If the court decides to place the person on supervised release, DHFS and the county social services department (county department) of the person's county of residence must prepare a plan for the treatment and services that the person will receive while on supervised release. If the county department of the person's county of residence declines to prepare a plan, DHFS or the court must find another county department to prepare the plan. In State v. Sprosty, 221 Wis. 2d. 401 (Ct. App. 1998), the court of appeals held that once a court has ordered a person placed on supervised release, the person must be released and DHFS and the county responsible for preparing the plan must provide or contract for appropriate treatment and services or, if such treatment and services are not available, create them.
This bill makes the following changes relating to supervised release of sexually violent persons:
1. The bill establishes new guidelines for a court's decision concerning whether to place a person on supervised release. Under the bill, a court may not order a person to be placed on supervised release if the court finds that it is substantially probable that the person will engage in acts of sexual violence unless the person resides in a facility with a level of security comparable to that of a secure mental health unit or facility. However, even if it makes this finding, the court may withhold its decision concerning placement and order DHFS and the appropriate county department to prepare a plan for supervised release for the person, but only if the person first establishes that it is likely that the daily cost of providing the necessary programs and facilities for control, care and treatment of the person on supervised release would not exceed the daily cost of control, care and treatment of the person at a secure mental health unit or facility.
If the court withholds its decision and orders preparation of a supervised release plan, the court must then consider whether to approve or disapprove the plan under the new procedure created by the bill (see item 2., below). Even if the plan meets the criteria for approval under the new procedure, the court may approve the plan and place the person on supervised release only if the daily cost of supervised release would not exceed the daily cost of institutional care at a secure mental health unit or facility.
2. The bill creates a new procedure that a court must use to approve or disapprove a supervised release plan. Under the bill, the court must hold a hearing on a proposed supervised release plan within 30 days after the plan is presented to the court. Based on evidence provided at the hearing, the court must approve the plan if it determines that the plan provides adequate treatment and services to the person and adequate protection to the community. Likewise, the court must disapprove the plan if it determines that the plan does not provide adequate treatment and services to the person and adequate protection to the community. If the court disapproves the plan, DHFS and the county department must revise the plan and present it to the court again. If the court approves the plan, the court must order that the person be placed on supervised release in the county that prepared the plan. DHFS and the county department that prepared the plan must implement the plan and DHFS may ask the court for any orders that are necessary to ensure implementation of the plan.
The bill also requires DHFS to place a sexually violent person in a secure mental health treatment setting if the court decides to place the person in institutional care rather than on supervised release.
This bill requires DHFS to contract with counties or federally recognized American Indian tribes or bands to provide one or two demonstration projects in fiscal year 2000-01. The projects are to provide mental health and alcohol or other drug abuse services under managed care programs of MA to persons who suffer from mental illness, alcohol or other drug dependency, or both illness and dependency. DHFS must submit for approval by the secretary of the federal department of health and human services any necessary requests for waiver of federal medicaid laws to effectuate these managed care demonstration projects.
Under current law, the Mendota Mental Health Institute and the Winnebago Mental Health Institute are operated by DHFS to provide specialized psychiatric services, research and education. In addition, DHFS may establish a system of outpatient mental health clinic services in any institution that DHFS operates. A county department of community programs must under contract authorize all care of most patients in the mental health institutes. Also, DHFS may provide outpatient services at the Winnebago Mental Health Institute to public school pupils.
This bill eliminates the explicit authorization for the Winnebago Mental Health Institute to provide outpatient mental health services for pupils. Instead, the bill authorizes DHFS to allow a mental health institute to offer, when DHFS determines that community services need to be supplemented, mental health outpatient treatment and services, day programming, consultation and services in residential facilities, including group homes, child caring institutions and community-based residential facilities, that are situated on the grounds of a mental health institute. These services may be provided only under a contract between DHFS and specified entities, to persons who are referred by the entity. Further, the services are governed by the terms of the contract or by statutes and DHFS rules that regulate facilities, govern certain mental health services and provide mental health patient rights. In the event of a conflict between contract provisions and these statutes or rules, the services must comply with the contractual, statutory or rules provision that is most protective of the health, safety, welfare or rights of the recipient of the services, as determined by the mental health institute. Specified mental health statutes, including emergency detention and commitment laws, and zoning and other county, city, town or village ordinances, do not apply to provision of the services.
