62.11(4)(c)2.d. d. Information as to where the full text of the ordinance may be obtained, including the phone number of the city clerk, a street address where the full text of the ordinance may be viewed, and a website, if any, at which the ordinance may be accessed.

62.11(5) (5) Powers. Except as elsewhere in the statutes specifically provided, the council shall have the management and control of the city property, finances, highways, navigable waters, and the public service, and shall have power to act for the government and good order of the city, for its commercial benefit, and for the health, safety, and welfare of the public, and may carry out its powers by license, regulation, suppression, borrowing of money, tax levy, appropriation, fine, imprisonment, confiscation, and other necessary or convenient means. The powers hereby conferred shall be in addition to all other grants, and shall be limited only by express language.

62.11 History History: 1991 a. 316; 1993 a. 184; 1995 a. 225; 2007 a. 72; 2017 a. 50; 2017 a. 365 s. 112.

62.11 Cross-reference Cross-reference: See s. 118.105 for control of traffic on school premises.

62.11 Annotation When a municipality’s power to contract is improperly or irregularly exercised and the municipality receives a benefit under the contract, it is estopped from asserting the invalidity of the contract. Village of McFarland v. Town of Dunn, 82 Wis. 2d 469, 263 N.W.2d 167 (1978).

62.11 Annotation Madison’s power to forbid chemical treatment of Madison lakes was withdrawn by s. 144.025 (2) (i) [now s. 281.17 (2)]. Wisconsin’s Environmental Decade, Inc. v. DNR, 85 Wis. 2d 518, 271 N.W.2d 69 (1978).

62.11 Annotation When a city council creates a governing board for a utility under s. 66.068 (1) [now s. 66.0805 (1)], the council is prohibited by s. 66.068 (3) [now s. 66.0805 (3)] from fixing wages for utility employees. Schroeder v. City of Clintonville, 90 Wis. 2d 457, 280 N.W.2d 166 (1979).

62.11 Annotation Sub. (5) authorizes an ordinance regulating massage parlors. City of Madison v. Schultz, 98 Wis. 2d 188, 295 N.W.2d 798 (Ct. App. 1980).

62.11 Annotation There is a four-part test in evaluating whether a municipality may regulate a matter of state-wide concern: 1) whether the legislature has expressly withdrawn the power of municipalities to act; 2) whether the ordinance logically conflicts with the state legislation; 3) whether the ordinance defeats the purpose of the state legislation; or 4) whether the ordinance goes against the spirit of the state legislation. Anchor Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Equal Opportunities Commission, 120 Wis. 2d 391, 355 N.W.2d 234 (1984).

62.11 Annotation The common council and mayor properly limited the power of the police and fire commission to promote police officers. State ex rel. Wilson v. Schocker, 142 Wis. 2d 179, 418 N.W.2d 8 (Ct. App. 1987).

62.11 Annotation Liberally construing home rule authority, a city is not authorized to institute a public safety officer program. Local Union No. 487 v. City of Eau Claire, 147 Wis. 2d 519, 433 N.W.2d 578 (1989).

62.11 Annotation The power granted under sub. (5) is broader than that granted under article XI, section 3, of the Wisconsin Constitution. Sub. (5) does not limit a city’s authority to act only in local affairs. A city may act in matters of state-wide concern if the conditions of the four-part test stated in this case are met. DeRosso Landfill Co. v. City of Oak Creek, 191 Wis. 2d 46, 528 N.W.2d 468 (Ct. App. 1995).

62.11 Annotation The state regulatory scheme for tobacco sales preempts municipalities from adopting regulations that are not in strict conformity with those of the state. U.S. Oil, Inc. v. City of Fond du Lac, 199 Wis. 2d 333, 544 N.W.2d 589 (Ct. App. 1996), 95-0213.

62.11 Annotation One who deals with a municipality does so at the person’s own risk and may be subject to any provisions of law that might prevent the person from being paid by a municipality even though the services are rendered. Unless the power to bind the municipality financially has been specifically delegated, the only entity with the statutory authority to contract is the municipality. Holzbauer v. Safway Steel Products, Inc., 2005 WI App 240, 288 Wis. 2d 250, 708 N.W.2d 36, 04-2058.

