Skip to content

Bills · 2011-2012 Regular Session

SB 129

Died at session end Official bill text Atom feed

authorizing towns to challenge certain city or village annexation procedures.

  1. Introduced, stopped here
  2. Passes Senate, not reached
  3. Passes Assembly, not reached
  4. Governor signs, not reached
  5. Law, not reached

Unfamiliar terms? Glossary

What this bill does

Plain-language analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau

Currently, town territory that is contiguous to any city or village may be

annexed to that city or village under several methods if, in general, some of the city's

or village's territory is in the same county as the territory to be annexed, unless both

the town and county boards approve of the proposed annexation, and the city or

village agrees to make limited payments to the town based on property taxes that the

town levied on the annexed territory.

One of the methods of annexation is direct annexation by unanimous approval.

If a petition for direct annexation by unanimous approval signed by all of the electors

residing in the territory and the owners of all of the real property in the territory is

filed with the city or village clerk and the town clerk of all of the involved towns, along

with a scale map and legal description of the property to be annexed, the governing

body of the city or village may, generally, annex the property by a two-thirds vote of

the body. Such an annexation, however, is subject to Department of Administration

advisory review as if the annexation petition were for direct, but not unanimous,

annexation or annexation by referendum. In addition, such an annexation is limited

under current law to town land that is contiguous to the annexing city or village.

Under current law, a town may not challenge in court, on any grounds, any

direct annexation by unanimous approval as well as several other types of

annexations. This bill changes current law by repealing the provision that prohibits

a town from challenging in court direct annexation by unanimous approval.

What it would cost

Fiscal estimates filed by state agencies, as official PDFs

Sponsors

Introduced by: Holperin (D) , Kedzie (R) , Lasee (R) , Moulton (R)

13 cosponsors

A. Ott (R) , Bernier (R) , Bies (R) , Brooks (R) , Craig (R) , Kerkman (R) , Kestell (R) , LeMahieu (R) , Murtha (R) , Pridemore (R) , Spanbauer (R) , Tauchen (R) , Vruwink (D)

Votes

Senate: Report adoption of Senate Substitute Amendment 1 recommended by committee on Economic Development and Veterans and Military Affairs, Ayes 7, Noes 0

Passed 7–0 Feb 17, 2012 official source full page

No individual roll call was recorded for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Full history

  1. Jun 15, 2011 · Senate

    Introduced by Senators Lasee, Kedzie, Moulton and Holperin;Cosponsored by Representatives A. Ott, Bernier, Bies, Brooks, Craig, Kerkman, Kestell, LeMahieu, Murtha, Pridemore, Spanbauer, Tauchen and Vruwink

  2. Jun 15, 2011 · Senate

    Read first time and referred to committee on Economic Development and Veterans and Military Affairs

  3. Jun 29, 2011 · Senate

    Fiscal estimate received

  4. Jun 30, 2011 · Senate

    Fiscal estimate received

  5. Jan 9, 2012 · Senate

    Senate substitute amendment 1 offered by Senator Lasee

  6. Feb 7, 2012 · Senate

    Public hearing held

  7. Feb 16, 2012 · Senate

    Executive action taken

  8. Feb 17, 2012 · Senate

    Report adoption of Senate Substitute Amendment 1 recommended by committee on Economic Development and Veterans and Military Affairs, Ayes 7, Noes 0

  9. Feb 17, 2012 · Senate

    Report passage as amended recommended by committee on Economic Development and Veterans and Military Affairs, Ayes 7, Noes 0

  10. Feb 17, 2012 · Senate

    Available for scheduling

  11. Mar 23, 2012 · Senate

    Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1