The claimant believes that §
70.119, Stats., supersedes other statues relating to payments for municipal services, including §
66.0705(1), Stats. The claimant states however, that even if §
66.0705(1), Stats., is applicable, WWL lighting is an electric service, not an electric power system and therefore does not fall under the scope of the exception provided in §
66.0705(1)(b), Stats. The claimant states that WWL is a service that fits within the scope of §
70.119, Stats., and that this service is “financed in whole or in part by special fees" as required by the statute. The claimant points to the Program Operation Guidelines, which provide that payments under §
70.119, Stats., may be made either as a user fee or an MSP, but that MSP payments are only allowed for police, fire and solid waste services. Therefore, the claimant believes payment for this service should be made under section (1) of the guidelines, user fee payments.
In addition, the claimant argues that the claim should be paid on equitable principles. The claimant points to the fact that other non-residential owners in the city pay the fee and both the Chippewa Valley Technical College and the Eau Claire DNR offices have reimbursed the city for WWL since 1982. The claimant argues that UW-EC should not be treated differently than other non-residential property owners and other state agencies.
The UW recommends denial of this claim. The UW notes that it has already paid for its share of improvements along Water Street, including the cost of light fixtures, through a special assessment. The UW states that its position is consistent with Attorney General Opinions that exempt state property from special assessments for general maintenance, as opposed to those for local improvements.
OAG 72-80 (December 23, 1980).
The UW states that the claimant is inconsistent in its definition of WWL, sometimes claiming that it is the light from the street lamp and sometimes claiming that it is an electrical service. The UW points to the fact that the claimant's own budget documents indicate that WWL assessments are based on the “cost of operating and maintaining the system".
The UW states that if the charge is for the light from the street lamp, it falls within the scope of §
66.0705(1)(b), Stats., which disallows special assessments for “the right, easement or franchise to operate and maintain
…electric light or power systems in streets, alleys, parks or highways." However, if the WWL charge is for an “electrical service," the UW believes that it falls within the scope of §
70.119, Stats., and that the claimant is already compensated through the Municipal Services Payments Program provided under that statute. The UW notes that DOA is responsible for negotiating MSP with local governments and that the UW has no authority or role in determining the reimbursement formula. If there are restrictions in the program as to what types of services are reimbursed, that is outside the control of the UW. The UW also states that, pursuant to the previously noted AG Opinion, §
70.119(1), Stats., only applies to services
directly provided by municipalities. Because the claimant does not generate its own electricity, it cannot charge for the cost of electricity to provide WWL.
Finally, the UW rejects the claimant's argument that, as a matter of equity, the UW should not be treated differently from other property owners along Water Street. The UW notes that following this logic means that state agencies should not be exempt from property taxes simply because non-state property owners pay them. The UW states that the purpose of the MSP program is to provide the equivalent of a property tax assessment and that the claimant has already been compensated under this program.
S910
The Department of Administration's Division of Intergovernmental Relations administers the MSP program and submits this additional information for the Board's consideration. MSP is not the only way that municipalities can receive payments for services they provide. In fact, the Program Operation Guidelines approved by the Legislature for §
70.119 clarify that the purpose of the MSP program is to pay for services
financed by local property tax revenue, not for services funded through special assessments. The guidelines provide that services financed through special charges should be paid as User Fee Payments under section (1) of the guidelines.
The Board concludes the claim must be denied pursuant to §
66.0705(1)(b), Stats. The Board concludes these charges could be negotiated for payment under the Municipal Service Payments Program set forth in §
70.119, Stats. The Board also 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.
(Member Miller dissenting.)
5. Theodore H. Paulson of Bloomer, Wisconsin claims $4,547.38 for return of a Farmland Preservation Program payback. The claimant entered into a Farmland Preservation Agreement (FPA) in 1989, which does not expire until 2014. In 2005, the claimant sold 9.3 acres of his land and DATCP required payback of ten years of the tax credit received for that land, pursuant to §
91.19(6t) and
(7), Stats. At the time, the claimant was disabled but did not realize that §
91.19(1m), Stats., allowed permanently disabled individuals to relinquish their FPA without the payback. The claimant did not learn of this exception until 2008, at which time he contacted DATCP to request a refund and was referred to the Claims Board. The claimant states that he was permanently disabled when he sold the land and therefore should be reimbursed for the tax credit payback.
