WAPA Legislative Update

By Jordan K. Lamb

DeWitt Ross & Stevens S.C.

June 16, 2003 

A.        2003-05 Biennial Budget

1.                  Budget Procedure and Process

On Wednesday, June 4, 2003, the Joint Finance Committee finished preparing its amendment to the Governor’s proposed 2003-05 Biennial Budget.  The budget bill was introduced as Senate Bill 44.  Accordingly, it will first be debated in the Senate, and then in the Assembly. 

Senate Majority Leader, Senator Mary Panzer, has indicated that the Senate Republicans plan to take the budget bill to the floor of the Senate for debate later this week

The Assembly Republicans are not expected to hold a floor session until the Senate passes the budget bill and sends it to the Assembly for action.  The Assembly Republicans may hold caucus sessions while the Senate works on the bill.  However, they have indicated that they plan to make only “technical” amendments to the bill.

2.                  Relevant Budget Issues – Reduction in Shared Revenue[1]

According to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau, in 2003, state aid payments to municipalities under the shared revenue and related aid programs will total $846.2 million.  In the budget bill, the Governor proposed to reduce municipal aid payments in 2004 by $70 million, in addition to the $20 million reduction previously authorized under 2001 Wisconsin Act 109.  As a result, aid reductions totaling $90 million would have been applied on a per capita basis, relative to aid payments in the previous year.

However, under the Joint Finance Committee’s shared revenue proposal, 2004 municipal aid payments would be $70 million less, in total, than aid payments in 2003, thereby providing $20 million more in 2004 municipal aid than the Governor's proposal.

Under the Joint Finance proposal, two separate distributions would be provided – one for large municipalities (e.g., the state's 133 cities and 57 villages with populations over 2,500, and 33 towns with populations over 5,000) and one for smaller municipalities (e.g., the state’s 395 cities and villages and 1,232 towns.)

Under the Joint Finance Committee’s proposal, in 2003, large municipalities would receive estimated aid payments totaling $643.5 million, which includes distributions of $578.0 million under newly-created programs and $65.5 million under existing programs.  In addition, payments would be subject to a minimum guarantee and maximum ceiling. Under these provisions, no municipality's aid payment would decrease from 2003 by more than 11.5%, so each municipality would be guaranteed at least 88.5% of its prior year payment. In addition, no payment will exceed 93.6% of a prior year payment. Therefore, aid payments would range from 88.5% to 93.6% of the prior year amounts.

Under the Joint Finance Committee’s proposal, in 2003 smaller municipalities will receive state aid payments under the shared revenue and small municipalities shared revenue program of $125.0 million.  Each municipality's 2003 "base" payment would be reduced by 12.0%, and their payments would remain at that level in the future.

3.                  Relevant Budget Issues – Alternative Property Tax Valuation for Swampland and Woodlots

In Motion #193, adopted 14-2 on June 3, 2003, the Joint Finance Committee changed the name of the "swamp or waste" classification of real property to "undeveloped land" for purposes of property taxation and created a new classification of property called "agricultural forest," defined to include land that is producing or is capable of producing commercial forest products and is included on a parcel where part of the parcel is classified as agricultural or is contiguous to a parcel where part of the parcel is classified as agricultural, if the contiguous parcel is owned by the same person.  (“Contiguous” is defined to include a parcel that is separated only by a road from a parcel containing agricultural land, so long as both parcels are owned by the same person.)

The Committee provided for the assessment of property classified as undeveloped land and agricultural forestland at 50% of the full value for which the property could be sold.  In addition, the Committee extended similar treatment to the Department of Revenue's determination of equalized values and modified the current law requirement relating to assessing each major class of property at no less than 90% of its full value by specifying that undeveloped land, agricultural forests, productive forest land, and other property be considered separate classes of property, rather than as a single class of property, as provided under current law.  These provisions are extended to property assessed as of January 1, 2004.

            4.         Relevant Budget Issues – Land Programs

The Joint Finance Committee adopted the revised Department of Administration proposal for funding land programs during the 2003-05 biennium and provided an additional $907,000 in Program Revenue in 2003-04 and $1,092,900 in Program Revenue in 2004-05 for this purpose.  In addition, the Committee adopted the Governor's recommendation to convert $1,500,000 in General Purpose Revenue of comprehensive planning grants funding to Program Revenue funding.  The action also made technical changes extending the land program sunset date to September 1, 2005, for provisions relating to: (a) the membership of the Wisconsin Land Information Council; and (b) the Council's responsibilities to review and approve comprehensive planning grant submissions to DOA.

