DNR Department of Natural Resources
DOA Department of Administration
DOC Department of Corrections
DOJ Department of Justice
DOR Department of Revenue
DORL Department of Regulation and Licensing
DOT Department of Transportation
DPI Department of Public Instruction
DVA Department of Veterans Affairs
DWD Department of Workforce Development
JCF Joint Committee on Finance
OCI Office of the Commissioner of Insurance
PSC Public Service Commission
UW University of Wisconsin
WHEDA Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority
WHEFA Wisconsin Health and Educational Facilities Authority
__________________________________________________________________
Agriculture
Agricultural producer security
This bill changes the laws concerning milk contractors, grain dealers, grain warehouse keepers, and vegetable contractors (contractors). A milk contractor is a person who buys milk from milk producers or who markets milk on behalf of producers. A grain dealer is a person who buys grain from grain producers or who markets grain on behalf of producers. A grain warehouse keeper is a person who operates a warehouse in which the person stores grain that belongs to someone else. A vegetable contractor is a person who buys vegetables from vegetable producers for use in food processing or who markets vegetables for use in food processing on behalf of producers.
Current law requires certain contractors to post security with DATCP to provide payment to producers in case the contractors default on payments owed to producers. This bill establishes a segregated fund, called the agricultural producer security fund (the fund), into which certain contractors must pay, and out of which DATCP provides payment to producers when those contractors default on payments owed to producers. The statutory changes concerning agricultural producer security take effect in 2002.
Milk contractors
Under current law, persons who operate dairy plants generally must be licensed by DATCP. There is no separate licensing requirement for milk contractors. Under current law, DATCP may not issue a license for a dairy plant unless the applicant's financial condition is such as to reasonably ensure prompt payment to milk producers. If a dairy plant operator does not meet minimum financial standards, the operator must file a bond or other security with DATCP or must provide for a trustee who receives payment for all dairy products produced by the dairy plant and who pays producers.
This bill requires a milk contractor to obtain a license from DATCP. A licensed milk contractor that files financial statements which show that the milk contractor does not meet minimum financial standards, or that does not file annual and quarterly financial statements, must contribute to the fund unless the contractor is disqualified from the fund. If a milk contractor that contributes to the fund defaults on payments to producers, DATCP pays default claims from the fund.
A milk contractor that is required to file security when first licensed (because the contractor has negative equity) is disqualified from the fund until DATCP releases the security. A milk contractor is disqualified from the fund if DATCP denies, suspends, or revokes the contractor's license. DATCP may also disqualify a milk contractor from the fund for other reasons, such as failing to pay required fund assessments. If DATCP disqualifies a milk contractor from the fund and the milk contractor files a financial statement that shows that the contractor does not meet minimum financial standards, the milk contractor may not act as a milk contractor in this state.
The bill establishes the formula for determining the amount of the assessments that must be paid by a milk contractor that contributes to the fund, except that DATCP may, by rule, provide for a different formula. The assessments are based on a milk contractor's financial condition, the amount spent to procure milk from producers, and the number of consecutive years that the contractor has contributed to the fund.
The bill requires a milk contractor to maintain insurance that covers all milk and milk products in the possession of the milk contractor.
As under current law, the bill requires a milk contractor to pay a monthly fee to DATCP, based on the amount of milk that the milk contractor procures. Under the bill, if the balance in the fund contributed by milk contractors exceeds $4,000,000 on any February 28, DATCP must use 50% of the excess to reduce these monthly fees.
Grain dealers
Under current law, most grain dealers are required to be licensed. If a grain dealer does not meet minimum financial standards, the grain dealer is required to file security with DATCP.
Under this bill, a grain dealer must obtain a license from DATCP unless the dealer pays cash on delivery for all producer-owned grain that the dealer procures or the dealer buys grain solely for the dealer's own use as feed or seed and spends less than $400,000 per license year for that grain. A grain dealer that is required to be licensed must contribute to the fund, unless the dealer is disqualified. If a grain dealer that contributes to the fund defaults on payments to producers, DATCP pays default claims from the fund.
A grain dealer that is required to file security (because the dealer has negative equity) with DATCP when the grain dealer is first licensed under this bill is disqualified from the fund until DATCP releases the security. A grain dealer is disqualified from the fund, and required to pay cash on delivery for grain, if DATCP denies, suspends, or revokes the dealer's license or if DATCP disqualifies the dealer for cause.
