All three of these efforts are in full swing and have begun to bear the fruits of considerable effort. With the support of the legislature, BJIS can help improve public safety and bring efficiency to government by working to improve both the communication between agencies and by providing the basic infrastructure needed to be effective.
Sincerely,
Mark D. Bugher
Secretary
Referred to committee on Judiciary and Personal Privacy.
__________________
State of Wisconsin
Department of Commerce
Madison
April 29, 1998
To the Honorable, the Assembly:
We are pleased to submit to you, the Recycling Market Development Board Quarterly Report for January through March 1999. In accordance to the statutory requirement, the Recycling Market Development Board is submitting the Quarterly Report to the Senate Chief Clerk and the Assembly Chief Clerk, for your review.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to update you on the Recycling Market Development Board activities. We hope this report will answer any questions you may have, as well as demonstrate the accomplishments we have made in our constant efforts to develop and sustain recycling markets in Wisconsin.
If you have any further questions or comments, please contact me at (608) 267-9360.
Sincerely,
Gail Miller Wray
Executive Director, Recycling Market Development Board
Referred to committee on Environment.
__________________
State of Wisconsin
Department of Administration
Madison
April 29, 1999
To the Honorable, the Legislature:
As required by s.
16.045(5) Wis. Stats., I am submitting the eighth
Wisconsin Gasohol and Alternative Fuel Use Report for distribution to the appropriate standing committees.
Should you or Legislative members have questions, please contact Nathaniel E. Robinson, Administrator, Division of Energy and Intergovernmental Relations, at 608/266-7257.
Sincerely,
Mark D. Bugher
Secretary
Referred to committee on Environment.
__________________
State of Wisconsin
Department of Commerce
Madison
May 1, 1999
To the Honorable, the Assembly:
As specified in 101.122, we are submitting last year's annual report for the Rental Weatherization Program. This program began on January 1, 1985. Additional copies of the report are available by contacting the program staff at:
Rental Weatherization Program
Commerce-Safety and Building Division
Telephone: (608) 267-2240
Sincerely,
Brenda J. Blanchard
Secretary
Referred to committee on Housing.
__________________
Agency Reports
State of Wisconsin
Legislative Audit Bureau
Madison
May 3, 1999
To the Honorable, the Legislature:
We have completed an evaluation of costs and funding for special education provided by Wisconsin's school districts, as requested by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. Special education costs increased 36.9 percent from fiscal year (FY) 1992-93 to FY 1997-98, from $630.8 million to $863.5 million. Special education enrollments increased 19.1 percent during this period, to 113,211 students in FY 1997-98. This increase was approximately three times the total public school enrollment increase of 6.3 percent.
Neither federal aid nor state categorical aid for special education has increased at the same rate as special education costs. If state categorical aid had been fully funded, it would have supported approximately 63 percent of special education costs. However, the Legislature has appropriated $275.5 million in categorical aid in each year since FY 1994-95, and that amount has not been sufficient to fully fund costs at statutorily authorized levels. For example, state categorical aid payments for costs incurred in FY 1997-98 were $219.7 million less that the maximum allowed.
A172
Special education costs that are not reimbursed by federal or state categorical aids are eligible for reimbursement under state general equalization aids, and a larger portion of special education costs has been shifted to this funding source over time. General aids provided the most substantial increase in special education funding from FY 1992-93 through FY 1997-98: $196.2 million, or 136.7 percent. In FY 1997-98, 75.7 percent of special education costs were supported by some form of state funding, compared to 66.9 percent in FY 1992-93. However, not all school districts benefited equally from the increased state support because the general aids formulas provide districts with varying levels of benefit. Further, the increase in general aids occurred after the establishment of state revenue limits that restrict total education spending. Consequently, increases in special education spending have reduced the spending authority available for regular education in some districts. Our survey of school district officials found widespread dissatisfaction with the State's current method of funding special education, but no consensus for an alternative.
We appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to us by the Department of Public Instruction, which oversees the provision of special education throughout the state, and by the school districts. The Department's response is Appendix VI.
Respectfully submitted,
Janice Mueller
State Auditor
