Department of Administration
FY17 Wisconsin Supplier Diversity Report
Pursuant to 16.75 (3m)(c)4 Wis. Stats.
Received on February 14, 2018.
Referred to the committee on Government Operations, Technology and Consumer Protection.
Department of Administration
FY17 State of Wisconsin Contractual Services Purchasing Report
Pursuant to 16.705 (8), Wis. Stats.
Received on February 20, 2018.
Referred to the committee on Government Operations, Technology and Consumer Protection.
Wisconsin Ethics Commission
Lobbyist Update
Pursuant to 13.685 (7), Wis. Stats.
Received on February 20, 2018.
Wisconsin Ethics Commission
Lobbyist Update
Pursuant to 13.685 (7), Wis. Stats.
Received on February 27, 2018.
State of Wisconsin Claims Board
Report Covering Claims Heard on February 7, 2018
Pursuant to 16.007 and 775.05, Wis. Stats.
Received on February 28, 2018.
Department of Children and Families
Summary Reports
Pursuant to 48.981 (7)(cr)3.b., Wis. Stats.
Received on February 27, 2018.
Referred to the committee on Health and Human Services.
Department of Workforce Development
2016 Annual Report Regarding the Administration and Enforcement of Wis. Stats. 109.07 and 109.075
Pursuant to 109.12 (2) and (3), Wis. Stats.
Received on February 28, 2018.
Referred to the committee on Labor and Regulatory Reform.
Department of Administration
Temporary Reallocation of Balances
Pursuant 20.002 (11)(f), Wis. Stats.
Received on February 28, 2018.
Referred to the joint committee on Finance.
Department of Financial Services
Office of Credit Unions Annual Report
Pursuant to 186.235 (12), Wis. Stats.
Received on February 28, 2018.
Marshall Public Schools
2016-17 Charter School Authorizer Annual Report
Pursuant to 118.40 (3m)(f), Wis. Stats.
Received on February 28, 2018.
_____________
State of Wisconsin
Claims Board
February 27, 2018
Enclosed is the report of the State Claims Board covering the claims heard on February 7, 2018. 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 February 7, 2018, upon the following claims:
Claimant Agency Amount
11.
Kurt & Barbara Zipp Revenue $4,624.80 22.
Shanquil Bey Children $163,691.53 & Families
The following claims were decided without hearings:
Claimant Agency Amount
33.
Jay Callahan Natural Resources $8,630.90 44.
Penny Schofield Transportation $1,400.00 55.
Randy Alexander Corrections $167.44 66.
Vance Corrections $247.00 Hernandez-Smith
77.
Corey J. Frederiksen Corrections $99.85 88.
Wade A. Strassburg Corrections $1,320.00 99.
Terrance J. Shaw Corrections $400.15 10. Donovan Crowe Corrections $257.60
The Board Finds:
1. Kurt & Barb Zipp of Darien, Wisconsin claim $4,624.80 for interest charged on a Department of Revenue income tax assessment. The IRS adjusted claimants’ 2008 and 2009 federal income tax returns. Claimants did not dispute the adjustment. Claimants allege that they were told by the IRS that they did not need to contact DOR but that the IRS would do so and DOR would contact claimants if any Wisconsin tax assessments were issued. Claimants’ tax preparer also told them to wait until they were contacted by DOR. DOR issued an assessment on their adjusted 2008 and 2009 returns eleven days short of the 4-year statute of limitations on the assessment. Claimants do not dispute the amount of tax assessed, however, DOR added 12% interest. Because it took DOR so long to issue the assessment, the interest charged was nearly 40% of the total amount assessed. Claimants filed a Petition for Redetermination with DOR but was told the agency did not have authority to reduce the interest. They then filed a Petition for Review with the Tax Appeals Commission, but the Commission also told them it did not have authority to reduce the interest amount. Claimants believe the amount of interest charged is excessive. They note that the IRS reduced their interest due to 3%. They request reimbursement of the interest amount charged by DOR.