The bill establishes the formula for determining the amount of the assessments that must be paid by a grain dealer that contributes to the fund, except that DATCP may, by rule, provide for a different formula. The assessments are based on a grain dealer's financial condition, the amount spent to procure grain from producers, the amount incurred under deferred payment contracts, and the number of consecutive years that the dealer has contributed to the fund.
The bill requires a grain dealer to maintain insurance to cover all grain in the custody of the grain dealer.
Under the bill, grain dealer license fees vary based on the amount that the grain dealer pays for grain during a license year and the number of trucks used to haul grain. Under the bill, if the balance in the fund contributed by grain dealers exceeds $2,000,000 on any June 30, DATCP must use 50% of the excess to reduce license fees.
Grain warehouse keepers
Current law requires a grain warehouse keeper that holds 50,000 or more bushels of grain for others at any time to obtain a license from DATCP. A grain warehouse keeper that does not satisfy minimum financial standards must file security with DATCP.
Under this bill, a licensed grain warehouse keeper is required to contribute to the fund, unless the warehouse keeper is disqualified. If a grain warehouse keeper that contributes to the fund fails to deliver grain to depositors upon demand, DATCP pays default claims from the fund.
A grain warehouse keeper that is required to file security (because the warehouse keeper has negative equity) with DATCP when the warehouse keeper is first licensed under this bill is disqualified from the fund until DATCP releases the security. A grain warehouse keeper is also disqualified from the fund if DATCP denies, suspends, or revokes the warehouse keeper's license.
The bill establishes the formula for determining the amount of the assessments that must be paid by a grain warehouse keeper that contributes to the fund, except that DATCP may, by rule, provide for a different formula. The assessments are based on a warehouse keeper's financial condition, the capacity of the warehouses, and the number of consecutive years that the warehouse keeper has contributed to the fund.
The bill specifies annual grain warehouse keeper fees that are based on combined warehouse capacity. Under the bill, if the balance in the fund contributed by grain warehouse keepers exceeds $300,000 on any June 30, DATCP must use 12.5% of the excess to reduce license fees.
Vegetable contractors
Current law requires a vegetable contractor to obtain a registration certificate from DATCP. A vegetable contractor that does not meet minimum financial standards must file security with DATCP unless the contractor makes payment on delivery for all vegetables obtained from producers or the contractor is a producer-owned cooperative doing business solely with its producer-owners.
This bill requires a vegetable contractor to obtain a license from DATCP. A licensed vegetable contractor must contribute to the fund unless the contractor makes payment on delivery for all vegetables obtained from producers, the contractor is a producer-owned cooperative that procures vegetables only from its producer owners, or the contractor is disqualified. If a vegetable contractor that contributes to the fund defaults on payments to producers, DATCP pays default claims from the fund.
A vegetable contractor that is required to file security with DATCP when the vegetable contractor is first licensed under this bill because the contractor has negative equity is disqualified from the fund until DATCP releases the security. A vegetable contractor is disqualified from the fund if DATCP denies, suspends, or revokes the contractor's license. A vegetable contractor is disqualified from the fund, and required to pay cash on delivery for all vegetables received from producers, if DATCP issues a written notice disqualifying the contractor for cause, including failure to pay fund assessments when due.
The bill establishes the formula for determining the amount of the assessments that must be paid by a vegetable contractor that contributes to the fund, except that DATCP may, by rule, provide for a different formula. The assessments are based on a vegetable contractor's financial condition, the amount spent to procure vegetables from producers, the amount incurred under deferred payment contracts, and the number of consecutive years that the contractor has contributed to the fund.
The bill requires a vegetable contractor to maintain insurance to cover all vegetables in the custody of the contractor, unless the vegetable contractor pays cash on delivery for all vegetables or the contractor is a producer-owned cooperative that procures vegetables only from its producer owners.
Under the bill, vegetable contractor license fees are based on the amount that a vegetable contractor owed to vegetable producers over the course of the contractor's most recent fiscal year. Under the bill, if the balance in the fund contributed by vegetable contractors exceeds $1,000,000 on any November 30, DATCP must use 50% of the excess to reduce license fees.