Under current law, DHFS provides funding through county departments of community programs for mental health treatment services for persons who are in or relocated from facilities that have been found by the federal health care financing administration to be institutions for mental diseases (and, thus, ineligible for receipt of MA). Also under current law, every person who applies for admission to a nursing home or to an institution for mental diseases must be screened to determine if the person has a developmental disability or a mental illness and, if so, whether the person needs facility care and active treatment for the developmental disability or mental illness.
This bill requires DHFS to provide funding for active treatment of a person in a nursing home or institution for mental diseases who has been determined, through screening, to have a mental illness and to need the treatment.
Under current law, county departments of community programs authorize the care of all patients in state mental health institutes. DHFS regularly bills the county departments for care provided by mental health institutes at rates that reflect the estimated per diem cost of specific levels of care, as adjusted periodically by DHFS.
This bill authorizes DHFS to set rates on a flexible basis, rather than at the estimated per diem cost of specific levels of care, for billing county departments of community programs for care provided in mental health institutes. The bill requires that the flexible rate structure recover the cost of operations.
Under current law, DHFS provides services at the Southern Center for the Developmentally Disabled for up to ten developmentally disabled persons who are mentally ill or exhibit extremely aggressive and challenging behaviors and for up to 12 such persons at the Northern Center for the Developmentally Disabled. This bill increases to 36 the total number of such persons for whom DHFS may provide services and permits the services to be provided at the southern, northern and central state centers for the developmentally disabled.
Other health and social services
Under current law, DHFS and the department of commerce are authorized to jointly regulate sources of ionizing and nonionizing radiation. DHFS annually registers sites of ionizing radiation installations, such as medical sites, and imposes annual fees for each site and each X-ray tube at the site. Violation of the regulatory statutes or rules subjects the violator to a forfeiture.
This bill eliminates the authority of the department of commerce to regulate sources of ionizing and nonionizing radiation. The bill authorizes the governor to enter into agreements with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to discontinue certain federal governmental licensing and related regulatory authority with respect to by-product, source and special nuclear radioactive material and to assume state regulatory authority. Under the bill, if the agreements are made, persons possessing licenses issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission are considered to be licensed by the state.
The bill authorizes DHFS, beginning on January 1, 2003, to license specifically the possession, use, transfer or acquisition of radioactive by-product material and to license specifically the possession, use, manufacture, production, transfer or acquisition of radioactive material or devices or items that use radioactive material and to operate a site that uses radioactive material. The bill also authorizes DHFS to establish general license requirements for the possession, use, transfer or acquisition of by-product radioactive material or devices or items that contain by-product radioactive material.
The bill authorizes DHFS annually, until January 1, 2003, to assess a fee of 36% of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission license application fee and annual materials license fee, for any person in this state holding a license issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The bill also authorizes DHFS to revise the fee amounts.
The bill eliminates court-imposed forfeitures for violations of the radiation regulatory statutes and rules of DHFS and instead establishes administrative forfeitures that DHFS may directly assess.
Lastly, the bill authorizes DHFS to issue emergency orders to protect the public from radiation exposure; increases the annual fees for registration of ionizing radiation installation sites and for X-ray tubes at those sites; and changes current law to prohibit, rather than to allow, the transfer of registration of ionizing radiation installations if ownership transfers.
This bill appropriates federal substance abuse block grant moneys to DHFS and authorizes DHFS to award the moneys to counties and private entities to provide community-based alcohol and other drug abuse treatment programs. The programs must meet the special needs of women with problems resulting from alcohol or other drug abuse and must emphasize parent education, vocational and housing assistance and coordination with other community programs and with treatment under intensive care.
