HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.sag/sagwi2020 and id is 1 raw text is:
STATE OF WISCONSIN
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Josh Kaul 114 East, State Capitol
Attorney General P.O. Box 7857
Madison, WI 53707-7857
608/266-1221
TTY 1-800-947-3529
January 28, 2020
OAG-01-20
Ms. Mary Ann Hook Swan
Washburn County Corporation Counsel
10 West Fourth Avenue
Post Office Box 64
Shell Lake, WI 54871
Dear Corporation Counsel Swan:
¶ 1. Your predecessor requested an opinion, which you have adopted,
regarding a practice by some counties of entering into lease agreements with a private
entity, where that lessee obtains gravel from county-owned land. Although the
opinion request provides no specific agreement, according to the description, I
understand that the lessee provides some of the gravel to the county and also
sells some to private entities. The request asks whether such a lease agreement
conflicts with a statute, Wis. Stat. § 83.035, and a previous attorney general opinion,
OAG-2-01 (Feb. 14, 2001), which discussed the constitutional public purpose doctrine.
¶ 2. I conclude that Wis. Stat. § 83.035 would not govern the gravel lease
described because it purports only to address contracts to construct or maintain
streets. Rather, a separate statute specifically addresses mineral leases. Further, I
conclude that the Wisconsin Supreme Court's interpretation of the public purpose
doctrine would not bar a gravel lease where a lessee provides adequate consideration
for that property right. To the extent that some statements in OAG-2-01 suggest a
different analysis, that portion of the opinion is withdrawn.
¶ 3. The first question involves the meaning of a statute, Wis. Stat.
§ 83.035. [S]tatutory language is interpreted 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; and reasonably, to avoid absurd or unreasonable results.
State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane Cty., 2004 WI 58, ¶ 46, 271 Wis. 2d 633,
681 N.W.2d 110. If this process of analysis yields a plain, clear statutory meaning,](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.sag/sagwi2020&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)