In addition, the Committee changed how comprehensive planning grant funds supported from land record fees could be expended.  Under current law, comprehensive planning grants may be provided to local units of government to finance the cost of planning a variety of activities, including contracting for planning consultant services, public planning sessions and other planning outreach and educational activities, or for the purchase of computerized planning data, planning software or the hardware required to utilize that data or software.  Applications made by local governments must contain a complete statement explaining how the funding would be used. In determining whether to approve a proposed grant, current law requires that preference be given to applications that contain all of the following planning effort elements: (a) address the interests of overlapping or neighboring jurisdictions; (b) promote the redevelopment of lands with existing infrastructure and public services; (c) encourage a range of neighborhood transportation choices; (d) protect natural areas; (e) protect economically productive areas; (f) encourage land uses, densities, and regulations that promote efficient development patterns; (g) preserve cultural, historic and archaeological sites; (h) encourage coordination among nearby units of government; (i) build community identity; (j) provide an adequate supply of affordable housing; (k) provide adequate infrastructure and public services to meet existing and future market demand; (1) promote the expansion or stabilization of the current economic base; (m) balance individual property rights with community interests; (n) plan land uses that create varied and unique communities; (o) provide an integrated transportation system; (p) planning efforts that identify smart growth areas; (q) planning efforts, including subsequent updates and amendments; (r) planning efforts for which completion is contemplated within 30 months of the grant award; and (s) planning efforts that provide opportunities for public participation. 

The Joint Finance Committee required that for those grants funded from land record fees, the following new planning elements would also have to be addressed:  (a) expediting and integrating the use of existing, locally created and maintained Wisconsin land information program data; (b) developing digital data that is consistent with Wisconsin land information program interests, modernization and public access standards; and (c) expanding public participation through access to planning support tools. 

B.         Update on Stand-Alone Legislation Discussed in Previous Updates

1.      Assembly Bill 136 – Charter Towns

There has been no further action on Assembly Bill 136, introduced on March 6, 2003, by Representative Carol Owens, a Republican from the 53^rd Assembly District.

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), which creates another method for certain towns to consolidate with other municipalities, was amended and passed on the Assembly Floor on May 29, 2003.  The Assembly passed Assembly Substitute Amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 130 (hereinafter “ASA 1”) with a voice vote.  Under ASA 1, a proposed current law–consolidation of a town must receive circuit court and DOA approval only if the town proposes to consolidate with a city or village.  In addition, ASA 1 creates another method for certain towns to consolidate with cities or villages.  All or part of a town to which a number of specifications applies may consolidate with a contiguous city or village 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.  A consolidation under ASA 1 may take effect only if some part of the consolidated city or village receives sewage disposal services.  AB 130 as amended by ASA 1, has been received by the Senate and referred to the Senate Committee on Security, Veterans and Military Affairs and Government Reform.

3.      Senate Bill 110 – Town Maps

There has been no further action on Senate Bill 110, introduced on April 9, 2003 by Senator Alan Lasee, a Republican from the 1^st Senate District.

4.      Assembly Bill 253 and Senate Bill 123 – Using Population in Determining Eligibility for Recycling Efficiency Grants

There has been no further action on either Assembly Bill 253 or Senate Bill 123, introduced on April 8 and April 23, respectively, by the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules.

5.      Assembly Bill 295 – Extension of Recycling Pilot Program

There has been no further action on Assembly Bill 295, introduced on April 23, 2003 by representative Mark Mille, a Democrat from the 48^th Assembly District.

6.      Assembly Bill 347/Senate Bill 168 – Dwelling Codes

There had been no further action on either Assembly Bill 347, introduced on May 20, 2003 by Representative Jeffery Wood (a Republican from the 67^th Assembly District), or its companion bill, Senate Bill 168, introduced on May 14, 2003, by Senator Ronald Brown (a Republican from the 31^st Senate District).

C.        New Stand-Alone Legislation of Interest

1.                  Assembly Bill 271 – Notices for Zoning Changes

Assembly Bill 271, introduced on April 18, 2003, by Representative Sheryl Albers (a Republican from the 50^th Assembly District), specifies that a town zoning committee must hold a public hearing and give notice of the hearing on a preliminary report on recommended zoning district boundaries and zoning regulations for such districts and that a town board give notice of a public hearing on a proposed zoning ordinance.  In addition, the bill requires that, if a proposed zoning ordinance, amendment to a zoning ordinance or zoning district plan or regulation, has the effect of changing the allowable use of any property within the boundaries of the political subdivision, the political subdivision or subunit of the political subdivision must send a notice, which contains a copy of the proposed ordinance or amendment, to each person whose property may be affected and who has previously notified the political subdivision in writing, of his or her desire to be placed on a list to receive such a notice.  The political subdivision or subunit of the political subdivision may charge a fee for providing the notice. The fee may not exceed the approximate cost of providing the notice.  Assembly Bill 271 was referred to the Assembly Committee on Property Rights and Land Management.

2.                  Assembly Bill 369 – Dept. of Transportation Review of School Plans

Assembly Bill 369, introduced on May 29, 2003, by Representative Steve Wieckert (a Republican from the 57^th Assembly District), requires the Department of Transportation, upon request of a school board, to review the site plan of any proposed enlargement of school grounds, or proposed construction or enlargement of school buildings or facilities.  AB 369 was referred to the Assembly Committee on Transportation.

3.                  Senate Bill 89 – Town Referenda for Annexations

Senate Bill 89, introduced by Senator Alan Lasee (a Republican from the 1^st Senate District), specifies that no annexation ordinance or annexation of a town territory to any city or village may take effect unless it is approved in a referendum of all of the town electors in the town from which the town territory is proposed to be annexed.  SB 89 has been referred to the Senate Committee on Security, Veterans and Military Affairs and Government Reform.