¶ 15. “If the statute is merely a guide for the conduct of business and for orderly procedure rather than a limitation of power, it will be construed as directory.” 1A Singer, Sutherland Statutory Construction § 25:3 (6th ed. 2002) (footnote omitted). By their very nature, words such as “encouraged” and “encouragement” are directory. See Cross v. Soderbeck, 94 Wis. 2d 331, 340-41, 288 N.W.2d 779 (1980); Manninen v. Liss, 265 Wis. 355, 357, 61 N.W.2d 336 (1953). See also Mews v. Department of Commerce, 2004 WI App 24, ¶¶ 17-24, 269 Wis. 2d 641, 676 N.W.2d 160 (Even though Wis. Stat. § 101.143(2m), entitled “INTERDEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION,” stated that an interdepartmental meeting was to occur under specified circumstances, that portion of the statute was directory). Because Wis. Stat. § 1.13(2) and (3) are directory provisions, they accord no substantive rights to towns. ¶ 16. Wisconsin Stat. § 16.023(1)(c) provides that the Wisconsin Land Council (“Council”) shall “[s]tudy areas of cooperation and coordination in the state’s land use statutes and recommend to the governor legislation to harmonize these statutes to further the state’s land use goals.” The Council is a state agency. Wis. Stat. § 15.107(16). Wisconsin Stat. § 16.023(1)(c) directs the Council to study certain items so that it can recommend legislation. Any “areas of cooperation and coordination” studied or identified by the Council pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 16.023(1)(c) must subsequently be adopted as legislation in order to be accorded the force of law. Wisconsin Stat. § 16.023(1)(c) accords no rights to towns or other local units of government. ¶ 17. Wisconsin Stat. § 16.965(4) provides in part: In determining whether to approve a proposed grant, preference shall be accorded [by the department of administration] to applications of local governmental units that contain all of the following elements:
. . . .
(b) Planning efforts that contain a specific description of the means by which all of the following local, comprehensive planning goals will be achieved:
. . . .
7. Encouragement of coordination and cooperation among nearby units of government.
Wisconsin Stat. § 16.965(4) contains certain criteria to be applied by the Department of Administration (“DOA”) in awarding grants to local units of government. Wisconsin Stat. § 16.965(4) has no application to towns or other local units of government in any area other than the award of certain grants by DOA. ¶ 18. Wisconsin Stat. § 16.967 provides in part: (3) DUTIES OF DEPARTMENT. The department [of administration] shall direct and supervise the land information program and serve as the state clearinghouse for access to land information. . . .
. . . .
(8) ADVICE; COOPERATION. In carrying out its duties under this section, the department may seek advice and assistance from the board of regents of the University of Wisconsin System and other agencies, local governmental units, and other experts involved in collecting and managing land information. Agencies shall cooperate with the department in the coordination of land information collection.
The first sentence of Wis. Stat. § 16.967(8) authorizes DOA to “seek advice and assistance from . . . agencies, [or] local governmental units” if DOA chooses to do so. The second sentence of Wis. Stat. § 16.967(8) requires “[a]gencies . . .” to “cooperate” with DOA “in the coordination of land information collection.” The “[a]gencies . . .” referred to in the second sentence of Wis. Stat. § 16.967(8) are state agencies. See Wis. Stat. § 16.967(1)(a), which cross references the definition of “agency” contained in Wis. Stat. § 16.70(1)(e). Although the first sentence of Wis. Stat. § 16.967(8) does permit DOA to seek advice and assistance from town governments, there is no language in Wis. Stat. § 16.967(8) that accords any rights or authority to towns or other local units of government. ¶ 19. Wisconsin Stat. § 560.04 provides in part: Community development. (1) PURPOSE. The legislature determines that a pattern of state-local relations shall be established that will facilitate closer coordination and cooperation between state and local governments. The department [of commerce] shall recommend methods for achieving such closer coordination and cooperation in order to meet citizen needs, provide a balanced economy and facilitate economic and community development.
