Ayes, 7 - Senators
Erpenbach, Carpenter, Robson, Lassa, Lazich, Kanavas and Darling.
Noes, 0 - None.
Senate Bill 215
Relating to: a personal property tax exemption for snowmobile clubs.
Adoption of Senate Amendment 1.
Ayes, 7 - Senators
Erpenbach, Carpenter, Robson, Lassa, Lazich, Kanavas and Darling.
Noes, 0 - None.
Adoption of Senate Amendment 2.
Ayes, 7 - Senators
Erpenbach, Carpenter, Robson, Lassa, Lazich, Kanavas and Darling.
Noes, 0 - None.
Adoption of Senate Amendment 3.
Ayes, 7 - Senators
Erpenbach, Carpenter, Robson, Lassa, Lazich, Kanavas and Darling.
Noes, 0 - None.
Passage as amended.
Ayes, 6 - Senators
Erpenbach, Robson, Lassa, Lazich, Kanavas and Darling.
Noes, 1 - Senator
Carpenter.
Senate Bill 233
Relating to: creating an individual income tax checkoff for the Special Olympics Wisconsin, Inc., and making an appropriation.
Passage.
Ayes, 7 - Senators
Erpenbach, Carpenter, Robson, Lassa, Lazich, Kanavas and Darling.
Noes, 0 - None.
Senate Bill 80
Relating to: the Volunteer Health Care Provider Program.
Adoption of Senate Amendment 1.
Ayes, 7 - Senators
Erpenbach, Carpenter, Robson, Lassa, Lazich, Kanavas and Darling.
Noes, 0 - None.
Passage as amended.
Ayes, 7 - Senators
Erpenbach, Carpenter, Robson, Lassa, Lazich, Kanavas and Darling.
Noes, 0 - None.
Relating to: increasing the maximum annual loan amount under the property tax deferral loan program of the Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority.
Passage.
Ayes, 7 - Senators
Erpenbach, Carpenter, Robson, Lassa, Lazich, Kanavas and Darling.
Noes, 0 - None.
Jon Erpenbach
Chairperson
State of Wisconsin
Claims Board
September 18, 2009
The Honorable, The Senate:
Enclosed is the report of the State Claims Board covering the claims heard on September 2, 2009.
Those claims approved for payment pursuant to the provisions of 16.007 Stats., have been paid directly by the Board.
The Board is preparing the bill(s) for payment of any claims(s) recommended to the Legislature and will submit such to the Joint Finance Committee for legislative introduction.
This report is for the information of the Legislature. The Board would appreciate your acceptance and publication of it in the Journal to inform the members of the Legislature.
Sincerely,
cari anne renlund
Secretary
STATE OF WISCONSIN CLAIMS BOARD
The State of Wisconsin Claims Board conducted hearings at the State Capitol Building in Madison, Wisconsin, on December 13, 2006, upon the following claims:
Claimant Agency Amount
The following claims were considered and decided without hearings:
Claimant Agency Amount
5. Craig G. Bucholz University of $943.99
Wisconsin
6. Joseph M. Huber Revenue $29,995.00
7. Michael & Tammy Natural Resources,
Reynolds Justice $4,854.00
8. Joshua J. VanMinsel Transportation $1,033.50
9. Kim L. Polinski Revenue $850.00
10. Timothy Schimmel Agriculture, Trade &
Consumer Protection $310.20
11. William Agriculture, Trade &
Wachowiak Consumer Protection $1,000
12. Dennis & Diana
Denman Natural Resources $7,500.00
13. Barbara A. Bichler Natural Resources $82.56
14. Glendon P. Krouse Corrections $202.98
15. Monty Contreras Corrections $3,386.93
16. Milton Smith Corrections $151.22
17. Myron E. Edwards Corrections $118.00
18. Myron E. Edwards Corrections $268.99
19. Victor L.
Edmondson Corrections $204.90
20. John H. Jones Corrections $221.12
21. Jovanni Lopez Corrections $50.30
22. Robert Osowski Corrections $40.75
The Board Finds:
1. Jerome Franke of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, claims $47,103.99 for overpayment of estimated assessments for failure to file 1998, 1999 and 2000 income tax returns. The claimant states that the Department of Revenue garnisheed his wages from 2003 to 2005 and also received $28,087.22 from a tax lien when he sold a home. The claimant filed all three returns on December 22, 2005. He states that he overpaid by tens of thousands of dollars and that the DOR returned $9,305.51 but would not return the remaining overpayment. The claimant states that he has learned a lesson and is now keeping up with his tax filings. He requests reimbursement of his $47,103.99 overpayment.
The Department of Revenue recommends denial of this claim. The department states that the claimant is a chronic late filer. DOR records indicate that the department issued an estimated assessment for 1998 taxes in January 2003, with a due date of March 31, 2003. The assessment was not paid nor the returns filed, therefore the department began wage certification in June 2003. This certification continued until the 1998 return was filed in December 2005. During this time, additional estimated assessments were issued for 1999 and 2000; however those assessments are not the subject of this claim because there was no overpayment for those tax years. The DOR states that the filed 1998 return showed a tax due of $1,636.00. DOR records indicate that the amount of overpayment for 1998 is $47,103.99. The DOR states that it is prohibited from refunding this overpayment pursuant to §
71.75(5), Stats., which bars refund of the overpayment because no refund was claimed within two years of the assessment date. The deadline for claiming that refund was January 27, 2005.