DATCP does not object to payment of this claim, provided that the claimant has appropriate medical documentation that he is totally and permanently disabled. (DATCP notes that the documentation supplied by the claimant with his claim speaks of disability, but does not indicate that the claimant is “totally and permanently disabled" as required by the statute.) DATCP feels obligated to point out that §
91.19(1m), Stats., provides that when the request is made for reasons of permanent disability the entire FPA is relinquished and the tax credit is lost for all the land in the FPA, not just a portion of the land. (Other sections of §
91.19, Stats., provide for release of portions of land under an FPA without loss of the entire FPA, but that option is not available when the request is made due to permanent disability.) In this instance, it appears that the claimant has an additional 180 acres still covered under the FPA for which the tax credit would be lost. DATCP believes that the claimant should consider whether it is more valuable for him to retain the tax credit for his remaining acres than to receive return of the $4,547.38. Finally, should the board consider payment of this claim, DATCP wishes to note that there was no negligence on the part of the department and that by law, the payback did not come to DATCP but was deposited in the school fund.
The Board concludes that, upon receipt of documentation from the claimant's physician that he is “totally and permanently disabled," the claim should be paid in the amount of $4,547.38 based on equitable principles. The Board further concludes, under authority of §
16.007 (6m), Stats., payment should be made from the Claims Board appropriation §
20.505(4)(d), Stats.
6. Michele A. Windsor of Black River Falls, Wisconsin claims $316.45 for the cost to replace the windshield on her personal vehicle. The claimant is a DNR employee in the Black River Falls office. The claimant's assigned state vehicle is an F150 pickup truck with no topper. The claimant states that she always uses her assigned vehicle, not her personal vehicle, for work purposes. In March 2008, the claimant's supervisor asked her to transport a large, stuffed snow goose to Madison so it could be displayed in the Madison DNR office. The stuffed goose was very large, with a 5 foot wingspan. There was no state vehicle in Black River Falls large enough to transport the goose and the claimant could not use her assigned pickup truck because it had no topper and the bird could be damaged. The only vehicle large enough to transport the bird to Madison was the claimant's personal vehicle, a Subaru Outback; therefore, the claimant used her personal vehicle to take the bird to Madison. The claimant states that during the trip back to Black River Falls, a passing semi kicked up a stone, which hit the claimant's windshield, causing a large chip that spread significantly by the time the claimant got back to Black River Falls. Due to the size of the crack, the claimant's entire windshield had to be replaced at a cost of $316.45, an amount less than the claimant's $500 insurance deductible.
DNR supports payment of this claim. DNR believes that the circumstances in this case warrant making an exception to the department's general policy to deny employee claims for damaged personal property. DNR points to the fact that the claimant's trip was entirely work-related and that she only used her personal vehicle out of necessity, because no suitable DNR vehicle was available. DNR notes that the claimant even received a certificate of non-availability of a state vehicle from her supervisor—a clear indication that using her personal vehicle was the only option. DNR believes one could assume that had a state vehicle been available for use, its windshield would have been damaged instead. DNR believes that the principles of equity dictate that the claimant should not bear the cost of this accident, particularly since she was directed to transport the bird by her supervisor.
The Board concludes the claim should be paid in the amount of $316.45 based on equitable principles. The Board further concludes, under authority of §
16.007 (6m), Stats., payment should be made from the Department of Natural Resources appropriation §
20.370(1)(ma), Stats.
7. Gabriel Umentum of Waupun, Wisconsin claims $4,618.17 for reimbursement of legal fees incurred in defense of a criminal charge arising from the performance of his duties as an employee at Waupun Correctional Institution. On April 16, 2007, the claimant transferred inmate DuJuan Walker to a different cell and Walker became resistive. The claimant states that he had difficulty controlling Walker and called for assistance. Walker later filed a complaint against the claimant alleging that he assaulted Walker during the transfer, pushing him face first into a wall and repeatedly punching him in the head. Judge Andrew Bissonnet convened a John Doe proceeding and found “reason to believe" that the claimant had violated § 940.29, Stats., (abuse of residents of penal facilities). The claimant notes that the proof necessary in a John Doe proceeding is very low—a “reason to believe" standard, which is lower than probable cause. The claimant also points to the fact that § 968.26, Stats., which governs John Doe proceedings, does not allow the judge to consider factors that cast doubt on the allegations, such as the complainant's credibility or the prosecutive merit of the case.