DOR recommends denial of this claim. Claimants underreported their 2008 and 2009 income by over $100,000 each year. Section 71.76, Stats., requires taxpayers to file amended Wisconsin returns upon finalization of their IRS audit. Claimants failed to do so. The IRS notified DOR of the audit in July 2011. Section 77.77(7)(b), Stats., provides a four-year statute of limitations for DOR to make assessments based on IRS adjustments. DOR had been receiving 35,000 to 55,000 federal audit reports each year. At the time DOR received notification of the claimants’ adjustment, the department was actively seeking legislative approval of additional staff to address a backlog of IRS audit determinations. Despite this backlog, DOR issued claimants’ assessment within the four-year statute of limitations. The 12% interest charged is a statutorily mandated amount, which DOR has no authority to reduce. DOR notes that the interest could have been avoided altogether if claimants had not underreported their income or had promptly notified DOR of the audit adjustment as required by § 71.76, Stats. DOR believes there has been no showing of negligence on the part of the state and that there is no equitable basis for payment of this claim. The Board finds that although DOR faced a unique situation causing a backlog in processing federal audits, the time it took to process claimants’ audit was excessive. The Board encourages DOR to improve its communications with taxpayers when the department receives information from the IRS. The Board concludes the claim should be paid in the reduced amount of $2,312.40, representing half of the interest paid by claimants, based on equitable principles. The Board further concludes, under authority of § 16.007(6m), Stats., payment should be made from the Department of Revenue appropriation § 20.566(1)(a), Stats. 2. Shanquil Bey of Milwaukee, Wisconsin claims $163,691.53 for monies allegedly owed to her licensed child care center. Claimant’s center cared for children whose care was subsidized by the Wisconsin Shares program. On August 20, 2010, the Department of Children and Families suspended Wisconsin Shares payments to claimant’s child care center. Clamant states that she was one of 35 child care centers which were “raided” in the Milwaukee area due to media coverage about child care fraud. She states that she was suspended based on “red flags” in DCF’s system, not due to any finding or evidence of guilt. Claimant appealed that suspension to Milwaukee County Circuit Court. The court found that DCF violated claimant’s due process rights and ordered DCF to issue payments to her for any child care previously provided and to resume Wisconsin Shares payments. Clamant alleges that DCF has failed to make the payments ordered by the court. She alleges that the two checks issued by DCF in March 2011 were for care provided prior to August 20, 2010. She also alleges that DCF underpaid her for child care provided prior to her suspension. She alleges that DCF is in contempt of the court order. She requests $103,355.17 for underpayments and $60,336.36 for unpaid child care from October through December 2010.
DCF recommends denial of this claim. DCF notes that the court directed DCF to issue payments to claimant for any eligible care previously provided and to resume Wisconsin Shares payments for any eligible care. DCF did pay claimant for eligible care she previously provided. DCF issued checks on March 24, 2011, in the amounts of $5,023.45 and $2,861.36. DCF believes claimant has submitted no evidence supporting her allegation of underpayment. DCF notes that claimant has pursued her claim for additional money in a variety of forums. DCF believes her claims are without merit and should be denied.
The Board defers decision of this claim at this time so that it may obtain additional information from both claimant and DCF.
3. Jay Callahan of Rhinelander, Wisconsin claims $8,630.90 for vehicle damage allegedly incurred due to a defective Department of Natural Resources boat landing at Spider Lake in Oneida County, Wisconsin. On April 25, 2017, claimant used the boat landing to launch his new boat. He backed his boat trailer to the end of the ramp, where there were two cement slabs stacked on top of each other. He states that the boat came off the trailer without difficulty. He was kneeling on the dock facing away from the lake when the boat trailer backed down an approximately 6-foot deep hole at the end of the ramp. He states that the tongue of the trailer acted as a lever and pulled his vehicle into the lake. Claimant alleges that his vehicle was turned off, the transmission was in “park,” and the emergency brake was on when this incident occurred. Claimant notes that the boat landing was fixed the same day as this incident. Claimant only had liability insurance coverage for his vehicle. He requests reimbursement for towing costs, repair costs, and the cost of replacing his vehicle when it was eventually determined not to be reparable.