Under current law, DHFS distributes community aids to counties to provide social, mental health, developmental disabilities and alcohol and other drug abuse services. DHFS must distribute community aids in the form of a basic county allocation, together with certain categorical allocations, including an allocation for Alzheimer's family and caregiver support. A county's annual community aids allocation is specified in a contract between DHFS and the county, and DHFS distributes the county's allocation in reimbursement of claims submitted by the county for moneys expended for those services.
This bill specifies that DHFS may distribute no more than $4,500,000 of the basic county allocation in each fiscal year based on performance standards developed by DHFS for services funded by community aids. The bill provides that, if a care management organization under the family care program, created under the bill (see LONG-TERM CARE; FAMILY CARE), is available in a county, DHFS may dispose of the county's Alzheimer's family and caregiver support allocation and not more than 21.3% of the county's basic county allocation by transferring a portion of those allocations, as determined by DHFS, to the family care program to fund the services of resource centers and care management organizations under that program and by transferring a portion of those allocations, as determined by DHFS, to the county's allocation for adult protective services created under the bill.
On January 4, 1999, DWD assumed responsibility from the clerks of court for receiving and disbursing child support, maintenance, family support and other support-related payments. A payer of support or maintenance currently must pay an annual receipt and disbursement fee of $25 to DWD. This bill provides that the receipt and disbursement fee must be paid by wage assignment, just as support and maintenance payments are paid.
Current law provides that each order for child or family support, maintenance or spousal support is an automatic assignment of a person's wages to DWD in an amount that is sufficient to ensure payment of the amount under the order, as well as any arrearages due at a periodic rate that does not exceed 50% of the amount due under the order, as long as the additional amount for arrearages does not leave the person at an income below the federal poverty line. Current law also provides that, if an assignment does not require immediately effective withholding and the payer misses a payment, the court or family court commissioner may cause the assignment to go into effect by providing notice of the assignment to the payer's employer or other person from whom the payer receives or will receive money. The payer also receives notice and may request a hearing on whether the assignment should remain in effect.
This bill clarifies that the portion of the original assignment that was for any arrearages due is an assigned amount that does not require immediately effective withholding and that, if a payer accrues an arrearage by missing a payment, the assignment of the arrearage may be put into effect, without another court hearing, by providing notice to the payer and to a person from whom the payer receives or will receive money. The bill provides that, in addition to the court and the family court commissioner, the county child support agency may cause the assignment for arrearages to go into effect by sending the required notices.
The bill also provides that the wage assignment of a person obligated to pay support or maintenance continues in effect after the person no longer has a current obligation to pay if the person has an arrearage in the payment of support or maintenance. The amount of the assignment may be up to the amount that the assignment was before the person's current obligation to pay support or maintenance terminated.
Under current law, in a number of situations the state may join in an action affecting the family (such as a divorce action or an action to enforce a child support order) as a real party in interest for purposes of establishing paternity or securing future support or reimbursement of aid paid. The most common situation is when a child or custodial parent of a child involved in the action is the recipient of certain services or benefits provided by the state. This bill adds another situation under which the state may join in an action as a real party in interest: if a custodial parent involved in the action is receiving food stamp benefits.
Under current law, DWD certifies to the department of revenue (DOR) the names of individuals who are delinquent in the payment of child or family support, maintenance, medical expenses of a child or birth expenses (support). DOR uses the information to intercept income tax refunds that would be paid to those delinquent obligors. DWD also provides the certifications that it makes to DOR to various specified state agencies that make grants or loans to individuals. Any individual who is the subject of such a certification is prohibited from receiving a grant or loan.
Also under current law, if an individual who has a court-ordered obligation to make periodic payments of support fails to make a payment, the amount of the delinquent support automatically becomes a lien against all of the individual's property. DWD is required to maintain a statewide support lien docket that lists the delinquent obligors and the amount of support that each owes.
