Under the Family Care Program, DHFS contracts with resource centers to
provide information to interested individuals regarding long-term care services and
to determine eligibility for the family care benefit. DHFS contracts with care
management organizations (CMOs) to provide the family care benefit to eligible
people for a capitated monthly rate. CMOs must provide a variety of services under
the family care benefit including supportive living, personal care, supported
employment, and home health services, as well as nursing home and other
institutional care.
To be eligible for the family care benefit, a person must be at least 18 years of
age; have a physical or developmental disability or a degenerative brain disorder (a
qualifying condition); have a long-term or irreversible condition and be in need of
ongoing care or require care in order to maintain independence or functional capacity
(functional eligibility); and either be eligible for MA or have projected care costs that
exceed a specified portion of income and assets (financial eligibility).
Currently, five counties have both a resource center and a CMO, and an
additional four counties have only a resource center. Before DHFS contracts with an
entity to operate a resource center or a CMO in a county or for a tribe, the county or
tribe must appoint a local long-term care council and the council must develop a plan
concerning whether and how to implement Family Care. A single entity may not
operate both a resource center and a CMO. A county, alone or with other counties,
may create a special purpose district called a family care district that is independent
of the county to operate either a resource center or a CMO, and a tribe may establish
a corporation that is separate from the tribe to operate a resource center or a CMO.
The bill makes the following changes to Family Care:
1. The bill eliminates the requirement that DHFS obtain approval from JCF
before entering into a new contract for a resource center or a CMO, and before
entering into a contract with a private entity to operate a CMO.
2. The bill eliminates the current requirement that DHFS only make the family
care benefit available in areas of the state in which, in the aggregate, not more than
50 percent of the population that is eligible for the family care benefit resides.
3. Currently, only people who are eligible for both the family care benefit and
MA are entitled to the family care benefit. By January 1, 2008, DHFS must extend
entitlement for the benefit to certain persons who are not MA eligible. The bill
requires that a person be eligible for MA to receive the benefit, and thus eliminates
the requirement that DHFS extend, by January 1, 2008, entitlement for the benefit
to people who are not eligible for MA. The bill provides, however, that people who
are not eligible for MA but are receiving the benefit on the date this bill is enacted
continue to be eligible for, but not entitled to, the family care benefit.
4. The bill renames a family care district a long-term care district and provides
for tribes (acting alone or in conjunction with counties or tribes). The bill allows a
long-term care district to operate the Wisconsin Partnership Program or PACE, as
long as the district does not also operate a resource center. The bill also modifies
membership of long-term care district boards; modifies compensation and benefit
provisions for former county employees hired by a long-term care district; specifies
that counties are not responsible for providing or paying for services that a long-term
care district is required by statute or contract to provide or pay for; and provides for
a county or tribe to withdraw or be removed from a long-term care district.
5. Currently, the local long-term care council for a county or tribe is required
to review the performance of CMOs, identify gaps in services provided by the CMOs,
develop strategies for increasing availability of needed long-term care services,
advise the CMOs, monitor coordination between the resource center and CMOs, and
perform long-range planning for the long-term care system. The councils must
report to DHFS annually on achievements and problems of the local long term-care
system. This bill eliminates the councils and assigns some of their duties to the
governing boards of resource centers and some to regional long-term care advisory
committees, which are created in the bill.
The bill requires governing boards of resource centers to assess the availability
and adequacy of long-term care services, review coordination between the resource
center and CMOs, monitor complaints and appeals regarding the local long-term
care system, and develop strategies for increasing the availability for long-term care
services. The governing boards must report their findings to the appropriate
regional long-term care committee.
The bill requires DHFS to establish regions for regional long-term care
advisory committees. The governing body of each resource center must appoint a
number of members specified by DHFS to serve on the appropriate regional
long-term care committee. The duties of the committees include evaluating the
performance of CMOs and resource centers, monitoring grievances and appeals
regarding CMOs, reviewing the utilization of long-term care services, identifying
gaps in the availability of long-term care services, and performing long range
planning for the regional long-term care system.
6. The bill eliminates degenerative brain disorder as a qualifying condition for
the family care benefit, and instead provides that a person has a qualifying condition
if he or she is a "frail elder" (a person who is 65 years of age or older with a physical
disability or irreversible dementia that restricts the individual's ability to perform
daily tasks or that threatens the capacity to live independently).
7. Currently, a person may be functionally eligible for the family care benefit
at one of two levels, comprehensive or intermediate. This bill changes the two levels
to nursing home level of care and non-nursing home level of care.
8. The bill allows DHFS to determine by agreement with a county that has a
CMO the portion of the county's basic community aids allocation that is used to fund
the county's resource center and CMO.
9. The bill provides that counties in which the family care benefit is available
or in which the Wisconsin Partnership Program or PACE is operated may use their
COP funding to provide mental health or substance abuse services or to provide
services under the Family Support Program. Under the Family Support Program,
counties provide services to families of children who are disabled to assist the
families in caring for the children at home.
Under current law, community-based residential facilities (CBRFs) must
assess the financial condition of privately paying clients prior to admission and
provide them a statement that includes the estimated date on which the client would
deplete his or her financial resources by paying for care in the facility. If that date
is less that two years from the date of the statement, the CBRF must refer the client
to the county department responsible for administering long-term care programs to
assess the person's functional abilities, disabilities, and service needs and review
alternatives to institutional care. Counties generally may not use COP, COP Waiver,
or CIP II funds to pay for care in a CBRF unless the program recipient underwent
such an assessment before he or she entered the CBRF, regardless of whether the
recipient entered the CBRF as a privately paying client.
This bill repeals the requirement that CBRFs assess the financial condition of
privately paying clients prior to admission and the restriction on using COP, COP
Waiver, or CIP II funds to pay for care in a CBRF for a program recipient who did not
undergo an assessment of his or her abilities, disabilities, and services needs and a
review of alternatives to institutional care before entering the CBRF.
The bill repeals the requirements that adult family homes provide information
to prospective residents regarding Family Care resource centers and the family care
benefit and refer prospective residents to the resource centers. The bill also repeals
the requirement that hospitals refer patients to resource centers before discharging
them. Under the bill, CBRFs and residential care apartment complexes must
provide information regarding resource centers and the family care benefit to
prospective residents and, if a referral is required, refer prospective residents to
resource centers when the CBRFs or RCACs first provide the prospective residents
written material regarding their facilities. (A residential care apartment complex
consists of independent apartments, each of which has in individual lockable
entrance and exit, a kitchen with a stove, and individual bathroom, sleeping, and
living areas, and provides to a resident not more than 28 hours per week of
supportive, personal, and nursing services.) Also, in counties that do not have
resource centers, CBRFs must refer certain prospective residents who are aged or
have a physical or developmental disability to the county department responsible for
administering long-term care programs, and the county department must offer the
prospective resident counseling concerning public and private long-term care
benefit programs.
Under current law, intermediate care facilities for the mentally retarded
(ICF-MRs) must pay the state an assessment of $445 per month for each licensed
bed. Federal law provides for a reduction in federal funding for MA if the state
collects an amount in ICF-MR bed assessments that exceeds a specified portion of
the aggregate revenues of all ICF-MRs in the state.
This bill directs DHFS annually to set the monthly per bed assessment amount
at 5.5 percent of the projected aggregate annual revenues for ICF-MRs in the state
divided by the number of licensed ICF-MR beds and by 12 months. DHFS may
reduce the assessment amount during any fiscal year to avoid collecting an amount
during that year that exceeds 5.5 percent of ICF-MR aggregate revenues.
Under current law, nursing homes must pay the state an assessment on each
licensed bed that may not exceed $75. This bill raises that maximum amount for the
nursing home bed assessment to $127.
Under current law, the maximum number of licensed nursing home beds
statewide is 51,795. A nursing home may transfer a licensed bed to another nursing
home only under certain conditions. This bill reduces the statewide licensed nursing
home bed cap to 42,000 beds and provides that when a licensed bed is transferred,
the receiving nursing home must be in the same bed allocation area, as determined
by DHFS, or in an adjoining area.
Under current law, DHFS may approve a temporary reduction in the number
of beds licensed for a nursing home if the nursing home's occupancy rate falls below
the minimum per patient day occupancy standard established by DHFS. If the
nursing home does not resume licensure of the affected beds, DHFS must
incrementally revoke the license for the beds. This bill repeals the authority of DHFS
to reduce temporarily a nursing home's number of licensed beds.
This bill requires health insurers, self-insured plans, service benefits plans,
and pharmacy benefits managers (third parties) to provide to DHFS information
from their records to enable DHFS to identify persons receiving benefits under
Family Care who are eligible, or would be eligible as dependents, for third-party
health care coverage and imposes other requirements on third parties that are
similar to those by which third-party liability is determined and enforced under MA.
This bill requires DHFS to seek any waivers from federal MA laws that are
necessary to implement, in at least three pilot sites, an MA Program under managed
care for the long-term care of children with disabilities. The bill also requires DHFS
to award moneys in both years of the fiscal biennium for technical assistance and
planning services in support of family-centered managed care for children with
long-term support needs.
Under current law, the long-term care ombudsman may enter, without notice,
and have access to clients and residents of a nursing home, a CBRF, a place in which
care is provided under a continuing care contract, a swing bed in an acute care or
extended care facility, or an adult family home (a long-term care facility). The
ombudsman may communicate in private with a client or resident, review records
with consent of the client or resident or his or her legal counsel, and have access to
records of the long-term care facility or of DHFS concerning regulation of the
long-term care facility. Current law specifies the rights of residents of nursing
homes and CBRFs, including the rights to have private and unrestricted
communication with others, to present grievances without justifiable fear of reprisal,
and to be fully informed of all services, charges for services, and changes in service.
Current law authorizes the Board on Aging and Long-Term Care to contract to
provide advocacy services to potential or actual recipients of the Family Care
Program, or their families or guardians.
This bill expands the definition of a long-term care facility, for purposes of
activities by the long-term care ombudsman, to include residential care apartment
complexes. The bill provides that residents of residential care apartment complexes
are entitled to the same rights as residents of nursing homes and CBRFs. The bill
authorizes the Board on Aging and Long-Term Care to employ staff within the
classified service to provide advocacy services to Family Care recipients or potential
recipients, their families, and guardians.
Other health and human services
Currently, DHFS awards grants to prevent, reduce, or cease tobacco use. This
bill establishes the health care quality fund. The fund consists of moneys derived
from the increase in cigarette and other tobacco products taxes, moneys transferred
from the permanent endowment fund, and moneys from certain other sources.
Under the bill, moneys in the health care quality fund are used to fund, in part,
tobacco use control programs and for health care quality and patient safety
information.
Under current law, DHFS may recover incorrect payments made for health care
services under MA that resulted from certain action or inaction by an applicant or
recipient. If DHFS provides medical assistance to a person as a result of, for example,
an injury that was caused by a third party, DHFS may recover from the third party
the amount of the medical assistance provided. Also under current law, if an
individual who is obligated to pay support (court-ordered child or family support or
maintenance) has an overdue support obligation because of a failure to pay, his or her
name, social security number, and amount of overdue support is posted on a
statewide support lien docket.
This bill requires every insurer authorized to do business in this state, before
paying a claim of $500 or more, to verify with DHFS that the individual to whom the
claim is to be paid does not have a medical assistance liability (an amount of medical
assistance paid incorrectly under MA or that DHFS may recover from a third party)
and to check the statewide support lien docket to ensure that the individual does not
have an overdue support obligation. If the individual has an overdue support
obligation or a medical assistance liability, the insurer must pay the claim proceeds,
up to the amount of the overdue obligation or liability, to DWD or DHFS before
paying the individual any claim proceeds that remain.
This bill increases the fees that the state registrar or a local registrar must
charge for issuing a copy of a certificate of birth, death, divorce or annulment, or
marriage (vital record); for verifying information about the event without issuing a
copy; for issuing an additional copy of the same vital record at the same time, for
expedited service; and for searching vital records under certain circumstances. Of
the fees charged for certain birth certificates and copies, a portion is used by the Child
Abuse and Neglect Prevention Board (CANPB) for expenses, for certain statewide
projects, for the Family Resource Center Grant Program, and for technical
assistance to organizations. This bill increases the portion used by CANPB.
The bill requires local registrars to forward to the secretary of administration
60 percent of all revenue generated by fee increases for the issuance of copies of vital
records, other than divorce records. From these moneys, DHFS must distribute
$950,000 in each fiscal year for domestic abuse services, $250,000 in each fiscal year
to Milwaukee County for gender-responsive alcohol and other drug abuse services
and other services to drug dependent women with children, $50,000 in each fiscal
year to Milwaukee County for services to aid youth in transferring from foster care
to independent living, and $500,000 in each fiscal year for comprehensive early
childhood initiatives in Dane County for low-income families.
The bill also increases fees the state registrar must charge for making
amendments to birth records without a court order; making court-ordered
corrections to birth certificates; making any change in a birth certificate, such as
acknowledgment of paternity; making court-ordered name changes; and for
registering certain new or corrected vital records, and late registration of birth
certificates.
This bill creates a health care quality and patient safety council, attached to
DHFS, to consider the most cost-effective means of implementing a statewide
integrated or interoperable health care information system.
Under current law, WHEFA provides financial assistance to health facilities
and participating health institutions. This bill prohibits WHEFA from providing
such assistance unless the health facility or institution demonstrates progress in
improving medical information systems technology.
This bill increases from $35 to $65 the annual fee that a person who is obligated
to pay child or family support must pay to DWD for receiving and disbursing the child
support funds. This bill also requires DWD to collect an annual fee of $25 from a
person who receives child or family support.
Under current law, DHFS distributes community aids to counties to provide
social, mental health, developmental disabilities, and alcohol and other drug abuse
services. This bill eliminates the current requirement that each county, before
December 1 of each year, submit to DHFS a proposed budget for the expenditure of
the community aids allocated to that county.
Currently, the Council on Developmental Disabilities, attached to DHFS,
performs numerous duties, including developing, approving, and continuing
modification of the statewide plan for delivery of services to individuals with
developmental disabilities. The council is funded, in part, by a federal grant. This
bill transfers the council to DOA and requires DHFS to ensure that the matching
funds requirement under the federal grant is met.
Currently, DHFS makes loans to nonprofit organizations to establish housing
programs for individuals who are recovering from alcohol or other drug abuse. This
bill eliminates these loans.
Insurance
This bill creates the Healthy Wisconsin Authority (HWA), which is a public
body corporate and politic with a board of directors that is created by state law but
that is not a state agency. The board of directors consists of the commissioner of
insurance, or the commissioner's designee, and 13 other members who serve
four-year terms. HWA is treated like a state agency with respect to the open records
and open meetings laws; the law regulating lobbying; state purchasing
requirements; exemption from income tax, sales and use tax, and property taxes; the
Code of Ethics for Public Officials and Employees; all purposes under the Wisconsin
Retirement System; and auditing by the Legislative Audit Bureau. HWA is unlike
a state agency in that it may approve its own budget; its employees are not state
employees; and it is not subject to statutory rule-making procedures.
The bill directs HWA to study options and develop recommendations for
providing reinsurance to groups and individuals for catastrophic claims under
health insurance policies. HWA must develop and administer any reinsurance
program for which legislation is enacted that authorizes or requires HWA to do so
and may explore other ways to lower health care costs, including considering options
for comprehensive health care reform.
Under current law, a group health insurance policy that covers any inpatient
hospital treatment must cover at least 30 days or, generally, $7,000 of inpatient
hospital treatment of nervous and mental disorders and alcoholism and other drug
abuse problems. If a group health insurance policy covers any outpatient treatment,
it must cover at least, generally, $2,000 of outpatient treatment of nervous and
mental disorders and alcoholism and other drug abuse problems. If a group health
insurance policy covers any inpatient hospital or outpatient treatment, it must cover
at least, generally, $3,000 of transitional treatment (services, specified by the
commissioner of insurance, that are provided in a less restrictive manner than
inpatient services but in a more intensive manner than outpatient services) of
nervous and mental disorders and alcoholism and other drug abuse problems. If a
group health insurance policy covers both inpatient and outpatient hospital services,
the total coverage for all types of treatment for nervous and mental disorders and
alcoholism and other drug abuse problems need not exceed, generally, $7,000 in a
policy year.
This bill increases the minimum amounts of coverage that must be provided for
the treatment of nervous and mental disorders and alcoholism and other drug abuse
problems on the basis of the change in the consumer price index for medical services
since the current coverage amounts were enacted in 1985 and 1992.
Excluding limited-scope benefit plans, medicare replacement or supplement
policies, long-term care policies, and policies covering only certain specified
diseases, this bill requires health insurance policies and self-insured governmental
and school district health plans to cover up to four hours per month of treatment for
autism, Asperger's syndrome, and pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise
specified if the treatment is provided by a psychiatrist, a psychologist, or a social
worker who is certified or licensed to practice psychotherapy. The coverage
requirement applies to both individual and group health insurance policies and may
be subject to any limitations or exclusions or cost-sharing provisions that apply
generally under the policy or plan.
Under current law, an insurer may not restrict or terminate coverage for
chiropractic treatment under a health insurance policy that covers chiropractic
treatment except on the basis of an independent evaluation. If the insurer restricts
or terminates a patient's coverage for chiropractic treatment and the patient then
becomes liable for payment of the treatment, the insurer must provide to the patient
and the treating chiropractor a written statement that includes a reasonable
explanation of the factual basis for the restriction or termination of coverage.
Under this bill, the written statement must provide a detailed, rather than
merely reasonable, explanation of the clinical rationale, rather than the factual
basis, for the restriction or termination of coverage. Also, if an insurer restricts or
terminates an insured's coverage for treatment, not limited to chiropractic
treatment, and as a result the insured becomes liable for all of the cost of the
treatment, the insurer must provide on the explanation of benefits form a detailed
explanation of the clinical rationale and the basis in the policy or applicable law for
the restriction or termination of coverage.
Current law does not regulate the use of current procedural terminology codes
(numbers on a health insurance claim form that indicate the services that a health
care provider performed). This bill requires an insurer who changes the current
procedural terminology code that the health care provider put on the health
insurance claim form to include on the explanation of benefits form the reason for the
change and to cite the source for the change.
Under current law, certain health care providers are required to carry health
care liability insurance with liability limits of at least $1,000,000 for each occurrence
and at least $3,000,000 for all occurrences in a policy year. Any portion of a medical
malpractice claim against a health care provider subject to the health care liability
insurance requirements that exceeds the policy limits of the health care provider's
health care liability insurance is paid from the injured patients and families
compensation fund. Moneys in the fund come from annual assessments paid by the
health care providers who are subject to the health care liability insurance
requirements. This bill transfers $175,000,000 in fiscal year 2007-08 from the
injured patients and families compensation fund to the health care quality fund
created in the bill.
justice
This bill authorizes DOJ to bring an action for injunctive or other equitable
relief against a person who interferes with the exercise or enjoyment by an individual
of a right secured by the constitution or laws of this state or of the United States.
Currently, under the Crime Victim Compensation Program, DOJ must
compensate victims of certain crimes for expenses that result from the victim's injury
or death. DOJ may not compensate a victim who has not cooperated with appropriate
law enforcement agencies. Any compensation that DOJ provides must be reduced
by any insurance payments received as a result of the crime.
This bill creates the Sexual Assault Forensic Examination Program, under
which a health care provider who examines a victim of a sex offense is compensated
by DOJ for the costs of the examination, any procedure that tests for or prevents a
sexually transmitted disease, and any medication to prevent or treat a sexually
transmitted disease (examination costs). If the victim does not authorize the health
care provider to seek payment from insurance or another program, DOJ must
compensate the health care provider for the examination costs, regardless of whether
the victim cooperates with a law enforcement agency. If the victim does authorize
the health care provider to seek payment from insurance or another program, DOJ
must compensate the health care provider for the examination costs, reduced by any
payment from insurance or another program, only if the victim refuses to cooperate
with a law enforcement agency.
Under current law, most people who are ordered by a state or municipal court
to pay a fine or forfeiture must also pay a penalty surcharge equal to 26 percent of
the fine or forfeiture. The penalty surcharges are used by DOJ to fund a variety of
activities, services, and equipment, including training for law enforcement and
correctional officers, enforcement of drug laws, services for crime victims, and
information systems for law enforcement. This bill increases the penalty surcharge
to 27 percent of fines or forfeitures.
Under current law, a firearms dealer must request that DOJ perform a firearms
restrictions record search on a handgun purchaser before the dealer may complete
a sale of a handgun to the purchaser. DOJ charges firearms dealers $8 for each record
search and uses the fees for the administrative costs of conducting records searches.
This bill increases the firearms restrictions record search fee to $30 and provides
that, in addition to using the fees for record search administrative costs, DOJ may
use the fees to fund the same activities, services, and equipment that are funded with
penalty surcharges.
Local government
Until January 1, 2007, the law prohibited a political subdivision (any city,
village, town, or county) from increasing its levy by a percentage that exceeded its
valuation factor, which was the percentage change in the political subdivision's
equalized value due to new construction, less improvements removed, but not less
than 2 percent. In addition, the calculation of a political subdivision's levy did not
include any tax increment generated by a tax incremental district.
The law contained a number of exceptions to the levy limit, such as for the
transfer of the provision of services, for cities or villages that annexed town territory,
and for certain debt service payments.
A political subdivision's levy limit could be increased if the amount of debt
service in the current year exceeded the amount in the prior year for debt that was
approved by the governing body before July 1, 2005. If a political subdivision
exceeded the levy limit, DOR was required to reduce the political subdivision's local
aid payments by the amount of the excess.
This bill reinstates the levy limit for the 2007 and 2008 levies and modifies the
calculation of the limit. The bill changes the definition of "valuation factor" to be the
greater of either 4 percent or the percentage change in the political subdivision's
equalized value due to new construction, less improvements removed. The bill also
creates several new exceptions to the levy limit, including levies for certain bridge
and culvert construction and repairs; certain levies related to jointly provided fire
protection services; and county levies for payments to adjacent counties for library
services.
Under the bill, DOR may not reduce a political subdivision's aid payments
unless the amount of the excess levy is at least $500, but if the amount exceeds a
political subdivision's aid payments in the following year, DOR must reduce local aid
payments in future years until the amount is fully deducted. Also under the bill, a
political subdivision is not penalized for an excess levy if DOR determines that the
excess is directly caused by DOR assessment errors or because of an error in
preparing or delivering the tax roll by the taxation district clerk or county clerk.
This bill authorizes a county with a population of 500,000 or more (currently
only Milwaukee County) to issue appropriation bonds on a one-time basis to pay all
or part of the county's unfunded prior service liability with respect to an employee
retirement system of the county. Appropriation bonds are any bond, note, or other
obligation of a county issued as provided in the bill to evidence the county's obligation
to repay borrowed money that is payable from various sources.
Before the county may issue appropriation bonds, the county must enact an
ordinance to implement a five-year strategic and financial plan related to the
payment of unfunded employee retirement benefits. The financial plan must provide
that future annual pension liabilities are funded on a current basis and must contain
quantifiable benchmarks to measure compliance with the plan.
The bill states that the county is not generally liable for appropriation bonds,
and appropriation bonds are not a debt of the county for any purpose. The principal
and the interest on the bonds are payable only from amounts that the county board
may appropriate.
Under the current Expenditure Restraint Program, the state provides an
annual aid payment to any municipality that has a property tax rate greater than
five mills and that limits the growth of its municipal budget according to a formula
based on 60 percent of the percentage change in the equalized assessed value of new
construction located in the municipality and on the rate of inflation.
This bill eliminates the Expenditure Restraint Program and replaces it with
the Municipal Levy Restraint Program. Under the Municipal Levy Restraint
Program, the state provides annual aid payments, beginning in 2009, to any
municipality that has a property tax rate greater than five mills and that limits its
property tax levy to an amount that is no greater than the maximum allowable levy
according to a formula that is based on 60 percent of the percentage change in the
equalized assessed value of new construction located in the region in which the
municipality is located and on the rate of inflation.
The bill also creates the County Levy Restraint Program, under which the state
provides annual aid payments, beginning in 2009, to any county that limits its
property tax levy to an amount that is no greater than the maximum allowable levy
according to a formula that is based on 60 percent of the percentage change in the
equalized assessed value of new construction located in the county and on the rate
of inflation.
This bill increases the total amount of county and municipal aid to be
distributed in 2008 by $15,000,000 over the total amount of aid distributed in 2007.
Each county and municipality receives an increased payment in proportion to its
share of total county and municipal aid payments in 2007. In 2009 and subsequent
years, the amount of each county's and municipality's payment is the same as the
amount of its payment in 2008.
Under current law, no city or village may annex town territory that is located
in a county with a population of at least 50,000 people unless DOA reviews the
proposed annexation and offers an opinion as to whether the annexation is in the
public interest. The city or village must review DOA's advice before taking final
action on the proposed annexation. This bill requires DOA review in all counties.
Generally, under current law, the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
(MMSD) must award all contracts for all work done and all purchases of supplies and
materials to the lowest responsible bidder.
This bill authorizes MMSD to let one contract for public construction that may
be only for the construction of a deep tunnel pump station using the design-build
construction process. This process is defined as a project delivery and procurement
process for the design, construction, repair, renovation, installation, or demolition of
a public works project under which a single entity is responsible for the professional
design services and construction services related to the project. MMSD must submit
to DNR performance objectives and preliminary designs for the design-build project,
rather than the completed plans required under current law.
Generally, under current law, the governing body of a political subdivision may,
by a two-thirds vote of its members, enact an ordinance or adopt a resolution
declaring itself to be a premier resort area if at least 40 percent of the equalized
assessed value of the taxable property within the political subdivision is used by
"tourism-related retailers," as defined in a manual that is published by the U.S.
Office of Management and Budget. The definition covers 21 types of retailers,
including variety stores, dairy product stores, gasoline service stations, eating and
drinking places, and hotels and motels.
A premier resort area may impose a tax at a rate of 0.5 percent of the gross
receipts from the sale, lease, or rental of goods or services that are subject to the
general sales and use tax and are sold by tourism-related retailers. The proceeds
of the tax may be used only to pay for infrastructure expenses within the jurisdiction
of the premier resort area, including the costs related to parking lots, transportation
facilities, sewer and water facilities, recreational facilities, fire fighting equipment,
and police vehicles.
The city of Eagle River, the city of Bayfield, the village of Ephraim, and the
village of Sister Bay are currently authorized to enact an ordinance or adopt a
resolution to become a premier resort area even though none meet the requirement
that at least 40 percent of the equalized assessed value of the taxable property be
used by tourism-related retailers.
This bill allows the common council of a first class city (presently only
Milwaukee) to declare a specified area of the city a premier resort area even if the
specified area does not meet the requirement that at least 40 percent of the equalized
assessed value of the taxable property within the specified area be used by
tourism-related retailers. The area must be contiguous, may not exceed four square
miles, and must correspond to nine-digit zip code areas.
Under current law, a law enforcement officer or fire fighter employed by a city
(other than a first class city), village, town or county may not be suspended, reduced
in rank, suspended and reduced in rank, or dismissed by a grievance committee, civil
service commission, county board, or board of police and fire commissioners
(tribunal) unless the tribunal determines that there is just cause to sustain the
charges that have been brought against the officer or fire fighter. If the charges are
sustained and the officer or fire fighter is disciplined by the tribunal, he or she may
appeal the order to circuit court, except that a county law enforcement officer, under
a recent decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, may proceed either with an appeal
to circuit court or with the grievance procedures, including arbitration, in the
officer's collective bargaining agreement. The trial based on the appeal is before the
court, which must determine whether there is just cause to sustain the charges
against the accused officer or fire fighter and the tribunal's order. If the charges and
the tribunal's order are sustained, the tribunal's order is final and conclusive but, if
reversed, the officer or fire fighter is reinstated and entitled to pay as though he or
she were in continuous service. Similar procedures, other than the just cause
standard, apply to police officers employed by a first class city.
Under this bill, in a city, village, or town, if an accused officer or fire fighter is
subject to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement that provides an alternative
to the circuit court appeal procedure, the officer or fire fighter may choose to use the
alternative procedure in the collective bargaining agreement instead of appealing to
a circuit court. If the alternative procedure includes a hearing, the hearing must be
open to the public. An accused officer or fire fighter who chooses the alternative
procedure is considered to have waived his or her right to circuit court review of the
tribunal's decision. These provisions do not apply to police officers or fire fighters
employed by a first class city.
Under the current tax incremental financing program, a city or village may
create a tax incremental district (TID) in part of its territory to foster development
if at least 50 percent of the area to be included in the TID is blighted, in need of
rehabilitation or conservation, suitable for industrial sites, or suitable for mixed-use
development.
Also under current law, once a TID has been created, DOR calculates the tax
increment base value of the TID, which is the equalized value of all taxable property
within the TID at the time of its creation. If the development in the TID increases
the value of the property in the TID above the base value, a value increment is
created. That portion of taxes collected on the value increment in excess of the base
value is called a tax increment. The tax increment is placed in a special fund that
may be used only to pay back the project costs of the TID. The costs of a TID, which
are initially incurred by the creating city or village, include the costs of public works,
such as sewers, streets, and lighting systems; financing costs; site preparation costs;
and professional service costs. DOR authorizes the allocation of the tax increments
until the TID terminates or, generally, 20 years, 23 years, or 27 years after the TID
is created, depending on the type of TID and the year in which it was created.
This bill authorizes a first class city to extend the life of a TID created by the
city for up to 12 months after all of the TID's project costs have been paid. Under the
bill, DOR must continue to authorize the allocation of tax increments for the TID as
if its project costs had not been paid off, even if the TID would otherwise be required
to terminate. The city may use up to 75 percent of the increments received during
the TID's extended life to benefit affordable housing in the city. The remainder of the
increments must be used to improve the quality of the city's existing housing stock.
Under current law, a city or village may create a redevelopment authority,
which is a separate and distinct public body. A redevelopment authority may enter
into any building or property in a project area (a blighted area that the city or village
declares to be in need of blight elimination and urban renewal) to make inspections,
surveys, appraisals, soundings, or test borings, and obtain a court order for these
purposes if entry is denied or resisted (inspection rights).
This bill allows a redevelopment authority to use its inspection rights on any
blighted property located in the city or village regardless of whether the blighted
property is in a project area.
This bill provides that any person who knowingly presents or causes to be
presented a false claim under any contract or order for materials, supplies,
equipment, or contractual services to be provided to a local governmental unit is
subject to a forfeiture of not less than $5,000 and not more than $10,000, plus three
times the amount of the damages that were sustained by the local governmental unit
or would have been sustained by the local governmental unit, whichever is greater,
as a result of the false claim. The bill permits the attorney general to bring an action
on behalf of the local governmental unit to recover any forfeiture for which a
contractor or vendor is liable as a result of a false claim submitted to a local
governmental unit.
Natural resources
Fish, game, and wildlife
This bill increases the fee for a resident elk hunting license issued by DNR from
$46.25 to $72.25, the fee for a nonresident elk hunting license from $248.25 to
$397.25, and the processing fee for both a resident and a nonresident elk hunting
license from $2.75 to $9.75.
This bill authorizes DNR to issue an annual shovelnose sturgeon permit
authorizing the permit holder to harvest shovelnose sturgeon and their eggs.
Recreation