Recovery proceedings and administration
Under this bill, when contractors who are licensed, or required to be licensed, fail to make payments when due or when grain warehouse keepers fail to return stored grain upon demand, producers or their agents may file default claims with DATCP.
The bill specifies payment amounts for each claim against a contractor that was contributing to the fund when the default occurred. For a claim against a milk contractor or grain dealer, the payment amount is 90% of the first $20,000 allowed, 85% of the next $20,000 allowed, 80% of the next $20,000 allowed, and 75% of any amount allowed in excess of $60,000. For a claim against a grain warehouse keeper, the payment amount is 100% of the first $100,000 allowed. For a claim against a vegetable contractor, the payment amount is 90% of the first $40,000 allowed, 85% of the next $40,000 allowed, 80% of the next $40,000 allowed, and 75% of any amount allowed in excess of $120,000. If a contractor was not contributing to the fund when the default occurred but had posted security with DATCP, DATCP uses the security proceeds to pay the full amount of the allowed claims, except that, as under current law, if the security is not adequate to pay the full amount of the allowed claims, DATCP pays the claimants on a prorated basis. A claimant that does not receive full payment may sue the contractor for the balance of the allowed claim.
The bill requires DATCP to obtain three surety bonds, called industry bonds. One bond is to secure payments of claims against contributing milk contractors, one to secure payments of claims against contributing grain dealers and warehouse keepers, and one to secure payment of claims against contributing vegetable contractors. In addition, the bill requires DATCP to obtain a blanket surety bond. The bill requires DATCP to make a demand against the appropriate industry bond if payments of claims against contributing contractors in that industry exceed a threshold specified in the bill. The bill requires DATCP to make a demand against the blanket bond if claims against contributing contractors in an industry exceed the amount available under the industry bond.
The bill authorizes DATCP to demand that a defaulting contractor reimburse DATCP for any claim amounts that were paid from the fund because of the contractor's default. The bill also authorizes a person who issues an industry bond or the blanket bond to require a defaulting contractor to reimburse the amounts that the person paid out because of the contractor's default.
Other agriculture
Under current law, for a person to claim the farmland preservation tax credit, the land to which the claim relates must be subject either to a farmland preservation agreement or to an exclusive agricultural use zoning ordinance. A farmland preservation agreement is between the landowner and DATCP. The agreement commits the owner to keep the land in agricultural use for the duration of the agreement, up to 25 years, although DATCP may release land from an agreement under certain circumstances. Under current law, in some of the circumstances under which DATCP may release land from a farmland preservation agreement, or if land is rezoned from exclusive agricultural use, DATCP is required to file a lien against the land in the amount of the farmland preservation credit received by the owner during the preceding ten years.
This bill eliminates the requirement that DATCP file a lien against land that is released from a farmland preservation agreement or that is rezoned from exclusive agricultural use. Under the bill, DATCP may not release land from a farmland preservation agreement until the owner pays $50 per acre to this state, except in certain situations such as the death or disability of the owner. Also under the bill, a local governmental unit must require a payment of $60 per acre as a condition of rezoning land from exclusive agricultural zoning. The local governmental unit forwards the payment to the state.
Under current law, if DATCP finds that plants or other pest-harboring materials on agricultural lands or agricultural business premises are so infested with injurious pests as to constitute a hazard to plant or animal life in this state, DATCP may order the property owner to treat the premises or treat or destroy the infested plants or other material. If the property owner fails to comply with the order, DATCP may treat the premises or treat or destroy the infested plants or other material. This bill eliminates the provision that restricts DATCP's authority regarding treatment of infested premises and treatment or destruction of infested plants and other material to agricultural lands and agricultural business premises.
Under the current Soil and Water Resource Management Program, DATCP awards grants to counties to help the counties reduce soil erosion and water pollution. This bill increases the authorized general obligation bonding authority for the Soil and Water Resource Management Program by $7,000,000.
Under current law, DATCP awards agricultural research and development grants to fund demonstration projects, feasibility analyses, and applied research on new or alternative technologies and practices that will stimulate agricultural development. This bill authorizes DATCP to award grants and provide technical assistance to support preliminary research on potential business enterprises that may increase the value of raw agricultural commodities. The bill provides Indian gaming receipts for the new grant program and for the existing agricultural research and development grant program.