This bill eliminates the requirement that DWD provide to the various specified state agencies the certifications that it provides to DOR. Instead the bill prohibits each agency from making a grant or loan to an individual whose name appears on the statewide support lien docket, unless the individual provides to the agency a copy of a payment agreement that has been approved by a county child support agency for the payment of the delinquent support.
Under current law, the state receives federal foster care and adoption assistance funding under Title IV-E of the federal Social Security Act (generally referred to as IV-E funds), in reimbursement of moneys expended by the state and the counties for activities relating to foster care and the adoption of children. DHFS distributes IV-E funds as community aids to counties for the provision of social services to children and families. If on December 31 of any year there remains unspent or unencumbered in the community aids basic county allocation an amount that exceeds the amount of IV-E funds allocated as community aids in that year (excess IV-E funds), DHFS must carry forward to the next year those excess IV-E funds and distribute not less than 50% of those excess IV-E funds to counties other than Milwaukee County for services and projects to assist children and families.
This bill requires DHFS to distribute as community aids to counties other than Milwaukee County any MA funds received as reimbursement of moneys expended in those counties by the state and by the counties for case management services provided to children who are recipients of MA (MA targeted case management funds). The bill also provides that, if on December 31 of any year there remains unspent or unencumbered in the community aids basic county allocation an amount that exceeds the combined amount of IV-E funds and MA targeted case management funds distributed as community aids in that year (excess IV-E and MA targeted case management funds), DHFS must carry forward to the next year those excess IV-E and MA targeted case management funds and distribute those excess funds to counties other than Milwaukee County for services and projects to assist children and families.
The bill also requires DHFS to establish and counties to implement a statewide automated child welfare information system (generally referred to as WISACWIS) before July 1, 2006; permits DHFS, beginning on July 1, 2001, to distribute excess IV-E funds only to counties that are making a good faith effort to implement WISACWIS; and permits DHFS to recover from a county that does not implement WISACWIS before July 1, 2006, any excess IV-E funds distributed to that county after June 30, 2001.
Under current law, general purpose revenue funds services for adolescent parents that emphasize high school graduation and vocational preparation, training and experience (otherwise known as adolescent self-sufficiency services); adolescent pregnancy prevention services; in Milwaukee County, services of an adolescent resource center and services related to development of adolescent parenting skills; and the provision of information to communities about problems of adolescents and information to and activities for adolescents to aid in skills development (otherwise known as adolescent choices project grants). This bill substitutes moneys that are received under the federal TANF block grant to fund all of these services.
Current law directs the adolescent pregnancy prevention and pregnancy services board to award grants to provide adolescent pregnancy prevention programs or pregnancy services. The grants currently are funded with general purpose revenue. This bill funds the grants with moneys that are received under the federal TANF block grant program.
This bill appropriates moneys derived from Indian gaming compacts to fund the American Indian drug abuse prevention and education program, to fund the delivery of social services and mental hygiene services to American Indians and to fund vocational rehabilitation services for Native American individuals and federally recognized tribes or bands.
Currently, each person ordered to pay a fine or forfeiture for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant, controlled substance or other drug (OWI) is required to pay a driver improvement surcharge of $340. A majority (62.4%) of the money collected from the driver improvement surcharge is used by the county where the violation occurred to provide alcohol and other drug abuse services to drivers who are referred for alcohol or other drug abuse assessment. A portion of the remainder of the money is used to provide chemical testing training to law enforcement officers and a portion is allocated by the secretary of administration to various state agencies for services related to OWI offenses.
Under this bill, of the money received by the state from the driver improvement surcharge, $290,900 is transferred to the department of transportation for the purchase of preliminary breath screening instruments. These instruments are used to test the breath of a person who is suspected of committing an OWI offense at the time that the person is stopped to help determine if an arrest is appropriate.
Insurance
This bill requires every managed care plan, which is, generally, a health care plan that requires insureds to obtain services from certain specified providers under contract with the health care plan, to offer at least one point-of-service coverage option in each geographical service area of the managed care plan. A point-of-service coverage option is a coverage option under which an insured may obtain health care services that are paid for by the health care plan from a provider of his or her choice, regardless of whether that provider is a participating provider of the insured's health care plan or a member of the health care plan's provider network.
