¶ 2. You indicate that instead of adopting a comprehensive plan, three towns have sent a document entitled “Notice of Coordination” to the county. Each notice states that the town “has invoked its authority to coordinate with federal, state, and local governments, and agencies regarding planning to benefit the citizens within its jurisdiction.” A resolution adopted by each town cites various federal and state statutes, including Wis. Stat. §§ 1.13, 16.023(1)(c), 16.965, 16.967, and 560.04, as well as other legal authority. Each resolution then states that the town is “invok[ing] . . . [its] legal standing and authority to coordinate with, and insist on coordination by, all State and federal agencies and units of government claiming jurisdiction over lands and/or resources located within the jurisdiction of the [t]own . . . pursuant to the federal and state acts recited above[.]” Each resolution concludes that “the land use plan adopted pursuant to this Resolution shall be a dynamic, continuously evolving plan requiring periodic review, assessment, and amendment in coordination with all agencies and units of federal and State government in relation to which the Town invokes coordination pursuant to this Resolution . . . and the federal and state statutes recited herein.” ¶ 3. The resolutions adopted by these towns were apparently the product or result of a February 2, 2009, written solicitation, which states in part as follows:
You have indicated interest in the coordination method of land use planning as an alternative to creating a “comprehensive” plan as outlined in Wisconsin statute 66.1001.
After extensive study of the issues it has been determined that a coordination plan can be created that offers compliance with the goals of that statute with strong emphasis on intergovernmental relations while maintaining local control.
A major component in adopting coordination is the ability to engage and control the creation, adoption, and implementation of your planning process. Under the existing federal and state statutes, after proper adoption, your municipality will have the on going [sic] authority to;
1. Require early notification (prior to public notice) to the local government of all actions or plans of the federal or state agencies that will affect local units of government, its [sic] economy, or environment.
2. Grant an opportunity for meaningful input by the local government, which means input that has substance and given [sic] weight and meaning by the agency.
3. Require agencies of all levels of government to be apprised of any local government policy or plan.
4. Those agencies/governments are required to consider the local government policy or plan when working on a municipal county, state, or federal policy or plan or management action.
5. And, most importantly, the agency or level of government is required to make all practicable effort to make their [sic] policy, plan, or action consistent with your local policy or plan.[]
It is the “consistency” requirement that gives teeth to coordination. Other levels of government and their agencies cannot listen and then ignore the position of the local government. It [sic] must make every practicable effort to make its action, policy, or plan “consistent” with that of local government.
. . . .
We will be using the consulting services of . . . [a] legal consultant to local governments which have adopted the process which he researched and developed [sic] the strategy.
In order for us to consult in guiding you through the first three steps of the adoption and implementation of your resolution process the costs are a fee of $1500 plus mileage at the current government rate and any out of pocket expense. If you wish for us to consult on the additional steps, four through eight, we will be happy to provide service for any or all those steps at a rate of $50.00 per hour plus mileage and out of pocket expenses.
If you wish to proceed we have provided an Indemnification and Hold Harmless Agreement.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED AND BRIEF ANSWERS
¶ 4. You ask two questions with subparts, which I have renumbered and reworded as follows:
1. Does the use of the word “coordination” in various Wisconsin statutes dealing with municipal planning by itself impose affirmative duties upon certain municipalities that are in addition to any other affirmative obligations that are imposed under those statutes?
¶ 5. In my opinion, the answer is no. Towns have only those powers delegated by statute, and the Wisconsin municipal planning statutes do not contain a “coordination” power that would allow a town to ignore its own statutory obligations or impose non-statutory obligations on other municipalities or units of government. Other statutes cited in the coordination resolutions described in your correspondence do not give rise to a “coordination” power.