S911
The claimant has been employed by DOC for six years, has received good employee reviews during that time and has no record of any substantial allegations of misconduct or inmate mistreatment. Inmate Walker has numerous felony convictions and a history of disciplinary problems while incarcerated. Detectives who interviewed Walker on the day of the alleged abuse noted that they saw no “cuts, abrasions, bruises, marks, scratches or any other marking on his face, head, knees or elbows that would reflect an injury he sustained." It appears that the only person injured during the incident was the claimant, who sustained a bite mark on his arm. The special prosecutor appointed by Judge Bissonnet investigated the allegations and, after reviewing information provided to him by the claimant's counsel, dismissed the charge. On April 22, 2008, the Circuit Court granted the claimant's motion to expunge the charges from his record. The claimant states that these charges were directly related to the exercise of his lawful duties as a state employee.
The claimant believes that his attorney's fees are reasonable and requests reimbursement of the $1,122.40 he has already paid his attorney plus the remaining balance of $3,495.77, pursuant to §§
16.007(5) and
775.11, Stats.
DOC supports payment of this claim. DOC does not dispute the facts as presented by the claimant and notes that the allegations against him could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and an Order was issued to expunge the record. DOC agrees that the claim is appropriate to pay pursuant to §
775.11, Stats., that the duties performed by the claimant were those expected of an employee, and that the attorney's fees are reasonable.
The Board concludes the claim should be paid in the amount of $4,618.17 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.
8. Eugene Cherry of Boscobel, Wisconsin claims $717.59 for the cost of numerous property items allegedly lost, damaged or improperly destroyed by DOC. In October 2006 the claimant was transferred from Wisconsin Secure Program Facility (WSPF) to Racine Correctional Institution (RCI) and in December 2006 he was transferred back to WSPF. The claimant filed a number of complaints relating to the handling of his property during these transfers. The claimant's allegations can be summarized as follows: 1) Eyeglasses: a) one pair broken by WSPF during October transfer, b) one pair lost by WSPF during October transfer, and c) one pair lost during December transfer. 2) Broken pitcher and headphones: claimant's receipts were also lost during his transfers but these items were in good condition and he should receive full reimbursement for them with no depreciation. 3) Shoes: claimant wanted to mail out his extra pair of shoes but WSPF never sent shoes to RCI during October transfer so he could not mail them out and then WSPF improperly destroyed them. 4) Photos, watch, socks and miscellaneous supplies: property missing after December transfer. He did not have access to these items while at RCI because he was in segregation; items were therefore under DOC control. He should be reimbursed for the full value of all items. 5) 50 stamped envelopes: Envelopes missing after December transfer. 50 envelopes are noted on DOC's property receipt/disposition form but claimant never received them. The guard is lying about making a notation on the form.
DOC recommends denial of this claim. The claimant's complaints have been fully investigated and responded to, and the claimant has received reimbursement when warranted. DOC's response to the claimant's allegations can be summarized as follows: 1) Eyeglasses: a) eyeglasses were already broken when picked up from claimant for inventory, b) there is no indication of missing glasses, claimant had 2 pair remaining at WSPF and 2 pair were received at RCI, and c) after the claimant's transfer, staff found broken glasses near the claimant's old cell and believe he or a neighboring inmate broke the glasses. 2) Broken pitcher and headphones: It does appear that items were broken while under staff control. Claimant received reimbursement of depreciated amount for these items per DOC rules. 3) Shoes: WSPF did not send shoes to RCI because they were over limit for the number of shoes. Claimant was notified that he had 30 days to contact WSPF regarding mailing out the excess pair of shoes. He did not contact WSPF within time limit therefore shoes were destroyed. 4) Photos, watch, socks and miscellaneous supplies: DOC did find discrepancies in the inventory forms and claimant was reimbursed for a number of items in their depreciated amounts per DOC rules. 5) 50 stamped envelopes: The notation “50 envelopes" is on DOC's property form because when the guard delivered his property, the claimant complained that the envelopes were missing and the guard, who did not have scratch paper, made a note on the form so he would remember to check for the envelopes. DOC did find some evidence that 10 envelopes may have been lost and the claimant was reimbursed for 10 stamped envelopes.