This bill authorizes the office of the commissioner of insurance (OCI) to make a grant of not more than $200,000 to a private organization for the establishment of private health insurance purchasing pools for small employers. (Generally, small employers are those with 50 or fewer employes.) The private organization must submit a business plan to OCI and the commissioner of insurance must approve the plan before the grant may be made. OCI and the private organization must enter into a written agreement concerning the use of the grant proceeds, and the private organization must submit a report to OCI after spending the proceeds.
Under current law, most policy forms for all types of insurance must be filed with OCI and approved prior to use. This bill allows the commissioner to exempt certain classes of insurance policy forms from the requirement for prior filing and approval.
Currently, OCI charges various fees for services that it provides, as well as for its regulation of the insurance industry. This bill changes the amount of the fee that OCI charges an applicant for examination for a license as an insurance intermediary and the amount of the fee for regulating an insurance intermediary each year after the year in which the intermediary's license was initially issued to amounts set by the commissioner by rule.
Local government
Under current law, a county board may engage in zoning and land-use planning that may result in the preparation of a county development plan for the physical development of the towns within the county and for the cities and villages within the county whose governing bodies agree to have their areas included in the county plan. The development plan may include a number of elements, such as comprehensive surveys, existing land-use, population, economy, soil characteristics, wetland and floodplain conditions and natural features of the county.
Also under current law, a city or village, or certain towns that exercise village powers, may create a plan commission to engage in zoning and land-use planning. The plan commission must adopt a master plan for the physical development of the city, village or town including, in some instances, unincorporated areas outside of the city or village. The master plan is required to show the commission's recommendations for such physical development, and must also contain a comprehensive zoning plan.
Also under current law, regional planning commissions (RPCs) may be created by the governor or, in response to a resolution submitted by the governing body of a city, village, town or county (political subdivision), by a state agency or official that the governor designates. Currently, there are eight multicounty RPCs in the state and one RPC that consists only of Dane County. Five counties, which are adjacent to Dane County, are not in an RPC. Generally, the membership composition of an RPC is specified by statute, and the governor may dissolve an RPC by the request of a majority of the local governments in the region.
An RPC is required to prepare a master plan for the physical development of the region, which must contain the RPC's recommendations for such physical development. The elements of an RPC's master plan are the same as the elements contained in a master plan developed by a city, a village and certain towns, although all of an RPC's functions are solely advisory to the political subdivisions that comprise the region.
This bill changes the membership composition of the Dane County RPC on the 31st day after the effective date of the bill, and dissolves the RPC on December 31, 2001. Under the bill, all of the members of the Dane County RPC are appointed by the governor from lists submitted by the Dane County executive, the mayor of the city of Madison and associations representing third and fourth class cities, villages and towns. If the Dane County RPC has any outstanding debt on the date of its dissolution, that debt is assessed to Dane County. The bill also requires the five boards of the counties that are not in an RPC, and the Dane County board, to vote on whether they want to participate in a new multicounty RPC. If at least two-thirds of the voting counties approve, the new RPC becomes effective on January 1, 2002. The bill also specifies that the membership composition of all RPCs that are created after December 31, 2001, that include a county that contains a 2nd class city must follow the same statute that sets the membership composition for a RPC that contains a 1st class city. Finally, the bill prohibits after December 31, 2001, the creation of an RPC that consists of only one county.
The bill also changes the requirements that must be contained in a county development plan or a city, village, town or RPC master plan. Under the bill, all such plans must do all of the following:
1. Include background information on the local governmental unit and a statement of objectives, policies, goals and programs of the local governmental unit to guide the future growth and development of the local governmental unit over a 20-year planning period.
2. Include information on the local governmental unit's housing stock and plans for housing for residents with all income levels and various needs.
