WAPA Legislative Update

April 16, 2003

By Jordan K. Lamb
DeWitt Ross & Stevens S.C.

A.        2003-05 Biennial Budget

            1.         Budget Procedure and Process

On Wednesday, April 8, 2003, the Joint Finance Committee wrapped up a series of six statewide public hearings on Governor Doyle’s 2003-05 biennial budget (introduced as Senate Bill 44).  During these hearings, the Committee heard more than 48 hours of testimony from hundreds of witnesses. 

The Joint Finance Committee, which is made up of 16 members of the State Legislature – 8 Senators (6 Republicans and 2 Democrats) and 8 Representatives (6 Republicans and 2 Democrats) – will begin to hold executive sessions on the Governor’s budget bill on Monday, April 22, 2003.  In these executive sessions, the Committee will amend the Governor’s proposed budget and will introduce a comprehensive substitute amendment for both houses of the legislature to consider.  (For a list of the legislators who sit on the Joint Finance Committee, go to http://www.legis.state.wi.us/lfb/jfc/jfcmembership.html on the Internet).

            2. Relevant Budget Issues – Reduction in Shared Revenue

In his biennial budget, Governor Doyle proposed a significant reduction in shared revenue and related state aid payments to municipalities.  In 2002, $1,029.4 million in unrestricted state aid was paid to municipalities and counties under the shared revenue, expenditure restraint, county mandate relief, and small municipalities shared revenue programs. For 2003, the 2001-03 biennial budget authorized a 1% increase in each of the programs, resulting in a total funding level of $1,039.7 million.[1] 

Under current law, beginning in 2004, payments to municipalities and counties will be made under a new program entitled "county and municipal aid." Each municipality and county will receive a payment in 2004 based on the sum of its payments in 2003 under the shared revenue, small municipalities shared revenue, and county mandate relief programs.

In the 2003-05 biennial budget bill, the Governor proposes to reduce the combined payments under the shared revenue, county mandate relief, and small municipalities shared revenue programs in 2003 and the payments under the county and municipal aid program in 2004. Total payments in 2003 would be reduced by $10 million, with the reduction taken half from the payments to municipalities and half from the payments to counties. In 2004, $80 million in reductions would be applied in two steps. First, the $40 million reduction authorized under current law would be increased to $50 million, with the additional $10 million reduction divided equally among the payments to municipalities ($5 million) and counties ($5 million). Second, $70 million in reductions would be taken from payments to municipalities.

The Governor’s proposed “per capita” approach to allocating shared revenue, which would allocate a higher percentage of the shared revenue cut to smaller units of government, is unlikely to be accepted by the Republican majority in the Legislature.  A return to the existing system of allocation is more likely.

B.         Stand-Alone Legislation

1.       Assembly Bill 136 – Charter Towns

Assembly Bill 136, introduced on March 6, 2003 by Representative Carol Owens (a Republican from the 53^rd Assembly District), authorizes a town board to exercise village powers to adopt a resolution (subject to ratification in a referendum that the town board must call) declaring that it is a “charter town.”  In addition, under certain circumstances, the town board may create a tax incremental financing (“TIF”) district.  Finally, this bill also allows a charter town boards to exercise certain zoning powers, and exempts the town from being subject to certain city and village extraterritorial zoning or plat approval.

Requirements for a charter town include: (1) a population of at least 2,500; (2) equalized value exceeding $100 million; (3) provide sewer and/or water to at least 10% of its population; and (4) have twenty-four hour law enforcement.

According to the Department of Administration, about 135 Wisconsin towns currently qualify to become “charter towns.”

A public hearing was held on AB 136 on April 10, 2003 before the Assembly Committee on Rural Affairs.  The Committee did not hold an executive session (e.g., vote) on the legislation at that hearing.  (NOTE:  The chairperson of the Assembly Committee on Rural Affairs is Representative Eugene Hahn, a Republican from the 47^th Assembly District.)

For more information and public reaction to AB 136, please see the following:

“Bill would let towns avoid annexation,” by Amy Rinard, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, March 31, 2003.  Available online at

http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/mar03/130035.asp

“Don’t Expand Town Powers,” Wisconsin State Journal Opinion, April 8, 2003, section A8.  Available online at:

            http://www.madison.com/archives/read.php?ref=wsj:2003:04:08:263470:OPINION

League of Wisconsin Municipalities, Legislative Bulletin, No. 2003-13 - 4/4/2003

Available online at: http://www.lwm-info.org/

2.      Assembly Bill 130 – Alternative Method for Town Consolidation

Assembly Bill 130, introduced on March 6, 2003 by Representative Bonnie Ladwig (a Republican from the 63^rd Assembly District), creates another method for certain towns to consolidate with other municipalities.  Under this bill, all or part of a town (to which a number of specifications applies) may consolidate with a contiguous municipality if a consolidation ordinance is passed by a two-thirds vote of the governing bodies of each municipality, and if the ordinance is ratified by the electors in a referendum in each municipality.

The specifications that must apply to a town to enable it to consolidate include the following:

(1)        The town must be a party to an intergovernmental cooperation agreement under which the town’s residents must receive, or have access to, sewage disposal services; public health services; police, fire, and emergency services; library services; animal control services; and park services.

(2)        The town must be a party to an intergovernmental cooperation agreement that relates to the ownership or leasing of government buildings.

(3)        The city or village with which the town wishes to consolidate enters into a boundary agreement with every municipality that borders the proposed consolidated city or village.

(4)        The consolidating town and municipality enter into an agreement to adopt jointly a comprehensive plan. The plan must take effect before the consolidation may take effect.

(5)        If less than an entire town consolidates with a municipality, the consolidation may not take effect unless the town enters into an agreement with a municipality that shares a border with the town remnant under which the town remnant becomes part of the municipality with a common boundary.

A public hearing was held on AB 130 before the Assembly Committee on Urban and Local Affairs on April 8, 2003.  The Committee did not hold an executive session (e.g., vote) on the legislation at that time.  (NOTE:  The Chairperson of the Assembly Committee on Urban and Local Affairs is Representative Scott Gunderson, a Republican from the 83^rd Assembly District.)

            3.         Senate Bill 110 – Town Maps 

Current law allows a town to adopt an official map under certain situations if the town is located in a county that has not enacted a county zoning ordinance.  Senate Bill 110, introduced on April 9, 2003 by Senator Alan Lasee, a Republican from the 1^st Senate District, authorizes a town to adopt an official map at any time, and requires that a county development plan include the official map of any town in the county that has adopted a comprehensive plan, which is defined under current law as a plan that must contain planning elements including the following: housing; transportation; utilities and community facilities; agricultural, natural, and cultural resources; economic development; and land use.  Also under the bill, a city’s or village’s master plan and official map will control in the city’s or village’s extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction only if an official town map is not part of the county development plan.

SB 110 was referred to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security, Veterans and Military Affairs and Government Reform.  No public hearing has yet been scheduled or held on AB 110.  (NOTE:  The Chairperson for the Senate Committee on Homeland Security, Veterans and Military Affairs and Government Reform is Senator Ron Brown, a Republican from the 31^st Senate District.)

C.        Links and Other Useful Information

To determine who your state legislators are, go to http://www.legis.state.wi.us/waml/ and type in your home address.

For a list of all Wisconsin State Representatives, go to:

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/assembly/asmhomepages.html

For a list of all Wisconsin State Senators, go to:

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/senate/senhomepages.html