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.
9. Joseph C. Clark of Waupun, Wisconsin claims $82.73 for the cost of a watch and razor allegedly lost by DOC personnel. The claimant is an inmate at Waupun Correctional Institution. In February 2007 he was placed in Temporary Lockup status and DOC staff came to inventory and pack his property for storage. The claimant states that when he received the inventory sheet for his property, his watch and razor were missing from the list of packed property. The claimant points to statements from the two DOC officers who packed his property in which they replied “yes" to the question “Did you insure (sic) all my property was packed?" The claimant also points to an affidavit from a fellow inmate who assists the property officers. In his statement Inmate Salazar indicates that he specifically saw the officers pack the claimant's watch and razor. The claimant submitted numerous requests for interview /information regarding his property. The claimant later filed a complaint regarding his missing watch and razor but the complaint was rejected as past the 14 day time limit. The claimant points to the fact that he filed his compliant within 14 days of his last submitted interview/information request; therefore he does not believe the complaint should be denied as untimely. The claimant appealed but his appeal was denied. The claimant believes that DOC has made several irrelevant excuses for the loss of his property (that it was stolen by another inmate, that it's the claimant's fault for not locking the property in his footlocker). The claimant states that if his property had been stolen by another inmate, that inmate would have been punished, which has not happened. Finally, the claimant believes that DOC rules make the institution warden personally responsible for everyone and everything at the institution and therefore regardless of why is property is missing—whether it was stolen by another inmate or lost by DOC staff—DOC is responsible for his damages.
S912
DOC believes that the claimant has provided no evidence to support his allegation that DOC staff lost his property and DOC recommends denial of his claim. DOC notes that neither on the inventory form nor in their statements to the claimant did the officers who packed his belongings identify a watch or razor as being included in the claimant's property. DOC does not believe it has any obligation to accept the word of Inmate Salazar regarding this matter. DOC believes that the evidence supports the conclusion that the loss of the claimant's property was a result of his own negligence or the actions of another inmate. Inmates are provided with a footlocker and padlock for securing their personal belongings. DOC notes that the Temporary Lockup Property Form filled out by staff indicates that despite the fact that the claimant had a padlock in his possession, his footlocker was not locked when staff arrived to pack his property. DOC states that it responded to the claimant's numerous interview/information requests. DOC notes that although the claimant received the property inventory form on February 5
th, he did not mention the missing razor until February 26
th and did not file his ICRS complaint until March 11
th, long after 14 days had elapsed since he received his inventory form. Finally, DOC notes that the claimant could have lost, loaned or traded his property before he was placed in segregation.
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.
10. Lashone Jackson of Boscobel, Wisconsin claims $160.00 for the full cost of a television allegedly improperly destroyed by DOC staff. The claimant is an inmate at Wisconsin Secure Program Facility (WSPF). When he transferred to WSPF from Fox Lake Correctional Institution (FLCI) in October 2006, his television was packed by FLCI staff and sent along with his other property to WSPF. FLCI made no note of any damage to the TV on the claimant's property inventory. When WSPF staff examined the TV several weeks later, they noticed that it was damaged and WSPF staff told the claimant that he would have to mail out the TV. The claimant states he filed an inmate complaint as soon as he was informed of the damage. He argued that he should not have to destroy the TV and requested reimbursement for the cost to repairing it. His complaint was denied and he appealed that denial. The claimant states that he eventually won his appeal and WSPF was found liable for the damage. The claimant then discovered that WSPF staff had destroyed his television while his appeal was pending. The claimant alleges that this action was in violation of WSPF's policy #530.02, and that he should have been given the opportunity to send the TV out for repair. The claimant states that he never consented to the destruction of his TV and because he only received $40 reimbursement from DOC, he does not have the financial resources to purchase a new TV. The claimant states that the original purchase price was approximately $200 and he requests reimbursement of the remaining $160 from DOC.
