, 217 (1978). Statutes may deny the exercise of power either by express statement or by implication. Will v. DHSS, 44 Wis.2d 507, 517-18, 171 N.W.2d 378, 383 (1969). These statutes may express the denial of power by stating the consequences of...
To continue reading
Request your trial