08-058 12-1-2008
08-059 12-1-2008
08-072 12-1-2008
Sincerely,
BRUCE J. HOESLY
Senior Legislative Attorney/Code Editor
__________________
State of Wisconsin
Regional Transit Authority
November 15, 2008
The Honorable, The Legislature:
Over the last 26 months, the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Transit Authority has diligently researched and analyzed transit needs and challenges in this region and discussed potential solutions to meet the transit needs of our residents, encourage economic development and make southeastern Wisconsin an attractive place to work, live and recreate.
On behalf of my fellow RTA commissioners, I'm pleased to tell you that we've made significant progress in working together as a region and have found that we are all ultimately striving for the same goal: a more vibrant, prosperous southeastern Wisconsin region. We believe the RTA's consensus on this report is an important indication that regionalism is taking hold, and that we are making decisions with the best interest of the region and state in mind.
We present to you today recommendations for dedicated funding, governance and operations of transit that we feel will lead to a more efficient, effective regional transit system that will progress beyond municipal boundaries and focus on connecting people to jobs and education within the region.
Based upon our community, business and labor outreach, public polling, and individual meetings with transit experts throughout the region, we firmly believe that transit is a top priority for southeastern Wisconsin. These constituencies support a dedicated funding source for transit for different reasons - access to jobs, economic development potential, its ability to attract and retain workers, improved access to education institutions and cultural amenities and we've listened to their feedback. We agree that transit is critically important to the economic health and vitality of this region, and that a dedicated sales tax is the only viable funding mechanism to preserve our current transit systems and implement new intercounty options. We respectfully ask for your support of our recommendations for all the same reasons.
Thank you for the opportunity to study transit and present you with our recommendations for ensuring the health and vibrancy of a regional transit system. We look forward to working with local governments and the current Legislative Council Committee to ensure that solving our transit challenges is a top priority in the region and we encourage you to join us in accomplishing this goal.
Sincerely,
Karl j. ostby
Chairman
__________________
State of Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources
November 17, 2008
The Honorable, The Legislature:
Pursuant to 20.0916(6), Wis. Stats., the Department of Natural Resources submits this Report to the Wisconsin Legislature: Properties Purchased with Funds from the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program on which one or More Nature-Based Outdoor Activities Is Prohibited.
S907
This report covers the period October 27, 2007 (effective date of 2007-2009 Biennial Budget), through June 30, 2008. This is the first time submission of this report is required by Statues.
Additional copies of this report may be obtained from the DNR by calling 608-266-5782 or may be obtained from the DNR website at:
http://dnr.wi.gov/stewardship/.
Sincerely,
Mathew j. frank
Secretary
Referred to joint committee on Finance.
Referred to committee on Environment and Natural Resources.
__________________
State of Wisconsin
Legislative Audit Bureau
November 20, 2008
The Honorable, The Legislature:
As required by s.
13.94(1)(em), Wis. Stats., we have completed a program evaluation of the Wisconsin Lottery, which is administered by the Department of Revenue. Although annual sales have fluctuated, they increased from a total of $482.9 million in fiscal year (FY) 2003-04 to $494.7 million in FY 2007-08, or by 2.4 percent over the past five years. Net lottery proceeds provided $146.5 million in property tax relief in FY 2007-08.
In FY 2005-06, the Wisconsin Lottery implemented an evaluation tool to assist in the development and management of instant games. We include a recommendation for the Wisconsin Lottery to include product information costs, which include spending to publicize individual games, in the evaluation tool and to require its contractor to regularly report on product information expenditures associated with specific games.
Between FY 2003-04 and FY 2007-08, the Wisconsin Lottery paid one contractor $25.2 million for product information services and another contractor $61.1 million for operations services such as computerized gaming system services. Formal annual performance evaluations are required under both contracts. While the Wisconsin Lottery meets regularly with its product information contractor to provide verbal feedback, it has not completed formal annual evaluations, as it does with its operations contractor. We include a recommendation for the Wisconsin Lottery to evaluate its product information contractor annually.
We appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to us by Wisconsin Lottery staff in the Department of Revenue. The Department's response follows the appendices.
Sincerely,
janice mueller
State Auditor
__________________
State of Wisconsin
Legislative Audit Bureau
November 25, 2008
The Honorable, The Legislature:
At the request of the departments of Commerce and Administration, and in accordance with s.
13.94(1s), Wis. Stats., we have completed a financial audit of the State of Wisconsin Petroleum Inspection Fee Revenue Obligations Program for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2008, and June 30, 2007. We express our unqualified audit opinion on the Statement of Changes in Program Assets and related notes.
Under the program, the State has issued revenue obligations, such as bonds and commercial paper, to provide financing for payment of claims under the Petroleum Environmental Cleanup Fund Award (PECFA) program. These revenue obligations are not general obligation debt of the State. Instead, they are to be repaid primarily from the $0.02 per gallon fee charged to suppliers of petroleum products sold in Wisconsin, which is collected by the Department of Revenue.
During fiscal year (FY) 2007-08, the State collected $76.6 million in petroleum inspection fees and made $30.4 million in scheduled debt service payments, including $20.3 million in principal repayment and $10.1 million in interest. As of June 30, 2008, a total of $252.3 million in revenue obligations remained outstanding, to be repaid from future petroleum inspection fees.
Petroleum inspection fees in excess of debt service requirements are deposited to the Petroleum Inspection Fund and are used to pay PECFA claims and for other purposes authorized by the Legislature, including the early redemption of petroleum inspection fee revenue obligations. During FY 2007-08, $47.0 million in inspection fees was deposited to the Petroleum Inspection Fund while $16.8 million in PECFA claims was paid from the Fund. The remaining $30.2 million was used for a variety of purposes, including a $20.3 million transfer authorized by the Legislature to the Transportation Fund, as well as $1.0 million in transfers to the General Fund to help meet lapse requirements included in
2007 Wis. Acts 20 and
226.
We appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to us during our audit by staff of the departments of Commerce, Administration, and Revenue.
Sincerely,
janice mueller
State Auditor
__________________
State of Wisconsin
Claims Board
November 25, 2008
The Honorable, The Senate:
Enclosed is the report of the State Claims Board covering the claims heard on November 6, 2008.
Those claims approved for payment pursuant to the provisions of 16.007 and 775.05 Stats., have been paid directly by the Board.
This report is for the information of the Legislature. The Board would appreciate your acceptance and publication of it in the Journal to inform the members of the Legislature.
Sincerely,
Cari anne renlund
Secretary
STATE OF WISCONSIN CLAIMS BOARD
The State of Wisconsin Claims Board conducted hearings at the State Capitol Building in Madison, Wisconsin, on November 6, 2008, upon the following claims:
S908
Claimant Agency
Amount
The following claims were considered and decided without hearings:
Claimant Agency Amount
5. Theodore H. Agriculture, Trade $4,547.38
Paulson & Consumer Protection
6. Michele A. Windsor Natural Resources $316.45
7. Gabriel Umentum Corrections $4,618.17
8. Eugene Cherry Corrections $717.59
9. Joseph C. Clark Corrections $82.73
10. Lashone Jackson Corrections $160.00
11. Mark T. Smith Corrections $18.88
The Board Finds:
1. John A. Rupp of Cazenovia, Wisconsin claims $10,000 as compensation for wrongful imprisonment and $12,797.45 attorneys' fees related to his wrongful conviction. On March 14, 2001, the claimant was found guilty of theft pursuant to § 943.20(1)(b), Stats., and was sentenced to six years in prison. The claimant was also convicted of theft pursuant to §
943.20(1)(d), Stats., however, there was no prison sentence for this count and it is therefore not at issue here. The claimant was already serving time for other convictions and therefore served his sentence for this case from August 11, 2003 until March 4, 2005, nearly 19 months. The claimant has always asserted his innocence and did not in any way contribute to his conviction. The claimant believes that both his trial and appellate counsel were ineffective and he proceeded with his appeals
pro se to the best of his ability. The claimant states that there are no civil remedies available to him to recover his damages. On February 15, 2005, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals ruled that the evidence was insufficient to convict the claimant of embezzlement under §
943.20(1)(b), Stats. The Court found that “a reasonable jury could only regard the money as belonging to Rupp at the time he used it" and that the claimant could not be guilty of embezzling his own money. The court dismissed the claimant's conviction of §
943.20(1)(b), Stats., and ordered his immediate release. Despite the February 15 reversal, the claimant was held in custody for an additional six weeks. The claimant was finally released on March 24, 2005.
The claimant states that as a direct result of his wrongful imprisonment, he has suffered significant financial losses. He states that prior to his incarceration he earned $15 per hour at full time employment and therefore lost nearly $50,000 of income during his incarceration. The claimant also lost social security contributions and the ability to grow his business. The claimant states that he also suffered emotional damage during his incarceration. He was unable to support his family, placed next to murderers, and mistreated by guards. The claimant states that he suffered not only the regular social stigma of having been incarcerated, but additional stigma because the conviction was related to his work.
The claimant requests reimbursement at the statutory rate of $5,000 per year for two years. The claimant also requests compensation for his post-conviction attorneys' fees, specifically: $7,300 for his appellate counsel, $800 in costs for his work
pro se (his appellate counsel ceased to represent him when he ran out of money), and $4,697.45 attorneys' fees for the preparation of this claim. The claimant points to the Claims Board's decision in the Claim of Steven Avery, in which the Board construed the language of §
775.05, Stats., as allowing for the payment of attorneys' fees in addition to the statutory rate of compensation per year.
The Juneau County District Attorney, Scott Southworth, states that he was not the prosecutor at the time and has limited knowledge of the claimant's case; however he makes several observations about the claim. Mr. Southworth states that the amount of attorneys' fees requested by the claimant appears reasonable; however, he does not believe that the claimant is entitled to the statutory maximum reimbursement of $5,000 per year for his incarceration because the claimant did not serve a full two years in prison. In addition, he points to the fact that the claimant's conviction for another count in the same criminal complaint was upheld on appeal [theft under §
943.20(1)(d), a felony]. Finally, Mr. Southworth states that it appears that the state acted in good faith in prosecuting the claimant.
The Board concludes that “the evidence is not clear and convincing" that the claimant was innocent as required by §
775.05(4), Stats. The claim is therefore denied.
2. John and Bonnie Weiglein of Brownsville, Wisconsin claim $3,671.25 in damages to apple trees in their orchard, allegedly caused by road salt application to Hwy. 49. The claimants state that the trees near the highway have suffered salt damage every year since they purchased the orchard in 1999. The claimants state that they have tried to reduce the damage by erecting a plastic barrier but it was unsuccessful. The claimants also state that they have moved the trees significantly farther back from the road since they purchased the orchard. The claimants pay property taxes on all 23 acres and do not believe they should have to remove land from production in order to create a wind break. The claimants estimate that they have 78 damaged trees: 29 trees at 75% loss, 29 trees at 50% loss, and 20 trees at 25% loss. An estimated production of 4 bushels per healthy tree results in the loss of approximately 165 bushels a year. The claimants request reimbursement for the lost bushels at $22.25 per bushel, the average of the price for fancy apples and seconds.
