City of Waukesha v. City of Waukesha Board of Review , 2021 WI 89 ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                                                                    
    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