Ayes, 8 - Senators
Decker, Hansen, Taylor, Jauch, Miller and Lehman. Representatives Pocan and Colon.
Noes, 8 - Senators
Darling and Olsen.
Representatives Rhoades, Meyer, Stone, Kestell, Suder and Vos.
Russell Decker
Senate Chairperson
The joint survey committee on Tax Exemptions reports and recommends:
Senate Bill 40
Relating to: state finances and appropriations, constituting the executive budget act of the 2007 legislature.
Report of joint survey committee on Tax Exemptions received.
Ayes, 8 - Senators
Erpenbach, Decker and Ellis; Representatives Wood, F. Lasee and Hubler; Assistant Attorney General Creeron; and Department of Revenue Secretary Ervin.
Noes, 0 - None.
Jon Erpenbach
Senate Chairperson
__________________
State of Wisconsin
Ethics Board
June 19, 2007
The Honorable, The Senate:
The following lobbyists have been authorized to act on behalf of the organizations set opposite their names.
For more detailed information about these lobbyists and organizations and a complete list of organizations and people authorized to lobby the 2007-2008 session of the legislature, visit the Ethics Board's web site at
http://ethics.state.wi.us/
Blavat, Kate Wisconsin Builders Association
Boycks, Brad Wisconsin Builders Association
Curran, Joan Gunderson Lutheran Administrative Services, Inc
Davis, Stan Steve Brown Apartments
Deschane, Gerard Steve Brown Apartments
Driessen, Anthony Illinois Tool Works, Inc
Fitzgerald, Moira E Milwaukee Repertory Theater
Fonfara, Thomas Illinois Tool Works, Inc
Foti, Steven UST Public Affairs Inc
Garner-Gerhardt, Don Smoke Free Wisconsin
Goyke, Gary Wisconsin Pyrotechnic Arts Guild Inc.
Hiatt, Emily Gunderson Lutheran Administrative Services, Inc
Kohler, Daniel Wisconsin Environment, Inc.
McClenahan, William Wisconsin Fire Protection Coalition
Moroney, Matt Metropolitan Builders Association of Greater Milwaukee
Rollins, Luke American Heart Association
Stevens, Patrick Wisconsin Builders Association
Also available from the Wisconsin Ethics Board are reports identifying the amount and value of time state agencies have spent to affect legislative action and reports of expenditures for lobbying activities filed by organizations that employ lobbyists.
Sincerely,
R. Roth Judd
Executive Director
State of Wisconsin
Claims Board
June 14, 2007
The Honorable, The Senate:
Enclosed is the report of the State Claims Board covering the claims heard on May 21 and 23, 2007.
The amounts recommended for payment under $5,000 on claims included in this report have, under the provisions of s.
16.007, Stats., been paid directly by the Board.
The Board is preparing the bill(s) on the recommended award(s) over $5,000, if any, and will submit such to the Joint Finance Committee for legislative introduction.
S258
This report is for the information of the Legislature. The Board would appreciate your acceptance and spreading of it upon the Journal to inform the members of the Legislature.
Sincerely,
John E. Rothschild
Secretary
STATE OF WISCONSIN CLAIMS BOARD
The State of Wisconsin Claims Board conducted hearings at the State Capitol Building in Madison, Wisconsin, on May 21 and May 23, 2007, upon the following claims:
Claimant Agency
Amount
The following claims were considered and decided without hearings:
Claimant Agency
Amount
8. Bryan Pelant Natural Resources $185.45
9. Tomas Barajas Corrections $42.65
10. Mark Brown Corrections $19.66
11. Mark Brown Corrections $61.70
12. Mark Brown Corrections $48.63
13. Shirell Watkins, Sr. Corrections $108.55
The Board Finds:
1. JMPK Company of Richland Center, Wisconsin, claims $16,635.47 for costs associated with the installation and later removal of a billboard due to an erroneously granted permit by the Department of Transportation. The claimant states that in 1998, it applied for a permit from the DOT to erect a billboard on land near Highway 14 in Iowa County. The claimant states that the permit was granted in October 1998 and that, in reliance of that permit, the claimant had the billboard erected in 2004. The DOT subsequently determined that a scenic easement did not allow the billboard in that location. The DOT cancelled the previously issued permit and ordered the removal of the sign. The claimant points to the fact that there are many other billboards in this area as well as evidence that another sign once stood in the exact location where the claimant erected its sign. The claimant also points to the fact that the DOT entered into a Stipulation Agreement in 2005, in which the DOT admitted that they had erroneously approved the billboard permit. The claimant requests reimbursement of various expenses related to this incident. DOT and Iowa County permit application fees ($175 and $896, respectively), the cost of constructing the billboard ($12,532.77), the cost to remove the sign ($2,025.60) and attorneys fees ($1,006.10).