Wisconsin Stat. § 560.04(1) is a statement of legislative purpose. The first sentence of Wis. Stat. § 560.04(1) explains that the Legislature’s goal is to establish “a pattern of state-local relations . . . that will facilitate closer coordination and cooperation between state and local governments.” The second sentence of Wis. Stat. § 560.04(1) describes the first step in achieving that goal: the issuance of recommendations by the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”). The only obligation imposed upon Commerce by the second sentence of Wis. Stat. § 560.04(1) is to make recommendations that do not have the force of law. The obligation to make those recommendations falls solely upon Commerce. The statement of legislative purpose in Wis. Stat. § 560.04(1) therefore accords no legal rights to towns or other local units of government. ¶ 20. Statutory interpretation “‘begins with the language of the statute.’” State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court, 2004 WI 58, ¶ 45, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110 (citation omitted). Statutory language must be construed 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. Kalal, 271 Wis. 2d 633, ¶ 46. The extent to which the word “coordination” imposes an affirmative obligation upon a particular unit of government can only be determined by examining the specific language contained in the statute involved. As I have explained, municipal planning statutes such as Wis. Stat. §§ 1.13, 16.023(1)(c), 16.965, 16.967, and 560.04 do not accord any local municipalities any right to compel other units of government to act in a particular way. ¶ 21. Nor is the power of “coordination” necessarily implied from any of the statutes governing municipal planning. With respect to comprehensive planning, which appears to be the primary area of concern motivating the adoption of these resolutions, municipalities may develop and adopt comprehensive plans required by law by simply following the statutory requirements of Wis. Stat. § 66.1001. Exercise of a “coordination” power is not necessary for covered governmental units to accomplish the statute’s directives. ¶ 22. In sum, Wisconsin statutes do not grant towns a “coordination” power that would compel other municipalities (much less the state or its agencies or officers) to coordinate their municipal planning activities with the municipal planning activities of towns.
¶ 23. This is not to say that towns are without a role to play in comprehensive planning or with the more specific elements of zoning. For example, with respect to comprehensive planning, public notice and participation provisions are specifically addressed in statute. Wis. Stat. § 66.1001(4). A town must follow those provisions and follow public participation procedures when adopting or amending a town’s comprehensive plan and presumably may participate in another governmental unit’s public participation proceedings when the other governmental unit is adopting or amending its plan. Towns located within another governmental body’s boundaries (for example, a county) are to be provided a copy with the other governmental body’s comprehensive plan. Wis. Stat. § 66.1001(4)(b)1. Towns may have a role to play with respect to the creation of regional planning commissions. Wis. Stat. § 66.0309(2). With respect to zoning ordinances, county ordinances are not effective in a town until the town board approves the ordinance. Wis. Stat. § 59.69(4). More generally with respect to coordinating governmental activities, towns may “cooperate” with other municipalities by entering into voluntary intergovernmental agreements to furnish or receive services, or jointly exercise any power or duty required or authorized by law, subject to specific statutory exceptions or limitations. Wis. Stat. § 60.23(1). ¶ 24. But these statutory duties and rights, which relate to governments working together or having overlapping responsibilities, are far different in nature than the “coordination” power described in your correspondence. They have one other critical difference: they are contained in Wisconsin statutes.
CONCLUSION
¶ 25. I therefore conclude that the use of the word “coordination” in various Wisconsin statutes dealing with municipal planning does not by itself authorize towns to invoke a power of “coordination” that would impose affirmative duties upon certain municipalities that are in addition to any other obligations that are imposed under those statutes. With respect to the development of and amendment of comprehensive plans, Wis. Stat. § 66.1001 is to be followed by the local governmental units and political subdivisions identified in that section. Sincerely,
J.B. VAN HOLLEN
Attorney General
JBVH:FTC:KMS:cla