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.
2. Stephen Kramer of Franksville, Wisconsin, claims $5,000.00 for costs associated with repeated flooding of his property. The claimant states that he purchased a property seven years ago which is not in a floodplain but that he has experienced regular, serious flooding since 2003. The claimant states that he has approached state, federal and county government agencies but that no one has been able to provide him with a solution for his problem. The claimant states that he has spent $3,000 renting pumps and that he finally installed a water extraction system at a cost of $40,000. The claimant believes that buildup of debris and beaver dams on the Root River is a major part of the problem and that the Department of Natural Resources is responsible for the failure to clean out the river. The claimant states that he has amassed over $60,000 in damages but is requesting reimbursement in the amount of $5,000, the direct payment statutory limit for the Claims Board, so that he may recoup some of the expenses he has incurred from the repeated flooding.
S325
The Department of Natural Resources recommends denial of this claim. The department does not dispute that the claimant has a flooding problem; however he has made no assertion and presented no evidence that this problem has any connection to the DNR. The department states that it has had only one contact with the claimant regarding this issue, during which two DNR staffers attempted to provide helpful suggestions to the claimant. The department believes that this involvement with the claimant cannot be the basis of an action against the DNR and that the claimant has provided no evidence to show that the department is in some way at fault for his flooding problem.
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.
3. Mark Stillmunkes d/b/a Stillmunkes, Inc. of Lamotte, Iowa, claims $76,050.00 for payment for brush removal services allegedly owed pursuant to a purchase order with the Department of Natural Resources. In January 2008, the claimant submitted a bid to the DNR of $130 an hour for brush removal and forestry services in the Yellowstone Wildlife Area. The DNR issued a purchase order in the amount of $20,800. The purchase order states "Amount show is an estimate, actual amount paid will be based on actual authorized hours of services delivered." DNR employee Bruce Folley was the contact person to authorize services. The claimant states that unforeseen conditions on the land caused delays. The claimant states that, prior to the project, Mr. Folley represented to him that all brush on the site would be three inches in diameter or smaller. The claimant states that there was actually much larger diameter brush, including large stumps and logs leftover from a previous logging operation. The claimant states that he contacted Bruce Folley and was given approval to work beyond the May 31, 2008, deadline on the purchase order. The claimant states that he kept Mr. Folley updated on the status of the project and that Folley told him to continue until the work was completed. The claimant alleges that he told Mr. Folley that he was going to go over the purchase order amount and that Mr. Folley told him not to worry because he would be "paid by the hour." The claimant completed work on the project in August 2008 and submitted an invoice to the DNR for $96,850. The department paid the claimant $20,800 but refuses to pay the remaining balance. The claimant states that the DNR approved all of the work he provided and requests reimbursement for the unpaid balance of $76,050.
The Department of Natural Resources believes this claim has no merit and recommends denial by the Claims Board. The claimant submitted a written bid of $130 an hour. The department states that during follow up conversations with Bruce Folley, the claimant indicated that he could chip between one-half to one acre an hour. The DNR states that it based the purchase order on the claimant's most conservative estimate of one-half acre per hour and issued a purchase order for 160 hours of service. The spring of 2008 was very rainy and that postponed work on the project, which did not begin until May. The DNR states that the claimant contacted Mr. Folley and requested to work past the May 31st deadline on the purchase order. Mr. Folley approved the postponement of the May 31st deadline but did not approve any additional hours of service. The department states that over the course of the project the weather continued to be wet and the claimant experienced some equipment problems. The department states that, despite various contacts with Mr. Folley during the course of the project, the claimant never requested approval for additional hours of service. Mr. Folley believed the delay in completion of the project to be solely due to the weather and equipment issues. Upon completion of the project, the department received a $96,850 bill for 745 hours of service?more than four and a half times the amount provided for in the purchase order. The DNR states that Mr. Folley repeatedly tried to reach the claimant but he did not respond. In October 2008 the claimant's attorney contacted the department demanding payment of the entire bill but the DNR denied payment beyond the purchase order amount of $20,800. The DNR believes that the 745 hours billed is unreasonable and notes that completion of the project took 12 weeks, which would equal 62 hours of work a week on the project?an unusually high number of hours for that type of physical labor. The department also notes that the claimant has provided no proof that the additional hours were actually worked. The DNR believes that if it actually did take the claimant four times as long to do the cutting as he proposed in his original bid, he should not be rewarded for miscalculating that bid.
The Board recommends payment of this claim in the reduced amount of $30,000.00 based on equitable principles. The Board further recommends, under authority of §
16.007 (6m), Stats., payment should be made from the Department of Natural Resources appropriation §
20.370(1)(ht), Stats.