Under current law, a person is subject to a fine or imprisonment if the person violates certain laws enforced by DATCP, including laws relating to the manufacture, distribution, and sale of commercial feed, laws relating to the safety of certain consumer products, and laws relating to hazardous substances. This bill provides that a person who violates any of these laws may be subject to a forfeiture (civil monetary penalty) or to the existing criminal penalties.
Current law provides for a World Dairy Center Authority. The duties of the authority include establishing a center for the development of dairying in the United States and the world. This bill eliminates the World Dairy Center Authority.
Commerce and economic development
Economic development
Under this bill, the department of commerce (department) must designate up to 20 areas in the state as technology zones. The department may certify any new or expanding high-technology business located in a designated technology zone for a tax credit that is based on the amount of real and personal property taxes that the business paid in the taxable year; the amount of sales and use taxes that the business paid in the taxable year; and the amount of income and franchise taxes that the business paid in the taxable year. A business certified by the department may claim the tax credit for three years, or for up to five years if the business experiences growth to an extent determined by the department, but the total amount that a business may claim is limited by the department, and not more than $5,000,000 in tax credits may be claimed by all businesses certified in a technology zone.
This bill designates an area in the city of Milwaukee as a development opportunity zone and authorizes up to $4,700,000 to be claimed in tax credits for economic activity in the zone. The bill also provides that a person conducting economic activity in this new development opportunity zone who would not otherwise be able to claim tax credits may be certified for tax credits if: 1) the economic activity is instrumental in enabling another person to conduct economic activity in the zone that would not have occurred but for the first person's involvement; 2) the department determines that the person being certified for tax credits will pass the benefit of the tax credits through to the other person conducting the economic activity in the zone; and 3) the other person conducting economic activity in the zone does not claim tax credits for the economic activity.
In addition, the bill creates an income tax and franchise tax credit for a business that is certified to receive tax credits in the new development opportunity zone that is equal to 3% of the following: 1) the purchase price of tangible personal property that is used for at least 50% of its use for the business at a location in the zone; and 2) the amount expended to acquire, construct, rehabilitate, remodel, or repair real property in the zone. A business may claim the credit only to offset taxes that are imposed on income that is attributable to the operations of the business in the development zone.
Under the current community-based economic development programs, the department awards grants to counties, cities, villages, towns, and community-based organizations for various purposes related to promoting economic development at the community level. This bill eliminates these programs and creates the New Economy for Wisconsin (NEW) Program. Under NEW, the department may award grants, not exceeding $100,000 each, to community-based business incubators and nonprofit organizations that provide services to high-technology businesses or that promote entrepreneurship. Grant proceeds may be used only for assisting small businesses (businesses with fewer than 100 employees) in adopting new technologies in their operations, for assisting technology-based small businesses in activities that further technology transfer, or for assisting entrepreneurs in discovering business opportunities.
Under the current Gaming Economic Development Grant and Loan Program, the department may award a grant for professional services, or award a grant or make a loan for fixed asset financing, to an existing business in this state if the business has been negatively affected by the existence of a casino and has a legitimate need for the grant or loan to improve profitability. Under the current Gaming Economic Diversification Program, the department may award a grant or make a loan to an existing business in this state for a project that will diversify the economy of a community. Each program is funded with Indian gaming receipts.
Under this bill, start-up businesses, in addition to existing businesses, are eligible for the grants and loans under both programs. The bill adds remediating brownfields (which are abandoned, idle, or underused industrial or commercial facilities or sites that are adversely affected for expansion or redevelopment by actual or perceived environmental contamination) as a project purpose for which grants and loans may be awarded under the Gaming Economic Diversification Program. In addition, the bill authorizes the department to award a grant to the M7 Development Corporation for construction of a multipurpose center at Lincoln Park in the city of Milwaukee and to award grants to the Chippewa Valley Technical College for a health care education center. These grants are paid out of Indian gaming receipts.
Under the current Physician Loan Assistance Program, the department may repay, over a three-year period, up to $50,000 in educational loans on behalf of a physician who specializes in family practice, general internal medicine, general pediatrics, obstetrics and gynecology, or psychiatry and who agrees to practice at least 32 hours per week for three years in a clinic in one or more eligible practice areas in this state. This bill expands the Physician Loan Assistance Program to include dentists.
