Property taxpayers in the Village of Union Grove are once again staring down a multi-million-dollar assessment from the Racine County Board of Drainage Commissioners, even after a successful court challenge last year struck down a similar levy.
A May 18 engineering report prepared by Nielsen Madsen + Barber for the Yorkville-Raymond Drainage District calculates Union Grove’s share at exactly $2,087,485. That figure represents 35.8 percent of the projected costs to maintain and restore roughly 10 miles of the West Branch Root River Canal and related drainage features located entirely inside the neighboring Villages of Yorkville and Raymond. When interest is included, village officials later described the total obligation as approximately $2.34 million, payable in two installments due around September 1, 2026, and September 1, 2027.
The assessment rests on Wisconsin Statute § 88.64, which allows a drainage board to bill an upstream municipality for costs attributable to increased water flow from land inside that municipality. Union Grove itself sits outside the district boundaries. The report attributes the village’s share primarily to stormwater runoff from development and continuous discharge from the village’s wastewater treatment plant.
This is not the first time the drainage board has targeted Union Grove. In December 2022 the board levied a $1.16 million assessment as part of a larger $3.2 million five-year plan. The village challenged it, arguing the board failed to comply with the detailed engineering requirements of § 88.64. In July 2025 the Wisconsin Court of Appeals agreed in a 2-1 decision, reversing a lower-court ruling and wiping out the village’s obligation. Village officials had already spent roughly $187,000 in legal fees defending taxpayers against what they called an improper levy for work occurring entirely outside Union Grove.
In a July 2025 press release celebrating the appellate victory, the village emphasized that no portion of Union Grove lies within the drainage district and that the prior assessment lacked the required technical analysis of increased flows. The Court of Appeals did not reach the village’s broader constitutional arguments about taxation without representation.
The new assessment arrives after the previous informal cost-sharing agreements among the three municipalities expired. Yorkville and Raymond had been willing to continue a roughly 40-40-20 split; Union Grove declined those terms, prompting the formal assessment process.
Village officials publicly acknowledged the new notice in their July 2026 e-newsletter, stating they are reviewing the report with engineering and legal counsel “to determine the appropriate course of action.” A public hearing on the proposed assessment was held June 9, 2026. According to accounts from a former village official familiar with the process, no representative from Union Grove attended that hearing, and the matter was not placed on an open Village Board agenda for full public discussion while the notice was still fresh.
For a village operating under Wisconsin’s strict levy limits, a $2.3 million obligation is no small matter. Earlier village statements during the first fight noted that the annual allowable tax-levy increase under state law would be insufficient to absorb such costs without cutting other services or raising rates on utility customers. The drainage board is unelected; its decisions directly affect municipal budgets and, ultimately, local property owners who have no vote on the board itself.
The episode highlights ongoing tension between specialized drainage districts—created more than a century ago to serve agricultural lands—and growing suburban municipalities whose development and infrastructure can be deemed to contribute to downstream flows. Critics of the current statute argue it effectively allows an unelected body to impose significant costs on taxpayers in communities that receive none of the direct maintenance benefits and have limited ability to influence the board’s priorities or spending.
Union Grove has signaled it will scrutinize the latest engineering analysis carefully. Whether the village again pursues legal remedies, seeks legislative reform of § 88.64, or negotiates a different arrangement remains to be seen. What is already clear is that local taxpayers once more find themselves on the hook for work performed miles outside their borders—after already spending nearly $200,000 to prove the last attempt was unlawful.
