Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 59.03 (2026)
Home rule
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
59.03(1)(1) Administrative home rule. Every county may exercise any organizational or administrative power, subject only to the constitution and to any enactment of the legislature which is of statewide concern and which uniformly affects every county.
59.03(2)(a)(a) Subject to s. 59.794 (2) and (3) and except as elsewhere specifically provided in these statutes, the board of any county is vested with all powers of a local, legislative and administrative character, including without limitation because of enumeration, the subject matter of water, sewers, streets and highways, fire, police, and health, and to carry out these powers in districts which it may create for different purposes, or throughout the county, and for such purposes to levy county taxes, to issue bonds, assessment certificates and improvement bonds, or any other evidence of indebtedness. The powers hereby conferred may be exercised by the board in any municipality, or part thereof located in the county upon the request of any such municipality, evidenced by a resolution adopted by a majority vote of the members-elect of its governing body, designating the particular function, duty or act, and the terms, if any, upon which the powers shall be exercised by the board or by a similar resolution adopted by direct legislation in the municipality in the manner provided in s. 9.20. The resolution shall further provide whether the authority or function is to be exercised exclusively by the county or jointly by the county and the municipality, and shall also find that the exercise of such power by the county would be in the public interest. Upon the receipt of the resolution, the board may, by a resolution adopted by a majority vote of its membership, elect to assume the exercise of the function, upon the terms and conditions set forth in the resolution presented by the municipality.
59.03(2)(b)(b) The board of any county may, by a resolution adopted by a majority of its membership, propose to any of the municipalities located in the county that it offers to exercise such powers and functions therein in order to consolidate municipal services and functions in the county. Such resolution shall designate the particular function, duty or act and the terms and conditions, if any, upon which the board will perform the function, duty or act. The powers conferred in par. (a) and designated in such resolution may thereafter be exercised by the board in each municipality which accepts the proposal by the adoption of a resolution by a majority vote of the members-elect of its governing body or by direct legislation in the manner provided in s. 9.20.
59.03(2)(c)(c) Whenever the request under par. (a) or acceptance under par. (b) of a municipality is by resolution of its governing board, the request or acceptance shall not go into effect until the expiration of 60 days from the adoption of the resolution or, in the case of county law enforcement services provided to a city as described in s. 62.13 (2s), as provided in s. 62.13 (2s) (d). If a petition under s. 9.20 for direct legislation on the request or acceptance is filed before the expiration of said 60 days, the resolution of the governing board is of no effect but the request or acceptance of such municipality shall be determined by direct legislation, except that no petition for direct legislation under s. 9.20 may be filed to approve or reject a contract entered into by a city and a county under s. 62.13 (2s).
59.03(2)(d)(d) After and upon the adoption of resolutions by the board and subject to par. (c) by one or more municipalities either as provided in par. (a) or (b) the board shall have full power to legislate upon and administer the entire subject matter committed to it, and among other things, to determine, where not otherwise provided by law, the manner of exercising the power thus assumed.
59.03(2)(e)(e) The municipality concerned may enter into necessary contracts with the county, and appropriate money to pay to the county the reasonable expenses incurred by it in rendering the services assumed. Such expenses may be certified, returned and paid as are other county charges, and in the case of services performed under a proposal for the consolidation thereof initiated by the board and made available to each municipality in the county on the same terms, the expenses thereof shall be certified, returned and paid as county charges; but in the event that every municipality in the county accepts the proposal of the board, the expenses thereof shall be paid by county taxes to be levied and collected as are other taxes for county purposes. The municipalities are vested with all necessary power to do the things herein required, and to do all things and to exercise or relinquish any of the powers herein provided or contemplated. The procedure provided in this subsection for the request or acceptance of the exercise of the powers conferred on the board in cities and villages is hereby prescribed as a special method of determining the local affairs and government of such cities and villages under article XI, section 3, of the constitution.