Under current law, the department must award grants not exceeding a total of $900,000 to the city of Milwaukee for a matching grant program administered by the Milwaukee Economic Development Corporation. Under that program, grants are provided to persons for remediation and economic redevelopment projects in the Menomonee valley. Funding comes from Indian gaming receipts. This bill requires the department to make grants in the 2001-03 fiscal biennium directly to the Milwaukee Economic Development Corporation for its matching grant program and to the Menomonee Valley Partners, Inc. Funding comes from Indian gaming receipts. The proceeds of these grants must be used to support job creation and private sector implementation of the Menomonee valley land use plan.
WHEDA currently administers a number of loan guarantee programs under which WHEDA guarantees repayment of a percentage of the outstanding principal amounts of loans made by private lenders to qualified borrowers for various business and agricultural purposes. Most of the loan guarantee programs are backed by funds in the Wisconsin development reserve fund. Each loan guarantee program has a limit on the total outstanding principal amount of all loans that WHEDA may guarantee under the program (guarantee limit). In that way, WHEDA may guarantee more loans under a program as the loans already guaranteed under that program are repaid.
The bill eliminates the separate guarantee limit under each of the guarantee loan programs that are backed by the Wisconsin development reserve fund and establishes one overall guarantee limit of $62,000,000 for all programs backed by that reserve fund. Thus, as loans guaranteed under a program that is backed by the Wisconsin development reserve fund are repaid, WHEDA may guarantee more loans under any of the programs that are backed by that reserve fund.
Current law requires WHEDA to ensure that the cash balance in the Wisconsin development reserve fund is maintained at a ratio of $1 of reserve funding to $4.50 of outstanding principal that WHEDA may guarantee under all of its loan guarantee programs, except the cultural and architectural landmark loan guarantee program, under which WHEDA no longer guarantees new loans. This bill changes the ratio at which WHEDA must maintain the Wisconsin development reserve fund to $1 of reserve funding to $5.50 of outstanding principal that WHEDA may guarantee under all of the programs guaranteed from the fund, except the cultural and architectural landmark loan guarantee program. The reserve funding ratio for that program remains at $1 of reserve funding to $4 of outstanding guaranteed principal.
Currently, under the Small Business Development Loan Guarantee Program, WHEDA may guarantee repayment of up to the lesser of $200,000 or 80% of the principal of a loan made by a private lender to a small business (a business with 50 or fewer full-time employees) or the elected governing body of a federally recognized American Indian tribe or band in this state. The proceeds of a small business development loan may be used only for expenses associated with the expansion or acquisition of a business or with the start-up of a day care business. This bill adds to the eligible uses of a small business development loan expenses associated with the start-up of a small business in a vacant storefront in the downtown area of a city, town, or village with a population of less than 50,000.
Currently, in each fiscal biennium, the department of tourism may select up to two areas of the state to participate in the Heritage Tourism Program, which entitles an area to assistance in assessing its potential for heritage tourism (tourism that is based on historical or prehistorical resources) and in developing and implementing a plan to increase such tourism. The department of tourism awards grants for promoting heritage tourism in the selected areas to the persons that applied on behalf of the areas. Only one grant may be awarded to an applicant in a fiscal year, and grants may be awarded to an applicant only in two fiscal years.
This bill provides that the two grants that may be awarded to an applicant on behalf of a selected area may be awarded only in the two fiscal years of the fiscal biennium in which the area was selected. The bill also provides that, after the fiscal biennium in which an area was selected, the department of tourism may award grants of up to $5,000 in a fiscal year to a nonprofit organization that is located in the area. A nonprofit organization is eligible for the new grants even if it previously received grants as the applicant on behalf of the area.
Under current law, WHEFA may issue bonds to finance facilities and related structures that are used for post-secondary education. This bill allows WHEFA to issue bonds to finance facilities and related structures that are used for primary and secondary education.
Under the current Brownfields Grant Program, the department of commerce (department) awards grants to persons, municipalities, and local development corporations for redevelopment of brownfields and remediation activities associated with the redevelopment. This bill provides that all of the following are eligible for a brownfields grant: an individual, partnership, limited liability company, corporation, nonprofit organization, city, village, town, county, or trustee, including a trustee in bankruptcy.
Under current law, the department may award up to $1,000,000 in grants each fiscal year to technology-based nonprofit organizations to provide support for manufacturing extension centers. This bill eliminates the June 30, 2001, expiration date of the Manufacturing Extension Center Grant Program.