DOC recommends denial of this claim. DOC does not dispute that it appears that the claimant's television was damaged while under DOC staff control. DOC states that it has a policy governing compensation to inmates for property damage by DOC. This policy establishes a fair and uniform manner of reimbursement. DOC states that, although the claimant was unable to provide a receipt for his TV, the department took his word that he purchased the TV for approximately $200 in 1998 or 1999. DOC's Property Depreciation Schedule allows 10 useful years of life for TVs, therefore they are depreciated at 10% annually. Because the television was eight years old at the time of the damage, DOC depreciated it 80% and reimbursed the claimant $40. This reimbursement was reviewed and affirmed through the inmate complaint process and the department does not believe the claimant is entitled to any further reimbursement.
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.
11. Mark T. Smith of Boscobel, Wisconsin claims $18.88 for the cost of items purchased from canteen but not allowed. The claimant is an inmate at the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility (WSPF). The claimant purchased items from the canteen on July 23, 2007. The claimant alleges that he only requested one birthday card on this order but that he was charged for 11 cards and then he was not allowed to keep any of the cards. The cards were destroyed and the claimant was not given the option to mail them out. The claimant points to WSPF's Segregated Status Inmate Handbook, which states, “You are prohibited from purchasing items from the canteen for the purpose of sending items out of the institution with the exception of greeting cards." The claimant therefore believes that DOC should have given him the option to send the cards out, instead of destroying them. The claimant also purchased items on July 31, 2007. The claimant believes that this order should not have been filled, because he was demoted on that same date. The claimant states that money was taken from his account but he was not allowed any food items ordered. The food items were destroyed and he was not given the option to mail them out. The claimant alleges that WSPF is the only institution that does not allow inmates to mail out food items that are designated as contraband. The claimant again points to the SSI Handbook which states, “If you are demoted it will be your responsibility to have food items discarded that are not allowed in the lower level. No food items will be stored or shipped." The claimant interprets this statement to mean that his only option for getting rid of disallowed food is to eat it, which would make no sense. The claimant notes that he never received a contraband receipt for his food items and he believes that DOC staff consumed or re-sold the food instead of destroying it.
S913
DOC recommends denial of this claim. DOC records indicate that at all times relevant to these incidents, the claimant was in disciplinary separation status, which limited the items he could purchase from the canteen. DOC notes that these limits were in place prior to the claimant's July 31, 2007, demotion and that demotion did not change those limits. DOC points to the fact that during this entire period the claimant was not allowed to order food items or birthday cards. The WSPF Segregated Status Inmate Handbook provides that it is the inmate's responsibility to accurately complete his canteen order and that the inmate may receive a conduct report if he orders disallowed items. DOC notes that the canteen order forms are machine-read forms. There is a space to write in the item's description and code and then underneath that space are numbered circles to shade in for the item code and quantity. DOC states that the claimant wrote in the description and code for an item he was allowed and then deliberately shaded the circles with the code for different item, which he was not allowed. The canteen menu for inmates in disciplinary separation does not even contain food items or cards; however, DOC states that it would not have been difficult for the claimant to obtain codes for these items from other inmates. DOC notes that the claimant received a conduct report for these orders. DOC further states that WSPF policy provides that inmates are “not allowed to mail or send out on a visit any items that [are] purchased through the institution canteen." DOC states that the exception for greeting cards noted by the claimant applies to mailing out stamped and addressed cards but that inmates are not allowed to send out blank cards in bulk. DOC notes that these rules were developed to keep inmates from purchasing items at the canteen's low prices and then mailing those items to family members. DOC states that the claimant tried to cheat the system and was caught. DOC believes it is outrageous that he now expects to be reimbursed.
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.
The Board concludes:
That decision is deferred on the following claim at this time:
John and Bonnie Weiglein
That the following claims are denied:
John A. Rupp
City of Eau Claire
Eugene Cherry
Joseph C. Clark
Lashone Jackson
Mark T. Smith
That payment of the below amounts to the identified claimants from the following statutory appropriations is justified under § 16.007, Stats:
Dated at Madison, Wisconsin this 18th day of November, 2008.