3. Address transportation issues and evaluate the relationship between the local governmental unit's transportation plans and state and regional transportation plans.
4. Guide the development of public and private utilities, governmental services and community facilities.
5. Guide the development of conservation policies for, and the effective management of, agricultural, natural, historic and cultural resources.
6. Promote the stabilization, retention or expansion of the economic base of, and quality employment opportunities in, the local governmental unit.
7. Provide for joint planning and decision making with other jurisdictions.
8. Guide the future development and redevelopment of public and private property in the local governmental unit.
9. Contain programs and specific actions to be completed in a stated sequence, including proposed changes to any applicable zoning ordinances, building codes or subdivision ordinances, to implement the other elements.
The bill does not, however, require a local governmental unit to take any specific action at any particular time. If a local governmental unit that has not created a development plan or a master plan before the effective date of the bill does so, or amends an existing plan after the effective date of the bill, the new elements of a development plan or master plan that are contained in the bill must be used.
Under current law, most towns may incorporate as a city or village only after following certain procedures and receiving approval for the incorporation from a circuit court and from the department of administration (DOA). The circuit court must review the incorporation petition to ensure compliance with procedural and signature requirements and must make several determinations relating to minimum area and population density requirements of the area to be incorporated. This bill reduces the minimum area requirements from four square miles to three square miles under certain circumstances. DOA must also determine whether the proposed incorporation is in the public interest.
Current law allows any combination of cities, villages or towns (municipalities) to determine the boundary lines between them under a cooperative plan that is approved by DOA. This bill authorizes municipalities that enter into a cooperative plan to include as part of the plan the incorporation of all or part of a town into a city or village. Because an incorporation that is part of a cooperative plan may not take effect unless it is approved in a referendum, such a plan must include a contingency cooperative plan that will take the place of the plan if the proposed incorporation is defeated in the referendum. An incorporation as part of a cooperative plan is subject to DOA review and very limited circuit court review.
Under current law, a city, village, town or county (political subdivision) may create an environmental remediation tax incremental district (ERTID) to defray the costs of remediating contaminated property that is owned by the political subdivision. The mechanism for financing eligible costs is very similar to the mechanism under the tax incremental financing (TIF) program.
Under this bill, ER tax incremental financing may be used to defray the costs of remediating contaminated property that is owned by private persons.
Currently, before a political subdivision may use ER tax incremental financing, it must create a joint review board that is similar to the current tax incremental district (TID) joint review board, or a city or village may use an existing TID joint review board, to review the political subdivision's proposal to remediate environmental pollution. If the joint review board approves the proposal, the political subdivision may proceed with its plan. An ERTID joint review board is made up of one representative chosen by the school district that has power to levy taxes on the property that is remediated, one representative chosen by the technical college district that has power to levy taxes on the property, one representative chosen by the county that has power to levy taxes on the property that is remediated, one representative chosen by the political subdivision and one public member.
This bill clarifies that the joint review board consists of one representative from each of the taxing jurisdictions that has power to levy taxes on the property in the ERTID.
Under current law, if more than one school district, more than one technical college district or more than one county has the power to levy taxes on the property that is remediated, the unit in which is located property that has the greatest value chooses that representative to the board. Under the bill, a similar provision applies if more than one city, village or town has the power to levy taxes on the property that is remediated.
Currently, a political subdivision that has incurred eligible costs to remediate environmental pollution on a parcel of property may apply to the department of revenue (DOR) to certify the environmental remediation tax incremental base (ERTIB) of the parcel.
Under the bill, the environmental remediation does not need to be completed before a political subdivision may apply to DOR to certify the ERTIB. The political subdivision is required, under the bill, to submit to DOR a statement that the political subdivision has incurred some eligible costs and to include with the statement a detailed proposed remedial action plan that contains cost estimates for anticipated eligible costs. The political subdivision is also required to include certification from DNR that the department has approved the site investigation report that relates to the parcel.