59.03(2)(f)(f) The powers conferred by this subsection shall be in addition to all other grants of power and shall be limited only by express language.
59.03 AnnotationSub. (2) provides a unique procedure that may be used in specific fact situations to levy a property tax for a county service, but it is not the only authorization for a county to levy such a tax. Town of Grant v. Portage County, 2017 WI App 69, 378 Wis. 2d 289, 903 N.W.2d 152, 16-2435.
59.03 AnnotationCounty home rule under sub. (1) allows every county to “exercise any organizational or administrative power, subject only to the constitution and to any enactment of the legislature.” The language of s. 60.565 authorizing towns to provide ambulance service acknowledges that another person can provide the ambulance service instead of a town and withdraws the mandate when another person provides ambulance services. The absence of a command from the legislature that towns provide an ambulance service in all situations causes the argument that county home rule prevents counties from providing ambulance service to miss the mark. Town of Grant v. Portage County, 2017 WI App 69, 378 Wis. 2d 289, 903 N.W.2d 152, 16-2435.
59.03 AnnotationIn a county that does not have a county executive or administrator, the personnel committee of the county board does not possess the statutory authority to remove the county social services director. The county board may not, under s. 59.025 [now sub. (1)], transfer the authority to appoint. 81 Atty. Gen. 145.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1921–2022 · leading case: Jackson Cnty. v. State Dep't of Nat. Resources, 2006 WI 96 (Wis. 2006).
Jackson Cnty. v. State Dep't of Nat. Resources, 2006 WI 96 (Wis. 2006). “¶ 8 The County appealed, arguing that it had the authority to rescind the tax deed, under the broad statutory authority granted by Wis. Stat. § 59.03 (1), which the County claims allows it to "exercise any organizational or administrative power, subject only to the constitution…”
Town of Grant v. Portage Cnty., 2017 WI App 69 (Wis. Ct. App. 2017). “The Property Tax Levied by Portage County Does Not Violate the Home Rule Power Under Wis. Stat. § 59.03 (1). ¶ 18. In spite of the clear statutory authority we summarized above, the Town maintains that the tax levied by Portage County for its ambulance service exceeds the…”
Milwaukee Police Ass'n v. City of Milwaukee, 2016 WI 47 (Wis. 2016). “3 Wis. Stat. § 59.03 (1) provides that "[e]very county may exercise any organizational or administrative power, subject only to the constitution and to any enactment of the legislature which is of statewide concern and which uniformly affects every county.”
Madison Teachers, Inc. v. Scott Walker, 2014 WI 99 (Wis. 2014). “As a result, cities and villages are now incorporated according to general incorporation laws, and the basic outline of city and village government is set forth in statutes (sometimes referred to as "general charter" laws).”
State Ex Rel. Ziervogel v. Washington Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment, 2004 WI 23 (Wis. 2004). “The "no reasonable use" definition in the Washington County ordinance, to the extent it is applicable to area variance requests, conflicts with the statutory grant of authority and operates to eliminate what the statute allows.”
State v. Setagord, 565 N.W.2d 506 (Wis. 1997). “the more severe the penalty, and the more disastrous the consequence to the person subjected to the provisions of the statute, the more rigid will be the construction of its provisions in favor of such person and against the enforcement of such law.”
Knox v. Milwaukee Cnty. Bd. of Elections Commissioners, 581 F. Supp. 399 (E.D. Wis. 1984). “1 *401 On January 12, 1984, the defendants filed their response to plaintiffs’ motion, outlining the reapportionment process currently prescribed by Wis.Stat. § 59.03(2)(a) (1982), and arguing, based on an extensive discussion of the case law in this area, that there has been no…”
City of Janesville v. Cnty. of Rock, 319 N.W.2d 891 (Wis. Ct. App. 1982). “In an original action in which it declared that the composition of the county boards as mandated by sec. 59.03(2), Stats. 1963, was unconstitutional, the supreme court declined to stay the April 1965 elections to avoid interfering with the “orderly operation of government.”