Robert Hunter, Chair
Representative of the Attorney General
Nate Zolik
Representative of the Governor
Cari Anne Renlund, Secretary
Representative of the Secretary of Administration
Mark Miller
Senate Finance Committee
Jeffrey Stone
Assembly Finance Committee
__________________
State of Wisconsin
Department of Administration
November 28, 2008
The Honorable, The Legislature:
This report is transmitted as required by s.
20.002(11)(f), Wisconsin Statutes, (for distribution to the appropriate standing committees under s.
13.172(3), Wisconsin Statutes) and confirms that the Department of Administration has found it necessary to exercise the "temporary reallocation of balances" authority provided by this section in order to meet payment responsibilities and cover resulting negative cash balances during the month of October 2008.
On October 1, 2008, the Injured Patients and Families Compensation Fund cash balance closed at a negative $140.8 million. This negative balance continued through October 31, 2008, when the fund's cash balance closed at a negative $137.0 million. The Injured Patients and Families Compensation Fund cash balance reached its intra-month low of a negative $149.5 million on October 9, 2008. The negative balance was due to the transfer of $200 million to the Medical Assistance Trust Fund per
2007 Wisconsin Act 20, and the pending liquidation of fund securities necessary to offset this shortfall.
On October 1, 2008, the Workers Compensation Fund cash balance closed at a negative $1.3 million. This negative balance continued through October 31, 2008, when the fund's cash balance closed at a negative $1.4 million (its intra-month low). The negative balance was due to the difference in the timing of revenues and expenditures.
On October 17, 2008, the Conservation Fund cash balance closed at a negative $57.0 thousand. This negative balance continued through October 30, 2008, when the fund's cash balance closed at a positive $6.4 million. The Conservation Fund cash balance reached its intra-month low of a negative $2.4 million on October 28, 2008. The negative balance was due to a delayed transfer to the fund.
On October 31, 2008, the Mediation Fund cash balance closed at a negative $2.0 thousand (its intra-month low). The negative balance was due to the difference in the timing of revenues and expenditures.
The Injured Patients and Families Compensation Fund, Workers Compensation Fund, Conservation Fund, and Mediation Fund shortfalls were not in excess of the statutory interfund borrowing limitations and did not exceed the balances of the funds available for interfund borrowing.
The distribution of interest earnings to investment pool participants is based on the average daily balance in the pool and each fund's share. Therefore, the monthly calculation by the State Controller's Office will automatically reflect the use of these temporary reallocations of balance authority, and as a result, the funds requiring the use of the authority will effectively bear the interest cost.
Sincerely,
michael l. morgan
Secretary
Referred to joint committee on Finance.
__________________
State of Wisconsin
Department of Administration
December 1, 2008
The Honorable, The Legislature:
The Department of Administration has issued its contractual service purchasing report for Fiscal Year 2008 pursuant to 16.705(8), Wis. Stats. This report also includes information on cost-benefit analyses produced by state agencies and campuses during FY08.
S914
Again this year, state agencies reduced contracting costs. State agency contracting decreased by 5%, from $345.1 million in FY07 to $326.9 million in FY08. However, when combined with University of Wisconsin System contracting costs, overall state contracting increased by 7% in FY08, from $419.6 million in FY07 to $449.6 million in FY08. This is the first increase in overall contracting costs since FY04.
In addition, this report provides a summary of the more than 293 cost-benefit analyses prepared by state government in FY08. State agencies and campuses are required to conduct a cost-benefit analysis prior to each proposed contractual service procurement over $25,000.
The Department of Administration is committed to improving ways to provide quality services to Wisconsin citizens as efficiently and cost effectively as possible and we will continue to work on these efforts in our state contracting process.
If you have questions about this report, please contact James Langdon, Deputy Administrator, DOA Division of Enterprise Operations, at 608-267-2715.
Sincerely,
michael l. morgan
Secretary of Administration
Referred to joint committee on Finance.
__________________
The committee on Commerce, Utilities and Rail reports and recommends:
Relating to electrical construction.
No action taken.
Jeffrey Plale