62.11 Annotation When a challenge to the exercise of police powers is directed at the legislative means employed, the issue is properly framed as one of substantive due process. The legislative means chosen must have a rational relationship to the purpose or object of the enactment; if it has, and the object is a proper one, the exercise of the police power is valid. The fundamental inquiry is not whether the challenged provisions in an ordinance are rationally related to the stated purpose of the ordinance but whether the challenged provisions are rationally related to any legitimate municipal objective. Metropolitan Milwaukee Ass’n of Commerce v. City of Milwaukee, 2011 WI App 45, 332 Wis. 2d 459, 798 N.W.2d 287, 09-1874.

62.11 Annotation An ordinance is not invalid as unreasonable merely because substantially the same result might be accomplished by the enactment of a different type of ordinance, or because a less burdensome course might have been adopted to accomplish the end. The correct standard is whether the legislative means chosen has a rational relationship to the permissible object. Metropolitan Milwaukee Ass’n of Commerce v. City of Milwaukee, 2011 WI App 45, 332 Wis. 2d 459, 798 N.W.2d 287, 09-1874.

62.11 Annotation The fact that the regulation of sex offenders is a matter of statewide concern does not preclude municipalities from using their home-rule powers to impose further restrictions consistent with those imposed by the state. An ordinance regulating an area of statewide concern is preempted only if: 1) the legislature has expressly withdrawn the power of municipalities to act; 2) the ordinance logically conflicts with state legislation; 3) the ordinance defeats the purpose of state legislation; or 4) the ordinance violates the spirit of state legislation. City of South Milwaukee v. Kester, 2013 WI App 50, 347 Wis. 2d 334, 830 N.W.2d 710, 12-0724.

62.11 Annotation Section 66.0301 (2) specifically authorizes a municipality to contract with other municipalities for the receipt or furnishing of services. In addition, sub. (5) and s. 62.04 confer upon cities all powers not denied them by other statutes or the constitution. In this case, the city decided to make certain of its property available to neighboring municipalities for wastewater treatment service on the terms and conditions it negotiated in contracts with those municipalities, including annual license fees. Sub. (5) unquestionably conferred authority upon the city to do so. Mary Lane Area Sanitary District v. City of Oconomowoc, 2023 WI App 48, 409 Wis. 2d 159, 996 N.W.2d 101, 22-1649.

62.11 Annotation A city probably can contract with a county to provide fire protection to a county institution located outside of the boundaries of the city. 62 Atty. Gen. 84.

62.11 Annotation A municipality has no jurisdiction over chemical treatment of waters to suppress aquatic nuisances. The Department of Natural Resources is granted statewide supervision over aquatic nuisance control under s. 144.025 (2) (i) [now s. 281.17 (2)]. Applications for permits to chemically treat aquatic nuisances under s. 144.025 (2) (i) [now s. 281.17 (2)] may be denied even though statutory and regulatory requirements have been met if the chemical treatment would be counter-productive in achieving the goals set out in s. 144.025 (1) [now s. 281.11]. 63 Atty. Gen. 260.

62.11 Annotation Local units of government may not create and accumulate unappropriated surplus funds. However, a local unit of government may maintain reasonable amounts necessary in the exercise of sound business principles to meet the immediate cash flow needs of the municipality during the current budgetary period or to accumulate needed capital in non-lapsing funds to finance specifically identified future capital expenditures. 76 Atty. Gen. 77.

62.11 Annotation Article VIII, section 5 restricts the state from levying taxes to create a surplus having no public purpose. Although the constitutional provision does not apply directly to municipalities, the same limitation applies indirectly to them because the state cannot delegate more power than it has. 76 Atty. Gen. 77.

62.11 Annotation Conflicts Between State Statute and Local Ordinance in Wisconsin. Solheim. 1975 WLR 840.

62.11 Annotation Madison’s Minimum-Wage Ordinance, Section 104.001, and the Future of Home Rule in Wisconsin. Burchill. 2007 WLR 151.

62.115 62.115 Defense of officers by city attorney.

62.115(1) (1) The common council of any city, however incorporated, may by ordinance or resolution authorize the city attorney to defend actions brought against any officer or employee of such city or of any board or commission thereof, growing out of any acts done in the course of employment, or out of any alleged breach of duty as such officer or employee, excepting actions brought to determine the right of such officer or employee to hold or retain that person’s office or position, and excepting also actions brought by such city against any officer or employee thereof.

62.115(2) (2) Nothing in this section contained, nor any action taken by any city or by any city attorney pursuant to the provisions of this section, shall be construed to impose any liability, either for costs, damages or otherwise, upon such city or city attorney.

62.115 History History: 1991 a. 316.

62.12 62.12 Finance.