Jeffrey Becker v. Dane Cnty., 2022 WI 63 (Wis. 2022). “40, in relevant part, provides: (1) Duty of Director, Public Health Madison and Dane County. Pursuant to Wis.”
Mommsen v. Schueller, 599 N.W.2d 21 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “The County contends that § 59.03, Stats., and the highway alteration statute, § 86.”
Adams v. State Livestock Facilities Siting Review Bd., 2010 WI App 88 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010). “61 (towns' general zoning authority); Wis. Stat. § 59.03 (2)(a) (regarding "home rule"); Wis.”
Jeffrey Becker v. Dane Cnty., 2022 WI 63 (Wis. 2022). “40, in relevant part, provides: (1) Duty of Director, Public Health Madison and Dane County. Pursuant to Wis.”
— Wis. Stat. § 59.03(1) — 1 case
Town of Grant v. Portage Cnty., 2017 WI App 69 (Wis. Ct. App. 2017). “The Property Tax Levied by Portage County Does Not Violate the Home Rule Power Under Wis. Stat. § 59.03 (1). ¶ 18. In spite of the clear statutory authority we summarized above, the Town maintains that the tax levied by Portage County for its ambulance service exceeds the…”
— Wis. Stat. § 59.03(2) — 2 cases
Town of Grant v. Portage Cnty., 2017 WI App 69 (Wis. Ct. App. 2017). “The Property Tax Levied by Portage County Does Not Violate the Home Rule Power Under Wis. Stat. § 59.03 (1). ¶ 18. In spite of the clear statutory authority we summarized above, the Town maintains that the tax levied by Portage County for its ambulance service exceeds the…”
City of Janesville v. Cnty. of Rock, 319 N.W.2d 891 (Wis. Ct. App. 1982). “In an original action in which it declared that the composition of the county boards as mandated by sec. 59.03(2), Stats. 1963, was unconstitutional, the supreme court declined to stay the April 1965 elections to avoid interfering with the “orderly operation of government.”
— Wis. Stat. § 59.03(2)(a) — 1 case
Knox v. Milwaukee Cnty. Bd. of Elections Commissioners, 581 F. Supp. 399 (E.D. Wis. 1984). “1 *401 On January 12, 1984, the defendants filed their response to plaintiffs’ motion, outlining the reapportionment process currently prescribed by Wis.Stat. § 59.03(2)(a) (1982), and arguing, based on an extensive discussion of the case law in this area, that there has been no…”
— Wis. Stat. § 59.03(2)(b) — 1 case
Town of Grant v. Portage Cnty., 2017 WI App 69 (Wis. Ct. App. 2017). “The Property Tax Levied by Portage County Does Not Violate the Home Rule Power Under Wis. Stat. § 59.03 (1). ¶ 18. In spite of the clear statutory authority we summarized above, the Town maintains that the tax levied by Portage County for its ambulance service exceeds the…”
— Wis. Stat. § 59.03(2)(e) — 1 case
Town of Grant v. Portage Cnty., 2017 WI App 69 (Wis. Ct. App. 2017). “The Property Tax Levied by Portage County Does Not Violate the Home Rule Power Under Wis. Stat. § 59.03 (1). ¶ 18. In spite of the clear statutory authority we summarized above, the Town maintains that the tax levied by Portage County for its ambulance service exceeds the…”
— Wis. Stat. § 59.03(3) — 1 case
City of Janesville v. Cnty. of Rock, 319 N.W.2d 891 (Wis. Ct. App. 1982). “In an original action in which it declared that the composition of the county boards as mandated by sec. 59.03(2), Stats. 1963, was unconstitutional, the supreme court declined to stay the April 1965 elections to avoid interfering with the “orderly operation of government.”
— Wis. Stat. § 59.03(3)(a) — 1 case
State Ex Rel. Shroble v. Prusener, 503 N.W.2d 301 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.