Currently, eligible costs are costs related to the removal, containment or monitoring of, or the restoration of soil or groundwater affected by, environmental pollution. Eligible costs are reduced by any amounts received from persons who are responsible for the discharge of a hazardous substance on the property and by the amount of net gain on the sale of the property by the political subdivision.
This bill includes in eligible costs property acquisition costs, costs associated with the restoration of air, surface water and sediments affected by environmental pollution, demolition costs including asbestos removal, and the costs of removing and disposing of certain abandoned containers. The bill reduces eligible costs by any amounts received, or reasonably expected by the political subdivision to be received, from a local, state or federal program for the remediation of contamination in the district and that do not require reimbursement or repayment. Under the bill, a political subdivision is authorized to use an ER tax increment to pay the cost of remediating environmental pollution of groundwater without regard to whether the property above the groundwater is owned by the political subdivision.
Under current law, town territory that is contiguous to any city or village may be annexed to that city or village. In a county with a population of at least 50,000, DOA is authorized to mail to the clerks of the town and city or village involved in the proposed annexation a notice that states that, in the opinion of DOA, the annexation is against the public interest. Currently, DOA renders its opinion within 20 days after receipt of the notice of annexation.
Under this bill, the period of time under which DOA renders its opinion is expanded from 20 days to 60 days. DOA may halt the annexation process if DOA determines that the legal description or scale map is illegible, contains errors that prevent DOA from ascertaining the territory that is proposed to be annexed or does not conform to generally accepted standards for the preparation of legal descriptions or scale maps. If the proposed annexing city or village cures these defects to DOA's satisfaction, the annexation process may proceed.
Currently, an annexation ordinance takes effect upon the enactment of the ordinance. Under the bill, an annexation ordinance does not take effect until it is recorded with the register of deeds.
Under the current blighted area law, cities, villages and towns (municipalities) may undertake redevelopment projects, which include the acquisition of property, to improve conditions in blighted or slum areas. Under the current Blight Elimination and Slum Clearance Act, a redevelopment authority is created in every municipality in which slum and blighted areas exist to engage in blight elimination, slum clearance and urban renewal programs. Under the TIF program, cities or villages may create tax incremental districts to foster redevelopment in blighted or slum areas.
This bill adds environmental pollution to the current definition of a blighted area under the blighted area law, the Blight Elimination and Slum Clearance Act and the TIF program.
Under current law, any person may inspect, copy or receive a copy of a public record unless the record is specifically exempted from access under state or federal law or authorized to be withheld from access under state law, or unless the custodian of the record demonstrates that the harm done to the public interest by providing access to the record outweighs the strong public interest in providing access.
This bill specifically authorizes the custodian of any record of a local governmental unit to withhold from access information contained in a record of the governmental unit pertaining to the home address or home telephone number of any employe of that governmental unit.
Natural resources
Fish, game and wildlife
This bill changes the fees charged by the department of natural resources (DNR) for certain hunting and fishing approvals. For hunting, the bill increases the fees for all resident hunting licenses except turkey hunting licenses and small game hunting licenses issued to certain persons. The bill increases the fees for all nonresident hunting licenses except turkey hunting licenses. The bill also increases the fees for trapping licenses, bonus deer hunting permits and wild turkey hunting stamps. The bill decreases the fee for pheasant hunting stamps.
For fishing approvals, the bill increases the fees for resident annual fishing licenses and fishing licenses issued jointly to resident married couples. The bill increases the fees for all nonresident fishing licenses except two-day sports fishing licenses. The bill increases the fee for sturgeon spearing licenses and decreases the fees for inland waters trout stamps and Great Lakes trout and salmon stamps.
This bill increases the fees charged by DNR for licenses for wild animal game farms, except fur animal farms, and for wildlife exhibits.
The bill also authorizes DNR to impose surcharges for the following licenses:
1. Licenses for game farms on which there are bears or cougars.
2. Licenses for game farms on which the licensee permits an individual to hunt game birds for a fee.
3. Licenses for game farms on which the licensee sells game animals, the gross revenue from which is $10,000 or more in the preceding license year.
