Background
Willow Brook Court, LLC, Willow Brook Greens, LLC, and Brookfield Junction, LLC own nine apartment complexes containing 309 units on Brookfield’s western side. The City billed the properties quarterly for municipal sewer service as multi-family residential properties with three or more units.
After the City denied its July 2023 claim for refunds, Willow Brook sued for declaratory relief. It argued that a Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District rule incorporated into the City code required structures with more than two residential units to be classified as commercial. The circuit court granted Willow Brook summary judgment, ordered a six-year refund, and later awarded prejudgment interest and half of its attorney fees. The City appealed, and Willow Brook cross-appealed seeking 15 years of damages.
The Court’s Holding
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed. Willow Brook was not challenging the reasonableness or discriminatory nature of the sewer rates, so it was not required to first proceed before the Public Service Commission.
But the MMSD rule on which Willow Brook relied governed MMSD user charges, not Brookfield’s separate sewage-service-charge classifications. Reading the incorporated MMSD provisions in context, the court held that they did not displace the City’s express multi-family residential classification. The City therefore properly billed Willow Brook as multi-family residential rather than commercial.
Key Takeaways
- An ordinance incorporated by reference must be interpreted in context, including its definitions and purpose.
- MMSD user-charge classifications did not govern Brookfield’s own sewer-service-charge resolution.
- Because Willow Brook was not entitled to summary judgment, its damages cross-appeal was moot.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes a challenge to a municipality’s application of its classifications from a rate challenge requiring initial PSC review. It also underscores that a cross-referenced regulatory provision cannot be read in isolation to nullify an express classification in a separate municipal charging scheme.
The court reversed the challenged orders and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion; it did not reach the City’s arguments about damages, prejudgment interest, attorney fees, or reconsideration.