The DOT does not object to payment of this claim in the reduced amount of $2,000, but would object to any additional payment. The DOT states that, while it did issue a billboard permit in error, misrepresentations made by the claimant and the landowner in the permit application contributed to that error. The DOT states that a scenic easement, which prohibited the erection of the billboard, has existed for the property in question since 1966. This easement has been part of the public record and was known to the property owner. The DOT states that the claimant is a sophisticated business with above average knowledge of commercial and real estate laws, as well as access to legal counsel and that the claimant knew, or should have known of the scenic easement that prohibited the billboard. The DOT states that the permit application completed by the claimant makes it clear that the applicant is responsible for compliance with all local laws and ordinances. The application submitted by the claimant contained a signed statement by the property owner granting permission to the claimant to erect the billboard on his land. The DOT states that its sign permit coordinator did not know of the scenic easement. The DOT admits that it is DOT practice to check for scenic easements before issuing permits, however it is not a ministerial duty to conduct the check. The DOT does not believe that the employee's failure to check for easements necessarily outweighs the negligent or intentional misrepresentations made by the claimant and the property owner in the permit application. The DOT objects to refund of the $175 permit application fee, which is nonrefundable. The DOT also objects to payment of the full cost of constructing the sign. The DOT points to the fact that the claimant still possesses the sign, which may be installed at another location, resulting in no loss for the claimant. The DOT believes that the damages involving the Iowa County permit fees, cost of sign removal, and attorneys fees may be legitimate ($3,927.10) but whether these costs were caused by the DOT or by the claimant's or the property owner's intentional or negligent conduct remains unclear. Because the DOT does recognize that an error was made by a DOT employee, the department would not object to payment of a portion of these damages in the reduced amount of $2,000 based on equitable grounds.
The Board concludes the claim should be paid in the reduced amount of $5,000 based on equitable principles. The Board further concludes, under authority of §
16.007 (6m), Stats., payment should be made from the Department of Transportation appropriation §
20.395 (3)(eq), Stats.
S259
2.
Fred and Leslie Schweinert of Nashotah, Wisconsin, claim $8,182.32 for costs associated with the failure of their well, which was allegedly caused by a nearby state construction project. The claimants' home was served by a hand-dug, 100-year old well located under the house. In summer of 2005, the state began construction of a boat launch on nearby Moose Lake. The project included installation of a roadway near the claimants' property and demolition of a nearby home, garage and trees. The claimants state that in the fall of 2005, the roadway project required heavy compacting of crushed stone. The claimants state that they felt the vibrations in their home caused by this process for two days. The claimants believe that these vibrations were the cause of the eventual collapse of their well in the spring of 2006. The claimants do not believe that the filling of their swimming pool had anything to do with the well collapse as the state alleges. The claimants request reimbursement for the costs associated with replacing the well and replacement of their water softener.
The Department of Administration recommends denial of this claim. The department points to the fact that the state has spent approximately $12,000 for landscaping work along the edge of the claimants' property at their request in order to address their concerns related to this project. The DOA states that if there were any substantiation of this claim, the state would not object to payment, however, the claimants have submitted no expert-based substantiation for the claim that construction vibrations caused the well collapse. The DOA states that DOA engineers have confirmed that the large rollers and vibrators used during this project can only compact soil 12-15 inches directly under the equipment. Although vibrations may be felt further away at ground level, the vibrations caused by the equipment do not run very deep into the ground. The DOA believes that it would be virtually impossible for the machinery used during this project to have had any adverse impact on a well located 100' from the compacting area and 35' deep in the ground. The DOA points to the fact that the well construction report submitted by the firm that drilled the claimants' new well states that the reason for the well replacement was "Old Well Gone Dry." The DOA believes that one possible reason for the drying-up of the well was that the claimants filled a new swimming pool at the same time as the construction project and that water pulled from the well to fill the pool may simply have dried up the aquifer into which the well was tapped. Finally, the DOA notes that the compaction portion of the state project took place in October 2005, but the well did not fail until March 2006. The claimants provide no reasonable explanation for the 5-6 month delay between the construction and the failure of the well.
