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.
Under current law, state agencies, including DNR, must release certain information to a third party upon that party's request. This bill changes this requirement as it applies to information about holders of fish and game licenses, stamps and other approvals (approval holders) as follows:
1. DNR may not release any information about approval holders who are under the age of 18 or about approval holders who request that DNR not release any such information.
2. DNR may, at its discretion, release the names and addresses of, and demographic information about, all other approval holders and may produce and sell lists of the names, addresses and demographic information.
3. DNR may not release telephone numbers or driver's license numbers of approval holders, or approval numbers or identification numbers given to approval holders by DNR, under any circumstances.
Under current law, DNR may issue bonus deer hunting permits to state residents and nonresidents who hold deer hunting licenses in order to control the state's deer population. This permit allows the holder to kill an additional deer. Under current law, most applicants must pay a fee for this permit. Also under current law, DNR or its agents collect an issuing fee for most fish and game licenses. This bill requires that if a person must pay a fee for a bonus deer hunting permit, he or she must also pay an issuing fee.
Under current law, DNR appoints agents to issue fish and game approvals. DNR may charge a handling fee to cover the costs incurred by DNR in issuing these approvals by mail, telephone or electronic means. Under this bill, DNR may authorize any of its agents to collect and retain this handling fee.
This bill requires that DNR establish a system to allow a hunter to reserve the same deer hunting back tag number each year upon payment of a reservation fee. DNR may limit the number of back tag numbers that may be reserved.
This bill grants DNR specific authority to promulgate rules to regulate wildlife rehabilitators. The rules may include a system for issuing rehabilitator licenses or permits.
Under current law, if DNR and the Lac du Flambeau band of the Lake Superior Chippewa (band) have in effect an agreement under which the band agrees to limit its treaty-based, off-reservation rights to fish, the band may elect to issue DNR fishing licenses and DNR inland waters trout stamps as an agent of DNR and to retain the fees that the band collects for these licenses and stamps. Current law also authorizes DNR to pay the band an amount equal to the amount that DNR collects from its other agents who issue DNR fishing licenses and trout stamps on the reservation if the agreement is in effect. Under current law, these payments are made from the conservation fund.
This bill provides additional funding for these payments from moneys received by the state under Indian gaming compacts.
This bill provides funding to DNR for costs associated with the management of the state's elk population from moneys received by the state under Indian gaming compacts.
Navigable waters
Under current law, with certain exceptions, a riparian owner may not place a structure or deposit or conduct certain other activities in a navigable body of water without first obtaining a permit from or entering into a contract with DNR. For most structures, deposits or activities (riparian activities) that require a permit or contract, the procedure for obtaining the permit or contract requires that DNR provide notice to the public in a newspaper that is likely to give notice in the area where the riparian activity will be located and to the county and city, village or town (municipality) in which the riparian activity will be located. If DNR receives a written objection in response to the notice, it must hold a public hearing on the issue of whether it should approve the permit or contract. DNR may also use this notice and hearing procedure when it is not specifically required if DNR determines that substantial interests of any party may be adversely affected by the granting of the permit or contract. For certain other riparian activities that require permits, current law does not require this notice and hearing procedure. These riparian activities include the placement of fish cribs, bird nesting platforms, gravel, riprap and bridges less than 35 feet wide and the enlargement of certain artificial waterways.
This bill changes these public notice and hearing procedures. These changes include the following:
1. The first notice issued by DNR must contain a preliminary decision of whether to grant the permit or the contract instead of stating that DNR will render a decision without a hearing unless a substantive written objection is received within 30 days. The preliminary decision becomes final if no such objection is received within 30 days.
2. If DNR receives such an objection, it must distribute a notice to certain interested parties. Also, for certain types of permits or contracts and wherever DNR determines that an environmental impact assessment is required, the applicant for the permit or contract must publish a notice containing the preliminary decision in an area newspaper.
3. If an objection is timely filed in response to these notices DNR must determine whether it is a substantive written objection and, if so, whether the riparian activity affects a public right or interest in navigable waters. If DNR determines the objection is substantive and that the riparian activity affects a public right or interest, DNR must offer the person making the objection the choice of a public hearing before an administrative law judge, an informal hearing before DNR staff, or a dispute resolution proceeding. If DNR determines that the objection is substantive but that the riparian activity does not affect a public right or interest, DNR must offer the choice between the informal hearing and the dispute resolution proceeding.
The riparian activities that are subject to these notice and hearing requirements under current law continue to be subject to the requirements under the bill. The bill also applies the requirements to the permits and contracts to remove material from beds of navigable waters.
Under current law, DNR must issue permits authorizing activities in navigable waters such as the placement of structures or deposits. For certain types of activities in navigable waters, DNR may issue a general permit that allows anyone to engage in a type of activity as opposed to an individual permit to a specific individual who wants to engage in the activity. Currently there are two programs under which DNR issues general permits. One applies throughout the state (regular program). The other program is a five-year project for the Wolf River and Fox River basin area, under which DNR issues general permits for any activity in navigable waters that requires a permit (pilot program). Under both programs, DNR issues a general permit if it determines that the environmental impact of the activity is insignificant and that the issuance of the permit will not cause pollution or injury to the rights of the public or riparian property owners.
This bill eliminates the pilot program and makes the following changes in the regular program:
1. DNR may issue a general permit for any activity that requires a specific permit or a contract. Under current law, DNR may issue general permits for only certain activities that require permits such as placement of fish cribs, bird nesting platforms, gravel and riprap and the enlargement of certain waterways.
2. A time limit of five years is imposed on any general permit. There are no time limits under the current two programs.
3. A person is allowed to maintain a structure or deposit or continue an activity under the authority of a general permit after the general permit is no longer in effect unless DNR determines that the structure, deposit or activity is detrimental to a public right or interest in navigable waters.
4. Only municipalities, public inland lake protection and rehabilitation districts, town sanitary districts and groups of ten or more riparian owners that would be affected by the issuance of a general permit may apply for a general permit. Under the current regular program, anyone may apply. Under the pilot program, these specific persons plus any contractor who has been involved in placing structures along navigable waters and certain local entities such as certain lake associations and nonprofit conservation organizations may apply.
5. Public notice must be given and in certain cases, a public hearing must be held before DNR may issue a general permit for any activity. Under the pilot program, notice and hearing are required only if they are required before DNR issues an individual permit for the activity in question. Under the regular program there are no notice or hearing requirements because the types of activities for which general permits are available have no notice and hearing requirements before DNR may issue the permit.
6. A person conducting an activity under a general permit must comply with any local ordinance that contains standards that are at least as restrictive as those contained in the general permit. Currently, the pilot program requires compliance with any applicable local ordinances.
7. The fee structure for general permits and for authorization to act under general permits is incorporated from the pilot program.
8. DNR may inspect projects or activities in navigable waters that are undertaken pursuant to permits issued or contracts entered into by DNR. Currently the pilot program has similar provisions.