Commerce
Uniform Electronic Transactions Act
This bill enacts a version of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA), which was approved and recommended for enactment by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1999. Currently, a combination of state and federal laws govern the use of electronic documents and signatures in this state. The most significant federal law in this regard is the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, commonly known as "E-sign." Although E-sign contains provisions that potentially affect the maintenance and destruction of public records and the acceptance of electronic documents by governmental units, E-sign primarily affects the use of electronic documents and signatures in consumer and business transactions.
E-sign generally preempts inconsistent state laws. However, with possible limited exceptions, E-sign does not preempt a state law that constitutes an enactment of the recommended version of UETA. This bill contains only minor, nonsubstantive changes to the recommended version of UETA as necessary to incorporate UETA into the existing statutes. Several provisions of UETA are subject to varying interpretations. Unless otherwise noted, this analysis reflects the interpretation, if any, that is supported by the prefatory note or official comments to the recommended version of UETA.
Like E-sign, the bill primarily affects the use of electronic documents and electronic signatures in transactions. Under the bill's broad definitions, such things as information stored on a computer disk or a voice mail recording would likely qualify for use as an electronic document. However, like E-sign, this bill does not apply to the execution of wills, to testamentary trusts, or to a transaction governed by any chapter of this state's version of the Uniform Commercial Code other than the chapter dealing with sales of goods. Unlike E-sign, this bill may permit the use of electronic documents for matters relating to family law; court documents; notices of the cancellation of utility services; certain notices of default, acceleration, repossession, foreclosure, eviction, or the right to cure; certain notices of the cancellation or termination of health insurance or life insurance; and product recall notices.
Like E-sign, this bill specifies that a document or signature may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form. Unlike E-sign, this bill further states that an electronic document satisfies any law requiring a document to be in writing and that an electronic signature satisfies any law requiring a signature. The bill does not require the use of electronic documents or electronic signatures. Rather, the bill applies only to transactions between parties each of which has agreed to conduct transactions by electronic means. However, unlike current law under E-sign, this bill does not contain any protections that specifically apply only to consumer transactions. The consumer protections currently in effect under E-sign would likely have no effect in this state upon the enactment of this bill.
Under this bill, a person may use an electronic document in a transaction to satisfy any law requiring the person to provide, send, or deliver information in writing to another person, if the electronic document satisfies certain conditions. Although the bill also states that a document relating to a transaction may not be denied legal effect solely because it is in electronic form, the bill likely permits a person to deny the legal effect of an electronic document that does not satisfy these conditions. The bill also specifies that, with certain exceptions, a document must satisfy any law requiring the document to be posted or displayed in a certain manner; to be sent, communicated, or transmitted by a specified method; or to contain information that is formatted in a certain manner. Although this provision is subject to varying interpretations, it likely requires the parties to a transaction to comply with any legal requirement relating to the provision of information other than a requirement that the information be provided on paper.
The bill establishes the time and location of the sending and receipt of an electronic document, although the parties to a transaction may agree to alter the effect of these provisions. The bill also permits a sender to expressly provide in an electronic document that the document is deemed to be sent from a different location. The bill also establishes the legal effects of any change or error in an electronic document that occurs in a transmission between the parties to a transaction. These effects depend in part upon whether the parties have consented to the use of a security procedure and whether the transaction is an automated transaction involving an individual.
With certain exceptions, this bill permits the use of an electronic document to satisfy any law that requires document retention, as long as the retained information satisfies certain requirements relating to content and accessibility. An electronic document retained in compliance with these provisions has the same legal status as the original document and need not contain any information the sole purpose of which is to enable the document to be sent, communicated, or received. Under current law, this ancillary information is normally required to be retained if the document to which it is attached is required to be retained. The bill specifies that the state may enforce laws enacted after this bill that prohibit a person from using an electronic document to satisfy any requirement that the person retain a document for evidentiary, audit, or like purposes. It is unclear, though, what types of retention requirements are enacted for "evidentiary, audit, or like purposes." The bill also specifies that it does not preclude a governmental unit of this state from imposing additional requirements for the retention of any document subject to its jurisdiction. It is unclear how this provision relates to other provisions of the bill which provide that certain electronic documents satisfy any retention requirement.