1(a). If the use of the word “coordination” in various municipal planning statutes can by itself result in the imposition of additional affirmative duties upon certain municipalities, does a town need to take some form of action in order to compel other municipalities to perform those additional duties, what are those additional duties, and are those additional duties similar to the duties imposed upon the Secretary of the Interior by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 § 202, 43 U.S.C. § 1712(c)(9) (2006)?
¶ 6. Because of my answer to your first question, it is unnecessary for me to directly address this question.
1(b). If the use of the word “coordination” in municipal planning statutes can by itself result in the imposition of additional affirmative duties upon certain municipalities, which municipal duties must be coordinated with a town that has invoked its authority to compel other municipalities to perform such additional duties?
¶ 7. Because of my answer to your first question, it is unnecessary for me to address this question.
2. If “coordination” is a power that can be invoked by a municipality, can that power be used to create a “coordination plan” instead of a comprehensive plan for that town as specified in Wis. Stat. § 66.1001? If a “coordination” plan can be adopted, does a town lose or gain any particular privileges with a “coordination” plan?
¶ 8. Because “coordination” is not a power that can be invoked by a municipality, it is unnecessary to address this question.
ANALYSIS
¶ 9. While you ask multiple questions in your correspondence, all are contingent upon answering the specific concern you articulate in the introduction to your letter, which I have rephrased as follows:
1. Is “coordination” a legal doctrine that can be invoked by towns to impose on other governmental units additional obligations that are not required by the municipal planning statutes?
¶ 10. In my opinion, the answer is no.
¶ 11. “[T]owns have no home rule powers but only those powers specifically delegated to them by the legislature or necessarily implied therefrom[.]” Danielson v. City of Sun Prairie, 2000 WI App 227, ¶ 13, 239 Wis. 2d 178, 619 N.W.2d 108. It follows that for a town to invoke a “coordination” power, it must either appear in the statutes or be necessarily implied from the statutes. ¶ 12. The powers granted by the Legislature to towns are enumerated primarily in Wis. Stat. ch. 60. The word “coordination” does not appear in Wis. Stat. ch. 60. Moreover, Wisconsin’s municipal planning statutes do not use other terminology to require “coordination” as described in your correspondence. ¶ 13. The resolutions that the towns were persuaded to adopt make no reference to Wis. Stat. ch. 60. Those resolutions do cite the following state statutes relating to municipal planning that contain the word “coordination”: Wis. Stat. §§ 1.13, 16.023(1)(c), 16.965, 16.967, and 560.04. An examination of these statutes, however, does not indicate a generally applicable “coordination” power that could be invoked by towns in the municipal planning context. ¶ 14. Wisconsin Stat. § 1.13 provides in part: (2) Each state agency, where applicable and consistent with other laws, is encouraged to design its programs, policies, infrastructure and investments of the agency to reflect a balance between the mission of the agency and following local, comprehensive planning goals:
. . . .
(g) Encouragement of coordination and cooperation among nearby units of government.
. . . .
(3) Consistently with other laws, each state agency, whenever it administers a law under which a local governmental unit prepares a plan, is encouraged to design its planning requirements in a manner that makes it practical for local governmental units to incorporate these plans into local comprehensive plans prepared under s. 66.1001. Wisconsin Stat. § 1.13(2) and (3), which apply to state agencies and not to local units of government, use the words “encouraged” and “encouragement.” The statutory term “encourage” does not have a technical meaning. State ex rel. Wisconsin Dev. Authority v. Dammann, 228 Wis. 147, 190, 277 N.W. 278, 280 N.W. 698 (1938). The word “encourage” means “1 . . . b : to attempt to persuade : URGE <they encouraged him to go back to school>.” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/encourage. This is far different from the meaning of “coordination” as described in your correspondence or the common definition of the term. The transitive verb “coordinate” means “2 : to bring into a common action, movement, or condition : HARMONIZE <we need to coordinate our schedules>.” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coordinate. The intransitive verb “coordinate” means “1 : to be or become coordinate especially so as to act together in a smooth concerted way.” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coordinate. ¶ 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:
