Department of Revenue
Biennial Report on the “effects on the operation of the lottery on the 10% expense limitation under s. 25.75 (3)(b)” Pursuant to 565.45, Wis. Stats.
Received on January 13, 2016.
Government Accountability Board
Lobbyist Update
Pursuant to 13.685 (7), Wis. Stats.
Received in January 12, 2016.
Department of Justice
Administration of Grant Programs Annual Report
Pursuant to 165.25 (10m), Wis. Stats.
Received on January 19, 2016.
Department of Justice
Report on the Performance of Cooperative County-Tribal Law Enforcement Programs Receiving Aid
Pursuant to 165.90, Wis. Stats.
Received on January 15, 2016.
Ice Age Trail Alliance
FY2016 Report
Received on February 8, 2016.
Legislative Audit Bureau
Department of Employee Trust Funds (ETF)
Pursuant to 13.94 (1)(dd), Wis. Stats.
Received on January 20, 2016.
Department of Justice
Biennial Report
Pursuant to 15.04 (1)(d), Wis. Stats.
Received on January 25, 2016.
Government Accountability Board
Lobbyist Update
Pursuant to 13.685 (7), Wis. Stats.
Received in January 26, 2016.
Wisconsin Technical College System
Annual Report on High School Students Attending Technical Colleges
Pursuant to 38.04 (21), Wis. Stats.
Received on January 28, 2016.
Office of the Governor
Use of Contingency Fee Contracts in 2015
Pursuant to 20. 9305 (2)(g), Wis. Stats.
Received on January 27, 2016.
Department of Administration
Temporary Reallocation of Balances
Pursuant to 20.002 (11)(f), Wis. Stats.
Received on February 1, 2016.
Referred to the joint committee on Finance.
Wisconsin Technical College System
Sexual Assault and Harassment Orientation, Materials, and Information to Students
Pursuant to 38.12 (11)(c), Wis. Stats.
Received on February 2, 2016.
Department of Corrections
Summary of Prisoner Statistics Involving Mental Health Transfers and Services
Pursuant to 301.03 (6m), Wis. Stats.
Received on February 4, 2016.
Referred to the committee on Judiciary and Public Safety.
_____________
State of Wisconsin
Claims Board
January 8, 2016
Enclosed is the report of the State Claims Board covering the claims heard on December 15, 2015. Those claims approved for payment pursuant to the provisions of s.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,
GREGORY D. MURRAY
Secretary
STATE OF WISCONSIN CLAIMS BOARD
The State of Wisconsin Claims Board conducted hearings at the State Capitol Building in Madison, Wisconsin, on December 15, 2015, upon the following claims:
Claimant Agency Amount
11.
TRC Engineers Financial $918.00 Institutions
22.
Robert Steinway Natural Resources $10,000.00 33.
Regenial Hoskins Transportation $352.00 The following claims were decided without hearings:
Claimant Agency Amount
44.
Sandra Klemm Natural Resources $375.22 55.
Reinaldo Acosta, Jr. Corrections $245.00 66.
Elbert Compton Corrections $400.00 77.
Jerome T. Walker Corrections $45.61 88.
Jerome T. Walker Corrections $51.95 99.
Raynard R. Jackson Innocent Convict $25,000.00 Compensation
The Board Finds:
1. TRC Engineers of Windsor, Connecticut claims $918.00 for refund of an alleged overpayment of fees due to an error on the claimant’s Foreign Corporation Annual Report for 2015. The claimant states that its 2015 Wisconsin assets should have been reported as $0 but were mistakenly reported as $902,855. The claimant states that this error resulted in DFI calculating fees of $1,008 instead of the correct amount, $65. The claimant requests reimbursement for the overpayment.
DFI recommends denial of this claim. DFI notes that it has no means by which to verify the accuracy of the information provided by the claimant, because the claimant has exclusive control over the information on which the Annual Report’s calculations are based. DFI points to the fact that there was no error by DFI or any of its employees. DFI notes that the Claims Board has a history of denying similar claims and recommends that the board deny this claim as well.
The Board concludes the claim should be denied based upon statements made at hearing by DFI that the clamant will receive a credit towards future fees in the amount of the overpayment and the claimant’s statement that they would not have pursued this claim if they had been aware of the credit. [Member Ignatowski not participating.]
2. Robert Steinway of Minong, Wisconsin claims $10,000 for value of a boat motor damaged while in DNR custody and other expenses. In July 2011, a boat owned by the claimant’s company was involved in a serious accident on the Chippewa River. Both boats involved in the accident were badly damaged. At the time of the accident, DNR took custody of the claimant’s boat and retained custody for several years. The claimant states that he made a number of attempts to determine whether DNR had winterized the boat while it was in storage but that he was given conflicting information. DNR also denied his request for return of the boat. When the boat was finally released to the claimant in 2015, he discovered that the motor, which had not been damaged in the accident, had a cracked engine block because DNR had not winterized the motor and the fluids inside had frozen.
The claimant believes DNR should be held responsible for not properly storing his property while it was in DNR custody. He again notes that the motor was not damaged in the accident and would have been salvageable but for DNR’s negligence.
The claimant alleges that purchase of a new engine would cost in excess of $20,000. He plans to fix the motor and has received an estimate of $9,948.04 for the repair. The claimant states that the motor is a current model and, once repaired, has value far and above the repair costs. The claimant states that DNR’s argument that full payment should not be made because the repairs have not yet occurred does not negate DNR’s obligation to pay for their negligence. The claimant also notes that it is reasonable for him to wait for the claim to be paid rather than advancing his own money for the repair.
The claimant believes that the discussion as to the existence or nonexistence of insurance is not a defense to the admitted negligence of DNR. The claimant stated at hearing that his insurance claim was denied by his boat dealer’s policy but that he received payment for the value of the boat under his general liability policy, minus a $5,000 deductible. However, the claimant argues that this fails to take into account the value of the engine, which would have remained a viable asset if not damaged by DNR’s negligence. The claimant states that “his insurance coverage was based on what was left of the boat” and that “DNR’s position would be viable if a trailer was included” (it was not).
Finally, the claimant notes that he has incurred $2,500 in attorney’s fees attempting to recover costs for damage caused by DNR. The claimant believes that $10,000 is a reasonable settlement for DNR’s negligence.