DNR recommends denial of this claim. DNR staff became aware of repairs needed at the Spider Lake boat landing on April 19, 2017. The repairs could not be done immediately, because heavy equipment was needed to move 700 lb. planks. DNR did not close the ramp or post warnings, because the defects were clearly visible, and most boaters would still be able to effectively use the landing. Repairs to the landing were conducted on April 25, 2017. DNR believes it is highly improbable that an empty boat trailer could have pulled a 3,600-lb. vehicle, allegedly in “park” with the emergency brake engaged, from a dead stop, over a 4-inch high plank and out into the lake. DNR notes that if the vehicle had been in “park” the front wheels would have been locked, and unable to roll down the ramp. DNR proposes a more likely explanation of how this event occurred. Claimant intentionally or accidentally left his vehicle in neutral or reverse. The stacked planks at the end of the ramp acted as a chock-block for the trailer’s wheels, preventing the trailer from rolling down the ramp. When the boat was launched, the weight on the trailer decreased, releasing the tension holding the trailer’s wheels against the planks. The trailer wheels rolled over the stacked planks and pulled the vehicle into the lake. DNR notes that claimant has provided no explanation of how the condition of the landing caused this incident. DNR also points to the recreational immunity statute, § 895.52(2), (4), Stats., which prevents claims against the state absent some malicious intent. Finally, DNR believes that if the board determines payment should be made, such payment should be limited to the cost of the tow and the fair-market value of claimant’s destroyed vehicle. DNR would therefore request any payment be limited to $3,434. The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employees and this claim is neither one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
4. Penny Schofield of Blue River, Wisconsin claims $1,400.00 for cost of a vehicle allegedly totaled in an accident on October 15, 2017. Claimant alleges she hit a deer while driving on Hwy. 133 in Grant County between Blue River and Boscobel. She claims she did not see the deer because of high weeds on the side of the roadway. The vehicle was a 2001 Buick Century for which she paid $1,400. Claimant states that her repair shop told her the repair cost would be more than the vehicle is worth. She only carried liability insurance on the vehicle. She requests reimbursement for the cost of the vehicle.
The Department of Transportation recommends denial of this claim. DOT has a Routine Maintenance Agreement with Grant County for maintenance of the state roads in that county. Claimant should pursue her claim with Grant County. There has been no negligence on the part of the state.
The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employees and this claim is neither one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
5. Randy Alexander of Green Bay, Wisconsin claims $167.44 for full replacement value of a television broken by Department of Corrections staff. Claimant is an inmate at Green Bay Correctional Institution (GBCI). In May 2017, he received his property from GBCI storage and noticed his television was no longer working. He filed an inmate complaint and DOC determined the television was damaged while under staff control. However, claimant was only reimbursed $59, the depreciated value of the TV. Claimant does not believe DOC’s reimbursement is fair because DOC requires inmates to pay the full purchase price when they damage institution TVs. Claimant states that the purchase price of the TV was $167.44. He believes DOC should cover the cost of repairing his TV, reimburse him for the full value of the TV, or provide him with an institution TV as a replacement.
DOC recommends denial of this claim. Claimant has been reimbursed pursuant to DOC’s depreciation schedule for property reimbursement. DOC policy DAI 310.00.03 permits institutions to either repair or replace broken items. In this case, DOC reimbursed claimant so he could replace the television. DOC believes claimant has been properly reimbursed for his television and should not be reimbursed again by the Claims Board.
The Board concludes the claim should be paid in the reduced amount of $108.44, the purchase price of the television minus the amount already reimbursed by DOC, based on equitable principles. The Board further concludes, under authority of § 16.007(6m), Stats., payment should be made from the Department of Corrections appropriation § 20.410(1)(a), Stats.
